twentieth Chapter beginneth to speake of the Prophesies and first of the prophesie of the priesthood of Christe after the order of Melchizedech The one halfe of this Chapter is consumed in citing of textes to proue that Christe is a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and at length hee deuideth the Priestes office into two partes teaching and sacrificing Then he affirmeth that Christ was not a Priest after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchizedech Yet in the ende of the Chapter like a blasphemous dogge hee sayeth that Christ executed his priesthood after the order of Aaron vppon the Crosse. Where beside his blasphemie note how hee agreeth with him selfe But Christ he sayeth it called a Priest after the order of Melchizedech for the manner of his sacrifice which maketh the difference betweene the order of Aaron and the order of Melchizedech For Aaron offered in bloud the other in bread and wine The Apostle to the Hebrues obseruing many differences could not finde this But M. Heskins aunswereth that the cause why the Apostle did leaue out this manner of sacrifice was for that his principall purpose was to shewe the excellencie of Christ and his priesthood aboue Aaron and his priesthood which could not bee by shewing that he sacrificed breade and wine for the Iewes sacrifices were more glorious then bread and wine By this wise reason he giueth vs to deeme that the Apostle of subtiltie suppressed this comparison because they were weake as though they knewe not what the sacramentes of the Church were But if Christe sacrificed his bodie and bloud twise he could not better haue shewed his excellencie aboue Aaron then in declaring that Christe did not onely offer him self in bloud on the Crosse but also in bread wine after the example of Melchizedech For if offering of sacrifice were one of the chiefe partes of a Priestes office and breade and wine had beene the sacrifice of Melchizedech the Apostle neither would nor coulde haue dissembled the comparison of his sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christe which would infinitely haue aduaunced his priesthood aboue Aaron For else the Hebrues whom M. Heskins imagineth would haue obiected their sacrifices to be more glorious then bread and wine might more probably haue replyed that the Apostles compared Melchizedech with Christe in small matters and omitted the chiefest parte of his office which was this sacrifice so that if he were inferiour in the chiefe it was little to excell in the small matters But M. Heskins taketh vppon him to aunswere our obiection that we make against this sacrifice of breade and wine which is this as the Apostle to the Hebrues speaketh nothing of it no more doeth Moses in Genesis For it is sayed there that Melchizedech brought foorth breade and wine but neuer a worde that he did sacrifice breade and wine This obiection he wil aunswer both by scripture and by the eldest learned men of Christes parleament Concerning the parleament men as it is true that many of them did thinke Melchizedech to be a figure of Christ in bringing foorth bread and wine so when we come to consider their voyces it shall appeare that they make little for transubstantiation or the carnall presence But now let vs heare the scripture The scripture to proue that Melchisedech did sacrifice this bread and wine saith that he was a Priest of the most high God to whome is belongeth not to bring foorth but to offer bread and wine so that the verie connexion of the Scripture and dependants of the same enforceth vs to take this sense and none other can be admitted This is a verie peremptorie sentence plumped downe of you M. Heskins not as from your doctours chaire but euen as from Apolloes three footed stoole But if it may please you to heare is it not also scripture that he was King of Salem and wil not the verie connexion and dependance of the Scripture leade vs to thinke that as an example of his royall liberalitie he brought foorth bread wine to refresh the hungrie and wearie souldiers of Abraham which being such a multitude could not easily be prouided for by a priuate man And where Moses sayeth he was a priest of the highest God hee addeth also an example of his priestly holynesse that he blessed Abraham praysed God and that Abraham gaue him tythes of al. And lest you should exclame as your manner is that this is a newe exposition Iosephus in the firste booke tenth Chapter of his Iewishe antiquities doth so expounde it Hic Melchisedechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit nihil eis ad victum deesse passus c. This Melchisedech gaue verie liberall intertainment to the souldiours of Abraham suffered them to want nothing vnto their liuing But if M. Heskins wil obiect that Iosephus was a Iewe then let him heare the author of Scholastica historia a Christian and a Catholike as M. Heskins will confesse allowing of the same exposition Chap. 46. in these wordes At verò Melchizedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem vinum quod quasi exponen◠Iosephus ait ministrauit exercitui Xenia multam abundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit et super epulas benedixit deum qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi But Melchizedech King of Salem offered vnto him bread and wine which Iosephus as it were expounding of it sayeth he ministred to his armie the dueties of hospitalitie and gaue him great plentie of things necessary beside the feast or at the feast he blessed God which had subdued vnto Abraham his enimies For he was a priest of the high◠so god Thus farre he 〈◊〉 M. Heskins for his connexion perchaunce will vrge the Coniunction enim erat enim saterdos c. in the vulgar Latine text to make it to be referred to the former clause but neither the Hebrue nor the Greeke text hath that Coniunction To be short if the bringing foorth of bread and wine perteined to his priestly office there is nothing in the text to expresse his Kingly office but Moses as he calleth him both a King and a priest so doth he distinctly shewe what he did as a King and what he did as a priest Yet Maister Heskins goeth on and will proue That if Christ were a Priest after the order of Melchizedech he offred a sacrifice after that order but he neuer made any mo oblations then two the one on the crosse after the order of Aaron the other in his last Supper after the order of Melchisedech except we will say that Christe altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God. Marke here Christian Reader how many horrible blasphemies this impudent dogge barketh out against our Sauiour Christ directly contrarie to his expresse worde First he affirmeth that Christ made two offerings of himselfe whereas the holy Ghost saith Heb. 9. not that he should oftentimes offer himselfe as the high priest c. For
Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud you shall haue no life in you They thought this impossible but he shewed that it was altogether possible and not that only but also necessarie which also he did vnto Nicodemus He addeth also of his bloud signifying the cup which as is saide already he would giue to his disciples in the last supper Here Euthymius a late writer and out of the compasse of the challenge vnderstandeth this text of the sacrament yet speaketh hee nothing of the carnall manner of eating As for the other place he braggeth of in Matth. 26. which he cyteth in the 58. Chapter of this booke how little it maketh for him I wish the reader before he go any further to turne to the Chapter and consider The sixteenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text in hand by the Ephesine Counsell The woordes of the Epistle of the Ephesine Counsell vnto Nestorius be these Necessario hoc c. This also we do adde necessarily for shewing foorth the death of the onely begotten sonne of God after the flesh that is of Iesus Christe and confessing together his resurrection and ascention into heauen we celebrate it in our Churches the vnbloudie seruice of his sacrifice so also doe we come to the mysticall blessings and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy body and precious bloud of Christ the redeemer of vs all Not taking it as common flesh which God forbid nor at the flesh of a sanctified man and ioyned to the word according to the vnitie of dignitie or as possessing a diuine habitation but truely quickening and made proper vnto the word it selfe For he being naturally life as God bicause he was vnited to his owne flesh professed the sonne to haue power to giue life And therefore although he say vnto vs Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you yet we ought not to esteeme it as of a man that is one of vs For howe can the flesh of a man after his owne nature be a quickening flesh But as verily made his owne flesh which for vs was both made and called the sonne of man. The Fathers of this Counsell do not as M. Heskins saith expound this text of the sacrament or declare what they receiue in the sacrament but rather shew what they iudged of that flesh whereof they receiued the sacrament namely that it was not the flesh of a pure man as Nestorius affirmed but the flesh of the son of God therfore had power to giue life being eateÌ„ by faith either in the participation of the sacrament or without it And whereas he noteth a plaine place for M. Iewel when they say They were made partakers of the body and bloud of Christ there is no more plainenesse then M. Iewell will confesse But where he addeth Receiuing it not as coÌ„mon flesh but as the flesh truely giuing life he corrupteth the sense of the Counsel referring that to the receiuing of the sacrament which they vnderstand of their iudgement of the flesh whereof they receiued the sacrament Finally where he would helpe the matter with the opinion of Cyril of our corporall coniunction with Christ howe little it auayleth we shewed before in aunswere to that place Cap. 14. But least he shuld lacke sufficient proofe of this matter he confirmeth his exposition by the erronious practise of the Church of Aphrica from Saint Cyprians time vnto Saint Augustines time at the least which imagined such a necessitie of thaâ— sacrament by this place Except ye eate c that they ministred the Communion to infants he might haue added that some did minister it to dead folkes But this absurditie which followeth of the exposition will rather driue al wisemen from that exposition then moue them to receiue it And although the Bohemians vsed this text to proue the communion in both kindes yet doth it not followe that it is properly to be expounded of the sacrament The seuenteenth Chapter expoundeth the next following by S. Augustine and Cyrill The text he will expound is He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life in him That this text is not to be expounded of the sacrament it is manifest by this reason that many doe eate the sacrament that haue not life in them as Augustine whom he alledgeth most plainly affirmeth But let vs see his profes for his exposition First Augustine Tr. 26. in IoaÌ„ Hanc non habet c. He hath not this life that eateth not this bread nor drinketh this bloud For without is men may haue temporall life but eternall they can not He therefore which eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud hath no life in him and he that eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath life eternall He hath answered to both in that he saith life euerlasting It is not so in this meate which we take to sustaine the life of this body For he that shall not take it shall not liue Nor yet he that shall take it shall liue For it may be that by age or sicknesse or any other cause many which haue taken it may dye but in this meat and drinke that is the body and bloud of our Lord it is not so For both he that taketh it not hath not life he that taketh it hath life and that eternall Although there be not one word spoken here of the sacrament and M. Heskins him selfe alledgeth the words following in which he confesseth that Augustine expoundeth this meate and drinke of the societie of Christ and his members which is his Church yet either so blinde or obstinate he is that with vaine gloses he will go about to drawe Augustine to his side First he saith though this meate signifie the mysticall body of Christe yet it signifieth not that alone but his naturall body in the sacrament whereof he hath neuer a worde in this treatise of S. Augustine secondly Augustine did not go about to instruct the people what they should receiue but how wel they shuld receiue it Which is vtterly false for hee doth both and there is no better way to instruct men howe well they should receiue the sacrament then to teach them to consider what they do receiue And therfore the conclusion of this treatise which he cyteth is altogether against him Hoc ergo totum c. Let all this therfore auayle to this end most welbeloued that we eaâ—e not the flesh and bloud of Christ onely in a sacrament which many euill men doe but that we eate and drinke euen to the participation of the spirit that we may remaine in the body of our Lorde as his mâ—mbers that we may be quickened by his spirite and not be offended although many do nowe with vs eate and drinke the sacraments temporally which in the end shal haue eternal torments Oâ—t of these wordes M. Hes doth
eateth Christe but he that eateth him spiritually and hath life by him Then no wicked man eateth him which hath not life consequently no man eateth him corporally But heare what the same Cyril writeth in the same Booke Chapter Haec igitur de caussa Dominus quomodo id fieri possit non enodauit sed fide id quaerendum hortatur sic credentibus discipulis fragmenta panis dedit dicens accipite manducate hoc est corpus meum calicem etiam similiter circuntulit dicens Bibite ex hoc omnes hic est calix sanguinis mei qui pro multis effunditur in remissioneÌ„ peccatorum Perspicis quia sine fide quÄ™rentibus mysterij modum nequaquam explanauit credentibus autem etiam non quÄ™rentibus exposuit For this cause thefore the Lorde did not expound how that might be done but exhorteth that it be sought by faith so to his disciples which beleeued he gaue peeces of bread saying take ye eate ye this is my bodie likewise he gaue the cuppe about and saide drinke ye all of this this is the cuppe of my bloud which shal be shed for many for remission of sinnes Thou seest that to them which inquire without faith he hath not explaned the manner of the mysterie but to them which beleeued although they inquired not he hath set it foorth In this saying of Cyril beside that he teacheth that Christe his flesh bloud are receiued in a mysterie it is good to obserue that he calleth the sacrament which Christ gaue to his Disciples fragmentes or peeces of bread which vtterly ouerthroweth Popish transubstantiation The eight Chapter proceedeth in declaration of the same by S. Augustine and Oecumenius The first place of Augustine he citeth but nameth not where it is written is this Cathechumeni iam credunt c. The learners of Christian faith doe nowe beleeue in the name of Christ but Iesus committeth not him selfe to them that is he giueth not vnto them his bodie and his bloud Let them be ashamed therefore because they knowe not let them goe through the red sea let them eate Manna that as they haue beleeued in the name of Iesus so Iesus may commit himselfe vnto them M. Heskins himselfe vpon this place saith It is common by the name of the figure to vnderstand the thing figured Therfore as Manna is called the bodie of Christ so is the sacramentall bread and wine called his bodie and bloud What is here for a Papist But Augustine in his Booke De vtilitate poenitentiae as he weeneth maketh much for him I am ergo lumine illato c. Now therefore the light being brought in let vs seeke what the rest signifie What meaned the sea the clowde Manna For those he hath not expounded But he hath shewed what the rocke is The passage through the sea is baptisme but because baptisme that is the water of health is not of health but beeing consecrated in the name of Christ which shed his bloud for vs the water is signed with his crosse and that it might signifie this the redde sea was that baptisme Manna from heauen is openly expounded by our Lord himselfe Your fathers saith he haue eaten Manna in the wildernesse and are dead For when should they liue For the figure might pronounce life it could not be life They haue eaten manna saith he are dead That is Manna which they haue eaten could not deliuer them from death not because Manna was death vnto them but because it deliuered not from death For he should deliuer theÌ„ froÌ„ death which was figured by Manna Surely Manna came from heauen consider whome is figured I am saith he the bread of life that came downe from heauen M. Heskins ioyneth another place of Augustine Lib. Nou. vet Test. Quast 65. Manna cypus est c. Manna is a figure of that spirituall meate which by the resurrection of our Lorde is made trueth in the mysterie of the Eucharistie By this he will proue that Manna in the former place was meant to be a figure of the body of Christ in the sacrament But in spite of his beard he must vnderstande it of the spiritual maner of receiuing therof by faith with the benefites of his death which are made perfect in his resurrection or else how saith he that the figure was made trueth by the resurrection of Christe For the trueth of Christes bodie did not depende vppon his resurrection and the sacrament was instituted before his death but it tooke and taketh force of his death and resurrection And concerning the former sentence I can but marueile at his impudencie that woulde alledge that treatise which is directly against him as partly you may see by the places cited by mee out of the same and followeth immediatly this place in the second Chapter of this booke partly by these places following taken out of the same booke Patres nostri inquis â—undem cibum spiritualem manducauerunt eundem potum spiritualeÌ„ biberunt Erant enim ibi qui quod manducabant intelligebant Erant ibi quibus plus Christus in corde quà m Manna in ore sapiebat Our fathers sayeth he did eat the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke For there were there which did vnderstande what they did eate There were there to whom Christe sauoured better in their heart then Manna in their mouth And again Breuiter dixerim Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt eundem quem nos cibum spiritualem manducauerunt Quicunque autem de Manna solam saturitatem quae fierunt patres infidelium maâ—ducauerunâ— moriui sunt Sic tui am eundem potum Petra enim Christus Eudem ergo potum quem noâ— sed spiritualem id est qui fide capiebatur non qui corporâ— hauriebatur I will saye briefely whosoeuer vnderstoode Christe in Manna did eate the same spirituall meate that wee doe But whosoeuer sought onely to fill their bellyes of Manna which were the fathers of the vnfaithfull they haue eaten and are deade So also the same drinke For the rocke was Christe They drinke therefore the same drinke that wee doe but spirituall drinke that is which was receiued by faith nor which was drawen in with the bodie And againe Eundem ergo cibum eundem potum sed intelligentibus credentibâ—s Non intelligentibus autem illud solum Manna illa fola aqua ille cibus osurienti potus iste suienti nec ille nec iste credenti Credenti autem idem qui nunc Tunc enim Christus venturus modò Christus venit Venturus venit diuersa verba sims sed idem Christus The same meate therefore and the same drinke be to them that vnderstoode and beleeued But to them which vnderstoode it not it was onely Manna that was onely water that meate to the hungrie this drinke to the thirstie neither that nor this to the beleeuer But to the beleeuer the same which is nowe for then Christ
what respectes you can the oblation is in vaine to them that do not receiue it And where you would proue that Chrysostome saide Masse though no man receiue with him because he saith Nemo est qui participet There is no man to participate you may as well say that Chrysostome himselfe did not participate because he saith generally no man and then he sayde no Masse by your owne rule for you holde it necessarie that the priest himselfe should receiue But to shewe that Chrysostome meaneth not generally as the worde soundeth that none of the people did communicate it appeareth by the whole circumstance of his discourse in that sermon For immediately before the wordes cited by M. Heskins he sayeth Multam video huius rei inaequalitatem In alijs quidem temporibus saepenumero neque cum mundi estis acceditis in paschate verò etiamsi quid temerarium vobis sit commissum nihilominus acceditis ô coÌ„suetudinem ô praesumptionem I see great inequalitie of this matter At other times truely oftimes you come not wheÌ„ you are cleane but at Easter although you haue committed any rash thing neuerthelesse ye come O custome O presumption By these wordes it appeareth that he rebuketh the neglecte of some in coÌ„ming to the coÌ„munion but seldom yet coÌ„ming rashly at Easter to such therfore the celebratioÌ„ of the coÌ„munion was in vaine And therfore exhorting theÌ„ to prepare themselues he taketh away their obiection Non es oblatione atque commuâ—onâ— dignus Igitur neque precatione Art thou not worthie oâ— the oblation and the communion Then neither art thou worthie of the prayers Yea he is very earnest that al they that do not communicate should departe with the penitentes and Catechumeni and compteth them impudent whiche tarry and doe not communicate with the rest Quisquis enim mysteriorum consors non est impudent improbuâ—â—stat For whosoeuer is not partaker of the mysteries in standing by he is impudent and wicked Thus by Chrysostoms iudgement all they that heare Masse and do not communicate with the priest are impudent and wicked persons Againe to proue that many did alwayes communicate he saith Ita tu quoque aduenisti hymnum cecinisti cum omnibus reliquis ex corum te numero esse qui digni sunt hoc ipso confessus es quòd non abcessisti Quomodo cum manseris de mensaista non participas Indignus sum inquis indignus es igitur ea communione quae in precibus est Thou also art come thou hast sung the hymne with all the rest thou hast professed thy selfe to be of the number of them that are worthy euen by this that thou hast not departed Seeing thou hast tarried how hast thou not participated of this table Thou sayest I am vnworthie therefore thou art vnworthie of that communion which is in prayers By this place it is manifest that a great number did alwayes receiue although many did refraine And that Chrysostomes communion was nothing like a priuate Masse mumbled in a corner as M. Heskins most impudently affirmeth but such a one as all the people sung hymnes together at it and they were counted wicked and impudent which stoode by and did not communicate Finally that Chrysostome compted it not lawfull for any to be present which did not communicate he saith also Post acta mysteria accedere licet ac videre praesentibus verò mysterijâ— abito Nihil hic tibi quà m Catechumeno plus licet When the mysteries are ended thou mayst come neere and see but when the mysteries are present depart It is no more lawful for thee to be here then for a learner that is not baptised Thus Chrysostome you see maketh nothing for the priuate Masse but altogether against it His next argument is of Serapion who being sick at the point of death for his comfort because he had beene excommunicated desired to receiue at which time the minister was also sicke which should haue receiued with him and therfore sent him the sacrament by his boy So that here is a case of extreame and double necessitie for sole receiuing to proue what might lawfully be done where no necessitie vrgeth Euseb. Lib. 6. Cap. 34. Concerning S. Augustines priest that saide Masse in a priuate house to driue away spirits we shal heare more in the next Chapter After this followeth the counterfet decree of Soter that no priest should say Masse except two were present to aunswere him when he saith Dominus vobiscum which yet the Popish priestes doe not obserue for they say Masse when they haue but one boy with them or their Parish clearke and sometimes perhaps none at al. Here saith M. Heskins some are commaunded to be present but none are coÌ„manded to coÌ„municate An argument like the authoritie of the decree howbeit if a man would stand to reason with him there is like cause why they should communicate as why they should be present for as the priest saith The Lorde be with you therefore two must be present so he saith of the sacrament Quod sumpsimus which we haue receiued which is not true when he onely hath receiued To this decree he ioyneth a Canon of the councell of Agatha Wherein the people are commaunded to heare Masse euerie Sonday and to tarrie to the end but they are not commanded to communicate First I aunswere this Canon is not found in the auncient recordes as Peter Crabbe honestly confesseth Secondly where it is found it is Missas die Dominico secularibut tenere which signifieth that seculer men are commanded to frequent the assemblies for so Missae of olde time did signifie for which Maister Heskins turneth it Missas totaâ— audire c. That they are commanded to heare the whole Masses which is the corruption of Gratiane The like decree he bringeth out the councel of Orleans That the people should not departe before the solemnitie of the Masse be ended All which proue not a priuate Masse for either they meant that the people should communicate that were present or else at the least the Cleargie receiued with the Bishop For long after the time of these councels it was decreed that al persons both men and women should receiue euerie Sonday As Matisconense 2. Cap. 4. Decernimus vt omnibus diebus Dominicis altaris oblatio ab omnibus viris mulieribus offeratur tam panis quam vini vt per has immolationes peccatorum suorum fascibus careant cum Abel vel caeteris iustè offerentibus promereantur esse consortes We decree that euerie sunday the oblation of the altar be offered of all persons men and women both of bread and wine that by these offrings they may be loosed of the bandes of their sinnes and with Abel and the rest offering righteously they may be worthie to be companions The last authoritie he citeth is out of the Popes lawe intituled to S. Augustine but not to be found in all his workes not sauouring of his stile
Deus c. That God onely might be truely worshipped What can be reasonably gathered of these wordes but that al honour is due to God and therfore none to idols which are forbidden to be made If Philo a Iewe will not serue Augustine a Christian is alledged who Super Exod. 9.71 allowing that diuision of the tenne commandementes by which three onely are saide to apperteine to God saith Et reuera c. And truely that which is saide Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me is more perfectly expounded when forged things are forbidden to be worshipped First for the diuision of the coÌ„mandements Aug. is not constant with him selfe For In Quaesti Nou. Vet. Test. Quest. 7. he writeth thus Non sint tibi Dij alij praeter me primum verbum hoc est Es subiecit secundum Non facies tibi vllam similitudineuâ— â–ª Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me this is the first worde or commandement and he addeth the second Thou shalt not make to thy self any similitude By which it is manifest that to worship images is not all one with hauing other Gods. But M. Sander will answer our obiection that God forbiddeth all honour of images thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worship them Adoration saith he is a doubtfull worde For Abraham adored the people of the lande Gen. 23. Very true but with a ciuill worship whereof we speake not nowe He made obeysans to them or as we say he made courtesie to them And the Angel refused to be adored saying adore god Therefore there is an adoration proper to God for Angels sometime haue beene adored Nay M. Sander therefore all religious worshippe perteineth to god For S. Iohn was not so madde to worship the Angel as God but as the messenger of God with a religious and not a ciuill worshippe And when you say Angels haue beene adored as Gen. 18. and Iudicum 13. I answere in both places they were adored with ciuill worship supposed by Abraham and Manohah to be honourable men and not to be Angels But when you cite Augustine to fortifie your distinction of Latria and Doulia you hurt your cause by his iudgement more then you further it by his authoritie For whereas he in Exod. 94. saith that Latria is due to God as he is God Doulia is due to God as he is our Lorde it followeth that that worship which is called Doulia as well as that which is called Latria is due onely to God who is our onely Lord and wil not giue his glorie to grauen Images Es. 42.8 1. Cor. 8.6 Theodoret saying that God calleth his people from the worshipping of diuels euen as Saint Paule 1. Cor. 10. sheweth that worshipping of images is the worshipping of diuels And whereas Maister Sander saith it can not possibly be saide that Christes images is dedicated to the diuell I say plainely with Theodoret and Paule it is dedicated to the diuell when it is worshipped For the Images of the Gentiles were not by the intente of the makers and worshippers dedicated to deuils but to God and godly men and women but when they were honored with religious honour which appertaineth onely to God the spirit of God saith they were dedicated to deuils And euen the same reason is of the Image of christ of the Trinitie of Peter or any other honoured with religious worshippe Thus Augustine and Theodoret cited by him are both against him Well yet he will disproue the comparison that M. Iewell maketh betweene Gods wordes and M. Hardings Iewell God saith thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen Images M. Hardinge saieth thou shalt make to thy selfe grauen Images But M. Sander saieth neither God nor M. Harding say so that is they do not meane so for God expounding his meaning added thou shalt not adore them nor giue them the honor due to God aboue therefore M. Iewell did euill to deuide Gods saying and by that diuision hee is sure that hee hath condemned his owne conscience So that by M. Sanders interpretation to make Images and to adore them is all one But M. Iewell seeinge them to be distincte matters to make and to worshippe without condemning his conscience did speak first of making and then of worshippinge of Images And although M. Sander be either so blind or so wilful that he cannot see or will not acknowledge the distinction of the two tables of the Lawe the matter of one being religion the other charitie yet M. Iewell did well inough consider that the Queenes Maiesties Image grauen in her coyne and such like pictures as nothing at all concerned religion nor nothinge at all forbidden were made by a commandement of the first table Now followeth another comparison Iewell God saith thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worshippe them M. Harding saith thou shalt fall downe to them and worshippe them But M. Sander answereth that M. Harding defendeth that another degree of honour incomparably inferiour to that which is due to God may be giueÌ„ to images not that which is due to god Wel then is M. Hard. Sander to contrary to other papists as great doctors as they But yet M. Iewels comparison doth stand For God forbiddeth al worship of Images Master Hard. aloweth some worship of Images Again how wil you distinguish the falling downe to God from falling downe to Images And therfore M. Iewel is no wrangler for meane Harding what he can meane his saying and meaning is contradiction to the saying and meaning of god But you wil affâ—rme saith M. Sander that al maner of honour is forbiddeÌ„ to be giuen to any kind of Image You haue against you the opinion of the law of nature the word of God the iudgement of the ancient fathers the decrees of general councels the practise of the whole church as hereafter shal be declared Verily M. Sander if you can bring al these authorities to vphold the worshipping of Images you shal do more then any man was euer able to do before you but hitherto you haue brought nothing worth the hearing But in the meane time you wil proue that there are two kindes of honour the one due to God alone the other to his creatures so to Images But you must proue that there be two kindes of religious honor or els you proue nothing for your purpose For ciuil honor wil not helpe you one iote for worshipping of Images except you be of that minde as Boniface a gentleman about Stamford was that would salute the sacrament of the altar with curtesie these words God giue you good morrow good Lord. And what haue you to proue this your distinction Nothing in the world but a saying of Augustine lib. 10. cap. 1. De ciuit Dei. that Latria by a certaine consent of ecclesiasticall writers hath bene taken for that seruice which is due to God that there is another seruice due to men according to which the Apostle coÌ„mandeth seruants to be