A04482:517
The true copies of the letters between the reverend father in God John Bishop…The true copies of the letters betwene the reuerend father in God Iohn Bisshop…
The true copies of the letters between the reverend father in God John Bishop of Sarum and D. Cole upon occasion of a sermon that the said Bishop preached before the Queens Majesty, and her most honourable Counsel. 1560. Set forth and allowed, according to the order appointed in the Queens Maiesties iniunctions. Cum gratia & privilegio Regiæ Maiestatis per septennium.The true copies of the letters betwene the reuerend father in God Iohn Bisshop of Sarum and D. Cole vpon occasion of a sermon that the said Bishop preached before the Quenes Maiestie, and hir most honorable Counsel. 1560. Set forthe and allowed, according to the order appointed in the Quenes Maiesties iniunctions. Cum gratia & priuilegio Regiæ Maiestatis per septennium.
London: printed by John Day, 1560
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Ye ask me what text I can bring forth wherein Christ commanded that the communion should be received under both kinds. The institution of Christ, and his commandment thereunto annexed, as me thinketh, is text good i•ought to him that will be ruled by Christ. I will not ask ye, what text ye can bring wherein Christ hath commanded you to minister the communion in one kind. But this only would I know, what text ye can bring where by a Priest ministering the Sacrament, is commanded ⟨p. 87⟩to receive it in both kids, more then any other lay man. I know your answer, ye must needs say, the institution of Christ. And yet by your own interpretation, if a priest communicate himself under one kind, Gelasius calleth it Sacrilegium which thing I reckon he would not have said, if he had not thought it contrary to the open words and institution of Christ. Again, what text can ye bring whereby as touching this point the Priest hath any privilege above the people. If ye can find none, as in deed ye shall never be able, then that, that is sacrilege in the Priest, is also sacrilege in the people.
Ye ask me what text I cā bring forth wherin Christ commaūded that the communion should be receyued vnder both kinds. The institucion of Christ, and his commaundement thereunto annexed, as me thinketh, is texte good i•ought to him that wilbe ruled by Chryst. I will not aske ye, what text ye can brynge wherin Chryst hath commaūded you to minister the communion in one kind. But this only would I knowe, what text ye can bring wher by a Priest ministring the Sacrament, is cō maūded ⟨p. 87⟩to receiue it in both kids, more then any other lay man. I know your answer, ye must nedes say, the institution of Christ. And yet by your own interpreta•ion, if a priest communicate himself vnder one kinde, Gelasius calleth it Sacrilegium which thyng I reken he would not haue sayd, if he had not thought it contrary to the opē words and institucion of Chryst. Againe, what texte can ye bryng wherbi as touching this point the Priest hath any priueledg aboue the people. If ye can fynd none, as in dede ye shall neuer be able, thē yt, that is sacriledg in the Priest, is also sactiledge in the people.