other cauil that followeth of lay men artificers preaching in open places ministring the sacramentes deserueth no answere for if they be admitted to the office beeing worthy thereof there is no doubt but they may as well now as in all ages of the Church they haue done neither are they to be takeÌ„ for laymen though they haue beene artificers Yet if they presume without calling and admission of the Church they are no more borne withall among vs then suche as counterfet themselues to be Priestes among the Papistes As Englishe Ioan did to clyme to the Papacie as of late a lewd fellow in Italie feigned himselfe to be a Cardinall as Stephanus in his defence of Herodotus doth witnesse We condemne according to the scriptures not only all intrusion of men without calling but all ambitious and symoniacall practises to procure the outward calling So farre off is it that we allowe euerie man of his owne fantasie to intrude himselfe as this man doth most vainely slaunder vs. The 8. Chap. exhorteth men to heare or to read the expositions of the scriptures not to presume vpon their own vnderstanding If there were nothing in this Chapter but answering to the title thereof I would willingly subscribe vnto it But after he hath exhorted as he promiseth by the counsell of Iames Salomon and Hieronyme that we should heare learne of them whom God hath appointed pastors and teachers in his Church he dissuadeth men also by the authoritie of Paule and Ecclesiasticus to appoint vnto them selues Elders or maisters to be carried about with new and straunge doctrines decreeth That they only are lawfull Elders that haue learned of their fathers For whiche cause Luther was no good Elder allowing women to teach openly contrary to Paul 1. Cor. 14. which is an impudent slaunder of Luther who by no meanes would haue women to teache except it were extraordinarily as the prophetesses of the olde time did namely Debora Holda such like Such stuffe is in the other slaunders That contrition maketh a man more sinner where Luther meaneth of that which is without faith therfore must needs be sinne That a righteous man in euery good worke sinneth mortally where he meaneth that sinne and imperfection is mixed euen with the best works not that good workes are sinne That is also a detestable lye that Luther should teach Euery Christian man to be a priest for the common or publique ministery wheras he neither thought nor spake otherwise then the scripture speaketh which hath made vs Kings Priests Apoc. 1. And no lesse is the slander of Zwinglius That he taught that originall offence is no sinne whereas the worlde knoweth that Zwinglius taught the contrarie and the Papistes come neerer to that errour whiche define it to be no sinne in the regenerate it is as false that he taught That Christian mens children neede not to be baptised As it is true that if they dye without baptisme without any coÌ„tempt of their part it is no cause of condeÌ„natioÌ„ vnto them The saying of Christ except a man be borne againe of water of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaueÌ„ maketh no more for the baptisme of infantes then his saying also except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man drinke his bloud ye haue no life in you maketh to proue that infants must receiue the coÌ„munion for neither in the one speaketh he of the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme nor in the other place of the sacrameÌ„t of his supper But where Luther doth often protest that he will not be taught by man but by God he doeth as euerie Christian man ought to do and yet excludeth not the ministerie of men but the authoritie doctrines traditions and inuentions of men which by Luciferian pride take vpon them to teache that they haue not learned of god But howe shall we vnderstand this saying of Maister Heskins speaking in despight of Luther This is another Paule As though only Paul wer called of God without the ministery of maÌ„ wheÌ„ all the Apostles were so or as though it were a reproche to be so called as Paul was if God do extraordinarily stir vp any man as he did the Apostles EuaÌ„gelistes After his deriding of Paul Zwinglius is condemned by that which Maister Heskins hath saide for writing a booke De claritate verbi Dei How wisely and iustly let the godly Readers iudge Next followeth generall rayling against Oecolampadius Bullingerus Caluinus Bucer of whom his aduersarie meaning I thinke the B. of Sarum learned his heresies then he returneth to vnlearned artificers teaching in corners All which he would haue to be auoyded I suppose because he hath rayled vpon them and called them heretiques for other reason he bringeth none Except this be one that Hieronyme thinketh it not sufficient if a man say he loueth God and yet breaketh the vnitie of the Church The Church once named by and by all is his As though it were no coÌ„trouersie at this day whether the Synagogue of Rome be the Church of God or no. And as though all Christendome had bene at all times and in all places obedient to the Churche of Rome before these fewe yeares And therfore he is bolde to demaunde where it was taught in the Christian worlde that Christes naturall bodie is not in the sacrament nor to be offered nor receiued nor honoured Nay Maister Heskins where was this taught in the affirmatiue for fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Christe As for your other questions of prayer for the dead and prayers to the dead if you bring any reasons for theÌ„ in this your OmnegatheruÌ„ they shal be answered otherwise the readers for me shall resort to other treatises where they be handled of purpose But seeing men must learne the law of their mother that is the Church they must follow Hieronyme which neuer ceased from his youth to seeke knowledge of learned men and trauelled to Alexandria to be instructed of Didymâ—s So did Augustine to Millain to learne of Ambrose No wise man will mislike this counsell But this one thing especially is notable That Damasus being bishop of Rome did send to S. Hieronyme to be answered in certein doubts and disdained not to learne of him I had thought the Pope had had all knowledge In scrinio pectoris in the closet of his brest that he had the spirite of trueth to resolue all doubtes so that he could not erre and that Hieronyme hauing him at Rome needed not to haue sought knowledge at Alexandria But Damasus although euen in that time a ioly stately Prelate as appeareth by some of his Epistles if they be not counterfet yet shewed himselfe farre from that Antichristian pride which the Popes of Rome I cannot say his successors did shew afterward and yet to this day do holde But to omitte Damasus Many learned of Saint Augustine and of other learned men also which were learned them selues They did wel
could not remaine The drinke sanctified in the bloud of our Lord brake out of her polluted bowels c. Out of this Historie Maister Heskins gathereth two thinges First that the sacrament in that time was ministred to infantes which was in deede a great abuse contrarie to the worde of god Secondly that this childe receiued onely the cup which is false for though she was not so troubled at the receipt of the bread yet it followeth not that she receiued no bread but contrariwise Cyprian saith the Eucharistie by whiche wordes the fathers alwayes vnderstand the whole sacrament could not remaine in her bodie And whereas he reasoneth foolishly that if she had receiued the bread she should like wise haue beene troubled he must vnderstand that when God worketh a miracle he taketh times and occasions at his pleasure And it is like he would not discouer her pollution that come by bread and wine before she had receiued both bread and wine as the sacrament If I should vrge vpon this place as the scoole men doe whether this that was vomited was the bloud of Christ and what should be done with it or what was done with it in this storie I should trouble him more then he could easily answere Another tale he telleth out of Sozomenus Eccl. hist. lib. 8. Cap. 5. Ioanne Constantinopolitanum c. When Iohn Chrysostome did very well gouerne the Church of Constantinople a certeine man of the Macedonian heresie had a wife of the same opinion When this man had heard Iohn teaching what was to bee thought of God he praysed his doctrine and exhorted his wife to be of the same minde with him But when she did more obey the words of noble women then his conuersation and after many admonitions her husband had profited nothing Except quod he thou be a cōpaniō with me in Diuine matters thou shalt not be hereafter a partaker of liuing with me When the woman heard this promised her consent dissemblingly she cōmunicated the matter with a certeyne maide seruant which shee iudged to be trustie vnto her and vseth her seruice to deceiue her husband And about the time of the mysteries they that be receiued to them know what I say she keping that she had receiued fell downe as though she would pray Her maide standing by giueth her priuily that which she brought in her hand with her which thing when it was put to her teeth it congeled into a stone The woman beeing astonnied fearing least any euil should happen to her for that thing whiche came to passe from God made hast to the Bishop and bewraying her selfe sheweth the stone hauing yet vpon it the markes of her bit and shewing an vnknowen matter and a wonderful colour and also desiring pardon with teares promised that she would agree with her husband And if this matter seeme to any man to be incredible this stone is a witnesse which is kept to this day among the Iewels of the Churche of Constantinople If this storie be true as it is no article of our beleefe yet proueth it not that the communion was ministred in bread only to all the rest that would receiue the cuppe although I wote not what was turned into a stone before the time came she should receiue the cuppe If M. Heskins will vrge she could not haue any thing to conuey into her mouth in steede of the wine I answere she might easily counterfet the drinking by kissing the cuppe and so letting it passe from her without tasting thereof Wherefore this is but a blind and vnreasonable coniecture of Maister Heskins that the sacrament was ministred in one kinde because she that had dissembled in the receipt of one kinde was punished with depriuation from both kindes The last reason he vseth Is that it is testified by learned men that the manner of receiuing vnder one kinde which is vsed in all the Latine Church vpon good Friday on which day the priest receiueth the hoste consecrated vpon maundie Thursday hath been so vsed from the primitiue Church But what learned men they be except such as him selfe and what proofes they haue of this vsage he sayeth not so much as halfe a word The whole matter standeth vpon his owne credite But if he and all the learned of that side should fast from good Friday vntill they haue shewed proofe of such an vse in the primitiue church not as they vse to fast in Lent but from all manner of nourishment there would not one learned Papist be left aliue on gang Monday to shew what proofes they haue found Thou hast seene Reader what his reasons and authorities are iudge of the answers according to thy discretion ¶ The end of the second Booke THE THIRD BOOKE OF MAISTER HESKINS PARLEAment repealed by W. Fulke The first Chapter entereth by Preface into the first text of S. Paule that toucheth the sacrament and expoundeth it according to the letter TThe Preface is out of Didymus that diuine matters are to be handled with reuerence and considering the difficultie of the scriptures by Hierome that in matters of doubt recourse must be had by Irenęus his aduise vnto the most auncient Churches in which the Apostles were conuersant In so much that Irenaeus saith Libro 3. Cap. 4. Quid autem c. And what if the Apostles had left vs no writinges ought we not to haue followed the order of tradition which they deliuered to them to whome they had committed the Churches Wherevpon Maister Heskins gathereth that not onely for matters conteined in scripture but also for traditions vnwritten in the holie scriptures the fathers are to be credited But he goeth farre from Irenaeus minde who confuted the heretiques both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the moste auncient Churches whose traditions must haue beene all our institution if there had ben no scriptures But seeing that scriptures inspired of God by his gratious prouidence are left vnto vs al traditions are to be examined by them that is twise proued after Irenaeus minde whiche is proued both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the Churches Otherwise the scriptures are sufficient of them selues 2. Tim. 3. And no tradition or authoritie is to be receiued which is repugnant or contrarie vnto them The text of Saint Paule that he speaketh is written 1. Cor. 10. Brethren I would not haue you ignorant that all our fathers were vnder the cloude and all passed through the sea and were all baptised by Moses in the cloude and in the sea and did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the same spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christe Where it is to be noted that Maister Heskins in steede of the same spirituall meate and the same spirituall drinke translateth one spiritual meate and one spirituall drinke as though the sense were that the Fathers did all eate drinke of one spiritual kind
haue noted Maister Heskins falsification in this place translating Corpus nempe Christi Verily the body of Christe but that hee would delude the ignoraunt reader afterwarde and say if it bee verily the body of Christe it is not figuratiuely his body as though nempe were the same that verè or propriè But herein I will leaue him to children in the Grammer schoole to be derided and boyes that neuer read three leaues of Aristotles Logike in the Vniuersities The like follie hee sheweth in preuenting our aunswere that Oecumenius speaketh of the mysticall body of Christe bycause hee speaketh first of the breade that wee receiue and after of vs that receiue it But doeth hee not say wee are made the same body that wee receiue Wherefore I will thus inferre wee are made the same body that wee receiue but wee are not made the same naturall body corporally therefore we receiue not the same natural body corporally Nowe let Maister Heskins make as much as hee can of Oecumenius authoritie and rayâ—e as long as hee list against the disagreement of Luther Zuinglius and Oecolampadius they shall bee found to agree better where they most disagree then the Pope and al his cleargie agree with Christ and the trueth when they all agree to persecute and oppresse And as concerning these properties of a true Prieste that hee gathereth out of Malachie the lawe of trueth in their mouth peace and equitie in their wayes and conuersion of men from iniquitie notwithstanding Maister Heskins slanderous pen shal be found in them and in al the true preachers of our church in the iudgment of Christ when the Pope and his Popish shauelings shal be condemned of false doctrine crueltie abhominable life in them selues and teaching the doctrine of licentiousnesse vnto others I meane the doctrine of merites satisfactions purgatorie pardoning and such like The authoritie of Anselme a professed enimie of Berengarius I resigne to M. Hes. with ten thousand such as he is not comparable in credite with one of the higher house who only are meâ—te to determine this controuersie of the manner of Christes presence in the sacrament The nine and twentieth Chapter treateth of the same text by Theophylact and Dionyse and endeth with Remigius The last couple saith M. Heskins make vp a ful Iewrie to passe for life and death but we may lawfully chalenge the aray being enpanelled by M. Heskins a partial shirif and also we haue excepted against many of the Iewrors and now do except against both these namely Theophylact of Bulgarie as a late writer and an heretique and Dionyse of the Charterhouse as one of the feeid and fed seruants of the Pope Although Theophylact being reasonably expounded according to his owne sayings in other places saith nothing directly against vs But in default of these here is a third man taken belike de circunstantibus that is Remigius whome M. Heskins to make him a lawfull Iewrie man affirmeth to haue liued Anno Dom. 511. and so within the compasse of the challenge But if he deale so wee must haue a writ against him de identitate nominis For as we finde that there was in deede one Remigius bishop of Remes about that time so likewise we finde that the authour of this commentarie in 1. Cor. 10. was bishop Antisiodocensis almost 400. yeres after namely about the yere of Christ. 894. Notwithstanding bicause his words are almost the same which are before ascribed to Hierom Cap. 17. I will not spare to set them downe Calix benedictionis c. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christe Therefore he named the cup first because he would afterward treate more at large of the bread It is called the cup of blessing which is blessed of the priestes in the altar the cuppe it selfe is called a communication as it were a participation because all do communicate of it and receiue parte of the Lordes bloud which it conteineth in it And the bread whiche we breake in the altar is it not the participation of the Lordes body Surely it is first consecrated and blessed of the priests and of the holie Ghost and afterward is broken when as now although bread be seene in trueth it is the bodie of Christ â–ª Of which bread whosoeuer do communicate they doe eate the bodie of christ Because we being many which eate that bread are one bread vnderstand of Christ and one bodie of Christ. Maister Heskins noteth that the cup conteyneth the bloud of Christ which speech may be allowed because the cup conteineth the wine which is the bloud of Christ after a certeine manner as S. Augustine saith Secondly that though it seem bread yet indeed is the body of Christ he saith Lices panis videatur Though bread be seene yet Christ his bodie is present after a spirituall and incomprehensible manner But M. Heskins wil note that all men did drinke the bloud of Christe out of the cup. And that he saith the bread is broken when it is the bodie of Christe by which wordes he denyeth transubstantiation as in the former the communion vnder one kinde Finally in affirming vs that eate that bread to be the same bodie of Christ which we do eate he doth clearly ouerthrowe the carnall manner of eating Christes body in the sacrament as he doeth establish the spirituall manner of coniunction that we haue with the bodie and bloud of Christ. The thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Ye cannot drinke of the cup of our Lorde and of the cup of diuels by S. Cyprian and Chrysostome This text saith M. Heskins is a conclusion therefore it must include sacrifice that was in the premisses But I denie that sacrifice was any of the termes in the premisses of that argument wherof this is the conclusion although it were named in the sacrifices of the Iewes and of the Gentiles euen as Israel Gentiles altar temple were likewise named and yet not to be found in this conclusion because that although they were spoken of in the discourse yet they were not in the premisses of this argument for this it is Who so euer is made one bodie with CHRISTE can not drinke of the Lordes cuppe and of the cuppe of Diuels but you are made one bodie with Christe therefore you cannot drinke the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels Now therefore to Saint Cyprian Ser. 5. de Lapsis Contra Euangelij vigorem c. Against the force of the Gospel against the law of our Lord and of God by the rashnesse of some communication is set as libertie to them that are vnprouided Which is a vaine and a false peace perillous to the giuers and nothing profitable to the receiuers They seeke not the patience of health nor the true medicine by satisfaction Repentance is shut vp from sinners The remembrance of a moste greeuous and extreeme offence is taken away The woundes of
his deuorse from his first vnlawfull mariage gaue him occasion to enquire and finde out what weake foundation the vsurped power of the See of Rome was buylded vppon 76 King Henrie departed not out of the societie of the churche of Rome onely for the vices of the men thereof but for their false and Antichristian heresies which they obstinately mainteined and ioyned him selfe to the true auncient and vniuersall Church of Christe when hee departed out of that false newe sett vp schismaticall and particuler Synagogue of Rome as Saint Augustine went from the Manichees to the Catholicke church And as King Henrie the eyght knewe whence hee went so knewe hee also whither he went euen from Rome with seuen hilles to Ierusalem which is aboue and is the mother of vs all 77 Hee that goeth out of an hereticall church as King Henrie did must goe to the Catholike church of Christe as hee did without making any newe church or being without a church I knowe not the age of Maister Sander but if hee bee not much aboue fourtie yeares olde hee was borne and baptized as manye other Papistes were in that which hee calleth a newe church or no church which howe hee will aunswere let him and them aduise which holde it necessarie that a man must tarrie in that church in which hee is baptized 78 King Henrie the eight was not without a churche but in the church of Englande a member of the Catholike church of Christe neither did hee call him the supreme head of the church of Englande before that title was giuen him by the Popish Clergie in their submission after they were cast in the premunire Edw. Hall. 79 That hee receiued not fully the true doctrine of Christ as he banished the false vsurped power of the Pope is to bee imputed to the trayterous practises of his dissembling Clergie which although they durste not withstande him in mainteining the Popes authoritie yet they laboured all that they coulde to reteine the Popes doctrine in as many poyntes as they might hereof came the lawe of the sixe articles which mainteined the sacrifice of the Masse transubstantiation communion in one kynde and such other heresies Neuerthelesse the authoritie of Antichrist much Idolatrie superstition and false doctrine was abolished Iustification by faith in Christe was preached the scripture was read in the vulgar tongue which was a beginning of a reformation and returning vnto the true church of Christe and not a setting vp of a newe churche Except Maister Sander will saye that those Kinges of Iuda which refourmed some parte of religion and yet left the hill altares other abuses did set vp a newe church because they made not a perfect reformation Finally where he sayth that King Henrie adioyned himselfe to no companie of faithfull men in earth which had from Christes time liued after that profession of faith which he allowed proueth not that hee set vp a newe church For he ioyned to the Catholike church in so many pointes of true doctrine as hee acknowledged from which the Popish church was departed although he was not rightly instructed in all 80 The church of Englande in King Henries time was a true church although all the doctrine which was then mainteined by publique authoritie through the subtile practises of popish hypocrites was not true And the church of England at this daye is the same that it was then but nowe by publike authoritie embraceing all true doctrine which by the true members of the church in King Henries dayes was mainteined and withstoode by hypocrites or other not yet rightly instructed 81 The church vnto which King Henrie went and brought the realme when he departed from Rome was the same church which began at Ierusalem and so increased into all nations and continueth in the world for euer though not among all nations 82 King Henry went out of the Antichristian church of Rome into the Catholike church of Christe embracing some part of the doctrine therof therefore hee needed no reconciliation to the Romish church but a more perfect information of the church of Christ. 83 In King Edwardes time the reformation began and hindred in his fathers time was perfected and accomplished for all pointes of Christian doctrine neither was there any reconciliation vsed to the churche of Rome but the Church of Englande by publike authoritie perfectly vnyted to the Catholike Churche of Christe ioyning in profession of faith with the best refourmed Christian churches in the worlde 84 The abolishing of forrein power hindred not the ioyning in faith and doctrine with all the Churches of God that were without the realme of England The propitiatorie sacrifices of the Masse was in King Edwardes time abolished by publique authoritie out of the Church of England as it was in King Henries time abhorred of all true members of the Church that were then rightly instructed as much as the supremacie of the Pope 85 The power of being the sonnes of God the power of preaching and forgiuing of sinnes in the Church of Christe is no forreigne power neither was any such power euer excluded but the false and vsurped tyrannie of Antichrist of Rome 86 We beleeue and professe a Catholique or vniuersall Church of Christe whereof we are members and therefore we detest the hereticall schismaticall and particular Church of Rome 87 The Church of England vnder King Edward did professe her selfe to be a member of the most auncient Catholike and Apostolique Church of Christe which is the piller of trueth to bee iudged by the worde of GOD which is the trueth it selfe Iohn 17. being not so ignoraunt but that she could distinguish the worde of GOD from the Church of GOD as the lawe of GOD from the houshold of GOD which is gouerned by that lawe And not as Maister Sanders similitude is as the statutes of England differ from the men of England which make them but the Church maketh not the worde of God but contrariwise the word of God maketh the Church 88 It is not necessarie to shewe a companie of men in a peculiar place as Geneua or any such like for them that will ioyne them selues with the Catholike Church of all the world although it were easie to name diuers companies of men in seuerall places which continued in the true Church out of the Church of Rome both in Fraunce and Italie beside Bohemia which long before was returned out of the Popish Church into the Church of Christ and all the East Churches which neuer ioyned with the Church of Rome 89 The Churches of Zurich and Saxonie be members of the Catholique Church of Christe which is fifteene hundreth yeares olde and vpward although the same Churches were gathered and returned in those places within these three score yeares 90 There needed no embassages to goe to and fro to the Churches of God beyond the seas for reconciliation bicause there was no debate betweene the Church of England and them Although for conference and aduise
the same honour that is due to God himselfe But going ouer his questions againe hee saieth it is graunted for the most part of all men that Images may be made so they be not abused which is vtterly false for no Christian man will graunt that it is lawfull in anye respect to make any Image of God that is to transforme the glorye of the immortall God into the image of a mortal man or to make that monstrous image of the Trinitie with three faces or three bodies of an old man a yong man and a doue Rom. 1. vers 23. The seconde and thirde he sayeth are denyed by the Caluenistes and Lutherans In the fourth there hath been controuersie among the Popish Catholikes some thinking the honor dewe to the thing it selfe by reason that the image is all one with the thing when it exerciseth the act of an image might be giuen to the image therof But other be of another minde Beside this controuersie among the Papistes themselues confessed about the honour of God which is one of the chiefest pointes of Christian religiō note that the former sort make dombe dead images to exercise an act which is a grosse monstrous absurditie But of all those foure questions M. Sanders promiseth to intreate first to proue the making of images lawful and commendable 2. the worshipping of them to be lawfull commendable as the signes of honorable verities for the verities sake which is all one as if you would saye we must worship falsities for loue of verities for betweene veritie falsitie there is no meane the creature in steede of the creator Rom. 1. vers 25. But how absurdly doth he confound images with the signes of all kinds Or what kinde of argument is this Iohn Baptist confessed him selfe vnworthie to loose the latchet of Christes shooe therefore he woulde worship his shooe or we must worship his image Or these a man embraceth a seruant or messenger sent from his friende kisseth a ring that commeth from him loueth to heare of his name esteemeth his picture therefore wee must embrase kisse loue esteeme images of God c. which hee hath not sent vnto vs but expressely forbidden vs to make or haue in any vse of religion But that he shoulde not be mistaken in saying images ought to be honoured he doeth not as a learned man shoulde doe make a lawfull diuision or distinction of honour but like a blinde or craftie Sophister he maketh a confusion and iumbling of diuerse names and kindes of honour to trouble the vnderstanding of a simple reader as of honour due to God to Saintes to our prince to his liuetenant to our parents friends fellowes superiours and to holy remembrance and one of these kindes of honour he will proue due to images and not that which is due to God alone As though all honour of religion were not dewe onely to God Mat. 4. vers 10. and honour of charitie were not to be directed by Gods lawe by which honour of images is expressely forbidden But with M. Sander the difference of honour commeth from the minde and therefore falling downe before an image Kissing c. if he thinke it not to be God nor any reasonable creature but an image of Christ. c. is no idolatrie As if God had not by expresse wordes forbidden the falling downe before images yea although the minde knowe they be false idols For else how are they commended which haue not bowed their knees to Baal nor kissed him with their mouth among so many idolaters and dissemblers But Abraham saith M. Sander adored the people of the land yet was he no idolater As though he could not put a difference betweene ciuile worship religious yea he giueth a rule how to auoide idolatrie Giue God thy heart saith he and after be secure that the honour which is giuen in any respect be for Gods sake all is well By this reason we may worship not onely all idols but we may make idols of all Gods creatures worship them for Gods sake as the Aegyptians did Oxen crocodiles cattes apes onions for they be al good monuments remembrances of God their creatour and better then any forged idoll To auoide which absurditie it were good not only to looke that you worship not any thing for Gods sake but to be sure what God hath commaunded you to worship that to honor with such honour also as he hath appointed So shall you worship God aright honour his ministers ecclesiasticall or ciuil his friendes and your brethren and whatsoeuer else is worthie of any honour But Maister Sander to auoide the offence that might be taken by the termes of adoration worshipping honouring c. protesteth that hee alloweth onely that honouring of images when the partie in the faith of one God and one mediatour Iesus Christ doth direct his honour by the image to the trueth represented which faith and intention doth deliuer him quite from all spice of idolatrie But how false this determination of M. Sanders is we see euidently by the historie of the golden Calfe which Aaron and the people worshipped euen according to his faith and intention namely they worshipped the God which brought them forth of the land of Aegypt by that image euen Iehoua that made heauen and earth Exod. 32. vers 4. 5. Againe what manner of faith this is which is not onely not grounded vppon the worde of God but also cleane contrarie to it children that learne their Cathechisme can sufficiently vnderstand In the ende of this Chapter M. Sander practiseth a figure of popish rethorike which is after great bragges promises of proofe to occupie the reader with some by matters before the performance taken in hand partly that his vnderstanding should not be so quick as when his minde is newly kindled with desire of the sight of such things as he promised partly that being half wearied with other needelesse discourses he shoulde not be so attentiue to consider the force of his reasons Therfore he promiseth first to answere the obiections of the aduersaries yet because that argument is not so fitt for his purpose he turneth it ouer also vntil he haue for disputations sake fayned the honouring of images vnlawful yet proued that the image breakers in the lowe countries did not well THE III. CHAPTER That although the images of Christ and of his saincts had beene falsely worshiped yet the Churches were vniustly spoyled and the images vniustly throwen downe and consequently that the doers of it must needes be the ministers of the diuell Also he noteth the reason of breaking the Brasen serpent The keepers of church goods are Idolaters The foundation of the newe gospell in the lowe countries is shamefull The inconstancie of the Protestantes doctrine It is confessed and therefore needeth no proofe that the act of breaking the popish Idols in the lowe countries if it wanted the authoritie of the Magistrate
S. Augustine concerninge figures is applyed to Images Images were made without all scruple in the primitiue Church Bowing to the image of Christ in S. Chrisostoms â—ime His liturgie is defended Seuerus painted the images of S. Martine and Paulinus in a holy place S. Gregorie laye prostrate before an holy Image Saint Augustine is cited De doct Christian. lib. 3. cap. 9. Qui aut operatur aut veneratur c. He that worketh or reuerenceth M. Sander translateth worshippeth a profitable signe instituted by gods authority whose strength and signification he vnderstandeth doeth not reuerence or worshippe that which he seeth and passeth away but rather that thing whereunto all suche thinges are to be referred First I note the corruptioÌ„ of Master Sanders translation that turneth Veneratur worshippeth after the popishe meaninge For God did neuer institute any signe to be worshipped in that sense which Master Sander defendeth worshippinge of Images But all signes instituted of God are to be reuerently esteemed regarded as baptisme which we do reuerently esteeme yet we worship not either the water or the action of baptizing Secondly we haue to consider how Master Sander can proue images to be profitable signes instituted by gods authoritie They be profitable saith hee because they bring vs in remembraunce of good thinges I denie this argument because nothing is profitable in religion but that which is instituted by God for otherwise we might bring the gallowes into the Church whiche bringeth vs in remembraunce of Gods Iustice c. as I haue shewed before Likewise the Prophet Abacuc vtterly denyeth Images to be profitable Cap. 2. vers 18. But let vs see how he proueth popishe images to be instituted by Gods authoritie which is al in al for if that be proued we wil not doubt of the profitablenesse of them First he alledgeth the imitation of nature and of nations the institution of some images in the law of Moses last of all the tradition left to his Church freely to make images of good things The former reasons are answered before in their proper chapters namely the lawe of nature and nations cap. 11. the making of some images in Moyses lawe cap 12. also the example of practise of this supposed tradition out of Eusebius cap. 10. And they are all three wiped away with the expresse commaundement of God in his lawe of religion Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image or the likenesse of any thing c. Neuerthelesse let vs see how by tradition left to the Churche images are prooued to be instituted by god We reade saith hee in S. Augustine as well of the Ethnikes as of the Christians There is first one falshood for Augustine in the place by him cited speaketh onely of Ethnikes De consen Euang. lib. 1. cap. 10. which because they had seene Christes image pictured with Peter and Paule imagined that Christ had written bookes to Peter and Paule Secondly he citeth the wordes thus Pluribus locis simul Petrum et Paulum cuÌ„ Christo pictos viderunt quiae merita Petri Pauli etiam propter cundem passionis diem celebrius ac solemniter Roma commendat They sawe in verie many places Peter Paule painted together with Christ because Rome doeth set foorth the merites of Peter and Paule the more famously and solemnly euen for that they suffered both vppon one day In this allegation hee addeth wordes that are not in Augustine Although not contrary to his meaning yet shewing thereby that he borrowed this place as manye of our Englishe papistes doe commonly of some other mans noting rather then of his owne reading But the greatest fault of all is that he doth deceiptfully suppresse the words following immediatly which declare howe profitable Sainte Augustine esteemed the doctrine of Images to be His whole sentence is this Credo quod pluribus locis simul eos cum illo pictos viderunt quia merita Petri Pauli etiam propter cundem passionis diem celebrius solemniter Roma commendat Sic omnino errare meruerunt qui Christum Apostolos eius non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt I beleeue that they haue seene them painted with him in manye places because Rome doeth more notably and solemnely set foorth the worthinesse of Peter and Paule euen because of the same day of their suffering So they were altogether worthy to be deceiued whiche haue sought Christ and his Apostles not in the holy bookes but in painted walles Now see with what honestie Master Sander hath alledged this place of Augustine to prooue that images are of Gods institution But you will saye perhappes this place doeth prooue that Images of Christe and his Apostles were then made by Christians I graunte but not in the Churches for then the Ethnikes coulde not haue seene them because they were neuer suffered to enter into the Churches of the Christians But Gregorie Nyssen in his Oration De Theod. martyr laud. testyfieth that the paynter had set foorth the whole storie of Theodorus the martyr in his Churche And yet the Image of the martyr was none otherwise painted then the fierce and cruell formes of the tyrauntes neyther otherwise on the walles then on the pauemente For he saith Capillorum item concinnator historiae par opuâ— in pauimento quod pedibus calcatur effecit Also the pauier hath made the lyke woorke of historie vppon the pauemente whiche is trodden vnder feete These deuises of painters and pauiers Master Sander is faine to take holde of in steede of the holy scriptures and aunciente writers But if hee saye that Gregorius doeth also allowe these I answere as ornamentes of the Churche not as matter of Gods religion and worshippe whiche yet he shoulde rather haue defaced with Epiphanius then suffred or allowed for inconueniencâ— that folowed This report of Gregorie sheweth the errour of that time rather then prooueth images to be instituted by god That Paulinus caused images to bee painted on the Church walles as it is confessed to be done so it is denied to be well done The like I say of the images painted in Saint Martins Church in Towers in Fraunce witnessed by Gregorius Turonensis although it was long after the time of Paulinus in which Satan beganne to lay the platforme for his Idolatrie whiche afterwarde he brought into the worlde And these be all the arguments that he hath to prooue that images are profitable signes instituted by Gods authoritie Except he meane the text of Paul to the Galat. 5. to be an argument whiche he citeth to prooue that we are made free in Christ both to knowe our signes and images to be images and signes and also to knowe whereof they are signes which the Iewes saith he did not So that the libertie of Christ is by M. Sanders doctrine not from a yoke of bondage and seruitude vnto ceremonies but from ignorance and want of knowledge of the vse of them And whereas by the lawe
their writinges verilye not hauing the images of their bodies but of their mindes For those thinges whiche are saide by them are the images of their mindes Likewise they cited the saying of Amphilochus sometime bishoppe of Iconium Non enim nobis sanctorum corporales vultus in tabulis coloribus effigiare curae est quoniam hijs opus non habemus sed politicè illorum virtutum memores esse debemus We haue no regarde to counterfet the corporall faces of the saintes in tables with coloures because we haue no need of them but we ought to be wisely mindfull of their vertues Moreouer they rehearsed the sayinge of Theodotus bishop of Ancyn Sanctorum formas species ex materialibus coloribus formari minimè decorum putamus horum cutem virtutes quae per scripta traditae sunt veluti viuas quasdam imagines reficere subinde oportet Ex hijs enim ad similem imitationem zelum peruenire possumus Dicant enim nobis qui illas erigunt quaenam vtilitas ex illis ad se redit an quòd qualiscunque recordatio eos habeat ex tali specie contemplatione sed manifestum est quòd vana sit eiuscemodi cogitatio diabolicae deceptionis inuentum We thinke it nothing at al seemely that the formes and shapes of the saintes shoulde be fashioned in materiall collours but their vertues whiche are deliuered by their writings as certain liuing images we ought often times to renue For by them we may come to the like imitation and zeale For let those which set vp images tell vs what profite commeth vnto them by them is it that a certaine remembrance come to them by such shape and sight But it is manifest that such cogitation is vaine and an inuention of diuelishe deceipte What shall here rehearse the testimony of Eusebius who whē the Empresse Constantia required to haue an image of Christ answered that no such images were to be made with many other sayings of Basil Gregorie Athanasius and other cited in that Councell which M.S. maketh so obscure as though they had mett by candle light and whispered in corners that they durst not be a knowne of But if it deserued not the credit of a councell what needed Irene to haue gathered this worshipfull councel of Nice against it And where M.S. for further allowance of it saith it was confirmed registred for a knowne lawful general councel throughout al christendom he speaketh out of al compasse of the trueth For the Emperour Charles the great would not receiue it but write or at the leastwise cōmanded Albinus or Alcuinus his teacher to write a booke against it in his name which booke is yet extant How it was receiued in Britaine Matheus Westm. testifieth in these words Eodem anno Carolus rex Francorum c. The same yeare Charles the king of Fraunce sent a synodall booke into Britane in whiche manye thinges were founde contrary to the true faith and especially this that it was defined by the consent of almost all the doctors of the East that images ought to be worshipped which doctrine the Catholike Church doeth altogether accurse Against which Albinus wrote an Epistle beinge marueilously well indighted by the authoritie of holy scriptures and the fame brought vnto the Frenche king with that synodall booke in the presence of the bishops and noble men These thinges considered the conference that he maketh betweene this councell and the first helde at the same place is chyldishe and ridiculous for though they were both helde in one place called by Emperours or Popes equall in number disputation in both 4. Patriarks in both custome obserued the decree put in execution c. yet they disagreed in that which is the onely authority of councels The first decreed according to the word of God the later cleane contrary to it The first confirmed the Catholike faith which alwayes was held the later a newe heresie of Idolatrie of which the Churche was cleare more then sixe hundreth yeares And therefore what soeuer hee talketh of the authoritie of general councels is vaine wicked for a general councel of Angels is not to be beleeued against the holy scriptures what is more plaine in the scriptures then the forbidding of Idolatrie and worshippinge of Images The great prerogatiue that Master Sander findeth in this councell that so many bishops recanted in it as in none other is a fonde matter to authorize it Rather it sheweth what turne coates they were which changed as euerie prince was affected Finally the nomber of names that he rehearseth of them that beleeued as this councell decreed maketh it not of sufficient credit beside that he is not able to proue it of many whom he nameth as Beda Theophylacte Euthymius c. It were an easie matter to proue as many mo of more antiquitie which beleeued the contrary As Clemens Alexandrinus Origines Irenaeus Iustinus Cyprianus Lactantius Epiphanius Arnobius Tertulianus Augustinus Chrysostomus Hieronymus Ambrosus Athanasius Basilius Gregorius Naza Eusebius Osius and 18. bishoppes with him in the councel of Eliberis Theodosus and 21. bishoppes with him in the councell of Laodicea Aurelius and 71. bishops with him in the councell of Carth. 5. Amphylochius Iconiensis Theodorus Ancyramus Serenus Massiliensis Claudius Taurinensis Albinus Carolus magnus yea Gregorie 1 of Rome and Ionas of Orleance against the worshipping of Images If I woulde descende to later times as Master Sander doth I might add a great number more as Waldo Masilus Henricus de Gandauo Iohn Wiclef Iohn Hus Hierome of Praga and many other So that there remaineth in recorde foure to one that M. Sander can name for the vse and worshippinge of images against either one or both And the greatest part more ancient then the second councell of Nice which he woulde maintaine by rehearsing so many names of men that allowed it the most part were since it was holden scarse two or three before it was helde THE XVI OR XV. CHAP. That M. Iewell himselfe bringeth such reasons for worshipping breade and wine in the sacrament of the Alter because he saith they are the image of Christs bodie and bloude as may right well serue for the worshipping of all holy images It is proued by maister Iewells owne words that the image of an holy thing may be worshipped with what intent an image it made Maister Iewell hath filthie and vnhonest images in his owne booke This Chapter conteineth nothing else but a shameles cauilling and quarrelling vppon maister Iewels words with little wit lesse learning and least of all of honestie The bishoppe writeth thus The olde fathers in their writings commonly cal the sacrament a representation a remembrance a memory an image a likenesse a samplar a token a signe a figure And in an other place he writeth thus Neither do we onely adore Christ as verye God but also worship and reuerence the sacrament holy mistery of Christes bodie Here vppon maister Sander reasoneth
iustice that Dauid doeth promise to execute against al the wicked of the land Psalm 101. to incourage men to cruelty and contention but all in vaine like as his purpose for which he alledgeth them was wicked namely to ouerthrowe the true and naturall sense of the scripture But yet the same Origen is directly against maister Heskins in that cause for which he is alledged as appeareth plainely in Leuitici cap. 16. Hom. 9. An tu putas qui vix diebus fectis ad Ecclesiam venis c. Thinkest thou whiche scarcely commest to the Church vpon the holy dayes giuest no heede to heare the wordes of God nor takest any paines to fulfill his commandements that the Lordes lot can come vppon thee Yet we wish that after you haue heard these things you would take paines not only in the Church to heare the wordes of God but also at home in your houses to be exercised and to meditate in the Lawe of the Lorde day and night Go your wayes now and boaste of Origens authoritie that the scriptures are not to be read of all men when in a publique Sermon he exhorteth all the people to the diligent reading of them and sharply reproueth them for their negligence in this behalfe The third Chapter to declare the newe Testament not to be easie to be vnderstanded â–ª bringeth diuers obscure places of the same As I said before there was neuer man yet so foolish to affirme the scriptures to be so easie that there was no obscure place in them but that nothing needful to saluation is so obscure in them but that it may be easily vnderstoode by conference of other places where the fame is most plainely set foorth But let vs see his wise reasons to proue the new Testament to be hard bicause some places therein be hard to be vnderstanded The Euangelistes Matthewe and Luke seeme to varrie in the Genealogie of Christ therefore all is not easie What then They both doe manifestly agree in that which is materiall for our faith â—hat Christe was the seede of Abraham and the sonne of Dauid In the rest what straunge matter is it if one pedegree be brought from one principall ancester by seuerall discents lineall and collaterall natural and legall by the male and by the female â–ª For the second obscure place Chrysostome is alledged who Numbereth it among the hid thinges howe Elizabeth being of the tribe of Leuie may be called the cousen of Marie A perillous doubt in solution whereof though a number be ignoraunt yet I doubt not but they may be saued And yet by conference of the stories of scripture it is easie to finde that men of the tribe of Iuda might marrie of the Priestes daughters and the Priestes did marrie euen of the Kings daughters of Iuda By which mariages cousenage might easily be vnderstoode to growe betweene the two tribes â–ª notwithstanding the lawe of Num 36. Which did forbid only those marriages by which the inheritances might be confounded The third doubtfull place is in Marke 13. Where it is said that Of that day and houre knoweth no man no not the Angels in heauen nor the sonne him selfe but the father And Chrysostome is againe alledged to shewe that this is a doubtful place and yet a simple Christian that knoweth the two diuers natures in Christ humane and diuine can easily solute it and say that although Christe by his godhead knoweth all things yet as he was man he knewe not all things The fourth proofe is taken out of the example of Algasia and Hedibia two godly women and studious of the scriptures whereof the one found twelue the other eleuen doubtes in the newe Testament and sent to S. Hieronyme for resolution of them I maruell M. Heskins hath so small discretion to alledge these examples which do quight ouerthrowe his purpose If not onely men but women also may read the scriptures and profite so well in the studie of them that they can finde but eleuen or twelue doubts in the whole newe Testament for resolution whereof they did as became good schollers send so farre for the iudgement of their learned maister But M. Heskins not content to shewe that they douted will also set downe some of their douts namely this one moued by Algasia Why Iohn the Baptist should send his disciples to Christ to aske this question Art thou he that shalt come or do we looke for an other seeing he both knewe openly pointed at Christ with his finger before Although this good woman doubted of this matter yet it is easie to answer that theÌ„ he sought the instructioÌ„ of his disciples rather then the confirmation of his owne knowledge An other was moued by Hedibia Howe Christ in Iohn 20. forbad Marie to touch him when Matthew 28. affirmeth that the women held his feete It seemeth to M. Heskins that one of these must be vntrue I dare say it seemed not so to Hedibia although she could not perfectly reconcile these places But seeing that both these reports are true it is plaine ynough that he suffered Marie Magdalene to holde his feete so much as was sufficient to confirme the certeintie of his resurrection forbad her not vntil she shewed her self too much addicted to his bodily preseÌ„ce Another doubt is howe Marke saith the women came to the sepulchre when the Sunne was rysen and then saith Marie Magdalene came early in the morning when it was yet darke A woman sitting at her distaffe woulde easily solue this doubt and say that it was darke when they set foorth of their dores but the Sunne was risen by that time they came to the Sepulchre Yet another doubt of Hedibia whether Christ breathing on his Apostles gaue them the holie Ghost when he promised to send him after his ascension There is no doubt but he did then in some small measure but afterwardes sent him with most plentifull vertue and power To conclude what needed Austen to haue written a great volume De consensu Euangelistarum what needed the comentaries of Hieronyme Ambrose vpon the Euangelistes or the Homilies of Chrysostome Augustine and the expositions of so manie learned men c. if the Scriptures be so plaine easie O foolish conclusion as though the Scriptures may not planely set foorth vnto vs all things necessarie for vs to learne and yet the same things with all other things conteined in them be set forth more plainly largely to the instruction increase of our faith hope comfort obedience c. by Comentaries Homelies expositions yea admonitions and exhortations The fourth Chapter conteineth certeine hard places of the Epistles M. Heskins taketh great paines in those Chapters to proue that which no man doubteth of that there be some hard and darke places in the Scriptures and yet it followeth not but that the Scriptures are a light vnto our steppes a lanterne vnto our feete the worde of the Lord giueth wisedome vnto
but is confessed of al men except it be to condemne the Clergie of Papistrie which for the most part are ignoraunt not onely of Gods lawe but of all honest knowledge and vpon very necessitie open a gate vnto the people to seeke instruction them selues where the ordinarie passage is stopped through the ignorance of the Ministers The first place by him alledged is Deu. 17. That if there rise a matter too hard for the people in iudgement betweene bloud and bloud c. they shall come to the Priestes and stand to their iudgement on paine of death c. Although I might answere that this ordinaunce appertaineth to iudiciall causes of which God gaue his lawe also yet if it be taken generally so long as the Prieste determineth according to the lawe it is well ynough But this proueth not that the people must haue no vnderstanding beside the priests mouth For the decree is onely of matters that are difficult and such as cannot be decided at home No more do the wordes of Malachie That the lips of the Priest shall keepe the law and men shall require it at his mouth And much lesse the commaundement in Aggee Enquire the lawe of the Priestes And least of all that Christ commaundeth the Scribes and Pharisees to be heard sitting in the chaire of Moses These places proue that it is the Priestes duetie to be learned in the lawe of God but repel not the general lawe wherby euery man is cōmanded also to studie in the law of God yea though the Priestes neither would nor could teach him For if the blinde followe the blinde they both fall into the ditch which our sauiour Christ willeth all men to take heede of Hieronyme in the place by you alledged M. Heskins gathereth rightly of these places that it is the Priestes office to know and expound the scriptures but I muse how the greatest number of your Priestes can brooke those words of his If he be ignorant of the law he proueth him selfe to be no Priest of God. Much more against your cleargie your cause is that large sentence you set down out of Hieronyme thē to hurt your aduersaries where he concludeth out of 1. Tim. 3. Tit. 1. that both by the new Testament and the old it is the priests office to know and teach the lawe of god As is also that which you adde out of 1. Cor. 12. that God hath appointed some Apostles some Prophets some pastors teachers as though these orders might not stand with the peoples reading of the scriptures whē euen in the Apostles time the Thessalonians or Berrhoeans wer cōmended for that thei did not only heare the Apostles but also cōferred their doctrin with the scriptures Actes 17. Hauing rehearsed your texts you fal to collecting of three things out of thē 1. That it is the dutie of a Priest to be learned in the law of God and godly life also which euerie man confesseth 2. That there be doubts and hard matters in the law And that also shal be confessed But withall out of the same place it is proued that there are many plaine and easie pointes in the lawe because the decree was not for all the lawe but onely for harde cases of the lawe Thirdly that the people must bee taught them and learne of the priestes and this also shall be granted to the vttermost so that you will allow the people to learn such things as are easie not only of the priests but also of their own reading study conference with thē that are no priestes And this is no inuerting of Gods order M. Heskins how much soeuer you enuie the peoples instruction For it is gods commaundement as I shewed before that his people shoulde not onely reade the lawe themselues but teach the same to others yea parentes are commaunded to teach the lawe of God to their children and yet I weene you will not say that all parents be priestes But the marke you shoote at is easie to see the ignorance of the people is more for your worshippe and gaine then their knowledge The examples you bring of the people teaching Aaron of Chore Dathan Abiram rebelling against Moses and Aaron and of the Israelites in deposing Samuel and desiring a king are of no force to dissuade men from reading of the Scriptures no thoughe they haue learned and true teachers much lesse when they are vnder dumbe dogges and heretikes as all popishe priestes are nor to abridge the authoritie of lawfull magistrates in banishing and suppressing all vsurped power and false teachers nor to shake off the yoke of Antichrist to submit thēselues vnto a king There is too great oddes betweene the Pope and Samuel betweene Moses and Aaron the popish cleargie that they which withstande the Pope and his Prelates should be in the case of Dathan and his complices or of the people that refused the regiment of Samuel The saying of Augustine Ep. 118. Although it come in here out of season yet it maketh nothing against vs He saith It is most insolent madnesse to dispute whether that is to be done which the Church throughout all the worlde doth obserue Excepte M. Heskins can shewe what is obserued of the Church throughout the worlde which we doe not obserue or deny to be obserued For S. Augustine in that place speaketh of Ceremonies The seuenth Chapter declaring the same by examples of the Fathers and authorities of the Doctours of the Church The title of this Chapter pretendeth to declare howe the people shall come to the vnderstanding of the scriptures but the examples are most of the preachers and teachers how they shall atteine to knowledge sufficient to discharge their office But the first argument whervpō almost all the rest of the Chapter doth runne is a maruellous conclusion God commaundeth the children of Israell 32. Aske thy father and he will shewe thee thy Elders and they will tell thee Ergo God did not sende all the people only to the fiue books of Moses to learne but willed them to learne of their Elders So now all men may not be sent to the scriptures to learne but they must learne of their Fathers what be the goodly workes of God conteined in the Scriptures Why M. Heskins you forget not only lodgike but common reason We would not haue men to learne onely by reading the scriptures but muche more by hearing their teachers first their Pastors and then all other whom God hath indued with any gift of knowledge And wil you conclude with shame that because men were not sent only to the fiue Bookes of Moses men may not now be sent at all to the scriptures And are you so blinde that you cannot see this text to ouerthrowe the purpose of both your sixth and seuenth Chapters after this manner by necessary conclusion Men must learne of their fathers therefore not only of the Priestes The rest that followeth for certeine pages is so tedious a
she hath prepared this table for hir seruauntes and maides in the sight of them that she might dayly shew vs in the sacrament after the order of Melchisedech breade and wine in similitude of the bodie and bloude of Christe therefore she saith thou hast prepared a table in my sight againste them that trouble mee What Papistes holding transubstantiation would thus write that breade and wine is shewed in the Sacrament in the similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ The seconde testimonie that M. Heskins alleageth out of Chrisostome is vpon the 1. Cor. 10. This table is the strength of our soule the sinewes of our minde the bonde of our trust our foundation hope healpe light our life if we depart hence defended with this sacrifice with most greate confidence wee shall ascende into the holy entrie as couered with certaine golden garmentes But what speake I of thinges to come For while wee be in this life this mysterie maketh earth to be heauen vnto vs Ascende vnto the gates of heauen marke diligently or rather not of heaueÌ„ but of heauen of heauens theÌ„ thou shalt behold that we say For that which is worthy of highest honor I will shew thee in earth For as in kings houses not the walles not the golden roofe but the kinges body sitting in the throne is most excellent so also in heauen the kinges body which nowe is set foorth to be seene of thee in earthe I shewe thee neither Angels nor Archangels nor the heauens nor the heauens of heauens but the Lorde himselfe of all these thinges Thou perceiuest how that which is greatest and cheifest of all things thou doest not onely see it on earth but also touche it and not onely touch it but eate also and when thou haste receiued it returnest home wherefore wipe thy soule from all filthinesse prepare thy minde to the receyuing of these mysteries For if the Kinges childe being decked with purple and diademe were deliuered to thee to bee carried wouldest thou not cast all downe to the grounde and receiue him But nowe when thou receiuest not the childe of a kinge beeing a man but the onely begotten sonne of God tell mee I praye thee doest thou not tremble and caste awaye the loue of all seculer thinges This testimonie so necessarily muste bee vnderstood of a figuratiue and spirituall receyuing of Christe by faith that nothing in the worlde can bee more plaine For euen as earth is made heauen vnto vs so is Christe made present And euen as wee see the Lorde vppon earth so we handle and eate him and that is onely with the eye hand and mouth of faith But let vs see M. Heskins collections First hee is enforced to confesse that the sentence beginneth with a figure The table for the meate therevppon Secondely hauing such honourable tearmes it can not bee a peece of breade but Christe himselfe This shall bee graunted also Thirdly that Christe is verily on the table which he calleth Altars As verilie as earth is made heauen Fourthly that it is Christ whiche is worthie of highest honour verily present in the Sacramente As verily present as hee is seene but hee is seene onely by faith therefore present onely to faith But this obiection hee taketh vppon him to aunswere If we saye the bodie of Christ can not be sene in the sacrament No more saith he can the substance of man be seene but his garmentes or outward formes accidentes This is such a boyish sophisme as I am ashamed to aunswere it By which I maye as well proue that Christes body was neuer seene and therefore not seene in the sacrament contrarie to that whiche Chrysostome saith FroÌ„ this obiection he falleth into an other that if christ in the Sacrament be worthie all honour then of sacrifice also and the sacrifice being Christ Christ shal be offered to him selfe This he calleth an ignorant obiection But there is more knowledge in it then he hath witt to answere He alledgeth the words of Augustine lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 14. Christ abideth one with him to whome he offereth and maketh him selfe one with them for whom he offereth himself and is one with them that offer one with that which is offered Here are diuerse kindes of vnitie and yet not Christ offered vnto him selfe vnlesse M. Heskins will be a Sabellian and a Patripassian to confound the persons of the Godhead and say that God the father yea the whole Trinitie is likewise transubstantiated in the Sacrament Though Christe be one with his father yet did he not offer him selfe to him selfe but himselfe to his father As for the other saying of Augustine that he bringeth it is altogether against him De ciuitate Dei. lib. 10. c. 20. He is the Priest him selfe he is the offerer he is the oblation whereof he would haue the daily sacrifice of the Church to be a sacrament seeing that of her bodie he is the head and of his head shee is the bodie as well shee by him as he by her being accustomed to be offered First Christ is the offerer and the oblation but not he to whome it is made Secondly that which he calleth the sacrifice of the Church is a sacrament that is a holie memoriall of that propitiatorie saâ—â—â—fice which he offered Thirdly this sacrifice of the Church is of the Churche her selfe offered by Christ and of Christe offered by the Church which must needes be spirituall as the coniunction of Christ and his Church is spirituall therefore it is not the natural bodie of Christ offered by the priest but his mystical bodie offered by the Church by himselfe and so a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation After these obiections he returneth to his collections out of the authoritie of Chrysostome There neede no such preparation nor trembling if the Sacrament were but a peece of bread He hath neuer done with this slaunder as though any Christian man did saye it was but a peece of bread which Christe vouchsafed to call his bodie Wee saye truely it is bread but wee say not it is but a peece of bread The ninteenth Chapter continueth the proofe of the same matter by S. Augustine S. Cyrill M. Heskins promiseth in his Epistle and gloryeth often in his worke that he doth not alledge the doctors wordes truncately by peece meale as heretikes do But you shal see how well he handleth him selfe He would haue S. Augustine speake for his bil and alledgeth his words out of his worke contrae literas Petiliani quoting neither what booke nor what Chapter of the same by which it seemeth that either he red not the place him self out of Augustine but receiued it of some gatherer or else hee would cloake his vnhonest dealing Hee citeth it thus Aliud est Pascha quod adhuc Iudaei celebrant de Oue Aliud auteÌ„ quod nos in corpore sanguine domini celebranus It is another Passouer that the Iewes do yet
any part vntill the next moâ—ning therefore he saith in Leuit. 7. Ho. 5. Nam Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat dicebat eis accipite manducate non distulit nec seruari iussit in erastiâ—um For that bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples and said vnto them take ye eate ye he deferred not neither commanded it to be reserued vntill the next day By which wordes it is manifest that as he disallowed the reseruation so was it not in vse in the East Church in his time And that M. Heskins may be snarled in his owne coarde he must call to minde what paines he tooke to proue the Pascall Lambe to be a figure of this sacrament and how earnestly he vrgeth that the trueth must answere the figure in all things iustly inso much that he alledgeth this text that not a iote or apricke of the law shall passe vntill all be fulfilled Nowe of the Pascal lambe there was an expresse coÌ„mandement that no part of it should be reserued vntill the next day therfore by his owne figures textes manner of reasoning I conclude that the sacrament may not be reserued at all The fiue and twentith Chapter proueth the same by Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time For Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time then sixe hundreth yeares after Christ we doe not admit their authoritie But M. Heskins promising Counsells beginneth with the institution of Iustinian That Monasteries of Virgines should haue libertie to choose a Priest which should bring vnto them the holy Communion Herevpon he will build reseruation for they did not celebrate to them saith he but they brought it As though he that bringeth the worde of God to theÌ„ doth not preach before them but bringeth a Sermon in his bosome But for as much as that decree speaketh not onely of a Priest but also of a Deacon I can be content to thinke that he brought the sacrament with him and did not consecrate there but what maketh this for reseruation to the vse of adoration which is the matter in question â–ª Or else for an ordinarie custome of reseruation if the sacrament were brought from the next Church where and when it was celebrated to the Monasterie not to be hanged vp in a cannopie but to be receiued presently But it is a proper reason that M. Heskins vseth for may be reserued for a short time why not for a long time For answere of this I will referre him to his owne Popish decrees that forbid such reseruation for feare of putrifaction and rottennesse At last commeth the Counsels of Wormes and Remes in which times it is certaine that great corruptions preuailed in the church then followeth the Counsell of Laterane commended for generall held Anno. 1215. speaking of the diligent reseruation of the sacrament with much adoe about the authoritie of Counsels But all not worth a rush The generall Counsell of Laterane falsified the text of scripture tract to both in wordes and sense alledging it thus in their second Canon or Chapter against Ioachim Abbas Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus that which the father hath giuen me is greater then all Whereas the trueth of the text is the father which hath giueÌ„ them to me is greter then all A wise and worshipfull Counsel that can not confute an errour but by falsifying of the scripture And this is the Counsell that first decreed transubstantiation Last of all commeth the Counsel of Trent in our days and that not so vainely alledgeth of The age of the Nicen Counsell to haue acknowledged reseruation as M. Heskins impudently affirmeth therevpon that The Nicen Counsell did agâ—â—se reseruation Next he iangleth of the authoritie of the Church as though what so euer the synagogue of Antichrist doth affirme were the difinition of the Church of christ And in the end he ioyneth an other issue with the proclamer That if he can bring any plaine scripture catholique doctour or counsel that by expresse wordes forbiddeth reseruation he will subscribe For scripture the institution do ye this in remembrance of me proueth the sacrament to be an action and not a name of a thing that may be reserued for euery action is in mouing Secondly all Catholique doctours in a manner and all Counsels generall and prouinciall that speake of this sacrament call it Eucharistia whiche is a giuing of thankes which name can not be rightly applyed to the bread and wine only but to the whole vse of them according to Christes institution Thirdly the expresse decree of Clemens his owne Doctour is against reseruation alledged in the Chapter next before Fourthly Origen in Leuit. Chap. 7. Hom. 6. the place also cyted in the latter end of the 24. Chapter The sixe and twentith Chapter answereth the cheefe obiection of the aduerâ—aries Our cheefe argument hee saith against the reseruation and our very Achilles against all other rites vsed in the sacraments is that in the institution thereof there is no mention made of reseruation But there he belyeth vs For we say it is directly against the commaundement of the institution take and eate and do this in remembrance of me I would aske this question of him Was it lawfull for the Apostles to haue reserued it when Christ coÌ„manded it to be eaten If he say no let him shewe me why it is more lawfull nowe to reserue it then it was then seeing we haue the same commaundement continued doe this in remembrance of me that is take and eate it Moreouer we say it is cleane contrarie to the end and forme of the sacrament that it should be reserued and caried about to be worshipped For it is spirituall meate whose end vse and fruit is in eating not in keeping and carying about or worshipping But nowe let vs see Maister Heskins profound Diuinitie in solution of our argument There be three manner of doings as concerning the scripture One is to do so much as the scripture biddeth An other to do against that the scripture biddeth The third to do something besides that the scripture biddeth Concerning the first hee saith that As Christ tooke breade and wine made it his body and bloud commaunded it to be eaten and dronken in remembrance of him so he that taketh bread and wine and doth consecrate it eat it and drinke it in remembraunce of his death c. doth as much as the scripture biddeth him and is blamelesse in this respect This is true and all this doe we in our Church therefore are we blamelesse by his owne conclusion But they that being commaunded to eate and minister to bee eaten doe not eate it nor giue it to be eaten but keepe it and hang it vp doe manifestly breake this commaundement and so doe the Papisteâ— For they doe against that the scripture biddeth And whereas he alledgeth the sixt Counsell of Constantinople reprouing the Armenians for ministring with wine without water it seemeth that both
were of weight or the corruption of the time in which he liued vnknowen there is nothing in this saying which might not easily and without any wresting be referred to the spirituall sacrifices to the spirituall manner of sacrificing the body and bloud of Christ which we haue learned out of the elder fathers The seuen and thirtieth Chapter maketh a brieefe recapitulation of thinges before written with the application of them to the proclamation of the aduersarie and so concludeth the first booke It were but vaine labour especially for me that professe such breuitie to repeate the answers and declarations made before that not one of these Lordes of the higher house whom he nameth fauoureth his bill of the carnall presence or the sacrifice of the masse in such sense as he and his fellowes take it But whereas he is so loftie once againe to ioyne issue with the proclaymer that as he hath done alwayes hitherto vpon the negatiue I will not refuse him And yet by the way I must admonish the Reader how vnreasonably he dealeth that ioyneth all his issues vpon the negatiue whiche sometime is harde sometime is vnpossible to be proued whereas the Bishop whom he calleth the proclaimer ioyneth issue with them vpon the affirmatiue which if euer it was holden is more probable to finde proofe in antiquitie Whereas if I might haue libertie to ioyne vpon the negatiue I would bring in fiue hundreth propositions that are false and yet neuer a one expressely denied of the olde writers because there neuer happened any controuersie aboute suche matters in their times But to his issue If he can bring any one sufficient authoritie that shall directly say that the Church may not offer the body of Christ in such sorte as it doeth I will giue him the victorie First here he reiecteth the authoritie of the Apostle to the Hebrues saying it is but wrested which is as direct as nothing in the worlde can be more direct that Christ offered himselfe and that but once and by that one oblation hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified But he shal heare Chrysostome vpon the same scripture Hebr. 10. Aufer◠primum vt sequens statuat c. He taketh away the former that he might establish that whiche followeth Beholde againe the aboundance This sacrifice sayeth he is but one but those sacrifices are many for therefore they were not strong because they were many But tell me what need is there of many when one is sufficient Therefore whereas they were many and alwayes offered he sheweth that they were neuer purged For as a medicine when it is strong and effectuall to giue health and able to driue away all sicknesse being but once laide to worketh the whole at once If therfore being but once laide to it hath wrought the whole it sheweth the vertue thereof in that it is not laid to any more this is the effect of it that it is laid on no more but once But if it be always laid to it is a manifest token that it preuailed nothing For this is the vertue of that medicine that it is but once laid on and not oftentimes euen so in this case By what meanes were they always healed by the same sacrifices For if they had ben deliuered from al their sins there should not haue bene offered sacrifice throughout euery day For they were appointed that they should be always offred for al the people both at euening in the day Therfore that was an accusation of sinns not a discharge for ther was made an accusatiō of weaknes not a shewing of strength For bicause the first sacrifice was of no force the second was likewise offered bicause that also profited nothing an other was offered also wherefore this is but a conuiction of sinnes For in that they were offered there is a conuiction of sinnes but in that they were always offred there is a conuiction of infirmitie But contrariwise in Christ the sacrifice was but once offered For what neede was there of medicines when there is no more wounds remaining For this cause you wil say he cōmanded that it should always be offered bicause of infirmitie that there might be also a remēbrance of sinnes What then do we◠Doe we not offer euery day we offer truely but for a remembraunce which we make of his death and this is but one sacrifice not many Howe is it one and not many Bicause it was offered but once and it was offered in the holy of holies but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that we offer the same alwayes For we do not nowe offer one lamb to morrowe an other but the same thing alwayes Therfore this sacrifice is but one For else by this reason bicause it is offred in many places are ther many Christs No but one Christ is euery where both here being perfect and there being perfect euen one body For as he which is euery where is one bodie and not many bodies so also it is one sacrifice And hee is our highe Priest which offered the sacrifice which purged vs the same do we also offer nowe which then truely being offered can not be consumed Howbeit that which we doe nowe is done truely in the remembraunce of that which was done then For this do ye saith he in remembraunce of me We make not an other sacrifice as the high Priest but alwayes the same but rather we worke the remembrance of the same This place of Chrysostome sheweth both that the Church neither doth nor may offer the body of Christ in such sort as the Papistes say that is really and carnally and for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead and also howe the Church is saide to offer the sacrifice of Christes body namely when she celebrateth the remembrance thereof After this holy issue ioyned M. Heskins rayleth vpon Cranmer which in his first booke hath not one Doctour or Counsel to alledge but only a litle false descant vpon a scripture or two as the proclamer in his Sermon What reading Cranmer and Iewell were able to shewe in the Doctours and Counsels is so well testified by their owne learned workes vnto the world that it can not by such an obscure doctour as M. Hesk. is be blemished or darkned But M. Heskins hath such store of testimonies for the sacrifice of the Masse to proue that Christ is offred therin that beside those which he hath alredy cited he wil ad three or foure to this recapitulation First he nameth Iustinus Martyr in his dialogue against the Iewes Where he alledgeth his wordes truncatly leauing out the beginning ▪ which declareth that Iustine maketh all Christians Priestes and offerers of the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the celebration of the Lordes supper His wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euen so we which by the name of Iesusas al shal be one man in God the maker of al things hauing put off our
bloudied and wounded with a speare hath sent foorth founteines of bloude and water wholesome to all the world Here is much a doe the same bodie is in the sacrament which was crucified Wee knowe Christ hath no more bodies but euen that one that was crucifyed the same is eaten in the sacrament as in a mysterie significatiuely as the same Chrysostome in the same place doth testifie Quid enim appello inquit communicationem id ipsium corpus sumus Quid significat panis Corpus Christi Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christi non multa sed vnum corpus For what do I call it saith he a participation We are the verie same bodie What doth the bread signifie the bodie of Christ. What are they made that receiue the bodie of Christ not many bodies but one bodie Lo here the breade signifyeth the bodie of Christe which was crucified And the faithfull that receiue it are made the same bodie of Christ that was crucified but all this in a mysterie not carnally or corporally What reader of Cambridge he girdeth at that alledged obiectiōs of Duns against the carnall presence I knowe not Duns might frame or reherse more arguments against it then with al his subtilties he could aunswere but my thinke M. Hesk. should not enuie this practise when he himselfe hath neuer an argument nor authoritie almost out of the doctors but such as he hath of other mens gathering and not of his own reading as his manifold mistakins do declare beside wilfull corruptions and falsifications The three and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact Beda Of these two being both of the lower house the testimonie of Theophylactus maketh nothing for him the saying of Beda maketh much against him Concerning Theophylact let them that list read his sentence for I compt it superfluous to rehearse their testimony whose authoritie in this matter I will not stand to But because the opinion of carnall presence was not receiued in this church of England in the age of Beda nor long after I thinke it not amisse to consider his authoritie He writeth therefore in Ioan. Dixerat superiùs c. He had sayde before he that eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloud hath life eternall And that he might shewe howe great a difference is betweene corporall meate and the spirituall mysterie of his bodie bloud he added my fleshe is meate in deede my bloud is drink in deede Here Beda calleth the sacrament a spiritual mysterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ which although it be playne against the carnall presence yet M. Heskins would cloke it with a fonde definition of a mysterie to be that I wot not what which conteyneth couertly a thing not to be perceiued by sences or common knowledge and so the sacrament is a mysterie conteyning the verie bodie of christ Besides that he remembreth not that Beda calleth it not onely a mysterie but a spirituall mysterie I would wit of him what it is that Beda calleth a spirituall mysterie if he say the sacrament I would further knowe what he calleth the sacrament he will aunswere the formes of breade wine for so they determine forsooth Well then Christ would not shewe the difference of the spirituall foode of his flesh bloud which is the thing conteined but of the accidents of bread and wine from the corporall foode O foolishe conclusion of Beda or rather O false definition counterfet exposition of Hesk For Beda sheweth the excellencie of the spirituall mysterie of Christes bodie and bloud which is our spirituall foode aboue the corporall foode and neuer dreamed of M. Heskins mysterie The foure and twentieth Chapter beginneth the ex-position of the next text in the sixt of S. Iohn by S. Hillarie S. Augustine The text is He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee and I in him For vnderstanding of this text he premiseth a destinction of two manners of abyding in Christ that is spiritually and naturally spiritually by right faith and sincere charitie as S. Cyrill doth teache and naturally by receiuing of Christes fleshe as S. Hillarie teacheth This distinction not being made by any doctour but deuised vpon occasion of termes vsed by the doctours to ouerthrowe the meaning of the doctours he pleaseth him verie much therein I haue shewed before that Hillarie by the worde naturally meaneth truelye that as Christ is truely ioyned vnto vs by taking on him our fleshe and we are truely ioyned to him by eating drinking his flesh vnder a sacrament and vnder a mysterie for both these termes of restreint he hath to shewe the manner of our eating to be sacramentall and mysticall not as M. Heskins would carnall and naturall so Christ is truely one with God not in vnitie of will only but in vnitie of Godhead in substance of diuinitie in essence of eternitie But let vs heare his owne wordes lib. 8. de Trinit Quod autem in eo c. But that we be in him by the sacrament or mysterie of his fleshe and bloud which is communicated vnto vs he testifieth him selfe saying And this world doth not nowe see mee but you shall see mee for I liue and ye also shall liue because I am in my father and you in mee and I in you c. But that this vnitie in vs is naturall he hath witnessed saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in mee I in him For there shall no man be in him but in whome he shal be hauing onely his assumpted flesh in him who hath taken his By this place out of which he would buyld his destinction of naturall and spirituall abyding the same is manifestly ouerthrowne For the drift of that distinction as he confesseth is to shewe that Christe may abyde naturally where he doth not abyde spiritually as in the wicked But the place of Hillarie is plain that where this naturall vnitie is Christe abydeth eternally therefore this naturall vnitie is not in the wicked Thus while Maister Heskins harpeth greedily vppon the terme naturally for the naturall presence of Christes bodie he looseth his distinction and with all his naturall presence also For if his bodie be not naturally receiued of the wicked it is not naturally present in the sacrament as all Papistes do confesse And further that this natural vnitie is after a spirituall manner it appeareth by the last wordes of the sentence That he in whome Christ dwelleth hath onely the assumpted flesh of Christ in him But this must needes be after a spirituall manner as the holie and innocent fleshe of Christe is made oures therefore this naturall vnitie he speaketh of is not in that sense naturall that Maister Heskins immagineth but after a diuine and vnspeakable manner For otherwise Godly men haue fleshe of their owne yea and sinfull fleshe which is not of the singular substance of the fleshe of Christe though
Thumb their miracles should be more credited that such a one should be conteined in their cake rather then a tall man of perfect stature O impudent asses But it proueth wel the reall presence saith M. Hes. that Auerrois a Philosopher saith I haue walked ouer the world I haue found diuers sectes and yet haue I found none so foolish a sect is is the sect of the Christians For they deuour with their teeth their God whome they worship Hereof it is easie to perceiue saith he that the fame was that they did receiue and eate Christ whom they honoured But herein M. Hes. bewrayeth either his falshood or his ignoraunce For hee speaketh as though Auerrois were an ancient Philosopher that liued in the dayes of the primitiue Church whereas he was a Spanish Mahometist or rather Athist not past three or foure hundreth yeres ago when Poperie was in the greatest pride and Idolatrie couered the face of the earth His saying therfore proueth nothing but how great an offeÌ„ce the popish Idolatrie did giue to the Heathen Turkes and Iewes And whereas Iustinus in his Apollogie to the Emperour declareth whatsoeuer was done in the assemblies of the Christians he well dischargeth them of all slaunders that were raised against them but defendeth not the corporall eating of mans flesh by the commaundement of Christ although he confesse that they receiued that breade not as common bread nor as common drinke but as their flesh and bloud was nourirished by that foode so they were persuaded that it was the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ for the spiritual foode of their soules As for the curse that Rupertus threatneth to them that adde vnto the word of God â–ª pertaineth not to them that giue the true sense of the word of God whether it be in more wordes or fewer And whereas Rupertus saith these words of Christ I am a vine and this is my body be no like speaches I confesse they are not in euery respect bicause in the one he did institute a sacrameÌ„t in the other he taught as by a similitude the true end vse and signification of the sacrament Yet are they not altogether vnlike bicause they are both figuratiue and so iudged and compared together by the auncient Fathers But Rupertus will proue by two reasons that the latter is no figure First bicause in the former there is a continuation of the Allegorie which proueth it to be a figure in the other there is none such This is a fond reason for both we haue shewed a continuation of the trope where he saide this cup is the newe Testament and although there were none yet that can not exclude a figure no more then when baptisme is called regeneration when the lamb is called the Passeouer which be sacramentall speaches and such like where no continuation of the figure followeth The other reason of Rupertus M. Heskins diuideth into two parts The first is to note the enunciation of both scriptures for he doth not take a braunch of a vine and say I am this vine or this vine is my body but he saith of the bread this is my body A strong reason he saith as signanter by a certaine demonstration of substaunce and speaking of the same sacrament That rocke was Christe and in the time when it was a sacrament it was and might be truely said pointing to the rocke this is Christ and to the water issuing out of it this is the bloud of Christ and so no doubt Christ spake by his spiriâ—e in the consciences of the faithfull The second part of Rupertus reason is that the wordes which followe which is giuen for you c. can not be applied to the figure therefore the sense of that place is proper and not figuratiue But contrariwise these wordes can not be applied to the sacrament therefore the speach is not proper but figuratiue and shewe howe the breade and the cup are the body and bloud of Christe namely as his body is broken and his bloud shed for vs for the vertue of the sacrament standeth in his passion by which his body and bloud offered in sacrifice for our sinnes are made a spirituall foode of our soules The conference that Rupertus maketh betweene the words of Christ and the wordes of the serpent I passe ouer as containing no argument in them for the proofe of M. Heskins bill but onely shewing the corrupt iudgement of the authour whose reasons I am content to weigh but I esteeme not his authoritie as being a late prop of the Popish church The three and fortieth Chapter beginneth to proue the vnderstanding of Christes foresaid wordes not to be figuratiue by the authoritie of the Fathers And first by Alexander and Iustinus Iustine is alledged in this second Apologie in a corrupt Latine translation which he maketh worsse by falsifying the same in his English translation The place hath bene already considered in the first booke Chap. 27. according to the originall Greeke copie I will nowe rehearse the same after his Latine translation and afterward shewe M. Heskins falsification Cum autem c. When he that is ouerseer hath giuen thankes and all the people haue assented they which are called Deacons with vs do distribute to euery one that is present that they may take part in the breade in which thankes is giuen and of the wine and water and carie it to those which are not present And this foode which is called thankes giuing Of which it is not lawfull for any other to take part but he that beleeueth those things to be true which are taught by vs and which is washed in the lauer vnto remission of sinnes and regeneration and so liueth as Christ hath taught Neither do we take these thinges as common bread and a common cup but euen as by the word of God Iesus Christ our sauiour being incarnate had both flesh and bloud so we are taught that the foode through the prayer of his word being consecrated by thankesgiuing of which our flesh bloud by transmutation are nourished is the flesh bloud of Iesus Christ which was incarnate For the Apostles in their coÌ„mentaries which are called Gospels haue taught that he did so coÌ„maund them That when he had taken bread giuen thanks he said Do this in remembrance of me this is my body And likewise when he had taken the cup and giuen thankes that he said This is my bloud and gaue first to them alone M. Heskins hath falsified this author in his translation First where he turneth is qui prÄ™est the prieste as though there were Masse priestes in that time Secondly quae docentur a nobis that be taught of vs as though none should receiue the sacrament but they which beleue the real presence which he surmiseth to be taught to theÌ„ But more notably where he translateth these wordes Sie verbi sui oratione consecratum gratiarum actione alimentum ex quo caro nostra sanguis per
saintes in heauen what the rest be he doth not determine he meaneth Siluester Isodore Innocentius Betram Durand Holcot Dunce c. Which if they haue written any thing that is ridiculous in defence of Poperie it were better men should laugh at their follie then be still deceiued with their errours But whereas M. Hesk. will set a player on a stage and a boy in the Paâ—â—is to answere the Bishop I weene it be more then the reuerend M. Doctor Heskins reuested in Doctoralibus and inthronized in his Doctours chayer dare well take vpon him to doe That whiche followeth in this Chapter is consumed in cyting and vrging of the forenamed wryters whose authoritie we doe not admitte appealing alwayes from the lower house of punys Burgesses to the higher house of auncient Barons The sixtieth Chapter proceedeth in exposition of the same text by Theophylacte and Paschasius Although we might demurre vpon the vnderstanding of those wordes of Theophylact In 14. Matth. That the bread wine are transelementated into the vertue of his flesh bloud yet considering the corrupt time in which he liued his authoritie is not worth the striuing for And whereas Maister Heskins would make him so say no more then the olde fathers Hilar. Iren. Cyril Chrysost. c. Seeing we haue already considered their testimonies it were superfluous to repeate them againe in this place and as often as it pleaseth Maister Heskins to abuse their names The one and sixtieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of the same wordes by Oecumenius and Anselmus Oecumenius saith litle to the purpose too or fro But Anselmus goeth more roundly to the matter as one that was the scholler of LanfraÌ„cus which wrote against Berengarius Neuerthelesse vpon these wordes of his riseth some other matter Neque eminet For we do neither altogether exclude a figure froÌ„ this sacrament nor admit an only figure This place M. Hesk. would haue to expound Tertullians figure but we haue shewed before it will not serue Vnto this he addeth Augustine cited in the Popes decrees but not to be found in his workes in these wordes The bodie of Christ is both the trueth and a figure The trueth whyle the bodie and bloud of Christ in the vertue of the holie Ghost is made of the substance of bread and wine but that is the figure which is outwardly perceiued De cons. Dist. 2. Cap vtrum When these wordes are found in any worke of S. Augustines we will make aunswere to them otherwise we may not receiue them of the onely credit of the Popes law Vnlesse they haue such meaning as the saying of Hilarius B. of Rome which followeth Corpus Christi c. The bodie of Christ which is takeÌ„ at the altar is a figure whyle the bread wine are seene outwardly and a truth while the bodie and bloud of Christ inwardly are beleeued It seemeth to me this saying to be playne ynough that the sacrament is an outward figure of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is inwardly receiued spiritually by faith As Gratian also reporteth the wordes of the same Hilarie De Cons. Dist. 2. Vbi pars est Non enim est quantitas visibilis in hoc aestimanda mysterio sed virtus sacramenti spiritualis The visible quantitie is not to be regarded in this mysterie but the spirituall vertue of the sacrament But M. Heskins proceedeth and by Anselmus authoritie he will auoide the trifling sophysticall argument made by Maister Pilkinton in the open disputation holden in Cambridge By like Maister Heskins had not learned the solution at that time and therefore nowe he sendeth it ouer the sea to him The argument was this Christe tooke bread he blessed bread he brake bread wherfore he gaue bread to his disciples if he gaue bread then not his bodie M. Heskins saith he so vseth the words as though by the actes which the verbes expresse nothing had beene done Yes M. Heskins he chaunged the vse but not the substance But by the like sophisme saith Maister Heskins he might proue that he gaue no sacrament of his bodie For that he deliuered which he tooke but he tooke bread no sacrament therfore he deliuered bread no sacrament But by his patience this sophisme of his is nothing like Maister Pilkintons argument For in one proposition he speaketh of the substance in the other of another qualitie or affection beside the substance as in this example that which you bought in the shambles you haue eaten but you bought cowe fleshe therefore you haue eaten caulfes fleshe Euerie childe seeth this followeth not But if I speake of the substance in both alike it followeth as thus That which you bought in the market you haue eaten but you bought mutton therfore you haue eaten mutton Vpon the premises graunted this argument followeth of necessitie and such is the argument of Maister Pilkinton which all the Papistes in Louayne can not answere The tâ—o and sixtieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Rupertus and Nicholaus Methonen In this whole Chapter is nothing worth the reading and much lesse the aunswering for he doeth nothing but cite and vrge the sayings of these two late writers of whose authoritie he knoweth we make none account as there is no reason why we should they being members of the Popish Church For the auncient writers whome he nameth their sayinges haue beene already weyghed and aunswered The three and sixtieth Chapter taryeth in the exposition of the same wordes by Innocentius Germanus The authoritie of Pope Innocent the third which called the Laterane Counsell in which transubstantiation was first decreede must needes be of great credite with vs But Germanus bishop of Constantinople the Popes sworne enimie I marueile why hee is ioyned with the Pope For that he saith is small to M. Heskins purpose and therefore he helpeth him out with Damascen yet he confesseth his saying subiect to cauilling For where he writeth that in the sacrament Dominus conspicitur c. Our Lorde is both seene and suffereth him selfe to be touched by the feâ—â—full and holy mysteries c. and so sayeth Chrysostome thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him c. Maister Heskins sayeth we reason and so wee maye in deede that we eat him as we see him which is onely by faith But M. Heskins with profound Logike wil aunswere this argument that a thing is sayde to bee seene when the outwarde formes are seene and so Christe is seene when the formes of bread and wine are seene But by his fauour a thing is seene when the proper formes accidents thereof are seene but the forme or accidents of bread and wine are not the proper formes of Christes bodie therefore Christes bodie is not seene by them no more then I see a man when I see the house wherein he is or then I see a knife when I see the close case or sheath wherein it is And
suppressing the rest for very shame they make so much against him Surely in all reasonable mens consciences what so euer hee left out of this place hee left the aduauntage of his owne cause and no title againste him But let vs see here what Maister Heskins a man of inuention passing Sinon the GrÄ™cian hath gathered out of it There bee two thinges in this place plainely taught The first is the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in that he so reuerently calleth the sacrament vnder one kinde the portion of the Lords body and the other he calleth the cup of the holy bloud For the spiritual bloud is not contained in external or material vessels No syr but the sacrameÌ„t of his natural bloud is wherof he speaketh as it is manifest by the words immediatly before the portion of the Lords body for his natural body is not broken into portions but the bread which is a sacrament thereof is broken and therby is shewed what wicked men receiue both in this saying of Gelasius in the other of Leo not the naturall body of Christe which cannot be receiued in portions but a portion of the sacramental bread which is therfore called the body of Christ bicause it is so indeed to them that receiue it worthily is consecrated to that vse that it may be the coÌ„munication of the body of christ And as it hath ben often shewed sacraments beare the names of the very things wherof they are sacrameÌ„ts The second thing that he teacheth saith M. Hes. is that he calleth not these two kindes Sacramentum a sacrament but Sacramenta sacramentes in the plural number signifying therby that each of them is a whole sacrament O new Diuinitie theÌ„ ye Papistes haue eight sacraments But are you such a prudent gatherer M. Hes it appeareth you wil lease none aduantage for the taking vp I commend you But for all that doth not your Authour Leo call both kindes sacramentum a sacrament and that is more for it is too too childish to reason of the singular number doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kindes Vnum idémque mysterium one and the same mysterie And when he vseth the plural number the ground of your Achillean argument doth he not say Integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur Let them take the whole sacramentes or else let them be kept from the whole signifying that they which tooke the bread onely tooke but halfe the sacramentes and none took the whole but they that tooke the cup also But nowe for the practise of the Primitiue Church to haue receiued in one kinde he saith that in time of persecution the Priest deliuered them of the sacrament wrapped in fine linnen clothes to carie home with them and to receiue it secretly by them selues and this could bee none other but the sacrament vnder the foâ—ne of breade Admit it were so that they caried home the sacrament yet it followeth not but they might as well carie the wine in a faire pot as they caried the breade in a faire cloth And although TertulliaÌ„ writing to his wife name bread only yet doth it not followe but that he comprehendeth the cup also The wordes of Tertullian are before rehearsed and answered Lib. 1. cap. 24. 27. Next is brought in Basil. Episto ad Caesareant patriciam Illud autem c. As for that to be a grieuous thing in the times of persecution any man to be inforced to receiue the communion with his owne hand the Priest or Deacon not being present it is more then nedeth to proue for bicause the same thing is by a long custome and by the very vse of things established For all they that in the wildernesse lead a solitarie life where there is no Priest keeping the communion at home communicate of them selues But in Alexandria and Aeâ—ypt euery one of the people for the most part haue the communion in their owne house For when the Priest doth consecrate the sacrifice and distribute it we must well beleeue to participate and receiue it For in the Church the Priest giueth part and he that taketh it receiueth it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand It is therfore the same thing in vertue whether a man take one part of the Priest or many parts together Of the credite and authoritie of this Epistle which being cited in the name of Saint Basil is not to be found in all his workes I haue spoken before sufficiently as also of the reseruation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first booke cap. 27. But for the communion in one kinde I see nothing that he saith sauing that Maister Heskins gathereth that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hote countries conueniently in their own kind such long time as they were forced to reserue the sacrament in the wildernes and else where But I aunswere him that such strong wine as they haue in those hote countries will bee kept longer from sowring then the breade will bee from moulding and therefore his gathering is altogether fond ridiculous But now you shall heare a more plaine testimoine for this receipt vnder one kinde if you will hearken to S. Cyprian He is cited In sermone de Lapsis a long saying to litle yea to no purpose at all Praesente ac teste meipso c. Heare what came to passe my selfe beeing present and witnesse The parentes of a childe flying by chaunce while for feare they tooke no good aduisement leaft their young daughter vnder the cherishing of a nource the nource brought her so left vnto the Magistrates They before an Idole where the people were gathered because for her age she could yet eate no flesh gaue vnto her bread mixed with wine which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish Afterwarde the mother receiued her daughter But the litle mayde could no more speake and declare the offence that was committed then vnderstand it before and forbidde it Through ignorance therfore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her whyle we were sacrificing But truely the girle beeing among the Saintes not abiding our prayer and supplication sometime was constrained to crie out sometime with vehement greefe of minde was tossed here and there euen as though a tormentor compelled her the ignorant soule by such tokens as she could acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those yong and tender yeres But after the solemnities beeing accomplished the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present and when the rest had receiued and her place was next the little one by the instinct of Gods Maiestie turned away her face pressed her mouth with her lippes stopped refused the cuppe Yet the Deacon persisted and though it were against her will powred in somewhat of the sacrament of the cuppe Then followed belking and vomite In a bodie and a mouth that was defiled the Eucharistie
beloued flye from the honouring of Idols Afterward following he sheweth to what sacrifice they ought to appertein saying I speak as vnto wise men iudge what I say is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communication of the bloud of Christ and is not the bread which we breake a communication of the bodie of our Lord In this saying after the worde altar he hath gelded out thus much Ideo quippe addidit carnaliter vel secundùm carnem quia est Israel spiritualiter vel secundùm spiritum qui veteres vmbras iam non sequitur sed eam consequentem quae his vmbris praecedentibus significata est veritatem For therfore he added carnally or after the flesh because there is a Israel spiritually or according to the spirite which doth not now followe the olde shadowes but the trueth following which was signified by those shadowes All this is left out of the very middest From the end he cutteth of these wordes following Quia vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus omnes enim de vno pane participamus Et propter hoc subiunxit videte Israel secundùm carnem nonne qui de sacrificijs manducant socij sunt altaris vt intelligerent ita se iam socios esse corporis Christi quemadmodum illi socij sunt altaris Because there is one bread and we beeing many are one bodie for we are all partakers of one bread And for this cause he added Behold Israel according to the flesh are not they which eate of the sacrifices fellowes or partakers of the altar That they might vnderstand that they are now so fellowes or partakers of the bodie of Christe as those are partakers of the altar What can be saide more playne for the spirituall manner of participation of the bodie of Christe Except M. Heskins will say that the Iewes were really corporally and substantially partakers of the altar And this is conteined in the first booke Cap. 19. And wheras M. Hesk. iangleth of the sacrifice mentioned in this place heare what sacrifice it may be by Augustines owne wordes in the 18. Chapter of the same booke Sed nec laudibus nostris eget c. But neither hath he need of our prayses but as it is profitable for vs and not for him that we offer sacrifice to God and because the bloud of Christe is shed for vs in that singular and onely true sacrifice therefore in those first times God commanded the sacrifices of immaculate beastes to be offered vnto him to prophecie this sacrifice by such significations that as they were imaculate from faults of their bodies so he should be hoped to be offered for vs who alone was immaculate frō sins Here the sacrifice of death is the singular sacrifice the only true sacrifice propitiatorie of the Church otherwise for the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing or for the sacrament to be called vnproperly a sacrifice of the auncient fathers I haue often confessed before As for Damascenes authoritie li. 4. Ca. 14. it is not worth the aunswering being a late writer more then 100. yeares out of the compasse and full of grosse absurdities and in the place by M. Hesk. alledged denyeth that Basill calleth breade wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exemplaria exemplaries of the bodie and bloud of Christ after the consecration which is an impudent lye for before the consecration they are no sacraments and so no exemplars of the bodie and bloud of Christe therefore if he called them exemplars it must needs be when they are sacraments that is after consecration but such lippes such lettyce he is a sufficient author for M. Heskins and yet hee is directly against transubstantiation For he saith cum sit mos hominum edere panem bibere vinum ijs rebus adiunxit suam diuinitatem whereas it is the manner of men to eate beead and drinke wine hee hath ioyned his diuinitie to these things In these words he acknowledgeth the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament the diuinitie of Christ to bee ioyned to them The nynteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Isidore Oecumenius M. Hesk. hath many friends in the lower house as hee hath neuer a one in the vpper house that fauoureth his bil Yet Isidorus saith litle for him but rather against him He citeth him lib. 1. offic Cap. 18. Panis c. The bread which we breake is the bodie of Christ which sayth I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen and the wine is his bloud and this is it that is written I am the true vine M. Hesk. saith truely that Isidore is the rather to be credited because he alledgeth the scripture and therefore according to these two textes of scripture he must be vnderstoode but neither of both these texts is to be vnderstood litterally but figuratiuely therefore his saying the breade is the bodie and the wine is his bloud must be vnderstood figuratiuely not litterally which M. Heskins perceiuing would help him out by foysting in a place of Cyrillus in Ioan. Annon conuenienter c May it not be conueniently sayde that his humanitie is the vine we the branches because wee be all of the same nature For the vine the branches be of the same nature So both spiritually corporally wee are the braunches and Christ is the vine In these wordes Cyrill reasoneth against an Arrian as is more at large declared in the sixth Chapter of this third booke that would interpret this place only of the diuinitie of Christe to make him lesse then his father as the vine is subiect to the husbandman But Cyrill contendeth that it may well be vnderstoode also of his humanitie because we are not onely ioyned to the diuinitie of Christ but also to his flesh which is testifyed vnto vs by the sacrament wherin we are spiritually fedd with the verie bodie bloud of Christe and so Christe is the vine both spiritually corporally that is both after his godhead after his manhod But Cyrillus would neuer denie that this saying I am the true vine is a figuratiue speach which is the matter in controuersie betweene M. Hesk. and vs. Oecumenius is alledged to as litle purpose as Isidorus in 1. Cor. 10. Poculum vocat c. He calleth the cupp of the bloud of Christ the cupp of blessing which we blesse which hauing in our hands we blesse him which hath giuen vs his bloude Here is neuer a worde but I will willingly subscribe vnto it yet M. Hesk. sayth it is a common manner of speache that the vessel is named by the thing that it conteineth hee dare not say it is a figuratiue speach lest while he would haue the bloud of Christ locally conteined in the cupp he might be pressed with the figure in the worde bloud which he cannot denye though he dissemble in the word cupp In the end he braggeth of an euident
broken downe thine altares While hee sayth thine he sheweth that the thing is Gods where any thing is offered of any man to God. Vppon pretence of this place Maister Hesk. chargeth vs with great sacriledge for pulling downe their popish altares on which they committed idolatrie and moste horrible sacriledge And therefore wee are commaunded to ouerthrowe such altares to breake downe their pillers burne their images with fire Deut. 7. And whereas he compareth vs to one Iulianus an heathen man that pissed against the altare and therfore was horribly punished hee sheweth his wisedome For there an idolater did vilanously contemne the Christians religion therfore was iustly plaged of God but we as Christians haue obeyed the lawe of God in ouerthrowing their antichristian idolatrous altars And yet I thinke the fact of Iulianus was not worse then the filthinesse of Pope Iohn that lay with his whores vppon your altares In the conclusion of this chapter he affirmeth that the altar sacrifice are correlatiues therefore there coulde be none altars but there was also sacrifice I haue shewed sufficiently howe the old writers called the communion table an altare and the sacrament a sacrifice namely a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation and yet more must I saye vpon M. Heskins discourses that followe The two and thirtieth Chapter vpon occasion that it is proued that the primitiue Church vsed the altare and reputed the bodie and bloud of Christ to be a sacrifice beginneth to treate of the same sacrifice which we commonly call the Masse Because the names of altar sacrifice haue beene vnproperly vsed by auncient writers for wee haue shewed that their altar was a table and their sacrifice a thankesgiuing therefore M. Hesk. will treat of the sacrifice of the Masse And first of the name of Masse which he saith we abhorre and iustly because it hath been vsed of many yeres to signifie a most blasphemous and idolatrous seruice The name he will deriue in all the haste out of the Hebrue tongue from a word that is called Mas from whence the Latines haue deriued their worde Missa being the same that the Greekes called Liturgia and the Latines officium which is in English a seruice To this I aunswere first that if Missa or Masse be nothing but a seruice then Euen song may be called Masse because it is a seruice Secondly it carryeth no shewe of trueth that the Latines would borrowe their name of the Hebrues rather then of the Greekes Thirdly that there is no such Hebrue worde as Maister Heskins affirmeth to bee Mas signifying a seruice as I report mee to all that haue but meane knowledge in the tongue Fourthly that although the name of Missa bee of some antiquitie in the Romane church yet is it neither so auncient as he maketh it and that which is chiefely to be regarded it is neuer founde in the holie scripture But nowe let vs consider his authoritie First Leo bishop of Rome Epist. 79. sayeth thus Necesse est vt quaedam pars populi sua deuotione priuetur si vniut tantùm Missae more seruato sacrificium offerre non possunt nisi qui prima diei parte conuenerint It must needes be that some parte of the people bee depriued of their deuotion if the manner or custome of our onely masse being obserued they cannot offer sacrifice except such as came together the first part of the day Vppon coulour of this place Maister Heskins will not onely prooue that the name of Missa is auncient but also that it is lawfull to saye more then one Masse in one church in one day if two then three if three then tenne if tenne then fifteene and so twentie which the proclaimer sayed could not be proued But you shall see howe lewdly hee abuseth his reader The proclaimers challenge was of tenne or twentie priuate Masses sayed in one church and commonly at one time Maister Heskins bringeth in authoritie of Leo which proueth that when one communion coulde no serue any more then so manie as the church woulde holde at one time it was meete it should be celebrated twise or as often as the same was filled with people vntill all had receiued which as wee confesse to be true so maketh it nothing in the worlde for the priuate Masse but altogether against it as is plaine by the whole treatie going before which Maister Heskins according to his accustomed synceritie hath cleane left out Vt autem in omnibus obseruantia nostra Concordet illud quoque volumus custodiri vt quum solennior festiuitas conuentum populi numerosioris indixerit ad eam tanta multitudo conuenerit quam recipere Basilica simul vna non possit sacrificij oblatio indubitanter iteretur ne his tantùm admissis ad hanc deuotionem qui primi aduenerint videantur hi qui posimodum confluxerint non recepti cum plenum pietatis atque rationis fit vt quoties Basilicā pręsentia nonae plebis impleuerit toties sacrificiū subsequēs offeratur And that our obseruation may agree in al things this also we will haue to be kept that when a more solemne festiuitie shall call together a greater assembly of people and so great a multitude is gathered vnto it that one great Church can not receiue them altogether the oblation of the sacrifice without doubt may be done againe least those only being admitted which came first they which came together afterward might seeme not to be receiued whereas it is a matter full of godlinesse and reason that how often so euer the presence of a newe people shall fill the Church so often the sacrifice following should be offered But M. Heskins vrgeth in the place by him cited that the word missa is vsed which is not denyed but this was almost 500. yeres after Christ about the yere 480. Secondly that the Masse is a sacrifice But he will not see that it is such a sacrifice as all the people offer which can not be a sacrifice propitiatorie but of thankesgiuing Howbeit he saith The Masse is a sacrifice that is or ought by ioyne affection and deuotion of the people to the Priest to be offered of them all What affection or deuotion he would haue to the Priest I do not well vnderstand but let him shadowe him selfe in what fond phrase of word he will yet can he not auoyde but that the people by the wordes of Leo did offer sacrifice in as ample manner as the Priestes and then they were all Priestes Besides this in the words of Leo he obserueth not that it was a custome of the Church before his time to haue but one Masse or Communion in a day so straightly kept that vpon necessitie they would not relent therein vntill he tooke this order with them But Maister Heskins asketh what scripture the proclamer hath to the contrarie for twentie Masses in one Church in one day I aunswere Saint Paule willeth the Corinthians to
no man of learning will acknowledge them to be his And seeing the Greeke Liturgies are very vnlike the Latine Masse hee doth but mocke the ignorant readers to say they be all one Finally hee doth most absurdly conclude that his Masse should be within the compasse of Saint Augustines rule ad Ian. Ep. 118. That those thinges which the vniuersall Church obserueth throughout the worlde we may vnderstand that they are retayned as ordained either of the Apostles them selues or of the generall Counsels whose authoritie in the Church is most profitable Illa que per orbem vniuersa obseruat Ecclesia datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel a plenarijs concilijs quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrim a authoritas statuta retineri Thus hath M. Hes. cited Augustine to haue a starting hole vnder the name of the church but Saint Augustines wordes are somewhat otherwise Illae autem quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus quÄ™ quidem toto terrarum orbe obseruantur datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel plenarijs concilijs quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas commendata atque statuta retineri sicuti quod Domini passio resurrectio ascensio in Coelum aduentus de Coelo Spiritus sancti anniuersaria solennitate celebrantur si quid eliud â—ale occurrerit quod seruatur ab vniuersis quacunque se diffundat Ecclesia Those things which we obserue being not written but deliuered which truely are obserued throughout all the world it is giuen to be vnderstoode that they are retained as commended and decreed either by the Apostles or by generall Counsels whose authoritie in the Church is most wholsome as that the Passion resurrectioÌ„ of our Lord and his Ascention into heauen and the comming of the holy Ghost from heauen are celebrated with yerely soleÌ„nitie or if there be any such like matter which is obserued of all men wheresoeuer the Church spreadeth her self But seing the Popish Masse was vnknowne to the world in Augustines time neuer vsed throughout the worlde of all men for the orientall Churches neuer receiued it to this day if it haue no better holde then it getteth by this place of Augustine it must needes fall to the ground And thus much concerning the name fourme of the Masse In the next Chapter we shall heare of the matter or substance of the Masse it selfe The three and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the Masse it selfe Maister Heskins first with rayling tearmes taketh exception to the proclaymers diuision of the Masse into foure partes Prayers consecration receiuing doctrine except he adde oblation as the fifte or comprehend it vnder the name of consecration Moreouer he saith this is but a description of Masse in the large signification But the Masse it selfe properly is the holie consecration of the bodie and bloud of Christ the holy oblation and offring of the same in the memoriall and remembrance of his passion and death with humble and lowly thankes lawdes and prayses for the same and holy receiuing of that body and bloud so consecrated Here is the Lions skinne couering the asse but yet not so closely but the long eares may be seene hanging out For as the forme of these wordes for the most parte may be applyed to the holy communion so almost by euerie word he vnderstandeth another thing then either the scriptures or the auncient fathers do teache as we shall best see in the examination of the partes which followe First where he sayeth the proclaymer cannot abide consecration he sayeth falsely for both he graunteth consecration and the presence of Christes bodie and bloud but not the Popish charming nor their carnall manner of presence whiche how they be proued by M. Heskins let the readers iudge Oblation the second part he sayeth is proued in the first book and declaration of the prophesies of Melchisedech Damascen Malachie and in the 37. Chapter In the same places let the reader consider the answere In receiuing which is the thirde part two things saith Maister Heskins offend the proclaymer that is receiuing vnder one kinde and receiuing of the Priest alone The former is defended by him Lib. 2. from the 64. Chap. to the end of 67. Chap. there it is in this booke confuted The priuate receiuing he saith shall be defended afterward In doctrine the 4. part he knoweth not what faulte the proclaymer can finde wherein is greatest fault of all but M. Heskins will haue nothing to be the doctrine of the Masse but the Gospell and Pistle and other scriptures that are read in it In prayer the fift and last parte he findeth two faultes namely prayer to Saintes and for the dead for triall of these he will haue recourse to the primitiue Church It is well he can haue no recourse to the holie scriptures nor to the most ancient Church which is properly called the primitiue Church although these two errors be of great antiquitie But before M. Heskins vndertake these trials he girdeth at the communion ministred in copes and the proclaymer wearing Aarons garment for a bishoprick If the Popish priestes had no more pleasure to say masse in their vestments then the proclaymer to minister in copes I thinke the common sort of Papistes would haue lesse deuotion to the Masses then Gods people haue to the communion when it is ministred without any ceremoniall attyre But Maister Heskins will proue that neuer yet was heard off that Christ himselfe saide Masse For he instituted the Masse in his last supper and that he will proue by Cyprian but why doth he not rather proue it by the Euangelistes Forsooth because the scriptures haue no such vnproper speech to make any shewe of the Masse as Cyprian and the rest of the fathers haue Well let vs heare how Cyprian affirmeth that Christ saide Masse Maister Heskins saith First for the consecration Lib. 2. Ep. 3. He writeth thus Vt in Genesi c. That the blessing in Genesis by Melchisedech the priest might be duely celebrated about Abraham the image of the sacrifice appointed in bread and wine goeth before which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling offered bread the cup mixed with wine and he that is that fulnesse hath fulfilled the veritiâ— of the prefigured image In these wordes M. Heskins forgetting that Christ offred bread wine gloseth vpon the veritie of the image fulfilled by Christ and expressed by Cyprian in other wordes Obtulit c. He offred the same thing which Melchisedech had offered that is bread and wine euen his bodie and bloud Here againe is bread and wine offered by Christe which is his bodie and bloud after a spiritual manner as it was offered by Melchisedech Hitherto no worde of consecration nor of the carnall manner of presence but directly against it Nowe let vs heare howe he proueth oblation Quaerendum est c. It must be asked whom they haue folowed For if in the sacrifice which is
Christ it is euident that he neither beleeued transubstantiation nor the carnall presence nor consecration nor intention after the manner of the Papistes as also by this that hee calleth the bread and wine after consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplaries or figures You see therefore howe with patches and peeces rent off here and there he goeth about to deceiue the simple readers which either haue no leasure or no boookes or no skill to trie out his falsifications and malicious corruptions The like sinceritie hee vseth in citing Chrysostomes Masse for so he calleth his Liturgie in which is a prayer for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius which was seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostomes death and therfore could not possibly be written by him Besides this there be diuers copies in the Greeke tong one that Erasmus translated which is very vnlike that copie which is printed in Greeke since that time as the learned sort doe knowe The wordes he citeth be in a manner the same that were in Basils Liturgie sauing that in the end he addeth Permutans ea sancto spiritu tuo changing them by the spirt This change may well be without transubstantiation as hath bene often shewed before The saying of Ambrose is more at large in the Chapter next before As for the praier of the Popish Masse that the oblation may be made the body and bloud of Christ as it is vnderstoode of them is nothing like the prayers of the elder Liturgies although in sound of some words it seeme to agree And as foolishly as vniustly he findeth fault with our praier in the communion that wee receiuing the creatures of breade and wine in remembrance of Christes death according to his institution may be made partakers of his most blessed body bloud S. Iames S. Clement and the rest saith he prayed not that they might receiue bread and wine No more doe we thou foolish sophister But that receiuing bread and wine we might be partakers of Christes body and bloud and this did all the Apostolike and Primitiue Church pray as we pray in baptisme not that we may receiue water but that receiuing water we may be borne a newe Neither did they euer pray that the breade and wine might be transubstantiated into the body bloud of Christ but that they might be made the body bloud of Christ to theÌ„ after a spirtual sacrameÌ„tal maner But I am much to blame to vouchsafe these childish sophismes of any answere Next to this he would knowe what authoritie the Protestants can shewe that the eating and drinking of bread wine is of Christes institution That it is a part of his institution the Euangelists S. Paul do shewe most euidently But though he tooke breade and wine in his hands saith M. Heskins he changed it before he gaue them so that it was no more bread and wine but his body and bloud and therefore we charge Christ with an vntrueth to say that receiuing of bread and wine is of Christes institution O Maister of impietie and follie Christ made no such change in his handes but that which was in the cup was still the fruit of the vine as he himself testified saying I wil no more drinke of this fruit of the vine vntill the day come when I shall drinke it a newe with you in the kingdome of my father Math. 26. As for the praier of those Liturgies of Iames and Basil That God would make them worthie to receiue the body and bloud of Christe without condemnation proueth not that they meant to receiue the body of Christ after a corporall maner nor that the very body of Christe may be receiued to damnation The thirde Liturgie of Chrysostome which Erasmus expoundeth hath it otherwise Dignos nos redde potenti manu â—ua vt participes simuâ— immaculati tui corporis preciosi tui sanguinis per nos omnis populus Make vs worthy by thy mightie hand that we may be partakers of thy vndefiled body and of thy precious bloud and so may al the people by vs This prayer is godly sound and so are the other being rightly vnderstoode namely that they which eate of that bread drinke of that cup of the Lord vnworthily as S. Paule saith do eat and drinke their owne damnation not considering the Lords body But M. Heskins vrgeth that the spiritual body of Christ or Christ spiritually cannot be deliuered by the Priestes to the people but the real body may Yes verily much rather then the body of Christ corporally euen as the holy Ghost may be deliuered in baptisme and as eternal life and forgiuesse of sinnes may be giuen in preaching the Gospell and none of these feinedly but truly yet otherwise are they giuen by God otherwise by this Ministers But in this distinction of M. Hes â–ª it is good to note that he maketh Christ to haue a reall body which is not spirituall a spirituall body which is not reall Christ hath in deede a mysticall body which is his Church and that is not his natural body but by spiritual coniunction vnited to his only true naturall body But of this mystical body M. Hes. speaketh not Further he taketh exceptions to our prayer affirmeth that It is not the institution of Christe to receiue the creatures of breade and wine in the remembrance of his death But notwithstanding all his childish blockish quarels our prayer is waranted by the Apostles words 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat of this bread drinke of this cup ye shewe the Lords death till he come In the last part of this Chap. he will determine of the intention of the ministers of the new Church And that is that Desiring to receiue the creatures of bread wine they exclude the body and bloud of Christ. Who euer heard a more shamelesse lye or a more inconsequent argument But seing there be two sorts of ministers in this new founded Church he wil speake of them both one sort were made Popish Priestes so haue authoritie to consecrate but they lacke intention now they be fallen to heresie there is a second sort which thought they could not haue intention to consecrate yet being none of the greasie and blasphemous order they lack authoritie But I wold there were not a third sort of whom I spake in the last chap. that wer made popish Priestes and so continue but in outward dissimulation ioyne with vs if these intend to consecrate when they minister the coÌ„munion how can M. Hes. dissuade the Papists from receiuing of them or count their sacrameÌ„t nothing but bare bread And wheras M. He. seemeth in the end to inueigh against such I will willingly confesse that they are worse then he is or such as professe what they are but not worse then hee hath beene in King Henries King Edwards dayes when he dissembled and swaâ—e as deepely as any of them all As for our intention seeing it is
godly then any bishop of Rome in his time Likewise when the Sea of Rome vsurped prerogatiue it was reiected by the Councell of Africa which decreed that none should appeale thither discouered the counterfaiting of the bishops of Rome Con. Mileuit Cap. 22. Conc. Aphrican Ep. ad Coelestin Likewise it was reiected of the church of Alexandria whereof great dissention arose Con Affric Cap. 68. That Irenaeus Tertullian Optatus Hierom Augustine Eugenius Theodoretus poynted to the church of Rome as to a witnesse of trueth it proueth her clearnesse from those heresies in their tymes but giueth her none authoritie ouer other churches nor yet maketh her a rule of trueth to all churches for then there needed none other arguments against heretikes but the authoritie of the church of Rome whereas the testimonie of that church was one of the weakest reasons they vsed and that least preuailed 32 That he affirmeth other cities to haue chosen Bishops of their owne tongue it is also true of Rome For he cannot shewe one Pope that was ignorant of the Latine tongue while it was spoken in Rome And not many I thinke not one ignorant of the Italian tongue since that time although they were borne in other countries Besides that it is the fondest reason that euer I heard one or other alledge that the Popes haue bene borne in diuerse countries therefore they are supreme heade of the church more then other bishops that were bishops in the countries where they were born and yet more foolish that speaking of Bishops of other tongues hee nameth so manye places all of one tongue As Syna Antioche Galile Ierusalem Bethelem which are all of one tongue Campania Thuscia Aquileia Pisa Genua Bononia Millaine Parma Rauenna which are all Italian Gascoyne Lorayne Sauoy Burgundie Rhemes Tholose which are all frenche Saxonie Bauier Hollande Alsaria Mastriche which are all duche Cappadocia Thracia Creta Sicilia Sardinia Athens Nicopolis which are all Greeke There remaineth Spaine which is in a manner Italian and last of all Englande and Affrick So that there are not past fiue or sixe diuerse tongues of so many places as hee hath alledged to bleare the eyes of foolish Papistes As if one shoulde saye the Bishops of Caunterburie haue beene borne some in Yorke shire some in Durham some in Chester some in London some in Norfolke some in Cambridge c. Some in Italie some in Greece some in Fraunce some in Wales some in Normandie therefore that churche of Caunterburie is the chiefe Sea in the worlde 33 The See of Rome in deed was verie forward in vsurping authoritie of a chiefe iudge ouer other churches as Victor in excommunicating the bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter But they vtterly neglected his sentence yea and diuerse did not as Maister Sanders sayeth gently wish him not to deale so seuerely but sharpely rebuked him for his presumption and contention as Eusebius sayeth lib. 5. Cap. 25. Extant autem verba illorum qui victorem acriter reprehenderunt Equibus Irenaeus c. Their wordes are extant which sharply reprehended Victor of which number Irenaeus was one And whereas hee sayeth that Saint Cypriane desyreth Pope Stephanus to depose Martianus bishop of Arles in Fraunce it is false for hee exhorteth Stephanus beeing somewhat slacke against the Nouatians to write his letters vnto his fellowe Bishops in Fraunce as he him self oft had done that they woulde depose Martianus the heretike and suffer him no longer to insult ouer the churche which argueth the remissenes of Stephanus to doe that which was the charitable duetie of euerie bishop as Cyprian sheweth but proueth not his authoritie ouer all bishops That Felix the thirde deposed Aacarius bishop of Constantinople hee shewed the time of the full reuelation of Antichriste to bee at hande yet did hee it not of his owne authoritie but by authoritie of a Synode and afterwarde by a Synode restored him But Iustinianus the Emperour deposed two bishoppes of Rome Syluerius and Vigilius by his owne authoritie 34 That the bishop of Rome hath beene made the Committie of diuerse Councels to receiue the subscription of such as haue beene noted of heresies after their repentance it prooueth no superioritie in the worlde but a good opinion that those Councels had of his fidelitie 35 The letters of Leo to Flauianus and Theodosius proue not that the Patriarches Flauianus and Anatolius were commaunded to giue an accompt to the Bishop of Rome but rather Leo humbly desyred the Emperour Theodosius to commaunde a Synode to bee gathered in Italy because Flauianus had appealed not onely to the Bishop of Rome but to all the Bishopâ— of Italie Ep. 23. And that hee writ that Anatolius shoulde confesse his faith before hee were ordeined it was his good councell to the Emperour no commaundement to either of them Ep. 31. 36 It is false that all nations appealed to the Pope of Africa did excommunicate all them that so would or thought meete to appeale Concil Mileuit Ca. 22. Concil Aph. Ep. ad Coelest And although some appealed to the iudgement of the church or Bishop of Rome yet that proueth no generall authoritie The Councell of Sardike which M. Sanders citeth Can. 7. did moderate those appeales which had not bene lawfull if they perteined to the Bishop of Rome de iure of right Liberatus whom he citeth for the appeale of Athanasius affirmeth that the Councel of Chalcedon confirmed by the Emperor gaue no place to the contradiction of the Bishop of Rome nor his legates Cap. 13. which disproueth his supremacie more then any appeale can proue it As for the appeale of Athanasius if any were it was euer ruled by the Emperour who appointed him a synode to iudge his cause at Tyre Socrat. lib. 1. Cap. 28. Theodorete testifieth that after he was called to Rome by Iulius the bishop by the Emperour Constantius his commaundement his cause was referred to the councell of Sardica when he had first appealed to the Emperour Constans lib. 2. Cap. 4. He citeth Chrys. Ep. ad Innocentium to proue that he did appeale to the Bishop of Rome where there is no such matter Only he declareth how iniuriously he was dealt withal by meanes of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria from whome he appealed not to the Bishop of Rome but to a Synode Of the appeale of Flauianus we haue spoken euen now by the confession of Leo himselfe Ep. 23. As for other appeales of later times they proue the ambition of the Romish bishops that would receiue them although of many they were misliked 37 That Gelasius affirmed bishops condemned by prouincial councels were restored by the Pope alone hee citeth his Epist. ad Faustum in which is no such matter yet if it were so I say it proueth nothing but the ambition of that See which before his time began to encrease toward a supremacie and not long after obteined that it sought for But from the beginning it was not so
The bishop of Rome bearing witnesse of him self for his owne aduauntage is not to be credited In that Epistle he sheweth that Acacius by Lyra was cōdemned according to the Councell of Chalcedon which was lawful not only for him but for any other Bishop to haue done in as much as he inuented no newe heresie but did communicate with an other heresie alreadie condemned in a Councell 38 In the third generall Councell holden at Ephesus there is mention that Cyrillus was President of the councell but not that hee was Lieuetenant of the Bishop of Rome although Euasius a late writer in comparison doth so suppose But the wordes of the Councel are these Denique Petrus Ioannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis propter quod Apostoli sancti discipuli esse monstrantur Peter and Iohn are of equall dignitie one with the other bicause they are shewed to be Apostles and holy Disciples This confession of the Councel maketh more against the Popes supremacie then the Lieuetenantship of Cyrillus to the Pope if it were true could proue for it 39 Maister Sander saith without proofe but of declining times almost 500. yeares after Christe and later that the See of Rome had Legates both ordinarie and extraordinarie throughout all Christendome which if it were true proueth no more his supremacie then that the King of Spaine hath dominion ouer all those countries where he hath Legates ordinarie and extraordinarie He citeth the seuenth Canon of the councel of Sardica which was that he might send a Priest from his side Which in deede was a restraint of his vsurped authoritie and not a confirmation or an enlargement thereof For the Canon is this That if any Bishop that was deposed by the Bishops of his owne countrie did appeale to the Bishoppe of the Church of Rome the Bishop of Rome should write to the Bishops of the next prouince to examine his cause and if the partie by his opportunitie should moue the Bishop of Rome the second time to be heard againe then he might send Presbyterum à latere an elder from his side one or more which either with the Bishops aforesaid should iudge and determine the matter or else leaue it wholy to the iudgment of the Bishops of the Prouince By this Canon the singular authoritie of the Romish Bishop is modestly excluded 40 The examples of Bishops Perigenes and Martinus translated by the Bishops of Rome in the declining times proueth not the perpetual supremacie of the Pope seeing by generall Councels al such translations haue bene forbidden in elder times Nic. c. 15. chalc c. 5. 41 The consent of the B. of Rome was not so necessarie to generall Councels but that they were held without his presence or his sending For concerning his personal presence he was not at any of the 4. first approued generall Councels neither any for him at the second of thē which was held at Constantinople where Nectarius Bishop of the citie was president Also the fourth of Chalcedon made the See of Constantinople equal with the See of Rome which although Leo Bishop of Rome disalowed yet did it take place as Liberatus testifieth Cap. 13. 42 Although the Bishop of Rome had his Legate in some prouinciall Councels yet it is great impudencie to say he had them in al. And such as then were present they bare no rule or preheminence but as the Legates of other Bishops Philippus and Asellius were at the Councell of Aphrica in which decrees were made against the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome and yet they subscribed cap. 92 43 That the Pope hath procured a fewe nations to be conuerted within these thousand or 900. yeares as England by Augustine Saxoni by Bonifacius c it can not excuse him from being Antichrist him selfe ▪ although M. Sander saith we account him to be but the forerunner of Antichrist For though Gregorie otherwise a ceremoniall and superstitious man was moued with zeale of Christes glorie to seeke the conuersion of as many as he could yet the Popes which followed after him in procuring the cōuersion of some countries rather by cruell warres then by preaching of the Gospell as Prusia Liuonia Lithuania c. sought their owne glorie and aduauntage vnder the colour of Christes religion and therefore were not diuided against Satan but ioyned with him in hypocrisie 44 As for the conuersion of the Infidels in the newe found landes is a newe found argument to proue the primacie of the See of Rome Like as the conuersion of Elias the Iewe by Pius 5. Many Iewes and some of greate learning as Emanuel Tremelius haue bene conuerted to the Gospel And one within this two yeares was baptized in London 45 That the See of Rome hath so long flourished like a Queene in worldly pompe it is the more like to the See and citie of Antichrist Apoc. 18. verse 7. And that the cities of the other Patriarches and their Bishops be oppressed with Infidels it letteth them not to be true Christians For Esaie 60. prophesieth not of worldly pompe but of the spirituall glorie of the Church which was as great before Constantius stayed the persecution as euer since 46 That no Bishop was euer so honoured of Princes Kings or Emperours as the Pope c it proueth him to be Antichrist and his Church the whore of Babylon Apo. 17. vers 2. 17. cap. 13. 16. 47 That the Frenchmen deposed their King Childericus by the Oracle of Pope Zacharie which discharged them of their lawful othe of obedience it proueth mightily the Pope to be Antichrist Peter saith Feare God honour the King 1. Pet. 2. 48 And much more that Pope Leo the third did transferre the Empire it selfe into the West For Peter commaunded obedience to be giuen to euery ordinance of man for the Lord whether to the King as to the most excellent or to those rulers that are sent of him 1. Pet. 2. 49 That Pope Gregorie the fift gaue an order for the election of the Emperour confirmeth our iudgement of the Pope to be Antichrist as also that Nicholas the first threatened the Emperour Michael the ouerthrowe of the Empire of the East whereof hee by his proud rebellion and disobedience and diuiding the West part from it was a cause 50 That the succession of the Bishops of Rome hath ben continued in histories with the reigne of Emperours and Kings it proueth in deede that the Church of Rome hath ben either very famous when it was gouerned of good Bishops or infamous when it was degenerated into Antichristian tyrannie but this proueth no more the authoritie thereof to be lawfull or the religion good then the succession of Heathen tyrants Emperours Kings great Turkes proueth their religion true or their vsurpation lawfull As for the light of worldly fame that M.S. boasteth of is spirituall darknesse and not the light of the Gospell which our Sauiour speaketh of Luke 5. No man lighteth a candle c.
content to permitte to the Pope of the Elder Rome to be Primus Sacerdotum according to the definition of the Canons it proueth not his pretended supreame authoritie ouer all other men but onely that he was first in Order For hee himselfe deposed two Popes Syluerius and Vigilius And where Maister Sander interpreteth the definitions of the Cannon to be all the foure first councells he ouerreacheth too much for the Pope could neuer proue his primacie by the Councell of Nice although he forged a decree thereof as is shewed before 63 It is true that Phocas the traytor and murderer of his M. Mauritius vsurping the Empire for a great summe of monie receiued of Boniface the thirde determined the controuersie between Constantinople and Rome giuing Rome the title of Antichrist which from such a holy beginning it claimeth and vsurpeth vnto this day But if the See of Rome had beene the head of all churches by the word of God what neede had the Bishop of Rome to buy it of Phocas but onely to shewe himselfe the successor of Simon Magus not of Simon Peter 64 As it is true that God vsed the peace and authoritie of the Romane Empire to spread abroade the doctrine of the Gospel so is it altogether vntrue that Constantine resigned the citie of Rome to Syluester the Bishop thereof because he builded another imperiall citie in the East to keepe those partes of the Empire in peace and subiection For it is well knowen that many hundreth yeres after Constantine the great his successors inioyed the citie and pallaces of Rome vntill they were defaced by the Gothes and yet afterward the citie was restored to Iustinianus the Emperour out of the handes of the Gothes by Bellisarius and Narses And whereas M. Sander saith that neuer any Emperour of the West had his seate at Rome after Constantinus he sheweth either his great impudence or ignorance in histories For although some of them occupied in warres kept at Milliane Treueres or other cities yet is it vtterly false that there was neuer any Emperour suffered to make his ordinarie mansion place at Rome For Honorius Valentinianus Iunior dwelt at Rome before the subuersion of it by the Gothes many other euen vnto Augustus After which time Italy being oppressed with barbarous nations was no place for the Emperours safetie to dwell in In which meane time the Pope grewe to such greatnesse that he made challenge not onely to the citie but euen to the Empire it selfe taking vppon himselfe Antichrist to remoue it from the East vnto the West which was in deede a great miracle but such a miracle as was more meete for Antichriste to make then the successour of Peter 65 It is true that Rome hath lost no preheminence by the departure of the Emperor for as Chrysostome sheweth in 2. Thes. Antichrist was to succeed the Emperour in the seat of the Empire being made voide and to vsurpe all auctoritie both of God and men pretending the seat of Peter but being in deede the seat of the beast Apoca. 13. and of the Whore of Babylon Apo. 17. as both Augustine and Hieronym doe often times confesse Augu. De Ciuit. Dei. lib. 18. cap. 2. 22. Hie. Algas 9.11 In Esai lib. 13. cap. 47. 66 Although it be confessed by vs that the prerogatiue of the first place was graunted to the bishoppes of Rome in many metings and councels yet is it not granted that it was so alwayes nor in all generall councels And therefore this our confession prooueth not the Pope to be suche a starre candell or light as M. Sanders doeth imagine Nor that hee shoulde bee heade of the church because hee was first in place no more then an archbishoppe is head of the churche of his prouince because he is first in place although his church be compared to the members of a body For all particular churches make but one bodye whereof Christ is the onely head for it were a monstrous body that shoulde haue two heades and therefore it is truely saide in the councel of Basil Papa non est caput principale nec ministeriale vniuersalis ecclesiae The Pope is neither the principall nor the ministeriall heade of the vniuersall churche And therefore as it is saide in the same place the Pope neuer had any prerogatiue but by concession or permission of councels Now make what you can M. Sander of our confession and your owne popish councels 67 It is a faint proofe that the church of Rome is the head rote and mother of all churches because Ambrose and Hierome called the faith of the church of Rome the Catholike faith at suche time as it was true and Catholike in deede As if a man shoulde say the faith of the church of Englande is all one with the Catholike fayth therefore the churche of Englande is the head roote and mother to all churches Likewise that the Vandales which were barbarous people and Arrians calleth the Catholikes Romanes differing from them in nation as much as in religion 68 The fathers neuer beleeued that the Romaine churche cannot erre in the profession of their faith For Cyprian lib 4. Epist. 3. ad Romanos c. Falshood canne haue no accesse to the Romanes meaneth not as M.S. saith such Romaines as tarye in the vnitie of S. Peters chaire but of such as continue in the faith which S. Paule praised therefore hee saith Ad Romanos quorum fides c. The Romanes whose faith was praised by the Apostles Againe he speaketh not of erringe in profession of fayth but of falshood in winking at Scismatikes which sought for a refuge in S. Peters Chaire the principal churche beinge iustly banished out of other Churches And that Cyprian thought not that the Churche of Rome cannot erre in profession of faith it is most manifest by this that if he had bin so perswaded he woulde not haue contrary to the iudgement of the churche of Rome decreed with his felow bishops to adnihilate the sacraments ministred by heretikes As for the decretall epistle of Lucius we reiect it as a counterfet with all the rest of that rable in which these ancient bishops of Rome are faine to write so barbarously as no Carter did speake Latine in their time when they liued and alway extoll the dignity of that See of Rome as though in these great persecutions they had nothing els to talke of but their prerogatiues priuiledges The testimonies of Leo which he citeth sauour of a Romane stomake drawing as neere to the Antichristian pride as the man was to the time which wrote them Barnarde was but a late writer when Antichrist was in the top of his pride therefore his iudgement argueth the corruption of his time Finally when so many Popes haue bin condemned for heretikes what impudācie is to say the Pope or See of Rome cānot erre ▪ 69 To proue that the Emperours acknowledged the church of Rome to be the head of all churches he citeth
Iustinian which was almost 660. yeares after christ Cod. de summa trini◠lege 4. writing to Pope Ioannes Sanctitas vestra capu◠est omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum Your holines is heade of all holy churches I will not quarrell with him that he citeth the words otherwise then they are read in that Epist. by which it seemed he saw not the book himself but I answere that this epistle is a meere counterfet and forged euidence being not founde in the auncient coppies and therefore hath no glose of age vppon it as it is testified by Gregorius Haloander in a marginall note vppon the same Epistle No maruaile if a false title be defended with a forged euidence For if no men had admonished vs of that forgery yet the verie style vnlike Iustinians writing in other places argueth a later inuenter then either that Ioannes or Iustinian Likewise he citeth the saying of Eugenius not long before bishop of Carthage which called the Churche of Rome the head of all Churches and yet he reposed not all his confidence in the bishoppe of Romes aucthoritie but saide he woulde write to his brethren the other bishoppes that they might come to demonstrate the true faith against the Arrians especially to the bishop of the Church of Rome which is the head of all the Churches meaning the principall Churche Vict. lib. 2. 70 Thirdly hee citeth the words of the bishop of Patara intreatinge the Emperour Iustinian for Syluerius bishoppe of Rome whom he had banished There is not one king as Syluerius is Pope ouer the church of that whol world This bishoppe being 550. yeares after Christ and a suter also is not sufficient to make the Bishop of Rome so great a king And whereas Maister Sander sayeth that the Emperor yeelded to his saying repented willed him to be restored and therfore chargeth M. Iewel with impudency for alledging the example of Iustinian banishing Syluerius and Vigilius to proue that he had somewhat to doe in the churche of Rome affirming that hee might as well alledge the homicide and adultery of Dauid to prooue that hee had somewhat to doe with an other mans wife the trueth is M. Sanders forgeth a matter contrary to al histories which affirme that Syluerius dyed in banishment And how vnlike it is that Iustinianus repented of the banishinge of Syluerius vppon the words of the bishop of Patara in respect that he was Pope ouer the church of the whole worlde appeareth by this that he afterward banished Vigilius his next successor in the same sea The wordes of Liberatus whom M.S. citeth cap. 22. bee these Quem audiens imperator reuocari Roman◠Syluerium iussit c. Whom when the Emperour heard he commaunded that Syluerius shoulde be called againe to Rome and that iudgement should be made of these letters so that if it were prooued that they were written by him the bishop might remaine in any citie and if they were prooued to bee false he shoulde bee restored to his owne See. These wordes doe manifestly shew that Iustinian repented him not of banishing the Pope as a thing vnlawfull for him to doe but onely that whereas it was alledged in the Popes behalfe that the letters of treason were forged which he was charged to haue written to the Emperours enemies Iustinian was content that his cause might come to a newe iudgement and if he were found cleare to bee restored if not to continue in banishment To conclude the sayinges of Gregory bishop of Rome in defence of his owne dignitie are of small credit And yet they are a great deale more modest then the proude decrees of his successours For he challengeth the hearing of such controuersies only as arise in those dioces which haue no Metropolitane or Patriarche of their owne to resort vnto to determine them And againe I cannot tell what bishop is not subiect to the Apostolike See if any fault be found in them otherwise all the bishoppes are equall lib. 11. Ep. 58. lib. 7. Ep. 64. 70 The fame glorie and authoritie of the auncient church of Rome is a shame and dishonour to the present popish church of Rome Because it keepeth not nowe but hath altogether reiected the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles that Irenęus commended in his time libr. 3. Cap. 3. nor holdeth that rule or beleefe of the Apostles vndefyled which Ambrose praised in his time Ep. 81. 71 This land of Britaine receiued the faith of Christ as Gildas a Britaine a more auncient and certeine writer then Ado M. Sanders author in the time of the reigne of Tiberius 160. before Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome by the preaching of the Apostles and Euangelists as some write of Saint Paule some of Saint Simon of Cana some of Saint Philip some of Ioseph of Aramathia Neither did Eleutherius sende Fugatius and Damianus by him selfe or as of authoritie but being required by Lucius or Leuer Maure one of the little Kinges of some shiere of Britaine as Ninnius a Britaine doeth testifie For that Lucius was King of all Britaine it is proued false by all the Romaine histories which testifie that the Emperour was then soueraigne of Britaine vnder whome ruled certeine petie Kinges in some partes not throughly conquered 72 Beda an English Saxon more like to knowe matters of this lande then Prosper a forreyne writer affirmeth that the Britaine 's against the Pellagians heretiks desired ayde of the Bishops of Fraunce who by a Synod there gathered sent Germanus and Lupus two Bishops to confute the Pelagians without any sending to Rome or from Coelestinus Bishop of Rome lib. 1. Cap. 17. Likewise the seconde time at the request of the Clergie of Britaine Germanus returneth with Seuerus to roote out the heresie of the Pellagians 73 The zeale of Gregorie the first is to be commended that he sent Augustine to conuert the Saxons to the faith of Christe although the superstitions which hee brought in with the Christian faith cannot be defended The diligence of Augustin in teaching according to his knowledge deserueth praise yet can it not make him an Apostle because an Apostle hath his calling immediatly of God Gal. 1. If we report his pride and crueltie as wee finde in our histories written by Papistes let the worlde iudge whether we or they do him iniurie 74 From Vitellianus the Pope was Theodorus a Grecian sent to be Archebishop of Caunterburie rather to reteine the countrie vnder the vsurped authoritie of the Romish bishop then to instruct them in matters perteining to the faith For the Pope him selfe was afraide of him that beeing a Gręcian hee shoulde teache any thing contrarie to the Romishe religion Beda lib. 4. Cap. 1. 75 King Henrie the eight found his dominions subiect to the tyrannie of the Pope of Rome which vppon good ground and authoritie of the scriptures hee banished out of his realme what cause soeuer papistes do surmise or to speake plainly notwithstanding the iniurious and contumelious dealing of the Pope about
it might not be deceiued by vncerteine traditions and inuentions of man in steeede of the doctrine of God. 104 The Popishe Church hath not kept the worde of God faithfully but in a corrupt and false Latine translation The certeintie therfore of the scriptures was not receiued from them but from the Iewes concerning the olde Testament in Hebrue and from the Gręcians concerning the new Testament in Greek Although the very common Latine translation of the Bible is sufficient to conuince the Popish Church of horrible heresies and blasphemies 105 To refourme the Church according to the doctrine of the holie scripture and the example of the Primitiue Church is not like as if one reading of the olde lawes of England in an other Ilande would say it were England and that the countrie whiche is so called is departed from olde England For chaunge of Lawes cannot change places and regions but departing from the trueth of Gods worde is a departing from the Churche of Christe and the returning to that trueth is a returning to the Church of Christ notwithstanding Maister Sanders wise similitude The Prophetes in deede Esaie Ieremie c. by the lawe of Moses shewed the errours of the Church of Ierusalem and by it sought the reformation thereof But they renounced not the lawful gouernement of the high Priest because it was established by the lawe whereas the tyrannicall vsurpation of the Pope is contrarie to the lawe of Christ and therefore is moste iustly renounced 106 It is graunted that the Church of Rome was once a principall parte of the Churche of Christe But the successions of Popes since Popes were hath not continued so without interruption as the successions of the highe Priestes at Ierusalem by meanes of so many Schismes Antipapes and translation of the See from Rome to Auinion with so many and so long variations of the See. And the succession of Christians except in a fewe hath vtterly failed as Esaie saith of Ierusalem how is the faithfull citie become an harlot Esaie 1. 107 It is graunted that of olde time the Romane faith was accounted the catholike faith while it was so in deed euen as the Britanne faith the French faith the Germane faith was likewise But that whiche he inferreth is vtterly denied namely that the Pope and his citie haue continued in the profession of that faith to this day For the contrarie beeing proued it is not onely the euill manners of the Pope and that citie that haue moued vs to departe from the Churche but the false religion therof Although it is nothing like that where suche a sinke of all abhominations is and hath beene openly and generally seene aswel in the Popes as in the people of his citie there should be a true and sincere faith and religion whiche bringeth foorth wicked and vngodly fruites 108 The glorie of Christes Church and kingdome is not like to the kingdome and glorie of an earthly Empire but contrarie to it namely it is spirituall and not carnal inwarde and not outwarde in appearance of weaknesse pouertie foolishnesse and not of strength riches and wisedome 1. Cor. 1. 109 The wayes to see and heare the Church of God is to heare the worde of God whereof commeth faith by the eyes whereof the Church of God is seene and not by bodily eyes to be painted out loe here loe there for the kingdome of God is within vs Luc. 17. vers 21. 110 Notwithstanding any thing repeated in this article conteined in seuerall articles before 19.20.64.18.22.24.25.26.31.46.27.41.42.56.43.45.48.36.39.67.65.68.20 the Popish Church is the Church of Antichrist therefore we haue iustly departed from it to the Churche of Christ. 111 In the Church of Christ is the word of God the sacramentes forgiuenesse of sinnes the holie Ghost the communion of Saintes and Christ himselfe which is the onely head and sauiour thereof But whether the Papistes holde this Church or we let them proue as S. Augustine vrgeth the Donatistes by none of these fonde and carnall reasons but only by the authoritie of the scriptures De vnitate Eccles. Cap. 16. 112 The rest of the preface is consumed in dissuading the Papists of England frō dissembling their professiō of Papistrie exhorting them to make open confessiō therof which next vnto their conuersion I wish as much as M. Sander that if they may not be conuerted to become true Christians and good subiectes they might be knowen as they are for open heretikes enimies of their Prince and Realme ¶ A TREATISE OF IMAGES OF Christe and of his Saintes and that it is vnlawfull to breake them and lawfull to honour them c. THE FIRST CHAPTER THe Argument of the treatise following In which he noteth especially The storie of the spoyle of Images in the lowe countries The diuersitie of sectes there The holie Bible burnt Hermannus a preacher capteine of the spoyle THE defence of idolatrie whiche he taketh in hand beeing so abhominable to be heard among Christians after he hath first sought to dasell mens eyes with the vaine glitering glorie of the Romish Church now he goeth about to tickle their eares with a plausible tale of some disorderly doinges in breaking of Images in the lowe countries As though the inconsiderate zeale of a fewe image breakers or perhaps the licentious riot of some pilfering spoylers beeing either Papistes or of no religion that were mixed with them were sufficient to excuse such horrible Idolatrie as the Papistes daily commit and M. Sander is not ashamed to defend He pretendeth as though his purpose were no more but to answere an obiection of I cannot tell what Protestants nor he him selfe is able to name any of credite which affirmed that the casting downe of idolatrie in the lowe countries and liberty of preaching the gospel procured by a few naked base men against an armed Prince and so many wealthy persons as were enimies to it must come of the mightie hand of God and that it was a great miracle Whiche thing might well and truely be saide without allowing of any thing that was done beside order For there is no doubt but God directed all things to his glory although men sought not the same by lawfull ordinarie meanes It was no miracle saith M. Sander because they were not resisted in suche places where the spoyle was made But so much the greater was the miracle that in so many places the heartes of the magistrates with the people were so daunted that they durst make no resistance The storie as M. Sander reporteth it is that the Lordes of the low countries dissenting from king Philip about the Spanish inquisition the king lyke to be assaulted by the Turkes in Naples and Malta resorte was made to a certaine preacher not called by anye auctoritie in the woods and fieldes neere to Antwerpe The first quarrell he picketh is to the preachers callinge whiche in suche times as religion is in a manner ouerthrowne and defaced by Idolatrie as
his body and the signe of the crosse is the body it selfe crucified who euer heard these monsters proceed out of our mouthes Againe The communion is taught to be but holy bread Priestes and Bishops need haue no temporal possessions except they thēselues be Priestes and Bishops Priestes and Bishops are equal by Gods law therefore Popish Priestes which be the diuels Priestes must be equall with Christian Bishops which for gouernment sake are preferred before Christian Ministers Finally if the Papistes burne oure malicious and false translations of the Bible they are saide to burne the holy Bible of Iesus Christe If the Protestants burne the Hebrue Greeke Latine Duch text as they did in the Low countries they are cōmended as holy workers in the Lords vine No M. Sander thy malicious eares neuer heard that which thy slanderous pen hath set downe that any man was of vs commended for burning any text of the Bible and if by disorder and through ignorance any texts were burned yet thou feignest too impudently in saying they burned the Duch text And whereas thou wouldest excuse the purposed malicious burning of English Bibles by the falsenesse of their translations beside that thou speakest absurdly in all learned mens eares who knowe the trueth of them by conference of them with the originall toungs yet this bewrayeth your malice against the word of God that hauing so long complained of our false translations neuer a papist of you all will take the paines to translate the Bible truly that the people might be rightly instructed in Gods word by your true translation if you feared their peruerting by our false translation ¶ CAP. 4. or as the errour of his Printer hath made it CAP. 3. and so continueth in that errour to the end which I note bicause there should be no varying in the conference of his booke and mine answere The petegreu of such as heretofore haue destroyed the altars the temples the chalices of God or the images of Christe and of his Saintes with aunswere to certaine obiections which might seeme to make for image breakers Also he noteth a notable storie of honour done to Church plate in the auncient time This blaser of the Popes armes pretending to drawe a petegreu of such as haue destroyed altars temples c. rehearseth a beadroll of Infidells and heretiques which haue defaced the true religion of God which pertaineth nothing to them that by lawfull authoritie deface and destroy the monuments of Popish Idolatrie hauing an expresse commandement of God so to doe You shall ouerthrowe their altars breake downe their pillers ye shall cut downe their groues and burne their grauen images with fire Deu. 7. v. 5. But this he saith pertaineth not vnto vs to execute except we had conquered an heathen nation that worshipped Iupiter and Iuno Mars and Minerua c. By what commandement then did Ezechias Iosias and all the godly Kings destroye and deface the monuments of Idolatry in the land of Iuda which was no heathen nation but the most peculiar people of God By what authoritie did they destroy the hill altars or high places in which the people did offer sacrifice only to God 1. Reg. 3. Finally by what precept did Ezechias breake downe the brasen serpent which was a figure of Christ infinitely more excellent then al the images of the Papistes bicause that had a godly beginning wheras theirs haue a wicked beginning a worse continuance and abuse This cōmandemēt therfore serueth against al Idolatrie whether it be committed of people that are heathnish or of such as hauing so◠sacraments of God are degenerated into false religiō Idolatry Wherfore the examples that M. S. alledgeth beside that some of them are very violently drawne to image breakers do nothing touche them that deface false religion but such as destroy true religion The Philistines were punished for looking vpon the arke Vzza for touching it vpon a good intent Ieroboam for forsaking the temple of Salomon and setting vp two prophane Temples with Idols in them which M. Sander omitteth and making priests of the vilest of the people This last prank saith he is practised in Anwerpe How so M. S New temples are erected Why sir is it lawfull to haue but one temple as then at Ierusalem Newe ministers are made in Schisme I trust they be not so vile rascals as the multitude of your Popish hedge priestes But where be the idols in the newe temples of Anwerpe that were in Ieroboams Temple But let vs heare the rest of his examples The seruantes of Iessabel destroyed the altars of God in the dayes of Elias It is very true And Elias with the godly people destroyed the altars of Baal and slew his Priests Nabuchodonosor burned the Temple of Salomon he did wickedly Balthasar abused the holy vessels he smarted for it But Iehu destroyed the religion of Baall and the ornamentes thereof and he is commended so be all the godly Kinges for destroying of idolatrie 2. Reg. 10.18.23 In Malachie God reproueth the Priests for offering the blind and lame and the polluted bread Manasses the priest set vp a false Temple in mount Garizim Antiochus Epaphanes defiled the temple of God Pompeius entered into the sanctuarie All these did wickedly but they that with Lawfull authoritie deface and destroy idolatrie doe that which is right in the sight of the Lord 2. Reg. 18. 23. Christ honored the Temple with his presence yet he chased out the abusers therof Luc. 19. Ioan 2. c. The Christians in Tertullians time vsed crossing of their forheades to shewe them selues Christians but no worshipping of any crosse as the Papists do yet came that estimation of the crosse from the Valentinian heretikes Irenaeus Lib. 1. Ca. 1. An. 150. The Nouatians kept conuenticles from the Catholiks such are the assemblies of the Papistes separated from the Churche of God though they be neuer so many in number as the Arrians in the East and in Affrica were The Manichees did hate the Image of Christe whom they denied to be a very man testified in the 2. Councel of Nice which was almoste 800. yeares after Christe when Images were made and honoured yet M. Sander noteth it Anno Dom. 280. when in the Churche of God were no Images of Christ. But among the heretikes Gnostici was there images of Christ which they honoured An. 129. Ire Lib. 1. Cap. 24. Dioclesian and Maximian commanded the Churches of Christians to be destroied the Bibles to be burned so did the Papistes at Orleans and Anwerpe to the Churches in all places where they come for the Bibles burning Yet the good man chargeth the protestants at Anwerpe in S. Frances monasterie for burning the Bible When Georgius an Arrian Bishop was brought into Alexandria by force there was great sedition and spoyle of Church goodes there hath beene as great sedition and spoyle in bringing in of Catholike Bishops of Rome greater also as many hystories do
witnesse and the Papistes wil not denie so many Schismes haue ben about election of their Popes But neerer to the matter Iulian the Apostata with the paganes pulled downe the image of Christ that was set vp in the streete of Caesarea Philippi in remembraunce of the miracle done vpon the woman that was healed of her issue of bloud not in the Church to be worshipped Wel he shewed his malice but he did no hurt to Christian religion This example hurteth not them that lawfully pul downe deface Images in the Church of Christ for Epiphanius before Iulian did so at Anablatha Epiph. epi. 34. But Iulianus did obiect vnto the Christians that they did worship the woode of the crosse when they painted Images therof on their foreheades and before their houses Hereof M. Sander gathereth that the Christians had a grauen image of Christe him selfe euen from his owne time in Paneade or Caesarea Philippi as images of the crosse before their houses for the image of Christe Eusebius testifieth it was set vp by the Heathen men and not by Christians Lib. 7. Cap. 18. Although it is not like that it was set vp in Christes time when it is manifest by Iosephus that the Iewes could not abide so much as the image of the Emperour or of his standerd the Eagle to be set vp among them The images of the crosses set before their doores declare they had not them and much lesse any other of Christ and his saintes in Churches which Iulian would not haue omitted to proue them woode worshippers and idolaters Cyrillus in deede defendeth these signes of crosses as better memorials of Christ and of his vertues then the Images of the Gentiles yet he defendeth not setting vp of crosses or any images in Churches creeping to them which is the filthie idolatrie of the Papists Iulian the vncle of this Apostata did sit vpon the vessels vsed at the communion in despight of our religion and was iustely plagued therefore Eustachius the heretike kept his conuenticles in priuate places he would not be ruled by his Bishop The protestants kepe open assemblies whē they are not hindred by persecution and are ordered by the Bishops Elders of their Church though they will not be obedient to the Hereticall Bishops of the Popishe Church The same Eustachius condemned the marriage of Priestes as the Papistes doe Ep. Con. Gangr Vigilantius iustly reproued the Christians for superstitious estimatiō of reliques which Hieronyme could not honestly defend for all his quarrelling To conclude Chrysostome complayneth of the iniurie done to him his church and the sacraments by barbarous souldiers Optatus of the like by the Donatistes Victor by the Arrians all these and an hundreth more that might be brought of like examples beeing actes of Infidels and Heretiques against true religion doe not proue but the commaundement of God must be executed against false religion by them who haue authoritie of God so to doe But now he commeth to answere our obiections and first the example of Epiphanius a godly bishop of Cyprus whose wordes I will first set downe as they are conteyned in an epistle of his to Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem Praeterea quod audini c. Moreouer whereas I heard that some men did murmur against me because that when we went together to the holie place whiche is called Bethel that there I might make a gathering with you after the Ecclesiasticall manner and was come to the village which is called Anablatha and had seene there as I passed by a candle burning and had inquired what place it was and had learned that it was a Churche and came into pray I found there a vale hanging at the doore of the saide Church steyned and painted and hauing the image as it were of Christe or of some Saint for I doe not well remember whose Image it was Therefore when I saw this thing that the Image of a man did hang in the Church of Christ contrarie to the authoritie of the scriptures I rent it and gaue councel to the keepers of that place that they should rather wrappe some dead poore man in it carry him to buriall in it And they contrariwise murmured said if he would haue rent it it had beene meete that he should haue giuen vs another vayle and haue changed it Which when I heard I promised that I would giue them one and send it shortly Now there was some stay in the meane time while I seeke to send them a very good vaile in steed of that. For I thought one should haue ben sent me out of Cypres But now I haue sent such a one as I could get And I pray you that you will commaunde the elders of that place to receiue this vale which we haue sent by this bearer And to charge them that here after no such vayles be hanged vp in the Church of Christ which are against our religion For it becommeth your honestie to haue such carefulnesse to take away scrupulositie which is vnworthie of the Church of Christ and the people which i◠committed to you These be the words of Epiphanius in his Epistle translated by S. Hierom. For answere to this first he will not affirme whether that Epiphanius the byshop of Cypres wrote this Epistle or some other of that name because Damascen that impudent corrupter of antiquitie when he can not answere the Epistle he moueth such suspition in his Apologie for the worshipping of Images But let Hierome himselfe testifie the matter Contra errores Ioan Hierosol ad Pampathiam in the end of the Epistle Secondly he answereth that notwithstanding the iudgement of Epiphanius it is not against the authoritie of the scriptures to haue Images in the churches for then shoulde not Theodorus the martyr haue had his martyrdome painted on the walles as Gregorius Nyssenus witnesseth In deede Gregorius Nyssenus which liued somewhat after Epiphanius speaking of the ornaments of the Churche affirmeth that there was the history of the martyr painted on the wall but so farre from anye spice of adoration that the same was also expressed vppon the pauement which men did tread vppon Like as for ornamente there were grauen also in woode the Images of beastes These were the beginnings and as it were the first budding vp of Idolatrie in the church yet gainesaide by godly men and forbidden in the councell of Eliberis Another reason he hath of those simple mens authoritie that hang vp the Image and their murmuring which was not for putting downe the Image but for that he gaue them not another vail or curtaine first That it was not his priuate opinion it appeareth in this that he writeth so confidently thereof to the bishop of Ierusalem in whose dyocesse Anablatha was and who was present whē the saide Image was defaced But if he had thought saith M. Sander the hauing of Images to bee an heresie he woulde haue noted it in his booke of Fourescore and more heresies where he noteth no
suche opinion of hauing Images in the Churche for hereticall This balde reason he learned out of the councell of Nice 2. act 4. of one Epiphanius which taketh vpon him to reiecte and controll the authoritie of this ancient Epiphanius of Cypres But howe falsely they haue affirmed this of him you may see in diuers places of Epiphanius booke against heresies First lib. 1. Tom. 1. he sheweth the punishment of God against Tharra an Image maker which ouer liued his sonne Aran which no man as he saith did before him Secondly lib. 1. Tom. 2. hee sheweth that Simon Magus the father of heretikes made Images of him selfe and his harlot Helena to be worshipped that Carpocrats the heretik made the Images of Iesus and of S. Peter and did cense them and worship them Also Her. 27. he saith Gnostici Carpocratitae c. The Gnostikes and Carpocratites haue Images painted in collours some also of golde and siluer and other matter which they say be the Images of Iesus and that these Images of Iesus were made when hee liued among men vnder Pontius Pilate Againe lib. 2. T. 1. her 55. he sheweth that there were some in Arabia Robas and Edom which worshipped the Image of Moses And Centra Cullyridianos her 79. which worshipped the Images of the blessed virgin Marye he saith Vnde non est c. Howe is not this desire of making Images a diuelish attempt PrÄ™textu enim IustitiÄ™ for the deuil alwais entring into the mind of men vnder pretence of righteousnes deifying the mortal nature in the ere 's of men by variety of arts hath set forth stocks or statues bearing the Image of men And they truely which are worshipped by theÌ„ are dead but they bring in their Images to be worshipped which neuer liued for they caÌ„not be dead which neuer liued Finally Lib. Autorato prima enim scortatio est excogitatio simulachrorum inquit scriptura The inuenting of Images was the first whordome saith the scripture By these places iudge howe true it is which Damascen writeth that his owne church was decked with Images But yet M.S. hath another shift of descaÌ„t that the cause of reÌ„ding this vail might be for auoiding of offence of the weak Iews PagaÌ„s lately coÌ„uerted in that place As thogh Epiphanius doth not plainly declare the cause to haue bin for that it was coÌ„trari to the scriptures The like cause he wold haue to be of the decree of the councell of Eliberis in Spaine Placuit pictâ—ras in ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur aut adoratur in arietibut depingatur It is decreed that there ought to be no pictures in the Church lest that which is worshipped adored should be painted on the walles But the Canon it self sheweth a reason why they would haue no pictures in the churches lest God whoÌ„ onely they worshipped adored might be painted on the wals which were an abhominable absurditie yet hath bene practised iâ— defended men be so prone to Idolatrie But M.S. gathereth that seeing there might be no pictures in churches ergo they might be in priuate houses if they be lawful to be in priuate houses much more they might be permitted in churches A proper ringworm a doctor like argumeÌ„t by which I may coÌ„clude as foloweth There may be no shoppes in churches ergo they may be in priuate houses and if they may be permitted â—n priuate houses much more in churches But yet he hath an other answer This fact of Epiphanius was a priuate zeale which is not to be folowed coÌ„trary to the decree of the catholike church but I reply it was a godly zeal because it was ruled by the coÌ„mandement of God the holy scripture against which no church hath authority to decree But the last answere is as good as cake pudding which yet he thinketh worthy of a note in the margent Images could not be brokeÌ„ before they were set vp therfore the setters vp of Images are ancienter neerer the Apostles time then the pullers down That is out of questioÌ„ Euen so heresies could not be confuted before they were inuented therfore the inuenters of heresies are ancienter neerer the Apostles times then the confuters Note ye papistes for your learninge or else note that this note of Master Sander is not worthye the notinge But hee proceedeth and will prooue as he sayeth that as there were some Images in Churches in the time of Epiphanius so straight after his time they were coÌ„mon in all churches but this straightway was almost 200. yeares after Epiphanius as he citeth out of Nicephorus of one Xenias who he saith was the first that spake against worshipping of Images which howe false it is al men that haue read the works of the ancient writers doe knowe sufficiently The next breaker of Images he would haue to be Serenus bishop of Marsiles who waâ— reproued by Pope Gregorie which wrote vnto him that he shoulde not haue broken the Images but prohibited the people from worshipping of them Lib. 7. Epist. 169. But M. Sander will auoide that â—rohibition by the distinction of adoratioÌ„ that they should not be worshipped as God because Gregorie saith lib. 7. epist. 53. Scio quod c. I know that you desire not the Image of our Sauiour to this purpose to worshippe it as god By which wordes he meaneth that all worshippe is due vnto God and that by worshipping an Image it is made a false God. But it foloweth in the same Epistle saith M. Sander which proueth that Gregorie acknowledged some worshippe due to Images Nos non quasi ante Diuinitatem ante imaginem proster nimur c. We fall not downe before an Image as before the godhead but we worship him whome by the Image we remeÌ„ber to haue ben borne or to haue suffred and also to sitte in the throne But these wordes import no such matter but rather the contrarye except M. Sander can prooue that it is all one to fall downe before an Image and to fall downe vnto an Image Although he seemeth to say that they falled not downe at all before anye Image but onely vsed them for their remembraunce M. Sander continuing his petegrue sheweth that Philippicus the Emperour being a monothelite anno 710. threwe downe the Images of the fathers of the sixe generall councels that were set in the Churche porche of Sophia belike he was afraide they woulde come shortly into the Church Pope Constantine caused the like pictures to be set vp in the Church porche of Saint Peter at Rome And what of this Forsooth hee was an heretike that threwe downe images So was Pope Honorius condemned for a monotholite archeheretike in the seuenth generall councell that mainteined images After him An. 730. Leo persuaded by two Iewes saith the late idolatrous writers threwe downe the images at Constantinople and anno 740. Constantine his sonne a wicked man and an heretike followed him But vnder Irene
Constantine anno 796. by the seconde councell of Nice images were restored and their worship established Of these stories of pulling downe and setting vp of images M. Sander noteth that the mainteiners of images passed their aduersaries in foure things The first that they were quietly set vp and broken downe with tumult so were many heresies by the subtile serpent quietly setled which without great tumult could not be rooted out as the Arrian heresie for example But that images were vsed from the Apostles and Christ him selfe he promiseth to shewe afterward The second whereas they were set vp in diuerse countries they were pulled downe only in Greece a wise matter whereas idols were worshipped in the days of Ezechias throughout all the worlde they were pulled downe onely in Iewrie And yet against this idolatrous councell of Nice Carolus Magnus Emperour of the West writ a booke which is yet extant The thirde prerogatiue the idolaters haue had two generall councels of their side the idoll breakers none and yet hee confesseth they had one at Ephesus another at Constantinople but he sayeth they had them by stealth that is marueile when they were gathered by the Emperours as all other generall councels were And many of them sayth he recanted after so did they of Nice when the Emperours which followed immediatly after the Nicen councell threwe downe the images as their predecessours had done Finally where as hee alledgeth the sixte councell of Constantinople for images there is not one worde in all that councell to defende them but a counterfect Canon foysted in by the idolatrous councell of Nice which they say was made foure or fiue yeres after vnder Iustinian to cloke their forgerie The fourth that notwithstanding so many Emperours resisting yet images at length preuailed among the Greekes which haue them at this day painted as he sayeth doe reuerence them but hee sayeth falsly if hee meane they worship them as the Papistes do theirs and they are only painted on walles or tables not carued or grauen lest they shoulde be worshipped They continue still also enemies to the Church of Rome if continuance be any matter to iustifie their doings But nowe he concludeth howe vaine a thing it is to oppose Epiphanius which was but one man and a fewe hereticall Emperours against all the rest of the fathers and the generall councels As though because hee hath cited onely Epiphanius there were none of the fathers against images but hee beside that he skippeth ouer the Eliberin councell cited by him selfe But what fathers and councels haue beene against images I shall haue better occasion to shewe hereafter Nowe he proceedeth in his peuish pelfe there were heretikes called Bogomili anno 1180. which condemned the worshipping of images All is not good that heretikes condemne the Arrians condemned the Manichees the Pellagians condemned the Arrians There was neuer any heresie but allowed some good thinges ▪ and condemned some euill things Next he adioyneth Anno Do. 1160. the Waldensies whome hee calleth beggers of Lyons yet Pauperes signifieth not beggers but poore men which were true Christians and condemned not onely idolatrie but also all Papistrie The Sarazens also iustly condemne the Papistes for Idolaters whose idols being so contrarie to the manifest commaundement of God were a greate occasion to make so many nations to forsake Christianitie and for the Mahometists to continue in their wicked and false religion Last of all hee commeth to Wickelefe Hus. Luther c. and them of the lowe countries whome especially hee chargeth with sacriledge But to omitt their fact which I haue often shewed cannot be defended if it wanted lawfull authoritie all the stories that hee bringeth or can bring of godly princes and other persons erecting altars churches colledges c. and furnishing true religion with all ornamentes meete for the same are nothing to the purpose to defende the temples of idols with their idols and altars and other their trumperie from destruction by godly and lawfull authoritie At length hee alledgeth the decrees of Arcadius Honorius Theodosius and Valentinianus which alloweth the erecting of their owne images and of all notable men as Iudges Magistrates c. which when it was a ciuile honour vsed among the Romanes and nothing at all touched religion I marueile with what face hee can alledge it for setting vp of images in churches to bee worshipped and yet that honouring of the Emperours images is condemned by Saint Ierome in Daniell lib. 1. Cap. 3. Likewise that they decreede that such as fledd to the Emperours image should be safe from violence which was only a ciuil policie to bring the maiestie of the Emperour in estimatiō with the common people therefore it followeth not that much lesse they would haue commaunded the image of Christe to haue bene pulled downe which could not be set vp but to the dishonour of Christ because he hath forbidden it And therfore they made a decree that wheresoeuer it was set vp it should be taken downe M. Sander sayeth that M. Iewel alledging this edict doth translate tolli to be taken downe which signifieth to bee taken vp as though the decree had been of crosses on the grounde to be taken vp lest they shoulde bee trodden vppon but when M. Sander hath sayed his pleasure tolli signifieth to be taken cleane awaye And although in Iustinian Ti. 11. lib. 1. the signe of our sauiour Christ is forbidden to be grauen or painted on the grounde in flint or marble yet it followeth not but the edict cited by the bishop of Sarum may be vnderstood of taking away all images wheresoeuer they were The conclusion of the Chapter is that he findeth nothing on Maister Iewels syde but Infidels Iewes heretikes Idolaters or else he maketh many lyes vpō Christian Princes as though the lawe of God were nothing but Paganisme Epiphanius were an heretike the fathers of the councell of Eliberis were rennagates or Iewes the edictes of the Christian Emperours were restreined by Maister Sanders glose because an image was made by the woman that was healed saith he but Eusebius sayeth by the Gentiles lib. 7. Cap. 16. and the Gospell reporteth that shee had consumed all her goods vppon Phisitions and therefore was not able to set vp such a piller and two such images of brasse one of Christe the other of her selfe as those were reported to bee From which day forwarde saith he all Catholike fathers and Councels and Christians made and reuerenced holy images as it shall appeare afterward Of all the lowde lyes that euer I heard this may goe for the whetstone What shall appeare afterward we shall consider afterwarde But in the meane time remember his lye sufficiently confuted euen by such testimonies as hee himselfe hath alledged by way of obiection the Epistle of Epiphanius and the councell of Eliberis THE V. OR IIII. CHAP. That the worde of God forbiddeth not generally the making of all kinde of images and in what sence images
one question or two about this diffuse argument I would demaund Doeth God forbid by the second commaundement naturall or artificiall images If artificiall then they haue no comparison with naturall images Againe syr are our seeing and hearing from whome these images you speake of first doe come by your Philosophie actions or passions If they be passions howe are they compared with making of grauen images whiche are actions Finally where he saith this prohibition was not immutable but temporall to that people he passeth all bounds of reason and common vnderstanding as by the iudgment of God is become like vnto those Idols whome he defendeth For hauing graunted before that Idolatrie was forbidden by this precept nowe he restraineth the forbidding of idolatrie only to the Iewes of that time as though it were lawfull for Christians who more streightly then the Iewes must worship God in spirit and trueth Iohn 4. and are commaunded to keepe them selues pure from Idols 1. Iohn 5. THE VI. OR V. CHAP. That the word of God only forbiddeth Latria which is Gods own honour to be giuen to artificiall images leauing it to the lawe of nature and to the gouernors of his Church what other honour may be giuen to holy images Also the place of Exodus Thou shalt not adore images is expounded and that Christe by his incarnation taketh away all idolatrie that Maister Iewell vainely reproueth Doctour Harding condemneth his owne conscience and is proued a wrangler The difference in honour betweene Latria and Doulia As M.S. saith images are forbidden to be worshipped as they are forbidden to be made so say I but with a farre differing vnderstanding They may not be made to any vse of religion so they may not be worshipped with any religious worship which apperteineth to god For our religion is a seruice of God onely And where he saith as Images might be made by the authoritie of Moses or of the gouernours of Gods people so they wert not to be taken for Gods so they may be likewise worshipped by the authoritie of Gods church this only prouiso being made that Gods owne honour be not giuen vnto them I aunswere that as neither Moses nor any gouernour had authoritie to make any images in any vse of religion other then God commanded no more hath the Church any authoritie to allowe any worshipping of them whiche she hath none authoritie by God to make but an expresse commandement forbidding both the making the worshipping of them in the first table of the law which concerneth onely religion Nowe we haue saide both let vs consider M. Sanders reasons First he saith God forbidding his owne honour to be giuen to images left it to the lawe of nature and to the gouernors of his Churche what honour images should haue Concerning the lawe of nature he saith that God perceiued that when images of honourable personages are made honor was due vnto them What lawe of nature is this M. Sander that is distinct from the law of God Or what nature is that whose lawe alloweth the worshipping of images In deed the corruption of mans nature is to worship falshode in steed of trueth but the law of nature hath no such rule beeing al one with the lawe of God as nature is nothing else but the ordinaunce of god And where find you one title in the lawe that God hath leaft it to the gouernours of his Church to appoint a worship meete for images Worde you haue none letter you haue none nor pricke of a letter sounding that way But you haue collections First of the signification of Latria as though God had written his Lawe in Greeke and not in Hebrue and yet Latria according to the Graecians hath no such restraint to signifie the seruice of God only but euerie seruice of men also and is all one that Doulia and so vsed of Greeke writers excep◠we will say that Doulia which you will haue to be giuen to images is a more slauish seruile worship then that whiche you would haue vs to giue to God. But you will helpe your distinction with the confusion of the commandementes because God saith in the 1. precept Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me and then saith immediately Thou shalt not make nor worworship images but these cōmandementes are distinct or else you shall neuer make tenne And whereas you alledge that he saith immediatly after I the Lord thy God am a iealous God that maketh cleane against you For by those wordes the Lorde declareth that he can no more abide the vse of images in his religion then a iealous man can abide any tokēs of an adulterer to be about his wife therefore idolatrie in the scriptures is often called fornication So the circumstances helpe you nothing but is altogether against you But what an horrible monster of idolatrie is this that after you haue once confessed that Gods incomprehensible nature cannot be represented by any artificiall image you affirme that Christe by his incarnation hath taken away idolatrie that we should not lacke some corporall trueth wherein we might worship the Diuine substance Whereas Christ himselfe telleth vs that nowe the time is come that God shall not be worshipped as before in bodily seruice at Ierusalem or in the mountaine but in spirite and trueth Ioan. 4. The image of Christe you say is a similitude of an honourable trueth whereas no idol doth represent a trueth A worshipfull trueth I promise you Christe you say was man but I say he is both God and man a person consisting of those two natures Your image representeth onely a person consisting of one nature but suche a one is not Christe therefore your image representeth a falshoode and is by your owne distinction an Idol For the Diuine nature you confesse cannot be represented by an artificiall image Againe what an image is it of his humanitie It can not expresse his soule but his bodie onely Last of all why is it an image rather of Christ then of an other man Seeing in lineamentes and proportion of bodie it hath no more similitude vnto Christes bodie then to an other mans But that it pleased the caruer to say it is an image of Christ. O honourable blockes and stones But Philo the Iewe was cited for a fauourer of this interpretation that images are none otherwise forbidden to be made or worshipped then to be made or worshipped as GODS Howe vaine the authoritie of a Iewe is for a Christian man to leane vnto I shall not neede to say especially when it is well knowen that the Iewes also not considering in whether table this commandement is placed vnderstand by it that all images generally are forbidden And Philo saith nothing to helpe him For first in Decal he saith when God had spoken of his owne substance and honour order would that he should tell how his holy name was to be worshipped And againe De eo quis haer rer Diuin Vt solus
Deus c. That God onely might be truely worshipped What can be reasonably gathered of these wordes but that al honour is due to God and therfore none to idols which are forbidden to be made If Philo a Iewe will not serue Augustine a Christian is alledged who Super Exod. 9.71 allowing that diuision of the tenne commandementes by which three onely are saide to apperteine to God saith Et reuera c. And truely that which is saide Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me is more perfectly expounded when forged things are forbidden to be worshipped First for the diuision of the coÌ„mandements Aug. is not constant with him selfe For In Quaesti Nou. Vet. Test. Quest. 7. he writeth thus Non sint tibi Dij alij praeter me primum verbum hoc est Es subiecit secundum Non facies tibi vllam similitudineuâ— â–ª Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me this is the first worde or commandement and he addeth the second Thou shalt not make to thy self any similitude By which it is manifest that to worship images is not all one with hauing other Gods. But M. Sander will answer our obiection that God forbiddeth all honour of images thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worship them Adoration saith he is a doubtfull worde For Abraham adored the people of the lande Gen. 23. Very true but with a ciuill worship whereof we speake not nowe He made obeysans to them or as we say he made courtesie to them And the Angel refused to be adored saying adore god Therefore there is an adoration proper to God for Angels sometime haue beene adored Nay M. Sander therefore all religious worshippe perteineth to god For S. Iohn was not so madde to worship the Angel as God but as the messenger of God with a religious and not a ciuill worshippe And when you say Angels haue beene adored as Gen. 18. and Iudicum 13. I answere in both places they were adored with ciuill worship supposed by Abraham and Manohah to be honourable men and not to be Angels But when you cite Augustine to fortifie your distinction of Latria and Doulia you hurt your cause by his iudgement more then you further it by his authoritie For whereas he in Exod. 94. saith that Latria is due to God as he is God Doulia is due to God as he is our Lorde it followeth that that worship which is called Doulia as well as that which is called Latria is due onely to God who is our onely Lord and wil not giue his glorie to grauen Images Es. 42.8 1. Cor. 8.6 Theodoret saying that God calleth his people from the worshipping of diuels euen as Saint Paule 1. Cor. 10. sheweth that worshipping of images is the worshipping of diuels And whereas Maister Sander saith it can not possibly be saide that Christes images is dedicated to the diuell I say plainely with Theodoret and Paule it is dedicated to the diuell when it is worshipped For the Images of the Gentiles were not by the intente of the makers and worshippers dedicated to deuils but to God and godly men and women but when they were honored with religious honour which appertaineth onely to God the spirit of God saith they were dedicated to deuils And euen the same reason is of the Image of christ of the Trinitie of Peter or any other honoured with religious worshippe Thus Augustine and Theodoret cited by him are both against him Well yet he will disproue the comparison that M. Iewell maketh betweene Gods wordes and M. Hardings Iewell God saith thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen Images M. Hardinge saieth thou shalt make to thy selfe grauen Images But M. Sander saieth neither God nor M. Harding say so that is they do not meane so for God expounding his meaning added thou shalt not adore them nor giue them the honor due to God aboue therefore M. Iewell did euill to deuide Gods saying and by that diuision hee is sure that hee hath condemned his owne conscience So that by M. Sanders interpretation to make Images and to adore them is all one But M. Iewell seeinge them to be distincte matters to make and to worshippe without condemning his conscience did speak first of making and then of worshippinge of Images And although M. Sander be either so blind or so wilful that he cannot see or will not acknowledge the distinction of the two tables of the Lawe the matter of one being religion the other charitie yet M. Iewell did well inough consider that the Queenes Maiesties Image grauen in her coyne and such like pictures as nothing at all concerned religion nor nothinge at all forbidden were made by a commandement of the first table Now followeth another comparison Iewell God saith thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worshippe them M. Harding saith thou shalt fall downe to them and worshippe them But M. Sander answereth that M. Harding defendeth that another degree of honour incomparably inferiour to that which is due to God may be giueÌ„ to images not that which is due to god Wel then is M. Hard. Sander to contrary to other papists as great doctors as they But yet M. Iewels comparison doth stand For God forbiddeth al worship of Images Master Hard. aloweth some worship of Images Again how wil you distinguish the falling downe to God from falling downe to Images And therfore M. Iewel is no wrangler for meane Harding what he can meane his saying and meaning is contradiction to the saying and meaning of god But you wil affâ—rme saith M. Sander that al maner of honour is forbiddeÌ„ to be giuen to any kind of Image You haue against you the opinion of the law of nature the word of God the iudgement of the ancient fathers the decrees of general councels the practise of the whole church as hereafter shal be declared Verily M. Sander if you can bring al these authorities to vphold the worshipping of Images you shal do more then any man was euer able to do before you but hitherto you haue brought nothing worth the hearing But in the meane time you wil proue that there are two kindes of honour the one due to God alone the other to his creatures so to Images But you must proue that there be two kindes of religious honor or els you proue nothing for your purpose For ciuil honor wil not helpe you one iote for worshipping of Images except you be of that minde as Boniface a gentleman about Stamford was that would salute the sacrament of the altar with curtesie these words God giue you good morrow good Lord. And what haue you to proue this your distinction Nothing in the world but a saying of Augustine lib. 10. cap. 1. De ciuit Dei. that Latria by a certaine consent of ecclesiasticall writers hath bene taken for that seruice which is due to God that there is another seruice due to men according to which the Apostle coÌ„mandeth seruants to be
what call you it but the trinitie Fie vppon this horrible idolatrie which is defended with such a sleueles excuse that you honour not the image for his owne sake no more did the Gentiles their images Chrisostom in Homi. 18. in Ep. ad Eph. writeth thus of them Cum illi dicimus quòd simulachrū adoret non inquit simulacrum sed Venerem sed Martem Et cum rogamui quae est ista Venus Qui grauiores inter eos sunt respondent voluptas quis est Mars Animus masculus vehemens When we say vnto him that he worshippeth an image No saith he not the image but Venus or Mars And when we aske what is this Venus the grauer sort among them aunswere pleasure And who is Mars A manlike and valiant corage Augustine in Psal. 96. which place I haue cited before sheweth that the Gentiles affirmed that they worshipped not the images for their owne sake but for the diuine powers which they did represent euen the same which the Christians called Angels So that the Papists are all one with the Gentiles in their excuse as they agree with them in Idolatrie worshipping of images FINIS God be praysed A REFVTATION OF MAITER IOHN RASTELS CONFVTATION AS HE CALLETH IT OF maister Iewels sermon by W. Fulk To the Preface TO giue the Reader a tast of such sinceritie as he must looke for in all M. Rastels booke of confutation hee sheweth in his preface where speaking of three maners of aunswering he declareth the same by an example taken out of the bishops sermon that sole receiuing is not to be suffered among Christians where as the bishoppe hath no such position in all his sermon but that priuate masse was not vsed for the space of sixe hundreth yeares after christ Thus admonishing the Reader that maister Rastell as his grand capteine M. doctour Harding not able to finde any thing either in scripture or antiquitie for the maintenance of their ordinary priuate Masse doth flie to extraordinarie vses and vnlawfull vsages of sole receiuing being all such as either some necessity might seeme to excuse or as all the Papists themselues do confesse to haue beene abuses I leaue his leude preface hasten to the book it self A refutation of maister Rastels confutation SECTIO PRIMA In which he speaketh of the councel of Nice of vnwritten verities TO passe ouer the two first leafes of his booke and halfe the third in which is much vaine babling but no point of confutatiō in the second face of the third leafe he beginneth to picke his iust quarel at the sentence set before the bishoppes printed sermon which is this Let old customes preuaile It greueth M. Rastel his fellowes which perswade the ignorant people that our relygion is all nouelty that M Iewell should make any such claime vnto antiquitie And first therfore he wil know whether the scriptures do not cōteine al things necessary to saluatiō Yes verely and Gods curse light on him that teacheth the contrarie Then he will knowe where we finde this saying in scriptures or if it be not in the scripture of god why we wil vse a sentēce of the coūcel of Nice which was but a cōgregatiō of mens Verily if we found not the matter of this sentence in Gods worde we durst not auouch it to be true that was vttered by men being applied to any point of doctrine But we finde the same doctrine in the sixt of Ieremy where the Lord saith Stand in the wayes and beholde and aske for the olde way which is the good way and walke therein and you shall finde rest for your soules Nowe this saying of the councell of Nice let olde customes preuaile being the same in effect and meaning though somewhat differing in sounde of wordes we embrace it as the worde of God and the holy scripture which we do not restraine vnto the letters and sillables but vnto the plaine and manifest sence and vnderstanding of them The seconde quarrell he picketh to the placing of this sentence before the bishoppes sermon because it is vttered by the Councell of Nice in a particuler case concerning the iurisdiction of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and therefore cannot serue for a generall sentence For all olde customes saith he must not be preferred before new customes example of washing of feete abstaining from eating of bloud which were olde customes But if the councell meant that olde customes should preuaile against newe writinges then all books of Luther such like are striken through which one foine Wherefore hee concludeth that the councell meant that olde customes shoulde preuaile against the pretensed alledging of the verye scripture it selfe and newe doctrine of men And so this sentence doth at once ouerthrow all maister Iewels religion But hauing compared this sentence to the text of scripture by which the true meaning therof may appeare I will not stand about this trifling cauils Cōcerning our iudgmēt of antiquitie this it is We wil not admit whatsoeuer is old but only the religiō which is eldest of al which hath god for the autor the Patriarches Prophetes and Apostles for the witnesses and all learning doctrine and religion which is vnder the age of these yeares we reiect as newe false and diuelish As for customes ceremonies and manners which are subiect to mutation we receiue them or refuse them as they be approuable or disprouable by the saide old auncient and Catholike doctrine And bicause M. Rastel hath not only touched the sixt Canon of the Councell of Nice where this sentence is written but also charged M. Iewell with ouerthrowe of his religion thereby I must let the reader vnderstand that he suppresseth one point thereof that vtterly ouerthroweth the piller of all Popish religion that is the Popes supremacie For that Canon maketh the Bishop of Alexandria equall in iurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome For the reason of the iurisdiction confirmed vnto the Bishops of Alexandria is this Quia vrbia Romę Episcop◠parilis mos est Bicause the Bishop of the citie of Rome hath the like or equall custome of iurisdiction But M. Rastell will proue by the storie of Arrius that the Councell meant by that sentence that it is onely tradition custome and manners which killeth the hearts of heretiques and defendeth the Catholike Church and not the authoritie of the Scriptures Bicause Arrius was such a proude heretique that he despised all the interpretations of the auncient 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 Councell had scriptures against Arrius yet their chiefe stay was not in that scriptures but in the receiued tradition But this is a most impudent lye for although the consent of Catholike writers of all ages with the word of God is not to be contemned yet the only authoritie in determining of controuersies of faith in
all Councels is and ought to be by the authoritie of the holy scriptures The Apostles thēselues in the Councel of Hierusalem decided the controuersie of circumcision by the scriptures Act. 15. A worthy paterne for al godly Councels to folow Constantine also in the Councel of Nice charged the Bishops there assembled by his commandement to determine the matter by the authoritie of the holy scriptures Euangelici enim Apostolici libri necnon antiquorum Prophetarum oracula planè instruunt nos inqui sensu numinis Proinde hostici posua discordia sumamus ex dictis diuini spiritus explicatione◠The bookes of the Gospels and the Apostles and also the Oracles of the auncient Prophetes do plainly instruct vs saith he in the vnderstanding of god Therefore laying away hatefull discord let vs take explications out of the sayings of the holy Ghoste Therdor lib. cap. 7. By this charge it is manifest how truely M. Rastel faith that the decree of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equalitie of the Sonne in substance with the Father was made only by tradition and not by the authoritie of the scriptures For the Councel examining by scriptures the tradition and receiued opinion of the Fathers and finding it agreeable to them did confirme the same And whereas the Arrians quarrelled that this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not found in the scriptures and therefore would refuse it it helpeth nothing M. Rastels vnwritten verities for the trueth of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proued by an hundreth textes of scriptures as the truth of the Trinitie is although neither of both words are found in the scriptures We quarell not as those heretiques did and M. Rastel a Popish heritique doth of letters syllables words and sounds but we stand vpon the sense meaning vnderstanding doctrine which we affirme to be perfectly contained in scripture what so euer is necessarie to saluation as S. Paul saith Al scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to improue to correct and to instruct in righteousnes that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect to al good workes 2. Tim. 3. And therefore olde customes being referred vnto the custome of the Church of God in the time of the Patriarches Prophetes Apostles and Doctours that followed the same vnitie of Gods wordes is the thing wee desire might preuaile in all our controuersies of religion and so the sentence is wel inough placed if Momus could let any thing alone SECTIO 2. Frō the second face of the 12. leafe to the first face of the 19. leafe When any order giuen by God is broken or abused saith the Bishop the best redresse thereof is to restore it againe into the state that it was first in the beginning M. Rastel saith the Bishop can not tell where of he speaketh For whereas he affirmed that S. Paule had appointed an order touching the ministration of the sacramentes vnto the Corinthians M. Rastell will not simplie graunt that this order was appointed by God although S. Paule himself say he receiued it of christ which he deliuered to thē For this difference hee maketh That an order giuen by God must be obserued without exception and yet he addeth an exception of reuelation and especial licence from god But what so euer order S. Paule did giue he saith is subiect vnto the Church to remoue or pull vp as it shall please her Thus the blasphemous dog barketh against the spirit of god But I trust al sober Christian minds will rather beleue S. Paul then Rastel who saith of such orders as were giuen by him 1. Cor. 14. If any man seem to be a prophet or spirituall let him know the things that I write to you that they be the cōmandements of god But now M. Ra. will take vpon him to teach vs the order giuē that Paul speaketh of namely That the Christians had certein charitable suppers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after which as August saith before which as Chrysost. saith they did vse to receiue the sacramēt Note here that M. Rast. which wil haue old customes tried by the fathers bringeth in here two Doctors one contrarie to the other To the purpose This order was taken away by cōtention disdaine of the rich against the poore therfore Paule purposed to bring them againe to that order of sitting eating their supper altogether that rich with the pore by saying That which I receiued of the Lord I deliuered to you And not to reforme any abuse of the sacramēt by reducing it to the first institution This iudgement of M. Rastell is partly by him proued by the authoritie of Theophylact but chiefly it standeth vpon his owne authoritie without further reason Howbeit it is manifest by the scripture that Paule reproued that mingling of prophane suppers with the Lordes supper appointing their priuate houses for their bodily refreshings of eating and drinking Haue you not houses saith he to eate and drinke in By which saying it is manifest he would haue no eating and drinking in the Church as M. Rastell dreameth but onely the eating and drinking of the Lordes supper And therefore that abuse of mingling their bodily suppers with the spirituall supper of the Lorde whereof came so many abuses and especiall the seuering and sundering of the congregation into diuers partes which ought to haue receiued altogether he laboureth to reforme by bringing it to the first institution of the Lord him selfe But M. Rast. following his owne dreame asketh what there was in the institution for sitting together or a sunder for eating at Church or at home Yes forsooth Christe did institute his supper to be a foode of the soule and not of the body and therefore to be celebrated in the congregation and in common as the saluation is common and not to bee mingled with prophane banquets of bellie cheare for which priuat houses and companies are meet and not the Church of god And wheras M. Rastel chargeth M. Iewel with not vnderstanding this place which he alledgeth namely therefore when you come together to eate tarie one for an other which he saith pertaineth no more to the institution of the sacrament then a pot full of plumbs doth to the highway to London he sheweth all his wit honestie at once For he denyeth that any thing that Saint Paule there rehearseth namely these wordes take eate this is my body c. is the institution of the sacrament or the originall paterne of reforming the Corinthians disorder bicause time place vesture number of communicants and such other accidentall and variable circumstà nces be not therein expressed So that by his diuinitie either the institution of the sacrament is not at all contained in the scriptures or else there is an other first paterne to reforme abuses by then this that is set downe in the scriptures I would maruel at these monstrous assertions but that I see the obstinate Papists cannot otherwise defend their Popish Masse
Hom. 3. and would haue all that receiued not to depart euen as the Canons of the Apostles and Gregorie in his Dialogues doe shewe And although many of the people were negligent in comming to the Lordes table yet was there no priuate Masse bicause that in those great Churches there were always a great number of the Clergie which receiued with the Bishop vpon paine of excommunication To the prayers of the Masse which being in the plurall number suppose a number present ▪ and a number of communicants hee saith they argue the antiquitie of the Masse to bee aboue sixe hundreth yeares after Christe which is not so in deede they argue the forme of those prayers to be ancienter then the priuate Masse and more they argue not But they may be vsed saith Maister Raster bicause at euery Masse be more present then any bodily eye can see O absurde Asse that so arrogantly braggeth of learning and so proudly despiseth so learned a Fathers arguments Admit that in steede of legions of diuels that be present at euery Masse whose seruice it is there were so many legions of Angels present as he fantasieth doeth the Priest saying Oremus Let vs pray speake to the Angels that are present to pray with him yea why not will some froward Papist say But to whome speaketh he when he turneth about and sayth Orate pro me fratres sorores pray for me brethren and sisters Be there hee Angels and she Angels also And when he prayeth that the oblation which they haue offered be saluation to all that haue receiued it doeth he meane that the Angels haue taken their rytes of the Priest though none of the people be present but perhaps one sorie boy that helpeth him to say Masse But the Prieste he saith is no priuate person but a common officer euen as when hee baptizeth But is hee such a Magistrate to altar and chaunge the institution and ordinaunce of GOD Baptisme may bee ministred to one alone according to the institution thereof but the Communion which is a feast of the Church ought not to bee kept without a number of guestes 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 Gregorie hee saith they proue nothing but that the people vsed to communicate and there be diuers thinges in those writings which wee doe not obserue as though wee haue bound our selues to the obseruing of mens decrees as the Papistes haue But what so euer they haue agreeable to the worde of GOD wee obserue and willingly although hee slaunder our Church to suffer them to be present at the Communion which doe not communicate which is a most impudent and shamelesse lye and yet easily to bee borne in comparison of their blasphemies which he barketh out against the Priesthoode of our Sauiour Christe saying the order of Melchisedech should haue an end if their stinking Masse were omitted and that their Priestes must daily enter into Sancta sanctorum O Antichristian Helhoundes that challenge vnto your selues the peculiar Priesthoode of Christe who onely is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech and hath no successours in his Priesthoode Heb. 7. O blasphemous dogges that will haue your hedge Priests to enter into Sancta sanctorum the most holy places euery day whither Christ hath once for all entered and found eternall redemption Heb. 6. And these blasphemies he had rather defend then giue ouer the blasphemie of the priuate Masse which with neither learning modestie nor conscience he or any of al the rout of them is able to defend either as lawfull or as auncient SECTIO 37. in the 127. leafe To the challenge which the Bishop made against the priuate Masse he aunswereth nothing but that they haue no priuate Masse for all Masses are one common masse trifling vpon the terme when he can not say one word to the matter SECTIO 38. From the second face of the 127. leafe to the 131. leafe in which he treateth of receiuing the communion in both kindes To the Bishops challenge that the Communion was neuer ministred in one kinde to any man in the space of 600. yeres after Christes he answereth first that if it were not yet their Church is out of daūger bicause it is a matter indifferent for the Lay people to receiue in one kind or in both alledging for proofe a saying of Luther written before hee was throughly conuerted from Papistrie Secondly hee will proue that it was receiued vnder one kind first bicause in Luke 24. and Act. 20. there is no mention but of bread Ergo Christe and Paule gaue them the communion in one kind a good consequent By the same I may proue that Christe and Paule receiued them selues but bread bicause there is no mention of wine And yet the Papistes holde it necessarie that the Priest which ministreth should of necessitie receiue in both kindes And whereas he is ashamed of this negatiue consequence he chargeth vs with like reasoning out of some place of Augustine or Irenaeus c. Wheras he slandreth vs falsly except it be vpon such an affirmatiue as excludeth all other things With like impudence he saieth we doe not deny but that in Tertullians time the sacrament in one kinde was carried home to their houses which we doe vtterly deny neither is he euer able to proue As false it is that he saith in Cyprians time it was carried to mens houses in one kinde for Cyprian saith no such thing nor any worde sounding to such end And concerning the custome of sending the sacrament to Bishops that were straungers which came to Rome cited by Irenaeus Ad victor whereby he would proue it was sent vnder one kinde because wine would soone waxe sower I say he vnderstandeth not what the custome was but imagineth that the sacrament was sent a thousand myle of to those Bishops whereas it was onely from the Table to the places where they did sitte in the Churche or at the worste to their lodging where they soiourned at Rome But passing ouer as he doeth all reportes of carrying and sending the sacrament whiche prooueth nothing at all the communion in one kinde for both might as well be carried and sent as one he commeth to a fragment of an Epistle of Basilius Ad Caesariam Pratriciam which also he falsifieth in translation as the rest of the Papistes Harding and Heskins doe For where he saith that such as ledde a solitary life in the wildernesse where no Priest is keeping the communion at home receiue of themselues Communionem domi seruantes à seipsis communicant meaning they receiued one of an other which he translateth They communicate by themselues Gathering that a priest may as well receiue by himselfe in the churche as the people at home whiche doth not followe although neither of both be wel done And here againe he wil haue no wine for feare of sauoring
whereas their is no dout but such strong wine as groweth in those countries will be preserued as long from sauoring as the bread froÌ„ moulding Like is the example of Serapion being at the point of death to whom the priest being sicke also sent by a boye the sacrament Vppon which example he vrgeth reseruation which though it be not necessarie yet is it not the matter in controuersie secondly the coÌ„munion 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 any thing else as M. Rastell saith which were an absurditie that the bodie of Christe should be dipped in prophane licour or sent by a boy either if the Priest had ben so persuaded of it as Rastel would beare vs in hand that all olde fathers were That he receiued alone proueth no priuate Masse nor alloweth sole receiuing as ordinarie which was done in a case of extreame necessitie in one which was excommunicated and could not departe this life before he had receiued the sacrament The last example is the superstitious fact of Satyrus the brother of Ambrose which beeing not baptised obteined the sacrament of the Christians that were in a ship with him in daunger of shipwracke which because he might not receiue he caused it to be wrapped in Orario a linnen garment which Maister Rastell calleth a stole wrapped that linnen garment about his necke and without other helpe escaped by swimming Here M. Rastel thinketh he hath great aduauntage 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 daunger Secondly that it was in one kind except we can deuise how to wrap wine in a stole No M. Rastel this proueth not that the Christians receiued in one kinde though they had wrapped one kinde 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 linnen cloth as some also vsed to doe and wrappe it vp in that great linnen garment And the words of Ambrose Fusum in viscera powred into his bowels wold not agree to drie bread Last of all whereas you say it was no fantastical figuratiue memorie which saued him from daunger I agree with you but it was not the sacrament that he carried whatsoeuer you will call it but his faith as S. Ambrose saith that preserued him And how soeuer it was the example of an vnbaptised mans weake and superstitious doing doeth ye but small honestie to confirme your common priuate Masse sole receiuing opinion of carnal presence or what so euer beside you can gather out of it SECTIO 39. From the 132. leafe to the second face of the 135. leafe of seruice in a straunge tongue To the Bishoppes challenge that common prayer was not in a straunge tongue within the compasse of 600. yeares after Christ he hath nothing in the worlde But onely affirmeth that Augustine the Monke brought Latine seruice into Englande whiche the people vnderstoode not whiche both is somewhat without the compasse and also onely said of him without proofe or likelyhoode He saith he made not a newe Englishe seruice or Kentish rather but vsed the Romane fashion and language Be it graunted that he brought in the Latine seruice yet how proueth he that the people did not at that time for the moste parte vnderstand the Latine tongue Seeing he could preach to them onely in Latine beeing a Romane and they also tâ—at came with him vnderstoode no parte of the English tongue as our stories doe testifie And that he planted not the Romane seruice it may appeare by the aunswere of Gregorie to his thirde demaunde of the diuersitie of the Romane Churche and the French Church in which answere he bindeth him not to the Romane Church but willeth him to choose out of all Churches what he thinketh most conuenient and profitable for the Englishe Churche And seeing the Scriptures and diuerse Homelyes and Prayers remaine still in the Saxon or old English tongue I do not see but he might haue made a newe English seruice although by reason of so many mutations troubles as happened in this land by meanes of ciuil and externe warres in the meane time Antichrist daily more and more incroching the same might growe out of vse and latine onely be reteined which perhaps at the first was but vsuall vnto monasteries or clarkes But how soeuer it was this is an inuincible argument that Augustine planted not the Romane seruice in this land bicause there were so many diuersities of customes as there were diuerse Bishops sees and al they differing from the vse of the Romane church But hauing none authoritie he hath reasons perhaps to defend latine seruice First latine seruice is as meete for Englishmen as English seruice is for WelshmeÌ„ wherwith he saith we finde no faulte wherin he lieth For the Welshmen that vnderstand not english haue their common praier in their Welshe tongue The second reason he vseth that Sainct Paule did write in greeke to the Romanes ergo the seruice must be in latine to Englishmen He saith himselfe there be many differences betweene an epistle a common forme of praiers which is verie true But will he proue therby that the Romanes had their common praiers in greeke The cause why the Apostle did write in greeke was bicause he wrote not only to the Romanes but to the whole churche vnto which the greeke tongue was more familiar then the latine and was of many vnderstoode in Rome And also because the holy Ghoste â—ad consecrated the Greekâ— tongue beeing the principall tongue of the gentiles vnto the writinges of the newe Testament auoyding to vse the Latine tongue euen to the Romanes for the mysterie of the name of Antichriste Latinos conteined in the nomber of the beastes name 666. as Irenaeus doeth testifie His thirde reason is that there be many thinges to be saide in publique praier which ought to be saide in secrete therefore an vnknowne tongue is best to vtter them His antecedent he proueth not out of scripture or any auncient authenticall writer but out of the liturgies falsely ascribed to Saint Basil and Saint Chrysostome and yet the argument hath no consequence in the world for then those prayers in the Latine seruice to the Romanes shoulde bee in an vnknowen tongue and all the rest in a knowne tongue to euerie nation Finally where he saith there needeth no diuersitie of seruice according to the diuersitie of languages he speaketh directly contrarye to the decree of the councell of Laterane cap. 9. which commanded the bishoppes to prouide that the sacraments and other diuine seruice should be ministred to all people in their diocesse according to the diuersitie of their languages and customes By which it is
To the â— 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 vs from all sinnes and if we confesse our sinnes he is faithful and righteous that he will forgiue our sinnes and purge vs 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 that 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 onely 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 The 9. that faith onely 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 iactaâ— sed nouit quidem seipsum verè iustiâ—iÄ™ 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 onely faith in Christe The 10. that all the iustice and holinesse of good men is but an imputatiue iustice c. is not saide of vs which affirme that faith onely 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. that the keeping of 40. dais fast had no coÌ„mandement 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 that 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 prÄ™cepto 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 the 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 that 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 who appointed that al christian men vnder 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 that can discerne trueth froÌ„ forgerie the testimonie of Euagrius Li. 4. ca. 36. may serue which reporteth an old custome of the church of CoÌ„stantinople to send for childreÌ„ that went to schoole to spend whatsoeuer remained of the sacrament after the coÌ„munion The thirde parte conteineth foure articles To the first that calling vpon Saints in heauen was accounted then blasphemie is proued by S. Augu. which so accouÌ„ted calling vpon 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 vnto thee Should I haue gone to the 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 vpon angels Tom. 3. Haeres 38. and calling vpon 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 vnto God then to call vpon him in al our afflictions â–ª Psal. 50. And Dauid saieth Whom haue I in the heauen but thee and I haue 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 vnto 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 the signe of the crosse I haue shewed before out of Irenaeus that the Valentinian heretikes were