Ptōchomuseion [sic]. = The poore mans librarie Rapsodiæ G.A. Bishop of Exceter vpon the first epistle of saint Peter, red publiquely in the cathedrall church of saint Paule, within the citye of London. 1560. Here are adioyned at the end of euery special treatie, certaine fruitful annotacions which may properly be called miscellanea, bicause they do entreate of diuerse and sundry matters, marked with the nombre and figures of Augrime. 2.

Both kindes. 11.

BEsides the scriptures whyche are sufficiente to confirme all verities, and to confute al heresies, as saint Ciprian writeth, sai∣ing: Si ad diuinae traditionis caput & originem reuertaris, ces∣sat omnis error humanus. If ye wil returne to the head and beginning of Gods ordinaunce, al errour of man wil sone geue place.

That both the kindes are to be receiued vnder the pain of sacrilege. Gelasius writeth, his words be these:* 1.1 Comperimus autem quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis sacra portione, a calice sacri cruoris absti¦neant. Qui procul dubio (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur a∣stringi) aut integrum sacrum percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Quia diuisio vnius eiusdemque misterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire. That is. Vve perceiue, that certain receiuing onely the sacred portion of the body, do abstain from the holy bloud, who without doubt, either let them receiue the whole, or els let them be restrained from the

whole, for the diuision of one & the same mistery cannot be done with∣out great sacriledge.

As for the glose which is written vpon this decree, I compt no better then a banbery glose, for the decree semeth not so muche to pertaine to the Priests, as to the people. Theophilus Alexandrinus writeth thus: Si Christus mortuus fuisset pro diabolo, non negaretur ei poculū sangui¦nis. If Christ had died for the diuel, the cup of the bloud shoulde not be denied vnto hym.

S. Ambrose hath a very good & euident saying concerning this matter. Valet (inquit) ad tuitionem corporis et animae quod percipimus, quia ca¦ro Christi pro salute corporis, sanguis vero pro anima nostra offertur, si¦cut praefigurauit Moyses, caro, inquit, pro corpore vestro, sanguis pro a∣nima, sed tamen sub vtraque specie sumitur, quod vtrumque valet. Sub vtraque sumitur totus ipse Christus. Sed si in altera tantum sumeretur, ad alterius tantum, id est, animae vel corporis, non vtriusque pariter, vale¦re tuitionem significaretur. Haec Ambrosius. That which we receiue, a∣uaileth to the tuition both of body and soule, bicause the fleshe of Christ is offered for the health of the body, the bloude for the soule, as Moyses presumed saying: flesh is offred for the body, bloud for the soule. But yet is it receiued vnder both kindes, which auaileth vnto both, bicause vn∣der both Christ wholy is receiued. But if it should be receiued vnder one kinde, it should be signified, that it doth profit onely one part, that is, either bodye or soule, and doth not auaile to the tuition of both partes. Vvhat can be spoken or written more plaine, than this? And by this you may perceiue, that Sathan practised euen at that time, in which he wēt about to ouerthrow the institution of Christ.

The same Ambrose (as it is recorded in the tripartite history) spea∣keth vnto Theodosius the Emperour, (who would haue presumed to cō¦municate after his great murther) after this maner. Quomodo huius∣modi manibus suscipies sanctū domini corpus? Qua temeritate ore tuo poculum sanguinis preciosi percipies? quando frurore verborum tuorū tantus iniuste sanguis est effusus. That is. How with those handes woul∣dest thou receiue the holy body of the Lord? Vvith what rashnes wylte thou receiue in thy mouth the cup of the precious bloude, seing so much bloud hath bene shed wrongfully by thy furious minde?

Saint Austine, Cum frangitur, inquit, hostia, dum sanguis de calice in ora fidelium funditur, quid aliud, quam dominici corporis incruce im¦molatio, eiusque sanguinis de latere effusio designatur? That is. Vvhen the host is broken, whē the bloud is poured out of the cup, into the mou∣thes of the faithful, what other thing is signified, but the offering of the body vpon the crosse, and the effusion of his bloud out of his side?

I trust you wil not so restraine saint Austines wordes, that you wyll cal onely priestes faythful, and seclude all lay men, you should doo then

to much iniury vnto them.

Your archfather of all Papistes in his time (Pighius by name) doth graunt, that the receiuing of one kinde of the lay people, came into the west church by no institution or commaundemēt, either Sinodal, or els of the Bishops of Rome, but by a secrete consent, which continuing for a time, they made a custome, and so a law.

Gardener, the great god of the Papists of Englande, sayth, that it crept in by supersticion of the lay sorte. By this you may perceiue, that it was not from Christ nor the Apostles time, nor long after that the one part was denied vnto the laity. By this you may know, vpon what foun∣dacion it was builded, and how good it is.

They haue a rule in their own law. Quae a principio male inchoata fuit institutio, temporis contractu non conualescit. That is The thinge that was naught at the beginning, cannot be good by processe of time.

I much maruail, that the general counsell of Trident, at the last Ses∣sions, had no better regarde to this saying of the law.

But how wickedly they haue decreed, and how profoundlye they be answered and confounded, it appeareth in the aunswer made vnto them in a certaine booke lately set foorth, wher you shal reade at the ful, how pithely they be answered.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Dist. 2. cano. Conperimus