Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 4 · Section 49

Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues · Treatise 4 · Section 49

p. 777SECTIO. 49.Rastel.

M. Rastel protesting once or twise that he was wearie,Fulke. will now conclude with onelyonly confuting these conclusions of M. Iewels comparison. S. Iames Masse had Christes institution, they in their Masse hauehave well neere nothing else but mans inuention. To disproue this he saith, the epistle and Gospell, the collets of the Sunday, the Hymne of the Angell, y^e confession of faith, the saying of Agnus Dei, &c. are translated out of their Masse into our communion, therefore we take them for parte of Christes institution. I answere we take them as Christes institution, and not as commended by the Masse, and yet are they no parte of the communion, though they be vsed in our liturgie, some before, and some after the communion.

Secondly he would seeme to confute the Bishops saying, that Saint Iames Masse had Christes institution, because if we had thought so in deede, we would hauehave translated it into English, and so hauehave vsed it in steede of the Popish Masse, and then it would hauehave seemed more superstitious, and full of ceremonies then the Popish Masse. And so he rehearseth a number of superstitious ceremonies, gestures, and prayers that are in it. I answere, the Bishop said truely as he thought, that the liturgie falsely ascribed to Saint Iames, hath Christes institution concerning the Lorde Supper, notwithstanding it be ful fraught with idle ceremonies, and some superstitious and erronious prayers, whereas the Popish Masse hath cleane ouerturned the institution of Christ, touching the ende of the Lordes supper, reteyning well neere nothing of Christes institution, except you will say it hath bread and wine, which it most horribly abuseth to the prophanation of Christes death, and most filthie idolatrie.

Finally, the saluation of the virgine Marie whiche was then aliue, although it were more meere to be vsed to her person beeing aliue, then after she was departed p. 778out of this worlde) the prayer made for them that liued in monasteries, the tearme of consubstantiall not heard of in the Church before the Nicene councell, and many other argumentes doe sufficiently proue, that the saide liturgie was not written by Saint Iames the Apostle, nor by any that liued many hundreth yeares after him to the iudgements of al men that hauehave either knowledge to discerne trueth from falshoode, or conscience to acknowledge that which they can not choose but know. And euen Bartholomew Garanza a Papist, that gathered the abridgement of councels, affirmeth that the liturgie which Saint Iames vsed, is not extant at this day. O Lord bring into the way of trueth all such as erre of simplicitie, and be not mercifull to those that sinne of malicious wickednesse.

After this clearkly confutation, followeth a counterfet challenge (as he pretendeth) to shew the Bishops follie, but in deede to shewe his owne follie, and the weaknesse of his cause, which he learned not, (as he saith) of Salomon, to answere a foole according to his follie, but of Menalcas one of Virgils sheepheardes, in his thirde Eglogue, which when he could not answer the ridle propounded vntounto him by his aduersarie, he putteth for than other as harde as he thinketh: Dic quibus in terris, &c.

His first section conteineth 21. articles, whereof the greatest parte are not helde at all by any of vsus, therefore there is no cause why we should proue them, the rest be matters of meere indifferencie, which may be vsed or left vndon without any hurt of our religion, & some perhaps may be proued (which he litle thinketh of) to his shame.

Of the first sort are these 1. that there was no drie communion, and we say there ought to be none, although the Papistes make a drie communion, when they robbe the people of the cuppe of the Lordes bloud. The thirde that Bishops did not sweare by their honour: we affirme they ought not to sweare, nor yet by God, as I heard Boner sweare, being conuented before the Bishop of Winchester his Chauncelour, and a great number of persons p. 779beeing present.

The 4. that bagpipers, horscoursers, gailers, alebasters, were not admitted into the Cleargie without sufficient triall. We affirme they ought not, nor yet any of the scullerie or blacke garde, as some yet liuing were made Priestes in Queene Maries time.

The 6. that no Bishoppe not content with prisoning his aduersaries, call vppon Princes to put them to cruell death. We holde that no Bishop should imprison his aduersary, much lesse procure his death, but if the challenge had beene of Gods aduersaries, I would hauehave aunswered otherwise. For if in 600. yeares none of Gods aduersaries was, or ought to hauehave beene put to death, by procurement of Bishops, by what ground of antiquitie doe Popish Bishops procure so many to be put to death, yea murther them selues in their prisons and inquisitions, vnderunder pretence, that they be Gods aduersaries?

The 17. that no Bishoppe did gather beneuolence of his Cleargie to marrie his daughter, &c. We aunswere, this no way concerneth religion, no more then putting of the ring on the womans left hande, which is the 18. or calling the people by ringing of a bell whiche is the 21. Now concerning the rest, as the seconde, that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper except there be a good number to communicate, three or foure at the least, &c. is proued by the Canons of the Apostles, that Excommunicate all Christians that be present, and doe not communicate Can. 9. Also the first Epistle of Anacletus (which is good authoritie against a Papist) forbiddeth the priest or Bishop to sacrifice alone, and commandeth all the ministers that are present, to receiue with him in paine of excommunication. And appointeth what number shall be present. of deacons, namely on solemne dayes seuen, on other dayes fiue or three, beside Subdeacons & other ministers. These decrees do proue, that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper, but when there be a good number to communicate.

Concerning the 5. of distinction of Bishops or Priest… p. 780in apparell frō the laitie, which yet we hold to be a thing of his owne nature indifferent. Celestinus Bish. of Rome saith in an Epistle to the Bishops of France Epi. 2. Discern…ndi a plebe vel cęteris sumus doctrina non veste, conuersatione non habitu, mentis puritate non cultu. We must be discerned from the common people, or other men by doctrine, not by garment, by conuersation not by apparell, by purenes of minde, not by attyre.

To the 7. that the communion table was remoueable and carried too an fro, it is proued by Augustine, who In quest. vet. & Non test. ques. 101. saith, it was the office of the Deacons of Rome, as well as of all other Churches, to carrie the altar and the vessels thereof, and although he call it an altar in this place and many other, yet doeth he in as many places call it a table, and in his Epistle to Bonifacius Ep. 50. it appeareth, that it was made of boordes and not of stones.

To the 8. for saying communion on good Friday, although perhaps it might be proued by those fathers of the primitiue Church, that kept their feast of Easter after the manner of the Iewes, whiche was the 14. day of the monethmonth, whiche some tymes did fall vponupon that Friday whiche is called good Friday, yet beeing no matte… of religion, there is no cause why we should be bound to proue it.

The like I say to the 9. of singing of Gloria in excelsis after the communion, and to the 11. of saying the Creede of Athanasius vponupon principall holie dayes.

Concerning the 10. that the sacrament was ministred in the loafe bread vsually to be eaten at the table, it is proued by S. Cyprian In sermone de Caena Dom. whiche saith of that bread wherewith they did minister, Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem mutatus, procurat vitam & incraementum corpor…bus, &c. This common bread being chaunged into our flesh and bloud, procureth life and increase to our bodies.

Also by S. Ambrose Li. 4. Cap. 2. de sacram. Who rehearseth y^e obiection of the ignorant, saying. Tu forte dicis, meus p. 781panis est vsitatus, &c. Thou perhaps wilt say, my bread is cōmon & vsual bread. Also by Gregorie, which in his dialogues reporteth that two Coronae loaues of bread, were giuen to one that was thought to be a poore man in rewarde of his seruice in a bathe, but he being a guest, willed that the same shoulde bee offered in sacrifice for him.

To the 12. for the ministers wearing of a Cope or surplesse, which hold it to be no part of religion, and that the communion hath bene ministred in common apparell, we will go no further then our Sauiour Christ himselfe, Ioh. 13. and there is no question, but his Apostles and the primitiue Churche many hundreth yeares followed his example.

To the 13 that the words of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11. should be red at the ministration, rather thē of S. Mathewe, Marke, or Luke, it is a matter of meere indifferency, & yet better ordered, then your popishe canon, whiche rehearseth the wordes after none of all foure.

To the 14. that they vsed a common cup at the Communion, is prooued also by scripture, that our sauiour Christ ministred in the same cup, which he and his company had vsed at supper.

To the 15. that the curses of Gods law, should be redd vponupon Ashwednesday, we hold it not as a thing necessarie, but an order of indifferencie, vntill a better discipline be restored.

To y^e 16. concerning procession about the fields, we vse none but a perambulation, which is a matter of meere ciuill pollicie.

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

To the 20. that the minister in time of necessitie hath giuen the communion to one alone, is proued by the example of Seraphion, vsed of the Papist…, but vnfitly to defende your priuate masse, to whom being at the point of p. 782death, the communion was sent by the prieste, who at the same time also was so sicke that hee coulde not come himselfe, Eusebius libros 6. capitulo 44. and yet that communicatinge which we alowe, is but graunted to the infirmitie of suche as cannot bee perswaded to forbeare the sacramente, not as a thing simplie allowed.

If anye one man aliue, coulde prooue anye one of these articles by Scriptures, doctours or councelles, hee promiseth to subscribe, what I hauehave prooued, let the Reader iudge. After this followe twentie nine articles more.

The 22. that the bishoppe of Rome was not called Antichriste the cause was, that vntill after sixe hundreth yeare, the bishoppe of Rome was not Antichriste. But that Antichriste shoulde bee a Romaine, it is prooued by Irenaeus, Libro 5. and that Rome shoulde be the Sea of Antichriste Sainte Augustine testifieth, De ciuitate Dei, libro 16. capitulo 17. callinge Rome Westerne Babylon, and libro 18. capitulo 2. callinge Rome seconde Babylon, &c.

Also Hierome ad Marcellam, iudgeth Rome to bee Babylon, spoken of in the Apocalypse, and in praefati. in Didymum, hee calleth Rome Babylon, and the purple whore, and Algasiae Quest. 11. and manye places else.

Gregorie also affirmeth, that who so woulde bee called vniuersall bishoppe, was the forerunner of Antichriste, whiche was Iohn of Constantinople, also he prophesieth that Antichristes reuelation was at hande, and that an armye of priestes shoulde wayte vppon him, whiche was fulfilled in his nexte successour saue one, namely Bonifacius the thirde, whiche was the first Pope of Rome, that was called vniuersall bishoppe, and was Antichriste him selfe, as Iohn of Constantinople was his forerunner about the yeare of our Lorde, …10.

To the 23. that no consecration was required to the sacramente, but the vertue of the peoples fayth, is p. 783not holden of vsus, and therefore wee are not to prooue it.

To the 24. that the residue of the sacramentall bread, which was not receyued by any olde custome of the Church of Constantinople was giuen to young children that went to schoole, is prooued by Euagrius, libr. 4. cap. 36. whether to spredde their butter, as hee requireth is to shewe, or to eate it with cheese, or fleshe, &c. I cannot saye. Also I finde in Concilio Matisconensi. 2. Can. 6. that what so euer remained after the ministration, shoulde be giuen to yong children by the priest (not spred in deede with butter) but sprinkled with wine.

To the 25. that no man was conuented for affirminge the carnall maner of presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament, I aunswere, it was because there was no man founde which held that grosse heresie al that space of 600 yeres after Christ.

To the 26. that it was lawfull to hauehave but one communion in one Churche in one daye, I aunswere it was a custome of the Churche before Leo the firste, as appeareth in his 79. Epistle, who appointed that when the Communion woulde not serue all that came to the Churche, there might bee another celebrated, and that so often in one daye, as the people filled the Churche: and otherwise wee saye not of one Communion in a daye.

To the 27. that an Image of Christe, or of a Sainte was defaced and iudged vnlawfull to bee in the Churche of Christian men, is prooued by the Epistle of Epiphanius, who reporteth that he him selfe did reade such a one paynted on a vayle at Anablatha, which Epistle was translated out of Greeke by S. Hierome, and is in the 2. Tome of his workes.

The 28. of Bishoppes settinge vppe their owne, their wiues, or their childrens pictures, in their parlours and chambers, is a vaine matter, not touchinge religion anye thing at all.

p. 784The 29, that Christ deliuered his body to many more then his twelue Apostles, is no article of faith, neither greatly material, whether he did or did not, yet it is most probable, that seeing he did eate the olde sacrament of the Pascall lambe with the whole housholde that were his disciples, he did vntounto them also giuegive the newe sacrament of his bodie and blood.

The 30. that Iudas Machabaeus in offeringe for the dead, added to the lawe, it is manifest by the scripture, because there is no suche oblation appointed by the lawe. And yet his oblation helpeth not the papistes, because those for whom he offered, dyed in mortall sinne, beinge defiled with Idolatrie as the storie doth report.

To the 31. and 32. that a bishoppe did marrie after he was a bishoppe, or married the seconde or thirde wife, the first being dead, it is not vnlike, seeinge the scripture requireth no more abstinence from marriage in a bishop, then in any other man. Clemens as Eusebius testifieth, lib. 3. cap. 30. saith, Petrus & Philippus liberis procreandia operam dederunt. Peter the Apostle, and Philippe did beget childrē. Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22 saith, Multi illorum episcopatus tēpore etiam liberos ex legitimis vxoribus sustulerint. Manie of them, euen in the time that they were bishops, begat children of their lawfull wiues. As for M. Rastell termes of harlot and fyery passion, &c. I omit to speake of, as more meet for such a ruffian like railer, then worthy of any answere. The councell of Gangra in their Epistle to the bishops of Armenia, report it, as one of the heresies of the Eustachians, that priestes which hauehave contracted matrimony should be despised, and the sacramentes ministred by them should not be receiued. Praesbiteros qui matrimonia contraxerunt, sperni debere dicunt. Which wordes prooue that bishops married as well as priestes. The same councell Can. 4. accurseth them that make a difference betweene a married prieste and another, in respecte of his marriage.

To the 33. that preachers mooued not yong men and women not to be ashamed of lust, I saye, it is no parte of p. 785our doctrin, but a lewde slander imputed to Luther most vniustly, who speaketh of the desire of marriage & not otherwise.

To the 34. that eueryevery man should reade the scriptures & not giuegive eare to mans traditions it is the very counsell & words of Basil in his short definitions, quest. 65. Chrisostome doth often exhort al lay men to reade the Bible, in a great number of places.

To the 35 that Lent and Friday shoulde be fasted for polycie, and not for deuotion, we doe not hold, but that abstinence of flesh shoulde be vsed at such times, which is a matter of meere policie, as for abstinence of flesh for religions sake, was condempned in the counsell of Gangra. And Montanus the heretike was the first that made lawes of fasting. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 18.

To the 36. that Palme sonday was solemnised without bearing of bowes, it is proued at the least for three hundreth yeares after Christ, in which time all stories testifie, that the Church was for the most parte vnderunder persecution, and had no such processions about the streates, but rather kept them in secrete corners, y^e like I say for candels on Candelmas day, which coulde not be borne within 600. yeares of Christe, because Pope Sergius was the first that appointed them to be borne, whiche was seuen hundreth yeares after Christ. As for Masse on Christmasse day, I answere the same, the Masse was not all made within 600. years, if he speake of the popish Masse: if he speake of the communion, it is a thing indifferent whether it be celebrated that day or no.

To the 37. although the celebration of the natiuitie of Iohn baptist, be but a variable & indifferēt ceremony, yet may it be proued by many auncient homilyes, that it was kept within the compasse of 600, yeres. As for the feast of the natiuitie of the blessed Virgin Marye, or of her assumption, that they were not celebrated within that time, it is manifest, because they were not instituted many hundreth yeares after. As Durande confesseth the feast of the natiuitie, not to hauehave beene kept of old time. p. 786And touching the assumption, the verye lessons read in the popish mattyns on that day doe affirme, that manye doubted of her assumption, lect. 3. and also affirme, y^t she dyed and was buried, and that her sepulcher was shewed in the vale of Iosophat. lect. 2.

To 38. they that pray to God to bee defended by the ministery of Angels, whether it bee vppon the feast of S. Michaell, or any other day, hauehave the authoritie of y^e scripture, which declareth that they be ministring spirites appointed for the defence of them that shalbe saued. Psa. 34 Heb. 1. Neither do they seeke helpe at any other creatures handes but of God, onelyonly by the mediation of Christe, who desire God for Christes sake to helpe them by such spirituall or bodily ministers, or means, as hee hath appointed. For they worship God, and not the Angels, they pray to God, and not to Angles.

To the 39. for vsing the signe of the crosse in baptisme and not in the communion, I aunswer, we count it not needefull either in the one sacrament, or in the other.

To the 40. of throwing downe Aultars erected vntounto Christe, I aunswere: Ezechias is commended in scripture, for throwing downe the hill aultars erected vntounto GOD, and in which the people did offer sacrifice onelyonly to the Lorde, because they were not erected according to Gods commaundent, and yet was not hee accounted an heretike. 2. Regum. 18. Much lesse are they to bee called heretikes, that throwe downe the Popishe aultars whiche were set vp against the onelye Aulter and sacrifice of Christ and his passion, to the most blasphemous defacing of the same.

To y^e 41. y^t any bishop was maryed on Ashe wednesday, it is a foolish demaund to require the proofe, but that i… was lawful for a bishoppe to mary any day in the yeare, it is proued by y^e authoritie of scriptures, which exclude no day as vnlawfull to mary in.

To the 42. that no man did write that the gouernemēt of women was monstrous, we grant, neither do we holde p. 787this article though some one man hauehave witten it.

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

This is my body, y^t is to say, this is a figure of my body contra Marc li 4. S. Ambrose: ipse clamat dominus Iesus, hoc est corpus meum. Ante bedectionem verborum caelestium alia speci…s nominatur, post consecrationem, corpus Christi significatur ▪ Our Lorde Iesus himselfe saith alowd: This is my body. Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes, it is called another kinde, after consecration, the body of Christ is signified. Deijs qui myster. init. Chrysostome sayeth of the sanctified vessels, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur. In which the very bodie of Christ is not, but the mysterie of the bodie of Christe is conteined▪ in Mat. Hom. 11. Augustine sayeth: 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 writen, that bloud is the life of the beast, beside that which I sayed before, that it perteineth not to me what is done w^t the life of a beast, I may also interprete that commaundement to consist in a signe. For our Lord doubted not to saye, This is my bodie, when hee did giuegive a signe of his bodie, cont… Adamantum. In this same Augustine sheweth that these wordes hoc est corpus meum, are to be taken in the same sense, that these words sanguis est anima pecoris, where est, is manifestly taken for significat by his iudgement, & there is no one article wherein we differ from the Papistes, that hath more plentifull confirmation in the doctours of our doctrine therein, then this of the carnall presence of Christ in the sacrament.

To the 44. that the lay people communicating did take the cuppe one at anothers hand, it appereth by the words of Basill in Ep. ad Caesar. Patri. for of those that dwelled in the wildernesse, where no Priest was, (saith hee,) p. 788a seipsis communicant they receiue of themselues, or one of another. And in Alexandria, and Aegypt eueryevery one of the people hath the communion in his house, and receiue 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 euen in the Church the Priest giueth one part, and he which receueth it, taketh it with all libertie, and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand. Therefore it is the same in vertue, whether a man take one part of the Priest, or more partes together. Also it appeareth by the 6. Councell of Constantinople, Can. …8. that before that time Lay men in presence of the Bishop, Elder, or Deacon, did diuide y^e deuine mysteries among thē selues, which vntil then was not forbiddē. Our Sauiour Christe also hauing once deliuered the cup, did not take it into his handes so often as eueryevery one of his disciples did drinke, but willed them to diuide it among them selues. Luc. 22.

To the 45. that a controuersie of religion being decided by the Byshop of Rome, the contrary parte was not taken for heresie, nor the mainteiners thereof for heretikes, is proued by the controuersie of rebaptising them that were baptised by heretikes, which when Cornelius and Stephanus Bishops of Rome had decided, yet was not the contrary opinion taken for heresie, nor Saint Cyprian & al the bishops of Affrica which agreed vppon it in a councel at Carthage, counted for heretikes: a matter notoriously knowen to all them that reade Cyprians workes, or Euseb. lib. 7. Cap. 3. which vtterly ouerthroweth the popes authoritie.

To the 46. that any executed for felony, was put in the kalendar for a Martyr, is a thing needelesse to proue, yet the penitent theefe whiche being crucified with Christ, was executed iustly for his offences, is of good writers counted a Martyr. So might one hanged for felonie, and at his death repenting and detesting Papistrie.

p. 789To the 47. that such as refused to renounce the Bishop of Romes authoritie were excommunicated, it appeareth by the Councell of Carthage. 3. Cap. 26. which forbad that the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop of the principal See, should be called the highest Priest, or the prince of Priestes, or by any such title. Also the Councel Mileuitanum doth excommunicate all them that appealed to the Bishop of Rome or any other out of Aphrica. Cap. 22. Yea he y^t thought such appellations lawfull, was excommunicated, by which it appeareth, y^t though there be no expresse mention of an othe, yet an othe in that case vponupon good ground might be tendered.

To proue that a Fryer of 60. yeares age being made Bishop did marry a woman of 19. yeares of age within sixe hundreth yeares after Christ, which is the eight and fortith article, it is impossible, because there was not any fryer in the worlde 1200. yeares after Christ.

To proue that any Bishop preached, that it is all one to pray in a dunghill and in a Church, whiche is the 49. article, is no assertion of ours neither of any man I thinke in the worlde.

To the …0. that such as were no heretikes, refused to subscribe to a generall councell gathered by the Byshop of Rome, is proued before by saint Cyprian and the Byshops of Aphrica of his time, also by Saint Augustine and the bishopps of Aphrica in his time, which refused to subscribe to the Bishops of Rome, Zosimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus pretending y^e councel of Nice for their authority, in receiuing appeales, but when the true Copyes were brought from Alexandria and Constantinople, they wer… found falsifiers of the Nicen Councel. Concilio Aphricano▪ cap 101. & 105.

After all these iollie questions he confesseth, he should do vsus wrong to require the probation of these articles, bicause many of them containe indifferent ceremonies, in many he sticketh vpō such termes, as he thinketh are not found in the auncient Fathers, in some he presseth vsus with particular wordes, leauing the generall principle, and in p. 790some with priuate mens opinions: he might hauehave added in some, with his own impudent lyes and forgeries, which none of vsus do holde, and such he would make the Bishop… challenge to be, but the world hath sufficiently seene the contrarie proued, that most of the matters contained in that challenge, be of the greatest mysteries of Poperie, whereas these of M.Ra. witlesse and shamelesse deuising, for the most part are not maintained at all in manner and forme as he propoundeth them, and such as be materiall, are sufficiently proued. But nowe that he hath played the foole 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 euen as before he chargeth vsus to proue many things which we do not hold, and therefore he playeth not y^e wise man, but the craftie marchant, to make the ignorant beleeue that wee maintaine, that we are not able to iustifie.

He diuideth his challenge into foure partes,

the first hath three Articles.

To the first, that it is vnlawful to make a vowe to God of chastitie, obedience, or pouertie. I answere, it is vnlawfull to make a vowe of that which is not in a mans power to performe, as is the vowe of Virginitie, which is a gift not giuen to all, as our sauiour Christ testifieth. Matt. 19. Also Conciliū Arasicanū 2. decreed. ca. 11. De obligatione votorū. Nemo quicquam Domino rectè vouerit, nisi ab ipso acceperit, sicut legitur. Quae de manu tua accepimus damus tibi. Of the bonde of vowes. No man shall rightly vowe any thing to the Lord, except he hauehave receiued it of him, as it is read. Such things as we hauehave receiued of thy hand, we giuegive to thee. That breakers of such vowes were esteemed aboue others as singular witnesses of the libertie of the Gospell, is no part of our assertion. But that their meaning is honest, is proued by Leo B. of Rome Ep. 90. speaking of a Monke: Vnde qui relicta singularitatis professione ad militiam vel ad nuptial d…uolutus est, publicae paenitentiae satisfactione purgandus p. 791est, quia etsi innocens militia & honestum potest esse coni…gium, electionem tamen meliorem deseruisse, transgressio est. Wherefore he which hath forsaken the profession of sole life, and fallen to warfare or marriage, must be purged by satisfaction of open repentance, bicause that although his warfare may be harmelesse, and his marriage honest, yet it is a transgression to hauehave forsaken his better choyse.

To the second, that it was abhominable to make any sacrifice to God, beside the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in words, & the figures for his benefites, with remembrance of his passion, &c. I proue by the authoritie of Iustinus, which affirmeth, that these were the only sacrifices deliuered vntounto the Christians, therefore it was abhominable to vse any other. His wordes are in his Dialogue with Tryphon against the Iewes, foreign. For I my selfe doe affirme, y^t prayers and thankesgiuings made by worthie persons, are y^e only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God. For these are the only sacrifices y^t Christians hauehave receiued to make, to be put in mind by their drie and moyst nourishment, of the passion which God the sonne of God is recorded to hauehave suffered for them. Here note, that he calleth the sacrament drie and moyst nourishment.

To the third, that there was no Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, but onelyonly the Priesthoode of our Sauiour Christ, it is manifest by the 110. Psalme, that the Priesthood pertaineth to him that sitteth at the right hand of God, euen to the Lord Iesus Christe: also by the Apostle to the Hebrues 5. & 7. Chapter: in which it is saide that he hath that Priesthoode, foreign, that is, so peculiar to him, as it passeth not by succession: Neither was there euer any greater blasphemie, then that eueryevery Popish Priest should bee a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, to offer Christe to his Father.

And that Priestes hauehave not a singular sacrifice to offer p. 792for the sinnes of the people, is proued by S. Augustine … Contra aduersar leg & prophe. who calleth y^e death of Christ, V…um singulare, & solum verum sacrificium, that one, singular, and onelyonly true sacrifice, in which the bloud of Christe was shed for vsus. But the Papistes call their blasphemous sacrifice, an vnbloudie sacrifice, therefore they hauehave not any singular sacrifice for the sinnes of the people.

The second part containeth 12. Articles in which he falsly chargeth Caluine in his institutions with diuers Articles, which neither he nor any of vsus doe holde.

The first, that the sacrament of baptisme instituted by Christ, is no better then the circumcision of the old lawe, is proued by Saint Augustine, which saith, in Ioan. Tr. 26. speaking of the sacraments of the old law, that they were in fignis diuersa in re quae significatur, paria, diuers in signes, equall in the thing signified.

The second, that baptisme is a signe onelyonly of our profession, and that our sinnes are not truly forgiuen in it, is no doctrine of ours, but of the Anabaptistes, mightily confuted by Caluine, whome he slaundereth to hold it.

The 3. that confirmation ought to be a sacrament is an inuention of man plaine, for that it is not taught in the scriptures to be an institution of Christ. Irenęus testifieth, that the annointing with sweete oyle came first of the Valentinian heretiques. Lib. 1. cap. 18. Also in S. Hieromes time, the Priestes made the oyle of Chrisme, and laide on their handes, and not the Bishop only. In Sophon. cap. 3▪ For a Bishop did nothing more then a Priest, but only in ordeining of ministers Hier. Euagrio. Wherevpon it followeth, that the Popish confirmation was not then a sacrament, which they hold can be ministred of none, but of a Bishop.

The fourth, that Christ deliuered in his last supper a figure only of his body to be eaten of his Apostles, is none of our assertions, for we affirme that he deliuered breade and wine, not as a figure onelyonly, but as his very body and bloud spiritually to be eaten and dronken.

p. 793The 5. that the power of forgiuing and reteyning sinnes which Christ gaue to his Apostles, is nothing else but a comforting or fearing of mens consciences by the promises or menaces of the scripture, &c. is not affirmed of vsus, but that Christ hath giuen power to his ministers to assure the penitent of forgiuenesse in his name, to pronounce his iudgment to the vnrepentant: so that man followeth the sentence of God, and not God of man.

To the …. that to confesse a mans sinnes to the priest, is a vaine and superstitious trauell, is proued by Chrysostome In Psalmo. 50. Non dico vt confitearis conseruo tuo vt exprobret, dicito Deo, qui curat ea. I bidde thee not confesse thy sinnes to thy fellowe seruaunt, that he may vpbraide thee, tell them to God which healeth them. That to seek to make vp a ful and perfect satisfaction by fasting, praying, almesdeedes, &c. is iniurious to the passion and merites of Christ, is proued by that saying of S. Iohn. The bloud of Iesus Christ doth purge vsus from all sinnes, and if we confesse our sinnes he is faithful and righteous, that he will forgiue our sinnes and purge vsus from all vnrighteousnesse. 1. Ioan. 1.

The 7. that the knowledge of the scriptures is a sufficient licence for a man to be a publike teacher in the Church, we denie: likewise, that there is no difference betweene the ministerie of the Churche and the people, althoughe that to speake properly of the terme priesthoode, all true Christians are alike Priestes to God, as it is most manifest. 1. Pet. 2. vers. 5. & Apoc. 1. verse 6.

To the 8. That Christian Princes had the auhoritie of supream head ouer the church in y^t sense, which it is giuen to our souereigne, is proued by Constantine, Theodosius, Martianus &c. who called the generall councels, made lawes for establishment of religion, punished Bishoppes and other of the Cleargie offenders, and not onelyonly the Emperours, but also many other Kinges of Spaine and Fraunce, who had the like authoritie in their Dominions, as appeareth in all histories, and in the actes of the councels generall and prouinciall.

p. 794The 9. that faith onelyonly iustifieth after one be baptised and sanctified, is proued by Basil in an Homily of humilitie Hom. 51. speaking of a man baptised and sanctified: Haec enim est perfecta ac integra gloriatio in Deo, quando neque ob iustitiam suam quis se iacta…, sed nouit quidem seipsum verè iusti…ię indigum esse, sola autem fide in Christum iustificatum. For this is a full and perfect reioycing in God, when a man doeth not boast himselfe of his righteousnes, but knoweth him selfe truely to be voide of true righteousnesse, and to be iustified by onelyonly faith in Christe.

The 10. that all the iustice and holinesse of good men is but an imputatiue iustice &c. is not saide of vsus which affirme, that faith onelyonly is imputed for righteousnesse and not the holines or iustice of any man. But we affirme that all the workes of men, be they neuer so holie and righteous, are imperfect, and therefore deserue not the rewarde of Iustice promised in the lawe to the perfect obseruers thereof, and to none other.

The 11. y^t the keeping of 40. dais fast, had no cōmandement from Christ or his Apostles, it is manifest by Eusebius, which affirmeth that Montanus the heretike was the first that prescribed lawes of fasting. Lib. 5. Cap. 16. also he reporteth y^t there was no certeintie of the time of fasting before Easter, for some fasted one day, some two dayes, some more, some compting their day 40. houres of day and night. Lib. 5. Cap. 20. And Augustine plainely sayeth, Quibus autem diebus non oportet ieiunare, & quibus oporteat, pręcepto Domini vel Apostolorum non inuenio definitum. What dayes we ought not to fast, or what dayes we ought to fast. I finde it not defined by the commandement of our Lord, or of his Apostles. As for y^e abstinence from flesh in Lent for ciuill pollicies sake, because it toucheth not religion, we neede shew no proofe of it.

To the 12. that aneiling of Christians, hath ben abhorred of Christians, it is hard to proue, because y^t Popish aneiling by the Priests with oyle consecrated by the Bishop, was not in vse in that time. The first that is read to vse suche like aneiling about 400. yeres atfer Christ was Innocentius p. 795who appointed that al christian men vnderunder his obedience should vse oyle as witnesseth Sigebertus. But Durand and other writers, ascribe the institution of this extreame vnction to Felix the fourth, who liued about 514. yeares after Christ, so that vntil that time, this Popishe sacrament was not knowen in the Church. And as for reseruation of the sacrament of the altar forbidden, I shall need no better authoritie for M. Rastel, then the counterfet epistle of Clemens Bishop of Rome Epi. 2. Tanta in altario Holocausta offerantur quanta populo sufficere debent. Quòd si remanserint, in crastinum non reseruentur, sed cum timore & tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur. Let so many hosts be offered in the altar, as may serue the people. But if any remaine, let them not be reserued vntil the next day, but with feare and trembling spent out by the diligence of the Clearks. And for other men y^t can discerne trueth frō forgerie, the testimonie of Euagrius, Li. 4. ca. 36. may serue, which reporteth an old custome of y^e church of Cō stantinople, to send for childrē y^t went to schoole to spend whatsoeuer remained of the sacrament after y^e cōmunion.

The thirde parte conteineth foure articles.

To the first, that calling vponupon Saints in heauen was accounted then blasphemie, is proued by S. Augu. which so accoūted calling vponupon Angels or any other creature. Conf. Li. 11. Cap. 42. Quem inuenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi? an eundum mihi fuit ad Angelos? qua prece? Quibus sacramentis? Whom should I finde that might reconcile me vntounto thee? Should I hauehave gone to y^e Angels? With what prayers? With what sacraments? And yet I confesse some seedes of that errour were scattered in his time. But before his time Epiphanius rehearseth it among the heresies of the Caiani, that they did call vponupon angels Tom. 3. Haeres. 38. and calling vponupon dead men he compteth it an heresie of the Heracleonites Hae. 36. And Contra Collyridianos he vtterly condemneth al worshipping either of dead Saints, or any else, or the virgine Marie, as them that robbe God of his honour, for what greater honour can we doe vntounto God then to call vponupon him in al our afflictions▪ Psal. 50. And Dauid saieth: p. 796Whom hauehave I in the heauen but thee: and I hauehave desired none in the earth with thee. Psal. 73.

To the second, that the setting vp of images of Christe in Churches was counted idolatrie, it is manifest by Epiphanius, who as he testifieth in his epistle vntounto Iohn bishop of Ierusalem, did rend a vaile in which such an image was painted: Cum ergo hoc vidissem, in Ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud, &c. When I had seene this thing, that in the Churche of Christ, contrarie to the authoritie of scriptures, an image of a man did hang, I rent it in peeces, &c. As for y^e signe of the crosse I hauehave shewed before out of Irenaeus, that the Valentinian heretikes were the first that had it in estimation, although afterward it grew to be esteemed of good Christians, by a corrupt emulation.

To the 3. that visiting of Saints tombes, and kissing their reliques after the Popish manner, was thought to be a superstitious vanitie, is proued by the Epistle of the Smyrnenses to the Phylomilienses Euseb. Lib. 4. Cap. 16. Wherein they shew, that the Gentiles and Iewes thought best to burne the bodie of Policarpus, least the Christians should leaue Christ and begin to worship him, and therefore they watched the Christians, least they should, take his bodie out of the fire, Ignorantes nos nec vnquam &c. beeing ignorant (say they) that we can neuer forsake Christ, which suffered for all them that shall be saued of the worlde, nor worship any other. For him truly we adore as the sonne of God, but the Martyrs we louelove worthily as the Disciples and followers of our Lord, for their inuincible louelove towardes their King and Maister, of whō we wish our selfes to be made companions and Disciples. Therefore when the Centurian saw the contention of the Iewes, they burned his bodie as their maner is being laid in the midst, and so at the length we got his bones, more precious then precious stones, & better tried then gold, & buried thē where it was meet, where also as neere as may be, being assembled, the Lorde shall graunt vsus with ioye and gladdenesse to celebrate his Martyrs byrth day▪ p. 797both to the remembraunce of them that hauehave fought alreadie, and for the exercise and preparation of them that shall fight hereafter.

Such reuerent burning therfore of their dead corpses, & laying vp of their reliques, as is of louelove & not of superstition, we condēne not. But such as y^e papists vsed of their reliques, they learned of the heretikes Osseni which as Epiphanius writeth, tooke the spittle and other fylthines of the bodies of Marthys and Marthana, whom they took for saintes, and vsed them for helpe of diseases, as the papists did with y^e snottie napkins of Thomas Becket, such a saint as they were. And y^t they should not obiect, y^t some hauehave done as they doe, S. Augustine De moribus eccles. Cath. lib. 1. cap 34. Thus writeth. Nolite mihi colligere professores nominis Christiani, ne que professionis suae vim aut scientet aut exhibentes. Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum, qui vel in ipsa vera religione superstitiosi sunt, vel ita libidinibus dediti, et obliti sint quid promiserint Deo. Noui multos esse sepulchrorum vt picturarum adoratores. Gather not vntounto me such professors of the name of Christ for example, as neither know nor shewe forth the vertue of their profession. Seeke not vp the multitudes of vnskilfull persons, which ether in true religion it selfe are superstitious, or else so giuen to their lustes, that they hauehave forgotten what they hauehave promised to God. I know there be many worshippers of tombes and pictures, &c.

To the 4. that miracles worked at their chappelles or memorie (among the heretikes as the papists be) were attributed at the firste tydinges of them vntounto the diuilles subtiltie, is proued by S. Augustine, who speaking of miracles wrought at such places, saith De vnitate ecclesiae cap. 1…. Remoueantur ista, vel figmenta mendacium hominum, vel portenta fa…lacium spirituum, aut enim non sunt vera quae dicuntur, aut si … atiqua mirafacta sunt, magis cauere debemus. Away with these miracles, which are either the forgeries of lying men, or the wonders of deceiuing spirites, for either chose things that are reported be not true, or if any miracles of the heretike are wrought, we ought so muche the p. 798more to take heede of you.

The fourth part conteineth 3. articles.

To the first, that to praye for the soules departed, was thought repugnāt to the scriptures, is proued by this reason, for that although it be an ancient errour, yet was it not vsed of the Churche almost for 200. yeares after Christ, and the first that we reade of in any authenticall writer that maketh mention of prayer for the deade, was Tertulian, when he was an heretike, whiche learned it of Martianus who laide the firste foundation of purgatorie, as appeareth in his booke De anima cap de infe…is.

To the seconde, that to offer sacrifice and giuegive almes for their soules health, was accompted impietie, I aunswere as to the first, vppon which it dependeth. Origenes in Iob. lib. 3. sayeth that the Christians did celebrate the day of death, Vtpote omnium dolorum depositionem, as the layinge aside of all paine. Likewise that they did keepe the memorie of their friendes departed, as well reioysinge in their rest, as prayinge for the lyke godly endinge in faith.

Also they called together the people with the Cleargie, and especially the poore to their buriall feastes, vt fiat festiuitas nostra in memoriam requiei defunctis animabus, quarum memoriam celebramus, nobis autem efficiatur in odorem suauitatis in conspectu aeterni Dei, that our feastiuitie may bee made in remembraunce of the reste, whiche is vntounto the soules of them that are departed, whose memorie we celebrate and to our selues into a sauoure of sweete smellinge in the sight of the eternall God. This was the iudgement of the Greeke Churche in his time, of suche assemblies, prayers, and almes, as was vsed at the buryall of the deade, or in remembraunce of them.

To the thirde, that the last willes of founders of almes houses, Colledges, and monasteries, were broken concerning p. 799their temporall goodes, and legacies, and that no part thereof did come to their owne blood and familie, concerning almes houses and Colledges of learninge, it neede not bee prooued, for they are maintained by our doctrine.

Concerninge Monasteries there were none then, but of suche as liued with their owne labours. Neuerthelesse if anye legacie of anye founder were to mainetayne Idolatrie and false religion, as there were manye of the Paganes whiche were founders of Idolatrous temples and Colledges, lyke to the popishe monasteries, it is certeine that either they were destroyed, or else conuerted to better vses.

Now if Master Rastell thinke it to bee necessarie, that their legacies shoulde be restored to their owne blood and familie, vppon the dissolution of such houses, hee might doe well to perswade a nomber of popishe gentlemen in Englande that enioye abbeies and their lands, to make such restitution, and when hee hath brought to passe that all which they hauehave is so restored, wee will beginne likewise to exhort godly gentlemen to doe the like, or rather to applye some part of them to the maintenance of learning and religion, and to the sustentation of the poore.

After Maister Rastell hath earnestlye required the aunswere of these questions, whiche hauehave bene so often aunswered in speciall treatises, (I meane so manye of them as wee maintaine) with promise of submission if they be proued, he desireth licence to rehearse the saying of Tertulian in his booke De praescriptionibus aduersus haereticos, which is such (as hee saieth) that euen religion muste agree to it, if with anye reason it will bee credited.

But in deed it is suche, as while Tertulian followed too muche, hee fell from the Catholike Church to be an heretike. The summe of that saying which M. Rast. hath shamefully gesded, & falsely translated, so that it seemeth p. 800he hath not red it in Tertulians booke, but in some mans notes, that hath ioyned together as it were cantles or patches of Tertulians saying: the effecte (I saie) is this. That because some heretikes of his time receiued not all the scriptures, and those which they did receiue, they receiued not whole, but by additions and detractions, corruptions and wrong expositions, they peruerted them to their purpose, his iudgement was, that against such heretikes, the triall was not to bee made by scriptures, by which the victorie should either be none, or vncertaine, or not sure: and therefore in as much as they were not agreed what was scripture, and how great was the authoritie thereof, he thought that the order of disputinge required, that these questions shoulde first be decided. VntoUnto whom the Christian faith pertaineth: whose are the scriptures: of whom: and by whom: and when: and to whom the learning is deliuered, by which men are made Christians.

For where it shall appeare, that the trueth of the Christian learning and faith is, there shalbe the trueth of the scriptures and of the expositions, and of all Christian traditions. This is the iudgement of Tertulian, But seeinge we receiue all the scriptures Canonicall, without addition or detraction, yea and for the principal articles of our religion, wherein we differ from the papistes, we receiue the exposition of the most auncient writers, both of the Greeke and Latine Churche: not bringinge in any newe doctrine, but requiring that the olde doctrine may be restored, this rule of Tertulian doth not concerne vsus. Yet are we able to aunswere to all his demaundes without any taryinge, and so as it shall satisfie Tertulian or anye man that vnderstandeth him. We say that Christian faith pertaineth to true Christians, and that the scriptures are theirs also.

We say also, that the learning by which men are made Christians, was deliuered of Christ, by his Apostles, and Euangelistes, in the time of the raigne of Tiberius the Emperour, first vntounto the Iewes, and after vntounto the Gentiles, p. 801making one vniuersall Chruch dispersed ouer the whole worlde. And the trueth of this Christian learning and faith thus and then deliuered, we do hold and mainteine, therefore by Tertullians rule, the truth of y^e scriptures and expositions & all Christian traditions are with vsus, & the rather because it cannot be proued that we hold any one article of beliefe, but the same is conteined in y^e manifest wordes of the scriptures, by which onelyonly it may be tryed, what learning Christ deliuered to his Apostles, and they to the churches. For seeing the memory of man cānot ascende vntounto so many hundreth yeares, the certeine remembrance must be had out of Records of writings, & for so much as no writings are either so auncient, or so credible as y^e holy scriptures, the trial must be onelyonly by y^e scriptures, notwithstanding Tertullians opinion, as Augustine teacheth in many places of his writings against the Donatistes.

After this discourse vponupon Tertullian, he addeth sixe articles more, falsely pretending that they are the demaundes of Tertullian, but altering them into the manner of a challenge, where as I hauehave both set forth and answered Tertullians demaundes, according to his owne words and meaning.

The first is, if we can proue by any sufficient and likely argument that we hauehave any true Christian faith at all among vsus, for faith (saith hee) cleaueth vntounto authoritie which they can neuer shewe for themselues &c: In deede suche faith as cleaueth vntounto mennes authoritie, wee hauehave none, but suche as cleaueth vntounto the worde of God: as saint Paule saith, faith commeth by hearing of the worde of God, which is onelyonly true Christian faith, wee hauehave the whole faith of Christians, as we do dayly proue, not onelyonly by the auctoritie of scriptures, but also by the testimony of aunciēt writers agreeable to the same. And because he is so impudent to deny that we hauehave any true Christian faith at all, I demaunde of him, why hee doth not then rebaptise those that are baptised of vsus, seing he is persuaded, that neither the minister nor the godfathers, p. 802(whose faith according to their doctrin, maketh much fo… baptisme) hauehave any true Christian faith at all?

The seconde, that the scriptures are deliuered vntounto vsus, that we be the right keepers of them, is proued by this argument, that we be the church of God vntounto whome the scriptures and the custodie of them perteineth. That wee are the church of God we proue by this argumēt, that we beleeue and teach all that and nothing else but y^t, which God by his holy scriptures hath appointed to be beleeued and taught for Christian faith.

The thirde, we knowe from whome wee hauehave receiued the gospel, not from y^e Papists. Namely frō y^e doctrine of god and his holy spirite, from such ministers as were stirred vp of God and lightened with his spirite according to the scriptures, and from the books of the Greekes and Hebrues, and not of the papists.

The fourth, we knowe by what successours the gospell came vntounto vsus from God the authour of it, euen from the prophets and Apostles, Euangelistes, pastours and teachers of the church of all ages, florishing in sight of the worlde vntill the comming and tyrany of Antichrist had ouerwhelmed all the worlde with darkenesse, by whom they were persecuted and driuen into corners, according to the prophecie of Christe in the Apocalipse cap. 12. but yet so as they alwayes continued and testified the trueth, oftentimes openly protesting against Antichrist, vntill nowe at the length the time being come in which Antichrist must be consumed, they are againe brought into the sight of the worlde, and the kingdome of Antichrist is made obscure, ignominious, & contemptible.

The fift. we knowe at what time the Gospell was first delyuered vntounto the Church of the gentiles, namely in the reigne of Tiberius, in whose time Christ suffered, since which time it hath alwayes continued, and shall do to the end of the worlde.

To the sixt. wherein he requireth vsus to shew the foundatiō of some Church, house, communion table, or booke &c. by which it may bee gathered that a true apostolike p. 803religion was within the 600. yeares as void of ornamēts, ceremonies, reuerence, distinction of places and dignities, sacraments and solemnities perteining to sacraments as ours is. I answere, our religion hath all sacraments, ornaments, ceremonies, distinction, solemnities, reuerence, necessarie vntounto eternall life, and therfore to shewe a monument of a religion voide of these, it perteineth not to vsus. Beside that it is a foolishe and vnreasonable demaund, for vsus to shewe any such monument remaining aboue 900. yeares, when by so often inuasion of enemies and mutation of states, as hath fallen in the worlde, other monuments could not remain, but learned writings out of which we hauehave often proued our religiō to be the same, that was in the most auncient and purest times of those 600. yeares after Christ.

In the conclusion Maister Rastell protesteth, vntil the aunswere be deuised, that he will continue in that faith which Augustine y^e Monke receiued of Gregory y^e great, and he of Pelagius, & Pelagius of Benedictus, and so reherseth y^e Bishops names of Rome vntounto Peter who receiued his doctrine of Christ: whiche is nothing else but a popish bragge. For neither is he nor al the rablement of them able to proue, that Christ deliuered to Peter, or Peter to Clemens a greate number of articles of doctrine, that Augustine deliuered to the Saxons, neither that he and his fellow Papists, do hold all that doctrine & faith, which Augustine receiued of Gregory, & Gregory of Pelagius &c. ascending to y^e heighest. For a great number of errours and corruptions hauehave since that time crept into the Church, that neither Augustine nor Gregory euer heard off.

FINIS.