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
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
D. HESKINS D. SANDERS AND M. Rastel accounted among their faction three pillers and Archpatriarches of the Popish Synagogue vtter enemies to the truth of Christes Gospell and all that syncerely professe the same ouerthrowne and detected of their seuerall blasphemous heresies By D. Fulke Maister of Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge Done and directed to the Church of England and all those which loue the trueth AT LONDON Printed by Henrie Middleton for George Bishop ANNO. 1579. The contentes of the seuerall treatises conteined in this Booke 1 The Parleament of Christ auouching the inacted trueth of his presence in the sacrament restored to his veritie and deliuered from the impudent and outragious corruptions of Tho. Heskins 2 That it is lawfull to breake superstitious Images and vtterly vnlawful to honour them with a confirmation of suche true doctrine as Maister Iewel hath vttered in his reply concerning that matter against a blasphemous treatise made by Nicholas Sander 3 The challenge and sound doctrine conteined in M. Iewels sermon mainteined and deliuered from the lewde and slaunderous dealing of Rastel with an answere to his challenge ¶ A CATALOGVE of all such Popish Bookes either aunswered or to be aunswered which haue bene written in the English tongue from beyond the seas or secretly dispersed here in England haue come to our hands since the beginning of the Queenes Maiesties reigne 1 HArding against the Apology of the English church answered by M. Iewel Bishop of Sarum 2 Harding against M. Iewels challenge answered by M. Iewel 3 Hardings reioynder to M. Iewell aunswered by M. Edwarde Deering 4 Coles quarrels against M. Iewell answered by M. Iewell 5 Rastels returne of vntruthes answered by M. Iewel â–ª 6 Rastell against M. Iewels challenge answered by William Fulke 7 Dorman against M. Iewel answered by M. Nowel 8 Dormans disproofe of M. Nowels reproofe aunswered by M. Nowell 9 The man of Chester aunswered by M. Pilkington Bishop of Duresme 10 Sanders on the sacrament in part aunswered by M. Nowell 11 Fecknams Scruples aunswered by M. Horne B. of Winchester 12 Fecknams Apologie aunswered by W. Fulk 13 Fecknams obiections against M. Goughes sermon aunswered by maister Gough and maister Lawrence Tomson 14 Stapletons counterblast answered by M. Bridges 15 Marshall his defence of the crosse answered by M. Caulfehill 16 Fowlers Psalter aunswered by M. Sampson 17 An infamous libell or letter 〈…〉 against the teachers of Gods diuine prouidence and predestination aunswered by Robert Crowley 18 Allens defeÌ„ce of Purgatorie answered by W. Fulk 19 Heskins parleament repealed by W. Fulk 20 Ristons challenge answered by W. Fulk Oliuer Carter 21 Hosius of Gods expresse word translated into English aunswered by W. Fulk 22 Sanders rock of the church vndermined by W. Fulk 23 Sanders defence of images answered by W. Fulk 24 Marshals reply to Caulfhil answered by W. Fulk 25 Shaclockes Pearle answered by M. Hartwell 26 The hatchet of heresies answered by M. Bartlet 27 Maister Euans answered by himselfe 28 A defence of the priuate Masse answered by conâ—ecture by M. Cooper Bishop of Lincolne 29 Certein assertions tending to mainteine the church of Rome to be the true and catholique church confuted by Iohn Knewstub These Popish treatises ensuing for the most part are in answering and those which are not by God assistance as 〈◊〉 will serue shall receiue their seueral replies If the Papistes know any not here reckoned let them be brought to light and they shall be examined 1 Sanders vpon the Lords supper partly vnanswered 2 Allens defence of Priests authoritie to remiâ— sinnes and of the churches meaning concerning indulgences 3 Stapletons fortresse of the faith 4 Stapletons returne of vntruthes 5 Rastels replye 6 Bristowes Motiues and Demaunds collected out of the same 7 Vaux his Catechisme 8 Canisius his Catechisme translated 9 Frarins oration translated ¶ THE AVTHOVR to the Reader ALTHOVGH there is nothing in these bookes which haue beene so long vnanswered but either it is vnworthy any answere or else hath ben satisfied sufficiently before in many treatises extant in the English toung already yet because the aduersaries should not altogether please themselues in their fantasie that they be vnanswerable nor the simpler sort suspect that there is any thing in them that we need to be afraid of I thought good to take in hand this short manner of confutation In which I trust the diligent indifferent reader wil confesse that I haue omitted much matter whereof I might haue taken aduantage rather then that I haue left any argument of importance vnsatisfied Considering therfore what breuitte I haue vsed as was necessarie for me being but one against so many I trust the reasonable Readers will looke for no other vertue of writing at my handes but onely the simple shewing of the trueth and the plaine confutation of the false reasons of the aduersarie Which that they may the better see with more profit perceiue I exhort all such as haue the Popishe Bookes here confuted to conferre their argumentes with mine answers And for them that haue not the bookes at hand I haue so set downe the titles of their Chapters and the cheefe pointes of their treatises collected by themselues in their owâ—â— tables that the perusers may vnderstand I haue left no matter of any moment vntouched In rehearsing of their arguments I haue rather added weight vnto them then taken any force from them in my repetitioÌ„ or abridgement of them so neere as I could by any wit I haue conceiue their order and resolue their Methode What I haue perfourmed in answering let the godly and learned Iudge In the meane time I desire God to graunt that this my labour may be to the glorie of his name and the profite of his Church by Iesus Christe our Lord. THE FIRST BOOKE OF HESKINS PARLEAMENT REpealed by W. Fulke THE first Chapter vpon occasion that this aduersarie this proclamer and challenger he meaneth the B. of Sarum of holy and learned memorie would haue the Scriptures read of all men presupposing the same to be easie to be vnderstanded entereth as by preamble to treate of the difficultie of the Scriptures and to proue that they ought not of all men to be read without an able interpreter or teacher THIS Burgesse for the citie of Rome hauing in purpose to make a speake in the Popish Parleament for the matter of the sacrament of the Masse and douting least his tale should not be long ynough if he vttered nothing but that might seeme directly to appertaine to his cause beginneth with a pretie preamble of eight Chapters long of the difficultie of the Scriptures and the vnderstanding of the same And bicause he hath not aduauntage sufficient of any wordes or writing of the B. of Sarum to inlarge his speach by confuting thereof he feigneth vnto him selfe a monster to fight withall out of Luthers booke De seruo arbitrio who teacheth as he saith That the Scriptures of them selues be
his bodie This saying M. Heskins hath most vntollerably abused first by false translating and then by leauing out that which expoundeth the mind of Tertullian most clearely For the true vnderstanding of this place we must note two things firste that Marcion against whome he writeth affirmed that the God of the lawe was not the God of the Gospel secondly that Christ had not a true bodie but a fantasticall bodie Against both these errours he reasoneth in this sentence Against the first when he saith he desired to eate the Pascal lambe of the olde lawe which was his owne namely of his owne institution for it was absurd that Christ being God shoulde desire that which was another Gods institution as the heretike sayde the lawe and all ceremonies thereof were And this is directly contrarie to M. Heskins purpose who ioyning with the heretike denyeth that he did desire to eat the Pascall of the lawe and that it was not properly his owne and for this intent to make it serue his turne he translateth falsly vt suum as his owne Passouer alienum any strange thing Against the seconde Tertullian reasoneth in the same sentence which words because M. Heskins could not abyde he hath cleane cut off The wordes are these Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit quia corporis caâ—ebas veritate ergo panem dibuit tradere pro nobis Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis crucifigeretur The bread which he tooke distributed to his disciples he made his bodie saying this is my bodie that is to saye a figure of my bodie And it could haue bene no figure except his bodie had bene of trueth But a vaine thing which is a phantasie cannot receiue a figure Or else if therefore he made breade his bodie because he lacked the trueth of a bodie therefore he should haue giuen bread for vs It made wel for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should haue beene crucified There can nothing bee more euident then that Tertullian by this place ouerthroweth both the transubstantiation and also the carnall presence maintained by the Papistes This M. Heskins because he coulde not brooke he brake off the sentence and commeth out of the matter also to raile against Cranmer of holy memorie first doubting whether the booke set forth in his name were made by him as though Cranmer was not wel enough knowen to be as well able to write a booke as Heskins then that he affirmeth the Papistes vnable to shewe one article of faith so directly contrarie to our senses that all our senses shall by daily experience affirme a thing to be and yet our faith shall teach vs the contrarie Maister Heskins like a wilie Pye obiecteth the article of the resurrection where our senses teacheth vs that mens bodyes be dead and faith teacheth that they shall rise againe But the subtile sophister doth not see I weene a difference betweene it is in M. Cranmers assertioÌ„ is and shal be in his balde obiection Faith teacheth that shal be which our sense teacheth nowe not to be But faith teacheth not that to be white which our sense teacheth to be blacke But he hath another wise instance The senses taught that the wounde which Christe had in his side after his resurrection was verie sore but faith taught the contrarie because his bodie was glorified Seeing the wounde was made after his death reason would iudge that it was insensible especially when he was risen againe froÌ„ death by his diuine power And Thomas was not so rude that he would haue thrust in his hand if he thought it shold haue hurt him and when he did thrust in his hande he perceiued by his senses that it did not hurt But it is pittie to spende any time about so vaine a matter sorenesse being not the thing but a certeine affection of the thing which cannot alwayes be knowen by another mans senses but by his onely that feeleth it as in him that hath the Palsey if his legge were cut off he feeleth nothing yet some such wise man as M. Heskins would thinke it were verie sore But he woulde-faine excuse the matter why he cutteth off Tertulian by the waste promising in another place to do it and willeth you in the meane time to consider that Christes bodie is giuen in the sacrament and further alledgeth out of Tertullian in another place which is in his booke De resurrectione carnis That the fleshe doth eate the bodie and bloud of Christ that the soule may be fedd of God. Where hee meaneth none otherwise then in the former place calling the sacrament a figure of Christes bodie and so an ende with Tertullian Then commeth Isychius disciple of Gregorie Nazianzene who firste dissuading men from vsing of the Iewes ceremonies affirmeth that which M. Heskins denyed that Christe did eat the legall Passouer in his last supper His wordes that are materiall are these Christus primùm celebrauit figuratum Pasca Post canam auem intelligibidem tradit Christ did first celebrate the figuratiue Passeouer but after supper he deliuered the intelligible supper Then followe diuers places to shew that by intelligible he meaneth figured But being graunted that the supper was figured by the pascall Lambe which is the egge that he is so long in brooding yet he is neuer the neerer for the carnall presence and corporall manner of eating no not with that whiche Isychius saith That he tooke the intelligible bloud first in the mysticall supper and afterward gaue the cuppe to his Apostles and that he dranke himselfe and giuing to his Apostles to drinke then he powred the intelligible bloud vpon the altar that is to say his body Now the body of Christ is the Church and all his people He that seeth not that this Father doeth vse figuratiuely these wordes bloud body altar powre drinke c. is worthy to weare a cockes combe a bell Yet Maister Heskins noteth in the margent Christ dranke his owne bloud and gaue it to his Apostles Which if it be true in the litterall sense as he meaneth then it is as true that he powred his owne bloud vpon his owne body in the literall sense For the same bloud which he dranke and gaue he powred on his body But he powred not his natural bloud vpon his body therefore he neither gaue nor dranke his naturall bloud in the litterall sense But you will say his body signifieth his Church and people for whom he powred forth his naturall bloud Well beside that you are inforced to acknowledge a figuratiue speeche you are neuer the neere For although he powred out his bloud for them yet he powred it not vpon them
prefigurate the truth of his body likewise For it importeth an equalitie of both their doings Melchisedech by breade and wine did represent or prefigurate the truth of his body and Christ also by breade and wine did represent the truth of his body For Christ could not doe also that which an other had not done Therefore very foolish are M. Heskins oppositions of typicall passeouer and true passeouer and figure and truth where the argument is a consentaneis and not a dissentaneis The other friuolous interpretation that he maketh of the bread comforting mans heart being both out of the minde of Hieronyme and out of his purpose I omit At length hee commeth to an other place of Hieronyme ad Heliodorum Ep. 1. Absit vt de ijs quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt God forbid that I shuld speake any euil of thē which succeeding the apostolike degree doe make the body of Christ with their holy mouth M. Heskins translateth it which do consecrate bicause in the word make which Hieronyme vseth hee should be enforced to acknowledge a figuratiue speach But let him turne ouer all his vocabularies Calepines and dictionaries vnto which he sent vs ere while and he shall not finde this Verbe conficio signifying to consecrate but to make to dispatch or to kill Likewise he leaueth out these wordes which folowe immediatly Per quos nos Christiani sumus by whome wee also are Christians It is euident that Hieronyme speaketh hyperbolically of the dignitie of priestes for as to speake properly we are not made Christians by them no more is the bodie of Christ made by them But where he speaketh properly he vseth proper tearmes as Contra Iouin lib. 2. In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum In the figure of his bloud he offered not water but wine Here he calleth the sacrament the type of his bloude and saith it is wine And in the same booke he saith of Christ that although it be written of him that he hungred and thristed and went often to diner yet excepto mysterio quod in typum suae passionis expressit probandi corporis veritate nec gulae scribitur seruisse nec ventri Excepting the mysterie whiche he expressed in figure of his passion and in prouing the trueth of his bodie it is not written that he did serue his throte or bellie Meaning that it is not saide expressedly what he did eate and drinke but onely a◠his last supper and after his resurrection to proue the trueth of his body The other collection that hee maketh that because priestes doe consecrate with their mouthe therefore the faith of the receiuer maketh not the presence of Christ in the sacrament beside that it is not Hieronymes word yet it proueth nothing because as there be causes that worke altogether alone so there be causes which be helping and concurre with other of which sorte is the faith of the receiuer necessarilie to conceyue with the ministerie of the Minister that Christ may bee present That Christian Priestes should not be contemned if they be good it is easily graunted if they be naught the ministerie is to bee honoured but not the person Out of Chrysostom are alledged two long testimonies the one out of his homilies de prodit Iudae But by that also an other greater benefit was shewed that that lamb was a signe of the lambe to come and that bloude shewed the comming of the Lordes bloude and that sheepe was an example of the spirituall sheepe That lambe was a shadowe this lambe the trueth But after the sunne of righteousnesse shined the shadowe was put away by the light And therefore on the same table both the passeouers were celebrated both that of the figure and that of the trueth For as painters are wont to shadowe the table that is to be painted with certayne lineamentes and so with varietie of colours to make it perfecte Euen so Christ did in the table Hee did both describe the figure of the Passeouer and shewed the passeouer of trueth Where wilt thou that wee prepare for thee to eate the passouer That was the Iewish passouer but let the passouer giue place to the light and the image be ouercome of the trueth If this place be well considered it maketh altogether against the Bill of transubstantiation For the similitude of the Painters Table hauing in it shadowes and colors applyed vnto the pascal lambe and the sacrament declareth that they both together make a perfect image to shew and represent the true lambe Christ which was offered for vs the olde pascall being the shadowing the new sacramēt which he calleth also a passouer being the varietie of colors by which the passouer of trueth is discribed and plainely shewed Therfore M. Heskins collections are vaine and from the authors meaning For his purpose is not to make the pascall lamb a figure of the sacramēt but of christ and both the lamb the sacrament figures of Christ but yet the lambe a shadowing figure like the first draught of a painter the sacrament a cleare demonstration like an image in colors It is therfore verie babish that he groūdeth vpon the word of the Passeouer shewed in the table that the bodie of Christ was really present on the table in the sacrament wheras it is plain that Chrysostom speaketh of shewing by signes as by colours an image is set forth in a painted table As childish it is that he will oppresse the proclamer to tell him why Hierome and Chrisostom call not the Iewish pascal light trueth veritie as they doe our pascall seeing by it they receiued Christ◠as well as wee in our sacramente A sore matter The Iewishe pascall represented if I may vse that tearme vnder correction of M. Heskins dictionarie the true pascal Christ as our sacrament doeth who is the light trueth and veritie the sacramente they call not the pascall lambe light nor trueth but by a figure as they call it manye other thinges But when they speake properlie they vse other tearmes so doth Chrysostome Homi. Ex. Psal. 22. 116. Sapientia ędificauit sibi Domum supposuit columnas septem parauit mensam suam misit seruos suos conuocans omnes dicens venite edite de panibus meis bibite vinum quod miscui vobis quia istam mensam preparauit seruis ancillis in conspectu eorum vt quotidie in similitudinem corporis sanguinis Christi panem vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sacramento ideo dicit parasti in conspectu meo mensam aduersus eos qui tribulant me Wisedome hath builded hir an house shee hath set vnder seauen pillers shee hath prepared hir table shee hath sent foorth her seruantes calling all men to hir and saying come and eate of my breade and drinke of the wine that I haue powred foorth for you and because
pixe to be adored And Tertullian in his Booke De Corona militis doeth rehearse this custome among those thinges that had no ground of scripture for them The liks is to be saide to the place of Cyprian where a woman kept it in her chest as for the miracle whether it reproued her vnworthinesse or her reseruation it is not plaine by the authour The story of Satyrus out of Ambrose proueth not directly reseruation for it is like the Christians being in daunger of shipwrack did minister the communion in the shippe not bring it with them from the shore consecrated And Satyrus being then but a nouice or Catechumein and not baptised desired the sacrament of them meaning to receiue it before his death if he sawe present daunger of drowning otherwise to tarry vntill he were admitted to it by order of the Church But this proueth nothing at all the Popishe reseruation although the fact of Satyrus was not without imperfection as greatly as it is commended of Ambrose and much lesse the Carnal presence For Satyrus did not so put his affiaunce in the sacrament that he thought it to be God but that he desired it as an helpe of his faith that he might not depart this life without the communion of the body of Christ in the sacrament The place of Chrysostome is nothing at all for reseruation where he saith that in a tumult the souldiers rushing into the Churches The most holy bloud of Christ was shed vpō their clothes For he must remēber it was on Easter day when all the people did communicate and such as came were baptised And where he saith it was Ad vesperū diei that they did enter that is in the afternoone he must wit that Chrysostome after the maner of the scripture calleth the morning before day light Vespere Sabbati therfore his collection is vaine But although it were in the afternoone what inconuenience is it if we say they spent al the forenoone in prayer fasting and hearing the worde of God and ministring baptisme which then was ministred twise a yeare at Easter at Pentecost and then in the afternoone towarde euening went to the communion Hierome reporteth of Exuperius that he caried the Lords body in a wicker basket and his bloud in a glasse What reseruation is here M. Heskins saith he did beare it about with him but Hieronyme saith not so except you meane about the Churche when he ministred the communion But here Maister Iewel hath a double blow O cunning Maister of defence For here is not onely reseruation bu◠also he calleth it in plaine wordes the body and bloud of our Lorde Maister Iewel shal not greatly feele these blowes To the reseruation I haue saide before and to the plaine calling of it body and bloud I say what other thing is it then as Maister Iewel himselfe will call it and worthily yet no transubstantiation meant by him But how will Maister Heskins warde these blowes Exuperius had no hallowed pixes nor chalices of Golde and siluer as the Papistes must haue And Exuperius ministred to the lay people in both kindes as the Papistes will not do What hath M. Heskins gayned by Exuperius But then Eusebius shall help him for in his 6. booke and 36. Chapter is declared that a certeine priest sent to Serapion beeing at the point of death a litle portiō of the Eucharistie in the night season by which it appeareth that it was reserued In deed Dionysius bishop of Alexandria writeth so vnto Fabianus Bishop of Rome But withall he sheweth that it was no publique order of the vniuersall Church but his own commandement vnto his owne Church that he might not seeme in any point to resemble the Nouatians which denied reconciliation to them that had fallen in persecution wherfore he saith that although the priest was sicke and could not come Tamen quia pręceptum fuerat a me vt lapsis in exitu nemo recōciliationis solatia denegaret maximè ijs quos priùs id rogasse constaret parum c. Yet because it had beene commanded by me that no man should denie to them that had fallen the comfort of reconciliation at their departure especially to those who were known to haue desired it before he gaue a litle of the Eucharistie c. Whiche wordes M. Heskins hath cleane left out of the text wherby the particular commandemēt of Dionyse is expressed and yet it is not proued that the Priest had the sacrament reserued but it might well be that he did then consecrate and send him parte as he should haue done if he could haue come to the sicke man himselfe for his owne weakenes Last of all he rehearseth the wordes of Cyril Ad Colosyrium I heare that they say that the mystical blessing if any remnants thereof remaine vnto the next day following is vnprofitable to sanctification But they are madd in so saying for Christe is not made an other neither shal his holy body be chaunged but the vertue of blessing and the liuely grace do alwayes remaine in him M. Heskins translateth in illo in it as though the vertue quickening grace were included in the sacrament which the author saith to remain in Christ. But touching the authoritie of this Cyrillus ad Colosyrium I must admonish the Reader that these wordes are not to be found in all the workes of Cyrillus that are extant but is only a patch cited by other men the whole epistle is not to be found So that we can neither tel whether it were writē by the ancient Cyrillus of Alexandria or by some late writer of that name nor yet what was the argumēt scope of that Epistle Neuertheles it semeth to some that he wrote against the Anthropomorphits which thought that the body of Christ was corrupted if the remnants of the sacrament were corrupted but that Cyrillus denieth because Christ is eternall incorruptible He saith not that the remnantes of the sacrament are so for that the Papistes confesse to be otherwise affirming that they ceasse to be the body bloud of Christ when the species or kinds of bread and wine are putrified or rotten But Cyril saith that vertue grace do alwayes remaine in him not in that sacrament reserued which doeth corrupt Finally he speaketh but of reseruatiō for one day to the vse of eating and not of adoration therefore he speaketh nothing against the challenge which was not simply of reseruation but of reseruing the sacramēt to be worshipped But whereas M. Heskins mainteyneth reseruation by dipping of stoales and linnen clothes in the cup he must remēber that Iulius in his decretal epistles forbiddeth that dipping as diuers counsels also do which in due place are alledged Finally Origen doth vtterly condemne that abuse of reseruation of the sacrament affirming that it is in the same case that the sacrifice of the passeouer and the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing were of which it was not lawfull to reserue
gone out of the parleament house where matters are grauely intreated of and hath betaken him selfe to the wilde forest where hee may disporte himselfe in his games with Robin hoode and his merie mates And verilie if he had not tolde vs him selfe of his lustie hunting wee might well haue thought he had not beene at home but wandering in the woodes so wilde when in his exhortation vnto faith in the sacrament hee will persuade vs that none can vnderstande the scriptures except they haue founde faith in the veritie of the Sacramente Which happeneth to all those that wil not be with Christ in the breaking of the breade as the two disciples were that went to Emans to whome Christe was a straunger vntill he came to the breaking of the breade But leaste this vaine allegorie shoulde seeme to bee founde out only in M. Heskins chase hee trauelleth to finde it in S. Augustin Theophylact but al in vaine For first to giue vs a tast what synceritie and trueth he will vse in the rest of this booke the verie first sentence he alleadgeth out of any Doctor is corruptly and vntruly rehearsed For thus hee maketh Augustine to speake in his treatise De consensu Euangelistarum not naming in what booke or Chapter whereas that which he writeth of this matter is Lib. 3. Cap. 25. Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum a Satana fuisse ne agnosceretur Iesus sed tantùm a Christo propter eorum fidem ambiguam facta est permissio vsque ad sacramentum panis vt vnitate corporis eius participata remoueri intelligatur impedimentum inimici vt Christus possit agnosci We doe not take it incongruently that this impediment in their eies was of Sathā that Iesus shold not be knowen but only it was permitted of Christ for their doubtfull faithes sake vntill they came to the sacrament of bread that the vnitie of Christs body being participated it might be perceiued that the impediment of the enimie was remoued that Christ might be knowen In this place beside that he turneth autem into enim and leaueth out factum after fuisse he addeth of his owne propter eorum fidem ambiguam for their doubtfull faiths sake Which words are not Augustins Wherby it appeareth that hee redde not this place out of Augustine himselfe but followed some other mans collection as he doth almost euerie where But Augustine in that place comparing the wordes of Marke and Luke together sheweth that there was no alteration in the shape of Christes bodie but onely that the two disciples eyes were helde that they could not knowe him but in breaking of the bread which signified the vnity of the Church For this he writeth Neque quisquam se Christum agnouisse arbitretur si eius corporis particeps non est id est ecclesię cuius vnitatem in sacramento panis commendat Apostolus dicens vnus pà nis vnum corpus multi sumus vt cum eis benedictum panem porrigeret apperirentur oculi eorum agnoscerent cum Neither let any man thinke that he hath knowen Christ if he bee not partaker of his body that is of the Church whose vnitie the Apostle cōmendeth in the sacrament of the bread saying One bread we being many are one bodie that when he reached vnto them the blessed bread their eyes were opened and they knew him This is Augustines collection of this matter nothing agreable with M. Heskins allegorie of the soūd faith in the veritie of the sacrament but much against it teaching the true participation of the body of Christ in the sacrament which is the mystical coniunction of him vnto his Church Moreouer euen in the place by him alledged I meruell M. Heskins cannot see that Augustine calleth it the sacramēt of bread which agreeth not with his transsubstantiation and if he think the participation of the vnitie of Christes bodie doth helpe him Augustine in the same place sheweth the contrarie vnderstanding the bodie of Christ to be his Church as is before shewed But what saith Theophylact of the same Another thing also is here insumated namely that that their eyes which take this blessed bread are opened that they may knowe him For the fleshe of our Lorde hath a great and vnspeakable strength What is there here in these authorities either for M. Heskins bil of the reall presence or for his fond allegorie It pleaseth him excedingly that Theophylact saith the flesh of Christ is of vnspeakeable power which we doe most willingly admitte euen in receiuing of the sacrament it worketh mightily but hee will not see at all that Theophylact with Augustine calleth the sacrament blessed bread by which they both do shew that the substance of bread remaineth although it be blessed consecrated vnto an other vse then for bodily food The second Cha. expoundeth the sixt of S. Ioh according to the letter The summe of this literal exposition is this that three sundry breades are mentioned by Christe in this sixte of Iohn that is the bread Manna the bread the sonne of God and the bread the flesh of Christ and that these three breads are distincted both in nature and in time in whiche they were giuen For Manna was a corporall food giuen of old time in the wildernes The second bread the godhead of Christ being an eternall and spirituall substance Christ saith his father doth giue in the present tence and that he is the bread of life and requireth beleefe in him which is proper to God onely The third breade is the fleshe of Christ which he will giue for the life of the world speaking in the future tence and is meant of the sacrament And this he dare auouch to be the natiue true vnderstanding of this scripture But sauing his authoritie there are but two breades spoken of in this Chapter namely Manna and the bread of life which is not the diuinitie of Christ separated from his flesh nor his flesh separated or distincted from his godhead but euen his quickening spiritual flesh which being vnited to his eternal spirit was by the same giuen for the life of the world not in the sacrament but in the sacrifice of his bodie bloud on the crosse and is daily sealed and testified vnto vs by the sacrament of his bodie and bloud ministred according to his holie institutiō And this I dare auouch to be the true natiue sense of this scripture both by the plain circumstances of the same and by the iudgement of the best approued ancient writers And first to take away as wel the vain supposed distinction of time in which the two later breads are said to be giuen as also to proue that they are but one bread our sauior Christ him selfe after he hath promised to giue the bread which is his flesh for the life of the world and declared what fruite commeth to them that eate his fleshe and drinke his bloude c. in
passion also in a moment of time bring it into as much subtiltie as hee would that hee might enter in by the doores that were shut Here first of all Maister Heskins according to his accustomed manner of falsification translateth tale corpus the same body as though there were no difference betweene substaunce and qualitie Secondly it is manifest that Augustine in this place iudgeth as in other places most plainely that the body of Christe nowe glorified retayneth not onely the substaunce but also the properties and qualities of a true body which hee had before he suffered Although for that moment he supposeth the body of Christe might be subtiliated by his Diuine power to passe through the doores being shut and yet affirmeth nothing directly that it was so but rather that it might bee so Whereas more probably hee might haue thought that eyther the doore opened or the nature of the boordes gaue place then that the body of Christe for the time was altered The like place hee hath in him Epistle to Volusianus which I maruell Maister Heskins hath not noted Ep. 3. Ipsa virtus per inuiolatae matris virginea viscera membra infantis dutie quae posted per clausa ostia membra iâ—uenis introduxis The same power brought foorth his body being an infant by the Virginall bowels of his vndefiled mother which afterward brought in his body being a yong-man by the doores that were shut Of his natiuitie whereunto this Doctour doth compare his comming in after the doores were shut I haue shewed before howe it was out of the scripture But let vs heare what Cyrillus saith of the same matter In Ioan. lib. 12. cap â–ª 53. clausu foribus c. After the gates were shut the Lord by his almightie power the nature of things being ouercome soudenly entered vnto his disciples let no man therfore enquire how the body of our Lord entred in after the gates were shut when he may vnderstand that these things are described by the Euangelist not of a bare man aâ— we be nowe buâ— of the almightie sonne of god For seeing he is true God he is not subiect to the lawe of nature which thing did appeare in other his miracles also Here Maister Heskinâ— after his wonted syncâ—â—itie translateth 〈…〉 through the gates beeing shut otherwise the place of Cyrill is of our side that hee chaungeth not the nature of his body but ouercame the nature of other thinges and so made a passage for him selfe although the gates were shut as in his other 〈◊〉 hee chaunged not the nature of his body â–ª when hee walked on the waters 〈◊〉 the nature of the waters Hee altered not the trueth of his bodye when hee arose out of the sepulchre but remoued the stone from the doore thereof For it stoode Cyrillus vppon by reason of the Eutychian â—eresie to preserue in all thinge the true properties of the body of Christ which in all places he doth â—onstantly affirme But the elder fathers before they 〈…〉 by that hereâ—ie to search out the trueth did 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 sometimes inconsideratly was beside â—hem affirmes that he◠〈◊〉 already 〈◊〉 Hilariuâ— doâ—h not onely passed through the Lands walleâ— with his body in Psalme 55. but alâ—â— that his body felt 〈◊〉 paine in the time of his passion In. Psalm 4◠〈…〉 and in other pâ—aces whiche iâ— a groâ—â—e and wicked errour wherevnto hee was carried whyle he studied too much to aduaunce his Diuinitie in the humane nature Howe be it the trueth of his naturall bodie by other Doctours was in all times affirmed especially after Eutyches had broched his wicked heresie First Origen as it is cited by Pamphilus in his apollogie out of his booke Periaâ—chie translated by Ruffinus thus writeth Corpus assumpfit nostro corpori simile eo solo differens quod natum ex virgine espiritu sancto est He toke vpon him a body like vnto our body in this point onely differing that it was borne of a virgine by the holy Ghoste This place would the rather bee noted because it conteineth the consent of three auncient Doctours of seueral ages Origenes Pamphilus and Ruffinus Afterward in the counsel of Chalcedon the sixt of Constantinople they were condemned heretiques whiche denied either the trueth of the humane nature of Christ or the true properties thereof At in this latter counsell was allowed the Epistle of Leo Ad Flauianum written in time of the former wherein he writeth Simul suit altitudâ— Deitatis humilitas carnis seruante vtraque natura etâ—am post aditatationem fine defectu proprietatem suam Together be both the height of the Godhead and the humilitie of the fleshe both the natures euen after the adiuâ—â—rion keeping the propertie without defect And againe Nusquâ—m 〈◊〉 differentia naturarum propter vnitatem sed potius salua proprietate 〈…〉 â—â—turae in vnum personam vnam subsistentium concurrente In no place taking away the difference of the natures because of the vnitie but rather hauing the proprietie of both the natures concurring in one person one subsistence Those testimonies 〈◊〉 shewe the iudgement of the Church concerning this matter when iust occasion was giuen narrowly to search out the trueth in the conclusion of this Chapter Maister Heskins yeelding a reason of his trauell in this matter alledgeth two causes the one that the miracle might not be shadowed the other that he might shew the workes of Christe to be aboue nature And both these might stand without his labour For it was a miracle aboue nature that the doores of their owne accorde opened to our sauiour Christ at his entrie as when Peter also came foorth of the prison Actes 12. But whereas he bringeth in an example of the eternitie of the worlde which is held by some naturall philosophers to proue that Gods workes are aboue nature he sheweth a grosse capacitie that can not put a difference betweene the errours of naturall Philosophers and the true lawe and order of nature made by God himselfe which is vndoubtedly knowen to all wise men as in these propositions nowe in question For it is not the opinion of philosophers we stande vpon but vpon the trueth of thinges naturall which either sense or first intellections doth manifestly approue vnto vs For as Tertullian saith speaking of the trueth of Christes body Non licâ—t nobis in dubà m sensus istos reuocare nâ— in Christâ— dâ— side illoruâ— deliberemus It is not lawful for vs to call in doubt these senses least in Christe also we should stand in deliberation of the credit of them The like is to be iudged of such trueth in naturall causes â–ª as Christ the true light hath kindled in the mindes of naturall men to see the works of God in his creatures lest beside horrible confusion of all thinges we be driuen also into blasphemouâ— errourâ— The twelfth Chapter aunswereth certaine obiections tha◠〈◊〉 to impâ—â—ge the Catholique doctrine of this matter In the
they 〈◊〉 hitherto that they would neither learne by hearing nor acknowledge by reading that which in the Church of God in the mouth of all men is so agreeably spoken That not as much as of the tongues of infantes the veritie of the bodie and bloud of Christ is vnspoken of among the sacraments of the common faith for in that mystical distribution of that spirituall foode this thing is giuen foorth this thing is receiued that receiuing the vertue of that heauenly meate we may goe into his fleshe which was made our fleshe First M. Heskins as his fashion is to make the matter more cleare on his side falsely translateth Hoc impertitur hoc sumitur this bodie is giuen forth this bodie is receiued Where as Hoc is either taken absolutely for this thing or else at the least must haue relation to Sacramentum which is the next substantiue of the neuter gender in any reasonable construction Secondly it is manifest that Leo speaking against the heretiques Eutycheâ— and Dioscorus setteth forth the truth of Christs bodie bloud as one of the common knowen sacraments or mysteries of Christian faith saith neuer a word of his carnall presence in the mysterie of his supper but contrariwise teacheth that it is a mystical distributioÌ„ a spiritual food an heaueÌ„ly meat which words import not a carnal maner but a spiritual maner of preseÌ„ce eating Thus real presence as he termeth it being not yet proued the adoration cannot follow as he pretendeth The seuen and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the proofe of the adoration of the Sacrament by doctors The first doctor named is Dionysius Areopagita disciple of S. Paule as he sayeth Eccles. Hierarch 3. parte Cap. 3. who maketh this prayer to the sacrament O verie godly holie mysterie opening fauourably the couerings of signifying signes wherewith thou art couered shine openly and apertly vnto vs fill our spiritual eyes with the singuler open brightnesse of thy light That this Dionyse although of some antiquitie yet is not that Dionyse that was conuerted by S. Paule nor any that liued 600. yeres after at the least it is plaine by this reason that neither Eusebius nor Hieronyme nor Gennadius which wrote the Catologs of all ecclesiasticall writers that were before them or were famous in the church in their time nor yet any other writer within the compasse of 600. yeres after Christe maketh any mention of any such Dionyse to be a writer of those bookes which are saide to be written by him Now touching his supposed prayer it is but an exclamatioÌ„ rethoricall named apostrophe not vnto the bread wine but to him that in that mysterie is represented which is Christ that he would vouchsafe to open him self shine in the hearts of the faithfull as the outward signes are seene with the outwarde eyes And that he allowed no transubstantiation it is manifest by that he saith in the same place that the Bishop doth after consecration cut in peeces the vndiuided bread speaking of the sacrament doth often affirme that by those symboles or signes wee are changed into God Christ meaning we are renewed by his spirite but neuer affirmeth the bread wine to bee turned into the bodie bloud of christ Howbeit what I iudge of his authorite antiquitie I haue declared before The next is Gregorie Nazianzen in Epitaph Gorgoniae sororis Quid igitur c. What then did the soule both great worthie of greatest things and what remedie had shee against her infirmitie For nowe the secreat is disclosed when shee had dispaired of all other shee flyeth to the Phisition of all men and taking the solitarinesse of the night when the disease had giuen her a little respite shee fell downe with faith before the altare and with a lowde voice and all her might shee called vppon him which is worshipped at is and vnto him shee rehearsed all the myracles that he had done of olde time M. Heskins immagineth that it was such an altare as they haue in the popish Churches which is vntrue for it was a table men stoode round about it as is to be proued by many testimonies of antiquitie Secondly he immagineth that the sacrament was hanged ouer the altare to be worshipped as it is among them but that is vtterly false for it was receiued at such time as it was consecrated except some remanents that were kept to be eaten Therfore though shee made her prayer at the altare shee made no prayer to any thing vppon the altare but to God whome shee did worship and reuerence and whose mysteries shee vsed to receiue at the same altare Therefore M. Heskins falsifieth Gregories words which are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but thus they are turned by him into latine ante altare cum fide procubuit illum quem super altare venerabatur c. Shee prostrated her selfe with faith before the altar and called vpon him whome shee worshipped vpon the altare But Gregorie sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it or at it meaning the altare where shee prayed And to put all out of doubt that shee worshipped not the sacrament vppon the altare it followeth afterwarde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if her hand had layde vp any where any parte of the figures of the precious bodie or of the bloud that shee mingled with teares O marueilous thing and immediatly departed feeling health By these wordes it appeareth that shee brought this remanent of the sacrament with her which Gregorie calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the signes or tokens or figures of the bodie and bloud of Christ and not the verie naturall bodie of Christe and those shee worshipped not but wett them with teares whether superstitiously let the Papistes iudge for they them selues will allowe no such fashions nor yet reseruation for such purposes but as for adoration of the sacrament which is the matter intended here is none spoken of in this place After this he toucheth the facte of Satyrus the brother of S. Ambrose which is aunswered before lib. 1. Cap. 24. whose hope was in God and not in the sacrament Although Satyrus as a young nouice not throughly instructed in Christian religion cannot simply be defended though he may be excused howsoeuer by his brother Ambrose he is highly commended Then followed Eusebius Emisserâ—us Hom. Pascal Because he woulde take away his assumpted bodie from our eyes and carrie it into heauen it was needefull that this day he should consecrate vnto vs the sacrament of his bodie and bloud vs coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in precium that it might be continually worshipped or exercised by a mysterie for colere signifieth both whiche was once offered for our price M. Heskins gathereth hereof that the same bodie should be honoured by mysterie whose visible presence not his bodie was taken away from the earth But Eusebius sayeth not onely that he would take his bodie
of meate and drinke but not of the same that we doe Which is directly contrarie to the meaning of the Apostle as it appeareth by many reasons whereof some I will set downe because this one text of scripture if it be rightly vnderstoode is sufficient to determine all the controuersies that are betweene vs and the Papistes concerning the sacramentes First therefore the argument of Saint Paule is of no force to conuince the Corinthians except he shewe that the fathers of the olde Testament had the same sacraments in substance that we haue and yet pleased not God by meanes of their wicked life no more shall we hauing the same sacramentes if we followe their wicked conuersation Secondly except he had meant to make the fathers equal vnto vs in the outwarde signes or sacramentes of Gods fauour he would rather haue taken his example of circumcision and the pascal lambe which all men knowe to haue beene their principal sacraments then of their baptisme and spiritual foode which in them was so obscure that except the spirite of God had by him reuealed it vnto vs it had beene very harde for vs to haue gathered Thirdly when he saith the fathers were all baptised there is no doubt but that he meaneth that they all receiued the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ for there were no reason why they should receiue the one sacrament rather then the other Fourthly seeing the Apostle saith expressely they did eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke and after doth precisely affirme that they dranke of the same rocke which was Christe it is moste euident that their spiritual meate was our spiritual meate namely the bodie of Christ and their spiritual drinke was our spirirituall drinke namely the bloud of Christ. And this place ouerthroweth transubstantiation the carnal presence the cōmunion vnder one kinde the grace of the worke wrought the fiue false sacramentes the Popish consecration the Popish reseruation for adoration and in a manner what so euer the Papistes teache of the sacraments contrarie to the truth For if we haue no prerogatiue aboue the fathers concerning the substance outward signes of the sacramentes then we receiue the bodie and bloud of Christ in the sacramentes none otherwise then they did before his bodie was conceiued of the virgine Marie and that is spiritually by faith not carnally with our mouth The rest of this Chapter is consumed in rehearsing out of Chrysostome the general purpose of the Apostle in these wordes which we haue shewed before it is most plaine by the text as it followeth Finally in declaring what temporall benefites the Israelites receyued by the cloude the sea manna and the water of the rocke But that which is principall and for which cause the Apostle alledgeth their example namely for the spirituall grace that was testified by these outwarde signes Maister Heskins speaketh neuer a worde The second Chapter sheweth what these foure thinges done in the olde Law did figure in the newe Lawe In this Chapter he laboureth to shewe that these sacraments of theirs were not in deed the very same in substance that ours are but onely figures of them And for this purpose he citeth diuers authorities of the fathers especially Chrysostome and Augustine which cal them figures of our sacraments whereof we will not striue with him But he doth not consider that in so calling them they compare not the substance or thinges signified by these auncient sacramentes with the substance or thinges signified by our sacraments but the outward signes of theirs with the substance and things signified by ours As it appeareth in sundrie places of S. Augustine whose authorities in this Chapter he citeth which affirmeth that the fathers also receiued not only the signes of our sacraments as bare figures but also the grace and substance of them whereof they were no counterfet seales Neither doeth Chrysostome or Origen say any thing to the contrarie for Chrysostme saith that as all sortes of men riche and poore were vnder the cloude passed through the sea and were fedde with the same spirituall foode so in our sacramentes of baptisme and the supper there is no respect of persons but all members of the Church are partakers of them alike And Origen saying that Baptisme was then in a darke manner in the clowde and in the sea but nowe in cleare manner regeneration is in water and the holie Ghoste Doeth both affirme the same sacrament to haue beene then which is nowe namely baptisme and also sheweth the onely difference betweene this and that when he sayeth that was after a darke manner and this after a cleare manner But Augustine is moste playne in many places namely Tract in Ioan. 26. speaking of the bread of life in the sixt of Ihon he sayeth Hunc panem significauit manna hunc panem significauit altare Dei. Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diuersa sunt sed in re quae significatur paria sunt Apostolum audi Nolo enim inquit vos ignorare fratres quia patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt omnes mare transierunt omnes per Mosen Baptizati sunt in nube in mari omnes eandem escam spiritualem manducauerunt spiritualem vtique eandem nam corporalem alteram quia illi manna nos aliud spiritualem verò quam nos This bread did manna signifie this bread did the altar of God signifie Those were sacramentes in signes they are diuerse but in the thing which is signified they are equall Heare what the Apostle saith For I would not haue you ignorant brethren sayeth he that our fathers were all vnder the cloude and all passed the sea and were all baptised by Moses in the cloude and in the sea and they did all eate the same spirituall meate I say the same spirituall meate for they did eate another corporall meate for they did eate manna and we another thing but they did eate the same spirituall meate that we doe Likewise in his exposition of the 77 Psalme vpon this very text in hand he saith thus Idem itaque in mysterio cibus potus illorum qui noster Sed significatione idem non specie quia idem ipse Christus illis in Petra figuratus nobis in carne manifestatus The same meate and drinke in mysterie was theirs which is ours but the same by signification not in cleare manner because the selfe same Christe was figured to them in the rocke whiche is manifested in the flesh vnto vs. The same S. Augustine also in his booke De vtililate poenitentiae Cap. 1. writeth thus vpon the same text Eundem inquit cibum spiritualem manducauerunt Quid est eundem Nisi quia cundem quene nos They did eate saith he the same spirituall meate what is the same but the same that we eate and a little after Eundem inquit cibum spiritualem manducauerunt Suffeceras vt diceret cibum spiritualem
thing that he saith or all the Papistes in the world it is not necessarie that Christs body should be eaten with our mouth after a corporall manner that we may haue coniunction with his body For then infants which eate not the sacrament should want a necessarie manner of the coniunction of their bodies with the body of Christe and so be out of hope of resurrection The places of Cyrill that hee citeth in 6. Ioan. Cap. 14. be cited before the one Lib. 2. Cap. 17. the other Lib. 2. Cap. 34. where they are answered Then followeth a discourse to proue that communion or fellowship ought not to be had with heretiques which is very true and therefore not to bee had with Papistes the greatest heretiques that are After the saying of Haimo rehearsed hee is angrie with vs that we will reiect his authoritie being as he saith neare a thousand yeares of age but surely in some Chronicles that I haue read he is an English man generall or prouinciall of Friers preachers and I am sure there was neuer a Dominike Frier in the world one thousand yeares after Christe and they that make him oldest make him to be 840. yeares since christ The parcell of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. wherevnto he would compare his Haimo is rehearsed more at large Lib. 1. Cap. 18. and that of Cyrill Cap. 15. in 6. Ioan. The sixe and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by S. Cyrill and S. Thomas Cyrill whom vnfitly he matcheth with Thomas of Aquine is cited in 17. Ioan. Cum trinitas vnum natura sit c. For as much as the Trinitie in nature is one let vs consider how we our selues also among our selues corporally and with God spiritually are one The only begotten sonne comming out of the substance of God his father and possessing in his nature the whole father was made flesh according to the scriptures and hath vnspeakably ioyned and vnited himselfe to our nature For he that is God by nature is made man in deede not Theophorus that is hauing God in him by grace as they that are ignorant of the mysterie do contend but he is both very God and very man So he hath ioyned together in him selfe that is one those things which according to nature differ very much among them selues and hath made vs partakers of the diuine nature For the communication of the spirite and as I may say the dwelling was first in Christ and from him hath perced into vs when being made man he him selfe annoynted and sanctified his temple with his owne spirite The beginning therefore and the way by which we are made partakers of the holy spirite and are vnited to God is the mysterie of christ For we are all sanctified in him Therfore that he might vnite euery one beetwene our selues God although we be asunder both in body and soul yet he hath found out ae meane agreeable to the counsel of his father his own wisdom For blessing the beleuers by the mystical communion by his body he hath made vs one body both with himself and also among our selues For who shall thinke them straunge from this naturall vnion which by the vnion of one holy body are vnited in one Christe For if we all eate one bread we are all made one body For Christe suffereth vs not to be diuided and disioyned Therefore all the Church is made the body of Christ and euery one of vs the members of Christe after S. Paule for being conioyned to one Christ by his body bicause wee haue receiued him in vs which is indiuisible our members be rather appropriated to him then to vs. Concerning the vnitie of God the father with the sonne of the two natures of God and man in Christ and of the vnitie of the members of Christ with their head which M. Hesk. noteth out of this place of Cyril it shall be no neede to speake seeing there is no controuersie betweene vs but that these three vnities be there Only of the maner how we be vnited is the difference We are vnited to the body of Christ but whether by eating the same with our mouthes or by faith through the vnspeakable working of Gods spirite is all the question All the holde he catcheth of this place is that Cyrill calleth it a naturall vnion as he doth also in the same place a corporall vnion by which he meaneth not that we are vnited after a naturall manner or after a bodily manner but that we are vnited vnto the very humane nature and body of Christ but after an heauenly and diuine manner For thus it followeth in the same place I meane in Lib. 11. Cap. 26. of Cyrill vpon the 17. of Iohn which M. Hesk. note booke belike did not serue him to set downe Quod autem corporalis haec vnio ad Christum participatione carnis eius acquiritur ipse rursus Paulus de mysterio pietatis differens testatur quod alijs inquit generationibus non est agnitum filijs hominum sicut nunc reuelatum est sanctis apostolis eius prophetis in spiritu esse gentes cohaeredes concorpores comparticipes promissionis in Christo. Si autem omnes inter nos in Christo vnum sumus corpus nec inter nos solùm verùum etiam cum eo qui per carnem suam ad nos transiuit quomodo vniuersi inter nos in Christ vnum non erimus And that this corporall vnion vnto Christ is obtained by participation of his flesh Paule him selfe againe doth testifie disputing of the mysterie of godlinesse which in other ages saith he was not knowen to the sonnes of men as it is nowe reuealed to his holy Apostles and Prophetes in the spirite that the Gentiles should be coheires and of the same body and compartners of the promise in Christe If then we be all one body among our selues in Christe and not among our selues only but also with him which by his flesh is come vnto vs howe shall we not be all one both among our selues and in Christe This place of Paule by which the faithfull of the Gentiles are saide to be made one body with the faithfull of the Iewes speaketh nothing of eating of the body of Christe in the sacrament but of the spirituall incorporation by faith in the promises of the Gospell nowe made common vnto the Gentiles with the Iewes whereof the sacrament is not a bare signe but a liuely and effectuall seale and confirmation Moreouer the same Cyrill in the same booke Cap. 22. in 17. IoaÌ„ writeth thus Nihil ergo mali accidere vobis potest aiâ— si carne alfueâ—o cum deitatis incae potestas quÄ™e vos huc vsque seruauit in posterum etiam seruatura fit HÄ™c non ideo dicimus quia Domini corpuâ— non magni aestimemus sed quia mirabiles hos effectus gloriae denoâ—is attribuendos pat amus Nam ipsum etiam Domini corpus coniuâ—cti virtue
or of any mans meanly learned and therfore I will not vouchsafe such a grosse counterfet of any answere The rest of the Chapter beeing spent in rayling I will answere with silence concluding that as here is little for sole receiuing conteined in this Chapter so for priuate Masse here is nothing at all The two and fortieth Chapter proueth the trueth of those matters of the sacrament by that it hath pleased God to confirme the same with miracles First M. Hesk. compareth himselfe with Helias which challenged the Priests of Baal to shewe a miracle so he challengeth the Lutherans and sacramentaries to bring forth first some miracle But he could neuer heare of any sauing one and that was of Luther which he reporteth of himselfe as he saith in his Booke of the priuate Masse and as Prateolus sayeth in his Booke De Missa Angulari but where it is written I could neuer yet finde though I haue made some searche for it Luther reporteth that the Diuell awaked him out of his sleepe at midnight and disputed with him that the priuate Masse is horrible idolatrie c. For any thing that I can perceiue by the wordes cited by Maister Heskins there is no miracle at al spoken of by Luther but only he confesseth what inward temptations of Sathan he susteined for saying priuate Masse by the space of 15. yeares together Which the Papistes after their accustomed synceritie doe interprete as though he boasted of a miracle as though he were persuaded by the diuell to forsake the priuate Masse as a thing abominable But Luther in deede in this booke written against the priuate Masse vtterly reiecteth all miracles that are alledged to mainteine false doctrine contrarie to the worde of God and namely those miracles that are reported to haue beene done to confirme the credite of the priuate Masse which either were feigned as a great number were or else wrought by the sleight of Sathan to establish idolatrie as in all Heathen nations the diuell hath thus wrought miracles to confirme the people in their errours Thus therefore we are to iudge of miracles that they are euen as the doctrine for which they are alledged so that if Maister Heskins can not proue his priuate Masse and other heresies by scripture they will be made neuerthelesse by miracles But let vs heare in order what worshipful miracles he alledgeth First a feigned fable out of a counterfet writer called Amphilochius that a Iewe sawe in Saint Basils hand a childe diuided Then a tale out of Vituspatium of as good authoritie as Legenda Aurea that the sacramente was turned into bloudie fleshe to a doubting olde man Next out of Optatus Libro 2. Contra Donat. That dogges after they had eaten the sacrament caste vnto them by the Donatistes ranne madde and werried their Maisters Which last might be a true iust punishment of God against the Donatistes for their heresie yet proueth it not that the dogges did eate the body of Christe which God forbid that any Christian man should thinke Another miracle is reported by S. Augustine Lib. 22. De ciuitate Dei Cap. 8. That one of his priestes saying Masse in a house that was molested with the power of the diuell deliuered the house from such disquietnesse This belike is alledged for the priuate Masse But that proueth nothing For Augustine in that place nameth no Masse he saith he offered there the sacrifice of the bodie of Christe praying that the house might be deliuered from that molestatioÌ„ and so it came to passe Now it is nothing credible that he offerâ—d that sacrifice alone but that the owner of the house and all his familie did there communicate with him and therefore here is nothing to helpe the priuate Masse in this miracle Next vnto this interlacing certeine sentences of Bernarde of the vertue of the sacrament he returneth to miracles and then telleth a tale out of Paule the Deacon of a noble woman of Rome for whom S. Gregorie by prayer turned the sacramental bread into the fourme of A very bloudie fleshly litle finger A faire miracle I promise you but if it had beene true Gregorie that was so light of credite to beleeue and report so many miracles would haue written it him selfe But Gregorie though otherwise full of superstition was not yet come to the carnall manner of presence Two miracles are rehearsed of his reporte one of a prisoner that was deliuered out of his chaynes when Masse was saide for him by his wiues procurement supposing he had ben dead Gregorie in deede speaketh of sacrifices whiche perhaps were prayers and not the Masse But if he speake of that prophanation of the sacrament that in his time tooke some strength to offer it for the dead yet he speaketh of another maner of offring then the Papistes vse For thereof he saith in the same place as Maister Heskins confesseth Hinc ergo c. Of this decree brethren gather you certeinely how great a band of conscience in vs the holie sacrifice offered by our owne selues is able to loose if beeing offered for another it could in another loose the bandes of the body These wordes declare the sacrifice was such as euerie one might offer for himselfe which coulde not be the sacrifice of the Masse which only the priest offereth The last miracle is of Agapetus that by giuing the sacrament to a dumb man restored him to his speech Admitting this to be true it maketh nothing for the carnal manner of presence which the Church of Rome at that time had not receiued And although such miracles might now be wrought by Papistes we would giue no more credite vnto them then they could winne by Gods worde for so we are taught by God him sefe Irenaeus a moste auncient writer of great credite testifieth Lib. Cap. 9. that Marcus the heretike by his sorcerie caused the wine in the cup at his ministration to appeare purple and redde like bloud that the people might thinke that Christ dropped his bloud into his cup through his prayer likewise he wrought so cunningly that he multiplied the wine so that out of a litle cruse he filled a great pot so ful that it ranne ouer But the Church of God was not moued by these lying miracles to giue credite to his false doctrine or to think that he had the bloud of Christ in his challice for all that counterfet shewe of bloud which he made no more wil we beleue the Papistes pretending miracles coÌ„trarie to the word of god And as for diuers of these miracles which he alledgeth to confirme the dignitie of the Masse they were done or at least said to be done before the Masse was throughly shapen and therfore if they be true yet they confirme not the doctrin of the Masse which was afterward inuented Finally wheras he vrgeth the proclaymer to bring one miracle for the confirmation of his religioÌ„ although it were an easie matter to bring foorth many signes of
death vntil he come How is he that is to come distinct from him that is present for Saint Paule maketh an exposition of this breade this cuppe which are present to shewe the Lordes death that is to come But let vs heare what Saint Ieronyme sayeth that may helpe him in 1. Cor. 11. Ideo hoc c. Therefore our Sauiour hath deliuered this sacrament that by it we might alwayes remember that he dyed for vs For therefore also when we receiue it wee are warned of the priestes that it is the bodie and bloud of Christ that we might not be thought vnthankefull for his benefites I like this saying verie well which teacheth that the sacramēt is therefore called the bodie bloud of Christ that thereby we might be put in minde of the benefite of Christes death to be thankfull for it And that his meaning is none otherwise his owne wordes shal declare going both before and after Vpon these wordes Gratias egit c. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus vltimam nobis commemorationem sine memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat vt quotiescunque illud viderit possit eius beneficia amicitias memorare quod ille si perfectè dilexit sine ingenti desiderio non potest videre vel fletu That is blessing or giuing thankes euen when hee was to suffer he left to vs his last commemoration or remembrance Euen as a man going into a farre countrey doth leaue some pledge to him whome he loueth that so often as he seeth it he may remember his benefites and frendship which pledge he if he loued perfectly cannot beholde without great desire or weeping In these words you see S. Hierom compareth the sacrament to a pledge which is left in remembrance of loue benefites receiued of him that in person is absent The same writer vpō the same words of our text donec venerit vntill he come thus writeth Tam diu memoria opus est donec ipse venire dignetur So long we haue neede of a remembraunce vntill he him selfe vouchesafe for to come Nothing can bee more plaine to shewe his meaning not to be of a carnall or bodilie presence although as Christ hath giuen vs the president he call the bread and cuppe by the name of the bodie and bloud of Christe The testimonie of Theophylact being a Greeke Gentleman of the lower house I haue hetherto refused to admitt and therefore in this place also will not trouble the reader with him The challenge was made of writers within sixe hundreth yeares after Christe this man liued about a thousande yeres after Christ yet if I would wrangle about his wordes he hath nothing that may not bee reasonably construed on our side without any wresting The fiue and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by S. Basil Rupert S. Basil is alledged de baptismo Oportet accedentem c. It behoueth him that commeth to the bodie and bloud of our Lord to the remembrance of him that was dead for vs and rose againe not onely to be pure from all vncleannesse of bodie and soule lest he eate and drinke to his owne condemnation but also to shewe euidently and to expresse the memorie of him that hath dyed for vs and risen againe And what sayeth Basil in these words that we do not graunt vnderstanding purenesse by faith and repentance Maister Hesk. sayeth in steede of that S. Paule sayde this bread and this cupp he sayeth the bodie and bloud of Christe although I might stande with him that this is no interpretation of Sainct Paules wordes but an exhortation which Basil maketh to the worthie receiuing of the sacrament what inconuenience is it to graunt that it is both bread and wine and also after a spirituall manner his verie bodie and bloud which is receiued of the faithfull But either Maister Heskins note booke serued him not or els his malice against the trueth would not suffer him to see what the same Basil writeth not many lines before these wordes which he citeth vpō the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ of the institution of this blessed sacrament and immediatly after the verie text of the Apostle now in hande As often as you eate of this bread and drinke of this cuppe you shewe the Lordes death vntill he come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then do these words profit vs that eating drinking we might always remember him which dyed for vs and is risen againe and so wee might bee instructed of necessitie to obserue before God and his Christe that lesson which is deliuered by the Apostle where hee sayeth for the loue of Christe doeth constreine vs iudging this that if one hath dyed for all then all are dead M. Heskins denyeth the sacrament to be a remembrance of Christe for feare he shoulde confesse Christ to be absent affirming it is a remembrance only of the death of christ But Basil saith that in eating and drinking we must remember Christe that is dead risen againe for vs and so be transformed into his image by mortification and newnesse of life This is all the profite that Basil gathereth of the institution of the supper of the Lorde Where is then the carnall presence the sacrifice propitiatorie the application of it according to the priestes intention and such like monsters of the Masse The testimonie of Rupertus a burgesse of the lower house I will not stand vpon notwithstanding it little helpeth Maister Heskins cause For he doth not say that the sacrament is so a remembrance of Christes death that it is not a remembrance of Christ him selfe But Maister Heskins sayeth all the rable of sacramentaries cannot bring one couple of catholike authors that saye Saint Paule spake here of materiall bread neither can Maister Heskins bring one single auncient writer within the compasse of the challenge which is 600. yeres after Christ that denyeth that S. Paule spake of materiall breade as the earthly part of the sacrament He hath named Hierome Basil but neither of them denie it as for Theophylact Rupertus although neyther of them also denye it in the places by him cited yet I knowe not why we might not as well produce Berengarius and Bertrame as auncient as they which affirme that Saint Paule spake here of bread But that there is materiall bread in the sacrament as the earthly part thereof we haue already cited Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Origen in 15. Matthaei Cyrill in Ioan. Lib. 4. Cap. 24. and many other Toward the end of this Chapter Maister Heskins taketh vpon him to aunswere an obiection of Oecolampadius who iustly chargeth the Papistes of wilfull ignorance in that they make the body of Christ both the exemplar and the thing exemplified the figure and the thing figured the signe and the thing signified whereas relation must be betwixt two thinges distincted and not of
51 As it is true that the Bishops of Rome in the first 300. yeares were greatly persecuted by tyrants so is it false that all heretiques agreed to resist that See. For diuers Bishops were heretiques Liberius was an Arrian peruerted by Fortunatianus Hierom. in Catalog Vigilius was priuily an Eutychian as appeareth by an Epistle of his written to those heretiques at the procurement of the Empresse Liberatus Cap. 22. Honorius was a Monothelite condemned in the sixt generall Councell at Constantinople Act. 13. Anastasius was a fauourer of Nestorians as many Ecclesiastical histories do confesse Garanza in Anast. 52 That the Church of Rome hath continued although diuers Christian Princes haue opposed them selues against it with the citizens of Rome and the Cardinalls and that neither the wicked life of the Popes nor the schismes of many Popes at once haue subuerted it doeth not proue it to be the rocke against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile For when Antichristian heresie and diuelish wickednesse hath ouerflowed all the Church of Rome it is manifest the gates of hell haue mightily preuailed against that See although the finall ouerthrowe of that Antichristian head with the body be reserued vnto the almightie power of our Sauiour Christe toward the end of the world 2. Thessa. 2. And it is false that Christian Princes the Romane Citizens the Cardinals or the factions of Diuers Popes haue assaulted the See of Rome but rather the ambition and tyrannie of some persons occupying the same 53 It is false that all countries which forsooke the obedience of the Bishop of Rome were shortly after possessed by Infidels for Affrica was none otherwise possessed by the Vandales then Italy by the Gothes other barbarous nations The Graecians immediately before their oppression by the Turkes were reconciled to the Church of Rome in the councell of Ferrar and Florens â–ª Before which time the Bohemians forsooke the Romish See and yet remaine a nation at this day howe many mightie nations haue forsaken the the Pope which by Gods grace shall be kept as long from oppression of Infidels as they keep in obedience of the Gospel the contempt whereof and not of the Pope was punished in the Asians Africans and Graecians And the prophecie of Esaie 60. That nation and kingdome which shall not serue thee shall perish is to be vnderstoode of finall and eternall perdition and not of oppression by Infidels For the nation of the Persians Turkes Saracens and other which submit not themselues to the Church of Christ shal perish although they triumph in the worlde neuer so long 54 Diuerse councels without the bishop of Rome did with as great and greater credite determine of the Canonicall Bookes of holie scripture as Gelasius did with his 70. Bishops Cap. 59. Carth. 3. Cap. 74. and others 55 The Popes liberalitie toward forrein nations was neuer so great by the hundreth parte as his couetous extortions and Antichristian exactions haue beene witnesse Matth. Paris Matth. West Anno Reg. 1244. and in a manner all Popish Historiographers of late times As for his liberalitie in these times is but to his owne bondslaues whom he hyreth with a litle exhibition to blase his charitie least hee should bee forsaken of all men 56 The greatest archheretike that euer was is the Pope of Rome so farre passing the archheretikes that haue bene in the other patriarchall Sees as Antichrist the head of all heresies passeth the members of that bodie For other heretikes take away but some part of Christes person or his office but the Pope vnder pretence of honoring him putteth him quite out of place by his vsurped supremacie false doctrine blasphemous sacrifice of the Masse and all other his abhominations And that our Sauiour CHRISTE prayed for Peter that his faith might not fayle it perteined onely to his person and to the temptation that immediately followed For otherwise Peter erred when he was reproued of God in vision Act. 10. and of Paule Gallath 2. And that Bishops of Rome haue erred and beene heretiques I haue proued in the 51. article to which you may adde Iohn the 23. that was condemned in the councell of Constance for that he denied the immortalitie of the soule the resurrection of the bodie and the life euerlasting Sess. 11. 57 That the See of Rome hath made so many wicked decrees so vniuersally obserued with such consent of many nations it came not of the spirite of godly vnitie but of the efficacie of errour whiche God sent into the worlde for a iust plague of the contempt of the trueth 2. Thessalonians 2. And this consent of so many nations vnto her abhominable decrees proueth Rome to be Babilon the mother of all abhominations that hath made all nations dronke with the wine of the furie of her fornications Apoc. 18. verse 3. The degrees of marriage prohibited are of the Lawe of God and not of the Pope the celebration of Easter although it be an indifferent ceremonie yet it is elder then the Antichristian authoritie of the Pope Albeit the mysterie of iniquitie beganne to worke in Victor about it That many Bishops and priuate men haue written to suche Bishops of Rome as were learned namely Leo and Gregorie for their resolution in diuerse questions it proueth no supremacie for as many haue written in like cases to Augustine a poore Bishop of Hippo and to Hieronyme but a Prieste of Rome yea Damasus Bishop of Rome himselfe hath written to Hieronyme for his iudgement Pope Sergius did write to Ceolfride Abbot of Woremouth in England to be resolued of certeine questions of Beda one of his Monkes Math. West Ant. 734. 59 That this resorte to Rome for councell was not onely of deuotion but of duetie because the Pope had reserued the hardest cases to his owne iudgement as Moses did hee bringeth no proofe but the Popes owne decrees whiche are of small credite in his owne case and the corrupt practise of the later times when men had submitted themselues vnto the beast 60 That not onely the Bishoppes of Italie but also of Sicilia whiche is not farre off did come in person to Rome at certeine times it prooueth not that all Bishoppes in the worlde were obedient to the Bishop of Rome or were bound so to visite him or that they did so visite him 61 The primacie of the Bishoppe of Rome in olde times was but of order not of power his presidence in councels was but honour not of authoritie and that by graunt or permission at the pleasure of the councell Ioan. Patr. Ant. in con Basil. The councell of Nice made him equall with other Patriarches The councell of Constantinople made the see of Constantinople equall with Rome Sozomen Lib. 7. Cap. 7. 9 â–ª so did the councell of Chalcedon leauing Rome no prerogatiue but of Senioritie and referring all causes of difficultie to the iudgement of the see of Constantinople whiche was new Rome Con. 9. Con. 16. 62 That Iustinian was
you adore by your images no vnreasonable creature but only blessed soules and one god First I say you misreport the wisest of the Gentiles for they defended their idolatrie by saying they worshipped in those images diuerâ— Gods not meaning that they were so but that they worshipped diuers vertues of one God as in Minerua the wisdome of God in Mars the strength of God in Ceres the liberalitie of God c. Augu. In Psal. 96. Sed existit nescio quis disputator c. But there is a certeine disputer I wot not who which thought himselfe to be learned and saith I doe not worship that stone nor that image which is without sense for your prophet could not know that they haue eyes and see not and to be ignorant that that image hath no life that yet neither seeth with eyes nor heareth with eares Therefore I doe not worship that but I adore that which I see and serue him whom I see not Who is he The God whiche being inuisible is president of that image By this means yeelding a reason of their images they seeme to themselues to be eloquent because they worship not idols and worship diuels They answere we worship not euill spirites but euen the Angels whome you so call do we worship the vertues of the great God and the ministers of the great god I would you would worship them you should easily learne of them not to worship them Thus Augustine in whiche saying beside that he sheweth what defence the Heathen had for their idolatrie he sheweth that the true worship of Angels is not to worship them by images or otherwise but onely to learne of them not to worship them but God alone But howe can M. Sander say they adore no vnreasonable creature by their images when they adore the image of the crosse which was both an vnreasonable an insensible creature And how doth he worship one God more then this Heathen man whose feigned excuse S. Augustine reporteth 8 The diuels ruled the images of the Gentiles giuing oracles out of them c. but the faith of Papistes whiche endeuouring to keepe Gods commandementes do set vp images to a good end so beautifieth their work and worship that it is not possible for the diuel to abuse them If we beleeue that the diuel gaue oracle out of the Heathnish idols and not rather that they were feigned by the subtiltie of men we may likewise thinke that the diuell gaue answers out of Popish images which are likewise saide to haue spoken as that Roode in Dunstones time to decide the controuersie for marriage of Priestes many other feigned in the Bookes of Popish miracles Secondly where heard the Papistes out of Gods wordes this faith of setting vp Images Thirdly how doe they indeuour to keepe Gods commaundement in setting vp of idols when they breake a manifest commaundement of God which forbiddeth images to be worshipped 9 The diuels coueted to mainteine their idols The same couet to ouerthrowe Popish images No verily they loue Popish images by which God is dishonoured as wel as they did loue Heathenish images As for the tale of the diuels persuading Iulian the Apostata to breake the image of Christ at Paneade which is not like to haue continued vnto his dayes if we receiue it which was written by no writer of his time nor an hundreth yeares after it proueth no hatred that the diuel had of images but of Christ might be a subtile practise of his to bring the Christians with fonde emulation to esteeme such a thing more then it was worthie because their enemie hath defaced it 10 Their idols were dedicated to an Heathenish purpose Popish images to a vertuous intent But how can that be a vertuous intent which is contrarie to Gods coÌ„mandemeÌ„t Last of all he will aunswere our obiection that Popish images haue been abused in making their eyes to moue and their lippes to wagge c. First he saith these were but abuses of particular men where the Bishop was a sleep but not allowed in the Church yea the Gospel hath been abused Gods curse light of that comparison which matcheth images with the Gospell But were al Bishops high and low in your Church so sound a sleepe that not one could see these horrible abuses to punish them For what one exaÌ„ple can be brought of any one among so many that hath beene punished by the Papists for such detestable abuse Secondly he answereth these abuses are committed by men not yet euerlastingly condemned not by diuels which haue their torments increased when they aproch to such holy things as they haue no power of As though wicked men could worke such things but by the diuels procurement who wil no more be afraide to abuse an image then to persuade a man to abuse it which deserueth both one punishment Thirdly if suche practisers of abuse liued in Luthers time they commonly became runnagates with the first if any such haue repented and confesseth their wicked facts it is to your shame M. Sa. not to ours for they were yours when they did suche things To conclude I wish the Reader to consider howe vaine and foolish the whole scope of this Chapter of M. Sanders booke is to shewe the difference of idols images in the second commandement when God wrote not the same in Greeke out of which tong this supposed difference is deriued but in Hebrue euen the common Latine translation which the Papistes doe followe calleth that which the Greekes terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an idoll by the name of Sculptile a grauen image and when he hath made his difference as farre a sunder as he can all images are as well forbidden in that commaundement as idols in any seruice of God or vse of religion THE IX OR VIII CHAP. That it is no idolatrie to giue conuenient worship to some creatures whether images be creatures or no. Also in one argument of M. Iewels 4. great faultes are found that a creature may be set vp to be honoured That an image is rather a workemanship then a creature That the Kinges garment on his backe is honoured M. Harding had confessed that images by a consequent might be worshipped The Bish. of Sarum said An image is a creature and no god And to honour a creature in that sorte as it is set vp to the end to be worshipped although not specially to that end is idolatrie therefore by Maister Hardings owne confession images are set vp to be vsed to idolatrie This is the argument that hath foure as great faultes in it as there be knots in a rush The first fault is that he putteth Idolum in steede of Imago The second that he putteth Doulia in steede of Lâ—triae The thirde faulte is that he presupposeth that we may set vp no creature to the intent that it may be any wayes honoured The last faulte that he affirmeth an image to be a creature The first and
images whiche Eusebius sawe and where should he see them but in the Churche in Constantine his time I haue shewed before where he might see them among the Heathens and Heretikes And that he sawe none in the Church appeareth in the Panaegynt ad Paulin. Tyr. Epū Lib. 10. Cap. 4. where a godly Church is described in euerie small parte and ornament of it yet no image at all spoken of which should not haue beene omitted if it had beene seene there especially beeing such necessarie ornamentes of Churches as the Papistes account them But Iulianus the runnagate saith he out of the tripertite historie Lib. 6. Cap. 41. brake that Image and the Christians afterwarde gathered vp the peeces and laide them in a Churche If this be not giuing of honour to Christes images he cannot tell what is honouring of Images Yes M. Sander to set candels before them to kneele to them to pray to them to kisse them to offer to them to make vowes to them to ascribe health to them c. These are honouring of images vsed of Papistes other maner of honouring then those Christians are saide to haue vsed For if it be credible that the peeces of brasse lay in the streete vntill Iulianus was dead that they might be gathered vp of the Christians and were not molten to none other vse by the Paganes yet why did not the Christians rather melt them make them a new image then lay them vp in the Church But M. Iewell is charged to speake if he dare what he would do if he chaunced to come into the same Church where the image of Christ were kept whether he would follow Iulianus in breaking it rather then the Christians in reseruing it He is now at rest with God hauing fought a good fight fulfilled his course and kept the faith wayting for the crowne of righteousnes which shal be giuen him by God the righteous iudge in that day so that he can make M. Sander none answer but thus I thinke he would haue resolued his question when he liued in this world He wold neither followe the spightfull malice of Iulian nor the superstitious emulation of those Christians but do with it as it became a Christian man according to Gods commandement and his calling And for my parte M. Sander I dare speake vnto you what I thinke I am one which esteeme monuments as much as any one poore man of my degree In so muche that a wise man perhaps might say vnto me Insanis veteres statuas Damasippus emendè And therfore if I had in my priuate possessiō such images of Christ Peter and Paul as Eusebius did see and that I were assured they were the true counterfets of their bodies or countenances as those which he did see were supposed to be I would so esteeme them as I do the Images of Caesar Pompeius Tulla and such like and peraduenture for the rarenesse much more but not a pinne the more in respect of religion For I do so honour auncient images that I make as great account of a peece of Nero or Heliogabalus as I do of Constantius and Theodosius But if I had authority of a Church in which were an image of pure gold representing the whole stature countenance apparell of Christ as he walked vpon the earth which were abused to idolatrie as your Popish images haue beene and are in some places vnto this day I would rather breake it in peeces by the example of Ezechias cast it into the deepe sea then either I would suffer idolatrie to be committed vnto it or preserue it to be a snare to them that liued after me to runne a whoring after it But as for your euill fauoured blockes and stones which haue none other shape or name but such as the idol of the workemans brayne hath giuen them and being set vp to be worshipped I would no more esteeme them then the myre in the streete or that whiche is more vile although you crie vntill you be hoarse they are the holy images of Christe of the blessed Trinitie of Saint Peter and S. Paule For to a Christian man they are abhomination THE XI or X. CHAP. That by the lawe of nature honour is due to the images and monuments of honourable personages And by what meanes that may be knowen Also that the law of nature standeth always immutable how the law of nature may be known Seuen causes of honoring artificial images God preferred images before only sounds of words The art of making images is good All nations honored Images that were worthie of honour The image breakers are ashamed to confesse that they breake Christes images The doctrine of the Catholikes concerning Images Maister Iewels contrarie doctrine to the same The holie Ghoste by Saint Paule hath well giuen vs warning saying Take heede that no man spoyle you through philosophie and vaine deceipt according to the tradition of men and not according to Iesus Christ. Col. 2. ver 8. and by the same sentence he hath also taught vs how we should esteeme all that doctrine that is commended vnto vs without the worde of God vnder what glorious and plausible title so euer namely for vaine deceitfulnesse By which rule when we examine this Chapter of Maister Sanders booke swelling with suche a proude title of the Lawe of nature we doe plainely perceiue that it is nothing else but a deceiptful vanitie with vaine sounde of wordes and friuolous reasons to goe about to make vs thinke that God hath written one law in nature and a cleane contrarie to that in his worde and holie scriptures The honouring of images in case of religion beeing expressely forbidden by the lawe of God written and the same an hundreth times repeated by the Prophetes and Apostles is the eternall wil of God and hath nothing in nature vncorrupted which is the ordinaunce of God contrarie vnto it And therefore I maruell what nature is in Maister Sanders iudgement whose lawe he defendeth to be neuer changed although God hath ruled his people in diuers manners sometime by inspiration somtime by outward voice custome and tradition sometime by written letter of the Lawe last of all by writing his own lawe of grace and spirite in their hearts I passe ouer that he calleth the last Gods owne lawe as though the rest were but borrowed but what is that vnchaungeable law of nature but Gods eternall lawe if that be not changed by the lawe written in letters then surely the lawe of nature abhorreth worshipping of images in religion which the lawe written forbiddeth Thus his first exposition ouerthroweth all the purpose of his Chapter Now to the second He hath two speciall grounds to helpe vs to finde out what the lawe of nature is in any case The one is the iudgement of right and sound reason the other is the practise of all nations But where shall we finde sound reason in any natural man When the light shineth in darknesse and the darkenesse
Whether the same degree of honour be due to the Images of Christ or of his Saintes which is due to Christ and to the Saintes themselues Three things are to be considered in an artificial image M. Iewels forging is detected Doulia onely cōmeth to Christ by his image M. Iewell alledgeth wordes out of a booke which is forged The Churche honoureth not the image for his owne sake M.S. confesseth this pointe to be in controuersie betweene the Catholikes themselues But yet he saith it is a question of phylosophie rather then of diuinitie which the church hath not determined As though the churche had any thing to do to determine questions of phylosophie or as though a question about the true worship of God were not a question of diuinitie His sophisticall reasons on both sides are superfluous to repeat seeinge we take neither of both parts but denie that any kinde of religious honour is to be giuen to images yet briefely I will runne ouer the contentes of the chapter Three things he saith are to be considered in an artificial image the matter the forme and the representation The two former deserue no honour in religion but the representation onely The image as a representation is considered either as a part from the trueth and then it hath a lesse honour thē the trueth or els together with the trueth and then it must haue all one honour with the trueth And then he maketh the question this whether as his minde is in one instant mooued and caried by the meane of the image to the remembrance of the trueth so the honor of both be all one or no But if he were in the schooles at Cambridge the boyes would tell him that there can bee no mouinge in one instant because in euerie moouinge there must bee the marke from whence and the marke whereunto the moouinge is Neuerthelesse hee aunswereth this question with a doughtie distinction that the honour giuen to the image and to Christe is either the same in number or the same in kinde or degree And his opinion is that it is the same in number but not in degree And of this aunswere he maketh the seuenth generall councell auctor Actione 4. Where Iohannes vicegerent of the East saith Non sunt duae adorationes sed vna adoratio imaginis primi exēplaris cuius est imago There are not two adorations but one adoration of the image and of the first examplar whereof it is an image And here he raileth against M. Iewel for falsifying and forging in translating duae adorationes two sortes of worshipping and exemplifyinge his doctrine by Latria and Doulia whereof Iohannes meant not but the contrarie is taught before in the same Action How impudent and shamelesse the cauill of Master Sander is I haue shewed before when I rehearsed howe Constantius bishoppe of Constantia in Cypres affirmeth that he woulde giue the same honour to images that he did to the holy trinitie that giueth life vnto whome al the rest did assent So that M. Sanders opinion is contrary to the determination of the councel For he holdeth that not Latria but Doulia only commeth to Christ by his images By which opinion you see how greatly Christ is promoted that in steed of Latria a Diuine honour which they confesse to be due to him he must be content with the lower degree of honor by his image because the image can receiue nor cary no greater But if the image be neither a receiuer nor a carier Christ must lose all his honour as he doth indeed which is that way offered Yet saith Master Sander doth not his image any more hinder his honour then Sainte Paule doth For when I honour S. Paule for Christs sake no greater honour then Doulia commeth to Christ Verely Master Sander how it is when you honour S. Paule I knowe not but when I honour him for Christes sake I honour not him but Christ with Diuine honour as the onely author of those giftes of his spirite by whiche he is preferred before other men And where you say M. Iewel alledgeth wordes out of a book of Carolus Magnus written against that Idolatrous synode of Nice which is forged you speake not more peremtorily then falsly and perniciously For what reason haue you to prooue that booke to be forged forsooth you aske howe could Carolus Magnus write such a book which built so many churches and monasteries As though Churches and monasteries could not bee builded but by an idolater Yea which so diligently obeyed the B. of Rome which crowned him As though the bishop of Rome crowned him Emperour to be his slaue and an Idolater who left so many reliques at Aquisgraine and a little image of our Ladie with other Iewels Paraduenture as truely as the image of Diana came to the Ephesians from Iupiter Who caused the French men to conforme themselues in their Church song to the Romanes But where finde you that hee caused them to conforme themselues in image worshipping to the Grecians Finally a booke of such smal credit that neither the librarie whence it was taken nor towne where it is printed nor the man who printed it is named These be weightie reasons to discredit the booke as though it were necessarie that euery booke must come out of a librarie some haue ben preserued in priuate studies some haue beene closed vp in walles The place and name of the printer is not expressed for that it is like to haue bee printed where it might not be suffered to be solde But the very stile argueth it is not forged in our time and I haue before it a testimony of Mattheus West-monasteriensis which was writen about 200. yeares agoe that such a booke was written against that councell by Albinus or Alcuinus and presented to the French King Carolus whose name it beareth not perhappes written by him but by his commaundement and authority published After this he discourseth vpon Thomas of Aquines opinion which holdeth that diuine honour which they cal datria is due to the image of Christ which if it be an errour saith maister Sander it is an errour in Phisophie which to affirme is a most shamelesse absurditie Last of all he concludeth against S. Thomas that a lesse degree of honour is dewe to images then to the paterne affirming that the church honoreth not the image for his own sake for no man is taught to beleeue in images or to cal them his gods or to do sacrifice to them What say you M. Sander who teacheth pilgrimage to images doth not your churche And how can they pray to thē if they do not beleeue in them Who teacheth them to cal an image Christ that is their lord and God but euen you which defend images to be honoured by the names that they haue of the things whereof they be images Therefore when you call an ymage Christ you call it God and Lord sauiour and redeemer The image of the Trinitie
praescriptionibus aduersus haereticos which is such as hee saieth that euen religion muste agree to it if with anye reason it will bee credited But in deed it is suche as while Tertulian followed too muche hee fell from the Catholike Church to be an heretike The summe of that saying which M. Rast. hath shamefully gesded falsely translated so that it seemeth he hath not red it in Tertulians booke but in some mans notes that hath ioyned together as it were cantles or patches of Tertulians saying the effecte I saie is this That because some heretikes of his time receiued not all the scriptures and those which they did receiue they receiued not whole but by additions and detractions corruptions and wrong expositions they peruerted them to their purpose his iudgement was that against such heretikes the triall was not to bee made by scriptures by which the victorie should either be none or vncertaine or not sure and therefore in as much as they were not agreed what was scripture and how great was the authoritie thereof he thought that the order of disputinge required that these questions shoulde first be decided Vnto whom the Christian faith pertaineth whose are the scriptures of whom and by whom and when and to whom the learning is deliuered by which men are made Christians For where it shall appeare that the trueth of the Christian learning and faith is there shal be the trueth of the scriptures and of the expositions and of all Christian traditions This is the iudgement of Tertulian But seeinge we receiue all the scriptures Canonicall without addition or detraction yea and for the principal articles of our religion wherein we differ from the papistes we receiue the exposition of the most auncient writers both of the Greeke and Latine Churche not bringinge in any newe doctrine but requiring that the olde doctrine may be restored this rule of Tertulian doth not concerne vs Yet are we able to aunswere to all his demaundes without any taryinge and so as it shall satisfie Tertulian or anye man that vnderstandeth him We say that Christian faith pertaineth to true Christians and that the scriptures are theirs also We say also that the learning by which men are made Christians was deliuered of Christ by his Apostles and Euangelistes in the time of the raigne of Tiberius the Emperour first vnto the Iewes and after vnto the Gentiles making one vniuersall Chruch dispersed ouer the whole worlde And the trueth of this Christian learning and faith thus and then deliuered we do hold and mainteine therefore by Tertullians rule the truth of the scriptures and expositions all Christian traditions are with vs the rather because it cannot be proued that we hold any one article of beliefe but the same is conteined in the manifest wordes of the scriptures by which onely it may be tryed what learning Christ deliuered to his Apostles and they to the churches For seeing the memory of man cānot ascende vnto so many hundreth yeares the certeine remembrance must be had out of Records of writings for so much as no writings are either so auncient or so credible as the holy scriptures the trial must be onely by the scriptures notwithstanding Tertullians opinion as Augustine teacheth in many places of his writings against the Donatistes After this discourse vpon Tertullian he addeth sixe articles more falsely pretending that they are the demaundes of Tertullian but altering them into the manner of a challenge where as I haue both set forth and answered Tertullians demaundes according to his owne words and meaning The first is if we can proue by any sufficient and likely argument that we haue any true Christian faith at all among vs for faith saith hee cleaueth vnto authoritie which they can neuer shewe for themselues c In deede suche faith as cleaueth vnto mennes authoritie wee haue none but suche as cleaueth vnto the worde of God as saint Paule saith faith commeth by hearing of the worde of God which is onely true Christian faith wee haue the whole faith of Christians as we do dayly proue not onely by the auctoritie of scriptures but also by the testimony of aunciēt writers agreeable to the same And because he is so impudent to deny that we haue any true Christian faith at all I demaunde of him why hee doth not then rebaptise those that are baptised of vs seing he is persuaded that neither the minister nor the godfathers whose faith according to their doctrin maketh much fo◠baptisme haue any true Christian faith at all The seconde that the scriptures are deliuered vnto vs that we be the right keepers of them is proued by this argument that we be the church of God vnto whome the scriptures and the custodie of them perteineth That wee are the church of God we proue by this argumēt that we beleeue and teach all that and nothing else but that which God by his holy scriptures hath appointed to be beleeued and taught for Christian faith The thirde we knowe from whome wee haue receiued the gospel not from the Papists Namely frō the doctrine of god and his holy spirite from such ministers as were stirred vp of God and lightened with his spirite according to the scriptures and from the books of the Greekes and Hebrues and not of the papists The fourth we knowe by what successours the gospell came vnto vs from God the authour of it euen from the prophets and Apostles Euangelistes pastours and teachers of the church of all ages florishing in sight of the worlde vntill the comming and tyrany of Antichrist had ouerwhelmed all the worlde with darkenesse by whom they were persecuted and driuen into corners according to the prophecie of Christe in the Apocalipse cap. 12. but yet so as they alwayes continued and testified the trueth oftentimes openly protesting against Antichrist vntill nowe at the length the time being come in which Antichrist must be consumed they are againe brought into the sight of the worlde and the kingdome of Antichrist is made obscure ignominious contemptible The fift we knowe at what time the Gospell was first delyuered vnto the Church of the gentiles namely in the reigne of Tiberius in whose time Christ suffered since which time it hath alwayes continued and shall do to the end of the worlde To the sixt wherein he requireth vs to shew the foundatiō of some Church house communion table or booke c. by which it may bee gathered that a true apostolike religion was within the 600. yeares as void of ornamēts ceremonies reuerence distinction of places and dignities sacraments and solemnities perteining to sacraments as ours is I answere our religion hath all sacraments ornaments ceremonies distinction solemnities reuerence necessarie vnto eternall life and therfore to shewe a monument of a religion voide of these it perteineth not to vs Beside that it is a foolishe and vnreasonable demaund for vs to shewe any such monument remaining aboue 900. yeares when by so often
He calleth it a phantasie like to that which ioyned with auarice pulled downe all the Abbeys in England The like phantasie he sayth might moue vs not to honour Christ in heauen and much more the Apostles that honoured Christ in the flesh percase not sufficiently discerning the humanitie from the Deitie and so likewise others that worshipped Christ yet doe euen some of the proclaymers schollers vnderstand not these quiddities Shal they therefore fly the honor of Christ in heauen A wise comparison betweene Christe both God and man who no doubt is to be worshipped both as God as the mediator of God man and the accidents of breade wine or bread and wine when they are not consecrated Christ in the flesh is to be worshipped because he was incarnate and ioyned to the humanitie in a personall vnion but he is not to be worshipped in bread wine or in the accidents of bread wine because he is neither impanated nor inuinated nor inaccidentated that is not ioyned to any of them in a personall vnion To these doubtes that are moued by his owne schoolemen what if the Priest do not consecrate what if he speake not the wordes of consecration what if he had none intention to consecrate in all which cases the schoolemen define that the people committ idolatrie if they worship their hoste First hee sayeth he goeth about to shake the foundation of this sacrament as Brentius doth of baptisme Concerning Brentius although it were easie to defende his assertion euen by the schoolemen yet because it is no matter of our controuersie I will briefely passe it ouer Brentius helde that Christ hath not bound vs to baptise in certein forme of wordes to be pronounced by the minister so the meaning be obserued that he baptise into the name of the Father of the Sonne of the holie ghost Herevpon charitable M. Heskins rayleth on him that he impugneth the forme of baptisme and reiecteth the wordes of baptisme which is vtterly false and then he reasoneth that if the wordes of baptisme may be without daunger omitted why may not the words of consecratiō likewise as though Brentius sayeth they might be omitted where he speaketh of altering the forme of wordes when the same sense remaineth Next to this he farceth in another slaunder of vs that we agree not in the number of the sacraments some admitting three some two some foure and some neuer a one The world knoweth what we holde herein After this he sheweth out of Basil Damascen the necessitie of the forme of baptisme which wee confesse Brentius him self doth not denye At length he defineth contrarie to the scholemen that if consecration be omitted the danger is to the priest not to the people that worship an idol Finally he wil moue the like doubt of our ministration what if the minister of the communion doe neither speake the words of consecration nor haue intent to minister what do the people receiue I aunswer with his intentiō wee haue nothing to doe but for asmuch as nothing is whispered or mumbled in our Communion but so vttered that all men may heare and vnderstand if any thing be omitted that is necessarie to the consecration of the sacrament if the people communicate with him they are in as great fault as he As for Richerus whome he calleth a Caluenist that forbiddeth to pray to Christ and reiecteth the wordes of consecration if any such be let him aunswere for him self we haue nothing to do with him Although we acknowledge not any mumbling of wordes but the whole action according to Christes institution to be the forme of consecration of the sacrament The nine and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstanding of Christes wordes by Irenaeus Tertullian Irenęus is cited lib. 4. Cap. 32. Sed discipulus c. But also giuing counsell to his disciples to offer to God the first fruites of his owne creatures not as to one that hath neede but that they also should neither be vnfrutefull nor vnthankefull he tooke that bread which is of the creature gaue thankes saying this is my bodie likewise he confessed the cupp which is of the creature that is among vs to be his bloud taught the newe oblation of the newe testament which the church receiuing of the Apostles in all the worlde offereth to God. Here M. Hesk. choppeth off the taile for it followeth Euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs the first fruites of his giftes which words do both open the purpose of Irenaeus shewe that the oblation was of bread wine not the naturall bodie of Christ as M. Hesk. gathereth together with the reall presence But for clearer proofe he addeth another testimonie out of Irenęus which he quoteth lib. 5. but it is lib. 4. ca. 34 which it seemeth he redd not him selfe in the author both because he knewe not where it was writen also because he omitteth some wordes in it Quomodo autem constabit eis c. he leaueth out autem eis but thus the wordes are in english But how shall it be knowen vnto them that that bread in which thankes are giuen is the bodie of their Lorde and the cupp of his bloud if they say not that he him selfe is the sonne of the maker of the worlde c. And how againe do they say that the fleshe commeth to corruption receiueth not the life which is nourished of the bodie bloud of our Lord Out of these places he noteth that the sacrament is the bodie and bloud of Christ that our flesh is nourished by the same bodie bloud This we confesse so he meane spiritually but that he will not haue And therfore to drawe the places to his carnall presence nourishing he sayth that Irenaeus hereby impugned two heresies One that Christ was not the sonne of God that made the world but a man liuing in Iewrie which dissolued the law the Prophets all the works of God that made the world The other that the soule only should be saued not the bodie And therefore to confute the former he maketh an argument of the real presence How could a bare naturall man compasse that his bodie should so be if he were not the sonne of God that made the world c. This proceedeth of grosse ignorance or rather of intollerable mallice to deceiue the ignorant For the heresie against which he writeth was not that Christ was a bare man not the sonne of God but that he was the sonne of another God then he that made the world for they made two gods one the maker of the world which they sayd was God of the old testament another the father of Christ which they said was God of the newe testament Now Irenaeus proueth by institution of the sacrament in the creatures of bread wine that Christ is the sonne of God that created the world of none other
God to which purpose he sayth in the 57. Chapter of that fourth booke Quomodo autem iustè Dominus si alterius patris existens huius conditionis quae est secundiòm nos accipiens panem fuum corpus confisebatur temperamentum calicis sui sanguinem confirmanit How did our Lorde iustly if being sonne of another father taking bread which is of this creation that we are ▪ confesse it to be his bodie and the temperament of the cuppe he confirmed to be his bloud Thus you see neither in the one place nor in the other he reasoneth of the diuine power of Christe to make a reall presence or transubstantiation but of the inconuenience that Christ shoulde ordeine his sacrament in the creatures of another god The seconde heresie he impugneth in deede by the receipt of the bodie and bloude of Christe in the sacrament by which our fleshe is nourished vnto immortalitie which nourishing M. Heskins in no wise will haue to be vnderstoode spiritually but corporally and sayeth it doth inuincibly proue the reall presence I will not rippe vp what absurdities do followe if wee say that Christes fleshe doth nourish our flesh corporally or after a carnall manner as of the concoction and digestion thereof to be turned into our nature where he sayed before that our flesh is turned into his fleshe but I will proue out of Irenaeus that he meant nourishing spiritually and not corporally For lib. 5. he hath these wordes Quando ergo mixtus calix factus panis percipit verbum Dei fit eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna quae sanguine corpore Christi nutritur membrum eius est When therefore the cuppe that is mixed and the bread that is made receiueth the worde of God it is made the Eucharistie of the bloud bodie of Christe of which the substance of our fleshe is increased and consisteth howe do they denye that the flesh is capable of the gift of God which is eternall life which is nourished with the bodie and bloud of Christ and is a member of him Here you see plainly that our fleshe is so nourished of the bodie and bloud of Christ that it is increased of the same and so consisteth of them that wee are his members but our bodies are not increased c. but spiritually therefore they are not nourished but spiritually after an heauenly manner But moste plainly for impugning of both the heresies aforesaide and other heresies more of transubstantiation and the carnall presence and the sacrifice propitiatorie of the masse he writeth lib. 4. Cap. 34. Nostra autem consonans est sententia Eucharistiae Eucharistia rursus confirmat sententiam nostram Offerimus enim ei quę sunt eius congruenter communicationem vnitatem praedicantes carnis spiritus Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena caelesti sic corpora nostra percipientia Euchaeristiam iam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Offerimus autem ei non quasi indigenti sed gratias agentes donationi eius sanctificantes creaturam But our sentence is agreeable to the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing and the Eucharistie againe doth confirme our sentence For wee offer vnto him those things that be his owne agreeably setting foorth the communication and vnitie of the fleshe and the spirite For as the breade which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God is not nowe common bread but the Eucharistie consisting of two things an earthly thing an heauenly thing euen so our bodies also receiuing the Eucharistie are not nowe corruptible hauing hope of resurrection And wee offer to him not as to one hauing neede but giuing thankes for his gifte and sanctifying the creature By this place is transubstantiation ouerthrowen where he sayth the sacrament consisteth of two things an earthly and an heauenly the carnall presence when hee defineth it to be a heauenly thing that is a diuine and spiritual communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ the propitiatorie sacrifice when he sayeth that the creatures of breade and wine were offered for a thankes giuing c. That Melancton defending the popish presence abused the authoritie of Irenaeus against Oecolampadius it ought to be no preiudice to vs especially seeing as M. Heskins before confessed that Melancthon him selfe forsooke that opinion in the end Now come we to Tertullian whose testimonie though it bee flatly against him yet hee hath laboured if it were possible by wrestling and wrangling to make it serue his turne or a least to auoyde it that it should not hurt his cause Lib. 4. contra Marcionem Professus itaque c. When therefore he had professed that with desire he desired to eate the Passeouer as his owne for it was vnmeete that God shuld desire any thing pertayning to an other the breade that was taken and distributed to his disciples he made it his body saying This is my body that is to say a figure of my body But it had bene no figure except his body had bene of trueth Here M. Heskins cutteth off but it followeth in Tertullian Caeterum c. For a vaine thing which is a fantasie could receiue no figure Or if therefore he feigned the bread to be his body bicause he lacked the trueth of a body then ought hee to haue giuen the breade for vs It would haue made for Marcions vanitie that the breade should haue bene crucified The alteration falsification and truncation of Tertullians wordes which Maister Heskins vseth was noted in the first booke partly and it wearieth me to note these faultes so often as he committeth them But here he turneth these wordes Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus But it had not bene a figure except it were a body of trueth As though the breade were both a figure and a body of trueth which cleane peruerteth the sense of Tertullian and is contrarie to his purpose as you may see by that which followeth For Marcion agreed with Valentinus against whome Irenęus writte that Christ was not the GOD of the olde Testament and moreouer affirmed that Christe had not a true body but a fantasticall body Against both these hereticall opinions hee reasoneth in this sentence First he saith Christe desired to eat the Passeouer therefore it was of his owne institution for it was vnmeete that God should desire any thing of an other Gods institution And that Christe had a true bodye hee proueth by the institution of the sacrament which was a figure of his body for a fantasticall body or a vaine thing can haue no figure for a figure hath a necessarie relation to a thing of trueth whereof it is a