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
of meate and drinke but not of the same that we doe Which is directly contrarie to the meaning of the Apostle as it appeareth by many reasons whereof some I will set downe because this one text of scripture if it be rightly vnderstoode is sufficient to determine all the controuersies that are betweene vs and the Papistes concerning the sacramentes First therefore the argument of Saint Paule is of no force to conuince the Corinthians except he shewe that the fathers of the olde Testament had the same sacraments in substance that we haue and yet pleased not God by meanes of their wicked life no more shall we hauing the same sacramentes if we followe their wicked conuersation Secondly except he had meant to make the fathers equal vnto vs in the outwarde signes or sacramentes of Gods fauour he would rather haue taken his example of circumcision and the pascal lambe which all men knowe to haue beene their principal sacraments then of their baptisme and spiritual foode which in them was so obscure that except the spirite of God had by him reuealed it vnto vs it had beene very harde for vs to haue gathered Thirdly when he saith the fathers were all baptised there is no doubt but that he meaneth that they all receiued the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ for there were no reason why they should receiue the one sacrament rather then the other Fourthly seeing the Apostle saith expressely they did eate the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke and after doth precisely affirme that they dranke of the same rocke which was Christe it is moste euident that their spiritual meate was our spiritual meate namely the bodie of Christ and their spiritual drinke was our spirirituall drinke namely the bloud of Christ. And this place ouerthroweth transubstantiation the carnal presence the cōmunion vnder one kinde the grace of the worke wrought the fiue false sacramentes the Popish consecration the Popish reseruation for adoration and in a manner what so euer the Papistes teache of the sacraments contrarie to the truth For if we haue no prerogatiue aboue the fathers concerning the substance outward signes of the sacramentes then we receiue the bodie and bloud of Christ in the sacramentes none otherwise then they did before his bodie was conceiued of the virgine Marie and that is spiritually by faith not carnally with our mouth The rest of this Chapter is consumed in rehearsing out of Chrysostome the general purpose of the Apostle in these wordes which we haue shewed before it is most plaine by the text as it followeth Finally in declaring what temporall benefites the Israelites receyued by the cloude the sea manna and the water of the rocke But that which is principall and for which cause the Apostle alledgeth their example namely for the spirituall grace that was testified by these outwarde signes Maister Heskins speaketh neuer a worde The second Chapter sheweth what these foure thinges done in the olde Law did figure in the newe Lawe In this Chapter he laboureth to shewe that these sacraments of theirs were not in deed the very same in substance that ours are but onely figures of them And for this purpose he citeth diuers authorities of the fathers especially Chrysostome and Augustine which cal them figures of our sacraments whereof we will not striue with him But he doth not consider that in so calling them they compare not the substance or thinges signified by these auncient sacramentes with the substance or thinges signified by our sacraments but the outward signes of theirs with the substance and things signified by ours As it appeareth in sundrie places of S. Augustine whose authorities in this Chapter he citeth which affirmeth that the fathers also receiued not only the signes of our sacraments as bare figures but also the grace and substance of them whereof they were no counterfet seales Neither doeth Chrysostome or Origen say any thing to the contrarie for Chrysostme saith that as all sortes of men riche and poore were vnder the cloude passed through the sea and were fedde with the same spirituall foode so in our sacramentes of baptisme and the supper there is no respect of persons but all members of the Church are partakers of them alike And Origen saying that Baptisme was then in a darke manner in the clowde and in the sea but nowe in cleare manner regeneration is in water and the holie Ghoste Doeth both affirme the same sacrament to haue beene then which is nowe namely baptisme and also sheweth the onely difference betweene this and that when he sayeth that was after a darke manner and this after a cleare manner But Augustine is moste playne in many places namely Tract in Ioan. 26. speaking of the bread of life in the sixt of Ihon he sayeth Hunc panem significauit manna hunc panem significauit altare Dei. Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diuersa sunt sed in re quae significatur paria sunt Apostolum audi Nolo enim inquit vos ignorare fratres quia patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt omnes mare transierunt omnes per Mosen Baptizati sunt in nube in mari omnes eandem escam spiritualem manducauerunt spiritualem vtique eandem nam corporalem alteram quia illi manna nos aliud spiritualem verò quam nos This bread did manna signifie this bread did the altar of God signifie Those were sacramentes in signes they are diuerse but in the thing which is signified they are equall Heare what the Apostle saith For I would not haue you ignorant brethren sayeth he that our fathers were all vnder the cloude and all passed the sea and were all baptised by Moses in the cloude and in the sea and they did all eate the same spirituall meate I say the same spirituall meate for they did eate another corporall meate for they did eate manna and we another thing but they did eate the same spirituall meate that we doe Likewise in his exposition of the 77 Psalme vpon this very text in hand he saith thus Idem itaque in mysterio cibus potus illorum qui noster Sed significatione idem non specie quia idem ipse Christus illis in Petra figuratus nobis in carne manifestatus The same meate and drinke in mysterie was theirs which is ours but the same by signification not in cleare manner because the selfe same Christe was figured to them in the rocke whiche is manifested in the flesh vnto vs. The same S. Augustine also in his booke De vtililate poenitentiae Cap. 1. writeth thus vpon the same text Eundem inquit cibum spiritualem manducauerunt Quid est eundem Nisi quia cundem quene nos They did eate saith he the same spirituall meate what is the same but the same that we eate and a little after Eundem inquit cibum spiritualem manducauerunt Suffeceras vt diceret cibum spiritualem
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.
be shed for you vnto remission of sinnes This place is falsly truncatly cited by M. Hesk. thus Quem paneÌ„ etsi fractum coÌ„minutumque vidimus integer tamen cum ipso suo patre manet in coelis De quo pane dicit panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita Which he Englisheth thus which bread although we haue seen brokeÌ„ brused on the crosse yet it abideth with that his father whole in heauen of the which bread he saith c. Wheras the very wordes are quem panem etsi fractum comminunumque vidimus in passione integer tamen mansit in illa sua indiuidua vnitate De isto pane de isto calice dicebat ipse Dominus Panis quem ego dedero caro 〈◊〉 est pro saeculi vita c. Although this writer as it is manifest to any man that will reade his treatise speaketh onely of the vnitie of the Godhead of Christ with his Father and the holy Ghoste notwithstanding the breaking of his body in his passion which is represented in the sacrament yet M. Heskins vpon his owne falsification inferreth that the body of Christ was and is in three sundrie places on the Table or Altar on the Crosse and in heauen with his father Yea he appealeth to the grammarian for the nature of a Relatiue That the same bread is on the table which was broken on the crosse and that which was broken on the crosse is it which is whole sitting in heauen Which how vaine a reason it is when it is vrged of that thing which hath two natures vnited in one person as our Sauiour Christ hath I appeale from all grammarians to al Catholike diuines as in the saying of Christ no man hath ascended into heauen but he that came downe from heauen euen the sonne of man which is in heauen Ioan 9. Let M. Hesk. with the graÌ„marian vrge the relatiue in this place he shal proue him selfe both an Anabaptist a Marcionist For Christ coÌ„cerning his humanitie came not down out of heauen neither was he in heauen according to his humanity when he was on the earth But what stand we trifling about this testimonie Seeing Augustine both in the interpetation of this whole chapter is so copious vpon the Psal. 98. in exposition of this text is so plain direct against the carnal presens of Christs body in the sacrament Nisi quis c. acceperunt illud stulte carnâ—liter illud cogitauerunt putaâ—eruÌ„t quòd praecifurus esset Dominus particulas quas daÌ„ de corpore suo daturus illis c. I lle auteÌ„ instruxit eos ait illic spiritus est qui vinificat caro auteÌ„ nihil predest Verba quae loquatuâ— suÌ„ vobis spiritus est vita Spiritualiter intelligite quae loquatus sum Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent sacramentum aliquod vobis commendati spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos â–ª â—t si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen inuisibiliter intelligi Except a man eate the flesh c. They tooke it folishly they imagined it carnally and thought that our Lorde would haue cut off certaine peeces of his 〈◊〉 and haue giuen them c. But he instructed them and 〈◊〉 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 shall not eate this body which you see and drinke this bloud which they shall shed which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a certaine sacrament or mysterie which beeing spiritually vnderstoode shall quicken you Although it is necessarie that the same be celebrated visibly yet must it be vnderstood inuisibly Likewise In 6. Ioan. Tr. 27. Illi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille autem dixit se ascensurum in Coelum vtique integrum Cum videatis filium hominis ascendentem vbi erat priùs certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum certè vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus He speaketh plainely if they will vnderstand him For they thought that he would giue his body but he said that he wold ascend whole into heauen WheÌ„ you shal see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was before surely then at the least you shall see that hee giueth not his body after that maner that you think surely then at the length you shall vnderstand that his grace is not coÌ„sumed with bitings If these places were not most manifest euen to the first eye that looketh vpon them I might spend time in obseruing and noting out of them We come nowe to Chrysostome who in his 45. Hom. in Ioan. vpon those wordes The bread which I will giue is my flesh saith The Iewes that time tooke no profite of those sayings but we haue taken the profite of the benefite Wherefore it is necessarily to be saide howe woonderfull the mysteries be and wherefore they were giuen and what profite there is of them And immediatly after We are one body and members of his flesh and of his bones and yet more plainely And that we might be conuerted into that flesh not onely by loue but also in deede it is brought to passe by the meat which he hath graunted vnto vs. He addeth also an other cause of the giuing of this mysterie When hee would shewe foorth his loue toward vs hee ioyned him selfe 〈…〉 his body and brought him selfe into one with vs that the 〈◊〉 might be vnited with the head Finally he adioyneth a plaine place for the proclamer I would be your brother and for your sakes I tooke flesh and bloud with you and by what things I was conioyned vnto you those things againe I haue giuen vnto you Here he triumpheth as though the game were his when in deede there is nothing for his purpose but much against it For no one word of all these sentences proueth that the sixt of Iohn must be vnderstoode of the supper otherwise then as it is a sacrament of that feeding and coniunction of vs with Christ which is therein described And wheras he argueth vpoÌ„ the last sentence Christ gaue vs that flesh by which he was ioined to vs but he was ioyned to vs by very substantiall flesh therfore he gaue vs his very substantiall flesh I confesse it to bee most true for he gaue his very substantiall flesh to be crucified for vs If he vrge that he gaue his flesh in that sacrament although Chrysostome saith not so in this place directly yet the manner of the participation of his flesh must be such as is the maner of his coniunction with vs but that is spiritual by which he is the head and we the members and yet vnited
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
the words of Germanus can abyde no such boyish sophisme for hee sayeth Christ is seene by the fearefull and holie mysteries but neyther bread nor wine by M. Heskins confession much lesse the accideÌ„ts of them are fearfull holie mysteries therfore the whole sacrament is so called by which Christ is seene touched and eaten but with the eye hand and mouth of faith The foure and sixtieth Chapter sheweth the exposition of Petrue Çluniacensis Bessarion vpon the same In this Chapter beside the sayings of this Dan Peter of Clunye Bessarion which for a Cardinals hatt in the counsell of Florence forsooke the vnitie of the Greeke church he maketh a short repetition of all the authors names sayings whom he hath cited vpoÌ„ this text This is my bodie which because I haue aunswered at large it were needelesse to recapitulate in this place I trust the indifferent reader will confesse that not one of the highher house hath giuen a cleare voyce on his syde but all are most cleare against him The fiue and sixtieth Chapter treateth of the bread blessed and giuen by Christ to the two disciples in Emaus and proueth by Theophylâ—st Bedâ— that it was the sacrament It shal be easily graunted him that not only these two whome he nameth of late time but also diuerse of the auncient doctours are of opinion that Christ did giue the sacrament at Emaus but yet it followeth not that it was so For no certeine circumstance of Scripture can leade vs or them so to thinke Beda in 24. Luke writeth thus â—erti mysterij causae c. It came to passe for the cause of a certein mysterie that another shape shoulde bee shewed to them in him and so they should not know him but in the breaking of bred â–ª left any man should say that he hath knowen Christ if he bee noâ— partaker of his bodie that is to say of his Church whose vnitie the Apostle commendeth at the sacrament of the bread saying one bread we many are one bodie that when he reached to them the blessed bread their eyes were opened that they might know him This place indeed sheweth that Beda his opinion was that the sacrament was there giuen but either for transubstantiation or the real presence or for the communion in one kinde he sayth nothing For the English church in his time knewe none of all these monsters The sixe sixtieth Chapter proueth the same by S. Augustine and Chrysostome I sayd before we confesse that not Augustine onely but other also of the fathers were of this opinion The place of Augustine hath ben alreadie cited considered I would also omit the place of Chrysostome but that he gathereth further matter out of it then the pretence of this Chapter He is cited in Hom. 17. in Math. Quia de sanctis c. Because we haue begon to speake of holy things it is not to be left vnspoken but that sanctification is one thing and the thing sanctified another For that is a sanctification that sanctifieth another thing but that which is sanctifyed cannot sanctifie another thing although it selfe be sanctified As for example thou â—ignest the bread which thou eatest as Paule saith it is sanctifyed by the worde of God by prayer Thou hast sanctified it thou hast not made it sanctification But that which the priest giueth from his hand is not onely sanctified but also it is sanctification because that onely is not giuen which is seene but also that which is vnderstoode Of the sanctified breade therefore it is lawfull to cast to beastes and giue it to infidels because it doth not sanctifie the receiuer But if that which is taken of the hande of the priest were such as that which is eaten at the table all men would eate of the table and no man receiue it of the priestes hands Wherefore our Lord also did not onely blesse the bread in the waye but gaue it with his hand to Cleophas his fellowe And Paul fasting did not onely blesse the bread but also reached it with his hande to Luke and the rest of his disciples Three things M. Heskins noteth First that Chrysostome calleth the sacrament not only a sanctified thing but also sanctification it selfe And here he would haue the aduersarie to answere him where this sanctification resteth in the bread or in the priest I answere in neither of both but in Christ which is the heauenly matter of the sacrament receiued by faith for if sanctification rested in the bread then all they that receiue the bread should bee sanctified but all they that receiue the bread receiue not sanctification neither be they sanctified therefore sanctification resteth not in the breade and so consequently the bodie of Christ is not in the bread And whereas M. Hesk. reasoneth that the priest giueth sanctification I answere that is said because he giueth the outward sacrament as Iohn baptised yet speaking properly of the ministerie of man he restraineth it to the washing of water The seconde thing he would haue noted is that Christe deliuered the sacrament to Cleophas and his fellow wherof as Chrysostome hath no ground in the scripture so that which he affirmeth that Paule in the ship should minister the sacrament which is the third thing M. Hesk. obserueth is vtterly false and confuted by the text For his exhortation was to the whole multitude whereof the greatest parte and almost all were infidels And the text sayeth that they did all receiue foode being satisfyed cast the rest ouer borde to lighten the shippe But the place Actes 2. that they continued in the doctrine of the Apostles communication breaking of bread prayers I confesse may well and aptly be vnderstood of the participation of the Lords table yet nothing lesse may be gathered out of it then that horrible sacriledge of robbing the church of the Lords cupp because bread is onely named as in the next Chapter shal be shewed The seuen and sixtieth Chapter proueth by the scriptureâ— and practises in the last Chapter handled that the Communion vnder one kinde is lawfull and good It aunswereth to one parte of the challenge he saith to proue that the communion was ministred within 600 yeres after Christe in one kinde onely And this he will do verie easily For he beginneth with Christ himselfe whome moste impudently and blasphemously he affirmeth to haue ministred the Communion in one kinde onely to the disciples at Emaus First although diuerse of the olde writers are of opinion and yet wthout asseueration that Christe there gaue the sacrament yet none of them is so bolde to gather any such diuision of the sacrament out of that place Secondly notwithstanding their opinion it is most probable that hee neuer ministred the sacrament after his first institution thereof not onely because there is no mention thereof but because he gaue that as the last pledge of his presence with them immediatly
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
sacrificare locis probentur Ait namque authoritas legis Diuinę Vide ne offeras holocausta tua in omni loco quem videris sed in loco quem elegeris Dominus Deus tuus Episcopus Deo sacrificans testes vt praefixum est secum habeat plures quà m alius sacerdos Sicut enim maioris honoris gradu fruitur sic maioris testimonij incrementatione indiget In solennioribus quippe diebus aut septem aut quinque aut tres diaconos qui eius oculi dicuntur subdiaconos atque reliquos ministros secum habeat qui sacris induti vestimentis in fronte a tergo presbyteri è regione dextra laeuáque contrito corde humiliato spiritu ac prono stent vultu custodientes eum à maleuolis hominibus consension eius praebeant sacrificio Peracta auē consecratione omnes cōmunicent qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus Sic enim Apostoli statueruns sancta Romana tenes ecclesia And when the priestes do sacrifice they ought not to do it alone but let them take witnesses with them that they may be proued to do sacrifice to the Lord perfectly in places dedicated to god For the authoritie of Gods law sayeth Take heede thou offer not thy burnt offerings in euerie place which thou shalt see but in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose Let a bishop sacrificing to God haue witnesses with him as is before sayed more then another priest For as he enioyeth a degree of greater honor so he hath need of the increase of greater testimonie For in more solemne dayes let him haue with him either seuen or fiue or three deacons which are called his eyes the subdeacons and the rest of the ministers which being cloathed in the holie vestimentes let them stand before and behind him the priests ouer against him on the right hand on the left hande with contrite heart humbled spirite sober countenaunce preseruing him from malicious men let them giue their consent to his sacrifice And when the consecration is ended let al communicate which will not be depriued of entrie into the church These be the wordes of that Epistle which M. Hesk. mangleth and falsifieth thus Episcopus c. The bishop doing sacrifice vnto God let him in the solemne dayes haue either seuen or fiue or three deacons which be called his eyes subdeacons other ministers First he leaueth out That no priest ought to sacrifice alone but must take witnesses with him Secondly that a bishop ought to haue more then another priest at all times Thirdly hee citeth the words so as though the bishop should haue no neede of witnesses but only on solemne dayes Fourthly he leaueth out how the deacons other ministers should stand before and behind the bishop which will not agree with his popish altar for who can stande before the popish priest except he stand in the windowe or vppon the altar Finally wheras omnes may reasonably be vnderstood of al present he restraineth it onely to the ministers which if it were so yet it ouerthroweth the Popish priuat Masse For if there be twentie or fortie priests clarkes as there be often so many at Masse sometimes an hundreth more as at a Synode yet not one of them wil receiue with the priest neither are they banished that refuse to cōmunicate But to proue that this word all should be referred to all the clergie he citeth the Can. 9 Apost Si quis episcopus c. If any bishop c. when the oblation is made do not communicate either let him shew a cause that if it be reasonable he may obteine pardon or if he shew none let him be excommunicated as one that is cause of offence to the people giuing suspition of him which did sacrifice that he hath not wel offered it This Canō must be no interpretatiō of the Epistle and though it were yet is his priuate Masse in neuer the better case for here are still a number necessarily bounde to communicate with the Priest vnder paine of excommunication But M. Hesk. sayeth possible it might be that when the bishop had bene three attendant vpon him or such small number they might all haue cause to absteine This is a possibilitie not to like to come in esse or being once in 20. yeares For where findeth he that the bishop might haue but three with him The decree before cited requireth three deacons at the least beside subdeacons other ministers of which in the auncient church there was great store diuerse functions as acolytes exercistes readers dorekeepers c. But admitt it were possible that all these should absteine yet saith he there is no prohibition for the priest to receiue alone The decree sayeth they ought not to sacrifice alone and both it the Canon commaund all Christians especially the Clergie that be present to cōmunicate yet M. Hesk. sayeth they are not prohibited to saye Masse alone or that it is not sayd that the priuate Masse is naught What reason is in these aunswers let the readers iudge But for cleare proofe ouerthrow of the proclaimers challēge M. Hesk. sayth that in the Masse of Chrysost. there is a plain rule giuen what was to be done when the priest receiued alone that the Proclaimer had not learned so farre as to know this Indeed this is an high point of learning M. Hesk. that the proclaimer could neuer attain vnto to play with your readers noses so impudently which cannot smell out your falshod when you beare them in hande that that was Chrysostomes Masse which was written seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostome was dead as appeareth plainly by the prayer for Pope Nicolas the Emperour Alexius that is in it which the proclaimer as vnlearned as you make him yet had wit to finde out laye abrode to your open shame and to all their shames that vse the same Liturgie as authenticall rightly to be ascribed to Chrysostome The issue that you ioyne that priuate Masse is not naught nor prohibited in scripture councel or catholike writer is tryed alreadie by sufficient euidence giuen by the B. of Sarum against Harding by answere to your counterfet and false euidence vttered in this chapter in the next As for the receiuing of a sicke man alone hath nothing to do with priuate Masse which sole receiuing if it were admitted yet a case of extreme necessitie approoueth not an vsuall dayly contempt of Christes holy institution The one and fortieth chapter prooueth that the masse may bee said and the Sacrament receiued ▪ without a number of communicantes at one time in one place When all is saide and done saith M. Hesk. the Masse shal be holy and good and this shal be a trueth that a priest saying Masse or any other man godly disposed sicke or whole may receiue the holy sacrament alone for profe of this
our Lord vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde For when the Apostle saide this he spake it of them which receiued the bodie of our Lord vndiscreetly and negligently as they wold do any other meat Whersoeuer he borowed these words they are not to be found in that treatise of Aug. which he citeth But if they be August in any place they haue none other sense then before is expressed that such men are said to eate the bodie of Christ which eate the sacrament therof whiche in some manner of speache is called the body of christ The words that I find in Augustine sounding any thing like are these Et sancta possunt obesse in bonis enim sancta ad salutem insunt in malis ad iudicium Certè enim fratres nouimus quid accipiamus vtique sanctum est quod accipimus nemo dicit non esse sanctum Et quid ait Apostolus Qui autem manducat bibit indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit Non ait quia illa res mala est sed quod ille malus malè accipiendo ad iudicium accipit bonum quod accipit Non enim mala buccella erat quae tradita est Iudae à Domino Absit medicus non daret venenum Salutem medicus dedit sed indignè accipiendo ad perniciem accepit Euen holy things may hurte For in good men holy things are vnto saluation in euill men vnto condemnation For surely brethren we know what we receiue and no man sayeth that it is not holy And what sayeth the Apostle He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne condemnation He sayeth it not because that thing is euill but because that euill man by euill receiuing receiueth vnto condemnation that good thing which he receiueth For the morsell was not euill which was deliuered by our Lorde to Iudas God forbidde the Phisition woulde not giue poyson the Phisition gaue health but hee by receiuing vnwoorthily receiued to his destruction To this iudgement of Augustine wee doe subscribe that wicked men receiue a holye thing namely the sacrament for prophaning whereof they heape vp damnation to them selues besides their other sinnes But that the naturall bodie of Christe voyde of his quickening spirite entreth into the mouth of any man wee doe vtterly denye and of the same iudgement is Augustine as we haue shewed in this Chapter in many other places The nine and fourtieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by Isychius and Sedulius In the beginning of this Chapter by a saying of Augustine hee exhorteth vs to heare the doctoures of the Catholike church affirming that he hath alreadie brought sixe plainely expounding this texte of the bodie of Christ and more will bring hereafter whereas the proclaimer required but onely one But what trueth is in his affirmation the reader I doubt not will be able to discerne that is not blinded with affection Isichyus is cited in Leuit. Cap. 26. Propter quod c. Wherefore let vs feare his holie place that we neither defile our bodie nor rashly come to the bodie of Christe in the which is all sanctification For in him abydeth the fullnesse of the godhead without diligent examination of our selues but rather let vs examine our selues remembring him that sayde Whosoeuer shall eate the breade or drinke the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde Because Maister Heskins knoweth not what to gather out of these wordes with any shewe of likelyhood to mainteine his cause he runneth into another matter altogether impertinent and needelesse to shewe out of Theophylact how the fullnesse of the Godhead doth dwell in Christe At length he commeth to ridiculous questions why should he dehort wicked men from eating the bodie of Christ if they cannot eat it at all As though their presumption may not bee condemned which cannot attaine their purpose Why shoulde wicked men bee dehorted from seeking the ouerthrowe of Christe and his church seeing it is impossible for them to preuayle either against the one or the other yet Maister Heskins thinketh him selfe wittie when he sayeth It were strange to persuade a man not to pull downe heauen or to eat the starres because it is vaine to moue men not to doe that which is impossible to be done But because Maister Heskins is so angrie with a peece of breade in the sacrament let him heare what the same Hesychius or as he calleth him Isichius writeth in Leuitic lib. 2. Cap. ◠Propterea carnes cum panibus comedi praecipient vt nos intelligeremus illud ab eo mysterium dici quod simul panis est caro Therefore commaunding the flesh to bee eaten with the breade that wee might vnderstande that he spake of that mysterie which is both bread and fleshe together You see that Hesychius acknowledged breade to bee in the mysterie naturallye as the fleshe of Christe is spiritually Nowe let vs heare Sedulius Accipite c. Take ye this is my body As though Paule had sayed take heede ye eate not that bodie vnworthily seeing it is the bodie of Christe You shall eate this vnworthily if you shame the poore and if you eate any meate before the spirituall meate and the supper of the Lorde Here againe he noteth that the bodie of Christ may be receiued of vnworthie persons hee meaneth wicked persons for otherwise all men are vnworthie of it but no such thing can followe of the wordes of Sedulius both because hee speaketh of receiuing the sacrament which after a certeine manner is the bodie of Christe also because he speaketh not of wicked persons and reprobates but of faithfull persones offenders and that not in greate matters namely in shaming the poore with their plentifull feastes and eating bodily meate before they receiue the Lordes supper This place is cited before lib. 2. Cap. 55. The argument that wee bring of the inseparable coniunction of Christe with his spirite he sayeth is vaine for though Christe bee neuer disioyned from his spirite yet his spirite is not alwayes effectuall which is as absurde as the other to saye that the quickening spirite of Christe together with his bodye is in the wicked and worketh not life But hee weeneth Cyprian shall stande with him whose wordes he citeth In Sermone de Coena Sacramenta quidem quantum in se est c. The sacraments truely as concerning them selues cannot be without their proper vertue Neither doeth the Diuine maiestie by any meanes absent it selfe from the mysteries But although the sacraments doe suffer them selues to bee taken or touched by vnworthie persons yet cannot those be partakers of the spirite whose infidelitie or vnworthinesse gaynsayeth so great holinesse And therefore those giftes are to some the sauour of life vnto life vnto some the sauour of death vnto death For it is altogether meete that the contemners of grace should be depriued of so great a benefite
booke and yet they are necessary for the preseruation of the doctrine thereof yea they are true natural figures of the sense that is contained in the booke if no man be so madde as to put of his cap to those letters or to that booke or to set it vp to kneele to it to sense it c What monstruous madnesse is it to defende the worshippinge of Images which if they were graunted to be lawfull meanes to bring men to spirituall knowledge yet were they nothing comparable to the written letter and sillables of the scriptures The fourth cause of honouring of Images is that all nations haue honoured them in respect of their vertue whose Images they are I haue shewed before in a worde that this prooueth it not to be a lawe of nature that Images are to be honoured because all nations haue bene ignorant of God haue committed Idolatrie haue committed whoredome c. And although the art of making of Images be good yet it prooueth not that all Images may be made or anye worshipped The art of making swordes is good yet it neither proueth that all swordes are well vsed nor that any is to be worshipped But Master Sander saith seeinge that all nations haue made and worshipped Images it is against the lawe of all nations and of nature to forbid the worshippe of them For he would better like of that lawe which forbadde Images of Christ to be made then of that which forbiddeth them to be worshipped which he calleth a filthie decree and yet it was a decree of Pope Gregorie the first to the bishoppe of Massilia as we haue shewed before But concerning the example of all nations thus I answere briefely what Images they made out of religion and how they worshipped them it toucheth our controuersie nothing in the worlde But such as they made and worshipped in religion were abhominable Idoles and contrarie to the lawe of nature For Sainte Paule in the first to the Romaines and in the 17. of the Actes reproueth the Gentiles for making and worshipping of Images by the lawe of nature But whereas he saith the Iewes worshipped the Images of the Cherubins which Salomon had made to garnish the walles of the temple with the figures of palme trees and other flowers quoting 3. Reg. 6. 2. Par. 3. he is a most impudeÌ„t shameful liar For there is no word in those chapters nor in all the Bible sounding that way Neither doth Hieronyme ad Marcellam say they worshipped the holy place but they reuerenced it in respecte of the great mysterie thereof as they did the temple it selfe For all reuerent estimation of a thing is not honouring or worshipping of it as Master Sander alwayes dreameth Of the image in Pauende made as he sayeth by the woman and preserued by Christians vntill the dayes of Iulian wee haue sayed ynough in the Chapter nexte before this Hitherto the wicked custome of all nations contrarie to the worde of God proueth not the worshipping of images to bee necessarily good by the lawe of nature The fifth cause is that the relation of honour is so necessarily betweene the image and the thing meant to bee honoured by it that if the image be not honoured the thing cannot be honoured thereby Nay by your leaue Master Sander the relation of honour is between them that meant to giue honour and the thing meant to bee honoured inter honorantem honoranâ—â—â— and not between the image and the thing meant to bee honoured by an image so that if the image be not honoured his foolish meaning is disapointed that meant to honour a thing by an image But admit it were as you say what inconuenience is in the conclusion If the image be not honoured the thing cannot bee honoured by the image For if the thing be worthie honour it needeth not the vaine honour of an image But you saye it is the lawe of nature and right reason that if an image be made of an honourable personage it may also be honoured that is honourably regarded and esteemed according to the vertue of the man more or lesse As if it be the image of Cato you thinke his worldly wisedome well worthie of an image but you wil not think it to be an holie image as you thinke the image of Christ or his mother to bee But if you thinke the image of a holie person to bee a holie image why do you not by the same reason thinke the image of Cato a wise man to be a wise image and the image of Socrates a vertuous man to bee a vertuous image and the image of Cicero an eloquent man to bee an eloquent image if the images of these men bee not wise vertuous nor eloquent no more be the images of Christ his mother or his Apostles diuine holy or honorable And if it be the lawe of nature that the image of an honourable person shoulde be made and honoured as his vertue is more or lesse then by the contrary the image of a wicked man shoulde be made and dishonoured as his wickednesse is more or lesse So that as we must haue a religion of images of good men made and honored to stirre vs vnto vertue so wee must haue a religion of making and dishonouring the images of wicked men to diswade vs from wickednes If this later be a fond immagination so vndoubtedly is the former The sixt cause is because the name of Christ is communicated to his image for it is called Christ so the honour due to his name is in the same degree to be communicated to his image also For the name of God is to be blessed and the name of his sainctes shall liue in honour for euer Yea sir but as the name of Christ is falsely wickedly and blasphemously communicated to a deade image so is his honour falsely wickedly and blasphemously communicated to the same And where as hee saith wee are ashamed to confesse that we breake the images of Christ he lyeth falsely impudently For if we sawe the true images of the countenance of Christ abused to idolatrie wee woulde no more doubt or feare to breake them then Ezechias did to breake the Brasen serpent which was a figure of Christe and commaunded by God himselfe to be made But as for their ridiculous images which are no more the images of Christ then of Iudas Iscarioth but that it pleaseâ—h them to call them so wee may iustly denye them to bee the images of Christ which haue no proper resemblance vnto his bodie more then to any other man. The last reason is that if it be a contumelye to the Prince to haue his image broken and an honour to haue it regarded the like must needes come to passe in christ And here M. Iewell is bidden to breake if he dare the Image of the Queenes maiestie or the armes of the realm or any noble mans banner But if the prince had as precisely forbidden any image of her to be
better then a piece of brasse which was a figure of Christe and yet he was not blasphemous against the death of Christe But heare his reason Christe vouchsafed to segregate it from other wood to make it the instrumēt of his passion Where find you that Christ did choose his crosse I thinke it was rather appointed to him by the Iews then prouided by him selfe if you say he did segregate it in his secret determination I answere that so he did segregate Iudas Annas Caiphas Pilate the Iewes and souldiers to be instruments of his passion And yet none of them therefore to be regarded or worshipped except of those detestable heretikes that thinke they were profitable instruments of our redemption But O holy swords axes of tyrants and tormentours that were embrued with the bloud of the Martyres O holy fire that burned them O holy water that drowned them O holy gallowes and ropes that hanged them For why should not these also haue their regard and worship according to the proportion of their deserts whose eternal felicity they were instruments to procure Yet once againe M. Iewell is challenged for denying the cognisances of the crosse in flags banners or targets to be images Also the letter that Ezechiel sawe in vision the crosse that Constantine sawe in the ayre the marks in mens garments and the mysticall letters in the temple of Serapis First touching the mark which Ezechiel saw it is not described of what figure it was onely that a marke was set for Tau signifieth a marke and not onely the name of a letter which in that time perhaps it had not so did S. Cyprian read it Contra Demetrianum transi mediam Ierusalem notabis signum super frontes virorum Go through the middest of Hierusalem and thou shalt marke a signe vpon the foreheads of the men The signe that Constantine sawe was the character of the name of Christ in two letters X P after this maner as both Euseb. witnesseth and his coynes yet remaining do shew ☧ Eu. de vit Con. lib. 1. and therefore no crosse nor signe therof The marks that haue appeared in mens garments perhaps were imagined rather thē images as children imagine dragons Gryphons in the clouds The mystical letters in the temple of the idol Serapis could haue no relation to the crosse of Christ which the idolaters knew not Therefore the follie of those ecclesiastical writers is bewraied that thoght christianitie much helped by such heathenish superstitious fantasies as for the rest I answere as M. Iewell that they are but barres laide one ouer an other and no images Yet M. San. maruelleth what blind ignoraunce this is so to say But to make the matter more plaine on his side hee maketh the shape of Christe hanging with his armes abroad all one with these signes or characters aforesaid which is no blinde ignorance but wilfull abusing of his readers without all shame or shape of honestie And yet he will baffull vs with a doutie definitiō of an image as he saith out of Gregorie Nazianzen that euery similitude likenesse or shape of one thing taken out according to the samplar of an other thing is an image then he runneth out into his old cōmon place of inward imaginations But I pray you syr who euer in those days or in ours sawe the crosse that Christ dyed on to make an image thereof according to the samplar If none but the painter or grauer hath imagined it then is it an image of an imagination which is the samplar thereof and not of the crosse of Christ and so it is counterfet and consequently by your own distinction an idoll And in very deed so many diuers figures and formes therof as we see to be made argue that there is no certaine truth knowne vnto men of what forme or figure it was for some make it headlesse thus ✚ some draw one barre through the other thus ✚ some drawe this barre at the vpper end some through the middest some make circles some squares some triangles at the foure endes some make them blunt some make them sharp c. some make the crosse ragged some euen so that there is no certentie and if al these be images of Christes crosse it skilleth not what proportion be kept in making of images according to the paterne Hitherto therfore M. San. fond argument to proue worshipping of images by M. Iewels confession hath no force to enter into any reasonable mans credite bicause hee hath neither proued these signes of the crosse to be images nor such regard as M. Iewel confesseth to haue bene a worshipping of them in that sense that the controuersie is betweene vs for worshipping of images But whearas maister Iewell saith the same crosses were not set vp in any Temple maister Sander confesseth not the same but other such as they were for proofe wherof he citeth a new found old Doctor called Euodius Bishop of Vzal in Affrike writing about S. August time a book of the miracles of S. Stephen in which he saith S. Stephens image was painted with a crosse on his shoulder c this old Doctor was firste painted at Louan anno 1564. but he cometh too late to claime his antiquitie after so many hundred yeares in which neither he nor his writing was euer harde off That the people were taught to kneele down to crosses which Maister Iewel denieth he proueth by the example of Probianus of whom Sozomenus in the tripartite historie doth write That being somtimes a pagane but afterwarde made a christian he did in some parte follow the doctrine of the Christians But he wolde not adore the cause of all our health that is the moste holy crosse Hee beeing of this minde the diuine power apeared to him and shewed him the signe of the crosse set on the aulter of that church And did manifestly declare that since Christ was crucified all thinges that were done for the vtilitie of mankinde had not been done by any meanes without the vertue of the reuerend crosse neither of holy Angels nor of godly men Here saith maister Sander it is euident that the signe of the crosse was set vpon the alter of S. Michaels church in Constantinople Yea sir in that vision if it were true But it is small euidence to proue that it stoode in the churche in deede For if it had stoode on the alter in such honorable estimation Probianus wolde not haue contemned it before But where you say he was compted no perfect Christian because he wolde not adore the holy crosse of Christ you walke still vnder your cloude of ambiguitie For how proue you that the adoration here spoken of is that kneeling to the crosse which the Bishop denieth to haue been taught it seemeth that Probianus newly conuerted from paganisme had not yet that honorable estimation of the reprochefull signe of the crosse which the Christians of that time had But whereas M. Iewell vpbraideth them with
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