Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues

THE XVII. OR XVI. CHAP.

This discourse is needless to them that deny any setting up or worshiping of images in churches to be lawful. Neither hath Master Sander one text of scripture, or any one sentence of any one doctor to prove it profitable, to permit images to be worshipped. But first he setteth down the judgment of M. Jewel in these words.

The best remedy in this behalf and most agreeable with God's word, is utterly to abolish the cause of y ^e evil. So Hezekiah brake in pieces the brazen Serpent, Epiphanius rent in sunder the painted-veil, Theodosius commanded the image of our savior to be taken down, where so ever it should be found.

This sentence of M. Jewels he will confute. And first concerning the examples of Hezekiah and Epiphanius, he will not say one word more, then he hath said before cap. 3. & cap. 4. Sauing that he affirmeth Hezekiah brake down but one image that was abused, and left the Cherubims, the altar, & the temple, which were obscure images of Christ. And therefore he thinketh, if someone image of theirs, that hath chanced to be abused, were broken by this example, yet all the rest should stand. But if it please his wisdom to read the history better, he shall find that Hezekiah destroyed all images that were forbidden of God. As for the Cherubims were made by God's appointment, the altar and the temple were no images. Finally, what image is there in the Popish Church, but it hath been abused to gross idolatry?

To the law of Theodosius he saith, it is both misreported and miss Englished. Misreported, because the Emperor meant such honor to the cross, that he would not have it lie on the ground, whereof how true or likely it is, we have spoken before in the 13. Chapter, whither also M. Sander referreth us.

It is miss Englished (he saith) in translating tolli to be taken down, which signifieth to be taken up. I have answered before, that tolli signifieth generally to be taken away, without respect of up or down. And yet because M. Sander and his fellow Papists, think they have taken Master Jewel in such a great fault for Englishing tolli to be taken down, they show I cannot tell whether more spiteful malice, or gross ignorance, or ridiculous captiousnesse. For tolli doth signify as well to be taken down as to be taken up. For else howe shall we English these words in the nineteen of Saint John's Gospel? Rogauerunt Pilatum vt frangerentur eorum crura & tollerentur. They desired Pilate, that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken down. Likewise Joseph desired Pilate Vt tolleres corpus Jesus, that he might take down the body of Jesus.

But the 73. Canon of the sixth Council of Constantinople, doth confirm this interpretation of M. Sander, as he supposeth, and the reading of this law in Justinian • Code.

Concerning the authority of this 73. Canon, first I must say the truth, that it was not made by the sixth Council, which either made but nine Canons or none at all. The second Council of Nice liking some of these 102. Canons saith, they met again four or five year after, in the time of Justinian, and made these Canons. But how so ever it was, it was not of that Council, nor of that authority, but of a later time, when imagery began to be more esteemed. Now to the purpose. I say this Canon doth not help the understanding of that ancient law, which was made almost three hundredth years before, to be meant of crosses on the ground only, which needed not to have been forbidden in this Canon, if the former law of Theodosius, and afterward registered by Justinian, had been made only against crosses on the ground, but the execution of that law might have been required. Now touching the sense of this Canon, it is this: they did so much honor the death of Christ, which they call the quickening cross, that they would not have the figure of the wooden cross to be trodden under foot. This was their judgment about 700. years after Christ. The later age was more superstitious, and brake out into open idolatry.

And whereas M. Sander cauelleth at M. Jewels translation of Signum saluatoris, for the image of our Savior, which saith he, is the sign of the cross, he affecteth too great a tyranny in the Latin tongue, that will have no man's translation stand but his own. I am sure signum is often taken for an image, and in this place none but a froward quareller would take it otherwise, and for the sign of the cross there is no probable conjecture, that it should be so taken in this place.

He misliketh not the order taken by the Council of Mainz, that images abused should be altered or taken away: but he will have the question general, whether it be expedient to permit images to be honored or no, in which question the danger of idolatry must be compared with the profit of images, the danger he counteth small, the profit great. And considering the question at this day, he counteth there is no danger at all, neither was there ever any great danger, and this he will prove by nine reasons.

The first, the new Gospellers have prevailed so much with their doctrine of images, that it is not lightly possible they should be honored too much. The devil yet confesseth, that the doctrine of the Gospel, hath chased away idolatry in most places, I would to GOD it had in all.

The 2. in the most Popish times the people seeing the Sextan sweep copwebs from the images, and putting th • cross so homely under his cloak, might see a great difference between the reverence given to images, and the honor given, and due to the sacrament of the altar. As though the Priest also, did not sometimes carry the Pixe in his bosom, with the consecrated cake in it, and sometime they might as well see him burn his breaden God's, as the Sextan sweeping copwebs from the golden idols, and yet none of these were ever able to keep the people from idolatry.

3 It is less evil to suffer someone to do amiss, then to falsify the whole law, and right it self. And here again he opposeth the law of idolatrous nations against the law of God, which forbiddeth worshipping of any image or similitude of anything.

4 When the faith and intent of him that worshippeth the image is good, as to worship one God and his Saints, what so ever is done with this mind (so that sacrifice be not made to images) it can be no idolatry. What faith is that, which is contrary to God's commandment? And what call you sacrifice, if prayers, thanksgiving, and praises be none, which are offered by the people to images? namely to our Lady of Walsingham, of Ipswich, &c. which can be none other but those idols that be set up in those places, we have also shown before, that the Council of Nice 2. will have sacrifice offered to the image of Christ.

5 Christians must not be considered as weak & frail like the Jews and Paynims, but strong and full of knowledge, according to the prophesies and promises: They shall all know me &c. Jer. 31. and he doth them wrong that judgeth God's people prove to idolatry, for images were forbidden the Jews, but as the libel of divorcement was winked at in them. O monstrous impudency that maketh one of the ten commandments, that hath such a severe threatening annexed unto it, that the Lord will punish the transgressors of it unto the third and fourth g •• eration, like a permission of that, whereof there was no commandment! But what so ever was promised of the knowledge and faith of Christ, pertaineth not to all that unworthily bear the name of Christ, but only to perfect and well instructed Christians.

6 If the people be weak and apt to idolatry, yet it is the best way to keep them from it, to suffer them to have, and honor conveniently the images of honorable persons, as God permitted the Jews to offer▪ Oxen, Calves, &c. because they would needs offer some external sacrifice. As though God learned of them to make his laws of sacrifices, or if that had ben the best way, he would not rather have permitted images, then forbidden them.

7 Because the people have not so many sacrifices as the Jews, therefore it is good they have the remembrances of the martyrs in images, which sacrificed their own bodies. It is great marvel the Apostles could not find such a profitable supply of the Jewish sacrifices, by images, but only the sacrifice of Christ's death, and the spiritual sacrifices of our selves, which if we offer diligently, we shall find matter enough to keep us exercised, that we need not spend our time in gaping upon idols.

8 Images are not so much permitted to Christians for their weakness, as for their strength, that they may now have them & worship them without committing spiritual fornication, as in times past: for to have none, is pusil lanimity. In deed it is a Popish magnanimity to contemn the commandment of God, and it were belike no danger of fornicatiō, to have a whore to kiss her, to lie with her, for Popish Christians are strong enough.

9 The text of John. 4. that the true worshippers must worship God in spirit and verity, must not be applied against worshipping of God by images, but against idols and bondage of praying after one corporal fashion, for godly images lead us to spiritual devotion. The Devil they do. But if they did, yet not more then the ceremonies of the old law; the abolishing of which our Savior Christ in that sentence doeth promise: not to set vppō a spiritual worship in spirit and truth, (but as Master Sander would bear us in hand,) to change the shadows and ceremonies from such as were instituted by God, to as many other ordained by men, and moreover to worshipping by images, which before was altogether forbidden. Note also that he calleth them godly images, which term he reproved in Master Jewel. As for the Votaries he carpeth, which can abide to see their concubynes after their vow of chastetie, and yet cannot abide to see popish images, let them answer for themselves if any such keep harlots, as for them that are married, they shall better defend their marrying, out of the scriptures, then y ^e Popish Votaries their filthy & abhominable lives, under the hypocritical title of chastity.

Now followeth 12. commodities y ^t come by images.

1 We learn something by them that we knew not before. The Prophet Abacuc faith, an image can teach nothing but lies. Cap. 2. verse. 18.

2 They bring us in remembrance of the things that we know. Theodotus of Ancira saith, such cogitation is vain, and the deceitful invention of the devil.

3 They bring us in remembrance, not as by reading, and repeating, but by the most speedy twinkling of an eye. But faith without the which it is impossible to please God, cometh by hearing of God's word. Rom. 8.

4 By seeing and knowing we are provoked to become like them whose images we worship. Nay rather we are made like them whom we worship, that is, without, sense and understanding. Psal. 115.

5 We are confirmed in our faith, perceiving those things that are painted, be so true, that they are everywhere set forth and honored. Pictoribus atque poetis quidlibet audendi semper fuit aequa potestas. Because Painters and Poets have always had liberty to setforth what they list. Let this be a confirmation of Popish faith: it shall be none of mine.

6 We are kept well occupied and delivered from occasion to imagine idle things of our own fantasie, which might cause idolatry. If they be well occupied, that worship God contrary to his commandment, according to their own idle fantasie.

7 We tarie more willingly in the house of God which is so adorned with godly histories. The same reason Durande allegeth for hanging of Oistriches eggs in the churches. David desired to dwell in the house of the Lord all y ^e days of his life, whē there was never an image in it.

8 We consider the company of heaven, how marvelous it is, for as the holy of holies which did signify heaven, was decked with the images of Angels, (he meaneth the Cherubims) so must our Churches be decked with images of Angels & Saints, to be a figure of everlasting glory. By the same reason I will prove that y ^e people must never come into the Church, for the people never came into the holy of holies, but the Priest only, and that but once a yere. And seeing Christ is entered into heaven indeed, there must be no more figures of heaven, whereof actual possession is all ready taken.

9 We pray to Christ and the Saints at the sight of their images. You cal upon them in whom you do not believe, and therefore you are Infidels and idolaters, or if you believe in men you are accursed of God. Cursed be he that putteth his trust in man. Ier. 17. verse. 5.

10 We honor God in his saints, and in the signs and monuments of them. You worship you know not what, but as you list, which is will worship, condemned by God. Col. 3. verse. 23.

11 We glorify God in that we are so free and strong in our faith, that we need not to be kept from convenient worshipping of laudable images, as the weak Jews were. Nay you impudently and moste arrogantly contemn GOD, and his law, and moste blasphemously affirm, that GOD kept the Jews from convenient worshipping of laudable images, which have so many commodities, or else you lie moste damnablye.

12 We profess the truth of the Gospel, and of the law of nature, which requireth convenient honor to be given to the images of honorable personages. Because you profess another Gospel, then that we have received out of the word of God, if Nicholas Sander were as great as Michael the archangell, God's great curse light on him. Anathema to a new Manachee, that maketh the truth of the Gospel and the law of nature, contrary to the truth of the law of God given by Moses. Yea Anathema, Maranatha be he that defendeth that to be good, which God so manifestly condemneth for abhominable. You have heard what authorities he bringeth to prove the honoring and worshipping of images convenient, Videlicet never a one. Now shall you hear some sentences of the ancient writers to the contrary.

Augustine Ad Deogratias Epi. 49.

Therefore it is as, lawful to have images in religion, as to lie, or to commit adultery, by Saint Augustine's judgment. Other places of Augustine in psal. 96. & 113. which I have cited before, I omit. Yet this one short sentence I will add, to show how far S. Augustine's judgment was from M. Sanders assertion, that in worshiping of images is small or no danger of idolatry at all, in psal. 113.

Jerome in Ezekiel lib. 4. cap. 16. hath these words.

Likewise upon Daniel, lib. 1. cap. 3.

If Jerome will not allow the worshipping of the Emperors Image, which is but civil, much less the worshiping of the image of Christ or his saints, which is religious. Chrysostom. in Math. Hom. 51. counteth it a mere mockery of God and the saints, to set up their image in gold or silver, and to suffer the true images and their members to die for famine or cold, as they do in all places where Idols are hanged with chains and brooches.

"Ambrose Ep. 31. derideth them Qui Deum loquntur simulachrum adorant, which speak of God, and worship an image.

In Rom. cap. 9. he saith that Christ would not suffer him self to be worshipped, but that he is God. Nec Dominus vbi{que} se adorari pateretur, nisi quia Deus.

After the council of Eliberis that forbad all pictures in the Church, the council of Carth. 5. willed such altars as were set up in the country, and high ways: as memories of the martyrs, should be abolished & overthrown, although they were pretended to be set up by revelations or visions: would they then have permitted images in memory of the martyrs? When also they decreed to entreat the Emperor that all relics and monuments of idolatry might be destroyed.

CHAP. XVIII. OR XVII.

M.S. confesseth this pointe to be in controversy between the Catholics themselves. But yet he saith it is a question of phylosophie rather then of divinity, which y ^e church hath not determined. As though the church had anything to do to determine questions of phylosophie: or as though a question about the true worship of God, were not a question of divinity. His sophistical reasons on both sides are superfluous to repeat, seeing we take neither of both parts, but deny that any kind of religious honor is to be given to images, yet briefly I will run over the contents of the chapter. Three things (he saith) are to be considered in an artificial image, the matter, the form, and the representation. The two former deserve no honor in religion, but the representation only. The image as a representation, is considered either as a part from the truth, and then it hath a less honor thē the truth, or else together with the truth, and then it must have all one honor with the truth.

And then he maketh the question this, whether as his mind is in one instant moved and carried by the mean of y ^e image to the remembrance of the truth, so the honor of both be all one or no? But if he were in y ^e schools at Cambridge, the boys would tell him, that there can be no mouinge in one instant, because in every moouinge there must be the mark from whence, and the mark whereunto the moouinge is. Nevertheless he answereth this question, with a doughtie distinction, that the honor given to the image, and to Christ, is either the same in number, or the same in kind or degree. And his opinion is, that it is the same in number, but not in degree. And of this answer he maketh the seventh general council auctor, Actione, 4.

And here he raileth against M. Jewel, for falsifying and forging in translating duae adorationes: two sortes of worshipping and exemplifyinge his doctrine by Latria and Doulia whereof Johannes meant not, but the contrary is taught before in the same Action. How impudent and shameless the cavil of Master Sander is, I have shown before, when I rehearsed howe Constantius bishop of Constantia in Cypres, affirmeth that he would give the same honor to images, that he did to the holy trinity that giveth life, unto whom all the rest did assent. So that M. Sanders opinion is contrary to the determination of the council. For he holdeth that not Latria, but Doulia only cometh to Christ by his images. By which opinion, you see how greatly Christ is promoted, that in steed of Latria, a Divine honor, which they confess to be due to him, he must be content with the lower degree of honor by his image, because the image can receive nor carry no greater. But if the image be neither a receiver, nor a carier, Christ must lose all his honor, as he doth indeed, which is that way offered. Yet (saith Master Sander) doth not his image anymore hinder his honor, then Sainte Paul doth. For when I honor S. Paul for Christ's sake, no greater honor then Doulia cometh to Christ Verily Master Sander, how it is when you honor S. Paul, I know not, but when I honor him for Christ's sake, I honor not him, but Christ with Divine honor, as the only author of those gifts of his spirit, by which he is preferred before other men. And where you say M. Jewel alledgeth words out of a book of Carolus Magnus, written against that Idolatrous synod of Nice, which is forged, you speak not more peremptorily then falsely and perniciously. For what reason have you to prove that book to be forged: forsooth, you ask howe could Carolus Magnus write such a book, which built so many churches and monasteries? As though Churches and monasteries could not be built but by an idolater. Yea, which so diligently obeyed the B. of Rome which crowned him. As though the bishop of Rome crowned him Emperor, to be his slave and an Idolater, who left so many relics at Aquisgraine and a little image of our Lady with other Jewels : Paraduenture as truly as the image of Diana came to the Ephesians from Jupiter. Who caused the French men to conform themselves in their Church song to the Romans. But where find you that he caused them to conform themselves in image worshipping to the Grecians? Finally a book of such small credit that neither the library whence it was taken, nor town where it is printed, nor the man who printed it, is named. These be weighty reasons to discredit y ^e book, as though it were necessary that every book must come out of a library, some have ben preserved in private studies, some have been closed up in walls. The place and name of the printer is not expressed, for that it is like to have be printed, where it might not be suffered to be sold. But y ^e very style argueth it is not forged in our time and I have before it a testimony of Mattheus West-monasteriensis which was written about 200. years ago, that such a book was written against that council by Albinus or Alcuinus, and presented to the French King Carolus, whose name it beareth, not perhaps written by him, but by his commandment and authority published.

After this he discourseth upon Thomas of Aquines opinion, which holdeth that divine honor which they cal datria, is due to the image of Christ, which if it be an error, (saith master Sander;) it is an error in Phisophie, which to affirm is a most shameless absurdity. Last of all he concludeth against S. Thomas that a less degree of honor is dew to images, then to y ^e pattern: affirming that y ^e church honoreth not y ^e image for his own sake, for no man is taught to believe in images, or to cal them his gods, or to do sacrifice to them. What say you M. Sander, who teacheth pilgrimage to images, doth not your church? And how can they pray to thē, if they do not believe in them? Who teacheth them to cal an image Christ, that is their lord and God, but even you which defend images to be honored by the names that they have of y ^e things whereof they be images. Therefore when you call an image Christ, you call it God, and Lord, savior, and redeemer. The image of the Trinity, what call you it but the trinity? Fie upon this horrible idolatry which is defended with such a sleueles excuse, that you honor not the image for his own sake, no more did the Gentiles their images.

A manlike and valiant corage. Augustine in Psal. 96. which place I have cited before showeth that the Gentiles affirmed, y ^t they worshipped not the images for their own sake, but for y ^e divine powers which they did represent, even the same which the Christians called Angels. So y ^t the Papists are all one with y ^e Gentiles in their excuse, as they agree with them in Idolatry, & worshipping of images.

To the Preface.

T O give the Reader a taste of such sincerity, as he must look for in all M. Rastels book of confutation, he showeth in his preface, where speaking of three manners of answering, he declareth y ^e same by an example taken out of the bishops sermon: that sole receiving is not to be suffered among Christians, where as the bishop hath no such position in all his sermon, but that private mass was not used for the space of six hundredth years after Christ. Thus admonishing the Reader that master Rastell as his grand capteine M. doctor Harding, not able to find anything either in scripture, or antiquity, for the maintenance of their ordinary private Mass, doth fly to extraordinary uses and unlawful usages of sole receiving, being all such, as either some necessity might seem to excuse, or as all the Papists themselves do confess to have been abuses, I leave his lewd preface, & hasten to the book itself.

A refutation of master Rastels confutation.

SECTIO PRIMA. In which he speaketh of the council of Nice & of unwritten verities.

TO pass over the two first leafes of his book and half the third, in which is much vain babbling but no point of confutatiō, in the second face of the third leaf, he beginneth to pick his just quarrel at the sentence set before the bishops printed sermon, which is this. Let old customs prevail. It greueth M. Rastel & his fellows, which persuade the ignorant people that our religion is all novelty, that M Jewel should make any such claim unto antiquity. And first therefore he will know whether y ^e scriptures do not contain all things necessary to saluatiō? Yes verily, and God's curse light on him, that teacheth the contrary. Then he will know, where we find this saying in scriptures, or if it be not in the scripture of god, why we will use a sentence of y ^e council of Nice, which was but a cōgregatiō of men's Verily if we found not y ^e matter of this sentence in God's word, we durst not avouch it to be true that was uttered by men, being applied to any point of doctrine. But we find the same doctrine in the sixth of Jeremiah, where the Lord saith, Stand in the ways, and behold, and ask for the old way, which is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls. Now this saying of the council of Nice, let old customs prevail, being the same in effect and meaning, though somewhat differing in sound of words, we embrace it as the word of God, and the holy scripture, which we do not restrain unto the letters and syllables, but unto the plain and manifest sense and understanding of them. The seconde quarrel he picketh to the placing of this sentence before the bishops sermon, because it is uttered by the Council of Nice in a particular case concerning y ^e jurisdiction of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and therefore cannot serve for a general sentence. For all old customs (saith he) must not be preferred before new customs, example of washing of feet, & abstaining from eating of blood, which were old customs. But if the council meant, that old customs should prevail against new writings, then all books of Luther & such like are stricken through which one foine. Wherefore he concludeth that the council meant, that old customs should prevail, against the pretensed alleging of the very scripture it self, and new doctrine of men. And so this sentence doth at once overthrow all master Jewels religion. But having compared this sentence to the text of scripture, by which the true meaning thereof may appear, I will not stand about this trifling cavils. Cōcerning our judgment of antiquity this it is. We will not admit whatsoever is old, but only y ^e religiō which is eldest of all, which hath god for y ^e autor, y ^e Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles for the witnesses, and all learning, doctrine, and religion, which is under the age of these years, we reject as new, false, and devilish. As for customs, ceremonies, and manners, which are subject to mutation, we receive them, or refuse them, as they be approuable or disprouable by the said old ancient and Catholic doctrine. And because M. Rastel hath not only touched the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, where this sentence is written, but also charged M. Jewel with overthrow of his religion thereby, I must let the reader understand, that he suppresseth one point thereof, that utterly overthroweth y ^e pillar of all Popish religion, & that is, the Popes supremacy. For y ^t Canon maketh the Bishop of Alexandria, equal in jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome. For the reason of the jurisdiction confirmed unto the Bishops of Alexandria is this. Quia & vrbia Romę Episcop • parilis mos est. Bicause the Bishop of the city of Rome hath the like or equal custom of jurisdiction. But M. Rastell will prove by the story of Arius, that the Council meant by that sentence, that it is only tradition, custom, and manners, which killeth the hearts of heretics, and defendeth the Catholic Church: and not the authority of the Scriptures. Bicause Arius was such a proud heretic, that he despised all the interpretations of the ancient 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 Council had scriptures against Arius, yet their chief stay was not in y ^t scriptures, but in the received tradition. But this is a most impudent lie, for although the consent of Catholic writers of all ages, with the word of God, is not to be contemned, yet the only authority in determining of controversies of faith, in all Councils, is and ought to be by the authority of the holy scriptures. The Apostles thenselves in the Council of Jerusalem, decided the controversy of circumcision by the scriptures. Act. 15. A worthy pattern for all godly Councils to follow.

Therdor. lib. cap. 7. By this charge it is manifest, how truly M. Rastel faith, that the decree of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or equality of y ^e Son in substance with the Father, was made only by tradition, and not by the authority of the scriptures. For the Council examining by scriptures the tradition and received opinion of the Fathers, and finding it agreeable to them, did confirm the same. And whereas the Arians quarrelled that this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was not found in the scriptures, and therefore would refuse it, it helpeth nothing M. Rastels unwritten verities, for the truth of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is proved by an hundredth texts of scriptures, as the truth of the Trinity is, although neither of both words are found in the scriptures. We quarrel not as those heretics did, and M. Rastel a Popish heritique doth, of letters, syllables, words, and sounds, but we stand upon the sense, meaning, understanding, & doctrine which we affirm to be perfectly contained in scripture, what so ever is necessary to salvation, as S. Paul saith: Al scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, and to instruct in righteousness, that the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect to all good works. 2. Tim. 3.

And therefore old customs being referred unto the custom of the Church of God, in the time of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and Doctors, that followed the same unity of God's words, is the thing we desire might prevail in all our controversies of religion: and so the sentence is well enough placed, if Momus could let anything alone.

SECTIO. 2. Frō the second face of the 12. leaf to the first face of the 19. leaf.

When any order given by God is broken or abused, (saith the Bishop) the best redress thereof, is to restore it again into the state that it was first in the beginning. M. Rastel saith, the Bishop cannot tell where of he speaketh. For whereas he affirmed, that S. Paul had appointed an order touching the ministration of the sacraments unto the Corinthians, M. Rastell will not simply grant that this order was appointed by God, although S. Paul himself say, he received it of christ, which he delivered to thē. For this difference he maketh. That an order given by God must be observed without exception, and yet he addeth an exception of revelation, and especial license from God. But what so ever order S. Paul did give, (he saith) is subject unto the Church, to remove or pull up, as it shall please her. Thus the blasphemous dog barketh against y ^e spirit of God. But I trust all sober Christian minds will rather believe S. Paul then Rastel, who saith of such orders as were given by him. 1. Cor. 14. If any man seem to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him know y ^e things y ^t I write to you, y ^t they be the commandments of God. But now M. Ra. will take upon him to teach us y ^e order givē, y ^t Paul speaketh of, namely, That y ^e Christians had certain charitable suppers, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , after which as August. saith, & before which as Chrysost. saith, they did use to receive y ^e sacrament. Note here y ^t M. Rast. which will have old customs tried by y ^e fathers, bringeth in here two Doctors, one contrary to y ^e other. To y ^e purpose. This order was taken away by contention & disdain of y ^e rich against y ^e poor, & therefore Paul purposed to bring them again to y ^t order of sitting, & eating their supper altogether, y ^t rich with the pore, by saying: That which I received of the Lord, I delivered to you. And not to reform any abuse of y ^e sacrament, by reducing it to the first institution. This judgment of M. Rastell is partly by him proved, by the authority of Theophylact, but chiefly it standeth upon his own authority, without further reason. Howbeit, it is manifest by y ^e scripture, that Paul reproved that mingling of profane suppers, with the Lord's supper, appointing their private houses for their bodily refreshings of eating and drinking. Have you not houses (saith he) to eat and drink in? By which saying it is manifest, he would have no eating and drinking in the Church (as M. Rastell dreameth) but only the eating and drinking of the Lord's supper. And therefore that abuse of mingling their bodily suppers, with the spiritual supper of the Lord whereof came so many abuses, and especial the severing and sundering of the congregation into diverse partes, which ought to have received altogether, he laboreth to reform, by bringing it to the first institution of the Lord him self. But M. Rast. following his own dream, asketh what there was in the institution, for sitting together or a sunder: for eating at Church, or at home? Yes forsooth: Christ did institute his supper to be a food of the soul, and not of the body, and therefore to be celebrated in the congregation, and in common, as the salvation is common, and not to be mingled with profane banquets of belly cheare, for which private houses and companies are meet, and not the Church of God. And whereas M. Rastel chargeth M. Jewel with not understanding this place which he alledgeth, namely (therefore when you come together to eat, tarie one for another:) which he saith pertaineth no more to y ^e institution of the sacrament, then a pot full of plumbs doth to the highway to London, he showeth all his wit & honesty at once. For he denieth that anything that Saint Paul there rehearseth, namely these words, take, eat, this is my body &c. is the institution of the sacrament, or the original pattern of reforming the Corinthians disorder, because time, place, vesture, number of communicants, and such other accidental and variable circumstànces, be not therein expressed. So that by his divinity, either y ^e institution of the sacrament is not at all contained in y ^e scriptures, or else there is another first pattern to reform abuses by, then this y ^t is set down in the scriptures. I would marvel at these monstrous assertions, but that I see, y ^e obstinate Papists cannot otherwise defend their Popish Mass, except they denied y ^e institution of the sacrament & pattern of reformation, to be contained in the scriptures. But if it be granted (saith M. Rast.) which is to far absurd, that S. Paul did reduce the Corinthians to the first original and institution, Why do not rich men now bring meat to the Church, and receive the sacrament after they have filled their bellies? Forsooth because Christ instituted no such manner of suppers. And why (saith he) do you not wash one another's feet, having a commandment so to do? But if this commandment be literally to be understanded, why do you Papists break it? If it be not, why do you require that of us, which you confess is not required, to be done of any? Humility is commanded whereof our Savior Christ gave us example in that fact, & that God grant we may observe: the outward ceremony he commanded not to be observed of any, but that which was signified thereby▪ And whereas Master Rastell compareth the receiving of both kinds by the lay people, with that ceremony of washing of feet, to make it seem that the iustitution of Christ might be altered in the one, as well as in the other, he declareth what reverence or estimation he hath of the institution of Christ. For as that ceremony of washing of feet is and may be altogether omitted (as he fantasieth by the authority of the Church) so not only one kind of the sacrament, but both kinds also may be likewise taken away, both from the people & the priest, if it please the Church of Rome. If he deny the conclusion, what hath he gained by the argument of that example? Or what hath he proved against this our assertion, that nothing is to believed without the express word of God contained in the scriptures?

SECTIO. 3. From the first face of the 19. leaf to the second of the 23. leaf. Of the disagreement of the Gospellers.

Whereas the Bishop had said, that the light of the Gospel is now so mightily and so far spread abroad, that it was to be hoped, no man would lightly miss his way as before in time of darkness, and perish willfully: it offendeth M. Rastel, that he should boast of this glorious light of the Gospel, which he a most obstinate blind man will not vouchsafe to see. Likewise that he calleth the heresy of Papistry, the darkness of the time afore. And he would know where this glorious light of the Gospel is to be seen? Concerning the light of Popery, because the Kingdom of the beast by God's judgment is darkened in these partes of the world, where he is known to sit, which maketh M. Rastel and his complices to gnaw the tongues for anger, he is fain to demonstrate the light a far off beyond the reach of any man's eyes sight, among the new found lands, and the wild Indians, converted (as he saith) not by the Protestants, but by Popish monks and Friers. Although it were easy to prove, that protestants also have planted some Churches in those new found lands, as in Gaul Antartica, but what folly were it to boast of that? How far and wide the Gospel is spread in Europe, he that is so blind that he will not see, who can make him acknowledge it? Even Italy & Spain, have yielded great numbers of Martyrs & confessors. Al other regions of Europe in a manner at this day have either utterly banished Papistry, or at lest by public authority given liberty to y ^e Gospel: as England, Ireland, Scotland, Flanders, Holland, France, Germany, Denmark, Bohemia, Polonia, Hungaria, Suetia, Gothia, &c. But M. R. seeing he cannot show his Popish light abroad, he will show it in corners of men's harts, because (as he supposeth) there is never a city, in which there is not some Papists, and therefore he will conclude, that the Gospel is not mightily and far spread abroad. By which reason he may prove, that it never was; nor shall be mightily spread abroad; forever there have been, and shall be enemies that will not embrace it. Another reason he would seem to bring of six diverse kinds of Gospellers, whereas therere is but one Gospel, which is a fond & malicious cavil, for I can bring more then 16. kinds of Papists, which differ in some opinions and ceremonies, whereas all y ^e difference he can assign amongst them that be truly accounted professors of the Gospel, is either in one article of the sacrament, or else in outward rites and ceremonies, which cannot exclude any of them from the possession of y ^e Gospel, so long as they all agree in the doctrine of eternal salvation. He urgeth us as Tertullian did y ^e Marcionistes & heretics of his time, to show y ^e beginnings of our Churches, which we do daily, when we approve our doctrine to be grounded vpō the foundation of the Prophets & Apostles, bringing in no new Gospel as those heretics did, whereof they could not deduce the beginning from y ^e Apostles & Evangelists of Christ. And whereas he saith we have no one undoubted true judge, teacher, or faith, because we read Luther, & the Doctors old & new w ^t judgment, y ^t is, because we build not our faith upon any one man, as they do upon their proud Pope, but upon Christ & his eternal word. I answer we have a most certain faith grounded upon the teaching of a most holy master, even y ^e spirit of Christ in his word, who is a most undoubted judge, both for wisdom & authority to determine all controversies. Whereas the Papists building altogether vpō men, have no undoubted judge, teacher, or faith, not only because all men are liars & unconstant by corrupt nature, but also because they cannot agree among themselves, whether y ^e Pope or the council is y ^e superior judge, teacher, or rule of faith. But M. Ra. as y ^e rest of y ^e Papists do, glorieth much y ^t we have received y ^e gospel frō y ^e Pope, whose judgment in expositiō thereof, we should as well receive, as we acknowledge his fidelity in keeping it w ^t out corruption. But we utterly deny, that we have received the Gospel from the Pope, but rather from the Greek Church, neither do we acknowledge any fidelity of the Pope in keeping of the Gospel, whom we accuse of shameful corrupting y ^e Latin text thereof, and as for burning of the Books, either he could not, y ^e same being dispersed into so many copies, or he needed not, when he persuaded all men y ^t the Gospel had none other sense, but that it pleased him to frame unto it. Finally when Pope Leo the tenth accounted y ^e Gospel nothing else but a fable of Christ, which brought them so great honor and wealth, as who seeth not either how reverently the Pope preserved the Gospel, or for what cause he kept it vndestroied. Finally M. Rastels profane jesting of riding post to heaven, declareth himself to be a right Papist, that is to say an Atheist, which maketh a scorn of religion, and of the hope of the life to come, even as the same Pope Leo said at his death, that this one thing he should gain by dying, that he should be resolved concerning the question of the immortality of the soul. Wherein all the learned men in the world before could not satisfy him. Last of all what an impudent liar Master Rastell is, you may plainly perceive, when he chargeth the Bishop with this confession: That these nine hundredth years and more, none did ever take this way which he doth follow. For although the Bishop made his challenge of six hundredth years after Christ▪ yet did he never confess that in the nine hundredth years following; none did ever retain or embrace the Gospel which he teacheth, when God be praised, there was a number even in the moste blindest times that saw the light thereof, although they were few, and persecuted by Antichrist.

SECTIO. 4. From the second face of the 23. leaf, to the first of the 38. leaf. In which he taketh upon him to prove that the English communion and service doth not follow Christ and his Apostles, in taking into their hand • , and blessing the cup and the challice, nor the primitive Church in praying toward the East, mingling water with the wine, sign of the cross, altars, incense, tapern, praying to Saints, and praying for the dead.

The • . in his sermon affirmed (as R. saith) 1. The holy communion to be restored to y ^e use & form of the primitive Church. 2. To y ^e same order y ^t was delivered & appointed by Christ, 3. and after practiced by the Apostles, 4. and continued by the holy doctors and fathers, by the space of five or six hundredth years, throughout all the catholic Church of Christ, 5. without exception or any sufficient example to be shown to the contrary. Al these Master Rast. saith be lies, which is his short answer. And I could answer as shortly, that then they be lies of Master Rastells forging. For the bishop affirmed no such thing of the ceremonial form of our Communion, but of the doctrine thereof. But let us see his answer at large.

He would know how this Communion of ours doth agree with that, which Christ delivered, and thē rehearseth y ^e institution of Christ, beginning at the eating of y ^e Paschal Lamb, and the washing of his disciples feet, as though either of these pertained to the sacrament, and forsoothe we must tell him, how many things more, & how many things less, our order in y ^e communion book hath. And first what scripture we have for the linen clothe: for the priests standing on the North side of the table, for our prayers, confessions, collects, & other ceremonies, and seeing we have no scripture for these, the Communion is not restored to the order appointed by Christ. I answer, that forasmuch as those matters pertain to order and decency, we have scripture sufficient to authorize them, although as I said before, the bishop speaketh not of the ceremonial form of ministration, but of the substance and doctrine, which is the essential form of the Communion: concerning which we have neither more nor less, then Christ used and delivered.

Yet (saith Master Rast.) we have many pointes less then was done by Christ at his last supper. First he will not press us with y ^t question, why we do not Communicate after supper, which peradventure yet some doth with the sick, as a thing not unlawful, nor tied to any time, but by the general rule of order and decency: but he demandeth, why we take not the bread into our hands, before we consecrate it, as Christ did? A profounde question. As though we do not both take it, break it, receive it, and deliver it with our hands, 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 bread: or as though we did not use ordinarily before we make the exhortation unto the Communion, to take the bread and break it, and with the cup to set it before us, & not to let it stand at the ende of the table, as he belieth us, as though we wer • ashamed to follow Christ.

The seconde thing that we have less then Christ did (as he saith) is blessing of the bread, which is utterly false, for we bless it as Christ did, not with the sign of the cross as ye would have us, but with thanksgiuinge and prayer, as the Evangelists do testify that Christ did, and as the primitive and Apostolic Church did practice.

And touching the reverend gestures used by Christ at his supper, as we doubt nothing, but that he used them always, so can M. Rastell with all his prating prove none other, then the Evangelists have set down. And therefore for his looking on the bread, separating it from the rest of the bread on the table, blessing it by some special sign, as the sign of y ^e cross, &c. when he can prove out of the scriptures, we shall be content to refourme our Communion according to those supposed gestures. In the mean time, notwithstanding his ruffian like raylinge, our order of celebration, hath all things instituted and delivered by Christ, to be observed in the reverent ministration of this most holy sacrament.

The seconde lie he chargeth Master Jewel with all is, that he saith we have the same order, that was practi • ed by the Apostles, where as we read of none order practiced by them. For Acts the 2. we read (saith he) that they did break bread in houses. And yet it may be doubted whether that was the communion, and acts 13. saith he when the Apostles had fasted and sacrificed, they sent forth Paul and Barnabas. But where find you that translation, Master Rastell, that they sacrificed? will you now forsake your own Latin translation? Ministrantibus illis Domino, when they ministered unto the Lord, and so willfully run into the curse of the Tridentine council? or will you appeal to the Greek text 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which word signifieth any public Ministry by the judgment of all learned Graetians, and Erasmus himself, whom you follow in this translation, though you count him an heretic, and forsake your Catholic translation, confirmed by general Councelles? Well, then I see that papists iangle of general councils and catholic interpretations unto other, but they themselves will be holden of none, any longer then they list. But to the matter, he saith that S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. testifieth of the verity of the sacrament, but not of the order, referringe that to his own coming. As though he doeth not manifestly reform a disorder, or as though other things which he saith he would set in order at his coming. could be taken for the same things that he wrote of in his Epistle. But what of all this? we observe the same essential order that the Apostles practiced by Christ's institution, which S. Paul in that place reduced, & otherwise y ^e bishop neither said nor meant, therefore y ^e foul lies come only out of M. Rastelles foul mouth and slanderous pen.

From whence come five other lies that follow, namely, y ^e the order of the communion restored, hath been continued by y ^e holy doctors & fathers, as in the beginning of this Section: whereto he addeth, to make y ^e fifth lie, y ^t the bishop saith, some refuse y ^e cōmuniō, where there be many refusers: in deed a few is too many, but if there were a thousand times so many, they are truly said some, so long as they be not all.

〈1 page missing〉

Communion agreeth not with the primitive Church, & old fathers. First he bringeth in Justin, Athanasius, Basel, and Augustine, to show that they used to pray to the East, as though that were any parte of the Communion.

And he will know of us wherefore we appoint the priest to stand on y ^e Northside. Verily evē for the same reason, that the primitive Church did choose to pray toward the East. Namely to avoid the superstition of the Jews, that prayed toward the West, as we do to avoid the superstition of the papists that use to pray toward the East, otherwise all quarters of heaven, of their own nature, are indifferent for us, to turn our selves unto in our prayers, either public or private.

The seconde exception is, of mingling of water with the wine, which is also a pointe nothing material, as their own school doctors do confess, the usage of this he proveth by a counterfett decree of Alexander bishop 〈◊〉 • ome, by Cyprian, and the third council of Carthage: saving that he belieth Cyprian, who in deed reproveth them that ministered with water alone, but not such as ministered with wine alone, although he think it convenient that water should be mixed with the wine. But all his reasoninge is for wine, and not for water, against water alone, and not against wine alone.

Wherefore the use of water being not of Christ's institution, as many other things practiced of the fathers at the first as indifferent, or profitable ceremonies, being overgrown after with superstition and opinion of necessity, our Church hath done very well to curse them of, and leave nothing but the pure institution of Christ.

The third exception is of the sign of the cross, which he saith, ought to be used in y ^e communion, & y ^t he proveth by the counterfeit liturgies ascribed to S. James & S. Basel, he citeth also Tertullian, to prove that men used to make that sign on their foreheads customably at every action, which they did, to show themselves to be Christian • against the Heathens. Likewise he citeth the sayings of Chrysostom and Augustine, to prove that they used the sign of the cross at the celebration of the communion, which is not denied, yet cannot he prove, that the use of that sign is necessary to the ministration: and the first that we read of, that had it in estimatiō, were y ^e Valentinian heretics Irenaeus lib. 1. Cap. 1. By fond emulation of whom, the Catholics also began to usurp the same sign. Therefore our communion which lacketh that sign, lacketh nothing that is either necessary or profitable, or (considering the abuse of it) meet to be retained.

The fourth exception is of Altars, which we have not, neither in deed had the primitive church, but tables made of boards, which although they called altars, as they did also cal them tables, yet were they neither in form, nor matter like those which the Papists have, as I have shown at large in the answer to M. Hesk. lib. 3. Cap. 31. whither I remit the reader. As for master Rastels proof out of that saying of the Apostle to the Hebrews: we have an Aultar of which they may not eat, which communicate with Idols: declareth what a well exercised man in the scriptures he is for neither be y ^e words of the apostle Heb. 12. as he doth falsify them, neither doth he speak of any material altar, but of our spiritual Altar Christ. The words be these we have an Aultar of which it is not lawful for thē to eat, which serve in the tabernacle. His next proof is for hallowing of aultars, and oil, & of y ^e priests blessing, out of the provincial council of Agatha, which he citeth Cap. 14. in steed of 10. which was a new decree made by 35. Bishops in France, almost five hundredth years after. Christ, and therefore not Catholic, either for time or place. The saying of Opratus which he citeth last, you shall find at large in the answer unto Hesknis before named.

The fifth exception is of incense, which he proveth by a prayer of the counterfeit mass of S. James, which yet may be otherwise taken figuratively. Also by a saying of Dennys, who was not know̄ in the church five hundredth years after Christ for a writer, neither of Eusebius, Ierōe, nor Gennadius.

By which word • he meaneth nothing else but prayers, which are figuratively, both in the psalms & in the revelation called incense or sacrifice. Wherefore popish sensing is not of such antiquity as he pretendeth.

The sixth exception is of lights and tapers, used in the primitive Church, which is false, except it were in the night season, to give them light. For profess he citeth a counterfeit sermon of Augustine de tempore, which for all that speaketh but of oil & wax for the use of the night. Neither is the verse of Paulinus otherwise to be understanded, Of the Aultars bright, that were round ydight, with lamps thick set and light.

After some railing against our gross, unreasonable, and unnatural heresies (as he calleth them,) he returneth to two other exceptions, the one of prayers made to saints, used at the communion, the other of prayer for the dead. For proof of the first, he citeth the liturgies falsely entitled to Basel and Chrysostom, which the world knoweth are of a much later stamp, the one being unknown to Gregory Nazianzen, that wrote Basils life, and commended his acts, the other praying for Pope Nicholas and the Emperor Alexius, which were six hundredth years after Chrysostom was dead.

After these he citeth the authorities of Chrysostom & Augustine, that mention was made of the saints and martires at the celebration of the communion in their time, which we confess, and so there is in our ministration, but no prayer was in their time offered unto them, more then is now: as even that place of Augustine which he citeth, sufficiently doth prove. De ciuit dei lib. 22. Cap. 10. although he cite it falsely and by patches.

But he citeth another place of Augustine, Contra Faust. Manich. lib. 20. cap. 2, where he saith, the Christians did solemnelye frequent the memories of the martyrs, both to stir up themselves to a following of them, and also to be made companions of their merits, and to be helped by their prayers.

As for prayer for the dead, we confess it was used at the communion in the time of Chrysostom and Augustine, but not as any part of the communion, or as the institution of Christ, or the practice of the Church for two hundredth years after Christ, but only as a superstitious error, crept into the Church and not espied, while the fathers were busily occupied in fighting against monstrous heresies of greater importance. Wherefore these exceptions notwithstanding, our celebration of the Communion hath the whole institution of Christ, the practice of the Apostles, and the observation of the primitive Church for five or six hundredth years, so far as it agreeth with the said institution and practice, which was in all substantial and essential partes, although the later age had added diverse superfluous and superstitious usages: and otherwise we boast not of the conformity of our ministration, with the ancient obseruaton, as master Rastel, like a malicious caviller, doth charge the Bishop, I cannot say whether more lewdely then foolishly.

SECTIO. 5. From the first face of the 38. leaf to the 2 face of the 41. leaf.

The Bishoppe said there is no ordinance or mystery so good▪ but through folly or frowardness of men, it may be abused: & after reherseth many abuses of y ^e sacrament. M. Rastel saith, if he can take him tardie but in one, he must be guilty of all. A wise man I promise you, I have taken him tardye already in falsifying the scripture and Saint Augustine, yet will I not deny, but that some thing he saith is true. But let us see howe he taketh him tard • e. The abuse of baptizing dead men was condemned in the third Council of Carthage, and the sixth Canon. But (saith Master Rastell) in the seventeen Canon of that Council, strange women are forbidden to dwell with the Clergy, whereas now (saith he) they do not only receive them to their servants, but also to their bedfellows. And I pray you syr, have not some Popish Priests such servants and bedfellows also? Of servants he will not deny, but bedfellows if they have, he will say they have them not as wives, but as Concubines: So that belike it is better to have Concubines then wives. Nevertheless, the Canon which forbiddeth strange women, forbiddeth not their wives, as it is most manifest, nor yet their sons wives, to dwell with any of the Clergy, whereby you see he is taken tardie in his own trip. It seemeth he never read the Council, or else he is a most impudent reporter of that he readeth: As for the 27. Canon that he citeth in steed of y ^t 24. of water to be mixed with wine, I say he falsifieth the Council, saying that it commandeth water and wine both to be used in the sacrifice, the words be these:

But yet he will press us with the 36. Can which forbiddeth a Priest to consecrate the Chrism, and licenseth him to consecrate virgins. And we (as he saith) have taken away oil, consecration, and virgins. In deed in such matters of ceremonies and external discipline, we do not deny, but that we vary from thē, & upon good grounds: otherwise we are not bound to the determination of any Councils, but as they agree with God's word. But seeing y ^e Papists glory, that all their doctrine, ceremonies, and discipline, are of Catholic or universal antiquity and consent, we may justly press them, with every Canon of any ancient Council, which they affirm cannot err. I might allege many other Canons, wherein order is taken for the modest behavior of the sons and daughters of Bishops, which proveth their marriages lawful, but for shortness I pass them over. Another abuse the Bishop noteth, that in the time of Tertullian, and Cyprians time, the people took the sacrament home with them. This M. Rast. denieth to have ben an abuse, & here he craketh of his equality with M. Jewel (howe wisely let other judge) that his nay is as good as the Bishops ye. The matter therefore resteth upon proof, whereof we shall consider in the next section.

SECTIO. 6. From the second face of the 40. leaf to the first face of the 42. leaf.

The Bishop alleged the example of a woman out of Cyprian, which opening her chest with unworthy hands, in which was the holy thing of the Lord, by fire breaking out, she was terrified that she durst not touch it. This miracle (saith M. Ra.) proveth none abuse in keeping the sacrament, but her fault in presuming to touch it with unworthy hands. But why may it not serve to prove both, seeing Christ gave not his sacrament to be locked up in Chestes, but to be received? Take, eat (saith he:) but neither the breach of Christ's commandment, nor of the end of his institution can persuade M. Ra. to acknowledge it to be an abuse, because he imagineth, that carrying home of the sacrament, may justify their reservation thereof for adoration, yea and the communion under one kind, whereas it neither justifieth the one, nor proveth the other. For that they (though abusively) kept it in corners to receive, ca •• ot serve to justify the popish manner of hanging it over y ^e altar, or carrying it abroad in procession to be worshipped. And there is no color in the world to make us think, that they carried not as well of the sanctified wine, as of the sanctified bread, home to their houses. But it is a sport to see, y ^t he would prove it to be the body of Christ, by the fire that came out of the chest. The same Cyprian showeth another miracle of an unworthy receiver, in whose hand the sacrament was turned into ashes, will he say the body of Christ was turned into ashes also? But to be short, he would know what Doctor or Council we can show, to prove this carrying home of the sacrament to be an abuse. For Doctor he shall have Origen in Leu. cap. 7. Hom. 5.

specially of their Popish brethren whom they take to live in persecution, under princes that profess the Gospel of Christ.

An other abuse the Bishop rehearseth within Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustine's time, the Communion was given to young babes, contrary to the commandment of the holy Ghoste. Let a man examine him self, and so let him eat &c. whereas infantes are not able to examine them selves. This will not Master Rastell acknowledge to be an abuse, neither that, a reason of the abolishing thereof, but only the bare authority of the Church, which belike hath abolished a good custom. But he faith, infants might as well communicate as be baptized, wherein he playeth the Anabaptist, requiring instruction before baptism, which the scripture doth not in the children of the faithful, as it doth examination i • the communicants. Again he saith, they may as well communicate in the faith of the Church, as they may be baptized in the faith of their Godfathers. But I answer, they are baptized in y ^e faith which their Godfathers confess, & not in that faith which they believe, for perhaps they may be hypocrites, and so void of faith, or heretics, and hold a false faith. But seeing Christ said, Drink ye all of this, he will know why infants may not also drink, and if they may not drink, then by all, are meant none, but all that were present, that is, all Priests. But I answer, drink ye all of this, is said to all them, to whom, take ye, eat ye, &c. is said, that is, to all that are able to understand the mystery, or else none might take and eat, but all Priests, because only Priests (as they say) were present, which yet they are not able to prove. As for his comparing of the sacrament with spicebread and cakebread, savoreth of a mind that inwardly derideth all religion, though outwardly he pretend never so much Popish holiness.

SECTIO. 7. From the first face of the 42. leaf to the first face of the 43. leaf.

The Bishop rehearseth, that Marcus an heretic and Necromanser, (as Irenaeus writeth) made that by enchantment, there should appear very blood in the chalice. Hereof Rastel gathereth, that the people believed blood to be there, and so he served their faith and devotion by his enchauntment, but that is utterly false, for he would have deceived the people, to make them think that he had the blood of Christ, whereas the Ministers of the Catholic Church had but wine. He counterfeted also a multiplying of the same wine by his sorcery, and all to get credit to his heresy, and not to serve the faith as M. Rastel untruly and unlearnedly affirmeth, but to overthrow the faith of the people of God.

〈1 page missing〉

SECTIO. 8. From the first face of the 43. leaf to the first face of the 45. leaf.

The Bishop rehearseth other abuses of the sacrament, as that some hang it before their breast for a protection, some take the sacrament for a purgation against slander, S. Benet ministered the communion to a woman that was dead. M. Rastell confesseth the sacrament may be abused by Coniurers and other, but he will not grant that S. Benet did amiss, because he was a Saint, as though Saints could not do amiss. And he counteth it no reason, against S. Benets fact, that Christ gave not the sacrament to dead folk, for that he saith is no reason: because Christ forbad no communion, that three be not present, neither bad the chalice to be filled when all is supped up, nor bad us kneel and say, we do not presume to come to this thy table, nor carry home the cantels of bread that are left. But notwithstanding his fond quarrelling whatsoever appertaineth to the decent and reverent ministration of the communion, Christ commanded, though not every particular thing by name. And Master Rastell showeth himself to be an ignorant Ass, that compareth substances and accidents, the essential causes & variable circumstances together, whereas the one must have the express word of God, or else it can have no being, the other for the manner of the being, hath general rules to order it by, but no particulars expressed.

But Master Rastell, will not condemn the fact of Benet, because Saint Augustine dare not condemn the fact of those virgins that drowned themselves contrary to the commandment, Thou shalt not kill, because they might have an extraordinary spirit, as Sampson had, and because S. Ambrose commendeth the fact of his brother Satyrus, one that was not baptized, and therefore might not receive the sacrament, which hanged it about his neck in a tempest and escaped. All these notwithstanding, if he will not admit that Saint Benet did evil in breaking the commandment of Christ, yet let him hear what the Church decreed in the 3. council of Carthage, the 6. Canon.

The council useth the same reason that the bishop doeth, but M. Rastel, wiser then the council, saith that it is no good reason.

SECTIO. 9. From the first face of the 46. leaf to the seconde face of the 47. leaf.

The Bishop affirmeth, that Albertus Pighius, one of the greatest pillars of the Popish parte, findeth fault with the Mass. M. Rastel denying him to be a great pillar, (perhaps thinking himself to be as great) confesseth that booth he and o • her do so, but that it is not in the body of the Mass, but in the garments, and he saith they show the better conscience to confess the truth, whereas protestants will acknowledge no faults one by another, which is a shameless lie. But what conscience the whole Popish Church hath, hereby it may be seen, that seeing there be faults in the Mass, so long ago espied, yet not one of them is by the Pope and his clergy reformed.

SECTIO. 10. From the seconde face of the 47. leaf, to the second face of th • 48. leaf.

That the Bishop in his sermon refuseth to speak of transubstantiation, real presence, or sacrifice, and chooseth to speak of the communion in both kinds, of the Canon of the Mass, and of the private Mass, Master Rastel saith it is a timorous bragging, and vain glorious weakness. But how well he hath quit himself in those cases that Master Rastell imagineth he was afraid to deal with, his learned writings do more sufficiently declare, to his true praise, then Master Rastels railing surmises are able to obscure. And those things being taken from the Mass, which he chooseth to speak of, would make the Mass a poor sacrifice, and smally to be regarded.

SECTIO. 11. From the second face of the 48. leaf, unto the first face of the 58. leaf, Wherein he speaketh of service in the mother tongue.

The Bishop reproveth the use of the unknown tongue in the Mass, by the authority of S. Paul, that will have all things in the Church done to edifying, and that prayers and thanks given in the Church be such, as the people to them may answer, Amen.

Master Rastell quarreleth that this fault is common to the Mass, with Evensong, and Mattins, therefore it is no proper fault of the Mass. A proper reason: railing and lying are no peculiar faults to Master Rastel, but common to him with Master Harding, Master Sanders, Master Alen, and an hundredth more, therefore he doeth Master Rastel wrong that reproveth him of railing and lying. But before he answer the Bishops objections, he will make no less then five objections him self against him, out of the same place of Saint Paul, wherein he triumpheth.

1 Why all the Psalter of David is read in the English Church, when all the Psalms be not understood of all English men? Forsooth syr there is no Psalm, but something may be understood of every English man that hath capacity of understanding, and the rest, that they may learn to understand them.

2 How many people be there that understand not the easiest Chapter of the Gospel, much less the Prophets and Psalms? But sir they are often read that they may the better be understood, or at least so much of them, as is necessary for them to know for their salvation.

3 Where singing is used, howe can they understand anything? Such singing as taketh away understanding is forbidden in our Church, both by the book and by injunction.

4 How can a thousand people understand him that hath a small voice, or Cornishe men, or Northern men, a fine Londoners speech? &c. The Bishop should have care to provide a man, as well for voice, as for other qualities, able to edify the people, and such nations of the Queens obedience as understand not the English tongue, have their prayers in their own tongue, which he saith, he had forgotten, I think he saith as it is, for a liar should have a good remembrance.

5 He saith we have one Chapter for the better learned of the Parishe, another for the poorer, which is a flam five of his own devising. Yet he saith, there would be no end of confusion, if nothing should be read in the congregation, but that which should be understood of all that are present: as though he were wiser then the holy Ghoste, which in express words hath so commanded, that all may learn, that all may be comforted, meaning all the congregation, not a man of a strange language coming in chaunceably or curiously, being none of that flock.

But what answer hath he to Saint Paul? even a most shameful shift and impudent lie. Namely, that Saint Paul speaketh only of preaching, which he granteth must be in the vulgar tongue, and the Gospel and Pistle he could be content should be also, if it pleased the Popes holiness. But Saint Paul nameth expressly, not only preaching, but also praying, giving of thanks, and singing of Psalms or Hymns. But he objecteth that Saint Paul saith, he that speaketh with tongues edifieth himself, and he that giveth thanks in a strange tongue, doeth give thanks well: It is true, if his prayer and speech be godly and private, but in the congregation, the Apostle by no means alloweth any man to use a strange tongue. Yes saith M. Rast. if there be an interpreter. In deed S. Paul speaketh of them which had a miraculous gift of strange tongues, which might be used to set forth God's glory, so that there were an interpreter, that the Church might be profited, otherwise he would have God's gift to be silent in the Church. To be short, M. Rast. affirmeth preaching it self to be so unnecessary, that pictures may not only supplye the want thereof, but also are necessary for the faithful people, and more profitable then a most eloquent and learned sermon of M. Jewel himself. Who would reason any longer with such an insensible Idol? which by y ^e just judgment of God, is made like unto those Images which he worshippeth, and in whom he putteth his trust.

SECTIO. 12. in the 58. leaf.

The bishop alledgeth S. Augustine, which saith, that in our prayers we must not chirpe like birds, but sing like men. To this he maketh none answer, but that we must learn to understand the English which we read, or else we are chirpers, as though English men could understand no more of English, then of Latin.

SECTIO. 13. From the first face of the 56. leaf to the 2. face of 59. leaf.

The bishop citeth a law of Justinian, that the priest should speak with an audible voice, that the people might say Amen, therefore the people should understand what the minister saith: M. Rastel answereth to this nothing, but y ^t the people do, and may say Amen, though they understand him not, so long as there is no mistrust in the persons faith & honesty. So that belike, if the priest be a knave, no man should say Amen to his mass. Good stuff I warrant you. But in that the people said Amen to the priests words of consecration, he will prove like a luftie logician, which findeth no reason, but much rhetoric in y ^t bishops sermon, y ^t they did exclude all figuration, and significatiō of his body. We will reason no longer, M.R. hath got̄ the day, and that with main logic. And as for the second abuse, of not receiving in both kinds, if it were any abuse, it is the fault (he saith) of the bishops & priests, and not of the mass, which consecrateth in both kinds. But seeing receiving is made one of the parts of the mass, receiving in one kind only, is an abuse of the mass itself. I know he will answer, the priest receiveth in both kinds. In deed if the sacrament had been instituted for priests only, the answer had been somewhat, but if the blood of Christ pertain to more then priests, surely the sacrament of his blood should not be denied to any, for whom he shed his blood.

SECTIO. 14. From the second face of the 59. leaf, to the second face of 61. leaf.

The bishop said, the Canon of the mass for many causes is a very vain thing, and so uncertain, that no man can redily tell on whom to father it. Notwithstanding the bishop saith for many causes, yet Master Rastell taketh exceptions to his argument, as though for the uncertainty of the author only, it should be refused: comparing it most leudely with certain books of holy scripture, the indighters of which, although they be not known, yet the only author is both known, and acknowledged to be the holy Ghost. But Pope Innocent the third, saith, it came from the Apostles, other say from Gregory the first, & other from Gregory the third. But that it came neither from the Apostles, nor frō Gregory the first, even that place which M.Ra. citeth out of Greg. lib. 7. ep. 63. doth prove sufficiently. For there Greg. reproveth the order of the liturgy or canon used in his time, because the Lord's prayer by that order, was not said over the sacrament, as well as y ^e prayer of Scholasticus. But M.R. will have Scholasticus to signify a scholar or disciple of Christ, and not to be a proper name, which is altogether untrue & unlikely, for if Greg. had thought any Apostle or disciple of Christ to have been y ^e auctor of it, he would never have takē vpō him to reprove it, & seeing he thoght it expedient y ^t the lords prayer should be said over y ^e sacrament, which is not used in the popish canon, it followeth also that Gregory the first, was not the author of the popish canon. And so it is not proved to have been made within the compass of six hundredth years after Christ.

SECTIO. 15. From the second face of the 61. leaf, to the first face of the 63. leaf

Here he chargeth the bishop with a shameful lie, for saying that the priest in the canon desireth God to bless Christ his body, denying any such thing to be in y ^e Latin canon, but confesseth y ^t the Grecians use such words, and excuseth thē, by vehemency of desire, whereas those words do prove, y ^t the authors of those liturgies believed not y ^e bread to be turned into the body of Christ, which they would never have prayed y ^t God should bless, vpō any vehemency of desire, to confess y ^e body of Christ to have need of sanctification. But to return to y ^e Latin canon, I pray you M.R. what be these Dona sancta & sacrificia, those gifts & holy sacrifices which he desireth God to bless, y ^e bread & wine? what holiness is in thē before they be consecrated? So for all your loud lying clamors, the canon is not constant with itself, or your heresy of transubstantiation agreeth not with the canon. Also y ^t M. of the sentence, lib. 4. dist. 13. plainly affirmeth y ^t your mass is called Missa, because the Angel y ^e is prayed for, is sent to consecrate the body of Christ, which prayer is said after the priests consecration.

SECTIO. 16. From the first face of the 63. leaf to the second face of the 64. leaf in the which he speaketh of the sacrifice of the mass.

He would know what blasphemy it is for the priest to offer Christ to his father in a propitiatory sacrifice. Verily so great blasphemy, as none can lightly be greater. First because it taketh away the eternal and vnsuccessible priesthood of Christ. Secondly, because it maketh the priest more excellent then Christ. For every sacrifice is excepted for the dignity of him which offereth it, so the sacrifice of Christ, which by his eternal spirit offered up himself, was acceptable unto God. Heb. 9. But M.R. being forsaken of the scripture, flieth to y ^e sayings of the doctors, that not only the priest, but all y ^e Church offereth Christ, nevertheless the old fathers even by saying so, declare that they mean not to set up a propitiatory sacrifice, but only to celebrate a remembrance of the only, & singular sacrifice of Christ.

These places with many other, are sufficient to expound what they mean, when in any other place figuratively and improperly. they call the celebration of the communion, an oblation or sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. It is great leudenesse and deceiptfulnes to urge the terms used by the doctors, and to refuse their meaning sufficiently expressed in diverse places of their writings.

SECTIO. 17. in the 64. leaf.

Whereas the bishop saith, it is Christ which presenteth • s, and maketh us a sweet oblation in the sight of his father, M. Rastell denieth that it followeth not, that the priest offereth not Christ: because Saint Augustine saith de ciuit dei lib. 10. cap. 20. that as the church is offered by Christ, so Christ is offered by the Church. But that which Augustine maketh here common to all the Church, master Rastel restreineth to his popish priests. And although Augustine in the same place expound himself sufficiently when he saith; the daily sacrifice of the church is a sacrament of the oblation of Christ, yet in Cap. 5. of the same book he speaketh most plainly: Sacrificium ergo visible inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est: Therefore the visible sacrifice, is a sacrament, that is to say, an holy sign of the invisible sacrifie. What can be said more plainly concerning his meaning by the term of sacrifice?

SECTIO. 18. From the first face of the 65. leaf to the ende of the 67. leaf.

The blasphemous prayers of the Popish Canon, which desireth God to accept the body of his son, as he did accept the sacrifice of Abel and of Melchizedek, he excuseth by vehemency of devotion, and by y ^e unworthiness of y ^e offerer, as though either of both should be y ^e cause, why Christ's body should not be acceptable of it self. Last of all, he flieth to y ^e example of the figurative speeches used by the holy ghost in the Psalms and canticles, as where God is said to sleep, to awake as giant refreshed from his wine, yea & to the rethoricall figures used by men, as he saith by Bernard, Bonauentur, Gregory, & in y ^e hymmes of the church, which he matcheth unfitly with y ^e holy scriptures. But how will he make this prayer a figurative speech, that it may be excused by any such example? For seeing he will admit no figure in the word, body or oblation, the other words are plain without figure, God to accept the sacrifice of Abel &c.

SECTIO. 19. From the 68. leaf, to the seconde face of the 69. leaf.

The foolish prayer of the Canon, that an Angel should carry away the body of Christ, he defendeth to be meant after a spiritual manner, & caueleth of the bishops translating of perferri to be carried away, which signifieth to be carried up, which is a toy to mock an Ape, for neither doth the bishop talk of Angels backs, & such other babbles as M. Rastel delighteth to prate of, but of the fond absurdity of the Papists, which imagine the ministry of Angels necessary for the carrying of Christ's body, (or as he saith excusing the matter) for y ^e acceptaciō of their sacrifice. But in very deed, this prayer being taken out of the old liturgies, wherein they desired not the sacrament, but their sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to be presented to God by the ministry of Angels, is so absurd, when it is applied to the transubstantiated body, that it can have no reasonable sense, as it had in the liturgy cited by S. Ambrose and other old liturgies, where the like prayer is made for their sacrifice, but they believed not their sacrifice to be the very natural body of Christ, as the Papists say they do.

SECTIO. 20. in the 69 leaf.

Where the bishop giveth over, to speak further of the Canon, master Rastel saith, it was because he had no mater against it, but his own misunderstanding. But what matter he had, & howe well he hath maintained it, his answers to master Harding sufficiently declare.

SECTIO. 21. in the 70. leaf.

Against adoration of the sacrament, he saith we have no arguments at all, but such as may serve for overthrow of all orders in the Church. In deed these arguments may well and worthily serve to overthrow all plants, not planted by Christ. For why may not one hatchet serve to cut down an hundredth fruitless and hurtful trees?

SECTIO. 22. in the same leaf to the second face of the 71. leaf.

That Christ gave no commandment of adoration, he saith, it is no sufficient reason, first because we must not condemn all voluntary service of God, which is without his commandment. Then belike S. Paul was not well advised, when he condemned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; that is, voluntary worship of God without his commandment Coll. 2. verse. 23. And where as he cavilleth of them y ^t worshipped our savior Christ in y ^e flesh, I answer, as many as acknowledged him to be y ^e son of god, knew they had an express commandment to worship him. The rest reverenced him as the prophet of God. And whereas he saith like a protestant, that an argument of authority negative, is naught and protestant like, I answer an argument of man's authority negative is naught, but an argument of God's authority negative, I am content it be counted protestant like, in as much as God hath expressly forbidden, what so ever he hath not commanded in his worship. Deuter. 12. verse. 32. Contrariwise to reason from the authority of men negatively, is Papistlike, and the best argument they have for many things, as if they be asked why say they not mass in englishe? they will answer, because the Church hath not commanded them. Why do you not give the communion to Infants? Master Rastel saith in this book, because the Church doth not command it. Why doth not the priest wear his chisible & other vestments at even song? Because the church hath not commanded it. But master Rastel saith, Christ having said the sacrament to be his body, needed not to command the same to be worshippid, no more then the king when he speaketh to the Lord's in the dark, needeth to bid thē put of their caps. A dark example for such an obscure argument. But when will he prove, that Christ is the same in the sacrament, that the king is in the dark? for remove the dark, & the king is seen, but take away the accidents of bread and wine by your own school • doctrine, and where is the body of Christ?

SECTIO. 23. From the seconde face of the 71. leaf, to the 2. face of the 72. leaf.

He decideth the argument taken out of the authority of saint Paul negatively, who declareth the whole institution of Christ, and never willed adoration to be used to the sacrament. And asketh whether S. Paul command us to stand, kneel, lie, or fit, to tumble, lean upon breast, or elbows: I answer whatsoever of these gestures is decent & orderly he hath appointed, the other he hath forbidden. And yet the protestants logic, which he doth so delicately contemn, is not so simple to make no diference between matters of substance, and matters of circumstance, as he by his Popish sophistry doth confound.

SECTIO. 24. From the second face of the 72. leaf to the second face of the 74. leaf wherein he beginneth to speak of adoration of the sacrament.

Where the bishop saith that the old doctors never make mention of adoration of the sacrament, master Rastell saith, the argument is both naught and lying. Naught, because it may be they used it although they never spake of it, & lying, because he saith they do speak of it. But to answer the naughtiness of the argument, I say master Rastell is both a naughty and lying gatherer of the bishops argument, dismembering that which he joineth together thus. Christ, his Apostles, and the primitive church, never made mention of adoration of y ^e sacrament, therefore is not to be used. And concerning the lying supposed, I answer, that no ancient doctor speaketh one word of adoration of the sacrament as the very son of GOD, but either of adoration of Christ in heaven, or of worshipping and adoring, that is, reverently handling and honoring of the mysteries of Christ, and no more of this sacrament, then of the other, namely baptism. For answer to the places he citeth out of Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, I will refer the reader to mine answer, unto the 45.46. & 47. Chapters of the second book of Heskins parleament, where this question is handled more at large. Sauing that which he citeth out of Hom. 83. out of Chrysost. that we are fed with that thing which the Angels do honor, which we confess to be the body of Christ after a spiritual manner, yet pertaineth it nothing to adoration of the sacrament. And much less that he citeth ex Orat. in Philon. That as we entertain God here, so he will receive us there with much glory. Where he speaketh of honoring God, and not adoring the sacrament.

SECTIO. 25. in the 74. leaf.

The Bishop answering a place of Augustine saith, we must worship Christ where we eat him, but we eat him in heaven by faith, therefore we must worship him there. M. Rastel saith we eat him on earth also, but proof he bringeth none greater then his own saying, either of reason or authority.

SECTIO. 26. From the end of the 74. leaf to the first face of the 79. leaf.

The Bishop proveth we must seek Christ in heaven, by these reasons. We must lift up our hearts, we must seek those things which are above in heaven, where Christ is, and not the things y ^t are upon earth, where Christ is not. C • ll. 3. And our conversation is in heaven, from whence we look for our Savior, &c. Phil. 3. M. Rastel saith, the conclusion is inferred madly and miserably, because these texts do no more disprove Christ's body to be on earth really, then they prove our bodies to be in heaven really, as in this short example, our conversation is in heaven: and yet Paul was on earth in body, when he said this: O wise and happy concluder! but blind and blockish interpretour, which reasoneth, as though the word Conversation in Saint Paul's saying, did signify presence or being, whereas it signifieth franches or liberty 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 our franches, freedom, or conversation is in heaven. Where is now your mad and miserable conclusion?

The Bishops arguments therefore on these places stand firm and unmovable, that Christ is not on earth in body, but in heaven, where we must seek him, not climbing with ladders, (as it pleaseth Master Rastel to scoff in so grave matters, but ascending by faith, and affection set on heavenly and spiritual things. As for his exposition of Sursian corda, howe wholesome it is, you may gather by this one note, that in the very beginning▪ he saith, that the body of Christ is not only lying on the altar, and carried in men's hands, but also broken and divided. The places he citeth out of Saint Augustine for adoration, be answered in mine answer to Master Heskins before mentioned.

SECTIO. 27.

The Bishop saith, that adoration of the sacrament is a new devise of Pope Honorius, of three hundredth years ago, and after him Vibanus the fourth made an holiday of Corpus Christi, &c. Master Rastel is angry, that three hundredth years should be counted a little while ago, when it is not three score years since Luther sprang up. But if Luther have taught any doctrine that was not received in the Church a thousand and five hundredth years ago, we are content it be accounted new, but whatsoever may be proved to have been taught 1500. years ago, must needs be old, though Luther be new, and in comparison of that age. Honorius and Urbanus are but young children. But remitting the antiquity, Master Rastell will stand for the verity; because the Popes lacked no counsel. Neither by your doctrine needed they any. 2. The Universities were not without great scholars. Such as those blind and heretical times afforded. 3. Religious houses and orders were not destroyed. Yea, they swarmed with Locusts to maintain the kingdom of Absaddon. 4. The holy Ghost in true Catholics was invincible. Yea, but there were few true Catholics in those days. 5. The wicked spirit in heretics would have been venterous. Yea, the Pope, the Archheretique of the world was venterous enough, when he set up such idolatry. 6. A good man with the danger of his life, would have spoken the truth. So did many good men, which cost them their lives. 7. An heretic for fame would not have passed upon death: what need an heretic fear death, when heresy was so generally received, that the true Catholics were condemned and burned for heretics, by the name of Albigenses, Waldenses, Pauperes de Lugduno, and such like, which from time to time were persecuted, imprisoned, and burned, for refusing and disalowing such idolatry, and false worshipping.

These be the worshipful reasons he hath to prove the verity of this bread worship, which after he hath dilated more at large, he cometh at length to admiration of the service of Corpus Christi day, made by Thomas Aquinas, which he thinkeh to be so excellent, that the very sound and sense of the Anthemnes, Respondes, and Versicles, declare whence they proceeded. And I am of the same opinion, for the comparing of such things to the sacrament, as pertain nothing unto it, declareth, that such comparison came from the spirit of man, & not from the spirit of God. As where it is said, 3. Reg 19. That Helias saw a cake of bread at his head &c. And Job complaineth of the cruelty of his servants, that would have eaten his flesh. Job. 31.

And as for the holiday, though it were instituted but of late years, yet he taketh it sufficient to prove the adoration necessary, which could not be seen in the Church twelve hundredth years before, or else that holiday should have been set up long before.

SECTIO. 28.

The Bishop said, that for the space of twelve hundredth years after Christ, this worshipping of the sacrament was never known nor practiced in any place. M. Rastel after his courteous manner saith, he lieth, for he hath alleged S. Ambrose and S. Augustine before, to prove that the sacrament is to be worshipped: and now citeth Therdoret, Euthymius, Emissenus, James, Basil, and Chrysostom in their Liturgies for the same purpose. But the answer is easy to be made, none of all these speak of that worshipping or adoration of the sacrament which Pope Honorius commanded, but of honoring, reverencing, worshipping, or adoring of the sacrament as divine mysteries, which honoring, worshipping, or adoring, we all confess to be due to the blessed sacraments, not only to the Lord's supper, but also to the sacrament of baptism. For none of all these writers believed the carnal presence of Christ in the sacrament, which the Papists hold. Saint Augustine denieth the sacrament to be that body which was crucified, in Psal. 98. Saint Ambrose calleth the sacrament the figure of the body and blood of Christ. De sacra. lib. 4. cap. 5.

Theodorete (whose saying he citeth) being flatly against transubstantiation, as you may read more at large in mine answer to Heskins Lib. 3. cap. 56. calleth in the same Dialogue the sacrament, the tokens or signs of the body of Christ. And in his first Dialogue, he saith: The tokens which are seen, he hath honored with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace to their nature. His discourse at large is set down in mine answer to Hes. li. 3. ca. 52. Euthymius in 6. John. saith, that y ^e words of Christ must be understood spiritually, & the sacraments must be considered with inward • ye, • as mysteries.

The very words of Emissenus which M. Rastel citeth, express his mind to be of a spiritual presence. Behold with thy faith, saith he, honor and wonder at the holy body and blood of Christ. The very name of the gift which is used in the liturgy falsely ascribed to Saint James, declareth that the Author of that liturgy did not believe it to be the natural body of Christ, but a gift or token in remembrance thereof. The prayer which is made in those liturgies falsely ascribed to Chrysostom and Basil, at the lifting of the sacrament, proveth that they did not believe the bread to be changed into the body of Christ, after the words of consecration. For then they would not have prayed, that God would give to them the body and blood of his son, and by them to the people, if they had them present before. And whereas they all cried, Sancta sanctis, holy things belong to holy men, it was not to call the people to worship the sacrament, which they lifted a little, but not over their heads to be seen, but to charge them that were not baptized to depart, and to prepare the rest to the worthy receiving of the sacrament. Master Rastell so great a Chrysippus and Aristotle of Logike, nevertheless useth these arguments to prove adoration. But leaving these, he asketh if any within that compass of 1200. years believed the sacrament to be the very body of Christ: and if that be granted, whether the very body and blood of Christ be not to be worshipped, and then bringeth in Damascene, and Lanfrancus. Of the former it may be doubted, but very grossly he writeth, the other was an enemy of Berengarius, 200. years before Honorius the Author of this adoration. I answer briefly, although the carnal presence was received two or three hundredth years before Pope Honorius, yet there can no adoration be proved, for at this day the Lutherans admit the carnal presence, yet they abhor adoration, saying the very body of Christ is present to be eaten, but not to be worshipped.

SECTIO. 29. From the first face of the 89. leaf to the 93. leaf.

The Bishop said, that the schoolmen perceiving the danger of idolatry that was unto the ignorant people, in worshipping the cake if it were not consecrated, gave warning to the people to worship it under this condition, if it were consecrated. M. Ra. like a Doctor determiner, cutteth of all the reasons of the schoolmen, and saith they were not the best learned, that so decide the controversy. For there is no danger at all unto the people, so long as their intent is to worship God and the body of Christ. Example also he bringeth, that if a man honor him which is not his father, in steed of his father, because all the parish saith he is his father, he doeth not amiss. In deed, if that man do the duty of a father to his supposed son, I think the error is not greatly hurtefull to him that honoreth him as his Father. Agayne saith Master Rastell, suppose that one were so like thine own Father (which is possible enough) that it could not be discerned, which of the two were thy true father, thou werest not to be blamed, if thou honor the one in steed of the other. I answer, suppose it were so, which is unlikely enough, I would think he were an unadvised child, which would not inquire which of the two were his true father, before he chose to honor either of them. But Master Rastel asketh, if he should honor no father, because he could not discern the one from the other. And I likewise ask him whether he should honor two men for his father, or two fathers in steed of one, because he knoweth nor which is his right Father. Finally, I would ask such a not profound learned Master of Art, as Rastel is, but such a simple fellow as Master Rastell talketh withal in this discourse, whether an vnconsecrated cake be as like the body of Christ, as one man may be to another? I ween he would say no. But then M. Rastel would take the tale out of his mouth, and reply that an vnconsecrated cake, and a consecrated, be as like as any two men can be. But then I would ask him, whether anything wherein they may be counted like, is either the thing or the cause, or the sign and mark of the thing that is worshipped? If not, his two cases are as like to these of the sacrament, as an apple is like to an oyster.

SECTIO. 30. From the first face of the 93. leaf. to the first face of the 98. leaf.

Three leaves and an half of this section are spent in a fond quarrel of Master Rastels picking, that the Bishop should ascribe that opinion to Dunce and Durande, which is not theirs, but proper to Thomas of Aquine, against which they reason. But for all his impudent & shameless railing & charging the Bishop with lying, it is Rastel himself which is the liar and the slanderer, for that which the Bishoppe speaketh generally of the schoolmen, he draweth maliciously unto Dunce and Durande. Thomas holdeth that transubstantiation is necessary, or else the Church should committee idolatry in falling down before bread. Dunce holdeth that if there were no transubstantiation granted, yet the presence might well stand, and the adoration to, as Master Rastel saith, but he taketh parte with Thomas. But if the reason of Thomas be good for the presence of the bread, because it is a creature, why not also for the accidents of bread which are creatures also▪

To the saying of Augustine In sermo ad Infantes, That which you see on the table is bread, Master Rastel saith, it is a reason of Tinkers, Tailors, and Cobblers, (O learned Clearke) and not of learned Scholars, to say it is bread, because it is called bread. But learned Master Rastel, Saint Augustine doeth not say it is called bread, but he saith it is bread, and moreover he maketh their senses Judges thereof, Quid-etiam oculi vestri renunciant. Which also your eyes do tell you. And that your learned pen hath set down out of Prosper, which is not to be found in Augustine's works, yet maketh it nothing against the remaining of bread, but only saith, that under the visible kinds of bread and wine, we honor the body and blood of Christ.

To the saying of Gelasius, that the substance and nature of bread and wine doth not cease to be, he answereth that Gelasius doth expound him self straight after, where he saith: But they remain in the property of their nature, as though nothing remained, but whitensse, thickness, &c. O impudent falsifier. Is substance and properties of nature all one? Again I ask what are they that remain in their property of nature, but the bread and wine? Finally the very argument which he useth against Eutiches most plainly confuteth Rastell, for a moste shameful and shameless peruerter of this Doctors meaning, for he concludeth, that as the substance of bread & wine remain in the sacrament, so the body in Christ, after the assumption of the Divine nature.

The like beastly racking he useth of the words of Theodoret, which useth the same argument against the Eutichians.

But in the end he saith, it must not be considered what one or two have said, but what the whole consent of the Church is, and if it were granted that Gelasius and Theodoret denied transubstantiation, yet they granting the carnal presence, it were a small matter, and nothing at all against the Catholics, which hold of the general council of Lateran. What say you learned M. Rastel: is it not to be regarded, nor maketh it anything against you, what Gelasius the Bishop of Rome hath written, which you hold cannot err? But where he saith, that they both grant the carnal presence, I must send the Reader to mine answer unto the 60. Chapter of the 3. book of Hesk. Parlea. for Gelasius, and to the 52. and 56. chapters of the same book, for Theodoret. How unlearnedly he affirmeth Cyprians error of rebaptization to be no heresy, because the church had not determined the contrary, I pass over, when on the one side the bishop of Rome was against it, on the other side a whole council in Africa was for it.

SECTIO. 31. in the 98. leaf.

The bishop shown out of the school men, that if a man worship the accidents of bread, Idolatry may be done to the sacrament. M. Rastell saith, not to the sacrament, but to the accidents. But do not you papists call the accidents, the sacrament? else what difference make you between sacramentum & rem sacramenti, in S. Augustine, the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament? Again he saith, the fault were not in the institution of Christ, but in the silence of the priest and simplicity of the people, that were no better taught. As though Christ did ever institute the sacrament to be worshipped after any manner of Latri • or Doulia, of which he reasoneth brutishly with putting such cases, if a man should have worshipped the only face of Christ as God, which no man would ever have done, or his garment, which had been idolatry whosoever had done it.

SECTIO. 32. From the 99. leaf to the 103. leaf.

Whereas the bishop lamenteth the miserable case of the people which are brought into idolatry▪ with these blind distinctions, M. Rast. deriding his needless and foolish pity, lamenteth the state of the world, when such things as are concluded in schools, should be opened in pulpets, as though there were one doctrine of God for the schools, and another for the pulpets. Yet he thinketh it not meet to teache the distinctions of the three persons in trinity, but only to believe as the Church doth believed, as well in the trinity as in all other articles, and namely in this of the sacrament.

Which position of his, if it may stand, there needeth none other creed to be preached, but only this short curtall creed: believe as the church believeth, & you cannot do amiss.

But in time of popish tyranny, you would not have been satisfied, if a man examined of his faith in the sacrament, had answered, I believe as the church teacheth, or I believe it to be the body of Christ, as Christ said it, and meant it to be his body: but then you must grope him in flesh, blood, and bones, as he was borne of the virgins Mary, &c. Whether he believe the substance of bread to remain after the words of consecration spoken by the priest, &c. Well, howsoever it be, all learning resteth in the breast of reverend M. Rast. M, of art & student in divinity, who can with one breath condemn all the pedlers, and pelting craftesmens arguments, devised in alehouses or shops, and after recited in the protestants schools: as this, Christ is ascended in body in to heaven, and there sitteth until the end of the world, therefore he is absent from the earth in body, and consequently is not in the sacrament, an unlearned argument (saith M. Ra.) as this, can a priest make God? but learned sir, who taught y ^e people to call that which the priest maketh, their maker? or what, or which of all the reverend rabbins of popery, did reprove the people for so speaking? Again can one body be in more places then one at one time? An argument of ignorant people. O unlearned Augustine, which hath defined, that the body of Christ can be but in one place at one time, in John. cap. 7. Tr. 30. If a mouse eat the hos • doth he ease Christ's body ? A peltinge craftesmans argument.

What M. Rast. are you so arrogant in opinion of your own learning, that you will condemn all the schoolmen for pedlers and tynkers, that have moved, argued, & decided this question, and a hundredth like unto it? came this question from protestants, or from your own popish schools? & not from the schools only, but even the instructions that have been written for every simple curate, as Manupulus curatorum &c. But if a learned man expert in liberal sciences (saith M. Rast. a great Master of liberal arts) should use this argument of the necessity of Christ's body to be in on place: thē it were time to prove the contrary. Howe I pray you? Because of the nature of a substance which occupieth no place. Is this the philosophy of Louaine? No marvel if Ramus reprove Aristotle in Logike, when Rastell will set not him only, but all the phylosophers that ever were, and nature itself to school, and tell them that it is the nature of a substance to occupy no place, which is as much to say, as to be nowhere, and as Augustine saith, that which is nowhere, is nothing at all, and so by Master Rastels profound physical philosophy, it is the nature of a substance, which all other men affirm to contain all things, to be nothing at all.

But for a further resolution, he saith, Christ is in the sacrament, not as in a place locally, but as under form of bread substantially. For before he hath defined a substance to be in no place: I would he could hold him at this definition of Christ's presence. If I should reason with him of the nine manners of inesse, or being in a thing, and ask him after which of them Christ is in the sacrament, perhaps he would reject that distribution, as sophistical and unworthy of his learned answer?

But Christ (saith he) is in the Sacrament, not as in place locally, then say I, a man poyntinge to the pyxe hanginge over the altar, in which the consecrated cake is, must say, if he say truly, Christ is not there, likewise poyntinge to the same holden up at the sacringe, carried in procession, or wheresoever he seeth it, must likewise believe and say, Christ is not there.

For I am sure he being a Master in all the seven liberal Arts, is not so ignorant in grammar, but he will confess this word, there, to be an aduerb of place: not so forgetful of logic, but that he remembereth what the Predicament Vbi meaneth. And to say the truth, if the papists could be content with such modest terms as the scripture teacheth, that the body of Christ is received of the faithful in the sacrament after a wonderful and mystical manner, there needed neither these fond questions, nor any so bitter contention about the sacrament of unity. But that they will make an idol of the Lord's supper, and a bait to satisfy their ambition, covetousness▪ & licentiousness, by the sale of their masses, & applying of their merits: these gross and monstrous absurdities had never been defended. The contentions of the school doctors he forceth not upon, so long as the Church agreeth. But can your church agree (M. Rast.) when the doctors thereof dissent? If any difference of opinion be between Luther and Zwingli, you cry out of our dissention. If your Church may agree within it self, notwithstanding y ^e infinite brawlings between the Thomists, and Scotists, Albertists, Occanists, about small matters (as you say,) because all those agree in the chiefest pointes of popery: I pray you let there be unity in our church, notwithstan-the teachers vary in some matters, not of greatest moment, agreeing in all necessary articles of Christian religion. And if Holcot lie, in saying a man may merit by worshipping the devil, and yet be a popish catholic, Let Luther err in defending the carnal presence, and yet be good Christian catholic. And if your church be not chargeable with Holcots lie, why should our church bear the blame of Luther's error?

As for your excuse of Holcots lie, by the school distinction of a thing done materially & formally, wherein you show a high point of learning, with your example of worshiping of Luther being a devil in form of a doctor: I say it is wholesome divinity, to justify all superstition, Mahometrie and Idolatry in the world, not only to be excusable, but also to be meritorious.

SECTIO. 33. From the first face of the 103. leaf to the 104. leaf.

Where the Bishop said, he was unwilling to spend time in discovering the mysteries of Popish learning, but that the importunity of Papists boasting (as though all learning were on their side) enforceth him: Master Rastell more like a parasite to provoke his popish readers to laugh, then a man either of wisdom or honesty, scoffeth & rayleth on him, calling him a bench wistler, rather thē a preacher. But of both their learnings let the world judge.

SECTIO. 34. From the 104. leaf to the 111. in which he taketh on him to defend the vanity of Popish arguments used by papists under color of similitudes and allusions.

The Bishop discovereth this reason of Pope Innocent the third, God made two lights, the Sun and the Moon, therefore the Pope is so much above the Emperor, as the Sun is above the Moon, Master Rastell being angry at this discovery, saith it is no mystery nor argument of strength, yet was it used by the Popes holiness which cannot err. But the Church hath stronger arguments for proof of this conclusion. First saith Master Rastell that there be two states, spiritual and temperall it is proved by other reasons, and the first reason he useth to prove the state spiritual, is much like that of the Popes which he excuseth, Psal. 44▪ and In steed of thy fathers there are sons borne unto thee (meaning saith he the Apostles, and bishops, and their successors) them shalt thou appoint princes, and rulers over all the whole earth. As though none were the sons of the Church, but the Apostles, Bishops, and their successors, and as though the Prophet spake of temperall rule in this life, and not of a spiritual kingdom and inheritance of all the world, which is common to all the faithful after this life.

But to omit that which is not in controversy of two states in the world, and the excellencye in spiritual things, of the ministry of the Church above the office of princes, yet who will either grant that the ministry is simply superior to the King or Emperor so that the ministers are not his subjects, or that the Pope in any respect ought to have any dignity as a minister of the gospel, which he disdaineth to preach?

Another defense of this pontifical argument, is, that it was a sweet and mystical allusion in his familiare letters to the Emperor: In deed great familyaritie he had with the Emperors of his time, with whom he was in continual discord. Last of all like a blasphemous Dog he compareth it with the argument used by S. Paul for the covering of women's heads, taken of nature it self, which though it will not satisfy a contentious person whom nothing will satisfy, yet is it sufficient and strong enough to prove what natural comlynesse requireth in that case, where as this of the Pope hath no shadow of reason in it. For all the rest of those arguments rehearsed by the Bishop, he maketh that general reason, that their Church hath no custom to contend for them, yet have they a custom to burn men for refusing such things, as they are not able to contend in argument to defend. And as for shaven crowns, and purple sandales, holy water, or praying in one tongue, he saith, they were never taken for secret mysteries in the Church, and if the scriptures applied to them do not prove them, they take no harm, for by like they are good enough without the scriptures. Sauing that the saying of Ezekiel Chap. 36. I will sprinkle you with clean water, he seeth not, but that it may be applied to holy water, though it be meant of baptism, because holy water putteth us in mind of our baptism. Where find you that meaning of holy water in all the exorcising or conjuring thereof? A poor shift God wott to defend a beggarly ceremony.

As for Ecce duo gladij hic, to prove that the Pope hath power of both swords, he defendeth it to be good and sufficient. Firste, because Christ had power of both, although he used but one. But what hath the Pope to do with Christ? Forsooth he made Peter his lieutenaunt and ruler of all Christians, when he had him feed his sheep and lambes, Even as good a reason as Ecce duo gladij hic.

But what hath the Pope to do with Peter, if Peter had been such a one? Forsooth, because he sitteth at Rome. So did Nero, and was Pontifex Maximus to as good as the Pope. But Barnarde useth the same text so. What if Barnarde was disposed to jest with the Pope in his own interpretations? or if he were in earnest, can Barnarde make that good which is stark naught?

Last of all, the shameless and blasphemous beast, is not afraid to compare this argument with the allegory used by the holy Ghoste, Gal. 4. of the two wives in Abraham's house, that were figures of two Testaments, which the Apostle used not to prove, but to declare and show plainly, as it were by example, that which he had before moste substantially proved.

SECTIO. 35. From the seconde face of the III. leaf, to the seconde face of the 118. leaf.

The arguments where on the mass is built, being so absurd as even his brazen face blusheth to allow, he answereth, the things proved by these arguments are but the heir and nails of the mass, and not the substantial partes thereof, and yet those partes are good enough without those arguments, namely by tradition. For the Corporal was of lynen before the argument of Christ's burial clothe was made for it, Chalices were of goulde and silver, before the text, Babylon is a cup of goulde, was alleged for them. And facer • signifieth to sacrifice, though Virgil's verse had never been written, Cum faciam vitula. For in the Judges, Manoah said to the Angel faciamus tibi haedum de capris, we may offer to thee a kid of the Goats: O subtle Master Rastell. Where learned you first that Manoah spake latin? Secondly that he would offer sacrifice to a man, and not rather make ready a kid to be eaten of him, whom he thought to have been a man? for it followeth immediately in the text that Manoah knew not that he was an Angel of GOD, least you should imagine that Manoah had been a Papist, and would have offered a sacrifice to an Angel. But yet to cover his shame with impudence, he saith he will be yet bolder, and apply whatsoever he findeth in the scripture to maintain Popish ceremonies, he careth not howe fitlye, Theologia Mistica, he saith he woteth well non est argumentis apta. Mystical Divinity is not fit to make arguments of. But GOD keep our faith from grounding upon such divinity, as will neither satisfy our conscience, nor convince the errors of other.

Last of all, least he should pass over this place without a blasphemy, he compareth these balde reasons of Sylvester and Durande, with the argument that Saint Paul maketh. 1. Cor. 9. upon this text of the law, Thou shalt not bind up the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn: therefore GOD which provideth that beasts laboring should not want their food▪ much more would have the minister of the Gospel rewarded for his travel. Which is a most pithy argument, from the less to the more, as every learned man and godly will acknoweledge.

SECTIO. 36. From the second face of the 118. leaf to the 127. leaf, in which he treateth of the private Mass.

Whereas the Bishop proveth the private Mass to be contrary to the institution of Christ, which ordained a communion. First M. Rastell will not understand what is meant by this word, private Mass, for all Masses (he saith) are common, which if it be true, to use his own examples of an open household and a common of pasture, they be fools that will pay any money for them. Afterward understanding a private Mass to be when no man receiveth with the Priest, he asketh whether the Mass said on Easter day be good, because there be a number of communicants, or whether any other Mass be good, at which be many y ^t receive with y ^e Priest? I answer him, those Masses in y ^t point are less evil then the private Masses, in which there is no communion, because they err not in that one point, although they are abhominable in many other. But now let us hear how M. Rast. looketh the Doctors in the faces, which were cited by the Bishop against private Mass, as he promiseth to do. First to Clemens and Dionysius he answereth nothing, but cavilleth at the Bishops manner of citing them, not for writings of such antiquity as they are said to be, but yet sufficient to choke the Papists which boast of their authority. And trifleth of the oil, salt, singing, and in Dionysius which ceremonies as we have not in our Church, no more have the Papists in such order as he rehearseth thē. To Justin likewise he answereth nothing, but cavilleth of the water used to be mixed with the wine in his time, which was no ceremony, but a custom of sobriety: and of sending the communion to them that were absent, which we used not, neither is he able to prove that they used to send it, as the communion, but as alms rather, of the great plenty of bread and wine that was accustomed to be offered. And if it were proved to be the communion, it maketh more strongly against the private Mass, that they would suffer none that were absent not to communicate, much less would they suffer them which were present, not to receive with the minister. The sayings of Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Leo, he passeth over with confession, that the people in their days used to receive with the Priest commonly, but he denieth they did so always. Which he weeneth to prove, by that Chrysostom saith, they did offer daily, and Ambrose saith, that in Greece they were accustomed to receive but once a year. And he thinketh it were absurd, that there should be but one Communion in a year in Greece. But he is much deceived, for Saint Chrysostom as he confesseth, speaketh of often receiving, ad Ephe. Hom. 3. and would have all that received not to depart, even as the Canons of the Apostles, and Gregory in his Dialogues do show. And although many of the people were negligent in coming to the Lord's table, yet was there no private Mass, because y ^t in those great Churches, there were always a great number of the Clergy, which received with the Bishop, upon pain of excommunication.

To the prayers of the Mass, which being in the plural number suppose a number present▪ and a number of communicants, he saith, they argue the antiquity of the Mass to be above six hundredth years after Christ: which is not so: in deed they argue the form of those prayers to be ancienter then the private Mass, and more they argue not. But they may be used (saith Master Raster) because at every Mass be more present, then any bodily eye can see. O absurd Ass, that so arrogantly braggeth of learning, and so proudly despiseth so learned a Fathers arguments. Admit, that in steed of legions of devils that be present at every Mass, whose service it is, there were so many legions of Angels present as he fantasieth: doeth the Priest saying Oremus, Let us pray, speak to the Angels that are present to pray with him yea, why not? will some froward Papist say. But to whom speaketh he when he turneth about and saith, Orate pro me fratres & sorores, pray for me brethren and sisters. Be there he Angels and she Angels also? And when he prayeth that the oblation which they have offered be salvation to all that have received it, doeth he mean that the Angels have taken their rites of the Priest, though none of the people be present, but perhaps one sorry boy that helpeth him to say Mass? But the Prieste (he saith) is no private person, but a common officer, even as when he baptizeth. But is he such a Magistrate to altar and change the institution and ordinance of GOD? Baptism may be ministered to one alone according to the institution thereof, but the Communion which is a feast of the Church, ought not to be kept without a number of guests. To all the rest of the authorities cited by the Bishop out of the Canons of the Apostles, the decree of Calixtus, the Dialogues of Gregory, he saith they prove nothing, but that the people used to communicate, and there be diverse things in those writings, which we do not observe, as though we have bound our selves to the observing of men's decrees as the Papists have. But what so ever they have agreeable to the word of GOD we observe and willingly, although he slander our Church to suffer them to be present at the Communion, which do not communicate, which is a most impudent and shameless lie: and yet easily to be borne in comparison of their blasphemies, which he barketh out against the Priesthoode of our Savior Christ, saying, the order of Melchizedek should have an end, if their stinking Mass were omitted, and that their Priests must daily enter into Sancta sanctorum. O Antichristian Helhoundes, that challenge unto yourselves the peculiar Priesthoode of Christ, who only is a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, and hath no successors in his Priesthoode. Heb. 7.

O blasphemous dogs, that will have your hedge Priests to enter into Sancta sanctorum the most holy places every day, whither Christ hath once for all entered, and found eternal redemption. Heb. 6.

And these blasphemies he had rather defend, then give over the blasphemy of the private Mass, which with neither learning, modesty, nor conscience, he or any of all the rout of them is able to defend, either as lawful or as ancient.

SECTIO. 37. in the 127. leaf.

To the challenge which the Bishop made against the private Mass, he answereth nothing, but that they have no private Mass, for all Masses are one common mass, trifling upon the term, when he cannot say one word to the matter.

SECTIO. 38. From the second face of the 127. leaf, to the 131. leaf, in which he treateth of receiving the communion in both kinds.

To the Bishops challenge, that the Communion was never ministered in one kind to any man in the space of 600. years after Christ's: he answereth first, that if it were not, yet their Church is out of danger, because it is a matter indifferent for the Lay people to receive in one kind, or in both, alleging for proof a saying of Luther, written before he was thoroughly converted from Papistry. Secondly, he will prove that it was received under one kind, first because in Luke. 24. and Act. 20. there is no mention but of bread. Ergo, Christ and Paul gave them the communion in one kind, a good consequent. By the same I may prove, that Christ and Paul received them selves but bread, because there is no mention of wine. And yet the Papists hold it necessary, that the Priest which ministereth, should of necessity receive in both kinds. And whereas he is ashamed of this negative consequence, he chargeth us with like reasoning, out of some place of Augustine, or Irenaeus, &c. Whereas he slandreth us falsely, except it be upon such an affirmative as excludeth all other things.

With like impudence he saith, we do not deny, but that in Tertullian's time the sacrament in one kind was carried home to their houses, which we do utterly deny, neither is he ever able to prove. As false it is, that he saith in Cyprians time it was carried to men's houses in one kind, for Cyprian saith no such thing, nor any word sounding to such end. And concerning the custom of sending the sacrament to Bishops that were strangers, which came to Rome, cited by Irenaeus Ad victor, whereby he would prove it was sent under one kind, because wine would soon wax sower, I say he understandeth not what the custom was, but imagineth that the sacrament was sent a thousand mile of to those Bishops, whereas it was only from the Table to the places where they did sit in the Church, or at the worst, to their lodging where they sojourned at Rome. But passing over as he doeth, all reports of carrying and sending the sacrament, which proveth nothing at all the communion in one kind, for both might as well be carried and sent as one, he cometh to a fragment of an Epistle of Basilius Ad Caesariam Pratriciam, which also he falsifieth in translation, as the rest of the Papists, Harding, and Heskins do. For where he saith, that such as led a solitary life in the wilderness, where no Priest is, keeping the communion at home, receive of themselves, Communionem domi servants à seipsis communicant, meaning they received one of another, which he translateth, They communicate by themselves, Gathering that a priest may as well receive by himself in the church, as the people at home, which doth not follow, although neither of both be well done. And here again he will have no wine for fear of sauoring, whereas their is no dout, but such strong wine as groweth in those countries, will be preserved as long from sauoring, as the bread frō moulding. Like is y ^e example of Serapion being at the point of death to whom the priest being sick also, sent by a boy the sacrament. Vppon which example he urgeth reservation, which though it be not necessary, yet is it not the matter in controversy, secondly the communion in one kind, which is false, for he sent both and willed him to dippe the bread in the wine which he sent, and not in anything else, as M. Rastell saith, which were an absurdity, that the body of Christ should be dipped in profane licour, or sent by a boy, either if the Priest had ben so persuaded of it, as Rastel would bear us in hand, y ^t all old fathers were. That he received alone, proveth no private Mass nor alloweth sole receiving as ordinary, which was done in a case of extreme necessity in one which was excommunicated, and could not depart this life, before he had received the sacrament.

The last example is the superstitious fact of Satyrus the brother of Ambrose, which being not baptized, obtained the sacrament of y ^e Christians y ^t were in a ship with him in danger of shipwreck, which because he might not receive, he caused it to be wrapped, in Orario a linen garment, which Master Rastell calleth a stole, & wrapped that linen garment about his neck, and without other help escaped by swimming. Here M. Rastel thinketh he hath great advantage. First that the Christians had the sacrament out of the Church. As though the ship might not be their Church for that time, to minister the communion in the time of that great danger. Secondly that it was in one kind, except we can devise how to wrap wine in a stole. No M. Rastel, this proveth not that the Christians received in one kind, though they had wrapped one kind in the stole (as you call it) for Satyrus, as yet no Christian. But why might they not either soake the bread in wine, as some did in those days, or else dippe a corner of that linen cloth as some also used to do, and wrap it up in that great linen garment? And the words of Ambrose Fusum in viscera poured into his bowels would not agree to dry bread. Last of all, whereas you say it was no fantastical figurative memory which saved him from danger, I agree with you: but it was not the sacrament that he carried, whatsoever you will call it, but his faith (as S. Ambrose saith,) that preserved him.

And how soever it was, the example of an unbaptized man's weak and superstitious doing, doeth ye but small honesty, to confirm your common private Mass, sole receiving, opinion of carnal presence, or what so ever beside you can gather out of it.

SECTIO. 39. From the 132. leaf to the second face of the 135. leaf of service in a strange tongue.

To the Bishops challenge, that common prayer was not in a strange tongue within the compass of 600. years after Christ, he hath nothing in the world. But only affirmeth that Augustine the Monk brought Latin service into England which the people understood not, which both is somewhat without the compass, and also only said of him without proof or likelihood. He saith, he made not a new English service or Kentish rather, but used the Roman fashion and language. Be it granted that he brought in the Latin service, yet how proveth he, that the people did not at that time for the moste parte, understand the Latin tongue? Seeing he could preach to them only in Latin, being a Roman, and they also t • at came with him understood no parte of the English tongue, as our stories do testify. And that he planted not the Roman service, it may appear by the answer of Gregory to his third demand of the diversity of the Roman Church, and the French Church, in which answer he bindeth him not to the Roman Church, but willeth him to choose out of all Churches, what he thinketh most convenient and profitable for the English Church. And seeing the Scriptures and diverse Homelyes, and Prayers remain still in the Saxon or old English tongue, I do not see but he might have made a new English service, although by reason of so many mutations & troubles as happened in this land by means of civil and externe wars, & in the mean time Antichrist daily more and more encroaching, the same might grow out of use, and latin only be retained, which perhaps at the first was but usual unto monasteries or clerks. But how soever it was, this is an invincible argument that Augustine planted not the Roman service in this land, because there were so many diversities of customs as there were diverse Bishops sees, and all they differing from the use of the Roman church.

But having none authority, he hath reasons perhaps to defend latin service. First latin service is as meet for Englishmen, as English service is for Welshmē, wherewith he saith we find no fault, wherein he lieth. For the Welshmen that understand not english, have their common prayer in their Welshe tongue.

The second reason he useth that Saint Paul did write in Greek to the Romans, ergo the service must be in latin to Englishmen. He saith himself there be many differences between an epistle & a common form of prayers, which is very true. But will he prove thereby, that the Romans had their common prayers in Greek? The cause why the Apostle did write in Greek, was because he wrote not only to the Romans, but to the whole church unto which the Greek tongue was more familiar then the latin, and was of many understood in Rome. And also because the holy Ghoste • ad consecrated the Greek • tongue, being the principal tongue of the gentiles, unto the writings of the new Testament, avoiding to use the Latin tongue, even to the Romans, for the mystery of the name of Antichrist Latinos contained in the number of the beasts name 666. as Irenaeus doeth testify. His third reason is, that there be many things to be said in public prayer, which ought to be said in secrete, therefore an unknown tongue is best to utter them. His antecedent he proveth not out of scripture or any ancient authentical writer, but out of the liturgies falsely ascribed to Saint Basil, and Saint Chrysostom, and yet the argument hath no consequence in the world, for then those prayers in the Latin service to the Romans, should be in an unknown tongue, and all the rest in a known tongue to every nation.

Finally, where he saith, there needeth no diversity of service according to the diversity of languages, he speaketh directly contrary to the decree of the council of Lateran, cap. 9. which commanded the bishops to provide, that the sacraments and other divine service, should be ministered to all people in their diocese, according to the diversity of their languages and customs. By which it is proved, that service in an unknown tongue is neither so ancient as it is pretended, nor yet so allowed in all times, but that even a popish council hath decreed against it.

SECTIO. 40. From the second face of the 135. leaf, to the 139. leaf, in which he speaketh of the title of the universal bishop.

To the bishops challenge, that the bishop of Rome was not called an universal bishop, or head of the universal Church, he answereth that the title was due, although it was not used, and after his accostomable manner cavilleth of the word universal, whereas the bishop doth sufficiently expound himself, by addinge, or head of the universal Church, which he taketh in hand to prove, giving over the former title of universal. First by a lowsie counterfett Epistle most falsely ascribed to Anacletus, which he citeth to be the second, but it is in the third, in which the unlearned asse that counterfeted that Epistle, interpreteth the name of Peter givē him by Christ, which was Cephas▪ to signify a head and beginning, whereas by the Gospel we learn that Cephas was a stone, as Peter is, if the knowledge of the Syrian tongue should fail us.

His seconde authority is out of Cyprian. Lib. 3. ep. 11. The words of certain schismatics that took part with Novatus against Cornelius bishop of Rome, and upon their repentance beeinge in Africa, were received into the Church. These men confessed that they did acknowledge Cornelius to be a bishop of the most holy Catholic Church, whereas before they refused him, and clave to Novatus, a false bishop of Rome not lawfully ordained: like as afterward they acknowledge, that there should be but one bishop of a Catholic Church, meaning in one city, for else they should have denied Cyprian, and all other bishops of the world to be bishops saving only Cornelius the bishop of Rome, whereas Cornelius being lawfully called to be bishop of Rome, they had taken part with Novatus, which would be a bishop by intrusion. He citeth also Cyprian lib. 1. ep. 3. heresies have risen of none other cause, but that the priest of God is not obeyed, and that there is not one priest of God in the Church for a time. and one judge in steed of Christ thought upon: which Cypriane speaketh not of one priest, to be as judge of all the Church, but of one in every Church, and namely he speaketh of himself, complaininge that he was contemned by a lewd heretic and scismatike, called Felicissimus with his complices.

His third author is Ambrose in 1. Tim. 3. which although it be denied to be the work of Ambrose, but rather set forth of some man of much later time in the name of Ambrose, to get more credit unto his writing, yet receyuinge it as Ambrose, what saith he? Forsoothe that Damasus was a governor of the Church of Christ, which is the house of God: which he saith in none other sense, then S. Paul enstructed Timothy to behave himself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, not meaning to make him supreme head of all the Church of Christ, no more did Ambrose mean to make Damasus, then bishop of Rome.

His fourth author is Cyrillus, whom he citeth in Lib. Thesau. a counterfette place, not to be found in all the works of Cyrillus, by whom so ever it was forged.

His last author is Gregory. Libro 4. Epistola 32. who saith that although the charge of all the Church was committed to Peter as chief of the Apostles, yet he was not called an universal bishop

I confess the charge of all the Church was committed to Peter, which was not bishop of one Church, but an Apostle sent unto the whole world, as all the rest of the Apostles were. But that proveth not the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, who if he were a right bishop, yet were he no Apostle, and so hath nothing to do with the charge and commission of an Apostle.

He nameth also Sainte Augustine which in diverse places calleth Rome Sedem Apostolicam, a seat Apostolic, which is nothing else (saith Master Rastell) but that place which may plant and pull up, set and let, and hath his power over the whole world. But where learned he this deffinition of a seat Apostolic?

O impudent and arrogaunt disputer! All Churches that were planted and honored with the presence of the Apostles, were called Apostolic seats, yet did they never claim, neither would Rastell give unto them that which he maketh to be the deffinition of a seat Apostolic. As for Augustine, doeth often call Rome, Babylon the seat of Antichrist, De ciuit. Dei, lib. 16. cap. 17. & lib. 18. cap. 2. & 22.

SECTIO. 41. From the 139. leaf to the 144. leaf, in which he speaketh of the real and corporal presence of Christ's body in the sacrament.

The bisho • saith the people were not taught y ^t Christ's body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally in the sacrament. Master Rastell saith, although these terms be not found, yet that which is signified by them is found. For thus he useth in every matter to trifle about terms, as though the bishop did strive for words and sylables, and not for the matter. And he would have the bishop to bring out of any antiquity, that the people were taught to believe, that the body of Christ is only figuratively, sacramentally, significatiuely, tropically, imaginatiuely in the sacrament, to the denial of all presence and reallitie, as though a sacramental presence were not a presence and a real presence also, if by real you mean that which is in deed, and not counterfeted, though it be not after a gross and carnal manner.

For that Christ is present, and truly received in his sacraments, we do gladly confess, which is all that any ancient writers speaketh of his presence, Jerome, Isychius, Cyrillus, Origen, Augustine or Chrysostom: whose names he citeth, or any other within 600. yers after Christ. But to maintain that gross & corporal manner of presence or receiving, which the papists do now hold, there is none of the old writers that saith anything to the purpose. As for Damascene is far out of the compass, a corrupt writer, and yet more gross in terms, then his judgment was, as it were easy to prove, if his authority were of any weight.

But Master Rastel asketh if these words be not plain enough. This is my body which shall be delivered for you, Luk. 22. He maketh them somewhat plainer by changing the pretertence into the future, for Luke reporteth the words: which is given for you. I again ask him whether these words be not as plain. This cup is the Newe Testament in my blood, which is shed for you? We doubt not but that it is the sacrament of his true and natural body, for we make not two bodies of Christ as the papists do, a natural body, and a spiritual body, which true and natural body of Christ being in heaven, is given unto us in those holy mysteries after a wonderful and unspeakable manner, not carnally nor corporally, but spiritually and diuinelye. And where as Master Rastell citeth a longe saying of Cyrillus against an Arian, which denied, that we have any corporal conjunction with Christ, and proveth the same by the strength and power of the mystical benediction, which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in us, it is nothing in the world to his corporal and carnal manner of presence. For we also do grant, that the power of the mystical benediction is such, as maketh Christ to dwell corporally in y ^e faithful, which is nothing else (as he doth immediately expound himself,) but y ^t they are made members of Christ's body and members one of another, which is not after any carnal or natural manner, but after an heavenly & divine manner of union. For the same Cyril doth affirm y ^t Christ giving y ^e sacrament to his disciples gave thē fragmēta panis pieces of bread. By which is the plain he meant not to teach any transubstantiation of the bread into the natural body of Christ.

This place of Cyril is set down at large in mine answer to Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 14. And where as he saith, we do weaken the hope of the resurrection of our flesh, by denying the carnal manner of presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, I say it is utterly false, and the contrary is true, that the Popish heretics do weaken the hope of resurrection in all them that have not received the sacrament, when they fain such a presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, as cannot be received without the sacrament.

SECTIO. 42. From the 144. leaf to the ende of the 145. leaf.

To y ^e Bishops challenge, that y ^e body of Christ cannot be in a thousand places or more at one time, he answereth, it needed not to be proved, because reason must give place to faith, and one principle proved of Christ's presence, draweth all the rest after it, and thirdly because Christ's body is not locally present in the sacrament, but in one place only. Finally he citeth a long saying of Chrysostom in Ep. ad Heb. Hom. 17. reasoning how Christ is offered every day, but the whole discourse is clean contrary to Master Rastels purpose, and especially the first sentence and the last, expoundeth howe Christ was offered, not really, but as in a remembrance. Do we not offer every day? We offer in deed, but as men which make a remembrance of his death, these words show what kind of oblation it was, that they did make, namely a celebration of the memorial of his death, and not a propitiatory sacrifice of Christ's body, carnally present.

The last words are these, We offer not another sacrifice as the bishops did, but always that same, or rather we make the remembrance of that sacrifice. This correction showeth, that it was not properly a sacrifice which they offered.

Finally there is not one word in that discourse, but it is directly against the sacrifice of the Mass.

SECTIO. 43. From the 145. leaf. to the 149. leaf.

To nine parts of the bishops challenge he answereth nothing, but refuseth for their particularitie to answer to them. First, that the Priest did not hold the sacrament over his head. Secondly, that the people did not worship it with Godly honor. Thirdly, that it was not then hanged under a Canopye. Fourthly, that after consecration there remaineth nothing but accidences of bread and wine. Fifthly, that y ^e priest divided not the sacrament in three parts & received them all himself alone Sixthly, that whosoever had said the sacrament is a figure, a pledge, a token or a remembrance of Christ's body, had not therefore ben judged for an heretic. Seventhly, that it was not lawful to say 30. or twenty &c. Masses in one Church in one day. Eighthly, that images were not set up to be worshiped. Ninthly, that the lay people were not forbidden to read the word of God in their own tongue. Master Rastell saith, this is an unlearned and pelting kind of reasoning, but he proveth it by unlearned and pelting examples: as it is not read that Christ did cry from his mothers breast, or did wear a peticoate, hose, or shoes, or went on his mothers errande, &c.

As though any of these things were articles of our belief, as some of those are among the Papists, or as though it pertained anything to know such matters, as the Papists pretend their matters necessary not only to be known, but also practiced. Finally he would persuade his popish friends that these things need not to be proved to be of such antiquity, because the Church hath received them. Then let him and his fellows be a shamed and cry creake, which were wont to boast of fifteen hundredth years antiquity, for all their doctrine and ceremonies, the consent of all ages, the traditions of the Apostles and such like: where now they are cut short of the first six hundredth years, and being urged to show their antiquity, can say nothing, but that it is not needful.

SECTIO. 44. in the 149. leaf.

To the Bishops challenge that the words of consecration by no authority of councils or Doctors, ought to be pronounced closelye: He confesseth the matter, but he can prove (or else he lieth) that there must be an head in the Church, which as well in this matter, as in all other must be obeyed. Howe well he can prove it, is tried in the forty Section.

The rest of the challenges he giveth over, being desirous to be at an ende with them, as I cannot blame him.

SECTIO. 45. From the end of the 149. leaf to the 152. leaf, in which he would prove that priests have authority to offer Christ.

He taketh upon him to show, that the priest hath authority to offer up Christ unto his father. But good lord whether more blasphemously, then ignorantly and unlearnedly. For first, he citeth the saying of y ^e Apostle Heb. 5. Every high Priest taken of men is appointed for men, in those things that pertain to God, to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins, which the Apostle speaketh expreslye of the priests of the old law, and proveth the excellency of Christ above them.

Secondly admitting he should speak of Pristes of the new Testament, which is false, he saith their sacrifice must be after y ^e order of Melchizedek, as it is written, thou art a priest forever after y ^e order of Melchizedek: of which order Christ is a priest, in respect of Popish priests that be now a days; or else God's oth should be broken. Surely I marvel at y ^e great clemency of god which stoppeth not such blasphemous mouths with thunderbolts. that make the eternal priesthood of Christ, which he hath without succession, to depend upon their greasy order, which hath not been but of late erected, neither shall continue forever, where as our savior Christ world without ende shall be both a king and a priest, which is the order of Melchizedek, and consisteth nothing at all in offering of bread and wine, as is manifest by the Apostle to the Hebrews, who showeth in what respect Christ is a priest after y ^e order of Melchizedek.

As impudent as this is blasphemous, is his next argument y ^t by very express commandment of Christ in his last supper, they must offer him up: saying, Do this in remembrance of me. As though Christ which never sacrificed himself but once, & that on the cross, had at his supper offered himself to his father in sacrifice,

As for the testimonies of the Fathers which he citeth, are easily answered, that they spake of sacrificing Christ figuratively and improperly, as some of them confess, namely Chrysostom, whom he citeth, ad Heb. Hom. 17. which when he had demanded, saying, Do we not offer Christ daily? he answereth, yes, but rather we celebrate the remembrance of his sacrifice: the other which he citeth out of Dionyse, hath no word of offering Christ; although Dionyse be no writer within the compass of six hundredth years: Neither do these words of the Liturgy entitled to S. Basil, which he rehearseth, speak more then of an unbloody sacrifice, which is the sacrifice of thanksgiving, although the Liturgy is not of such antiquity & credit, as it is pretended. And of as little is that, he citeth out of Ambrose in Psal. 38. which no man learned of sound and indifferent judgment, will receive for the work of S. Ambrose. Such false principles must lean upon counterfeit Doctors.

SECTIO. 46. From the 152. leaf to the 154. leaf, in which he taketh in hand • o shape a general answer to the particular questions which M. Jewel moveth.

Having proved nothing hitherto but him self to be a lying merchant, a blasphemous and unlearned defender of the sacrifice of the Mass, to all the rest of the questions of Indiuiduum vaegum merit ex opere operato, applying of the sacrifice of the Mass, accidents remaining, the case of the mouse eating the sacrament &c. He answereth that these terms for anything he knoweth, were never used within the compass of 600. years, but the matters were believed, and that he will prove by consent of learned men, and the voice of the Church since those 600. years. This is in deed as he saith, merrily but falsely to the Bishop, in the beginning of his book, which way to Croyden • a poke full of plumbs, the Bishop asketh proof within in 600. years of Christ, and M. Rastell will bring proof without those 600. years, the Bishop requireth antiquity whereof the Papists have so impudently bragged, and Rastel will bring forth novelty. But he hath a proper similitude, to show that these Articles, though they were not known to the ancient Church, for 600. years after Christ, yet are they not to be refused, no more then the fruits of Autumn, because they appeared not on the trees in April, are to be rejected. Thus you see by this delicate similitude he denieth the Church of Christ, his Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Pastors & teachers, for 600. years together to have been a season fruitful of matters of truth, having nothing but green ornaments and gay flowers, promising the wholesome fruits of Popery, that have appeared and waxed ripe in the latter time of the Church, as in the Harvest or month of September. If this similitude can be defended without contumely of Christ and the Primitive Church, let all the Papists clap their hands at it, and say. O learned M. Rast. that with so short an answer, hath satisfied all M. Jewels demands. But he will choke the Bishop and us all with the last question: Where is it read (saith he) within 600. years after Christ, that our blessed Lady was preached or named the mother of mercy, the handmaiden of the Trinity, the spouse of the holy Ghost, the Queen of heaven, the Empresse of hell? and yet if you believe in deed that she is the mother of God, all these Articles do follow, like as the rest of that verity which saith, this is my body. It is well that M. Rastell confesseth these titles never to have ben given to the Virgin Marie, neither by Christ, nor by his Apostles, nor by any in all y ^e Church for 600. years after Christ. Now syr, I will answer your question. I do as constantly believe with my heart, and more effectually then I can express with words, that the holy and blessed Virgin Marie is the mother of hers and our Savior Jesus Christ, the son of God, very God and very man. Yet all those titles which you confess to be neither read in any antiquity of 600. ye • res after Christ, I abhor and protest to be wicked, idolatrous, and blasphemous. And whereas you say that common sense teacheth, that a Kings mother is a Queen, and not of no place you trow, which is tried false by common experience, for King David • mother was no Queen, I trow, nor five hundredth more that have been in the world since his time, I answer: yet if it were granted in earthly Princes, it followeth not in the King of heaven. For by the like reason and more probable, I might argue, the mother of a man is a woman therefore the mother of God is a Goddess, from which blasphemy Saint Bonaventure a Popish Saint, is of no force, if he do not far exceed it, when he saith to the Virgin Marie. Iure matris impera filio, and again, Coge Deum &c. By the authority of a mother command thy son, and compel God to be merciful to sinners. &c.

SECTIO. 47. in the 154. leaf.

The Bishop declareth the vanity of the Papists answer, which is, that no Mass is private, because that every Priest communicateth with all Priests that say Mass: for that by this reason, there should be no excommunication, whereas the party excommunated would say, he would communicate with the Prieste that saith Mass in Calicute. Master Rastel saith, he that is excommunicate from one Church is excommunicated from all Churches, therefore he that is in the Communion, doth communicate with all Priests. But he understandeth not the Bishops argument, or at least, he will not understand it. For the sophistry of the Popish argument resteth in the ambiguity of this word, Communicate, which signifieth to receive the Lord's supper at one time and in one place, with others of their Church, which the Papists take for receiving generally, so that y ^e Priest in Louaine receiving at his Mass alone communicateth with y ^e Priest y ^t likewise receiveth at his Mass alone in Calicut. Now if this receiving wer a sufficient communion, a Priest being excommunicated in Leuven, so y ^t no Priest would suffer him to receive with him at his Mass, if he would contemn their excommunication, might say Mass him self, & say, y ^t although none of you Leuven Priests will communicate with me, yet I will communicate with the Priest that this day saith Mass in Calicut, yea, I will communicate with you in spite of your heart, for I will be at mass as soon as you, and then will I receive at my Mass, when you receive at your Mass, and so by our own principle whereby we defend our private Masses to be communions, I will communicate with you whether you will or no, yea, I cannot choose but communicate with you, if I say Mass when you do. And if you will say to me that I ought not to say Mass being excommunicate, I tell you, you cannot excommunicate me, so long as I can say Mass. For though you count me excommunicate, yet you know by our own divinity, that if I do say Mass, notwithstanding your censure, I do consecrate as well as the proudest of you: and after I have consecrated, I will receive, and then I communicate, and so your excommunication is no excommunication at all.

SECTIO. 48. in the 155. leaf.

Whereas the Bishop said, that the Mass had nether her name nor her partes, until four hundredth years after Christ, he answereth, that she had the essential and necessary partes, but not the garnishing and decking parts. So that by his own confession, it was a nameless and naked Mass which they had in the church for four hundredth years after Christ's. So that y ^e later times with him were always more wise and more religious, then the former, new devises better then old customs. And where then is there the proud challenge of antiquity, universality, consent, Apostolic tradition? And if the Church might be without the Popish Mass so long after Christ, why should they teach, that now it is so necessary, as there ought to be none other form of communion used in the Church of God, but it?

SECTIO. 49.

M. Rastel protesting once or twice that he was weary, will now conclude with only confuting these conclusions of M. Jewels comparison. S. James Mass had Christ's institution, they in their Mass have well near nothing else but man's invention. To disprove this he saith, the epistle and Gospel, the collets of the Sunday, the Hymn of the Angel, y ^e confession of faith, the saying of Agnus Dei, &c. are translated out of their Mass into our communion, therefore we take them for parte of Christ's institution. I answer we take them as Christ's institution, and not as commended by the Mass, and yet are they no parte of the communion, though they be used in our liturgy, some before, and some after the communion.

Secondly he would seem to confute the Bishops saying, that Saint James Mass had Christ's institution, because if we had thought so in deed, we would have translated it into English, and so have used it in steed of the Popish Mass, and then it would have seemed more superstitious, and full of ceremonies then the Popish Mass. And so he rehearseth a number of superstitious ceremonies, gestures, and prayers that are in it. I answer, the Bishop said truly as he thought, that the liturgy falsely ascribed to Saint James, hath Christ's institution concerning the Lord Supper, notwithstanding it be full fraught with idle ceremonies, and some superstitious and erroneous prayers, whereas the Popish Mass hath clean overturned the institution of Christ, touching the ende of the Lord's supper, retaining well near nothing of Christ's institution, except you will say it hath bread and wine, which it most horribly abuseth to the profanation of Christ's death, and most filthy idolatry.

Finally, the salvation of the virgins Marie which was then alive, although it were more mere to be used to her person being alive, then after she was departed out of this world) the prayer made for them that lived in monasteries, the term of consubstantial not heard of in the Church before the Nicene council, and many other arguments do sufficiently prove, that the said liturgy was not written by Saint James the Apostle, nor by any that lived many hundredth years after him to the judgments of all men that have either knowledge to discern truth from falsehood, or conscience to acknowledge that which they cannot choose but know. And even Bartholomew Garanza a Papist, that gathered the abridgement of councils, affirmeth that the liturgy which Saint James used, is not extant at this day. O Lord bring into the way of truth all such as err of simplicity, and be not merciful to those that sin of malicious wickedness.

After this clearkly confutation, followeth a counterfeit challenge (as he pretendeth) to show the Bishops folly, but in deed to show his own folly, and the weakness of his cause, which he learned not, (as he saith) of Solomon, to answer a fool according to his folly, but of Menalcas one of Virgil's shepherds, in his third Eglogue, which when he could not answer the ridle propounded unto him by his adversary, he putteth for than other as hard as he thinketh: Dic quibus in terris, &c.

His first section containeth 21. articles, whereof the greatest parte are not held at all by any of us, therefore there is no cause why we should prove them, the rest be matters of mere indifferency, which may be used or left undone without any hurt of our religion, & some perhaps may be proved (which he little thinketh of) to his shame.

Of the first sort are these 1. that there was no dry communion, and we say there ought to be none, although the Papists make a dry communion, when they rob the people of the cup of the Lord's blood. The third that Bishops did not swear by their honor: we affirm they ought not to swear, nor yet by God, as I heard Boner swear, being convented before the Bishop of Winchester his Chancelor, and a great number of persons being present.

The 4. that bagpipers, horscoursers, gailers, alebasters, were not admitted into the Clergy without sufficient trial. We affirm they ought not, nor yet any of the scullerie or black garde, as some yet living were made Priests in Queen Mary's time.

The 6. that no Bishoppe not content with prisoning his adversaries, call upon Princes to put them to cruel death. We hold that no Bishop should imprison his adversary, much less procure his death, but if the challenge had been of God's adversaries, I would have answered otherwise. For if in 600. years none of God's adversaries was, or ought to have been put to death, by procurement of Bishops, by what ground of antiquity do Popish Bishops procure so many to be put to death, yea murder them selves in their prisons and inquisitions, under pretence, that they be God's adversaries?

The 17. that no Bishoppe did gather benevolence of his Clergy to marry his daughter, &c. We answer, this no way concerneth religion, no more then putting of the ring on the woman's left hand, which is the 18. or calling the people by ringing of a bell which is the 21. Now concerning the rest, as the seconde, that there should be no celebration of the Lord's supper except there be a good number to communicate, three or four at the least, &c. is proved by the Canons of the Apostles, that Excommunicate all Christians that be present, and do not communicate Can. 9. Also the first Epistle of Anacletus (which is good authority against a Papist) forbiddeth the priest or Bishop to sacrifice alone, and commandeth all the ministers that are present, to receive with him in pain of excommunication. And appointeth what number shall be present. of deacons, namely on solemn days seven, on other days five or three, beside Subdeacons & other ministers. These decrees do prove, that there should be no celebration of the Lord's supper, but when there be a good number to communicate.

Concerning the 5. of distinction of Bishops or Priest • in apparel frō the laity, which yet we hold to be a thing of his own nature indifferent. Celestinus Bish. of Rome saith in an Epistle to the Bishops of France Epi. 2. Discern • ndi a plebe vel cęteris sumus doctrina non vest, conuersatione non habitu, mentis puritate non cultu. We must be discerned from the common people, or other men by doctrine, not by garment, by conversation not by apparel, by pureness of mind, not by attire.

To the 7. that the communion table was remoueable and carried too an fro, it is proved 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 carry 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 Boniface 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 proved by those fathers of the primitive Church, that kept their feast of Easter after the manner of the Jews, which was the 14. day of the month, which some times did fall upon that Friday which is called good Friday, yet being no matte • of religion, there is no cause why we should be bound to prove it.

The like I say to the 9. of singing of Gloria in excelsis after the communion, and to the 11. of saying the Creed of Athanasius upon principal holy days.

Concerning the 10. that the sacrament was ministered in the loaf bread usually to be eaten at the table, it is proved by S. Cyprian In sermon de Caena Dom. which saith of that bread wherewith they did minister, Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem mutatus, procurat vitam & incraementum corpor • bus, &c. This common bread being changed into our flesh and blood, procureth life and increase to our bodies.

Also by S. Ambrose Li. 4. Cap. 2. de sacram. Who rehearseth y ^e objection of the ignorant, saying. Tu forte dicis, meus panis est vsitatus, &c. Thou perhaps wilt say, my bread is common & usual bread. Also by Gregory, which in his dialogues reporteth that two Coronae loaves of bread, were given to one that was thought to be a poor man in reward of his service in a bathe, but he being a guest, willed that the same should be 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 been ministered in common apparel, we will go no further then our Savior Christ himself, John. 13. and there is no question, but his Apostles and the primitive Church many hundredth years followed his example.

To the 13 that the words of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11. should be red at the ministration, rather thē of S. Matthew, Mark, or Luke, it is a matter of mere indifferency, & yet better ordered, then your popish canon, which rehearseth the words after none of all four.

To the 14. that they used a common cup at the Communion, is proved also by scripture, that our savior Christ ministered in the same cup, which he and his company had used at supper.

To the 15. that the curses of God's law, should be redd upon Ashwednesday, we hold it not as a thing necessary, but an order of indifferency, until a better discipline be restored.

To y ^e 16. concerning procession about the fields, we use none but a perambulation, which is a matter of mere civil policy.

To the 19. whether Saint Peter were ever at Rome or no, it is no article of our belief, but we are able to prove by scripture, that he neither was there as bishop, nor so long as the common opinion is.

To the 20. that the minister in time of necessity hath given the communion to one alone, is proved by the example of Seraphion, used of the Papist • , but unfitly to defend your private mass, to whom being at the point of death, the communion was sent by the priest, who at the same time also was so sick that he could not come himself, Eusebius libros 6. capitulo 44. and yet that communicatinge which we alowe, is but granted to the infirmity of such as cannot be persuaded to forbear the sacrament, not as a thing simply allowed.

If any one man alive, could prove any one of these articles by Scriptures, doctors or councils, he promiseth to subscribe, what I have proved, let the Reader judge. After this follow twenty nine articles more.

The 22. that the bishop of Rome was not called Antichrist the cause was, that until after six hundredth year, the bishop of Rome was not Antichrist. But that Antichrist should be a Romaine, it is proved by Irenaeus, Libro 5. and that Rome should be the Sea of Antichrist Sainte Augustine testifieth, De ciuitate Dei, libro 16. capitulo 17. calling Rome Western Babylon, and libro 18. capitulo 2. calling Rome seconde Babylon, &c.

Also Jerome ad Marcellam, judgeth Rome to be Babylon, spoken of in the Apocalypse, and in praefati. in Didymum, he calleth Rome Babylon, and the purple whore, and Algasiae Quest. 11. and many places else.

Gregory also affirmeth, that who so would be called universal bishop, was the forerunner of Antichrist, which was John of Constantinople, also he prophesieth that Antichrists revelation was at hand, and that an army of priests should wait upon him, which was fulfilled in his next successor save one, namely Boniface the third, which was the first Pope of Rome, that was called universal bishop, and was Antichrist him self, as John of Constantinople was his forerunner about the year of our Lord, • 10.

To the 23. that no consecration was required to the sacrament, but the virtue of the people's faith, is not holden of us, and therefore we are not to prove it.

To the 24. that the residue of the sacramental bread, which was not received by any old custom of the Church of Constantinople was given to young children that went to school, is proved by Euagrius, libr. 4. cap. 36. whether to spredde their butter, as he requireth is to show, or to eat it with cheese, or flesh, &c. I cannot say. Also I find in Concilio Matisconensi. 2. Can. 6. that what so ever remained after the ministration, should be given to young children by the priest (not spread in deed with butter) but sprinkled with wine.

To the 25. that no man was convented for affirminge the carnal manner of presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, I answer, it was because there was no man found which held that gross heresy all that space of 600 years after Christ.

To the 26. that it was lawful to have but one communion in one Church in one day, I answer it was a custom of the Church before Leo the first, as appeareth in his 79. Epistle, who appointed that when the Communion would not serve all that came to the Church, there might be another celebrated, and that so often in one day, as the people filled the Church: and otherwise we say not of one Communion in a day.

To the 27. that an Image of Christ, or of a Sainte was defaced and judged unlawful to be in the Church of Christian men, is proved by the Epistle of Epiphanius, who reporteth that he him self did read such a one painted on a veil at Anablatha, which Epistle was translated out of Greek by S. Jerome, and is in the 2. Tome of his works.

The 28. of Bishops setting up their own, their wives, or their children's pictures, in their parlours and chambers, is a vain matter, not touching religion any thing at all.

The 29, that Christ delivered his body to many more then his twelve Apostles, is no article of faith, neither greatly material, whether he did or did not, yet it is most probable, that seeing he did eat the old sacrament of the Paschal lamb with the whole household that were his disciples, he did unto them also give the new sacrament of his body and blood.

The 30. that Judas Machabaeus in offering for the dead, added to the law, it is manifest by the scripture, because there is no such oblation appointed by the law. And yet his oblation helpeth not the papists, because those for whom he offered, died in mortal sin, being defiled with Idolatry as the story doth report.

To the 31. and 32. that a bishop did marry after he was a bishop, or married the seconde or third wife, the first being dead, it is not unlike, seeing the scripture requireth no more abstinence from marriage in a bishop, then in any other man. Clemens as Eusebius testifieth, lib. 3. cap. 30. saith, Petrus & Philippus liberis procreandia operam dederunt. Peter the Apostle, and Philippe did beget childrē. Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22 saith, Multi illorum episcopatus tēpore etiam liberos ex legitimis vxoribus sustulerint. Manie of them, even in the time that they were bishops, begat children of their lawful wives. As for M. Rastell terms of harlot and fiery passion, &c. I omit to speak of, as more meet for such a ruffian like railer, then worthy of any answer. The council of Gangra in their Epistle to the bishops of Armenia, report it, as one of the heresies of the Eustachians, that priests which have contracted matrimony should be despised, and the sacraments ministered by them should not be received. Praesbiteros qui matrimonia contraxerunt, sperni debere dicunt. Which words prove that bishops married as well as priests. The same council Can. 4. accurseth them that make a difference between a married priest and another, in respect of his marriage.

To the 33. that preachers moved not young men and women not to be ashamed of lust, I say, it is no parte of our doctrine, but a lewd slander imputed to Luther most unjustly, who speaketh of the desire of marriage & not otherwise.

To the 34. that every man should read the scriptures & not give ear to man's traditions it is the very counsel & words of Basil in his short definitions, quest. 65. Chrysostom doth often exhort all lay men to read the Bible, in a great number of places.

To the 35 that Lent and Friday should be fasted for polycie, and not for devotion, we do not hold, but that abstinence of flesh should be used at such times, which is a matter of mere policy, as for abstinence of flesh for religions sake, was condemned in the counsel of Gangra. And Montanus the heretic was the first that made laws of fasting. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 18.

To the 36. that Palme Sunday was solemnised without bearing of bows, it is proved at the least for three hundredth years after Christ, in which time all stories testify, that the Church was for the most parte under persecution, and had no such processions about the streets, but rather kept them in secrete corners, y ^e like I say for candles on Candelmas day, which could not be borne within 600. years of Christ, because Pope Sergius was the first that appointed them to be borne, which was seven hundredth years after Christ. As for Mass on Christmas day, I answer the same, the Mass was not all made within 600. years, if he speak of the popish Mass: if he speak of the communion, it is a thing indifferent whether it be celebrated that day or no.

To the 37. although the celebration of the nativity of John baptist, be but a variable & indifferent ceremony, yet may it be proved by many ancient homilyes, that it was kept within the compass of 600, years. As for the feast of the nativity of the blessed Virgin Mary, or of her assumption, that they were not celebrated within that time, it is manifest, because they were not instituted many hundredth years after. As Durande confesseth the feast of the nativity, not to have been kept of old time. And touching the assumption, the very lessons read in the popish mattyns on that day do affirm, that many doubted of her assumption, lect. 3. and also affirm, y ^t she died and was buried, and that her sepulcher was shown in the vale of Iosophat. lect. 2.

To 38. they that pray to God to be defended by the ministry of Angels, whether it be upon the feast of S. Michael, or any other day, have the authority of y ^e scripture, which declareth that they be ministering spirits appointed for the defense of them that shall be saved. Psa. 34 Heb. 1. Neither do they seek help at any other creatures hands but of God, only by the mediation of Christ, who desire God for Christ's sake to help them by such spiritual or bodily ministers, or means, as he hath appointed. For they worship God, and not the Angels, they pray to God, and not to Angles.

To the 39. for using the sign of the cross in baptism and not in the communion, I answer, we count it not needful either in the one sacrament, or in the other.

To the 40. of throwing down Aultars erected unto Christ, I answer: Hezekiah is commended in scripture, for throwing down the hill aultars erected unto GOD, and in which the people did offer sacrifice only to the Lord, because they were not erected according to God's commaundent, and yet was not he accounted an heretic. 2. Regum. 18. Much less are they to be called heretics, that throw down the Popish aultars which were set up against the only Aulter and sacrifice of Christ and his passion, to the most blasphemous defacing of the same.

To y ^e 41. y ^t any bishop was married on Ashe wednesday, it is a foolish demand to require the proof, but that i • was lawful for a bishop to mary any day in the year, it is proved by y ^e authority of scriptures, which exclude no day as unlawful to mary in.

To the 42. that no man did write that the government of women was monstrous, we grant, neither do we hold this article though someone man have witten it.

To the 43. that est, in these words, hoc est corpus meum, is to be taken for significat, it is proved by Tertullian, who expoundeth hoc est corpus meum, id est, figura corporis 〈◊〉 .

This is my body, y ^t is to say, this is a figure of my body contra Marc li 4. S. Ambrose: ipse clamat dominus Jesus, hoc est corpus meum. Ante bedectionem verborum caelestium alia speci • s nominatur, post consecrationem, corpus Christi significatur ▪ Our Lord Jesus himself saith allowed: This is my body. Before the blessing of the heavenly words, it is called another kind, after consecration, the body of Christ is signified. Deijs qui myster. init. Chrysostom saith of the sanctified vessels, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur. In which the very body of Christ is not, but the mystery of the body of Christ is contained▪ in Mat. Hom. 11. Augustine saith: Nam ex eo quod scrip • um est, sanguinem pecoris animam eius esse, praeter id • uod supra dixi, non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris anima, possum etiam interpretari pręceptum illud in signo positum esse, non enim Dominus dubitauit dicere hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. For as concerning that which is written, that blood is the life of the beast, beside that which I said before, that it pertaineth not to me what is done w ^t the life of a beast, I may also interpret that commandment to consist in a sign. For our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he did give a sign of his body, cont • Adamantum. In this same Augustine showeth that these words hoc est corpus meum, are to be taken in the same sense, that these words sanguis est anima pecoris, where est, is manifestly taken for significat by his judgment, & there is no one article wherein we differ from the Papists, that hath more plentiful confirmation in the doctors of our doctrine therein, then this of the carnal presence of Christ in the sacrament.

To the 44. that the lay people communicating did take the cup one at another's hand, it appeareth by the words of Basel in Ep. ad Caesar. Patri. for of those that dwelled in the wilderness, where no Priest was, (saith he,) a seipsis communicant they receive of themselves, or one of another. And in Alexandria, and Egypt everyone of the people hath the communion in his house, and receive it there at home. Et in ecclesia sacerdo • dat partem, & accipit eam is qui suscipit cū omni libertate, & ipsam admou • t ori propria 〈◊〉 . Idem igitur est virtute, sine vnam partem quis acc • piet a sacerdote sine plures partes simul. And even in the Church the Priest giveth one part, and he which receueth it, taketh it with all liberty, and putteth it to his mouth with his own hand. Therefore it is the same in virtue, whether a man take one part of the Priest, or more partes together. Also it appeareth by the 6. Council of Constantinople, Can. • 8. that before that time Lay men in presence of the Bishop, Elder, or Deacon, did divide y ^e divine mysteries among thē selves, which until then was not forbid̄. Our Savior Christ also having once delivered the cup, did not take it into his hands so often as everyone of his disciples did drink, but willed them to divide it among them selves. Luc. 22.

To the 45. that a controversy of religion being decided by the Bishop of Rome, the contrary parte was not taken for heresy, nor the mainteiners thereof for heretics, is proved by the controversy of rebaptising them that were baptized by heretics, which when Cornelius and Stephanus Bishops of Rome had decided, yet was not the contrary opinion taken for heresy, nor Saint Cyprian & all the bishops of Africa which agreed upon it in a council at Carthage, counted for heretics: a matter notoriously known to all them that read Cyprians works, or Euseb. lib. 7. Cap. 3. which utterly overthroweth the popes authority.

To the 46. that any executed for felony, was put in the kalendar for a Martyr, is a thing needless to prove, yet the penitent thief which being crucified with Christ, was executed justly for his offenses, is of good writers counted a Martyr. So might one hanged for felony, and at his death repenting and detesting Papistry.

To the 47. that such as refused to renounce the Bishop of Rome's authority were excommunicated, it appeareth by the Council of Carthage. 3. Cap. 26. which forbad that the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop of the principal See, should be called the highest Priest, or the prince of Priests, or by any such title. Also the Council Mileuitanum doth excommunicate all them that appealed to the Bishop of Rome or any other out of Africa. Cap. 22. Yea he y ^t thought such appellations lawful, was excommunicated, by which it appeareth, y ^t though there be no express mention of an oath, yet an oath in that case upon good ground might be tendered.

To prove that a Friar of 60. years age being made Bishop did marry a woman of 19. years of age within six hundredth years after Christ, which is the eight and fortith article, it is impossible, because there was not any fryer in the world 1200. years after Christ.

To prove that any Bishop preached, that it is all one to pray in a dunghill and in a Church, which is the 49. article, is no assertion of ours neither of any man I think in the world.

To the • 0. that such as were no heretics, refused to subscribe to a general council gathered by the Bishop of Rome, is proved before by saint Cyprian and the Bishops of Africa of his time, also by Saint Augustine and the bishops of Africa in his time, which refused to subscribe to the Bishops of Rome, Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestinus pretending y ^e council of Nice for their authority, in receiving appeals, but when the true Copyes were brought from Alexandria and Constantinople, they wer • found falsifiers of the Nicene Council. Concilio Aphricano▪ cap 101. & 105.

After all these iollie questions he confesseth, he should do us wrong to require the probation of these articles, because many of them contain indifferent ceremonies, in many he sticketh vpō such terms, as he thinketh are not found in the ancient Fathers, in some he presseth us with particular words, leaving the general principle, and in some with private men's opinions: he might have added in some, with his own impudent lies and forgeries, which none of us do hold, and such he would make the Bishop • challenge to be, but the world hath sufficiently seen the contrary proved, that most of the matters contained in that challenge, be of the greatest mysteries of Popery, whereas these of M.Ra. witless and shameless devising, for the most part are not maintained at all in manner and form as he propoundeth them, and such as be material, are sufficiently proved. But now that he hath played the fool as he confesseth all this while, he promiseth to play the wise man in propounding matters of weight & substance, in which you shall see, that even as before he chargeth us to prove many things which we do not hold, and therefore he playeth not y ^e wise man, but the crafty merchant, to make the ignorant believe that we maintain, that we are not able to justify.

He divideth his challenge into four partes,