he said much for you when he coÌ„pareth the scripture to the sea I thinke he saith more against you where he compareth the Church to the sea Hexam lib. 3. cap. 3. Vnde bene mari plerumque comparatur ecclesia quae primo ingredientis populi agmine totis vestibulis vndas vomit deinde in oratione totius plebis tanquam vndis refluentibus stridet tum responsorijs Psalmorum cantus virorum mulierum virginum paruuloruÌ„ consonus vndarum fragor resultat WhervpoÌ„ the Church is oft times verie wel compared vnto the sea which first by the coÌ„ming in of the multitude floweth out waues froÌ„ euery porch or entrie and then maketh a noyse with the prayer of the whole people as it were with the ebbing or flowing backe of the waues last of all with answerings of Psalmes singing of men women virgines and little children a well tunable sound of the waues reboundeth By this place it appeareth that all sorts of people were admitted to the reading of the scriptures and that no tong was vsed in the Church but such as was coÌ„mon to all the people Chrysostome succeedeth Ambrose who saith The scriptures are darke that they are found out with labour but not shut that they can not be found out at all and that the priestes ought to be the keykeepers of the scriptures not to shut them vp but to open them c. I would oppose some testimonie of Chrysostome to explane his meaning not to be to discourage men froÌ„ reading the scriptures but that M. Heskins doth soone after confesse the same of his owne accord in these wordes I am not ignorant gentle reader that Chrysostome doth so that is that Chrysostome in a number of places most earnestly exhorteth men to the reading of the scriptures and doth not feare them with the obscuritie and difficultie thereof I aske no more against M. Heskins but his own confession of Chrysostomes iudgement to be against him whervnto we must returne anon after a little consideration of Gregories iudgement Gregorie sheweth that the obscuritie of the scriptures is for great profite for exercising the vnderstanding for auoyding of wearines idlenes contempt and for great delight when it is found out with labour Augustine hath the like sentence but this maketh much for our cause that the obscuritie of the scripture where it is darke is very profitable for the diligent reader To conclude if all the scripture were neuer so darke yet seeing it is necessarie to be knowne of al men it ought to be read and studied of all the more the oftener where it is more hard to vnderstand that long diligent search may find out that which sildome slight reading would passe ouer As for the last testimonie of Hieronyme ad Paulinum concerning the Canonicall Epistles That they are both short and long so that there be not many which are not blind in them Bicause we had the like before I will referre it to the former answeres The rest of the rayling stuffe charging vs with cause of heresies arrogance and ignorance in suffering and allowing the people to reade the scriptures affirming them to be easie when they be hard c. is more meete for M. Heskins to write then vs to answere But to return to the obiection that he maketh of the iudgement of Chrysostome and Erasmus whom he confesseth to be against him let vs see his wittie answeres To Chrysostome he answereth That there were two causes why he would haue the scriptures read one that they might the better vnderstand his expositions in the Churche the other that they might reade them to followe them to these purposes he graunteth it were tollerable they should be read but not to frame newe doctrines out of them nor to contâ—mne the learned teachers c. And who I pray you would haue them read to other purpose Not Luther not Iewell nor any man whom you most spyte at But see the force of truth and the malice of an enimie therof Heskins hauing reasoned in fiue Chapters against the reading of scriptures nowe graunteth to it but yet that which is most conuenient of al most necessarie he vouchsafeth to cal it but tollerable To Erasmus he replyeth first that seeing he confesseth in diuers places the scriptures to be hard to vnderstand he maruelleth that he would exhort ignorant men to the reading of them But Erasmus would easily turne backe M. Heskins reason vpon his owne head Seeing they are hard they are the more often and diligently to be read studied Secondly he thinketh Alphonsus good ynough to oppose against Erasmus who affirmeth That although it were meete the people should read the scriptures in Chrysostomes time yet it is not meete nowe bicause lawes are changed as the times and manners of men are And it is no more meete that the people should nowe read the scriptures then that the Vigils should be kept as they were in Hieronymes time or that Infantes should receiue the Communion as they did in Augustines tâ—me or men shuld abstaine from bloud and strangled as in the Apostles time or discipline and publique penance should be vsed as in the old dayes If the maners of men be worse nowe they haue more neede of the knowledge of God whereby they might be reformed wherefore the similitudes are nothing like And besides this note also the errour of the Church in S. Augustines time confessed and the want of discipline in the Popish Church acknowledged The sixt Chapter declaring howe the people shall come to the vnderstanding of the scriptures The vnderstanding then of the scriptures is necessarie seing God as you coÌ„fesse which ordeineth nothing in vain hath appointed a meane wherby the people should come to the vnderstanding of the scriptures So by the way we haue gained thus much that ignorance is not the mother of Christian deuotion as was most impudently affirmed by all the Bel weathers of Papistrie in the conference of Westminster to the perpetuall shame ignominie both of them selues and al the Popish Church But nowe to the meane appointed by God which you say Is that the lawe should be in the mouth of the Priest and the people should learne it at his mouth A very godly order in deede but yet such as neither promiseth that the lawe shal be alwayes in the Priestes heart nor bindeth the people to learne it only at his mouth And therefore nothing in the world letteth but that the godly man should meditate in the lawe of God day night Psal. 1. and haue it so familiar vnto him that he shuld teach his childreÌ„ therin talke of it at home abroad vprising and downlying and write on the postes of his doores and vpon his gates that he may learne to do it Deut. 4. 11. Wherefore all the places that M. Heskins alledgeth to shewe that the Priestes should be learned and the people instructed by them serue to proue nothing that is in controuersie
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
Christe But by his fauour the prophet in calling the newe sacrifice pure doeth not charge the old with imperfection if they had been offered according to their institution but reproueth the priestes that they had polluted the Lords sacrifices with their couetousnes and hypocrisie and in punishment of their pride which thought God could not bee serued except it were by them threateneth that he will reiect them and the people that were partakers of their sinnes and set vp the spirituall pure worship of his name among the Gentils in all partes of the worlde which shoulde better please God as the Prophete saith then a bullock that hath hornes hooffes And as for the purenes that M. Heskins requireth in the new sacrifices wee haue a sufficient warrant of the holy Ghost Heb. 13. that by Iesus Christ wee offer the sacrifice of prayse always to God that is the fruites of the lippes which confesseth his name doeing good and not forgetting to distribute for with such sacrifices God is pleased By which place you may see that the expositions of the godly before rehearsed are grounded vpon the word of God and not the deuise or imagination of man It is meruell that M. Heskins as the rest of the papistes do in this place doth not builde much vppon the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly doth signifie a sacrifice made of flower and so a kinde of bread but then he lacketh wine and the other worde which the prophete vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth an incense or perfume both excludeth that phantisie and also sheweth that the Prophet according to the common custom of other Prophets speaketh after the capacitie of the people in discribing the spirituall state of Christs Church by the external-figures ceremonies of Moses law And so there is no place in the scripture maketh lesse for the sacrifice of the masse then this text of the prophete Malachie The foure and thirteth Chapter expoundeth the prophesie of Malachie by Martialis and Ireneus M. Heskins desirous to expounde this prophesie by two verie auncient barrons of the high house of parleament beginneth with one Martialis whom to make him seeme more reuerend and auncient he hath adorned with Parleament Robes affirming that he was the disciple of Christ himselfe and after his Maisters death kepte companie almost continually with the Apostle Peter therfore willeth euerie man to giue audience to his speache Now whether euer there were any such disciple of Christ companion of the Apostle as the scripture maketh nomention of him so I will affirme nothing But for as much as the Church neuer heard of any such writer neither by Eusebius or by Hieronyme nor by Gennadius all which gathered the names of all the writers that had ben in the Church of Christe that were knowen in their times and seeing that many hundreth yeares after there is no mention of any such writer and writinges in anye approued authour I will playnely affirme that the authour of such Epistles is more worthie to stand on the pillerie for an impudent counterfeiter then to sit in the Parleament house among the Apostles of Christ and the holy doctors of the Church If there were nothing else to confute him but the title that he giueth himselfe it were sufficient to prooue him a shamelesse forger Martialis Apostolus Christi he tearmeth himselfe in the Diuels name as though the scripture had not defined both of the number and of the calling of the Apostles If any man liste to heare his absurde speach that hee maketh for the sacrifice of the masse let him resorte to M. Heskins swynetrough for I will not vouchsafe to defile my penne and paper to carie awaye such draffe of such pseude-apostles and counterfeit doctors Leauing therefore M. Heskins with his groyne serching in that swill I will chase him away from routing in the holy auntient garden of Irenaeus of whom M. Heskins confesseth that hee is not to be suspected of truth therby insinuating that his Martiall was not so honest but that his credite might come in question But Irenaeus lib. 4. Chapter 32. writeth thus Sed suis discipulis dans consilium c. But also giuing counsell to his disciples to offer the firste fruites vnto God of his owne creatures not as to one hauing neede but that they might be neither vnfruitefull nor vnthankefull he tooke that bread which is of the creature and gaue thankes saying this is my bodie and likewise the cup which is of the same creature that is with vs hee confesseth to bee his bloude and taught the newe oblation of the newe Testament whiche the Church receiuing of the Apostles offereth to GOD in all the world to him which giueth food vnto vs the first fruites of his owne giftes in the new Testament of which Malachias amonge the twelue Prophetes hath foreshewed I haue no pleasure in you saith the LORD Almightie and I will receiue no sacrifice at your handes c. Here M. Heskins I knowe not for what subtiltie had translated verie absurdly primitias munerum suorum the firste fruite of his sacrifices But to the matter What can bee more playne then that Irenaeus speaketh here of the sacrifice of obedience and thankesgiuing celebrated in the sacrament of the Lordes supper For he sheweth the end of the institution to be that they should neither be vnfruitefull nor vnthankfull which oblation the Church obserueth throughout all the world according to the Prophesie of Malachie in the celebration of the Lordes supper although not onely therein M. Heskins cauill of the newnesse of the oblation I haue answered before that it is newe in the manner of the offering which is without such sacrifices ceremonies as the lawe prescribed And whereas the incense and the pure oblation that the Prophet sayeth should be sacrificed to God be both of one nature Irenaeus doth in plaine wordes expound the incenses for spirituall sacrifice namely the sacrifice of prayers Which exposition M. Heskins doth so obstinately contemne lib. 4. Chap. 33. Quoniam ergo nomen filij proprium patris est in Deo omnipotente Iesum Christum offert ecclesia bene ait secundum vtraque in omni loco incensiū offertur nomini meo sacrificium purum Incensa autem Ioannes in Apocalypsi orationes ait esse sanctorum Therefore for as much as the name of the same perteineth to the father and in God almightie the Church offereth Iesus Christ he sayeth well according to bothe and in euery place an incense is offered to my name and a pure sacrifice Nowe S. Iohn in the reuelation sayth that the incense are the prayers of the Saintes The one being a spirituall sacrifice the other is also of the same nature by which it is euident howe the Church offereth Iesus Christ in God almightie namely when shee rendreth moste humble and hartie thankes to God for her redemption by Iesus Christe To which intent much more might be
passion also in a moment of time bring it into as much subtiltie as hee would that hee might enter in by the doores that were shut Here first of all Maister Heskins according to his accustomed manner of falsification translateth tale corpus the same body as though there were no difference betweene substaunce and qualitie Secondly it is manifest that Augustine in this place iudgeth as in other places most plainely that the body of Christe nowe glorified retayneth not onely the substaunce but also the properties and qualities of a true body which hee had before he suffered Although for that moment he supposeth the body of Christe might be subtiliated by his Diuine power to passe through the doores being shut and yet affirmeth nothing directly that it was so but rather that it might bee so Whereas more probably hee might haue thought that eyther the doore opened or the nature of the boordes gaue place then that the body of Christe for the time was altered The like place hee hath in him Epistle to Volusianus which I maruell Maister Heskins hath not noted Ep. 3. Ipsa virtus per inuiolatae matris virginea viscera membra infantis dutie quae posted per clausa ostia membra iâ—uenis introduxis The same power brought foorth his body being an infant by the Virginall bowels of his vndefiled mother which afterward brought in his body being a yong-man by the doores that were shut Of his natiuitie whereunto this Doctour doth compare his comming in after the doores were shut I haue shewed before howe it was out of the scripture But let vs heare what Cyrillus saith of the same matter In Ioan. lib. 12. cap â–ª 53. clausu foribus c. After the gates were shut the Lord by his almightie power the nature of things being ouercome soudenly entered vnto his disciples let no man therfore enquire how the body of our Lord entred in after the gates were shut when he may vnderstand that these things are described by the Euangelist not of a bare man aâ— we be nowe buâ— of the almightie sonne of god For seeing he is true God he is not subiect to the lawe of nature which thing did appeare in other his miracles also Here Maister Heskinâ— after his wonted syncâ—â—itie translateth 〈…〉 through the gates beeing shut otherwise the place of Cyrill is of our side that hee chaungeth not the nature of his body but ouercame the nature of other thinges and so made a passage for him selfe although the gates were shut as in his other 〈◊〉 hee chaunged not the nature of his body â–ª when hee walked on the waters 〈◊〉 the nature of the waters Hee altered not the trueth of his bodye when hee arose out of the sepulchre but remoued the stone from the doore thereof For it stoode Cyrillus vppon by reason of the Eutychian â—eresie to preserue in all thinge the true properties of the body of Christ which in all places he doth â—onstantly affirme But the elder fathers before they 〈…〉 by that hereâ—ie to search out the trueth did 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 sometimes inconsideratly was beside â—hem affirmes that he◠〈◊〉 already 〈◊〉 Hilariuâ— doâ—h not onely passed through the Lands walleâ— with his body in Psalme 55. but alâ—â— that his body felt 〈◊〉 paine in the time of his passion In. Psalm 4◠〈…〉 and in other pâ—aces whiche iâ— a groâ—â—e and wicked errour wherevnto hee was carried whyle he studied too much to aduaunce his Diuinitie in the humane nature Howe be it the trueth of his naturall bodie by other Doctours was in all times affirmed especially after Eutyches had broched his wicked heresie First Origen as it is cited by Pamphilus in his apollogie out of his booke Periaâ—chie translated by Ruffinus thus writeth Corpus assumpfit nostro corpori simile eo solo differens quod natum ex virgine espiritu sancto est He toke vpon him a body like vnto our body in this point onely differing that it was borne of a virgine by the holy Ghoste This place would the rather bee noted because it conteineth the consent of three auncient Doctours of seueral ages Origenes Pamphilus and Ruffinus Afterward in the counsel of Chalcedon the sixt of Constantinople they were condemned heretiques whiche denied either the trueth of the humane nature of Christ or the true properties thereof At in this latter counsell was allowed the Epistle of Leo Ad Flauianum written in time of the former wherein he writeth Simul suit altitudâ— Deitatis humilitas carnis seruante vtraque natura etâ—am post aditatationem fine defectu proprietatem suam Together be both the height of the Godhead and the humilitie of the fleshe both the natures euen after the adiuâ—â—rion keeping the propertie without defect And againe Nusquâ—m 〈◊〉 differentia naturarum propter vnitatem sed potius salua proprietate 〈…〉 â—â—turae in vnum personam vnam subsistentium concurrente In no place taking away the difference of the natures because of the vnitie but rather hauing the proprietie of both the natures concurring in one person one subsistence Those testimonies 〈◊〉 shewe the iudgement of the Church concerning this matter when iust occasion was giuen narrowly to search out the trueth in the conclusion of this Chapter Maister Heskins yeelding a reason of his trauell in this matter alledgeth two causes the one that the miracle might not be shadowed the other that he might shew the workes of Christe to be aboue nature And both these might stand without his labour For it was a miracle aboue nature that the doores of their owne accorde opened to our sauiour Christ at his entrie as when Peter also came foorth of the prison Actes 12. But whereas he bringeth in an example of the eternitie of the worlde which is held by some naturall philosophers to proue that Gods workes are aboue nature he sheweth a grosse capacitie that can not put a difference betweene the errours of naturall Philosophers and the true lawe and order of nature made by God himselfe which is vndoubtedly knowen to all wise men as in these propositions nowe in question For it is not the opinion of philosophers we stande vpon but vpon the trueth of thinges naturall which either sense or first intellections doth manifestly approue vnto vs For as Tertullian saith speaking of the trueth of Christes body Non licâ—t nobis in dubà m sensus istos reuocare nâ— in Christâ— dâ— side illoruâ— deliberemus It is not lawful for vs to call in doubt these senses least in Christe also we should stand in deliberation of the credit of them The like is to be iudged of such trueth in naturall causes â–ª as Christ the true light hath kindled in the mindes of naturall men to see the works of God in his creatures lest beside horrible confusion of all thinges we be driuen also into blasphemouâ— errourâ— The twelfth Chapter aunswereth certaine obiections tha◠〈◊〉 to impâ—â—ge the Catholique doctrine of this matter In the
He calleth it a phantasie like to that which ioyned with auarice pulled downe all the Abbeys in England The like phantasie he sayth might moue vs not to honour Christ in heauen and much more the Apostles that honoured Christ in the flesh percase not sufficiently discerning the humanitie from the Deitie and so likewise others that worshipped Christ yet doe euen some of the proclaymers schollers vnderstand not these quiddities Shal they therefore fly the honor of Christ in heauen A wise comparison betweene Christe both God and man who no doubt is to be worshipped both as God as the mediator of God man and the accidents of breade wine or bread and wine when they are not consecrated Christ in the flesh is to be worshipped because he was incarnate and ioyned to the humanitie in a personall vnion but he is not to be worshipped in bread wine or in the accidents of bread wine because he is neither impanated nor inuinated nor inaccidentated that is not ioyned to any of them in a personall vnion To these doubtes that are moued by his owne schoolemen what if the Priest do not consecrate what if he speake not the wordes of consecration what if he had none intention to consecrate in all which cases the schoolemen define that the people committ idolatrie if they worship their hoste First hee sayeth he goeth about to shake the foundation of this sacrament as Brentius doth of baptisme Concerning Brentius although it were easie to defende his assertion euen by the schoolemen yet because it is no matter of our controuersie I will briefely passe it ouer Brentius helde that Christ hath not bound vs to baptise in certein forme of wordes to be pronounced by the minister so the meaning be obserued that he baptise into the name of the Father of the Sonne of the holie ghost Herevpon charitable M. Heskins rayleth on him that he impugneth the forme of baptisme and reiecteth the wordes of baptisme which is vtterly false and then he reasoneth that if the wordes of baptisme may be without daunger omitted why may not the words of consecratiō likewise as though Brentius sayeth they might be omitted where he speaketh of altering the forme of wordes when the same sense remaineth Next to this he farceth in another slaunder of vs that we agree not in the number of the sacraments some admitting three some two some foure and some neuer a one The world knoweth what we holde herein After this he sheweth out of Basil Damascen the necessitie of the forme of baptisme which wee confesse Brentius him self doth not denye At length he defineth contrarie to the scholemen that if consecration be omitted the danger is to the priest not to the people that worship an idol Finally he wil moue the like doubt of our ministration what if the minister of the communion doe neither speake the words of consecration nor haue intent to minister what do the people receiue I aunswer with his intentiō wee haue nothing to doe but for asmuch as nothing is whispered or mumbled in our Communion but so vttered that all men may heare and vnderstand if any thing be omitted that is necessarie to the consecration of the sacrament if the people communicate with him they are in as great fault as he As for Richerus whome he calleth a Caluenist that forbiddeth to pray to Christ and reiecteth the wordes of consecration if any such be let him aunswere for him self we haue nothing to do with him Although we acknowledge not any mumbling of wordes but the whole action according to Christes institution to be the forme of consecration of the sacrament The nine and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstanding of Christes wordes by Irenaeus Tertullian Irenęus is cited lib. 4. Cap. 32. Sed discipulus c. But also giuing counsell to his disciples to offer to God the first fruites of his owne creatures not as to one that hath neede but that they also should neither be vnfrutefull nor vnthankefull he tooke that bread which is of the creature gaue thankes saying this is my bodie likewise he confessed the cupp which is of the creature that is among vs to be his bloud taught the newe oblation of the newe testament which the church receiuing of the Apostles in all the worlde offereth to God. Here M. Hesk. choppeth off the taile for it followeth Euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs the first fruites of his giftes which words do both open the purpose of Irenaeus shewe that the oblation was of bread wine not the naturall bodie of Christ as M. Hesk. gathereth together with the reall presence But for clearer proofe he addeth another testimonie out of Irenęus which he quoteth lib. 5. but it is lib. 4. ca. 34 which it seemeth he redd not him selfe in the author both because he knewe not where it was writen also because he omitteth some wordes in it Quomodo autem constabit eis c. he leaueth out autem eis but thus the wordes are in english But how shall it be knowen vnto them that that bread in which thankes are giuen is the bodie of their Lorde and the cupp of his bloud if they say not that he him selfe is the sonne of the maker of the worlde c. And how againe do they say that the fleshe commeth to corruption receiueth not the life which is nourished of the bodie bloud of our Lord Out of these places he noteth that the sacrament is the bodie and bloud of Christ that our flesh is nourished by the same bodie bloud This we confesse so he meane spiritually but that he will not haue And therfore to drawe the places to his carnall presence nourishing he sayth that Irenaeus hereby impugned two heresies One that Christ was not the sonne of God that made the world but a man liuing in Iewrie which dissolued the law the Prophets all the works of God that made the world The other that the soule only should be saued not the bodie And therefore to confute the former he maketh an argument of the real presence How could a bare naturall man compasse that his bodie should so be if he were not the sonne of God that made the world c. This proceedeth of grosse ignorance or rather of intollerable mallice to deceiue the ignorant For the heresie against which he writeth was not that Christ was a bare man not the sonne of God but that he was the sonne of another God then he that made the world for they made two gods one the maker of the world which they sayd was God of the old testament another the father of Christ which they said was God of the newe testament Now Irenaeus proueth by institution of the sacrament in the creatures of bread wine that Christ is the sonne of God that created the world of none other
him take among his innoceÌ„t disciples that which the faithful know our price But when Augustine him selfe saith the sacraments beare the name of those thinges whereof they are sacraments it is no maruell if the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ be called our price whereof it is a figure or sacrament especially seeing Augustine flatly denyeth that Iudas did receiue the bread which was the Lorde but only the Lords bread This conference therefore maketh against him not for him As for Theophylactes authoritie which he calleth a plaine place for the proclamer wee refuse although it is not so plaine as he pretendeth for we also affirme that the sacrament is not a bare figuration of the flesh of Christ but his flesh in deede spiritually receiued Finally Tertullians place De resur Car. is nothing at all for him Caâ—o corpore c. The flesh eateth the body and bloud of Christ that the soule may be fed with God. For by the body and bloud of Christe he meaneth the sacrament of them which is called by the name of that is figured or signified by it As for the last shift that No Catholique Doctour saith that the sacrament is only a figure is too childish for a Doctour to vse for in these words of Tertullian Corpus meum id est â–ª figura corporis met my body that is to say a figure of my body there needeth not to be added the exclusiue onely for the latter part is a description of the former which must containe all that is in the thing described or else it is nothing worth as for example If I say M. Heskins is a man that is to say a soule it were fond and ridiculous but when I say he is a man that is to say a reasonable â—ight I neede not say he is onely so for I haue said before as much as he is and so hath Tertullian Meaning that the sacrament is a figure but not a common or bare figure but a diuine and mysticall token not only to signifie but also to assure vs of the spirituall feeding of vs with the body and bloud of Christ. The fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by S. Cyprian and Athanasius First he alledgeth Cyprian de cÄ™na Domini in these words Significata olim a tempore Melchisedech c. For vnderstaÌ„ding of which place seeing he referreth his reader to the first booke and 29. Chapter where he handleth it more at large thither also will I referre him for answer where the place is at large rehearsed and discussed But out of the same sermon of S. Cyprian he hath a plaine place for M. Iewel Which is this Nonâ— est â—uius sacramenti doctrina c The doctrine of this sacrament is newe and the Euangelicall schooles first brought foorth this manner of teaching and Christ beeing the teacher This learning was first made knowen to the worlde that Christian men should drinke bloud the eating whereof the authoritie of the olde lawe doeth most straitly forbidde For the lawe forbiddeth the eating of bloud the Gospell commandeth that it should be dronke In which commandemâ—â—tâ— this moste cheefely ought the Christian religion to discerne that the bloud of beastes differing in all thinges from the bloud of Christe hath onely the effect of temporall releefe and the life of them haâ—h an end appointed without reuocation Hereupon he noteth that the Christians drinke the bloud of Christ which I graunt but spiritually for so Cyprian expoundeth himselfe in the same sermon vt sciremus quòd mansio nostra in ipsâ— fit manducatio potus quasi quaedam incorporatio That we should knowe that our eating is our dwelling in him and ouâ— drinking it as it were a certeine incorporatioâ— in him And againe Esus igitur carnis huius quaedam auiditas est quoddem desiderium manendi in eo c. Therefore the eating of his flesh is a certeine desire to abide in him c. These and such like places doe proue a spirituall eating and drinking of his bloud and none other He noteth further that this is called of Cyprian a new doctrine and therefore it can not be the drinking of the figure of the bloud of Christ for that was olde I answere briefly it was so new as the gospel is the new Testament whiche yet was preached to Adam and Eue but not so clearely and distinctly as since the time of Christ and so was the eating of the bodie and bloud of Christe all one with that it is now differing but in manner of reuelatioÌ„ and not in substance of spirituall foode Athanasius is alledged as he is cited in Theodoret Dial. 2. in confus Corpus est c. It is therfore a bodie to whom he saith for them on my right hand Whereof the diuel was enimie with the euill powers and the Iewes and the Greekes By which bodie he was in deede and so was called an high priest and Apostle by that mysteria which he dâ—liuered to vs saying â–ª This is my bodie whiche is broken for you And the bloud of the new Testament not of the old which is shedd for you The Godhead hath neither bodie nor bloud but man which he did take of the virgine Marie He meaneth nothing lesse than that the sacrament was his natural body and bloud but that he could not haue instituted a mysterie of hiâ— bodie and bloud except he had ben a very man which hath bodie and bloud for the godhead hath none And therfore the rule that M. Heskins giueth that scriptures must be alledged in their literal sense in matters of faith is to litle purpose although it may stand well in this place For the mysterie of his bodie proueth his humanitie without any allegorie or other figure as I haue shewed before Athanasius is likewise alledged in the second Nicen counsell Serm. de 〈◊〉 Iesu in Berito How truly I will not say but thus he is reported to say of the bloud of Christ which was said to be in many places which he denietâ— to haue come froÌ„ Christ but from an image that was crucified Nec esse aliter 〈◊〉 a vere Catholicis praeâ—â—r id quod 〈◊〉 à nobis quasi ex carne sanguine Christi aliqâ—id pasâ—â— i◠〈◊〉 inuâ—â—iri nisi 〈◊〉 quod in aera altarit per manus sacerdanuâ— quotiâ—ie spiritualiter officitur Neither is it otherwise to be thought of true Catholiques then is written of vs as though any part of the flesh bloud of Christ may be found in the world but that which on the altar is euerie day made spiritually by the handes of the priestes I do not cite this as the vndoubted authoritie of Athanasius but thinke rather it was forged in his name as many other thinges were in that wicked idolatrous counsel yet it appeared that the maker of that sermon so the Church in such time as he liued had not receiued the Popish corporall presence The one and
bread and wine The same Cyprian Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium thus writeth Sic verò calix Domini non est aqua sola aut vinum solum nisi vtrumque sibi misceatur quomodo nec corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi vtrumque adunatum fueris copulatum panis vnius compage sclidatum quo ipsâ— sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus So water onely or wine onely is not the Lordes cup vnlesse both be mingled together euen as onely meale or onely water can not be the body of Christe except both be ioyned and coupled and compacted together in one breade by which very sacrament our people is shewed to be vnited Here bread made of meale and water is called the body of Christ therefore material bread The next authoritie M. Hesk. citeth is Chrysostome Hom. 83. in 26. Matth. Non permittam c. I will not suffer these things to be done I will first deliuer vp my life before I wil deliuer the lords body to any person vnworthily and I will suffer my bloud to be shed rather then I will giue that most holy bloud to any other then to a worthie receiuer Out of this saying he gathereth that the body of Christ may be receiued of an vnworthie wicked person How be it no such thing followeth of these words for though Chrysostome deliuer the body of Christ it followeth not that they receiue it which receiue the sacrament vnworthily which is as much as to refuse it Chrysostome in the same Homely saith this sacrament to be a symbole and signe of Christ crucified and speaking of the cup he saith Sed cuius gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit Perniciosam quandam hÄ™resim radicitus euellere voluit eorum qui aqua in mysterijs vtuntur ita vt ostenderet quia quando hoc mysterium traderet vinuÌ„ tradidit iam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensa vino vsus est Ex germine autem ait vitis quae certè vinum non aquam producit But wherefore did hee not drinke water but wine after his resurrection Hee would plucke vppe by the rootes a certaine most pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the mysteries so that he would shew that both when he deliuered this mysterie he deliuered wine nowe after his resurrection in the bare table of the mysterie he vsed wine And he saith of the fruit of the vine which truly bringeth foorth wine not water Now compare these two sayings of Chrysost. in one sermon Christ deliuered wine Chrysost. would not deliuer the body bloud of Christ see whether the later proue any transubstantiation or carnall manner of presence Besides this it is good to note that Chrysostome saith that Christ vsed wine in the sacrament after his resurrection contrarie to all the Papistes which holde that he ministred to the two disciples at Emaus in bread only And bicause M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of Christes body to the wicked and thereby will gather that the wicâ—ed receiue the very body of Christe let him heare also what Chrysostome saith in the same place speaking of the vnworthy comming to the sacrament Illud enim pessimum est ficus Paulus ait Christum conculcare testamenti sanguinem ducere communem spiritus gratian contemnere For this is the worst thing that can be as Paule saith to tread Christe vnder feete and to esteeme the bloud of the couenaunt as vncleane and to contemne the grace of the spirite Will he say that very body of Christe is troden vnder the feete of the vnworthie receiuer And bicause he standeth so much of the word body and bloud Chrysostome saith further Nullus communicet nisi ex discipulis sit nullus impuro animo sicut Iudas panem assumat ne similia patiatur Corpus Christi etiam hÄ™c multitudo est quare cauendum tibi est qui hÄ™c mysteria ministras ne Dominum irrites corpus hoc non purgando ne acutum gladium pro cibo praebeas Let none communicate except he be of the disciples Let no man with an vnpure minde as Iudas receiue the bread least he suffer the like punishment Euen this multitude also is the body of Christe wherefore thou that doest minister these mysteries must take heede that thou prouoke not the Lorde by not purging this body least thou deliuer a sharpe sword in steed of meat In this saying let the indifferent reader obserue that Iudas receiued bread and wicked men receiue bread that the multitude of Christians is the body of Christe as the sacrament is finally that the minister to a wicked man deliuereth a sharpe sword in steede of spirituall meate and let him iudge howe honestly M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of the body and bloud of Christ to the wicked to exclude bread and to proue that they receiue the very body of Christ. His third witnesse is Origen Hom. 5. in diuorsos Quando sanctum cibum illudque incorruptum epulum accipis c. When thou receiuest that holy meat and the vncorrupt banquet when thou inioyest the bread and cup of life thou eatest and drinkest the body and bloud of the Lord then the Lord entreth vnder thy roofe and do thou then humbling thy selfe followe this Centurion and say Lorde I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe For where he entreth vnworthily there he entereth to the condemnation of the receiuer Here M. Heskins first noteth the presence of Christe secondly that the sacrament it not bare bread both which are graunted thirdly that the body of Christe may be receiued of euill men But all men will confesse that this is an Alegoricall and figuratiue maner of speaking that Origen vseth and may be wel vnderstoode according to the rule of sacraments which beare the names of those things whereof they be sacramentes And seeing Origen doth else where expresly affirme that euill men do not neither can eate the body of Christe in Matth. Cap. 15. it is great vnshamefastnesse to wrest his figuratiue saying in these wordes contrarie to his plaine meaning vttered in plaine wordes Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth this may be obiected and referreth vs to the thirtieth Chapter of this booke for the answere whither I also referre the reader both for the place it self and for the replie to M. Heskins answere The seuen and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstanding of the same by S. Basil and S. Hierome Saint Basil is alledged de baptism Li. 2. QuÄ™st 93. Quoniam Deus in lege c. For so much as God in the lawe hath ordained so great a paine against him that in his vncleannesse dare touch the holy things for it is written to them figuratiuely but for our aduertisement And the Lord saide vnto Moses say to Aaron and his sonnes that they take heede to the holy things of the children of Israel and they shall not
51 As it is true that the Bishops of Rome in the first 300. yeares were greatly persecuted by tyrants so is it false that all heretiques agreed to resist that See. For diuers Bishops were heretiques Liberius was an Arrian peruerted by Fortunatianus Hierom. in Catalog Vigilius was priuily an Eutychian as appeareth by an Epistle of his written to those heretiques at the procurement of the Empresse Liberatus Cap. 22. Honorius was a Monothelite condemned in the sixt generall Councell at Constantinople Act. 13. Anastasius was a fauourer of Nestorians as many Ecclesiastical histories do confesse Garanza in Anast. 52 That the Church of Rome hath continued although diuers Christian Princes haue opposed them selues against it with the citizens of Rome and the Cardinalls and that neither the wicked life of the Popes nor the schismes of many Popes at once haue subuerted it doeth not proue it to be the rocke against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile For when Antichristian heresie and diuelish wickednesse hath ouerflowed all the Church of Rome it is manifest the gates of hell haue mightily preuailed against that See although the finall ouerthrowe of that Antichristian head with the body be reserued vnto the almightie power of our Sauiour Christe toward the end of the world 2. Thessa. 2. And it is false that Christian Princes the Romane Citizens the Cardinals or the factions of Diuers Popes haue assaulted the See of Rome but rather the ambition and tyrannie of some persons occupying the same 53 It is false that all countries which forsooke the obedience of the Bishop of Rome were shortly after possessed by Infidels for Affrica was none otherwise possessed by the Vandales then Italy by the Gothes other barbarous nations The Graecians immediately before their oppression by the Turkes were reconciled to the Church of Rome in the councell of Ferrar and Florens â–ª Before which time the Bohemians forsooke the Romish See and yet remaine a nation at this day howe many mightie nations haue forsaken the the Pope which by Gods grace shall be kept as long from oppression of Infidels as they keep in obedience of the Gospel the contempt whereof and not of the Pope was punished in the Asians Africans and Graecians And the prophecie of Esaie 60. That nation and kingdome which shall not serue thee shall perish is to be vnderstoode of finall and eternall perdition and not of oppression by Infidels For the nation of the Persians Turkes Saracens and other which submit not themselues to the Church of Christ shal perish although they triumph in the worlde neuer so long 54 Diuerse councels without the bishop of Rome did with as great and greater credite determine of the Canonicall Bookes of holie scripture as Gelasius did with his 70. Bishops Cap. 59. Carth. 3. Cap. 74. and others 55 The Popes liberalitie toward forrein nations was neuer so great by the hundreth parte as his couetous extortions and Antichristian exactions haue beene witnesse Matth. Paris Matth. West Anno Reg. 1244. and in a manner all Popish Historiographers of late times As for his liberalitie in these times is but to his owne bondslaues whom he hyreth with a litle exhibition to blase his charitie least hee should bee forsaken of all men 56 The greatest archheretike that euer was is the Pope of Rome so farre passing the archheretikes that haue bene in the other patriarchall Sees as Antichrist the head of all heresies passeth the members of that bodie For other heretikes take away but some part of Christes person or his office but the Pope vnder pretence of honoring him putteth him quite out of place by his vsurped supremacie false doctrine blasphemous sacrifice of the Masse and all other his abhominations And that our Sauiour CHRISTE prayed for Peter that his faith might not fayle it perteined onely to his person and to the temptation that immediately followed For otherwise Peter erred when he was reproued of God in vision Act. 10. and of Paule Gallath 2. And that Bishops of Rome haue erred and beene heretiques I haue proued in the 51. article to which you may adde Iohn the 23. that was condemned in the councell of Constance for that he denied the immortalitie of the soule the resurrection of the bodie and the life euerlasting Sess. 11. 57 That the See of Rome hath made so many wicked decrees so vniuersally obserued with such consent of many nations it came not of the spirite of godly vnitie but of the efficacie of errour whiche God sent into the worlde for a iust plague of the contempt of the trueth 2. Thessalonians 2. And this consent of so many nations vnto her abhominable decrees proueth Rome to be Babilon the mother of all abhominations that hath made all nations dronke with the wine of the furie of her fornications Apoc. 18. verse 3. The degrees of marriage prohibited are of the Lawe of God and not of the Pope the celebration of Easter although it be an indifferent ceremonie yet it is elder then the Antichristian authoritie of the Pope Albeit the mysterie of iniquitie beganne to worke in Victor about it That many Bishops and priuate men haue written to suche Bishops of Rome as were learned namely Leo and Gregorie for their resolution in diuerse questions it proueth no supremacie for as many haue written in like cases to Augustine a poore Bishop of Hippo and to Hieronyme but a Prieste of Rome yea Damasus Bishop of Rome himselfe hath written to Hieronyme for his iudgement Pope Sergius did write to Ceolfride Abbot of Woremouth in England to be resolued of certeine questions of Beda one of his Monkes Math. West Ant. 734. 59 That this resorte to Rome for councell was not onely of deuotion but of duetie because the Pope had reserued the hardest cases to his owne iudgement as Moses did hee bringeth no proofe but the Popes owne decrees whiche are of small credite in his owne case and the corrupt practise of the later times when men had submitted themselues vnto the beast 60 That not onely the Bishoppes of Italie but also of Sicilia whiche is not farre off did come in person to Rome at certeine times it prooueth not that all Bishoppes in the worlde were obedient to the Bishop of Rome or were bound so to visite him or that they did so visite him 61 The primacie of the Bishoppe of Rome in olde times was but of order not of power his presidence in councels was but honour not of authoritie and that by graunt or permission at the pleasure of the councell Ioan. Patr. Ant. in con Basil. The councell of Nice made him equall with other Patriarches The councell of Constantinople made the see of Constantinople equall with Rome Sozomen Lib. 7. Cap. 7. 9 â–ª so did the councell of Chalcedon leauing Rome no prerogatiue but of Senioritie and referring all causes of difficultie to the iudgement of the see of Constantinople whiche was new Rome Con. 9. Con. 16. 62 That Iustinian was
one question or two about this diffuse argument I would demaund Doeth God forbid by the second commaundement naturall or artificiall images If artificiall then they haue no comparison with naturall images Againe syr are our seeing and hearing from whome these images you speake of first doe come by your Philosophie actions or passions If they be passions howe are they compared with making of grauen images whiche are actions Finally where he saith this prohibition was not immutable but temporall to that people he passeth all bounds of reason and common vnderstanding as by the iudgment of God is become like vnto those Idols whome he defendeth For hauing graunted before that Idolatrie was forbidden by this precept nowe he restraineth the forbidding of idolatrie only to the Iewes of that time as though it were lawfull for Christians who more streightly then the Iewes must worship God in spirit and trueth Iohn 4. and are commaunded to keepe them selues pure from Idols 1. Iohn 5. THE VI. OR V. CHAP. That the word of God only forbiddeth Latria which is Gods own honour to be giuen to artificiall images leauing it to the lawe of nature and to the gouernors of his Church what other honour may be giuen to holy images Also the place of Exodus Thou shalt not adore images is expounded and that Christe by his incarnation taketh away all idolatrie that Maister Iewell vainely reproueth Doctour Harding condemneth his owne conscience and is proued a wrangler The difference in honour betweene Latria and Doulia As M.S. saith images are forbidden to be worshipped as they are forbidden to be made so say I but with a farre differing vnderstanding They may not be made to any vse of religion so they may not be worshipped with any religious worship which apperteineth to god For our religion is a seruice of God onely And where he saith as Images might be made by the authoritie of Moses or of the gouernours of Gods people so they wert not to be taken for Gods so they may be likewise worshipped by the authoritie of Gods church this only prouiso being made that Gods owne honour be not giuen vnto them I aunswere that as neither Moses nor any gouernour had authoritie to make any images in any vse of religion other then God commanded no more hath the Church any authoritie to allowe any worshipping of them whiche she hath none authoritie by God to make but an expresse commandement forbidding both the making the worshipping of them in the first table of the law which concerneth onely religion Nowe we haue saide both let vs consider M. Sanders reasons First he saith God forbidding his owne honour to be giuen to images left it to the lawe of nature and to the gouernors of his Churche what honour images should haue Concerning the lawe of nature he saith that God perceiued that when images of honourable personages are made honor was due vnto them What lawe of nature is this M. Sander that is distinct from the law of God Or what nature is that whose lawe alloweth the worshipping of images In deed the corruption of mans nature is to worship falshode in steed of trueth but the law of nature hath no such rule beeing al one with the lawe of God as nature is nothing else but the ordinaunce of god And where find you one title in the lawe that God hath leaft it to the gouernours of his Church to appoint a worship meete for images Worde you haue none letter you haue none nor pricke of a letter sounding that way But you haue collections First of the signification of Latria as though God had written his Lawe in Greeke and not in Hebrue and yet Latria according to the Graecians hath no such restraint to signifie the seruice of God only but euerie seruice of men also and is all one that Doulia and so vsed of Greeke writers excep◠we will say that Doulia which you will haue to be giuen to images is a more slauish seruile worship then that whiche you would haue vs to giue to God. But you will helpe your distinction with the confusion of the commandementes because God saith in the 1. precept Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me and then saith immediately Thou shalt not make nor worworship images but these cōmandementes are distinct or else you shall neuer make tenne And whereas you alledge that he saith immediatly after I the Lord thy God am a iealous God that maketh cleane against you For by those wordes the Lorde declareth that he can no more abide the vse of images in his religion then a iealous man can abide any tokēs of an adulterer to be about his wife therefore idolatrie in the scriptures is often called fornication So the circumstances helpe you nothing but is altogether against you But what an horrible monster of idolatrie is this that after you haue once confessed that Gods incomprehensible nature cannot be represented by any artificiall image you affirme that Christe by his incarnation hath taken away idolatrie that we should not lacke some corporall trueth wherein we might worship the Diuine substance Whereas Christ himselfe telleth vs that nowe the time is come that God shall not be worshipped as before in bodily seruice at Ierusalem or in the mountaine but in spirite and trueth Ioan. 4. The image of Christe you say is a similitude of an honourable trueth whereas no idol doth represent a trueth A worshipfull trueth I promise you Christe you say was man but I say he is both God and man a person consisting of those two natures Your image representeth onely a person consisting of one nature but suche a one is not Christe therefore your image representeth a falshoode and is by your owne distinction an Idol For the Diuine nature you confesse cannot be represented by an artificiall image Againe what an image is it of his humanitie It can not expresse his soule but his bodie onely Last of all why is it an image rather of Christ then of an other man Seeing in lineamentes and proportion of bodie it hath no more similitude vnto Christes bodie then to an other mans But that it pleased the caruer to say it is an image of Christ. O honourable blockes and stones But Philo the Iewe was cited for a fauourer of this interpretation that images are none otherwise forbidden to be made or worshipped then to be made or worshipped as GODS Howe vaine the authoritie of a Iewe is for a Christian man to leane vnto I shall not neede to say especially when it is well knowen that the Iewes also not considering in whether table this commandement is placed vnderstand by it that all images generally are forbidden And Philo saith nothing to helpe him For first in Decal he saith when God had spoken of his owne substance and honour order would that he should tell how his holy name was to be worshipped And againe De eo quis haer rer Diuin Vt solus
vs in those holy mysteries after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner not carnally nor corporally but spiritually and diuinelye And where as Maister Rastell citeth a longe saying of Cyrillus against an Arrian whiche denyed that wee haue any corporall coniunction with Christe and proueth the same by the strength and power of the misticall benediction which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in vs it is nothing in the worlde to his corporall and carnall manner of presence For we also do graunt that the power of the mistical benediction is such as maketh Christ to dwel corporally in the faithfull which is nothing else as he doth immediately expounde himselfe but that they are made members of Christes bodie and members one of another which is not after any carnall or naturall manner but after an heauēly diuine manner of vnion For the same Cyril doth affirme that Christ giuing the sacrament to his disciples gaue thē fragmēta panis peeces of bread By which is the plaine hee meant not to teach any transubstantiation of the bread into the natural body of Christ. This place of Cyrill is set downe at large in mine aunswere to Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 14. And where as hee saith we do weaken the hope of the resurrection of our flesh by denying the carnall manner of presence of Christs body in the sacrament I say it is vtterly false and the contrarie is true that the Popish heretikes do weaken the hope of resurrection in all them that haue not receiued the sacrament when they faine such a presence of Christes body in the sacrament as cannot bee receiued without the sacrament SECTIO 42. From the 144. leafe to the ende of the 145. leafe To the Bishops challenge that the body of Christ cannot be in a thousande places or more at one time hee aunswereth it needed not to be proued because reason must giue place to faith and one principle proued of Christes presence draweth all the rest after it and thirdly because Christs body is not locally present in the sacrament but in one place onely Finally hee citeth a long saying of Chrisostome in Ep. ad Heb. Hom. 17. reasoning how Christ is offered euery day but the whole discourse is cleane contrary to Maister Rastels purpose and especially the first sentence and the last expoundeth howe Christ was offered not really but as in a remembrance Doe wee not offer euerye day Wee offer in deede but as men which make a remembrance of his death these wordes shewe what kinde of oblation it was that they did make namelye a celebration of the memoriall of his death and not a propitiatorie sacrifice of Christes bodye carnally present The last wordes are these Wee offer not another sacrifice as the bishops did but alwayes that same or rather wee make the remembrance of that sacrifice This correction sheweth that it was not properly a sacrifice whiche they offered Finally there is not one worde in that discourse but it is directly against the sacrifice of the Masse SECTIO 43. From the 145. leafe to the 149. leafe To nine parts of the bishoppes chalenge hee aunswereth nothing but refuseth for their particularitie to answere to them First that the Priest did not holde the sacrament ouer his heade Secondlye that the people did not worship it with Godly honour Thirdly that it was not then hanged vnder a Canopye Fourthly that after consecration there remaineth nothing but accidences of breade and wine Fiftly that the priest deuided not the sacramēt in three parts receiued them all himselfe alone Sixtly that whosoeuer had said the sacrament is a figure a pledge a token or a remembrance of Christes bodye had not therefore ben iudged for an heretike Seuenthly that it was not lawefull to say 30. or twentie c. Masses in one Church in one day Eightly that images were not set vp to be worshiped Ninthly that the lay people were not forbidden to reade the worde of God in their owne tongue Maister Rastell saith this is an vnlearned and pelting kinde of reasoning but he proueth it by vnlearned and pelting examples as it is not read that Christe did crye from his mothers breast or did weare a peticoate hose or shooes or went on his mothers errande c. As though any of these thinges were articles of our beleefe as some of those are among the Papistes or as though it perteined any thing to knowe such matters as the Papistes pretende their matters necessarye not onely to be knowen but also practised Finally he woulde perswade his popish friends that these thinges neede not to bee proued to bee of such antiquitie because the Church hath receiued them Then let him and his fellowes bee a shamed and crie creake whiche were wont to boaste of fifteene hundreth yeares antiquitie for all their doctrine and ceremonyes the consent of all ages the traditions of the Apostles and such like where nowe they are cutte shorte of the first sixe hundreth yeares and being vrged to shewe their antiquitie can say nothing but that it is not needefull SECTIO 44. in the 149. leafe To the Bishoppes challenge that the wordes of consecration by no authoritie of councelles or Doctours ought to bee pronounced closelye Hee confesseth the matter but hee can proue or else hee lyeth that there must be an heade in the Churche whiche as well in this matter as in all other must bee obeyed Howe well hee can proue it is tryed in the fourtie Section The rest of the challenges hee giueth ouer being desirous to bee at an ende with them as I cannot blame him SECTIO 45. From the end of the 149. leafe to the 152. leafe in whiche he woulde proue that priests haue auctoritie to offer Christ. He taketh vppon him to shewe that the priest hath authoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his father But good lorde whether more blasphemously then ignorantly and vnlearnedly For first he citeth the saying of the Apostel Heb. 5. Euery high Priest taken of men is appointed for men in those things that perteine to God to offer vp gifts and sacrifices for sinnes which the Apostle speaketh expreslye of the priests of the old lawe and proueth the excellency of Christ aboue them Secondly admitting hee shoulde speake of Pristes of the newe Testament which is false he saith their sacrifice must be after the order of Melchisedech as it is written thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech of which order Christ is a priest in respect of Popish priestes that be nowe a dayes or else Gods oth should be broken Surely I merueile at the great clemency of god which stoppeth not such blasphemous mouthes with thunderbolts that make the eternall priesthoode of Christ which hee hath without succession to depende vppon their greasie order which hath not beene but of late erected neither shall continue for euer where as our sauiour Christe worlde without ende shal bee both a king and a priest which