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
substantiall partes whiche are consecration oblation and receiuing instituted by Christ and into outward ceremonies prayers gestures manners Instituted by the ministerie of the holie Ghost but not of Christe In these later he graunteth that the Masses of S. Peter of S. Andrew of S. Iames of S. Clement of S. Dionyse S. Basil Chrysostome S. Ambrose do differ one from another but not in the former substantiall partes specially in consecration and oblation wherein the controuersie standeth which M. Heskins wil proue adding two handmaides vnto them that is to consecration intention and to oblation prayer for acceptation So by his Diuinitie the intention of the priest hath more force then the wordes of consecration to make the bodie of Christ present and when it is present and sacrificed it hath neede of the priestes prayers for acceptation But he will begin with S. Peters Masse and that he proueth by this reason the proclaymer confesseth though in scorne that some say S. Peter saide Masse at Rome but no auncient writer saith he did not say Masse therefore it is true that he did say Masse This argument is of like force with this that I will bring some say that Maister Heskins in King Edwards time married a Nunne whiche no auncient writer denieth therefore it is true that he married a Nunne and so peraduenture it is although it followe not vpon the assumption that no auncient writer denieth it And as for S. Peters Massing as there is no auncient writer that writte within 600. yeares of Christe that denieth it so is there none that affirmeth it But you shall heare another reason S. Peter that sate 2â— yeares at Rome and had saide Masse at Antioche is not like to haue neglected his duetie at Rome Admit it were true that he was at Rome which is not all out of doubt and that he sate as Bishop there 25. yeares which is proued false by the scriptures all though Hierome and Eusebius doe affirme it yet howe proueth M. Hesk. that it was any part of his dutie to say Masse either there or else where or that he did say Masse at Antioche His first witnesse is Hugo de S. Lib. 2. de Sacra par 8. Cap. 14. Who although he be a late writer vnworthie of credite in this cause yet I wil set downe his words that you may see howe much they make for M. Heskins cause Celebratio Misse c. The celebration of the Masse is done in commemoration of the Passion of Christ as he commaunded the Apostles deliuering to them his bodie and his bloud saying This do ye in remembrance of me This Masse S. Peter the Apostle is saide first of all men to haue saide at Antioch In the which in the beginning of the faith there were only three prayers saide If this be true none of the Apostles saide Masse at Hierusalem many yeare after Christ but it is manifest that they ministred the Lordes Supper therefore the Masse is not the Lordes supper But if he will restraine the words of Hugo to meane that Peter was the first that saide Masse at Antioch the consequence will be the same for it is certeine that the Gospell beeing first preached at Antiochia by those Cyprians and Cyrenians that fled vpon the persecution of Stephan Barnabas and Paul sent thither by the Apostles brought the Antiochians to be perfect Christians in so much that the name of Christians began there before Peter came thither to say Masse but they could not be Christians without the celebration of the Lordes supper therefore the Lordes supper is not the Masse Againe where he saith there were but three praiers in S. Peters Masse some Popish writers affirme that he vsed no praiers but the lords praier if this were true what liklyhod hath S. Peters Masse with the Popish Masse but only that it pleaseth them to cal the celebratioÌ„ of the Lords supper which Peter no dout ministred purely aâ—ter Christs institutioÌ„ by the name of their impure Masse After the testimonie of Remigius he bringeth in Isidorus whom he confesseth to haue ben before Remigius yet he was without that compasse of 600 yeres after Christ whereas in other places before he maketh Remigius almost 200. yeres elder theÌ„ Isidorus But Isidorus affirmeth Li. 1. de Off. Ecc. Cap. 15. That the order of the Masse or prayers with which the sacrifices offered to God are coÌ„secrated was first instituted by S. Peter Although he liued in an erronious superstitious time yet he meaneth that S. Peter did appoint an order and forme of prayers for the celebration of the Lords supper But certeine it is that the same order was not extant in his time much lesse now For Gregorie is made the institutor of the Popish Masse whiche was not long before Isidorus Next he will proue that S. Paule said Masse though no olde writer faith it for saith he S. Paul did that he taught but he taught the Masse Therfore he said Masse He ministred the coÌ„munion according to the doctrine he taught in those Chapters in which in deede is mention of consecration and receiuing but no syllable of oblation of Christ in the sacrament As for the order forme of ministration it was agreable to that doctrine when he said Other things I wil set in order when I come although it be not necessarily to be referred to matters coÌ„cerning the sacrament sauing the authority of Hugo Hierom Augustine yet it is out of question that he did dispose nothing contrary to the doctrine of that Epistle as all the Popish filthines is which M. Hesk. would thrust vpoÌ„ vs vnder the name of those things which S. Paul ordeined But it is wonderful to see his blockish frowardnes that he would proue out of Aug. that the order of the Masse now vsed is the order of the Masse that S. Paul speaketh of Ep. 118. Vnde datur c. Wherby it is giueÌ„ to be vnderstanded because it was much that in an epistle he shuld set forth all that order of doing which the vniuersall Church through out the world obserueth that it is ordeined of him which by no diuersity of maners is altred He speketh of receiuing of the coÌ„munion fasting which M H. willfully hath corrupted by a false translation and by wrong pointing falsifying the relatiue Quod to make it a Coniunction that he might apply it to the whole order of his Popish Masse which Aug. speaketh but of that one ceremonie of receiuing fasting and not after supper Augustines wordes are these Vnde datur intelligi quia mulium erat vt in Epistola totum agendi ordinem insinuaret quem vniuersa per orbem obseruat Ecclesia ab ipso ordinatuÌ„ esse quod nulla moruÌ„ diuersitate variatur Which M. Hes. hath corrupted thus whereby it is giueÌ„ to be vnderstanded that it was too much that in an epistle he should declare al that order of ministration which the vniuersal Church throughout the worlde
examine these falsifications pretended First he chargeth the bishop with false Latining and worse Englishing of this greeke following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bishopps latine is Hoc mirum est veteres Ethnicos beneficio affectos a seruatore nostro ista fecisse his english this It is no meruaile that the Heathens receiuing such benifites of our Sauiour did these thinges Here saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Olim in times past is left out in the latine which is false for it is included in the word veteres In deede in the english by the printers fault it is omitted M. Sander woulde iustifie the bolde and false translation of Ruffinus which turneth these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui ex Gentilibus crediderant Such of the Gentiles as had beleeued Where he manifestly addeth the worde crediderant which is not in Eusebius Wherein you may see the equitie of Maister Sanders which findeth faulte with Maister Iewell for leauing out that which he doth not omitte and iustifieth Ruffinus which doth openly adde to the text But for all his trifling about wordes hee sheweth him selfe ignorant of the phrase for when hee hath wrangled as much as hee can the Latine of the Greeke worde for worde is this Nec mirum est eos ex Gentibus qui olim beneficio affecti sunt a seruatore nostro ista fecisse And it is no marueile that those of the Gentiles which of olde time were benefited by our Sauiour Christe haue done these thinges Now Maister Sander like a falsifier rendeth these wordes asunder and will haue all that matter to stande in these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee sayeth must needes signifie those which in times past had beene Gentiles but after had beleeued which wordes if he wring vntill the bloud come foorth yet can hee not make such a signification of them For if Eusebius had meant so hee woulde haue added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some wordes of like effecte Secondly hee would rather haue sayde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that sometime were Gentiles then those that of olde time were Gentiles but that in the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of olde time he had relation vnto the time of Christe Thirdly as maister Sander himselfe afterwarde striuing for the Aduerbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnchaungeablye to be ioyned with the Participle sheweth himselfe a good Grammarian So here diuiding the Aduerbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ioyning it with nothing sheweth himselfe to be a malicious wrangler and a shamelesse falsifier Nowe where hee sayeth it is not like to bee true that Christe bestowed anye greate cure vppon those who shoulde haue tarryed still Heathens because hee more willingly cured the soule then the bodie I aunswere the chiefe ende of his cures was not for the priuate benefite of them that were cured but to shewe himselfe to all men to be the sonne of God the true phisition of body and soule But M. Sander replieth though some were vnkind as the 9. Lepers Luke 17. yea some were carelesse of him as the man that had lyen 38. yeares in the porche and the blinde man vntill he instucted them by his worde Iohn 5. 9. yet those which did set vp images in his honour were not vnkind I aunswere they thought to satisfye them selues with a vaine superstitious and heathenishe kinde of remuneration Thirdly hee sayeth with Theophylact a late writer that this woman which was faithfull did set vp this image but that I haue proued before to bee neither true nor like to be true But this is not all Master Iewels falshod sayeth hee for hee sayeth moreouer Nam Apostolorum Pauli Petri ipsius Christi imagines coloribus ductas seruatas vidimus For wee haue seene the images of Paule and Peter and of Christe drawen in coulours and preserued Here first beside the lacke of eius his which he confesseth to be of no importance he misseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et which he wil needes haue to signifie also What quarrelling merchant is this here is et thrise yet none of them wil serue his turne because the firste is not translated also that it might be thought that Eusebius had seene the former image of brasse But seeing et is twise put once before Apostolorum and then before ipsius Christi by iudgement of all English Grammarians it may truely be translated thus For wee haue seene the images drawen in colours and preserued both of his Apostles Paule and Peter and also of Christ him selfe Againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be translated euen of his Apostles Paule and Peter What Empyre hath Master Sander in Grammer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifye nothing but also when it hath three significations beside and both euen But it pleaseth Master Sander that Eusebius which liued about three hundreth yeares after Christe sawe painted images of Christ himselfe of his Apostles yea but in the hands of Heathen men or men of Heathenish superstition or else perhaps among the Gnostikes Carpocratites heretikes For what one worde of commendation doth he bestowe vpon them He sawe them in deede but if they had bene profitable for Christianitie why did he not make the like or cause them to be made in his church of Caesarea What cause haue you hitherto M. Sander to cry out O the deceit of M. Iewell seeing for any thing you haue shewed it is true which he saith The Phaeniciens being Heathens made these images in the honour of Christe and of his Apostles onely of their heathenish and vaine superstition But you will shewe a further falshoode in M. Iewell and that still in one storie for he proceedeth Et credibile est priscos illos homines nondum relicta auita superstition◠▪ adhunc modum consueuisse colere illos ethnica consuetudine tanquam seruatores And it may well be thought that men in olde times being not yet remoued from the superstitiō of their fathers vsed after this sort to worship them by an heathenish custome as their sauiours That M. Iewell meant no fraud in this translation it is manifest by that which M. Sander confesseth that he set the Greeke wordes by the side of his booke which are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as it is like that those auncient men vnchangably after this maner were accustomed to honour them as Sauiours by an heathenish custome vsed among them This I haue translated worde for worde and what difference is there in sense from M. Iewels translatiō but that nothing of his can please M. San. for first he maketh one quarell that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth vnchangably or without change which M. Iewel hath turned not yet being remoued from the superstition of their fathers But Ruffinus also translateth it ex gentili consuetudine indifferenter of an heathenish custome indifferently and M.
he said much for you when he coÌ„pareth the scripture to the sea I thinke he saith more against you where he compareth the Church to the sea Hexam lib. 3. cap. 3. Vnde bene mari plerumque comparatur ecclesia quae primo ingredientis populi agmine totis vestibulis vndas vomit deinde in oratione totius plebis tanquam vndis refluentibus stridet tum responsorijs Psalmorum cantus virorum mulierum virginum paruuloruÌ„ consonus vndarum fragor resultat WhervpoÌ„ the Church is oft times verie wel compared vnto the sea which first by the coÌ„ming in of the multitude floweth out waues froÌ„ euery porch or entrie and then maketh a noyse with the prayer of the whole people as it were with the ebbing or flowing backe of the waues last of all with answerings of Psalmes singing of men women virgines and little children a well tunable sound of the waues reboundeth By this place it appeareth that all sorts of people were admitted to the reading of the scriptures and that no tong was vsed in the Church but such as was coÌ„mon to all the people Chrysostome succeedeth Ambrose who saith The scriptures are darke that they are found out with labour but not shut that they can not be found out at all and that the priestes ought to be the keykeepers of the scriptures not to shut them vp but to open them c. I would oppose some testimonie of Chrysostome to explane his meaning not to be to discourage men froÌ„ reading the scriptures but that M. Heskins doth soone after confesse the same of his owne accord in these wordes I am not ignorant gentle reader that Chrysostome doth so that is that Chrysostome in a number of places most earnestly exhorteth men to the reading of the scriptures and doth not feare them with the obscuritie and difficultie thereof I aske no more against M. Heskins but his own confession of Chrysostomes iudgement to be against him whervnto we must returne anon after a little consideration of Gregories iudgement Gregorie sheweth that the obscuritie of the scriptures is for great profite for exercising the vnderstanding for auoyding of wearines idlenes contempt and for great delight when it is found out with labour Augustine hath the like sentence but this maketh much for our cause that the obscuritie of the scripture where it is darke is very profitable for the diligent reader To conclude if all the scripture were neuer so darke yet seeing it is necessarie to be knowne of al men it ought to be read and studied of all the more the oftener where it is more hard to vnderstand that long diligent search may find out that which sildome slight reading would passe ouer As for the last testimonie of Hieronyme ad Paulinum concerning the Canonicall Epistles That they are both short and long so that there be not many which are not blind in them Bicause we had the like before I will referre it to the former answeres The rest of the rayling stuffe charging vs with cause of heresies arrogance and ignorance in suffering and allowing the people to reade the scriptures affirming them to be easie when they be hard c. is more meete for M. Heskins to write then vs to answere But to return to the obiection that he maketh of the iudgement of Chrysostome and Erasmus whom he confesseth to be against him let vs see his wittie answeres To Chrysostome he answereth That there were two causes why he would haue the scriptures read one that they might the better vnderstand his expositions in the Churche the other that they might reade them to followe them to these purposes he graunteth it were tollerable they should be read but not to frame newe doctrines out of them nor to contâ—mne the learned teachers c. And who I pray you would haue them read to other purpose Not Luther not Iewell nor any man whom you most spyte at But see the force of truth and the malice of an enimie therof Heskins hauing reasoned in fiue Chapters against the reading of scriptures nowe graunteth to it but yet that which is most conuenient of al most necessarie he vouchsafeth to cal it but tollerable To Erasmus he replyeth first that seeing he confesseth in diuers places the scriptures to be hard to vnderstand he maruelleth that he would exhort ignorant men to the reading of them But Erasmus would easily turne backe M. Heskins reason vpon his owne head Seeing they are hard they are the more often and diligently to be read studied Secondly he thinketh Alphonsus good ynough to oppose against Erasmus who affirmeth That although it were meete the people should read the scriptures in Chrysostomes time yet it is not meete nowe bicause lawes are changed as the times and manners of men are And it is no more meete that the people should nowe read the scriptures then that the Vigils should be kept as they were in Hieronymes time or that Infantes should receiue the Communion as they did in Augustines tâ—me or men shuld abstaine from bloud and strangled as in the Apostles time or discipline and publique penance should be vsed as in the old dayes If the maners of men be worse nowe they haue more neede of the knowledge of God whereby they might be reformed wherefore the similitudes are nothing like And besides this note also the errour of the Church in S. Augustines time confessed and the want of discipline in the Popish Church acknowledged The sixt Chapter declaring howe the people shall come to the vnderstanding of the scriptures The vnderstanding then of the scriptures is necessarie seing God as you coÌ„fesse which ordeineth nothing in vain hath appointed a meane wherby the people should come to the vnderstanding of the scriptures So by the way we haue gained thus much that ignorance is not the mother of Christian deuotion as was most impudently affirmed by all the Bel weathers of Papistrie in the conference of Westminster to the perpetuall shame ignominie both of them selues and al the Popish Church But nowe to the meane appointed by God which you say Is that the lawe should be in the mouth of the Priest and the people should learne it at his mouth A very godly order in deede but yet such as neither promiseth that the lawe shal be alwayes in the Priestes heart nor bindeth the people to learne it only at his mouth And therefore nothing in the world letteth but that the godly man should meditate in the lawe of God day night Psal. 1. and haue it so familiar vnto him that he shuld teach his childreÌ„ therin talke of it at home abroad vprising and downlying and write on the postes of his doores and vpon his gates that he may learne to do it Deut. 4. 11. Wherefore all the places that M. Heskins alledgeth to shewe that the Priestes should be learned and the people instructed by them serue to proue nothing that is in controuersie
Iesus entered in the doores being shut when he shewed his handes to bee felt and his side to be considered and shewed both flesh and bones least the trueth of his body should be thought to be a fantasie And I will aunswere howe Saint Marie is both mother and a Virgine a Virgine before birth a mother before she was knowne of man. Vpon these places Maister Heskins doth inferre that if the doores did open as the going in of Christ which hee saith is a shaddowing of the miracle and a falsifying of the scriptures as though it were not miraculous ynough except it tooke away the trueth of Christes body and ouerthrewe the immutable decree of GOD then his entering In could not proue that the clausures of the virginitie I vse his owne wordes of the mother of Christ notwithstanding his birth remained alwayes closed which the Doctours intended to proue I would not for shamefastnesse enter into discourse of the secrets of virginitie last of all the high mysteries of the incarnation and natiuitie of our sauiour Christe of the immaculate Virgine Marie in any such Physicall questions but that I am driuen vnto it by this shamelesse aduersarie And yet will I onely alledge the authoritie of the scripture referring the collection to the reuerent shamefast consideration of the honest reader Saint Luke writeth of his presentation at Hierusalem As it is written in the lawe of the Lorde euery manchilde that first openeth the matrice shall bee called holy to the Lorde Luke 2. According to this text the miracle of his natiuitie preseruing her virginitie and of his entering in the doores beeing shut are verie like in deede and agreeable to the Doctours meaning But hee proceedeth with Chrysostomes authoritie Hom. 86. in Ioan. Dignum autem dubitatione est c. It is woorthie of doubt howe the incorruptible body did receiue the fourme of the nayles and could be touched with mortall hande But let not this trouble thee For this was of permission For that body being so subtile and light that it might enter in the doores being shut was voyde of all grossenesse or thicknesse but that his resurrection might be beleeued he shewed him selfe such a one And that thou mightest vnderstand that it was euen he that was crucified that none other did rise for him therefore he roase againe with the tokens of the crosse Except wee vnderstand Chrysostome fauourably in this place where hee denyeth the glorified body of Christe to haue any thicknesse but that it might pearce through all thinges as a spirite wee shall make him author of a great heresie both concerning the body of Christe and concerning our bodyes which after the resurrection must bee made conformable to his glorious body Philip. 3. But in an other place as wee shall heare afterwarde hee doeth eyther expound or correct him selfe in this matter And yet this that hee saith here helpeth not Maister Heskins one whit and that for two causes one for that hee speaketh heere of the glorified bodye of Christe who instituted his sacrament before his bodye was glorified An other cause for that hee doeth not heere make two bodyes in one place or one bodye in an other but to auoyde that absurditie doeth transfourme the bodye of Christe into the subtiltie and thinnesse of a spirite But in an other sentence De resurrect Hom. 9. he is of an other minde concerning the bodye of Christe Non est meum ludificare phantasmate vanam imaginem visus si timet veritatem corporis manus digitus exploret Potest fortassis aliqua oculos caligo decipere palpatio corporalis verum corpus agnoscat Spiritus inquit carnem ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere Quod Ostia clausa a penetrani sola est virtus Diuini spiritus non sola carnis substantia It is not my propertie to delude my disciples with a fantasie if your sight feare a vaine image let your hand and fingers trie out the trueth of my body Some myste peraduenture may deceiue the eyes let bodily handling acknowledge a true body A spirite saith he hath neither flesh nor bones as you see mee to haue That I pearced through the doores beeing shut it is the onely power of the diuine spirite not the onely substaunce of the flesh In these wordes hee ascribeth it to the onely power of his diuine spirite that he passed through when the doores were shut and not to the subtiltie of his glorified body as in the former sentence Likewise in Ioan. Hom. 90. Qui intrauit per ostia clausa non erat phantasma non erat spiritus verè corpus erat Hee that entered in by the doores beeing shut was no fantasie hee was no spirite hee was a body truely and in deede But wee must passe ouer vnto Saint Ambrose in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 4. Habuit admirandi causam Thomas c. Thomas had a cause to maruell when hee sawe all thinges being shut vp and closed the body of Christe by clausures without all wayes for body to enter the ioyntes beeing vnbroken to bee entered in amongest them And therefore it was a woonder howe the corporall nature passed through the impenetrable body with an inuisible comming but with inuisible beholding easie to be touched hard to bee iudged In these woordes of Saint Ambrose nothing can bee certainely gathered bycause hee doth not him selfe determine after what manner the body of Christe came in but onely sheweth what cause Thomas had to doubt and maruell sauing that in an other place I finde him write suspitiously of the trueth of the body of Christe and of the true properties thereof For in his booke De mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9. hee hath these woordes speaking of the body of Christ Corpus enim Dei corpus est spirituale Corpus Christi corpus est diuini spiritus The body of GOD is a spirituall body The body of Christe is the body of a diuine spirite These sayinges for reuerence of the Authours may haue a gentle construction but otherwise they are not directly consonant to the Catholique confession of the trueth of Christes body and the properties thereof remayning euen after his Assention as hath bene discussed by the scriptures especially after the Church was troubled with the heresies of the Eutychians and Monotholites Nowe followeth Saint Augustine De agone Christiano Cap. 24. Nec eos audiamus c. Neither let vs giue eare to them that denye that the body of Christe is risen againe of such qualitie as it was put into the graue Neither let is moue vs that it is written that hee appeared soudenly to his disciples after the doores were shut that therefore we should denye it to bee an humane body bicause wee see that contrarie to the nature of this body it entered by the doores that were shut for all thinges are possible to god For if hee could before his passion make it as cleare as the brightnesse of the Sunne wherefore could he not after his
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
Psalm 98. to proue that he denieth the giuing of his bodie by lumpes or peeces But the place is altogether against him if he had alledged the whole and not cut it off in the waste Tunc autem c. Then when our Lorde setting foorth this had spoken of his flesh and had saide except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue in him life euerlasting Some of the seuentie were offended and saide This is an harde saying who can vnderstand it And they departed from him and walked no more with him It seemed a harde thing to them which he saide Except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue eternall life They tooke it foolishly they thought of it carnally and they thought that our LORDE would cut certeine peeces of his bodie and giue them and they saide this is an harde saying Here stayeth Maister Heskins but it followeth in Augustine Ille aâ—tem instruxit eos c. But he instructed them and saith vnto them it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life Vnderstand you spiritually that which I haue spoken You shal not eate this bodie which you see drinke that bloud which they shal shed which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a certeine sacrament or mysterie which beeing vnderstoode spiritually shall giue you life Although it be needefull that it be celebrated visibly yet it must be vnderstoode inuisibly In these wordes Augustine denieth not onely the giuing of his bodie in peeces but all maner of corporall eating of his naturall and visible bodie and aduoucheth onely a spirituall vnderstanding of this text that we haue beene so long in expounding But M. Heskins willeth vs not to triumph before the victorie for Augustine In sermo ad Neophy hath a plaine place for M. Iewel Hoc accipite in pane c. Take ye this in the bread that did hang on the crosse Take ye this in the challice that was shed out of the side of christ He shall haue death not life that thinketh Christe a lyar If M. Heskins had expressed in what booke or â—ome I should haue sought for this sermon Ad Norphil he might haue spared me a great deale of labour which I haue lost in searching for it and yet cannot finde it There are many homilies and sermons of Augustine Ad Neophyl and yet in none of them can I reade that whiche he aduouched out of him It seemeth therefore that this place is taken out of some later writer that without iudgement ascribeth it to Augustine which is not to be found in his workes And yet the saying is not such but that it may haue a reasonable interpretatioÌ„ for the bread after a certein maner as Augustine speaketh is that which did hang on the crosse the wine is that which was shed out of his side that is sacrameÌ„tally but not naturally or after a bodily maner S. Cyril followeth ca. 22. sup 6. Ioan. Ex imperitia multi c. Many that folowed Christ for lack of knowledge not vnderstanding his wordes were troubled For when they had hearde Verily verily I say vnto you Except you shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you they thought they had bene called by Christ to the cruell manners of wilde beastes and prouoked that they would eate the rawe flesh of a man and drinke bloud which are euen horrible to be heard for they had not yet knowen the fourme and most goodly dispensation of this mysterie This also moreouer they did thinke howe shall the flesh of this man giue vs eternall life Or how can he bring vs to immortalitie Which things when he vnderstod to whose eyes all things are bare and open he driueth them to the faith by an other maruelous thing Without cause saith he O syre are ye troubled for my words And if you will not beleeue that life is giuen by my bodie vnto you what will you do when you see me flie vp into heauen I doe not onely say that I will ascend least you should aske againe how that should be but you shall see it with your eyes so to be done Therfore what will you say when you see this Shall not this be a great argument of your madnesse For if you thinke that my fleshe can not bring life vnto you how shall it ascend into heauen like a birde How shall it flye into the ayre For this is a like impossible to mankinde And if my fleshe beside nature shall ascende into heauen what letteth but it may likewise beside nature giue life Cyrill noteth as M. Heskins saith two vaine thoughtes of the Capernaites one of eating raw the flesh of Christ the other how that flesh shuld giue life the latter he answereth at large the other breefely they vnderstoode not the fourme and dispensation of the mysterie by which he meaneth the spirituall mysticall maner of receiuing his bodie cleane contrarie to their grosse imagination for otherwise the ascention of Christe would not answere that doubt but increase it Maister Heskins citeth another text to shewe the power of Christes fleshe whiche is needelesse for it is confessed of vs to be such as he himselfe hath declared it to be Non verbo soliù c. He did not onely with his worde raise dead men but also with his touching to shewe that his bodie also doth giue life If then with his onely touching corrupted thinges are made sound how shall we not liue which doe both tast and eate that fleshe it will without all doubt refourme againe to immortalitie the partakers thereof Neither doe thou inquire after the Iewish manner how But remember that although water by nature be colde yeâ— by comming of fire to it forgetting her coldeneâ— it boyleth with heate Here M. Heskins will not allowe vs our glosse that Cyril speaketh of the spirituall receiuing of Christes flesh because he teacheth more then once that we are ioyned to Christ not onely spiritually but also after the flesh and that by eating the same flesh as though we could not truely be partakers of the fleshe of Christe â–ª by a spirituall receiuing of him not onely in the sacracrament but also by faith without the sacrament And Cyril saith we doe both taste and eate his flesh whiche of necessitie imployeth a spirituall manner of receiuing for other tast we haue not of Christes flesh but spirituall and by faith In the ende of the Chapter to deliuer himselfe his fellowes from the grosse errour of the Capernaites he scoffeth finely at our spirituall sifting of the sacrament so fine that we leaue nothing but the bare bran of the signifying signe in our owne hand whiche is the grosse bread we feede on If we taught a bare signe or bare bread in the sacrament there were some place for Maister Heskins ieaste But when we teache that presence and receiuing which
Euen as the olde Testament had sacrifices and bloud so hath the newe namely the body and bloud of our Lorde Nowe he did not say These are the signes of my body and my bloud but these thinges be my body and bloud Therefore we must not looke to the nature of those things that are set foorth but to the vertue of them For as he did supernaturally deifie if I may so speake his assumpted flesh so doth he also vnspeakably transmute these thinges into the same his quickening body and into his precious bloud and into the grace of them And the bread hath a certaine similitude vnto the body and wine to bloud For both the bread and body are earthly but the wine and the bloud are airie and hote And as bread doth comfort so the body of Christe doth the same and much more it sanctifieth both the body and the soule And as the wine doth make glad so the bloud of Christ doth the same and moreouer is made a defence Although the chiefest partes of this place are answered in the 17. Chapter of the first booke and in the 51. Chap. of this second booke yet as M. Hes. gathereth here two other matters so I wil make answere to them First he saith That the figuratiue glose of the sacrameÌ„taries is flatly denied But by what words I pray you â–ª Marrie where he saith Christ saide not these be signes of my body and bloud but these are my body and bloud if this be a flat deniall of a figure bicause Christe saide not so then is it likewise in these speaches he saide not the rocke was a signe of Christe but the rocke was Christe the Lambe is the Passeouer c. Euthymius meaneth not to exclude all figures from the saying of Christ but to shew that the sacrament is not a bare naked and vaine signe but a true signe of the very body and bloud of Christe giuen to the faythfull in the administration of the supper The second matter that Maister Heskins noteth is of the vnspeakable transmutation and that must needes bee meant of transubstantiation of the breade and wine into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christe by this reason there be foure thinges called the bodie of Christ. 1. The figure 2. The Church 3. The merite fruite or vertue of his passion 4. And his bodie naturall but it can not be into the figure nor into the Churche Nor into the spirituall bodie of Christe I meane the merite vertue and grace of Christes passion Ergo it must needes be spoken of the naturall bodie of Christ. But vouchsafe gentle Reader to runne ouer once againe these wordes of Euthymius which in Latine are these Ita hec ineffabiliter transmutaâ— in ipsum vinificâ—â—â— corpus in ipsius prÄ™ciosum sanguinem siâ—on in gratiam ipso 〈◊〉 Euen so he doth vnspeakably transmute and change thesâ— thinges into the same his quickening bodie and into his owne precious bloud and into the grace of them Now tell me whether M. Heskins doth flatly denie that which Euthymius doeth flatly affirme that the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of the bodie and bloud of Christ By whiche words he doth sufficiently expound what kind of change he meaneth of them into the bodie and bloud of Christ not a corporall but a spirituall transmutation To the rest of the sentence which is a good exposition of the former parte shewing both the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament and for what cause they are vsed to represent the bodie and bloud of Christe namely for the similitude they haue vnto the bodie and bloud of Christ Maister Heskins sayeth nothing But let the reader weigh it well and he shall see it cleane contrarie both to transubstantiation and the carnall presence Nowe we come to Isodorus whom he confesseth to be somewhat out of the compasse of the challenge and his wordes De Offi. Eccle. Lib. 18. are these Sacrificium c. The sacrifice that is offered of the Christians vnto God Christe our God and Maister did first institute when he commended to his Apostles his bodie and his bloud before he was betrayed as it is read in the Gospel Iesus tooke bread and the cuppe and blessing them gaue vnto them In this place is nothing for the carnall presence but that Isydore calleth the sacrament the bodie and bloud of Christ which we also do and acknowledg to be so rightly called And Maister Heskins can conclude nothing but vpon a negatiue he saith not he gaue a figure so may I conclude he saith not he gaue his naturall body and no figure After this he reasoneth as fondely of Christes blessing of the bread which although the Euangelistes do expound to be giuing of thanks yet admit blessing to signifie consecration and what hath he gayned Forsooth Christ wold not haue blessed it to make but a figure still he playeth the foole with that bable but a figure onely a figure a bare figure which we vtterly doe forsake But toward the ende of the Chapter he falleth to gathering his voyces and affirmeth that none of the olde fathers cal the sacrament a figure except Tertullian onely wherein he lyeth impudently for beside Ambrose and Augustine which both vse the very worde figure we haue shewed in due places that both they in a manner al the rest of the fathers haue either written plainely against the carnall presence or else nothing for it As for his last challenge that all the protestants must bring forth when any countrie did professe the same religion that is now preached is vaine and hath beene sufficiently aunswered in other treatises It is certein that all nations that were conuerted by the Apostles before they were corrupted by heresie and Antechristianitie professed the same religion that we doe As for the alterations in King Henries time King Edwardes and the Queenes Maiesties that now is it is easie to answere King Henrie began the worke whiche King Edwarde finished and the Queene repayred and vpholdeth in spight of the diuel and the Pope As for the consent and peace of the Popishe Church it proueth nothing but that the diuell had then all thinges at his will and therefore might sleepe on both sides but now hee is disturbed of possession of the house nowe he stormeth and of Robin good fellowe which he was in the Popishe time is become playne Sathan the Diuell The nine fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the same text by the fathers of the latter days first Damascen Haymo Before M. Heskins begin his pretended exposition he chargeth Luther to be a proude contemner of the fathers who reuerenced them as much as it was meet they should be reuerenced although he preferred one authoritie of scripture before a thouâ—â—nd Cyprians Augustines Next to Luther he rayleth on the bishop of Sarum whoÌ„ he calleth the proclaymer charging him with mocking of the holie fathers whereof some he saith be
suppressing the rest for very shame they make so much against him Surely in all reasonable mens consciences what so euer hee left out of this place hee left the aduauntage of his owne cause and no title againste him But let vs see here what Maister Heskins a man of inuention passing Sinon the GrÄ™cian hath gathered out of it There bee two thinges in this place plainely taught The first is the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in that he so reuerently calleth the sacrament vnder one kinde the portion of the Lords body and the other he calleth the cup of the holy bloud For the spiritual bloud is not contained in external or material vessels No syr but the sacrameÌ„t of his natural bloud is wherof he speaketh as it is manifest by the words immediatly before the portion of the Lords body for his natural body is not broken into portions but the bread which is a sacrament thereof is broken and therby is shewed what wicked men receiue both in this saying of Gelasius in the other of Leo not the naturall body of Christe which cannot be receiued in portions but a portion of the sacramental bread which is therfore called the body of Christ bicause it is so indeed to them that receiue it worthily is consecrated to that vse that it may be the coÌ„munication of the body of christ And as it hath ben often shewed sacraments beare the names of the very things wherof they are sacrameÌ„ts The second thing that he teacheth saith M. Hes. is that he calleth not these two kindes Sacramentum a sacrament but Sacramenta sacramentes in the plural number signifying therby that each of them is a whole sacrament O new Diuinitie theÌ„ ye Papistes haue eight sacraments But are you such a prudent gatherer M. Hes it appeareth you wil lease none aduantage for the taking vp I commend you But for all that doth not your Authour Leo call both kindes sacramentum a sacrament and that is more for it is too too childish to reason of the singular number doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kindes Vnum idémque mysterium one and the same mysterie And when he vseth the plural number the ground of your Achillean argument doth he not say Integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur Let them take the whole sacramentes or else let them be kept from the whole signifying that they which tooke the bread onely tooke but halfe the sacramentes and none took the whole but they that tooke the cup also But nowe for the practise of the Primitiue Church to haue receiued in one kinde he saith that in time of persecution the Priest deliuered them of the sacrament wrapped in fine linnen clothes to carie home with them and to receiue it secretly by them selues and this could bee none other but the sacrament vnder the foâ—ne of breade Admit it were so that they caried home the sacrament yet it followeth not but they might as well carie the wine in a faire pot as they caried the breade in a faire cloth And although TertulliaÌ„ writing to his wife name bread only yet doth it not followe but that he comprehendeth the cup also The wordes of Tertullian are before rehearsed and answered Lib. 1. cap. 24. 27. Next is brought in Basil. Episto ad Caesareant patriciam Illud autem c. As for that to be a grieuous thing in the times of persecution any man to be inforced to receiue the communion with his owne hand the Priest or Deacon not being present it is more then nedeth to proue for bicause the same thing is by a long custome and by the very vse of things established For all they that in the wildernesse lead a solitarie life where there is no Priest keeping the communion at home communicate of them selues But in Alexandria and Aeâ—ypt euery one of the people for the most part haue the communion in their owne house For when the Priest doth consecrate the sacrifice and distribute it we must well beleeue to participate and receiue it For in the Church the Priest giueth part and he that taketh it receiueth it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand It is therfore the same thing in vertue whether a man take one part of the Priest or many parts together Of the credite and authoritie of this Epistle which being cited in the name of Saint Basil is not to be found in all his workes I haue spoken before sufficiently as also of the reseruation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first booke cap. 27. But for the communion in one kinde I see nothing that he saith sauing that Maister Heskins gathereth that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hote countries conueniently in their own kind such long time as they were forced to reserue the sacrament in the wildernes and else where But I aunswere him that such strong wine as they haue in those hote countries will bee kept longer from sowring then the breade will bee from moulding and therefore his gathering is altogether fond ridiculous But now you shall heare a more plaine testimoine for this receipt vnder one kinde if you will hearken to S. Cyprian He is cited In sermone de Lapsis a long saying to litle yea to no purpose at all Praesente ac teste meipso c. Heare what came to passe my selfe beeing present and witnesse The parentes of a childe flying by chaunce while for feare they tooke no good aduisement leaft their young daughter vnder the cherishing of a nource the nource brought her so left vnto the Magistrates They before an Idole where the people were gathered because for her age she could yet eate no flesh gaue vnto her bread mixed with wine which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish Afterwarde the mother receiued her daughter But the litle mayde could no more speake and declare the offence that was committed then vnderstand it before and forbidde it Through ignorance therfore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her whyle we were sacrificing But truely the girle beeing among the Saintes not abiding our prayer and supplication sometime was constrained to crie out sometime with vehement greefe of minde was tossed here and there euen as though a tormentor compelled her the ignorant soule by such tokens as she could acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those yong and tender yeres But after the solemnities beeing accomplished the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present and when the rest had receiued and her place was next the little one by the instinct of Gods Maiestie turned away her face pressed her mouth with her lippes stopped refused the cuppe Yet the Deacon persisted and though it were against her will powred in somewhat of the sacrament of the cuppe Then followed belking and vomite In a bodie and a mouth that was defiled the Eucharistie
illud c. But beholde that more reuerently that after the venerable signes are layde vppon the altare by which Christ is signified and receiued there is present by by a description of saintes or holy ones It is meete that a false matter should begin with a counterfet doctour I haue shewed before that neither Eusebius nor Hierome nor Gennadius knewe any such Dionyse by the space of fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Christ therefore his testimonie must be so many hundred yeares short of the Apostles times But M. Hesk. wil not see that his Dionyse calleth the sacrament signes by which Christ is signified and receiued He can see nothing but the altar in that saying Next to Dionyse he bringeth Ambrosius in orat prÄ™parâ—t ad missaâ—t a meere counterfeit as Erasmus hath obserued therefore worthie of none answere But before I proceede to the next author that he citeth for the altar which is Augustine I will set downe a manifest disproofe of M. Hesk. proofe that altars haue ben vsed since the Apostles times Firste it is certeine that our sauiour Christ did institute this sacrament at a table at no altar whereas if it had bene a sacrifice he would haue caused an altar to be made which had bene soone done Secondly the Apostle Paul calleth it the Lords table neuer calleth it an altar M. Hesk. alledgeth for the sacrament out of the actes of the Apostles that the disciples continued in breaking of bread in euery house but I suppose he wil not dreame that there was an altar in euerie house In the primitiue church when the people mett in corners secrete places no man of reason wil imagin they had altars set vp in those places Nay it is certein by Origen Amobius they had neither altars nor teÌ„ples nor images Origen Cont. Cel lib. 4. reporteth that the heathen man Celsus obiecteth against vs that we haue no images nor altars nor temples The like is in Arnobius lib. 2. against that Gentiles who declareth that they acuse vs that we haue neither temples nor images nor altars By these auncient writers it appeareth that it was a common obiection of the heathen men against the Christians that they had no altars The like sheweth Tertullian ad Scapulam Itaque sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris sed Deo nostro ipsâ—ut sed quo modo prÄ™cepit Deus pura prece Therfore we also do offer sacrifice for the health of the Emperour but vnto our God his only but as God hath commaunded with pure prayer These wordes of Tertullian declare that the Christians had neither altar nor sacrifice other then prayer In Cyprians time also it was a table de cana Dom. Inter Dominicae mensae cormuines animalis homo non recipitur the naturall man is not receiued among the guestes of the Lords table And although of diuerse of the olde writers it was called an altar yet was it so called improperly euen as the communion was called of them a sacrifice for still it was a table and nothing like the popish altars which are of stone set against a wall for they stoode in the midst of the church so that the people came rounde about them as appeareth by Eusebius lib. 10. ca. 4. ad Paulin. Tyr. Episc. Absoluto templo sedibus excelsissimis ad honorem praesidentium subsellijs ordine collocatis ornato post omnia sancto sanctorum videlicet altari in medio constituto The temple being finished and garnished with high seates for the honour of the gouernours lower seates placed in order after all the holie of holies that is to saye the altar placed in the middest The like hath Augustine de verb. Dom. Ser. Ioan. Ser. 46. de eo quod scrip qui manduc Christus quotidie pascit Mensa ipsiut est illa in medio constituta Quid causae est ô audientes vt mensam videatis ad epulat non accedatis Christ feedeth daily that is his table which is placed in the middest What is the cause O you hearers that seeing the table ye came not to the feast Hee speaketh to the nouices or Catechumeni Gregorius Nazianzenus calleth it a table ad imperator Irasceus shewing what intercessors he would bring to pacifie the Princes displeasure as the death passion resurrection ascension of Christ. Aut etiam mensam hanc ad quaÌ„ communiter accedimus meae sabutis rypos quos eodem celebro ore quo nunc fungor legatione sacram dico ad superna ducentem mystagogiam or else euen this table vnto which wee come all together and the figures of my saluation which I do celebrate with the same mouth with which nowe I execute this Ambassage of intreatie I meane that holy mysterie leading to high things Beside the table in the saying of Greg marke what termes he vseth in describing the sacrament he calleth it the types or figures of his saluation and a holy and heauenly mystagogie Chrysost. most commonly calleth it a table for example Hom 45. in Ioan. A mensa hac prodit fons qui fluuios spirituales diffundit From this table commeth a spring which powreth forth spirituall riuers And in a great number of places he calleth it the holie table But nowe wee must heare Maister Hesk. citing Augustine lib. 9. Conf. Ca. 13. Illa imminente c. Shee the day of her death being as hand was not carefull to haue her bodie sumpâ—uously buried or to be spiced with spices or coueted to haue a solemne monument or to be buryed in her own country These things shee did not commaunde vs but onely shee desired that remembrance of her should be made as thine altare which shee without any dayes intermission had serued From whence she knewe the holie sacrifice to be dispensed by which the hand writing was put out that was against vs. In these wordes S. Augustine calleth it an altar reporting the superstitious request of his mother according to the errour of that time We make no question but that they did call the table an altar but we affirme they called it so vnproperly euen as they did call the sacrament a sacrifice and the minister a priest and the deacon a Leuite And as they called it an altare so there is fewe or none but called it a table also and so doth Augustine often times as de cultur agr Dom. Mensa sponsi tui panem habet integrum poculum sanctum The table of thy spouse hath whole bread and a holie cupp And againe Contra liter Petilian lib. 2. Chap. 47. Non dicunt ifta nisi qui de Mensa Domini vitaiâ— suâ—ruâ—nt sicut Petrus non iudicium sicut Iudas None say these things but such as receiue life at the Lordes table as Peter and not damnation as Iudas But Maister Heskins hath another place out of Saint Augustine wherein hee calleth it the altare of God Sermone ad infant Hoc quod videris
no. And why then may not the bodie of Christ be present and yet not corporally nor locally conteyned in pixe corporax cupp hand or mouth but after a spirituall manner as the holy Ghost is in the cuppe by his owne Iames his saying The last quarrell he picketh is to our ministers who sayeth he haue none authoritie to consecrate because they receiue it not from the catholike succession As for that authoritie which we haue receiued of God by the outwarde calling of the church wee minde not to exchange with the Popes triple crowne and much lesse with Maister Hesk. shauen crowne But to shape him an answere according to his lewde obiection seeing many are suffered to minister in our church which were made priestes after the Popish order of antichrist why should he denye any of them them at the least to haue power to consecrate according to the Popish diuinitie though the wordes be spoken in English so long as he hath intentionē consecrandi before he be of them disgraded and hath his indebeble character scraped out of his handes and fingers endes I aunswere he is not able to defend his opinion that thei cannot consecrate neither in Sorbona of Paris nor in the schoole of Louain To shutt vp this Chapter he flappeth vs in the mouth with S. Mathewes Masse testified by Abdias in the diuels name a disciple of the Apostles as hee saith but one that sawe Christ him selfe as M. Harding sayeth in verie deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more then Caunterburie tales And thinketh he that such fables will nowe bee credited except it bee of such as wilfully will be deceiued The fiue and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the manner of consecration vsed and practised by the disciples of the Apostles and the fathers of the primitiue and auncient church His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian but a late writer who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgie which Peter Paule and the Apostles vsed Although that which he rehearseth of Clemens his Liturgie be to small purpose litle or nothing differing from that hee had before of Iames yet Nicolaus Methon is too yong a witnesse to bee credited in this case For he was not of yeres of discretion to discerne that for the authenticall writing of Clemens which the more auncient church by a thousand yeres could not haue perfect knowledge to be his Neither doth the testimonie of Proclus help him any whit For as it is not to be doubted but S. Iames the other Apostles Clemens also appointed some forme of Liturgie for the churches by them planted instructed which is all that Proclus saith yet how proueth M. Hesk. that those which we haue were the same which were written by Iames Clemens or any other of lawful antiquitie when wee bring manifest demonstrations for the contrarie Againe where he saith that Peter vsed the Liturgie of Clemens he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which sayth that Peter vsed a Liturgie of his own cōsisting of three praiers only The next witnesse should be Dionysius falsly surnamed Areopagita but that he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstantiation carnal presēce priuate Masse or sole cōmunion therefore vnder pretence of his obscuritie he dare cite neuer a sentence out of him Then follow the Liturgies vnder the names of Basil Chrysost. verie litle in words nothing at al in matter differing from that former Liturgie ascribed to S. Iames which because M. Hesk. knoweth we cannot receiue as the lawful writings of Basil Chrysost. he would vnderprop them by the authoritie of Proclus B. of Constantinople as he did S. Clem. S. Iames masse euen now The reason alledged by Proclus will cleane ouerturne his ground worke proue that none of these Liturgies were writen by thē to whom they be ascribed For Proclus sayeth that Basil and Chrysostom made the auncient Liturgies receiued from the Apostles shorter cutting many things away frō them because they were too long for the peoples colde deuotion to abide First this is a colde reason to alter the tradition of the Apostles so many yeres continued in the church for want of the peoples deuotion But be it that they followed this reason then doth it followe moste manifestly that this Liturgie which is ascribed to S. Iames is none of his because it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But if M. Hesk. will defende that of S. Iames then hee must needes refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it therfore none abridgements of it After these Liturgies hee addeth the testimonie of the sixt counsell of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretike wherein it is reported the S. Iames Basil Chrysostome ministred in their Liturgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water But this proueth not that these Liturgies which we haue are the same that were set forth by those fathers as for the water they striue not for it but for wine to be vsed not water onely Finally where the fathers of that counsell call the celebration of the communion an oblation and an vnbloudie sacrifice they speake in the same sence that the elder fathers vse the same termes otherwise that counsell being an hundreth yeres without the compasse of the challenge hath no place but in the lower house among the Burgesses whose speaches may be hearde but they haue none authoritie to determine in this cause by M. Heskins order according to the challenge Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latine church as though Clemens if he were bishop of Rome and wrote a Liturgie as he affirmeth before that of his making might not serue the Latine church But Ambrose is cited lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca. 5. Vis scire c. Wouldest thou knowe that the sacrament is consecrated with heauenly wordes Marke what the wordes be The Priest sayth Make vnto vs faith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ which the day before he suffred tooke bread in his holie hands looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thanks blessed it brake it being broken gaue it to his Apostles and disciples saying Take ye eat ye all of this for this is my bodie which shal be broken for many Likewise also he tooke the cupp after he had supped the day before he suffered looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thankes he blessed it deliuered it to his Apostles disciples saying Take ye and drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud M. Hesk. passeth ouer that the oblation of the church is the figure of the body bloud of Christ for feare he should be espied taken with such an assertion he flyeth in all the haste to other words of
beatam noctem c. Hee calleth againe to memorie that holye and by all meanes blessed night in which hee both made an ende of the figuratiue passeouer and shewed the true paterne of the figure and also opened the gates of the wholesome sacrament and gaue not onely to the eleuen Apostles but also to Iudas the traytour his moste precious bodie and bloud To this I aunswere as before that hee calleth the sacrament which hee gaue the precious bodie and bloude of Christe not that hee meant that the bread and wine in the sacrament are turned into the bodie and bloude of Christe and so giuen to good and badd but that the signes beare the names of the thinges signifyed as shall moste plainly appeare by the woordes of Theodoret him selfe in his firste dialogue called Incommutabilis Orthodoxus Scis quòd Deus suum corpus appellauit panem Eranistes Scio. Orthodoxus Porro etiam alibi carnem tritieum nominauit Eran. Hoc etiam scio Audiui enim eum dicentem venit hora vt glorificetur filiut hominis Et nisi granum tritici quod cecidit in terram mortuum fuerit solum manet sin autem mortuums fuerit fert multum fructum Orth. In mysteriorum autem traditione corpus panem appellauit id quod in calito infusum commixtum est sanguinem Eran. Itae nominauit Orth. Atqui quod est secundùm naturam corpus corpus iure vocabitur itidem sanguis Eran. In confesio est Orth. Seruator ceriè noster nomina commutauit corpori quidem id quod erat symboli signi nomen imposuit symbolo autem quod erat corpuris Ita cùm se vitem nominasset sanguinem id quod erat symbolum appellauit Eran. Hoc quidem verè dixist◠Vellem autem scire causam mutationis-nominum Orth. Manifestum est institutum ijs qui sunt diuinis mysterijs initiati Volebat enim eot qui sunt Diuinorum mysteriorum participes non attendere naturam eorum quae videntur sed propter nominum permutationem mutationi quę fit ex gratia credere Qui enim quod natura est corpus triticum panem appellauit vitem se rursus nominauit is symbola quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens Eran. Et mysticè mystica dicta sunt apertè declarata quae non sunt nota omnibus Orth. Quoniam ergo in confesso est Patriarcham corpus Domini vestem indumentum nominasse ad dicendum autem de Diuinis mysterijs ingressi sumus dic per veritatem cuius symbolum figuram esse existimas alimentum sanstissimum Diuinitatis ne Domini Christi an corporis sanguinis Eran. Clarum quod illorum quorum appellationem susceperunt Orth. Corporis sanguinis dicis Eran. Ita dico Orth. Vi decet amicum veritatis dixisti Etenim Dominus cum accepisset symbolum aut signum non dixit Hoc est Deitas mea sed hoc est corpus meum Et rursus hic est sanguis meus Et alibi Panis autem quem ego dabo caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita Eran. Vera sunt haec Sunt enim diuina eloquia Orth. Si ergo vera corpus vtique habuit Dominus In English thus Orthodoxus Knowest thou that God called his body breade Eranistes I knowe it Orth. Moreouer in in one place he called his flesh wheate Eran. This also I knowe For I haue heard him saying The houre is come that the sonne of man shall be glorified And except the graine of wheate which is fallen into the earth do dye it remaineth alone but if it dye it bringeth forth much fruit Ortho. And in the deliuerie of the mysteries he called breade his body and that which is powred in the cup and mingled his bloud Eranistes He called it so in deede Orthodoxus Why then that which is a naturall body shall of right be called a body and likewise bloud Eranistes That is confessed Orthodoxus Certainely our Sauiour chaunged the names and gaue that name to his body which was the name of the token or signe and to the token that which was the name of his body So when he called him selfe a vine hee called his body that which was the token thereof Eranistes This thou hast saide truely But I would knowe the cause of the chaunge of the names Orthodoxus The purpose is manifest to them that are made partakers of the Diuine mysteries For hee would haue them which are partakers of the Diuine mysteries not to regard the nature of those things that are seene but in respect of the chaunging of the names to giue credite to that chaunge which is by grace For hee which called his naturall body wheate and breade and named him selfe againe a vine euen hee hath honoured the tokens that are seene with the name of his body and bloud not chaunging their nature but adding grace vnto the nature Eranistes Those mysticall things are both vttered mystically and those things are openly declared which are not knowen to all men Orthodoxus Therefore seeing it is confessed that the Patriarch called the Lordes body a vesture and a garment and we are entred to speake of the Diuine mysteries tell truely whereof doest thou thanke this most holy foode to be a token and figure of the Godhead of our Lorde Christe or of his body and bloud Eranistes It is cleare to be of them whose names they haue receiued Orthodoxus Thou saiest of his body and bloud Eranistes So I say Orthodoxus Thou hast saide as becommeth a louer of the trueth For when our Lord had taken the token or signe he saide not This is my Godhead but this is my body And againe This is my bloud and in an other place The breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Eranistes Those things are true For they are the word of god Orthodoxus Then if they be true our Lord had a body This discourse of Theodoret is so plaine as I neede to adde no exposition thereof to declare what his iudgement was As for the authoritie of Anselmus which hee adioyneth there is no more reason why we should admit it then why Maister Heskins will not receiue the authoritie of Cranmer which was Archbishop of Canterburie as well as Anselmus Hee anueth also a saying of Oecumenius but both bicause he is a late writer and his wordes in a manner are the same that he alledged out of Theodoret of whom it seemeth that Oecumenius borrowed them I omit them as already aunswered in aunswere to Theodoret. The three and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text of S. Paule which is Let euery man examine him selfe and so let him eate In this Chapter Maister Heskins promiseth to teach men howe to examine them selues that they may receiue worthily And two things he requireth
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
now by the papistes cannot bee but extraordinarie and yet lawfull as hauinge authoritie of God and approbation of Gods Churche mooued with chariti◠to call men out of the blindnes of Idolatrie into the light of the Gospell This I saye as if he had not bin called thither to preach by the Church of God which was in persecution in those places which is an ordinarie a most lawfull calling The seconde fault he findeth is of their preaching in the woodes and fieldes which hath not bene vsed in a Christian countrie but in time of warre As though he hath not reade that in Affrica when the Arrians which are as good Christians as the papists persecuted the true Catholikes and draue them out of the cities they were constrained to meete in such places as they could in woods or fieldes or desert corners That there were sectes amonge them it was to be lamented and yet not to bee marueiled for there muste bee euen heresies amonge you sayeth the Apostle that they which are tryed may be made manifest 1. Corinth 11. verse 19. That the feast of the Assumption was chosen wherein they began the spoile I hope it was of no hatred to the Virgin Mary whom they honour with such honour as is due to her and called her blessed because God hath chosen her to be a mother of Christ although they allow not the new cōception of Christs body vnder forme of bread by the popish priests compared in dignitie by papistes vnto the blessed Virgine as I remember in fiue pointes M. Sander is angry that the newe preachers hate that feast of the Assumption of Mary yet keepe holy the day of the death of S. Paule and S. Thomas They hate it because of the popishe fable of the Assumption of the body of the virgin liuing which yet M. Sander is ashamed of and calleth it the daye of her death The other feastes which they keepe they keepe not in the honor of men but to the honour of God they vse the dayes in which the people is accustomed to be assembled as things indifferent which except it be in cases of offence geuing may well be vsed The watche worde giuen by a boye who striking the Image saide Marye thou must come downe is a vaine matter and yet much more probably to bee defended then the prayers of the Idolaters made to that deafe Idole Blessed Lady helpe me c. Pater noster qui es in coelis c. After the watche worde followed the spoyle of all Idoles and monuments of Idolatrie the magistrates forbidding in vaine I saide before the disordered doing of priuate men cannot bee defended although where M.S. chargeth them with stealinge and caryinge away I am perswaded he slaundereth them as men of as good credit as he do testifie except some pilfering theeues thrust in amongst them who as the report goeth being apprehended were iustly punished The maner of their vtter defacing of al tables and all that belonged to them whiche Master Sander so muche misliked if it had not wāted lawful authoritie had been verie commendable yea euen the pissing vpon the foule Idoll of the altar might haue bene defended by the example of Iehu which turned the temple of Baall into a lakes if it had bene done by the commandement of a zelous Magistrate For M.S. most impudently doth bely vs when he saith that by our doctrine their Masse cake is a mysticall figure of Christes bodye when it is rather a foule stinking and abhominable Idoll If any Library was destroied by them with the bibles doctors works maps of countries it was very euil barbarously done of them yet I am sure they burned no booke of holy scriptures knowing them to be such as the papists doe not by tumult of a few ignoraunt persons but by consultation deliberation of the wisest of them knowing them to be the holy scriptures wilfully defacing them not more with flames of fire then vilainous despightful words It is wel known that D. Cole the papist being visitor in Cambridge when a Bible was brought to him to be defaced called it bible bable They defaced the Friers kitchin stuffe spoyled and caried away their vitailes stuffe it was more then may be defended I thinke more then was true and especially that they shoulde bring strumpets into the Abbeyes to prouoke the yong Monkes and Fryers to lust which was needlesse for their chastitie is well inough knowne But lest the fault should be laid vpon a disordered multitude without a head M.S. saith they had one Hermanus a preacher to their captaine which had bin a theefe and had lost one of his eares if his report be true he was like to be captaine of such a band As for the praier of the Nuns that stopped his mouth that he was able to say no more to them let them beleeue it that thinke papistes cannot lye There might be cause why Hermanus would geue ouer his perswasions when hee sawe them obstinate though his mouth were not stopped with their prayer To conclude although the defacing and destroying of Idolatrie be good yet may it not be attempted without auctoritie and order vnder pretence of zeale and therefore this fact of the lowe countrie men is not by anye wise man defended howsoeuer their zeale may be praised or the worke of god in their inconsiderate doings may be considered THE II. CHAP. The state of the question concerninge the adoration of holy Images where also a reason is giuen of the order which is taken in the booke following In this chapter hee mooueth foure questions 1. whether Images may be made 2. whether any Images may bee worshipped 3. whether it bee expedient that anie shoulde be worshipped 4 with what kinde of worship Images may be worshipped To the first he aunswereth that Images may be made To the seconde that these Images onely may be worshipped in respect of Christian religion which bring vs in minde either that there is a God or that there are three persons of the Trinitie or which represent Christ or his holy Angels and Saints by which he alloweth the making and worshippinge of the Images of god or of the trinity beside the images of Christ men and Angels To the third he answereth that it is expedient that Images should be worshipped To the fourth he defendeth it for more probable that the same degree of honor is not due to the Image of Christ of our Lady or of other saintes which is due to Christ our Lady other saintes themselues but there is a certaine proper honour due to holy Images which may be called a worship or honour due to a good remembraunce or monument These be his owne wordes by which hee sheweth himselfe contrary to other Papistes that defende that Images are to be worshipped with the same honour that is due to the thinges whereof they are Images As that the Image of God is to be worshipped euen with
to thy selfe any grauen image for the making of your Popishe image and the day is yours The 7. the tribes of Ruben and Gad and the halfe tribe of Manasses made an image of an altar Ios. 22. Nay they made an altar in deed for a memoriall yet their facte was not cōmēdable though it was in some sort excusable The 8. God commanded two cherubims to be made ouer the mercie seate Exod. 25. those were grauen Angels saith M. Sander of the highest degree in heauen saue one O vaine presumptuous hypocrite that wil take vpon him to knowe the degrees of Angels which the scripture hath neuer reuealed To this I aunswere as to the brasen serpent shewe the worde of God dispensing with the generall lawe for any images in religion The rending of the vaile a sunder sheweth vs not the images of Cherubims as on the Arke he saith much lesse other newe Images which were neuer there but the glorie of Christ with vncouered face while we our selues are transformed into the same image 2. Cor. 3. ver 18. The 9. the temple was an image of Christes body therefore the Iewes had an image of Christ openly set vp before their eyes The temple was a figure of Christes bodie so was euerie sacrifice that was offered but no image The 10. the Temple was honoured by the Iewes yea Daniel prayed toward Ierusalem when the Temple was destroied you might as wel say they honored Ierusalem No doubt but the temple was reuerently esteemed of the godly as a place erected by Gods commandement which seeing images doe lacke there passeth no consequence from the honouring of the Temple to the honouring of images The 11. the law had a shadow of good things to come not the self image of things He. 10. therfore if the dumb shadowes of the lawe were to be worshipped much more the expressed image of his bodie of those who will perfourme that in the new Testament which was prefigured in the lawe Who can beare these blasphemies Did the shadowes of the lawe prefigure the worshipping of images or our redemption by Christe Are your dombe stockes and stones that selfe image or patterne of those shadowes which the Apostle speaketh of or was Christe himselfe O brasen forehead and blasphemous mouth The 12. Gods honour is giuen to the fleshe of Christ in respect of the vnitie in person with the Godhead therefore the image may be honoured in an other respect But euerie respect thou blundering idolater cannot make a cause of honour but onely the vnitie in person which seeing it is not in thy blockes with the paterne thine argument proueth nothing The 13. the image of Caesar in his coyne proueth that it may be giuen to Cęsar so doth euerie image leade vs to that truth whereof it is an image No Maister Sander the image of Caesar on his coyne proueth that the Iewes were subiect to Caesar and therefore tribute was due vnto him So your argument hath no deduction from Caesars image The 14. the signe of the crosse is to be worshipped for Amelech was ouerthrowen by that signe which Moses made when he prayed with his handes lifted vp and spred abroade Exod. 17. Therefore we may and must honour the signe of the crosse in what matter or stuffe so euer it be made Vanitie of vanities and nothing but vanitie where is there any one title in that Chapter of the signe of a crosse yea or of the spreading of his handes abroade whiche shoulde make a crosse with his lifting vppe The 15. the signe of Thau that is to say of the crosse was marked in the forehead of suche as hated idolatrie Ezech. 9. and they were not slaine corporally no more shall they be slaine euerlastingly which now imbrace it An easie way to escape euerlasting death But where finde you that the signe of Thau was the signe of the crosse Or that the print of the letter Thau was set on their forheades For this worde Thau is as much to say as a marke or signe and not a speciall figure or marke although the vulgar translation doeth not translate it but setteth it in the Hebrue worde as he found it The 16. the signe of the sonne of man shall appeare at the day of iudgement Mat. 24. which is the signe of the crosse Howe proue you that Maister Sander Or if you could proue it what is that to worshipping of images ▪ You say it shal be to the confusion of them which haue throwen downe that signe but you onely say it and then we force not Yea say you a thousand times what say I a thousand Euerlastingly accursed is he that hateth or destroyeth any one iote belonging to Christ be it neuer so farre distant from his holy flesh and person Then how many times accursed are they that haue destroyed so many bibles in which was not ten thousand iots belonging to Christ but his whole doctrine perfectly conteined The 17. the people Act. 5. coueted to lie onely within the compasse of S. Peters shadowe the woman desired to touche but the hemme of Christes garment Why because any thing of his is worthie of estimation Verily the image of Christ is somewhat of his or else it were not his image No verily M. San. the image of Christ is nothing of his truly but falsely nothing to his honour but to his dishonor The enimies of Christ are none of his yet we say these be his enimies But you say if a man had that faith as to beleeue that if he might touche or onely see his image he should be safe I see no reason why that faith may not make him safe O blinde beast or rather blocke that seest no reason why that faith which was neuer heard out of Gods worde should not saue a man But the heretikes you say tye all thinges to his person and nothing to his other instrumentes The word of God teacheth vs to tie al things to Christ and to acknowledge none other instrumentes then he hath prouided and appointed for vs For images be the instruments of the Diuel and not of Christe to worke by The last All that euer Isai Cap. 2. Ieremie Cap. 50. Ezechiel Cap. 30. Micheas Cap. 1. Sophonias Cap. 2. Zacharie Cap. 13. or King Dauid In Psal. 9. say of the destruction of Idols in the time of grace is vterly void of none effect if it be not lawful to worship or adore images Do you not maruel what is the reason of this monstrous assertion Verily euen as monstrous a lie that the whole Church of Christ in all Temples Chappels always especially since the time of Constantine the great hath set vp and vsed reuerently the Images of Christ and of his Saints What answere shall I make to this Let him haue the whetstone as big as a mountaine THE XIII OR XII CHAP. That the signe of the healthfull crosse was honoured in the first sixe hundred yeares and of those two grosse ignoraunces
of the nayle Beside we see a great difference betweene the reuerent offering of a thing and the honouring or worshipping thereof which yet Master Sander euery where confoundeth But Ambrose speaketh further in the person of the Iewes Ecce clauus in honore est Beholde euen the nayle is in estimation and that which we knocked in to death is a remedy of health and with a certaine inuisible power tormenteth the deuils Kinges are bowed to the iron of his feete Here saith Master Sander we haue the adoration of iron Is this like that Ambrose who before condemned the adoration of the wood for an heathnish error doeth now commende the bowinge to iron why Master Sander doe you not confesse that the Iewes spake this and not Ambrose or Ambrose spake this in the person of the Iewes And who knoweth not in such fictions of persons speaking the Orator must frame his talke as they whome he supposeth to speake are like to say The Iewes then in sport do say kings bow down to a piece of iron meaning to the Emperour in whose creste this iron nayle was is it then the iudgement of Ambrose to allow the bowing to yron in any respect O vaine friuolous argumentes of the Papistes that must borrowe their authority of the complaint of the perfidious Iewes But you may knowe what honour was done to the yron that as the one nayle was placed in an honourable place namely in the Emperours Diademe so an other was placed in his horse mouth for so saith Ambrose De vno clauo frenos fieri precepis she commaunded his bridle to be made of one nayle This was no great honouring of that holy yron to put it to bee champed and slaboured in an horse mouth although Ambrose make a misterie of it And the thirde nayle other writers say was cast into the Sea to staye a tempest All three being thus bestowed by auncient testimonie the Papists haue fourteene more in diuers places of Fraunce Italy Germany beside the fifteenth that was shewed at Paules crosse by maister Iewell since the Queenes reigne But Ruffinus calleth it blessed And Cyrillus healthfull and precious because it leadeth vs to the memory of Christs death So woulde an image of Iudas Iscarioth doe It was the best reason those auncient writers had to defende that supersticious estimation which they had of the signe of the crosse As for the report of Paulinus that the same crosse had a Church and a secreate place made at Ierusalem where it might be honourably reserued which the Bishop brought forth at Easter to be worshipped of the people if it be true yet proueth it not the worshiping of images for the crosse was no image But that it is not like that any church was erected to the Crosse Saint Augustine sheweth that it was counted sacriledge in his time to make a Church vnto any creature Contra. Maximin lib. 1. titu 11. Nonne si Templum alicui saÌ„cto angelo excelentissimo de signis lapidibus faceremus anathematizaremur a veritate Christi ab ecclesia dei quoniam creaturae exhiberemus eam seruitutem quae vni tantum debâ—â—â—r deo si ergo sacrilegi essemus faciendo templum cuicunque creaturae quomodo non est Deus verus cui non templum facimus sed nos ipsi templum sumus If we made a temple vnto any holy and most excellent Angel of woode and stones shoulde we not be accursed from the trueth of Christ and from the Church of God because we shoulde giue that seruice to a creature which is due onely to God If therefore wee shoulde be sacrilegious in making a temple to any creature whatsoeuer how is not he a true God to whom we make no temple but we our selues are his temple Except M. Sander will say the crosse was no creature wee must say with Augustine it ought to haue no temple What superstition and Idolatrie hath done is not the question but what should be done and what is wel done is all the controuersie The feastes of the inuention of the crosse which hee maketh of 1200. yeares olde and the exaltation of nine hundreth beside that the antiquitie of the inuenting is not proued yet argue not any worshippe of the crosse more then the feastes of the Apostles and martirs which were kept onely in remembrance of them and not to adore or worship them That maister Iewell graunteth the signe of the crosse to haue beene had in great regard among the Christians what helpeth it your cause seeing hee alloweth not the superstitious abuse thereof But you say if it be a thing vsed in the whole primitiue Church it must not be called a supersticious abuse for maister Iewel hath submitted himselfe to the first sixe hundreth yeares A man may easely perceiue with what coÌ„science maister Sander handeleth this cause that so impudeÌ„tly affirmeth so manifest an vntruth For who euer heard maister Iewell submit himselfe to the first sixe hundreth yeares in all matters of controuersie Where did he euer take vpon him to discharge the first sixe hundreth yeares of all error and supersticion Although for certeine questioÌ„s vttered in his sermon he made challeng of 600. yeares yet did he neuer allowe of all thinges that were done or taught in the church for 600. years But I pray you let vs see how substancially M. Sander proueth the signe of the crosse to haue ben in estimation with the whole primitiue church His first authour is Tertulian almost 200. yeares from christ And from him he desceÌ„deth to Cyprian Basill Augustine Chrisostome c. Tertulian sheweth only the sining of mens foreheades therewith whethersoeuer they went The later age brought in that signe into baptisme confirmation the Lords supper and almost in to euery ceremony So superstition crepeth like a ringworme at the first as a tollerable indifferent matter then as a holye thing nexte as a necessarie thing and last of all into open and grosse Idolatrie as in the times following those six hundreth years But before all those whom M. Sander nameth Irenaeus lib. 1. testifieth that the ValeÌ„tiniane heretiks brought the signe of the crosse in great estimation calling it Oron confirmatiuam crucem the limit and terme of all things the confirming crosse abusing euen the same testimonies of scripture for the proofe thereof which the Papists doe and namely maister Sander in this Chapter Paulum autem apostolum ipsum reminisci huius crucis dicunt Verbum crucis c. Mihi autem non eueniat gloriari nisi in cruce Christi And they say that euen Paule the Apostle himselfe doth remember this crosse The worde of the crosse c. GOD forbid that I should boast in any thing but in the crosse of christ Seeing therefore so auncient a writer as Ireneus testifieth that the first estimation thereof came from so horrible heritikes howsoeuer the later ages haue abused it it cannot be proued a thing vsed in the whole primitiue church that
we are vtterly discharged of Images this mans freedome is to binde vs to the seruice of Images O blasphemous absurde doctrine Againe howe falsely doeth he affirme that the godly Iewes knewe not whereunto their signes were referred as though Messias was not preached to them by those signes Likewise as vntruely he saith that the signes of the Gentiles ended in the onely honour of the creature and not of God when they did neuer honour any creature but their finall ende was thereby to honour God and not a creature Againe what beastly doctrine is this that he affirmeth that the signes of the Iewes are not vtterly abolished but changed into the sacraments directly instituted by Christ but also into signes made with faithfull mens handes as Altars vestments Chalices lightes and images whereby he maketh Christian liberty but a chaunge from one bondage into an other and yet worse then that of the Iewes because they were subiect to the yoke of God wee must be vnder the yoke of mens institutions and traditions But hee procedeth and will proue that images may be profitably and freely worshipped and that in practise it was so done within the first sixe hundreth yeares by the testimony of Chrisostome Paulinus and Gregorie Chrisostome is alledged in his Liturgie where it is said that the priest turning to the image of Christ betweene the two doores bowing his heade saith a prayer But because this liturgie is proued to be false counterfet by maister Iewell for that therein is conteined a prayer for Pope Nicholas which lyued not 500. yeares after Chrisostome and for the Emperour Alexius which liued neere 700. yeares after Chrisostome maister Sander taketh vppon him the defense of it to bee written by Chrisostome which was written seuen hundreth yeares after his death His first reason is that it beareth his name which is a good reason to proue all forgeries to bee true writings Secondly other Grecians which haue written since that time do make mention of it as Proclus Cabaselas Methenencis and M. Ephesius But of these some onely make mention that Chrisostome did write a liturgie they doe not iustifie that this which is nowe seene is that the other being of late dayes are not to bee credited Thirdly he saith that Greeke church doth allow it for Chrisostomes as that latine doth those Psalmes Quicunque vult to be written by Athanasius and Te deum by Ambrose and Augustine And yet the best learned in these dayes cannot be perswaded of those authors although the Psalmes be good and Godly Fourthly hee woulde faine disproue M. Iewells reason touching those prayers for Pope Nicolas and the Emperour Alexius saying that in all publike seruice formes of prayers there are certeine cōmon places which must be left voide for names according to the times and persons But these places are not left voide but filled with the names of the princes and prelats of that time in which it was first written as the publike seruice in king Henries dayes in king Edwardes time yea prayers made in Queene Maries time and in Queene Elizabeths time do proue and shewe in what time they were first made But in some copyes saith he the places are left voide Hee must proue those copies to be auncienter then the time of Alexius or else they helpe not his cause But seeing there is no copie that hath any other names but these it is manifest that this liturgie was first composed in the dayes of the Emperour Alexius and Pope Nicholas And where as maister Sander vseth many wordes and reasons to proue that this Pope Nicholas was not Bishoppe of Rome as maister Iewell saith but Patriarch of Constantinople in the reigne of Alexius I yeelde vnto him for thereby it is more certeine that this liturgie was made in the time of Alexius then if it had beene Nicholas of Rome which was neere 200. yeares before Alexius Last of all where as Claudius de Sanctis that brauling Sorbonist woulde proue by conferring it with diuerse places taken out of Chrisostomes owne works the saide liturgie to be his hee hath laboured in vaine For as it may be graunted that diuerse things in this liturgie are taken out of that which perhaps Chrisostome did write yet it followeth not that the whole forme thereof is his but that the same was corrupted and altered with additions and detractions in the dayes of Alexius and especially in this matter of the images which I proue by two reasons First among so many counterfet and falsified authorities as were alledged out of old writers in the idolatours counsell of Nice the second for the vse and worship of images this liturgie was neuer alledged though other testimony of Chrisostome was cited which could not haue beene omitted seeing nothing is so notorius as the publike seruice of the Church Whereby it is manifest that the liturgie which went vnder the name of Chrisostome in that time had in it no mention of images or the worshipping of them My seconde reason is that Chrisostome himselfe in his owne vndoubted writings coumpteth the art of painting to be altogether superfluous and such as might well be spared out of the worlde which he would not haue done if he had appointed in the publike seruice of the Church the vse of an image as necessarie or profitable For thus he writeth in Math Hom. 50. Neque pingendi ariem aut nunimulariam artes ego nominarim quippe cum nihil conserant necessariarum rerum quibus vita nostra continetur Neither would I call the art of painting or of exchaunging monyes by the name of artes seeing that they yeelde nothing off those necessarye thinges in whiche our life is conteyned Nowe as concerning the image of S. Martine painted in the Baptistery by Seuerus and allowed by Paulinus bishop of Nola I haue aunswered before that his errour proueth not Gods institution But whereas he citeth his verse to proue the worshipping of images he doth him wronge Martinum veneranda viri testatur imago The reuerende image of the man doth shew forth Martin for pocres haue euer had licence of all figures in their verses wherefore he doth none otherwise call the image reuerende or to be reuerenced then Virgill calleth the image of his father Anchises troubled Admonet in somnis turbida terret imago Meaning not that the image but that Anchises was troubled so doth Paulinus meane that S. Martine and not his image was to be reuerenced Finally where as maister Iewell saith that Gregorie speaketh not one worde of the adoration of images maister Sander obiecteth this saying lib. 7. Ep. 53. Non quasi ante diuinitatem ante illam imaginem prosternimur whiche he englisheth thus we ly prostrate before the image not as before god And then he triumpheth like a crow in a gutter saying is not lying flat downe before an image one word spoken of adoration of images yea it is cleere that it was the vse in Saint Gregories time to lye prostrate
or to fall downe before holy images What say you maister Sander will you abide by it Haue you either forgotten the grammer you taught vs before of ioyning the aduerbe with the verbe or thinke you that we haue learned so little either grammer or logike that wee cannot see a difference betweene a proposition affirmatiue and negatiue If a boy should construe Gregories latine as you haue englished it hee were worthie of a dosen strips though he had gon to grāmer schoole but two or three yeres Non quasi ante diuinitatē ante illam imaginē prosternimur We fall not downe before that image as before the diuinitie thus would I english it conster it if it were for my life And that which you make affirmatiue I must make negatiue for I haue learned fiue or sixe twentie yeare agoe that it is a negatiue proposition when the principall Verbe is denyed But perhaps you will gather that though he fell not downe before an image as before God yet he fell downe before it as before an image Howe certeine this collection is you may see by an hundreth examples if you list to consider them If I saye Non quasi ante diuinitatem ante diabolum prosternimur woulde you translate it we fall downe before the deuill but not as before God or rather thus we fal not down before the diuell as we do before God. Non quasi panem lapides commedimus would you turne it thus we eate stones but not as bread or rather we eate not stones as we eate breade Non quasi ante regem ante mendicum prosternimur woulde you translate it thus we fall downe before a begger but not as before a king or else wee fall not downe before a begger as before a king Such examples might bee multiplied infinitely by which you may see what pith there is in maister Sanders argument to proue that Saint Gregory lay prostrate before an image where as contrariwise he denyeth it and maketh such prostration and falling downe with affection of religion to be dewe onely to GOD euen as the Angell infinitly more excellent then all the images that euer were made refusing that honour offered to him by Saint Iohn willed him to giue it to god 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fall downe to god Apoc. 22.9 THE XV. or XIIII CHAP. That the seuenth general councell was a true councell and ought to be obeyed and Maister Iewels slaunders be aunswered concerning the same Where also it is briefly shewed that miracles might and haue bene wrought by holy images Also Maister Iewels vaine arguments against the seuenth generall councell and Irene the Empresse that Maister Iewell committeth three faultes about fiue Latine words that the shadowe of Peter was accounted of vertue and power to heale men That they were and are in possession of honouring images who defended the honouring of them The cause why the seuenth generall councell was called The seuenth generall councell is conferred with the first What Bishops recanted in the seuenth councell The Bishop of Salisburie reiecting the authoritie of this Councell of Nice the second saith it was holden wel neere eight hundreth yeares after Christe and therefore was out of the compasse of those sixe hundred yeares of which he made his challenge Maister Sander answereth it was seuen hundreth yeares before Maister Iewell as though the controuersie were of antiquitie of the men and not of the doctrine The Bishop saide it would require a long treatise to open the whole follie and fondnesse of that Councell M. Sander answereth it is more like that M. Iewell is a fond foole then 350. Bishops of such wit vertue and learning as though their multitude could proue their wit vertue and learning when their words and deeds plainly declare their follie ignorance and vngodlinesse The B. saide Irene the Empresse which gathered this Councell was a wicked woman M. Sander citing diuers writers to and fro in the end concludeth that by repentance she was made a good woman and her zeale towards holy images did make her the better so he bringeth that for an argument which is the matter in controuersie The Bishop said She was the kings daughter of Tartaria an Heathen borne So was Constantine the great saith M. Sander yet was she Christened before she procured that Councell whereas hee doubteth whether Maister Iewell thinke that Constantine was baptized when hee gathered and confirmed the first Councell of Nice The Bishop doth not for that cause onely reiect the second Councel at Nice bicause Irene was an Heathen borne but thereby sheweth that she sauoured of Gentilitie in being earnest to set forward idolatrie And whereas Maister Sander doubteth whether Maister Iewell thinke Constantine were baptized before he gathered the Councel he neede not at al seeing Eusebius which knewe Constantine very well affirmeth that he was not baptized but euen imediatly before his death Contrarie to that fond fable which among other is auouched by Pope Adrian in this Councell that Constantine was cured of a leapresie baptized by Siluester Bishop of Rome And whereas he thinketh it a daungerous matter to take the authorizing of that Councel from Siluester and to ascribe it to one that was not baptized there is no perill at all in it for Constantine did then beleeue in Christ and was certainly determined to be baptized in Iordan if he had not bene preuented by death Yea although hee had beene an Heathen man seeing he gaue no sentence but assented to the sentence of the Bishoppes it had beene none inconuenience at all The Bishop saide She caused that Councell to be summoned in despight of the Councell of Constantinople that had decreed against images Maister Sander although he confesse there was such a Councell yet bicause the whole processe of the actes thereof is not extant being defaced by the idolaters he quarelleth that it was an obscure Councell and asketh by what Emperour it was gathered as though it were not testified that it was gathered by Leo the third but it lacked saith he the Bishop of Romes authoritie and therefore was no general Councell so did the Chalcedonense and the sixt of Constantinople in some partes and yet it went forward with the decree which had bene in vaine if the Romish Bishop had a negatiue voyce in all Councels The Bishop sayde She tooke her owne sonne Constantinus and pulled out his eyes The Councell is not therefore naught saith Maister Sander But she is thereby proued to bee a cruell woman which was the Bishops meaning The Bishop saith She did it onely bycause he would not consent to the idolatrous hauing of images Maister Sander denyeth this but proofe hee bringeth none sauing that hee sheweth there was an other cause why shee might doe it namely bicause hee deposed her of her gouernement wherein hee did well after the example of Asa which is commended in the scripture for that hee did put downe his mother Maachah from her estate bycause she
Iustinian which was almost 660. yeares after christ Cod. de summa trini◠lege 4. writing to Pope Ioannes Sanctitas vestra capu◠est omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum Your holines is heade of all holy churches I will not quarrell with him that he citeth the words otherwise then they are read in that Epist. by which it seemed he saw not the book himself but I answere that this epistle is a meere counterfet and forged euidence being not founde in the auncient coppies and therefore hath no glose of age vppon it as it is testified by Gregorius Haloander in a marginall note vppon the same Epistle No maruaile if a false title be defended with a forged euidence For if no men had admonished vs of that forgery yet the verie style vnlike Iustinians writing in other places argueth a later inuenter then either that Ioannes or Iustinian Likewise he citeth the saying of Eugenius not long before bishop of Carthage which called the Churche of Rome the head of all Churches and yet he reposed not all his confidence in the bishoppe of Romes aucthoritie but saide he woulde write to his brethren the other bishoppes that they might come to demonstrate the true faith against the Arrians especially to the bishop of the Church of Rome which is the head of all the Churches meaning the principall Churche Vict. lib. 2. 70 Thirdly hee citeth the words of the bishop of Patara intreatinge the Emperour Iustinian for Syluerius bishoppe of Rome whom he had banished There is not one king as Syluerius is Pope ouer the church of that whol world This bishoppe being 550. yeares after Christ and a suter also is not sufficient to make the Bishop of Rome so great a king And whereas Maister Sander sayeth that the Emperor yeelded to his saying repented willed him to be restored and therfore chargeth M. Iewel with impudency for alledging the example of Iustinian banishing Syluerius and Vigilius to proue that he had somewhat to doe in the churche of Rome affirming that hee might as well alledge the homicide and adultery of Dauid to prooue that hee had somewhat to doe with an other mans wife the trueth is M. Sanders forgeth a matter contrary to al histories which affirme that Syluerius dyed in banishment And how vnlike it is that Iustinianus repented of the banishinge of Syluerius vppon the words of the bishop of Patara in respect that he was Pope ouer the church of the whole worlde appeareth by this that he afterward banished Vigilius his next successor in the same sea The wordes of Liberatus whom M.S. citeth cap. 22. bee these Quem audiens imperator reuocari Roman◠Syluerium iussit c. Whom when the Emperour heard he commaunded that Syluerius shoulde be called againe to Rome and that iudgement should be made of these letters so that if it were prooued that they were written by him the bishop might remaine in any citie and if they were prooued to bee false he shoulde bee restored to his owne See. These wordes doe manifestly shew that Iustinian repented him not of banishing the Pope as a thing vnlawfull for him to doe but onely that whereas it was alledged in the Popes behalfe that the letters of treason were forged which he was charged to haue written to the Emperours enemies Iustinian was content that his cause might come to a newe iudgement and if he were found cleare to bee restored if not to continue in banishment To conclude the sayinges of Gregory bishop of Rome in defence of his owne dignitie are of small credit And yet they are a great deale more modest then the proude decrees of his successours For he challengeth the hearing of such controuersies only as arise in those dioces which haue no Metropolitane or Patriarche of their owne to resort vnto to determine them And againe I cannot tell what bishop is not subiect to the Apostolike See if any fault be found in them otherwise all the bishoppes are equall lib. 11. Ep. 58. lib. 7. Ep. 64. 70 The fame glorie and authoritie of the auncient church of Rome is a shame and dishonour to the present popish church of Rome Because it keepeth not nowe but hath altogether reiected the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles that Irenęus commended in his time libr. 3. Cap. 3. nor holdeth that rule or beleefe of the Apostles vndefyled which Ambrose praised in his time Ep. 81. 71 This land of Britaine receiued the faith of Christ as Gildas a Britaine a more auncient and certeine writer then Ado M. Sanders author in the time of the reigne of Tiberius 160. before Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome by the preaching of the Apostles and Euangelists as some write of Saint Paule some of Saint Simon of Cana some of Saint Philip some of Ioseph of Aramathia Neither did Eleutherius sende Fugatius and Damianus by him selfe or as of authoritie but being required by Lucius or Leuer Maure one of the little Kinges of some shiere of Britaine as Ninnius a Britaine doeth testifie For that Lucius was King of all Britaine it is proued false by all the Romaine histories which testifie that the Emperour was then soueraigne of Britaine vnder whome ruled certeine petie Kinges in some partes not throughly conquered 72 Beda an English Saxon more like to knowe matters of this lande then Prosper a forreyne writer affirmeth that the Britaine 's against the Pellagians heretiks desired ayde of the Bishops of Fraunce who by a Synod there gathered sent Germanus and Lupus two Bishops to confute the Pelagians without any sending to Rome or from Coelestinus Bishop of Rome lib. 1. Cap. 17. Likewise the seconde time at the request of the Clergie of Britaine Germanus returneth with Seuerus to roote out the heresie of the Pellagians 73 The zeale of Gregorie the first is to be commended that he sent Augustine to conuert the Saxons to the faith of Christe although the superstitions which hee brought in with the Christian faith cannot be defended The diligence of Augustin in teaching according to his knowledge deserueth praise yet can it not make him an Apostle because an Apostle hath his calling immediatly of God Gal. 1. If we report his pride and crueltie as wee finde in our histories written by Papistes let the worlde iudge whether we or they do him iniurie 74 From Vitellianus the Pope was Theodorus a Grecian sent to be Archebishop of Caunterburie rather to reteine the countrie vnder the vsurped authoritie of the Romish bishop then to instruct them in matters perteining to the faith For the Pope him selfe was afraide of him that beeing a Gręcian hee shoulde teache any thing contrarie to the Romishe religion Beda lib. 4. Cap. 1. 75 King Henrie the eight found his dominions subiect to the tyrannie of the Pope of Rome which vppon good ground and authoritie of the scriptures hee banished out of his realme what cause soeuer papistes do surmise or to speake plainly notwithstanding the iniurious and contumelious dealing of the Pope about
his deuorse from his first vnlawfull mariage gaue him occasion to enquire and finde out what weake foundation the vsurped power of the See of Rome was buylded vppon 76 King Henrie departed not out of the societie of the churche of Rome onely for the vices of the men thereof but for their false and Antichristian heresies which they obstinately mainteined and ioyned him selfe to the true auncient and vniuersall Church of Christe when hee departed out of that false newe sett vp schismaticall and particuler Synagogue of Rome as Saint Augustine went from the Manichees to the Catholicke church And as King Henrie the eyght knewe whence hee went so knewe hee also whither he went euen from Rome with seuen hilles to Ierusalem which is aboue and is the mother of vs all 77 Hee that goeth out of an hereticall church as King Henrie did must goe to the Catholike church of Christe as hee did without making any newe church or being without a church I knowe not the age of Maister Sander but if hee bee not much aboue fourtie yeares olde hee was borne and baptized as manye other Papistes were in that which hee calleth a newe church or no church which howe hee will aunswere let him and them aduise which holde it necessarie that a man must tarrie in that church in which hee is baptized 78 King Henrie the eight was not without a churche but in the church of Englande a member of the Catholike church of Christe neither did hee call him the supreme head of the church of Englande before that title was giuen him by the Popish Clergie in their submission after they were cast in the premunire Edw. Hall. 79 That hee receiued not fully the true doctrine of Christ as he banished the false vsurped power of the Pope is to bee imputed to the trayterous practises of his dissembling Clergie which although they durste not withstande him in mainteining the Popes authoritie yet they laboured all that they coulde to reteine the Popes doctrine in as many poyntes as they might hereof came the lawe of the sixe articles which mainteined the sacrifice of the Masse transubstantiation communion in one kynde and such other heresies Neuerthelesse the authoritie of Antichrist much Idolatrie superstition and false doctrine was abolished Iustification by faith in Christe was preached the scripture was read in the vulgar tongue which was a beginning of a reformation and returning vnto the true church of Christe and not a setting vp of a newe churche Except Maister Sander will saye that those Kinges of Iuda which refourmed some parte of religion and yet left the hill altares other abuses did set vp a newe church because they made not a perfect reformation Finally where he sayth that King Henrie adioyned himselfe to no companie of faithfull men in earth which had from Christes time liued after that profession of faith which he allowed proueth not that hee set vp a newe church For he ioyned to the Catholike church in so many pointes of true doctrine as hee acknowledged from which the Popish church was departed although he was not rightly instructed in all 80 The church of Englande in King Henries time was a true church although all the doctrine which was then mainteined by publique authoritie through the subtile practises of popish hypocrites was not true And the church of England at this daye is the same that it was then but nowe by publike authoritie embraceing all true doctrine which by the true members of the church in King Henries dayes was mainteined and withstoode by hypocrites or other not yet rightly instructed 81 The church vnto which King Henrie went and brought the realme when he departed from Rome was the same church which began at Ierusalem and so increased into all nations and continueth in the world for euer though not among all nations 82 King Henry went out of the Antichristian church of Rome into the Catholike church of Christe embracing some part of the doctrine therof therefore hee needed no reconciliation to the Romish church but a more perfect information of the church of Christ. 83 In King Edwardes time the reformation began and hindred in his fathers time was perfected and accomplished for all pointes of Christian doctrine neither was there any reconciliation vsed to the churche of Rome but the Church of Englande by publike authoritie perfectly vnyted to the Catholike Churche of Christe ioyning in profession of faith with the best refourmed Christian churches in the worlde 84 The abolishing of forrein power hindred not the ioyning in faith and doctrine with all the Churches of God that were without the realme of England The propitiatorie sacrifices of the Masse was in King Edwardes time abolished by publique authoritie out of the Church of England as it was in King Henries time abhorred of all true members of the Church that were then rightly instructed as much as the supremacie of the Pope 85 The power of being the sonnes of God the power of preaching and forgiuing of sinnes in the Church of Christe is no forreigne power neither was any such power euer excluded but the false and vsurped tyrannie of Antichrist of Rome 86 We beleeue and professe a Catholique or vniuersall Church of Christe whereof we are members and therefore we detest the hereticall schismaticall and particular Church of Rome 87 The Church of England vnder King Edward did professe her selfe to be a member of the most auncient Catholike and Apostolique Church of Christe which is the piller of trueth to bee iudged by the worde of GOD which is the trueth it selfe Iohn 17. being not so ignoraunt but that she could distinguish the worde of GOD from the Church of GOD as the lawe of GOD from the houshold of GOD which is gouerned by that lawe And not as Maister Sanders similitude is as the statutes of England differ from the men of England which make them but the Church maketh not the worde of God but contrariwise the word of God maketh the Church 88 It is not necessarie to shewe a companie of men in a peculiar place as Geneua or any such like for them that will ioyne them selues with the Catholike Church of all the world although it were easie to name diuers companies of men in seuerall places which continued in the true Church out of the Church of Rome both in Fraunce and Italie beside Bohemia which long before was returned out of the Popish Church into the Church of Christ and all the East Churches which neuer ioyned with the Church of Rome 89 The Churches of Zurich and Saxonie be members of the Catholique Church of Christe which is fifteene hundreth yeares olde and vpward although the same Churches were gathered and returned in those places within these three score yeares 90 There needed no embassages to goe to and fro to the Churches of God beyond the seas for reconciliation bicause there was no debate betweene the Church of England and them Although for conference and aduise