therefore no figure nor spiritual receit only which are not wonderfull This argument is false for sacramentall figures and spirituall things are great wonders thought not sensible myracles As for eating the Lamb the Sheepe and such other are so plaine figures that impudencie her selfe would not deny them to be figures Finally he noteth that sinners receiue the bodye of Christe in the sacrament which hee saith the Protestantes denye which is as grossely for except sinners should receiue Christe in the sacrament no men should receiue him But the Protestantes say that wicked men or reprobate men vngodly men vnpenitent sinners receiue not the body of Christe which though it haue bene sufficiently proued before yet I will adde one more testimony out of Saint Augustine De ciuitate Dei. Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Denique ipse dicens Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus sed reuera corpus Christi manducare eius sanguinem bibere Neyther is it to be saide that these men meaning heretiques other wicked men doe eate the bodie of Christ bicause they are not to bee accounted among the members of christ Finally he himself saying He that eateth my flesh drinketh my blud abideth in me I in him sheweth what it is not touching the sacramēt only but indeed to eat the body of Christ drink his bloud But now let vs returne to Chrys. who Hom. 83. in 26. Math. hath these words Praecipuā He dissolueth their chiefe solemnitie and calleth thē to another table ful of horror saying Take ye and eat ye this is my body How then wer they not troubled hearing this bicause they had heard many great things of these before Here M. Hes. troubleth him self very much his readers more to proue that by the doctrin which they heard before vttered in the sixt of Iohn they were so instructed as they were not troubled which we confes to be true although that doctrine doth none otherwise pertaine vnto the sacrament then as the sacrament is a seale of the doctrine But Chrysostome saith further in the same Homely Hac de causa c. For this cause with desire I haue desired to eate this passeouer with you that I might make you spirituall He him self also dranke thereof least when they had heard his wordes they should say what then do we drinke bloud and eate flesh and so should haue bene troubled For when he spake before of those things many were offended only for his wordes Therefore least the same thing should happen nowe also he him selfe did it first that he might induce them with quiet minde to the communication of the mysteries Here M. Heskins falleth into a sound sleepe and then dreameth a long dreame of the reall presence and the trouble of the Apostles and lothsomnesse of bloud the contradiction of Chrysostomes wordes and I wote not what beside ▪ But to a man that is awake Chrysostom speaketh plaine ynough He saith this was the cause why Christ desired to eate the Passeouer with them which he taketh to be that hee did first drinke before them c. that hee might make thē spirituall that is that they might not haue carnall imaginations of eating his body and his bloud as the Capernaites had but vnderstande those thinges spiritually the rather when they sawe him eate and drinke of them which if he had eaten his owne naturall body and drunk his owne natural bloud would haue troubled them more then if he had not tasted of them And how so euer M. Heskins drumbleth and dreameth of this matter Cranmer saith truely that if Christ had turned the breade into his body as the Papistes affirme so great and woonderfull a chaunge should haue bene more plainely setfoorth in the scripture by some of the Euangelistes Sedulius for varietie of names is cyted In 11. pri ad Cor. Accipite hoc est corpus meum c. Take ye this my body as though Paule had saide take heede ye eate not the body vnworthily seeing it is the body of Christ. What is there here that the proclamer will not confesse and yet is there nothing to binde him to subscribe for the proclamer would neuer denye that the sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ though after an other sort then it is affirmed by the Papistes The sixe and fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Theophylus and Leo. Theophylus Alexandrinus is brought on the stage in this shewe cyted Lib. 2. Pasch. Consequens est c. It is consequent that he that receiueth the former things should also receiue those things that follow And he that shall say that Christ was crucified for diuels must allowe also that it is to be saide vnto them This is my body and take ye this is my bloud For if he be crucified for diuels as the author of new doctrine doth affirme what priuiledge shall there be or what reason that onely men should communicate with his body and bloud and not diuels also for whome he shed his bloud in his passion Hee saith here is no mention of tropes and figures A substantiall reason therefore none are vsed It is a good reason that Theophylus vseth that Christ died not for the diuels bicause he giueth them no participation of his body and bloud but it hangeth on a rush that M. Hes. concludeth Such as are partakers of his reall body may be made partakers of his spirituall body but diuels can not of his reall body therefore not of his spirituall body be partakers See how this peruerse man maketh the sacrament to be the reall body of Christ and that which was crucified his spirituall body By which he doth not only make Christe haue two bodies but also ouerthroweth the truth of the one to establish the falshod of the other But the same writer in the first booke doth more certainly auouch the real presence deny the figures in these wordes Dicit spiritum sanctum c. Origen saith that the holy Ghost doth not worke vpon those things which are without life nor commeth to vnreasonable things Which when he saith he thinketh not that the mysticall waters in baptisme by the comming of the holy Ghost to them are consecrated and that the Lords bread by which our sauiours body is shewed and which we breake for sanctification of vs and the holy cup which are set on the table and be things without life are sanctified by inuocation and comming of the holy Ghost to them M. Hes. translateth quo saluaioris corpus ostenditur in which the body of our Sauiour is shewed but it is plaine ynough Theophylus meaneth that by the breade the body of Christe is shewed that is signified or figured or represented As for consecration
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
tarie one for an other 1. Cor. 11. for the Communion By which it is euident that it is not lawfull for euery man to haue his priuate Masse as M. Heskins would most absurdly proue As for the sacrifice propitiatorie of their Masse hath all those scriptures against it that set foorth the only propitiatorie sacrifice of Christ and namely Heb. 9. 10. Furthermore M. Heskins findeth the name of Masse vsed of Saint Ambrose Ep. 33. Ego mansi in munere missam facere coepi orare in oblatione Deum vt subueniret I did abide in mine office I beganne to say masse to pray to God in the sacrifice that he would helpe Howe faithfull a reporter of antiquitie Maister Heskins is to be coūted this place among a great number doth sufficiently declare and that he receiued not this text out of Ambrose him selfe but out of some other mans collection or relation Ambrose in that Epistle writing to his sister Marcellina about deliuering of a church to the heretiques which he refused to do at the Emperour Valentinianes request writeth thus Sequenti die erat autem Dominica post lectiones atque tractatum dimissis Catechumenis Symbolum aliquibus competentibus in baptisterijs tradebam Basilicae Illic nunciatum est mihi comperto quòd ad Portianam Basilicam de palatio decanos misissent vela suspenderēt populi partem eò pergere Ego tamen mansi in munere missam facere coepi Dum offero raptum cognoui a populo Castulum quendam quem Presbyterum dicerent Arriani Hunc autem in platea ostenderant transeuntes Amarissimè flere orare in ipsa oblatione Deum coepi vt subueniret ne cuius sanguis in causa Ecclesiae fieret certè vt meus sanguis pro salute non solùm populi sed etiam pro ipsis impijs effunderetur Quid multa Missis Presbyteris Diaconis eripui iniuria virum The day following which was Sunday when the learners of Catechisme were dismissed after the Lessons that were read and the treatise made vpon them I was instructing in the Creede certaine that desired Baptisme in the baptizing place of the Church There it was tolde me after it was knowne that they had sent officers from the Palace vnto the church called Portiana hanged vp clothes for the Emperor that part of the people were going thither I for all that abid in mine office I beganne to let it goe While I offered I vnderstoode by the people that one Castulus was taken by force whome the Arrians saide to be a priest Him had they found as they passed by in the streate I beganne to weepe most bitterly and to pray to God in the very oblation that hee would helpe that no mans bloud might bee shed in the cause of the Church and truely that my bloud might be shed not onely for the sauegard of the people but also for the vngodly them selues What neede many wordes I sent Priestes and Deacons and deliuered the man from iniurie I knowe M. Heskins will not allowe me to translate missam facere to let goe the Church seeing they had entered vpon it the rather bicause offero and oblatione doth followe But notwithstanding seing Masse is neuer named in S. Augustin Hierome nor any other place of Ambrose in his or their authenticall writings I can not of the onely colour and coniecture of oblation folowing be resolued that S. Ambrose vseth missam facere to say Masse For although I confesse that the name of Missa for the Communion began neare about that time to be in vse yet did they neuer vse that phrase missam facere but missum or missarum solennia celibrare to celebrate the Masse or the solemnities of Masses for so they called the administration of the Communion Whereas missam facere can not be translated to say Masse but rather to make Masse Againe if the only cōiecture of offero and oblatione following were sufficient to proue missa to signifie Masse M. Heskins might by the like colour of Priestes and Deacons following translate Missis Presbyterie Diaconibus c. with Masses Priests and Deacons I deliuered the man from iniurie But to take it at the worst that the name of missa is here vsed for Masse yet was this within the time of the Bishops limitation no Popish Masse but a Christian communion although some abuses perhaps were in it And for the decrees of Thelesphorus Sixtus Alexander and such like Bishoppes of Rome bycause they bee meere mockeries and counterfeted long after their times to get credite by the antiquitie of their names I will loose no time in confuting them And whereas M. Heskins saith the proclamer reiecteth them without proofe although it be not to be required that in a sermon such matters should be debated at large as in publique writings are throughly knowne to be debated and determined among the best learned yet will I adde this one disproofe or two of those Epistles to be forged First Eusebius which was a most diligēt gatherer of such writings found none such in his time Secondly if there were nothing else the very barbarous phrase of them all and the false Latine that is in many is sufficient to conuince them for counterfets seing there was no vnlearned womā in Rome in those times but spake better Latin thē these men feigne those learned Bishops to haue writen in those decretall Epistles But M. Hesk. will proue Alexander to be the Authour of that Epistle which is ascribed to him and therein will vse neither bare wordes nor faint likelyhoods In deed for likelihoods he vseth none either faint or strong but in steede of authoritie whereof he bosteth he vseth none at all but very bare wordes He onely quoteth in the margent The 6. Counsel of Constantinople not naming so much as in what part or action thereof this matter is intreated of the actes of that counsel being contained in a great booke as large as M. Hesk. third book at the least And surely although I haue vsed some diligence in search yet I can finde no such matter nor this Alexander once named in that Counsell In deede I found long since Dionysius authoritie cited by the name of Dionyscus Areopagisa Bishop of Athens which is the matter that perhaps deceiued M. Hes. or him that ministred notes of authorities vnto him But to be short the assurance remaineth still vnshaken which the proclamer made in his sermon that the name of Masse is not found in ancient writers vntil 400. yeres after christ As for the Masse it selfe if hee meane that forme of seruice vsed in the Church of Rome and of them commonly called Masse he knoweth it was not throughly peeced together 600. yeares after christ For Gregorie had no small share in it and he confesseth in this Chapter that Telesphorus Sixtus Alexander Felix added somewhat vnto it As for the preparatorie prayers of Ambrose hee doth well not to auouch them to be his bicause
his Epistle to the Romaines and before Peter also came thither as it is plaine by the Epistle to the Galath cap. 2. And therefore seeing the church of Rome was first founded neither by Peter nor Paule she hath nothing to brag of their preheminence which many churches planted by the Apostles might with more equitie challenge As for the bequething of Peter and Paule that hee speaketh of when he can shew vs a copie of their Testament we wil shape him an other answere 24 That there were many martyrs and confessours at Rome in the primitiue churche the cause was the great multitude of people in that church by reason of the frequens of the imperial city But this proueth no prerogatiue of ancestrie ouer other churches That so many of the first bishops suffred death for Christs cause although it may be doubted of the number of 30. vpwarde because no auncient writer doth testifie it it was by reason they were neerest vnto the greatest persecutors which were the emperors of Rome But this proueth not the supremacy of the bishop of Rome before the bishops of other cities who haue likewise suffred death for Christ. 25 It is vtterly false that he affirmeth that no faithful people of any citye had euer so notable witnes as the church of Rome of S. Paul your faith is preached in the whol world In which translation he falsifieth the words of S. Paule for he saith your faith is reported or commended in all the world not that it was preached for thē an vnsufficient faith should haue bin preached which needed the iustification of that Epistle And whereas M.S. saith that Cyprian saith the Apostle spake it prophetically not onely in respect of their faith present but also of thē that should folow it is to smal purpose except M.S. can proue that the Romanes now do hold the same faith which S. Paul S. Cyprian commended in his felow bishop Cornelius and the Romanes of his time And as for as notable and a more notable testimonie of an other people then the Romanes read the beginning of the 2. Thessalon capit 1.1 Collossians cap. 1. 26 Whereas he saith that S. Hiero. proueth the faith of the Romaines which Saint Paule praised to haue remayned in his dayes because none other people did so deuoutly visite the sepulchres of the martyres which the protestantes counte for infidelitie rather then faith he sheweth himselfe to bee an impudent wrangler The words of Hierom be these In prooem lib. 2. in Epist. ad Gal. 3. Vultis scire ô Paula Eustochiū quomodo Apostolus vnam quāque prouinciā suis proprietatibus denotarit Vsque hodie cadem vel virtutum vestigia permanent vel errorum Romanae plebis laudatur fides Vbi alibi tanto studio frequentia ad ecclesias martyrum sepulchra concurritur vbi sic ad similitudinem caelestis tonitrui Amen reboat vacua idolorū templa quatiuntur Non quod aliam habeant Romani fidem nisi hanc quam omnes Christi ecclesie sed quod deuotio in eis maior sit simplicitas ad credendum Rursum facilitatis superbię arguuntur Will you know ô Paula Eustochium how the Apostle hath described euerye prouince in their owne properties Euen to this daye the steppes remaine either of vertues or of errors The faith of the Pope of Rome is praised Where is there such concourse any where els with so great desire and frequence vnto the churches and sepulchres of martyres Where doth Amen so rebound like to heauenly thunder the emptye temples of Idoles so shaken with it Not that the Romaines haue any other faith but the same which al the churches of Christ haue but because in them is greater deuotion and simplicitie to beleeue likewise they are reproued for too much facility pride These words declareth that Hierome speaketh of no Popish pilgrimage but of resorting to the churches which were builded vpō the sepulchres of the martyrs therefore called the memories of the martyrs Secōdly what he meaneth by faith namely deuotion simplicitie of beleeuing not doctrine Thirdly that the Romaines reteined aswell the vices as the vertues of their auncesters But nowe they reteine onely the vices 27 The Papists liue vnder a visible head but the same is Antichrist the protestants vnder an inuisible head which is christ The Pope fitteth in Rome the mother of al abhominations hauing nothing to brag of but the vertues of such as haue dwelled there before him and no good qualitie of his owne Yet the title of vniuersall shepherd M.S. denieth vnto him although he most arrogantly do vsurpe it Howbeit properly M.S. saith he ought not to haue it 28 Therfore the bishops of Rome before Gregory the first refused the same title as prophane proude which belongeth onely to christ Yet the councel of Chalcedō offred it to Pope Leo the first but he refused it as slanderous This being cōfessed by M S. chuse whether you wil say the councell did erre in offring the same or Pope Leo in refusing or the latter Popes in vsing the same 29 Gregorie the first in deede tooke vppon him the humble style of the seruaunt of the seruaunts of God as M.S. saith but his successors vsing that title for a formality hauing bene content to be called Lord of Lords and God aboue all gods and our lord God the Pope and the most holiest and an hundreth more blasphemous titles beside treading on the Emperours necke such like examples of prophane pride as Nero Heliogabalus no Dioclesian euer shewed the like 30 It is not to be proued that he saith there were 4. Patriarks at the beginning nor that the Pope of Rome was chiefe For the councell of Nice Canon 6. doth make the patriarke of Alexandria and the rest equall with the bishop of Rome Although afterward the bishops of Rome as they were cōmonly ambitious when persecution was staied by prerogatiue of the imperiall citie challenged a kinde of primacie yet not of authoritie but of order And whereas he sayeth other Patriarches were preferred in respect of the affinitie they had with S. Peter it is false for the Patriarch of Constantinople was placed next to him of olde Rome because Constantinople was newe Rome the imperiall cittie Concil Constantinop Cap. 2. or after Garanza Cap. 5. That the Pope did erect patriarchal Seas at Aquileia at Senis it was not for that the other were infected with heresie but that they refused to acknowledge his Antichristian authoritie bought of Phocas the murtherer by Boniface the third for if his authoritie had bene so great as is pretended he would haue deposed those hereticall bishops and set vp Catholikes in their places rather then to haue spoyled the seates of their dignities for euer for the fault of the bishops 31 It is false that he sayeth neuer any bishop was so much esteemed as the bishop of Rome for Athanasius of Alexandria was more esteemed of the
D. HESKINS D. SANDERS AND M. Rastel accounted among their faction three pillers and Archpatriarches of the Popish Synagogue vtter enemies to the truth of Christes Gospell and all that syncerely professe the same ouerthrowne and detected of their seuerall blasphemous heresies By D. Fulke Maister of Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge Done and directed to the Church of England and all those which loue the trueth AT LONDON Printed by Henrie Middleton for George Bishop ANNO. 1579. The contentes of the seuerall treatises conteined in this Booke 1 The Parleament of Christ auouching the inacted trueth of his presence in the sacrament restored to his veritie and deliuered from the impudent and outragious corruptions of Tho. Heskins 2 That it is lawfull to breake superstitious Images and vtterly vnlawful to honour them with a confirmation of suche true doctrine as Maister Iewel hath vttered in his reply concerning that matter against a blasphemous treatise made by Nicholas Sander 3 The challenge and sound doctrine conteined in M. Iewels sermon mainteined and deliuered from the lewde and slaunderous dealing of Rastel with an answere to his challenge ¶ A CATALOGVE of all such Popish Bookes either aunswered or to be aunswered which haue bene written in the English tongue from beyond the seas or secretly dispersed here in England haue come to our hands since the beginning of the Queenes Maiesties reigne 1 HArding against the Apology of the English church answered by M. Iewel Bishop of Sarum 2 Harding against M. Iewels challenge answered by M. Iewel 3 Hardings reioynder to M. Iewell aunswered by M. Edwarde Deering 4 Coles quarrels against M. Iewell answered by M. Iewell 5 Rastels returne of vntruthes answered by M. Iewel â–ª 6 Rastell against M. Iewels challenge answered by William Fulke 7 Dorman against M. Iewel answered by M. Nowel 8 Dormans disproofe of M. Nowels reproofe aunswered by M. Nowell 9 The man of Chester aunswered by M. Pilkington Bishop of Duresme 10 Sanders on the sacrament in part aunswered by M. Nowell 11 Fecknams Scruples aunswered by M. Horne B. of Winchester 12 Fecknams Apologie aunswered by W. Fulk 13 Fecknams obiections against M. Goughes sermon aunswered by maister Gough and maister Lawrence Tomson 14 Stapletons counterblast answered by M. Bridges 15 Marshall his defence of the crosse answered by M. Caulfehill 16 Fowlers Psalter aunswered by M. Sampson 17 An infamous libell or letter 〈…〉 against the teachers of Gods diuine prouidence and predestination aunswered by Robert Crowley 18 Allens defeÌ„ce of Purgatorie answered by W. Fulk 19 Heskins parleament repealed by W. Fulk 20 Ristons challenge answered by W. Fulk Oliuer Carter 21 Hosius of Gods expresse word translated into English aunswered by W. Fulk 22 Sanders rock of the church vndermined by W. Fulk 23 Sanders defence of images answered by W. Fulk 24 Marshals reply to Caulfhil answered by W. Fulk 25 Shaclockes Pearle answered by M. Hartwell 26 The hatchet of heresies answered by M. Bartlet 27 Maister Euans answered by himselfe 28 A defence of the priuate Masse answered by conâ—ecture by M. Cooper Bishop of Lincolne 29 Certein assertions tending to mainteine the church of Rome to be the true and catholique church confuted by Iohn Knewstub These Popish treatises ensuing for the most part are in answering and those which are not by God assistance as 〈◊〉 will serue shall receiue their seueral replies If the Papistes know any not here reckoned let them be brought to light and they shall be examined 1 Sanders vpon the Lords supper partly vnanswered 2 Allens defence of Priests authoritie to remiâ— sinnes and of the churches meaning concerning indulgences 3 Stapletons fortresse of the faith 4 Stapletons returne of vntruthes 5 Rastels replye 6 Bristowes Motiues and Demaunds collected out of the same 7 Vaux his Catechisme 8 Canisius his Catechisme translated 9 Frarins oration translated ¶ THE AVTHOVR to the Reader ALTHOVGH there is nothing in these bookes which haue beene so long vnanswered but either it is vnworthy any answere or else hath ben satisfied sufficiently before in many treatises extant in the English toung already yet because the aduersaries should not altogether please themselues in their fantasie that they be vnanswerable nor the simpler sort suspect that there is any thing in them that we need to be afraid of I thought good to take in hand this short manner of confutation In which I trust the diligent indifferent reader wil confesse that I haue omitted much matter whereof I might haue taken aduantage rather then that I haue left any argument of importance vnsatisfied Considering therfore what breuitte I haue vsed as was necessarie for me being but one against so many I trust the reasonable Readers will looke for no other vertue of writing at my handes but onely the simple shewing of the trueth and the plaine confutation of the false reasons of the aduersarie Which that they may the better see with more profit perceiue I exhort all such as haue the Popishe Bookes here confuted to conferre their argumentes with mine answers And for them that haue not the bookes at hand I haue so set downe the titles of their Chapters and the cheefe pointes of their treatises collected by themselues in their owâ—â— tables that the perusers may vnderstand I haue left no matter of any moment vntouched In rehearsing of their arguments I haue rather added weight vnto them then taken any force from them in my repetitioÌ„ or abridgement of them so neere as I could by any wit I haue conceiue their order and resolue their Methode What I haue perfourmed in answering let the godly and learned Iudge In the meane time I desire God to graunt that this my labour may be to the glorie of his name and the profite of his Church by Iesus Christe our Lord. THE FIRST BOOKE OF HESKINS PARLEAMENT REpealed by W. Fulke THE first Chapter vpon occasion that this aduersarie this proclamer and challenger he meaneth the B. of Sarum of holy and learned memorie would haue the Scriptures read of all men presupposing the same to be easie to be vnderstanded entereth as by preamble to treate of the difficultie of the Scriptures and to proue that they ought not of all men to be read without an able interpreter or teacher THIS Burgesse for the citie of Rome hauing in purpose to make a speake in the Popish Parleament for the matter of the sacrament of the Masse and douting least his tale should not be long ynough if he vttered nothing but that might seeme directly to appertaine to his cause beginneth with a pretie preamble of eight Chapters long of the difficultie of the Scriptures and the vnderstanding of the same And bicause he hath not aduauntage sufficient of any wordes or writing of the B. of Sarum to inlarge his speach by confuting thereof he feigneth vnto him selfe a monster to fight withall out of Luthers booke De seruo arbitrio who teacheth as he saith That the Scriptures of them selues be
easie of all men to be vnderstanded and neede none interpreter for that we be all taught of God and of his spirite c. Of which minde he imagineth his aduersarie to be In that he would the scriptures to be common to all men How false slanderous this his report is of Luther may sufficiently appeare by that one worde Theodidacti taught of God by which it is most manifest that Luther affirmeth the scriptures to be easie to be vnderstood not of all men in generall but onely of all them that are taught of God and of his spirite by which they were indighted But nowe our Burgesse will make plaine by discussion that the scriptures be obscure darke and hard to be vnderstanded and for that cause not of all men indifferently to be read and that by seuen arguments Although it followeth not that the scriptures are not to be read bicause they are hard but the contrarie yet let vs weigh these seuen arguments The first There be many controuersies of the blessed sacrament therefore there be difficulties in the scriptures If controuersies raysed by froward maintainers of falshoode be a proofe of difficultie there shall nothing be plaine not only in the scriptures of God neither in any other writings or sayings of men no not in such matters as are subiect to our senses but we shall be brought into an Academicall doubtfulnesse of all things But what say you M. Heskins are not the scriptures plaine for the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament which you maintaine Is Hoc est corpus meum nowe a matter of difficâ—ltie Let all Papistes that haue witte beware of your proceding you haue euen now by your first argumeÌ„t cut asunder the synnes strength of al your cause The second The very disciples of Christ besides the Iewes vnderstoode not Christes owne words before they were written Ioh. 6. Much lesse we the same written To passe ouer the vngodly difference you make betweene Christes wordes proceeding out of his owne mouth and the same writteÌ„ by inspiration of his owne holy spirit call you them the very disciples of Christ which offended with that speach departed from him or them that abid the interpretation of them and tarried still with him Such disciples as the former were be you and your sect which when the scripture serueth not your purpose accuse it of difficultie and vncertaintie as the olde Heretiques the Valentinians did as witnesseth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. But Chrysostome I suppose helpeth you much where hee saith Quid ergo est durus difficilis intellectu quem capere non posset eorum imbecillitas plenus formidinis What then is this word hard difficult to be vnderstoode and such as their weaknesse could not receiue full of fearefulnes Here is the name of the words of Chrysostome but to what purpose when no doctor more often or more earnestly exhorteth all Lay men that are Christians to read the scriptures of God affirming theÌ„ also to be easie to be vnderstood for the most part and not onely without daunger but also verie profitable euen where they be hard to be vnderstoode I wil rehearse one or two places of a great number In Luc. cap. 16. Idque hortor hortari non desinam c. And this I exhort you and will not cease to exhort you that you would not only in this place meaning in the Church giue heede to those things that are said but also when you shall be at home you would euery day giue your selues to the reading of the holy scriptures And there followeth a reason Neque nunc fieri potest Neither can it nowe be I say it can not be that any man should obtaine saluation except hee bee continually conuersant in spirituall reading And not long after Etiamsi non intelligas illic recondita c. yea although thou vnderstand not the misteries that are therein hidden yet of the very reading of them great holinesse groweth Finally In genesim Hom. 9. In diuinis autem scripturis c. but in the holy scriptures in those spirituall and precious stories neither is it lawfull to suspect any danger neither is there any great labour but vnspeakable gaine onely let vs bring with chearefulnesse that which lyeth in vs. The third If the scriptures be plaine and easie for euery maÌ„ to vnderstand it was no great benefit that Christ did open his Apostles witts that they might vnderstand the scriptures nor that he did interpret Moses and the Prophetes to the disciples that went to Emaus wherefore we conclude with S. Peter that as he witnessing the Epistles of S. Paule be hard so be the rest of the scriptures hard O blundering Burgesse Who did euer affirme that the scriptures were easie to be vnderstaÌ„d without the spirit of Christ Or what asse of Acarnania wold brave out suche a reason The Apostles could not vnderstand the scriptures sufficieÌ„tly to teach all the world without a singular gift of interpretation therefore no Christian man may learne by reading the scriptures howe to knowe God to his eternall saluation without the same extraordinarie gift But by your leaue maister speaker for the office you take vpon you I know not howe you came vnto it you misreport S Peter being a Lord of the higher house as you count him for he saith not that the Epistles of S. Paule be hard but that among those things which he wrote of the second comming of Christ some things are hard to be vnderstoode Wherefore neither his authoritie nor your reason will be sufficient to conclude your cause The fourth The Chamberlen could not vnderstand the prophet Esay without an interpreter therefore the scriptures are not plaine and easie of all men to be vnderstanded A proper conclusion There is some difficultie in some scriptures therefore they are all hard and can not be vnderstoode We neither affirme that all things in the scriptures are easie to be vnderstanded nor that they are easie to be vnderstood of all men But that the children of God by his spirite are instructed to vnderstand so much in them as is profitable for their saluation and that nothing necessarie for vs to knowe is so obscurely set foorth in one scripture but it is as plainly set down in an other Neither do we reiect interpreters bicause we read the scriptures but as Chrysostom teacheth by reading the scripturs we are made more apt to vnderstaÌ„d the interpreters In Euan. Ioan. Hom. 10. The exaÌ„ple of Philip sent vnto the Chamberlen doth also declare howe God wil blesse the reading of the scriptures wheÌ„ he is sought in them The fift The Apostles them selues vnderstoode not Christe speaking of his passion and resurrection Iohn 16. After a while c. therfore if the liuely voyce of Christ was dark much more is the same now written in dead letters dark hard to be vnderstanded The Apostles by speciall dispensation not yet so wel lightned that they vnderstood their master not
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
foolish collectioÌ„ And wheras M. Hes. maketh so smal account of the sacrifice of thanksgiuing praises prayers obedience that he calleth them but common thinges he sheweth what religion is in his brest But where Daniel saith then daily sacrifice shal be taken away he wil proue that there must be a daily sacrifice and that of the Christians by Hieronyms authoritie Whose words are cited thus by him Hos mille ducentos nonaginta dies Porphyrius in tempore Antiochi in desolatione templi dicis completos quam Iosephus MachabÄ™orum vt dixintus liber tribus tantùni annis fuisse commemorant Ex quo perspicâ—â—â— est tres istos semis annos de Antichristi dici temporibus qui tribus semis annis hoc est mille ducentis nonaginta diebus sanctos perseqâ—â—turus est postea ceciderit in monte inclyto sancto A tempore igitur quod nos interpretaâ—i sunus iuge sacrificiuÌ„ quando Antichristus vrbem obtinens Dei cultum interdixerit vsque ad internecionem eius tres semis anni id est mille ducenti nonaginta dies complebuntur These thousand two hundreth and ninetie dayes Prophyrius saith thâ—â— were fulfilled in the time of Antiochus and in the desolation of the temple which both Iesophus and the booke of Machabees as we haue said do testifie to be dâ—n in three yeares only whereby it is plaine these three yeares and an halfe to be spoken of the times of Antichrist who by the space of three yeres and an halfe that is a thousand two hundreth and ninetie days shal persecute the holy and faithfull Christians and after shal fall downe in the famous and holy hill From the time therefore that we bene interpreted the daily sacrifice when Antichrist shal forbid the seruice of God vnto his destruction there shall be fulfilled three yeres and an halfe that is to say a thousand two hundreth and ninetie dayes We haue often seene before what an impudent falsarie M. Hesk. is of the Doctors and here I know not for what cause except it were to trouble the sense of Hieronymes words both in the Latine in his English translation he hath left out the Greeke word that Hieronyme vseth in this sentence A tempore iginer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod nos interpretati sumus iuge sacrificium c. Therefore from the time of the perpetuitie which we haue interpreted the perpetuall sacrifice c. At least wise he should haue noted in the margent Graecum est non potest legi But to the matter although Hierom contrarie to the exposition of our sauiour Christ referre this taking away of the daily sacrifice to the time of Antichrist yet doth he interprete the same sacrifice to be but the worship and seruice of God which Antichrist should forbid But Nicholas Lyra is a Doctour for M. Heskins tooth for he expoundeth it of the sacrifice of the altar And M. Heskins will proue it by reason For it can not be meant of a spiritual sacrifice of praise prayers mortification repentance c. For these can not be put downe but shal be frequented euen vnder his flames and sword therfore it must needes be the daily sacrifice of the altar And yet M. Heskins thinketh that shal not be cleane put downe but secretly be vsed of godly disposed people so that he were best to conclude that there shal none at al be put downe But may not the outward seruice of God be put downe as Hieronyme saith But it must of necessitie be the sacrament of the altar O easie necessitie that so lightly is auoyded Well beside this rushie cheine of M. Heskins necessitie you shall heare matter of congruitie If the fathers of all ages knewe that externe sacrifice did please God should not christians much more which liue in the cleare light acknowledge the same O profounde diuine He hath forgotten that the true worshippers must nowe worshippe God in spirit and trueth Ioan. 4. Yet more If those sacrifices were a sweete sauour to God for his sake whom they figured howe much more is our sacrifice offering Christe him selfe vnto him But sir their sacrifices were commanded Christ by his eternall spirite hath offered himselfe once to ende all such sacrifices For no man is worthie to offer him to God but euen himself If they giue not onely sacrifice of laude and thankes but also externall sacrifice of thankes shall not Christians which haue receiued greater benefites then they offer like or rather greater thankes Yes good M. Doctor but by such meanes as God hath appoynted and not by setting vp an other Altar and sacrifice to deface the crosse and sacrifice of christ Althoughe nothing can bee feyned more leaden and blockishe then these reasons bee yet the illuminate doctor cryeth out agaynste his obcÄ™cate and blind enemies that cannot see the congruitie of these matters as it were a light shining through a milstone The three and thirtieth Chapter openeth the Prophecie of Malachie The Prophete Malachie towarde the latter end of the first chapter of his Prophecie writeth thus I haue no pleasure in you saith the Lorde of hoastes neither will I accept an offering at your hand For from the rising of the sunne vntill the going downe of the same my name is great among the Gentiles and in euerie place incense shall bee offered vnto my name and a pure offering For my name is great among the heathen This text saith M. Heskins hath greatly tormented the protestantes for they wrest it into diuerse senses because it proueth inuincibly the sacrifice of the masse Therefore Oecolampadius expoundeth this sacrifice of the obedience of all nations to the faith Bucer of faith and the confession of the same Bullinger of the land and prayse of God Vrbanus Rhegius of mortification and inuocation of Gods name Al which M. Heskins him selfe that firste cryeth out of their discord confesseth to agre in this that they vnderstand the prophesie of the spirituall sacrifice of prayse and thanksgiuing But these hereticall expositions he saith cannot stande And why so â–ª forsooth because these spiritual sacrifices be not new but were offered by the godly euen since Abel who he saith was the first that offered sacrifice to God and that of the fruites of the earth whereas it is not to be thought that Adam offered no sacrifice al that time before and the text is plaine that Abell offered the fruit of his cattell But although the spirituall worship of God is not newe yet it was newe to the Iewes that the father shoulde bee worshipped from the time of Christ neither in the mouÌ„t Garizim nor at Ierusalem but of all nations in spirite and trueth that is without all externall and figuratiue sacrifices An other reason is of the purenesse of the newe sacrifice aboue the olde For the olde sacrifices were pure by participation the newe is pure by nature and therefore nothing else but the bodie of
of places as though hee required no lesse then a thousand then he bableth against natural Philosophie as though our faith were buylded therevpon whereas the Papistes and especially the schoolmen euen to lothsomnesse do reason out of natural philosophie in the greatest mysteries of faith But to put him out of doubt we buyld vpon the Scripture our faith of the trueth of Christes bodie that it cannot bee in more places then one because the Apostle sayth that in respect of his humaine nature he was made like to his brethren in all things sinne excepted Heb. 2. And therefore where as he will aunswere vs first by Ambrose De inition Myst. Cap. Quid hic c. What seekest thou here the order of nature in Christes bodie seeing the selfe same our Lorde Iesus besides nature was borne of a virgin I say he aunswereth nothing to the purpose for neither doth Ambrose speak of the presence of his bodie in more places then one nor of any carnall presence in the sacrament but of a mysticall diuine and significatiue presence as is manifest by his wordes that followe immediatly which M. Heskins as his custome is hath craftely suppressed Vera vtique carâ— Christi que crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aliud dicitur post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur It was the true fleshe of Christ which was crucified which was buryed therefore it is truely the sacrament of that fleshe Our Lorde Iesus him selfe cryeth This is my bodie before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after the consecration the bodie of Christe is signified Hee him selfe sayth it is his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud By this place you see that the Lords supper is the sacrament of his true fleshe that was crucified and that the bodie of Christ is signified by it Here is no one worde sounding either to the carnall presence â–ª or to the presence in many places His second proofe is out of Augustine that Christ was both in his owne hands in his twelue Apostles hands in Psal. 33. And he was borne in his owne hands But brethren howe may this be done in man who can vnderstande who is borne in his owne hands A man may be carried in thè handes of other men in his owne handes no man is borne Howe it may be vnderstanded in Dauid according to the letter we find not But in Christ we finde it For Christ was borne in his owne hands when he commending his owne body sayd this is my bodie I passe ouer that he translateth comendans ipsum corpus giuing forth the selfe same bodie But howe fraudulently he abuseth the authoritie of Augustine it is manifest by that which followeth ipse se portabat quodam modo cum diceret hoc est corpus meum And he carried him selfe after a certein maner when he sayde this is my bodie These wordes declare that Augustine woulde not teach that Christe absolutely did beare him selfe in his hands as M. Heskins would beare vs in hand but after a certeine maner And no man writeth so plainly of the necessitie of Christes bodie to be in one place as he I will cite one onely short place to auoide tediousnesse In Ioan. Cap. 7. Tr. 30. Sursum est Dominus sed etiam hîc veritas Dominus Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit vno loco esse potesti veritas eius vbique diffusa est The Lord is aboue and he is also here and the Lorde is trueth For the Lordes bodie in which he rose againe can be but in one place but his truth is spread ouer all places This saying beside that it limitteth the bodie of Christe to one place will expound the other sayings which he bringeth out of Chrysostome Basil c. that Christ is both in heauen and on earth The next proofe is out of the Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostome which he calleth their masses although writen by neither of them The wordes in effect are all one and therefore it were vaine to rehearse them both Looke ô Lorde Iesu Christ our God from thy holie habitation and from the seat of the glorie of thy kingdome and come to sanctifie vs which sittest aboue with thy father and art present with vs beneath inuisibly vouchsafe with thy mightie hande to giue vnto vs thy immaculate bodie and precious bloud and by vs to all thy people The distinction of the two natures in Christ will soone aunswere this presence of Christe both in heauen and in earth as in the late rehearsed sentence of Augustine And Basil him selfe in his booke de Spiritu Sancto Cap. 22. prooueth the Holie Ghoste to be God because he is reported in Scripture to be present in diuerse places at once so that except wee will with Eutyches ouerthrowe the trueth of Christes bodie wee must holde that it is in one onely place at one time and not in many places or euery where But Chrysostome I trowe shall helpe him In 10. Heb. Hom. 17. This sacrifice is an exemplar of that we offer the selfe same alwayes Neither do we nowe offer one Lambe and tomorrow another but the selfe same thing alwayes Wherefore this sacrifice is one Or else by this reason because it is offered in many places there are many Christes Not so but one Christ is euery where both here being full and there full euen one bodie And as he that is euerie where offered is one bodie not many bodies Euen so also is it one sacrifice First M. Heskins here I knowe not for what cause peruerteth the order of Chrysostomes wordes for where he sayeth Alioqui hac ratione Heskins setteth them down vnâ—m est hoc sacrificium hac ratione Alicqui c. Secondly which is no newe thing in him he leaueth out that which is the resolution of all this doubtfull disputation namely that which followeth Hoc autem quod facimus in commemorationem quidem fit eius quod factum est Hoc enim sacite inquit in meam commemorationem Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex sed idipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur But this which we do is done truely in remembrance of that which was done before For do this sayeth he in remembrance of mee We do not offer another sacrifice as the high Priest but the selfe same alwayes but rather wee exercise the remembrance of the sacrifice Here is nowe that sacrifice which is offered euery where by a necessarie correction brought to the remembrance of that sacrifice which was once offered on the crosse but is celebrated euery where in the ministration of the sacrament And the same wordes
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
Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud you shall haue no life in you They thought this impossible but he shewed that it was altogether possible and not that only but also necessarie which also he did vnto Nicodemus He addeth also of his bloud signifying the cup which as is saide already he would giue to his disciples in the last supper Here Euthymius a late writer and out of the compasse of the challenge vnderstandeth this text of the sacrament yet speaketh hee nothing of the carnall manner of eating As for the other place he braggeth of in Matth. 26. which he cyteth in the 58. Chapter of this booke how little it maketh for him I wish the reader before he go any further to turne to the Chapter and consider The sixteenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text in hand by the Ephesine Counsell The woordes of the Epistle of the Ephesine Counsell vnto Nestorius be these Necessario hoc c. This also we do adde necessarily for shewing foorth the death of the onely begotten sonne of God after the flesh that is of Iesus Christe and confessing together his resurrection and ascention into heauen we celebrate it in our Churches the vnbloudie seruice of his sacrifice so also doe we come to the mysticall blessings and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy body and precious bloud of Christ the redeemer of vs all Not taking it as common flesh which God forbid nor at the flesh of a sanctified man and ioyned to the word according to the vnitie of dignitie or as possessing a diuine habitation but truely quickening and made proper vnto the word it selfe For he being naturally life as God bicause he was vnited to his owne flesh professed the sonne to haue power to giue life And therefore although he say vnto vs Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you yet we ought not to esteeme it as of a man that is one of vs For howe can the flesh of a man after his owne nature be a quickening flesh But as verily made his owne flesh which for vs was both made and called the sonne of man. The Fathers of this Counsell do not as M. Heskins saith expound this text of the sacrament or declare what they receiue in the sacrament but rather shew what they iudged of that flesh whereof they receiued the sacrament namely that it was not the flesh of a pure man as Nestorius affirmed but the flesh of the son of God therfore had power to giue life being eateÌ„ by faith either in the participation of the sacrament or without it And whereas he noteth a plaine place for M. Iewel when they say They were made partakers of the body and bloud of Christ there is no more plainenesse then M. Iewell will confesse But where he addeth Receiuing it not as coÌ„mon flesh but as the flesh truely giuing life he corrupteth the sense of the Counsel referring that to the receiuing of the sacrament which they vnderstand of their iudgement of the flesh whereof they receiued the sacrament Finally where he would helpe the matter with the opinion of Cyril of our corporall coniunction with Christ howe little it auayleth we shewed before in aunswere to that place Cap. 14. But least he shuld lacke sufficient proofe of this matter he confirmeth his exposition by the erronious practise of the Church of Aphrica from Saint Cyprians time vnto Saint Augustines time at the least which imagined such a necessitie of thaâ— sacrament by this place Except ye eate c that they ministred the Communion to infants he might haue added that some did minister it to dead folkes But this absurditie which followeth of the exposition will rather driue al wisemen from that exposition then moue them to receiue it And although the Bohemians vsed this text to proue the communion in both kindes yet doth it not followe that it is properly to be expounded of the sacrament The seuenteenth Chapter expoundeth the next following by S. Augustine and Cyrill The text he will expound is He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life in him That this text is not to be expounded of the sacrament it is manifest by this reason that many doe eate the sacrament that haue not life in them as Augustine whom he alledgeth most plainly affirmeth But let vs see his profes for his exposition First Augustine Tr. 26. in IoaÌ„ Hanc non habet c. He hath not this life that eateth not this bread nor drinketh this bloud For without is men may haue temporall life but eternall they can not He therefore which eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud hath no life in him and he that eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath life eternall He hath answered to both in that he saith life euerlasting It is not so in this meate which we take to sustaine the life of this body For he that shall not take it shall not liue Nor yet he that shall take it shall liue For it may be that by age or sicknesse or any other cause many which haue taken it may dye but in this meat and drinke that is the body and bloud of our Lord it is not so For both he that taketh it not hath not life he that taketh it hath life and that eternall Although there be not one word spoken here of the sacrament and M. Heskins him selfe alledgeth the words following in which he confesseth that Augustine expoundeth this meate and drinke of the societie of Christ and his members which is his Church yet either so blinde or obstinate he is that with vaine gloses he will go about to drawe Augustine to his side First he saith though this meate signifie the mysticall body of Christe yet it signifieth not that alone but his naturall body in the sacrament whereof he hath neuer a worde in this treatise of S. Augustine secondly Augustine did not go about to instruct the people what they should receiue but how wel they shuld receiue it Which is vtterly false for hee doth both and there is no better way to instruct men howe well they should receiue the sacrament then to teach them to consider what they do receiue And therfore the conclusion of this treatise which he cyteth is altogether against him Hoc ergo totum c. Let all this therfore auayle to this end most welbeloued that we eaâ—e not the flesh and bloud of Christ onely in a sacrament which many euill men doe but that we eate and drinke euen to the participation of the spirit that we may remaine in the body of our Lorde as his mâ—mbers that we may be quickened by his spirite and not be offended although many do nowe with vs eate and drinke the sacraments temporally which in the end shal haue eternal torments Oâ—t of these wordes M. Hes doth
deede be turned into his fleshe it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath giuen vnto vs. I will aske no better interpretation for this must either be a spirituall and vnspeakeable manner of conuersion or else it would be a monsterous and blasphemous transmutation of our flesh into the flesh of Christ as I haue diuerse times before noted of this place But what sayeth S. Gregorie in Iob. Cap. 6. Natus Dominus c. Our Lorde being borne is layd in the manger that it might be signified that the holie beaster which long vnder the lawe were founde fasting should be filled with the haye of his incarnation Being borne he filled the manger who gaue him selfe to be meate to mennes mindes saying he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in me and I in him What winneth M. Heskins by this place it is the meate of the soule therefore it must be spiritually receiued Or if hee will not haue it onely spiritually receiued wherefore serueth the text alledged which he affirmeth to be verified onely in them that receiue spiritually But we must heare further out of Gregorie in Hom. Pasc. Quid namque c. For what the bloud of the lambe is you haue not nowe learned by hearing but by drinking which it put vpon bothe the postes when it is not dronke onely with the mouth of the bodie but also with the mouth of the heart What newes haue we here forsooth Christes bloud dronke with mouth of bodie and mouth of heart I heare him say the bloud of the Pascall lambe which he sayth doth figure the sacrament is so dronke but not the naturall bloud of Christ. Why then marke what he sayeth soone after Qui sic c. Hee that so taketh the bloud of his redeemer that he will not yet followe his passion he hath put the bloud on the one post In this allegorie if he call the sacrament of Christes bloude the redeemers bloud as he calleth it the bloud of the lambe what great marueile is it or what great matter is it the whole speache being figuratiue both allegoricall and metonymicall The sixe and twentieth Chapter continueth this exposition by Saint Cyrill and Lyra. Cyrill is cited in Ioan. Cap. 15. Qui manducat c. Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee I in him Whereuppon it is to be considered that not by disposition onely which is vnderstoode by charitie Christ is in vs but also by a naturall participation For as if a man do so mingle waxe that is melted with fire vnto other waxe likewise melted that one thing seeme to be made of them both so by the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christe he is in vs and wee in him For this corruptible nature of our bodye coulde not otherwise bee brought to incorruptiblenesse and life except the bodie of naturall life were ioyned to it By these wordes Cyrill teacheth that wee are ioyned to the naturall fleshe of Christe so that by participation thereof wee are made one with him but wicked men are not made one with Christe nor partakers of incorruptiblenesse therefore wicked men are not ioyned to Christe by that naturall participation he speaketh of and consequently Christe is not corporally receiued of them nor of any other Yet Maister Heskins noteth as his manner is a plaine place for Maister Iewell when he saith we do partake the naturall flesh bloud of Christe Which wee alwayes confesse but wee partake it spiritually by faith and haue eternall life thereby therefore wicked men partake it not which want both the meane and the effect Thus Cyrill beeing aunswered wee force not vpon Lyra. As for that which followeth in the Chapter to shewe that by participation of Christes fleshe wee are not deliuered from temporall death but from eternall destruction being no matter of question I passe ouer as needelesse The seuen and twentieth Chapter abydeth in the same exposition by Theophylact and Ruperius Tuicen Although there is no greate matter in the speache of the two Burgesses to helpe maister Heskins purpose yet because they are too young to beare witnesse in this cause I will not trouble my selfe nor my reader either to rehearse them or to make aunswere to them The eyght and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Haimo Euthymius As for fryer Haimo I leaue him to M. Hesk. although in the words cited by him he sayeth nothing greatly to his intent But for as much as Euthymius Zigabonus â–ª doeth often borrowe his expositions of the old doctours though he him selfe be not so auncient a writer I will rehearse his testimonie in Math. 26. Si de vno c. If all we that are faithfull do partake of one bodie and bloud wee are all one by the participation of these mysteries and we are all in Christ and Christ is in vs all He sayth he that eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloude dwelleth in mee and I in him For the WORDE by assumption was vnited to flesh and againe the flesh is vnited to vs by participation Here M. Heskins noteth a plaine proofe of the presence against the proclaimer How so the naturall fleshe was vnited to the sonne of God and the sonne is vnited to vs by participation What else but this participation is by faith and causeth vs to bee one with Christe and Christe in vs all and is not in the wicked which thing Maister Heskins with a dry foote passeth ouer as also in translation he omitteth the word fideles all wee that are faithfull because he woulde haue the ignorant to thinke that the vnfaithfull do partake the same flesh as truely as the faithfull The nine and twentieth Chapter expoundeth the next texte that followeth in the sixt of Saint Iohn by Saint Augustine and S. Cyrill The text is this As the liuing father sent mee and I liue for the father and he that eateth mee shall liue also for mee or by the meanes of mee In exposition of this text he will onely declare by Saint Augustine Howe Christ liueth by the father which because it is no matter of controuersie betwixt vs I do altogether omitt come to Cyrillus whose wordes concerning anâ— thing our question are these for the rest as impertinent I passe ouer Quemaedmodum ego factus c. As I am made man by the will of my father and liue by the father because I haue naturally flowed out of that life which is so of nature perfectly do keepe the nature of my father so that I also am naturally life euen so he that eateth my fleshe shall liue for mee being wholly reformed vnto mee which am life and am able to giue life And he sayeth that he him selfe is eaten when his fleshe is â—aten Because the worde was made fleshe not by confusion of natures but by the unspeakable manner of vnion Here Maister Heskins noteth that Christe is
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
of our Lords words bringeth in the perfection of certeintie who said This is my bodie which is giuen for you doe this in remembraunce of me In this aunswere seeing he bringeth no exposition but onely citeth the bare wordes of the text there is nothing that maketh for M. Heskins He saith the wordes are plaine inough and neede none other interpretation It is true before the worlde was troubled with the heresie of carnall presence the text seemeth plaine ynough these wordes Do this in remeÌ„brance of me were thought a sufficient interpretation of those words This is my bodie and so doth Basill vse them But S. Ambrose he saith is so plaine that if his mother the Church had not beene good to him he should haue bene shut out of the doores For Oecolampadins reiected his book of the sacraments as Luther did the Epistle of S. Iames. Touching Luther although he were too rash in that censure yet had he Eusebius for his author twelue hundreth yeres before him And not only OecolaÌ„padius but many other learned men do thinke both the phrase and the matter of that booke to be vnlike S. Ambrose But for my part let it be receiued I hope M. Hesk. shal gaine litle by it he hath noted many short sentences which I wil rehearse one after another First Lib. 4. Ca. 5. Antequam Before it be consecrated it is bread but when the wordes of Christe are come to it it is the bodie of christ Finally heare him saying take eate ye all of it This is my bodie And before the words of Christ the cuppe is full of wine and water when the wordes of Christe haue wrought there is made the bloud which redeemed the people Ibi. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Tu forte Thou peraduenture sayest my bread is vsuall bread but this bread is bread before the wordes of the sacramentes when consecration is come to it of bread it is made the fleshe of Christ. And againe in the same Chapter Sed audi but heare him saying that sayeth he saide and they were made he commanded and they were created Therefore that I may answere thee Before consecration it was not the bodie of Christe But after consecration I say vnto thee thaâ— now it is the bodie of christ He saide and it is made he commanded and it is created And in the same booke Cap. 5. Ipse Dominus Our Lord Iesus himselfe testifieth vnto vs that we receiue his bodie and bloud shall we doubt of his trueth and testification Out of these places he concludeth not onely that figures be excluded but also that the tearme of consecration is vsed seriously I graunt but not in such sense as the Papistes vse it but as the worde signifieth to hallow or dedicate to an holie vse How figures be excluded and how these places are to be taken that are so plaine as he pretendeth I pray you heare what he writeth in the same bookes of sacramentes Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Ergo didicisti quòd ex pane corpuâ— fiat Christi quòd vinum aqua in calicem mittitur sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi Coelestis Sed fortò dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis vt nullus horror cruoris sit precium tamen operetur redemptionis Didicisti ergo quia quod accipis corpus est Christi Therefore thou hast learned that of the bread is made the body of Christ and that the wine and water is put into the cup but by consecration of the heauenly worde it is made his bloud But perhappes thou sayest I see not the shewe of bloud Yet hath it the similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud that there may be no horror of bloud yet it may worke the price of redemption Thou hast learned then that that which thou takest is the bodie of christ Here you see it is so the bodie of Christ as it is the similitude of his death so the bloud as it is the similitud of his bloud Moreouer in the same book Ca. 5. Dicit sacerdos c. The priest saith make vnto vs saith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. And Cap. 6. Ergo memores c. Therefore beeing mindefull of his most glorious passion and resurection from hell and ascention into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudie sacrifice this holie bread and cup of eternall life And againe Lib. 6. cap. 1. Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipiâ— sacramentuÌ„ sed verae naturae gratiam virtus émque consequeris Therfore lest any man should say this and there should be a certeine horror of bloud but that the grace of redemption might remaine therefore truely thou takest a sacrament for a similitude but thou obteinest the grace vertue of his true nature Thus Ambrose hath spoken sufficiently to shewe him selfe no fauourer of Maister Heskins bill although as the scripture teacheth he call the sacrament the bodie bloud of Christ and declareth why it is so called because it is a figure similitude and a memoriall thereof The three and fiftieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of Christes wordes by Gregorie Nicene and S. Hierome Gregorie Nicene is cited Ex serus Catatholico De Diuinis sacram Qua ex causa panis in eo corpore mutatus c. By what cause the bread in that bodie beeing chaunged passed into the diuine power by the same cause the same thing it done now For as there the grace of the word of God maketh that bodie whose nourishment consisted of bread and was after a certeine maner bread So bread as the Apostle saith by the word of God and prayer is sanctified not because it is eaten growing to that that it may become the bodie of the WORDE but foorthwith by the worde it is chaunged into the bodie as it is saide by the WORDE This is my bodie This place saith Maister Heskins ouerthroweth three heresies The first of Luther or Lutherans that the sacrament is not the bodie of Christ except it be receiued Gregorie saith it is not the bodie of Christ because it is eaten But that is no ouerthrow to Luthers assertion for Gregorie meaneth that the sacrament by nourishing our bodies is not made the bodie of Christe as the breade that a man eateth is turned into his bodie and so was the bread that our sauiour did eat turned into the substance of his bodie while he liued but by the power of God this notwithstanding it is made that bodye of Christ only to the worthie receiuer Of which aâ—sertion M. Hesk. saith they
be his owne substaunce as it is not appearing which is altogether vnchangeable and more inwardly and secretly higher then all the spirites which he hath created He rayleth vpon Oecolampadius for leauing out of S. Augustine that which maketh against him as though hee him selfe hath not an hundreth times done so as he chargeth him Although it is not to be thought that Oecolampadius vsed any fraud when he tooke as much as serued his purpose for which he alledged it and nothing folowed that was contrarie to it for all M. Heskins lowde crying out For Paule preached Christe by signifying in the sacrament which is called the body bloud of Christ bicause it is a sacrament thereof whereas his tong nor his parchment nor ynke nor sound of words nor figures of letters were no sacraments and yet he preached the same Christ by signifying in speaking writing and ministring the sacrament But besides this M. Heskins would haue vs note two things That the bread is sanctified and made a great sacrament and that it is sanctified and made by the inuisible worke of the holy Ghost The first he saith is against Oecolampadius Cranmer that say the creatures receiue no sanctification but the soules of men They meane that holinesse is not included in the creatures but consisteth in the whole action and so Augustine addeth to the consecration the due receiuing in remembrance of Christes death without which the bread is no sacrament But M. Heskins would learne what he meaneth by calling it a great sacrament and what the worke of the holy Ghost is in it If it please him to vnderstand the holy Ghost working inuisibly maketh it a greate mysterie of our saluation assuring our consciences that we are fed spiritually with the body and bloud of Christ as our bodies are corporally with bread and wine As for S. Iames his Masse and other such maâ—king disguisings I will not vouchsafe to aunswere being meere forgeries and counterfetings But howe S. Augustine did expound these wordes M. Heskins if he durst might haue cyted this place Contra Adimantum Nam ex eo quod scriptum est sanguinem pecoris animam eius esse prÄ™ter id quod supra dixi non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris anima possum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim Dominus dubitanit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui For of that which is written that the bloud of a beast is the life thereof beside that which I said before that it pertaineth not to me what becommeth of the life of a beast I may interprete that commandement to be giuen in a signe for our Lord doubted not to say this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body This place is plaine and will not suffer M. Heskins glose that the accidents are called a signe of his body for then it is nothing like to the text which he compareth to this bloud is the life of the beast Let this place expound Augustine when so euer he nameth the sacrament the body of Christ. The fiue and fiftieth Chapter tarieth in the exposition of the same wordes by Chrysostome and Sedulius Chrysostome is cyted In 26. Math. Hom. 83. Credamus vbique c. Let vs beleeue in euery place neither let vs resist him although it seemeth to be an absurde thing to our sense and to our cogitation which is saide Let his word I beseech you ouercome both our sense and our reason which thing let vs do in all matters and specially in mysteries not looking vpon those things only which lye before vs but also holding fast his wordes For we can not be deceiued by his wordes but our sense is most easie to be deceiued they can not be false but this our sense is often and often deceiued Therefore bicause he hath saide This is my body let vs be held with no doutfulnesse but let vs beleeue and throughly see it with the eyes of vnderstanding Here M. Heskins noteth that it passeth not reason to make present a figure of his body as though the mysterie of the sacrament were nothing but a figure of his body Secondly that Chrysostome willeth Christes wordes to be vnderstanded as they be spoken No doubt but he would haue them to be vnderstoode as they were meant by Christe and that is spiritually for which cause he willeth vs to beholde the matter with the eyes of our vnderstanding and by faith And whereas M. Heskins doth further alledge this Doctours wordes In Marc. 14. Hom. 51. Qui dixis c. He that saide This is my body did bring to passe the thing also with his worde We confesse he did so but thereof it doth not followe that al figure is wiped away as he saith neither is there any plaine place for the proclamer or in any thing that followeth in the same Homely Quando igitur c. When then thou seest the Priest giue the body thinke not the hand of the Priest but the hand of Christe is put foorth vnto thee Surely in these wordes we must either say that the Priestes hande is transubstantiated into the hande of Christ or else we must acknowledge a figuratiue speach It followeth in Chrysostome for more persuasion Qui enim maius c. For he that hath giuen a greater thing for thee that is to say his life why will he disdaine to deliuer his body to thee Let vs therefore heare both Priestes and other howe great and how woonderfull a thing is graunted to vs Let vs heare I pray you and let vs tremble he hath deliuered his flesh vnto vs him selfe offered hath he set before vs What satisfaction therefore shall we offer when after we are nourished with such a foode we doe offend When eating a lambe we are turned into woolues when beeing satisfied with sheepes flesh we rauine as lyons M. H. noteth that here be termes to plaine for figuratiue speaches yet in spite of his nose he must coÌ„fesse al this speach to be figuratiue or else he must make Chrysost. Authour of grosse absurdities I will only speak of one which is most apparant Chrysost. saith it is a greater matter that Christ gaue his life then that he giueth his body Let me aske him this question Doth hee giue a dead body in the sacrament or a liuing If hee giue a liuing body hee giueth his life in the sacrament and then howe is it lesse when hee giueth both his life and his body But Chrysostome meaneth that he suffered death which is a greater matter then that he giueth vs his body in the sacrament for that is a memoriall of his death and receiueth all the vertue from his death so the giuing of his life is a greater matter then the giuing of his body in the sacrament for the was in acte this in mysterie But let vs followe M. Hes. The sacrament is a wonderful thing
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
sacrifice of thankesgiuing or a memoriall of the sacrifice of Christ by which it is easie to iudge howe the doctrine that the Papistes do nowe holde of the propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse doth agree with the auncient Liturgies ascribed to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church The eight and twentieth Chapter treateth of the prayer for acceptation of the oblation or sacrifice made in the Masse and vsed as well by the Apostles as the Fathers That the Apostles and Fathers commended to God by prayers the sacrifice which thei offered it is a manifest argument that they offered not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe for that needeth no commendation of our prayers They prayed therefore that their sacrifice of thankes giuing and duetifull seruice celebrated in the memorie of Christes death might be acceptable to God as you shal see by al their prayers First the Liturgie vntruly ascribed to Iames praieth thus Pro oblatis c. For these offred and sanctified precious heauenly vnspeakable immaculate glorious feareful horrible diuine gifts let vs pray to our Lord God that our Lord God accepting them into his holy heauenly mentall and spirituall altar for a sauour of spiritual sweet smell may giue vs againe and send vnto vs the diuine grace and gift of the most holy spirite These sanctified giftes can not be the body and bloud of Christe which are holy of them selue but the bread and wine sanctified to be a memoriall of the death of Christe in a spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing Saint Clement if wee beleeue Nicholas Methon prayed thus Rogamus c. We pray thee that with mercifull and cheerefull countenaunce thou wilt looke vpon these giftes set before thee thou God which hast no neede of any thing and that thou mayest be pleased with them to the honour of thy Christ. These wordes are plaine that he offered not Christe but the breade and wine to bee sanctified to the honour of Christe namely that they might be made the body and bloud of Christe to as many as receiue them worthily In the Liturgie imputed to Basil the Priest prayeth thus Dominum postulemus c. Let vs desire the Lorde for these offered and sanctified the most honourable giftes of our Lorde God and for the profite of the goods of our soules that the most mercifull God which hath receiued them in his holy heauenly intelligible altar for a sauour of sweete smelling would send vnto vs the grace and communion of his holy spirite The same wordes in a manner be in the Liturgie fathered vppon Saint Chrysostome though it be manifest that it was written seuen hundreth yeares after his death as is shewed before Pro oblatis c. For the offered and sanctified precious giftes let vs pray the Lorde that our mercifull God who hath receiued theÌ„ in his holy heauenly intelligible altar may send vs therfore grace the gift of the holy Ghost Maister Heskins would haue vs note that these Fathers seeme to pray for their sacrifice which we note very willingly for thereby is proued that their sacrifice was not the very body of Christ for that nedeth no commendation of our prayers Wel S. Ambrose followeth Lib. de Sacr. 4. Cap. 6. Petimus c. We pray and desire that thou wilt receiue this oblation in thy high altar by the handes of the Angels as thou hast vouchsafed to receiue the gifts of thy seruant righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that which thy high Priest Melchisedech offered to thee The very name of gods heauenly mental intelligible holy high altar do argue a spirituall sacrifice and not a reall oblation of the naturall body and bloud of christ Next to these Liturgies Maister Heskins adioyneth the wordes of the Canon of the Popish Masse agreeing in effect with these of Ambrose but nothing at all in vnderstanding For that the Papistes esteeme their sacrifice to be very Christ God and Man which none of the auncient fathers did For which cause the Bishop of Sarum iustly reproued those three blasphemies in their Canon not in respect of the words but in respect of their vnderstanding of them The first that they seeme to make Christ in his fathers displeasure that he needeth a mortall man to be his spokesman The second that the body of Christe should in no better wise bee receiued of his father then a Lambe at the handes of Abel The third that they desire an Angel may come and carie away Christes body into heauen These three blasphemies M. Heskins taketh vpon him to auoyde or excuse To the first after many lowd outcries and beastly raylings against that godly learned father of blessed mâ—mory he answereth defending it first by example of these auncient Liturgies that they prayed for their sacrifice but this helpeth him not for they neither thought nor saide that their sacrifice was very Christe God and Man but a sacrament and memoriall of him Afterward hee saith the meaning of their Church is not to pray for Christe but by Christ to obtaine fauour bicause they say in the end of euery prayer per Christum Dominum nostrum by our Lord Christ. But this hole is too narrowe for him to creepe out at For he confesseth that he prayeth for his sacrifice and he affirmeth that his sacrifice is Christ therfore he praieth for Christ. To auoyde the second blasphemie hee saith that the meaning of their Church is not to pray that God will accept the sacrifice which is acceptable of it selfe but their deuotion and seruice and them selues the offerers as hee did accept Abell and his sacrifice c. and so flyeth to the example of the olde Liturgies but that will not serue him For their sacrifice was not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ but a seruice and duetie of thankesgiuing in remembrance of Christe And therefore they might well pray that their sacrifice might be accepted as Abell and his sacrifice as Noe and his burnt offering and so of the rest but this meaning will not stande with the wordes of their Canon which are that God will accept the sacrifices that is the body and bloud of Christ as hee accepted the giftes of his iust seruaunt Abell c. Therefore they must either chaunge the wordes of the Canon or his aunswere to the second accusation by the meaning of their Church can not stande howe so euer Hugo Heskins would seeme to salue or rather to daub vp the matter To the third and last hee aunswereth denying that the meaning of their Church is that the body of Christe should be caried by an Angel but that their prayers should bee offered by an Angel or Angels in the sight of GOD making a long and needlesse discourse of the ministerie of Angels and howe they offer our prayers to GOD which is nothing to the purpose For the Maister of the sentences affirmeth that an Angel must be sent to
consecrate the quickening body or else it can not be called a Masse which is nothing like to Maister Heskins seruice Lib. 4. dist 13. In the end he will ioyne issue with the proclamer that no Catholique euer thought that Christes body was caried into heauen by an Angell And it seemeth plainly that they are all ashamed of the grosse absurdities and blasphemies of their Masse and therefore are forced to feigne meanings and interpretations which are cleane contrarie to the wordes thereof The trueth is that these and some other prayers of their Canon were vsed in the Romane Church before the opinion of transubstantiation carnall presence or propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse were receiued and this is the cause that being nowe applyed to these monstruous errours they imploy such detestable blashemies as all the Papistes in the world are ashamed to heare of and not able to defend whereas before these errours receiued some of them were good prayers some were tolerable The nine thirtieth Chapter treateth of the value of the Masâ—â— to the quicke and the dead Prayer for the dead beeing an auncient errour Maister Heskins triumpheth out of measure that he findeth some spottes thereof in the auncient writers bookes But there is great difference betweene praying for the dead which is an errour rising of superstition and infidelitie and offring the bodie of Christe in sacrifice for the dead which is a most horrible blaspheming Therefore he doeth maliciously wrest such thinges as are spoken of prayer for the dead or the sacrifice of prayer for the dead yea and sometimes the sacrifice of thanksgiuing for the dead to the oblation of CHRISTE for the dead Thus he abuseth first all the liturgies falsely ascribed to Saint Iame Basil Chrysostome Which as we haue proued before pretended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice and therfore offred it not for the dead although they offer prayers for the dead And here it is to be noted that Clementes liturgie forsaketh him for prayer for the dead or else we should surely haue heard of him as we did before He would get credite to that whiche is vntruely ascribed to Saint Iames by the proclaymers testimonie because he saide it was full of knowledge and full of errours also When Dionysius can say nothing for him concerning the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable for the dead he bringeth him in speaking of prayers made for the partie deceassed at his buriall Concerning the antiquitie of this Dionysius we haue shewed before that he cannot be so olde by sixe hundreth yeares as the Papistes would make him That the Apostles taught not prayer for the dead in their writinges he saith the cause was that they needed not for that the Iewes vsed both prayer sacrifice for the dead before Christes comming â–ª by testimonie of the Booke of Machabees which he sayeth S. Augustine alloweth canonicall and by witnesse of one Antonie Margarita a late conuerted Iewe to Papistrie Touching the veritie of that historie of the Machabees though Augustine allowe it to be read so it be soberly yet doeth not he take it for Canonicall and Hierome vtterly denieth it for Canonicall Expreâ—at in Prouerb But for as much as this controuersie of praying for the dead is vnpertinent to this cause and requireth a larger discourse then the answere to this Chapter may conteine also that Maister Heskins in the end ioyneth issue and maketh a newe challenge I thinke it best to referre the Readers to mine answere against Maister Allens Booke of Purgatorie where he shall finde all those and a number more of places alledged and answered both touching prayers for the dead and the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable to the dead in the same also is some treatie of prayer vnto dead Saintes In the meane season this is sufficient against all mans authoritie that the worde of God prescribeth neither the one nor the other but condemneth them both for what so euer is not of faith is sin and whatsoeuer is not of the word of God is not of faith therfore prayers for the dead and to the dead beeing not of the worde of God are sinne Neither were they vsed in the Church more then an hundreth yeres after christ And the first that maketh mention of any praiers for the dead which is the elder errour by two or three hundreth yeres is Tertullian wheÌ„ he was an heretike who had receiued it with other heresies of the Montanistes who were two hundreth yeares after Christ notwithstanding that Epiphanius Augustine number it among the errours of Arrius that he denied prayers for the dead yet they both do also number it for one of the heresies of the Heracleonites to redeeme their dead with inuocations and other ceremonies vsed at their buriall How M. Heskins falsifieth the councel of Carthage which made a decree that such as denied to pay the oblations of the dead should be excommunicated as murtherers of the poore I shall not neede to rehearse vnderstanding dead mens legacies for the vse of the poore for Masses saide for the dead The same doeth M. Allen with this and other councels Likewise M. Heskins falsifieth Cyprian De Cerna Dom In huius praesentia non superuacuè in endicant lachrymae veniam nec vnquam patitur contriti cordis holocaustum repulsam In presence of him teares do neuer begge pardon in vain neither doeth the sacrifice of a contrite heart euer suffer repulse Here doth he translate Huius of this sacrifice and applyeth it to the sacrifice of the Masse for the dead whereas there is not one worde in all that sermon either of prayer or sacrifice for the dead But leauing this argument of praying and offering for the dead M. Heskins chargeth the the proclaimer with three vntrueths in one sentence where he saide that Saint Iames in his Masse preached and set foorth the death of Christ but the Papistes in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe geastures and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstande not and make no manner mention of Christes death To the first he answereth that they haue all thinges that S. Iames had in his Masse by the proclaymers confessioÌ„ who diuideth their Masse into holie prayer holie doctrine holy consecration holy receiuing See the impudent quarrelling of this froward sophister The Bishop saith the Papistes diuide their Masse into these partes therfore he acknowledgeth their Masse to consist of these partes and yet all these are but dumbe gestures and ceremonies because the people vnderstand none of them were they neuer so good as a great parte of them is starke naught To the second he saith that they them selues vnderstand not their owne gestures and ceremonies he sayeth that diuerse writers haue expounded euerie parcell of them as Isidorus Rabanus Hugo Hoffnester Garetius and others he leaueth out Bonauentur and Durandus the cheefe belike beeing ashamed of their ridiculous interpretations But admitte these things to be set foorth in bookes doth
images whiche Eusebius sawe and where should he see them but in the Churche in Constantine his time I haue shewed before where he might see them among the Heathens and Heretikes And that he sawe none in the Church appeareth in the Panaegynt ad Paulin. Tyr. Epū Lib. 10. Cap. 4. where a godly Church is described in euerie small parte and ornament of it yet no image at all spoken of which should not haue beene omitted if it had beene seene there especially beeing such necessarie ornamentes of Churches as the Papistes account them But Iulianus the runnagate saith he out of the tripertite historie Lib. 6. Cap. 41. brake that Image and the Christians afterwarde gathered vp the peeces and laide them in a Churche If this be not giuing of honour to Christes images he cannot tell what is honouring of Images Yes M. Sander to set candels before them to kneele to them to pray to them to kisse them to offer to them to make vowes to them to ascribe health to them c. These are honouring of images vsed of Papistes other maner of honouring then those Christians are saide to haue vsed For if it be credible that the peeces of brasse lay in the streete vntill Iulianus was dead that they might be gathered vp of the Christians and were not molten to none other vse by the Paganes yet why did not the Christians rather melt them make them a new image then lay them vp in the Church But M. Iewell is charged to speake if he dare what he would do if he chaunced to come into the same Church where the image of Christ were kept whether he would follow Iulianus in breaking it rather then the Christians in reseruing it He is now at rest with God hauing fought a good fight fulfilled his course and kept the faith wayting for the crowne of righteousnes which shal be giuen him by God the righteous iudge in that day so that he can make M. Sander none answer but thus I thinke he would haue resolued his question when he liued in this world He wold neither followe the spightfull malice of Iulian nor the superstitious emulation of those Christians but do with it as it became a Christian man according to Gods commandement and his calling And for my parte M. Sander I dare speake vnto you what I thinke I am one which esteeme monuments as much as any one poore man of my degree In so muche that a wise man perhaps might say vnto me Insanis veteres statuas Damasippus emendè And therfore if I had in my priuate possessiō such images of Christ Peter and Paul as Eusebius did see and that I were assured they were the true counterfets of their bodies or countenances as those which he did see were supposed to be I would so esteeme them as I do the Images of Caesar Pompeius Tulla and such like and peraduenture for the rarenesse much more but not a pinne the more in respect of religion For I do so honour auncient images that I make as great account of a peece of Nero or Heliogabalus as I do of Constantius and Theodosius But if I had authority of a Church in which were an image of pure gold representing the whole stature countenance apparell of Christ as he walked vpon the earth which were abused to idolatrie as your Popish images haue beene and are in some places vnto this day I would rather breake it in peeces by the example of Ezechias cast it into the deepe sea then either I would suffer idolatrie to be committed vnto it or preserue it to be a snare to them that liued after me to runne a whoring after it But as for your euill fauoured blockes and stones which haue none other shape or name but such as the idol of the workemans brayne hath giuen them and being set vp to be worshipped I would no more esteeme them then the myre in the streete or that whiche is more vile although you crie vntill you be hoarse they are the holy images of Christe of the blessed Trinitie of Saint Peter and S. Paule For to a Christian man they are abhomination THE XI or X. CHAP. That by the lawe of nature honour is due to the images and monuments of honourable personages And by what meanes that may be knowen Also that the law of nature standeth always immutable how the law of nature may be known Seuen causes of honoring artificial images God preferred images before only sounds of words The art of making images is good All nations honored Images that were worthie of honour The image breakers are ashamed to confesse that they breake Christes images The doctrine of the Catholikes concerning Images Maister Iewels contrarie doctrine to the same The holie Ghoste by Saint Paule hath well giuen vs warning saying Take heede that no man spoyle you through philosophie and vaine deceipt according to the tradition of men and not according to Iesus Christ. Col. 2. ver 8. and by the same sentence he hath also taught vs how we should esteeme all that doctrine that is commended vnto vs without the worde of God vnder what glorious and plausible title so euer namely for vaine deceitfulnesse By which rule when we examine this Chapter of Maister Sanders booke swelling with suche a proude title of the Lawe of nature we doe plainely perceiue that it is nothing else but a deceiptful vanitie with vaine sounde of wordes and friuolous reasons to goe about to make vs thinke that God hath written one law in nature and a cleane contrarie to that in his worde and holie scriptures The honouring of images in case of religion beeing expressely forbidden by the lawe of God written and the same an hundreth times repeated by the Prophetes and Apostles is the eternall wil of God and hath nothing in nature vncorrupted which is the ordinaunce of God contrarie vnto it And therefore I maruell what nature is in Maister Sanders iudgement whose lawe he defendeth to be neuer changed although God hath ruled his people in diuers manners sometime by inspiration somtime by outward voice custome and tradition sometime by written letter of the Lawe last of all by writing his own lawe of grace and spirite in their hearts I passe ouer that he calleth the last Gods owne lawe as though the rest were but borrowed but what is that vnchaungeable law of nature but Gods eternall lawe if that be not changed by the lawe written in letters then surely the lawe of nature abhorreth worshipping of images in religion which the lawe written forbiddeth Thus his first exposition ouerthroweth all the purpose of his Chapter Now to the second He hath two speciall grounds to helpe vs to finde out what the lawe of nature is in any case The one is the iudgement of right and sound reason the other is the practise of all nations But where shall we finde sound reason in any natural man When the light shineth in darknesse and the darkenesse
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
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
thus If the sacrament being an image a signe c of Christs bodie not his owne bodie may be worshipped and reuerenced therefore it doth follow that an image of an holy thing being absent as of Christ or saint Laurence may be worshipped of the newe Gospellers Who will say the Papistes lacke learning that make such wittie arguments An image or signe instituted by God may be reuerenced therefore an image forbidden by God may be honoured That which is vnproperlye called an image may be worshiped ergo that which is properly called so may be worshiped Christ is the image of his father Christ is God therfore euery image is god A signe or sacrament of Christs institution ought to be reuerently esteemed therefore a stocke or a stone in fashion of an image ought to be senced kneeled too kissed prayed to c. But maister Iewell proceedeth further saying we worship the worde of God according to this counsell of Anastasius Dominica verbae attentè audiant fideliter adorent Let them diligently heare and faithfully worship the worde of god Briefely we worship other thinges in such religious wise vnto Christ belonging Of these wordes Maister Sander argueth thus But Christs owne image belongeth to him in a religious wise instructing the eye the more worthy sence better then the worde doth the eare therefore Christs image is to be worshipped by the force of master Iewels doctrine I deny that your image belongeth to Christ which he abhorreth or that faith is to be instructed by the eye but onely by the hearing of the worde Rom. 10. Further maister Iewell saith doubtlesse it is our duetie to adore the body of Christ in the worde of God in the Sacrament of baptisme in the misteries of Christs bodye and bloude and wheresoeuer we see any steppe or token of it Hereof maister Sander resoneth thus a steppe is only a token of the foote an image of the whole bodilie shape a step must be adored ergo much more an image I deny that an image is any steppe of the body of Christ but a false lying and deceiptfull counterfet beside that it is a wise reason that is drawne from a Metaphore to a proper speach Moreouer maister Iewell saith in an other place the sacraments in this sort are the flesh of Christ and are so vnderstanded and beleued and adored But the whole honor resteth not in them but is passed ouer from them to the things that be signified Here saith maister Sander he giueth to the sacraments the honor due to an image and as he worshipeth the sacrament without daunger of idolatrie so do we honour holy images without feare of committing idolatrie A sounde conclusion The sacramentes are to be reuerenced as signes ordeined of God to represent the body of Christ without idolatrie therefore images forbidden by God may be worshipped without daūger of idolatrie And yet againe maister Iewell saith The very names of the old fathers are worthie of much honour M. Sander addeth the names of the old godly fathers are attributed to the images For the images of S. Augustin S. Hierome are called S. Austen and Ieronime therefore their images are by M. Iewels owne confession worthie of much honour Shal I say a doctor hath framed this argument or a goose hath hissed it In effect it is this the olde doctours names are falsely attributed to images therfore the images are to be honoured But saith he these names be not giuen them by chaunce but of purpose Verily of such purpose as the Poet Horace saith of the image of Priapus Olim truncu◠eram ficulnus inutile lignum Cum faber incertus scamnum faceretne Priapum Maluit esse deum Sometime I was a stocke of a figtree an vnprofitable peece of woode when the carpenter being doubtfull whether hee shoulde make of me a stoole or Priapus chose rather that I should be a God. Againe he saith these names are not giuen them without cause for the lyknesse of the shape that is in them A worthie cause if there were any liknesse in Saint Augustines image more to him then to any other man. But leauing maister Iewels wordes we must come to his deeds What shall we say if euen in that reply against Harding touching grauen images maister Iewell hath oftentimes grauen images yea besides Gorgons and antiques heades which are Idolles There is a filthie image of a desperate naked boye set forth in such sort that an honest man woulde go backwarde and couer it with his cloake I am sory the printer hath troubled your chaste eyes with such a picture but why is maister Iewell charged with the printers or grauers fault Forsooth you say hee had the ouersight and correction of his booke paraduenture you are deceiued But what if he had howe proue you that this picture was pressed when that leafe came to correction for commonly such superfluous vinites I trowe they call them bee not set to vntill they presse the whole leafe But what if it were pressed and he not regarded it you say if it had beene the picture of the Crucifixe he would haue espied it at the first and caused the printer to haue corrected it Peraduenture he woulde not haue regarded it perhaps he shoulde not haue espied it But seeing you are such a narrowe vewer of such idle pictures maister Sander I meruaile you coulde not see a dronkerd bibbing in the first letter of your owne booke of images nor euen such an impudent naked boye as you speake of in the first letter of your Epistle before your booke of the rocke of the church and the same againe in the rocke of the church Nowe see whereto your lewde hipocriticall outcries do tend O the iudgements of God is it so heinous a matter in maister Iewell which toke no heede to such toyes and yet M. Sander so exacte a reformer of all abuses in images cannot avoide it in his owne bookes Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum It is a shame for a teacher when the crime returneth vpon his owne heade THE XVII OR XVI CHAP. Whether it be profitable or no to haue Images set vp in Churches and to permit them to be worshipped Also that maister Iewell hath Englished tolli to be taken downe where as it signifieth to be taken vp Images are not so much permitted to Christians for their weakenes as for their strength The commodities that come to vs by images This discourse is needelesse to them that denye any setting vp or worshiping of images in churches to be lawfull Neither hath Maister Sander one text of scripture or any one sentence of any one doctour to proue it profitable to permit images to bee worshipped But first hee setteth downe the iudgement of M. Iewell in these wordes The best remedie in this behalfe and most agreeable with Gods worde is vtterly to abolish the cause of the euil So Ezechias brake in pieces the brasen Serpent Epiphanius rent in sunder the
the time of Tertullian and Cyprians time the people tooke the sacrament home with them This M. Rast. denieth to haue ben an abuse here he craketh of his equalitie with M. Iewel howe wisely let other iudge that his nay is as good as the Bishops yee The matter therfore resteth vpon proofe whereof we shall consider in the next section SECTIO 6. From the second face of the 40. leafe to the first face of the 42. leafe The Bishop alledged the example of a woman out of Cyprian which opening her chest with vnworthie handes in which was the holy thing of the Lord by fire breaking out she was terrified that she durst not touch it This miracle saith M. Ra. proueth none abuse in keeping the sacrament but her fault in presuming to touch it with vnworthie handes But why may it not serue to proue both seeing Christe gaue not his sacrament to be locked vp in Chestes but to be receiued Take eate saith he but neither the breach of Christes commandment nor of the end of his institution can persuade M. Ra. to acknowlege it to be an abuse bicause he imagineth that carying home of the sacrament may iustifie their reseruation therof for adoration yea and the communion vnder one kind wheras it neither iustifieth the one nor proueth the other For that they though abusiuely kept it in corners to receiue caâ—â—ot serue to iustifie the popish maner of hanging it ouer the altar or carying it abroad in procession to be worshipped And there is no colour in the world to make vs thinke that they caryed not as wel of the sanctified wine as of the sanctified bread home to their houses But it is a sport to see that he would proue it to be the body of Christ by the fire that came out of the chest The same Cyprian sheweth an other miracle of an vnworthie receiuer in whose hand the sacrament was turned into ashes will hee say the body of Christ was turned into ashes also But to be short he would knowe what Doctour or Councell we can shew to proue this carying home of the sacrament to be an abuse For Doctour he shal haue Origen in Leu. cap. 7. Hom. 5. Nam Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat dicebat eis accipite manducate noÌ„ distulit nec seruari iussit in crastinum For our Lord differred not that bread which he gaue to his disciples said vnto them take ye and eat ye neither bad he that it should be kept vntil the next day For councel he shal haue Caesar Augustanum Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in Ecclesia anathema sit in perpetuum If any man be proued not to haue spent in the church the gift of the Eucharistie which he hath taken let him be accursed for euer Finally if it bee no abuse why do not the Papistes suffer it to be done specially of their Popish brethren whome they take to liue in persecution vnder princes that professe the Gospell of Christ. An other abuse the Bishop rehearseth within Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustines time the Communion was giuen to young babes contrarie to the commaundement of the holy Ghoste Let a man examine him selfe and so let him eat c. whereas infantes are not able to examine them selues This will not Maister Rastell acknowledge to be an abuse neither that a reason of the abolishing thereof but onely the bare authoritie of the Church which belike hath abolished a good custome But hee faith infants might as well communicate as be baptized wherein hee playeth the Anabaptist requiring instruction before baptisme which the scripture doth not in the children of the faithfull as it doth examination iâ— the communicants Againe he saith they may as well communicate in the faith of the Church as they may be baptized in the faith of their Godfathers But I answere they are baptized in the faith which their Godfathers confesse not in that faith which they beleue for perhaps they may be hypocrites and so voyde of faith or heretiques and holde a false faith But seeing Christ said Drinke ye all of this he will knowe why infants may not also drinke and if they may not drinke then by all are meant none but al that were present that is all Priests But I answere drinke ye all of this is saide to all them to whome take ye eat ye c. is saide that is to all that are able to vnderstande the mysterie or else none might take and eate but all Priestes bicause onely Priestes as they say were present which yet they are not able to proue As for his comparing of the sacrament with spicebread and cakebread sauoureth of a mynde that inwardly derideth all religion though outwardly he pretend neuer so much Popish holinesse SECTIO 7. From the first face of the 42. leafe to the first face of the 43. leafe The Bishop rehearseth that Marcus an heretique and Necromanser as Irenaeus writeth made that by enchantment there should appeare very bloud in the chalice Hereof Rastel gathereth that the people beleeued bloud to be there and so he serued their faith and deuotion by his enchauntment but that is vtterly false for he would haue deceiued the people to make them thinke that hee had the bloud of Christe whereas the Ministers of the Catholike Church had but wine He counterfeted also a multiplying of the same wine by his sorcerie and all to get credite to his heresie and not to serue the faith as M. Rastel vntruely and vnlearnedly affirmeth but to ouerthrowe the faith of the people of God. SECTIO 8. From the first face of the 43. leafe to the first face of the 45. leafe The Bishop rehearseth other abuses of the sacrament as that some hang it before their brest for a protection some take the sacrament for a purgation against slander S. Benet ministred the communion to a woman that was dead M. Rastell confesseth the sacrament may be abused by Coniurers and other but he will not graunt that S. Benet did amisse because he was a Saint as though Saintes could not do amisse And he counteth it no reason against S. Benets fact that Christ gaue not the sacrament to dead folke for that he saith is no reason because Christ forbad no communion that three be not present neither badde the chalice to be filled when all is supped vp nor bad vs kneele and say we do not presume to come to this thy table nor carrie home the cantels of bread that are left But notwithstanding his fonde quarrelling whatsoeuer apperteineth to the decent and reuerent ministration of the communion Christ coÌ„manded though not euerie particular thing by name And Maister Rastell sheweth himselfe to be an ignoraunt Asse that compareth substances and accidentes the essential causes variable circumstances together whereas the one must haue the expresse worde of God or else it can haue no being the other for the