And your Authour saith he dranke none other bloud but that he powred vpon them Here is also alledged Chrysostomes name for Christes drinking of his bloud but his wordes are referred to another place Then followeth a conclusion If Christ drank his owne bloud he drank it spiritually or corporally spiritually he could not wherfore he dranke it corporally This is very round dealing M. Heskins But if he could drinke his bloud I pray you why could he not drinke it spiritually as well rather then corporally For if he dranke his owne bloud he also did eate his owne body which if it sound not grossely in your eares it is because you haue a grosse vnderstanding In this Chapter two Lordes of the Parleament beeing required of their iudgment haue giuen their voices both directly against his bill for the carnall presence The seuenteenth Chapter proceedeth in the same matter by S. Cyprian and Euthymius Maister Heskins in his Epistles and prefaces promiseth great sinceritie and euery where obiecteth impudencie and insinceritie against the proclaymer and his complices But see what sinceritie he vseth that matcheth Euthymius scarse worthy to be a burgesse of the lower house â—ith Cyprian one of the most auncient Barons of the vpper house And yet afterward he him selfe placeth him in the lower house that is among the writers within the compasse of nine hundreth yeres Wheras the higher house consisteth of them that writ within 600. yeares after Christ as the Bishop whom he tearmeth the proclaymer maketh his challenge And certeinely Euthymius was neuer accounted for a Lord of the parleament before he was called thereto by Maister Heskins writte which of what force it is to make a Baron let the readers iudge For he liued about the yeare of our Lord 1170. Notwithstanding we will examine his voyce as it commeth in order But we must first consider the voyce of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage Which is this The supper therefore being ordered among the sacramentall meates there mette together the newe ordinances and the olde And when the lambe was consumed or eatâ—n which the olde tradition did set foorth the maister did set before his disciples the inconsumptible meatâ— Neither are the people now bidden to feastes painefully wrought with expenses and cunning but the foode of immortalitie is giuen differing from common meates reteyning the kind of appearance of corporall substaÌ„ce but prouing by inuisible efficiencie the presence of Gods power or the diuine vertue to be there In this saying First there is neuer a worde to proue that the Pascall Lambe was a figure of the Lordes supper which is the purpose of the Chapter but onely that the newe institution succeeded the olde which is manifest by the history of the Gospell Euen as Baptisme succeded circumcision and yet was not circumcision a figure of Baptisme Secondly note that he doeth not affirme the reall presence of Christes naturall bodie but the inuisible working of his diuine power And so his voyce is flatly againg Maister Heskins bill Nowe let vs consider his fonde collections First that Christ gaue inconsumptible meate the sacramentaries giue consumptible meate For they giue but bread This is a false slaunder a thousand times repeated for they giue not bread only but euen the same inconsumptible meate by the inuisible working of his diuine power which Cyprian affirmeth that Christe gaue his Disciples But he vrgeth That it was put before them taken by hande laid in sight which the merite and grace of his passion could not be See I pray you how this man agreeth with Cyprian Cyprian saith it was by inuisible working of Gods fauour he saith it was put before them for so he translateth apponit taken by hand and laide in sight His second collection is That it differeth from common meates reteining the fourme of corporall substaunce whiche can neither be the breade which differeth not from common meates nor the spirituall meate which they call the merite of his passion because that reteineth not the fourme of corporall substance A wise reason disioyning and seuering thinges that should bee taken together The water in baptisme differeth from common water and conteyning the fourme of corporall substance by inuisible working proueth the presence of Gods power to be there So doeth the bread and wine in the Lordes Supper Which although of them selues they be no more holy then other creatures yet when they are consecrated for the vse of the sacrament they differ as muche from common meates as the bodie and the soule doe as temporall life and eternall life as heauen and earth doe differ so doeth the water consecrated for baptisme differ from common water His third collection that it is called The foode of immortalitie which cannot be bare materiall bread A true collection for the sacrament is not bare material bread but the body and bloud of Christ represented by materiall bread as a materiall lauer is the water of regeneration but not bare materiall water For confirmation is brought in Ignatius ex Ep. ad Ephe. Be ye taught of the comforter obedience to the Bishop and the priest with vnswaruing or stable minde breaking the bread which is the medicine of immortalitie the preseruatiue of not dying but of liuing by Iesus Christ. Although no learned man that is not more wilfull then wise will graunt this Epistle to be written by that auncient father Ignatius whose name it beareth yet doth this saying coÌ„tein nothing but very sound doctrine of the sacrament which he calleth bread that iâ— broken to be the medicine of immortalitie M. Heskins vrgeth as before that it can non be bare bread which hath such effects Which I graunt willingly but I reply vpon him that it cannot be the naturall body of Christ which he exhorteth them to breake For Christes body is not broken but the sacramentall bread to signifie the breaking and participation of his body But he proceedeth to another speech of Cyprian which is in deede a more apparant speeche for his purpose the wordes are these Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effâ—gie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro Et fiout in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebaâ— diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter se diuina infudie essentia This bread which our Lorde did reache vnto his disciples beeing chaunged not in shape but in nature by omnipotencie of the worde is made fleshe And as in the person of CHRISTE the humanitie was seene the diuinitie was hidden euen so the diuine essence hath powred it selfe vnspeakably into the visible sacrament The Papistes esteeme this place to be an inuincible bulwarke of their transubstantiation but alas it is soone ouerthrowne when the meaning of Cyprian is boulted out not onely by sentences going before and after this saying but also by the very wordes of this same sentence For he maketh a manifest difference betweene the visible sacrament and the diuine essence which
Bishop saide that for the space of twelue hundreth yeares after Christ this worshipping of the sacrament was neuer knowne nor practised in any place M. Rastel after his courteous manner saith he lyeth for he hath alledged S. Ambrose and S. Augustine before to proue that the sacrament is to be worshipped and now citeth Therdoret Euthymius Emissenus Iames Basil and Chrisostome in their Liturgies for the same purpose But the aunswere is easie to be made none of all these speake of that worshipping or adoration of the sacrament which Pope Honorius commaunded but of honouring reuerencing worshipping or adoring of the sacrament as diuine mysteries which honouring worshipping or adoring we all confesse to be due to the blessed sacramentes not onely to the Lordes supper but also to the sacrament of baptisme For none of all these writers beleeued the carnall presence of Christe in the sacrament which the Papistes hold Saint Augustine denyeth the sacrament to be that body which was crucified in Psal. 98. Saint Ambrose calleth the sacrament the figure of the body and bloud of Christe De sacra lib. 4. cap. 5. Theodorete whose saying hee citeth being flatly against transubstantiation as you may read more at large in mine aunswere to Heskins Lib. 3. cap. 56. calleth in the same Dialogue the sacrament the tokens or signes of the body of Christe And in his first Dialogue he saith The tokens which are seene hee hath honoured with the name of his body and bloud not chaunging their nature but adding grace to their nature His discourse at large is set downe in mine answer to Hes. li. 3. ca. 52. Euthymius in 6. Ioan. saith that the words of Christ must be vnderstod spiritually the sacrameÌ„ts must be considred with inward â—ye â—as mysteries The very wordes of Emissenus which M. Rastel citeth expresse his minde to be of a spirituall presence Beholde with thy faith saith he honour and wonder at the holie bodie and bloud of christ The very name of the gift which is vsed in the liturgie falsely ascribed to Saint Iames declareth that the Author of that liturgie did not beleue it to be the naturall bodie of Christe but a gifte or token in remembraunce thereof The prayer whiche is made in those liturgies falsely ascribed to Chrysostome and Basil at the lifting of the sacrament proueth that they did not beleeue the bread to be chaunged into the bodie of Christ after the wordes of consecration For then they would not haue prayed that God would giue to them the bodie and bloud of his sonne and by them to the people if they had them present before And whereas they all cried Sancta sanctis holy thinges belong to holie men it was not to call the people to worshippe the sacrament which they lifted a little but not ouer their heades to be seene but to charge them that were not baptised to departe and to prepare the rest to the worthie receiuing of the sacrament Maister Rastell so great a Chrysippus and Aristotle of Logike neuerthelesse vseth these argumentes to proue adoration But leauing these he asketh if any within that compasse of 1200. yeares beleeued the sacrament to be the very bodie of Christ and if that be graunted whether the very bodie and bloud of Christ be not to be worshipped and then bringeth in Damascen and Lanfrancus Of the former it may be doubted but very grossely he writeth the other was an enimie of Berengarius 200. yeares before Honorius the Author of this adoration I answere breefely although the carnall presence was receiued two or three hundreth yeares before Pope Honorius yet there can no adoration be proued for at this day the Lutheranes admitte the carnall presence yet they abhorre adoration saying the very bodie of Christe is present to be eaten but not to be worshipped SECTIO 29. From the first face of the 89. leafe to the 93. leafe The Bishop sayde that the schoolemen perceiuing the daunger of idolatrie that was vnto the ignorant people in worshipping the cake if it were not consecrated gaue warning to the people to worship it vnder this condition if it were consecrated M. Ra. like a Doctor determiner cutteth of al the reasons of the schoolemen and saith they were not the best learned that so decide the controuersie For there is no daunger at all vnto the people so long as their intent is to worship God and the bodie of christ Example also he bringeth that if a man honour him which is not his father in steede of his father because all the parishe saith he is his father he doeth not amisse In deede if that man doe the duetie of a father to his supposed sonne I thinke the errour is not greatly hurtefull to him that honoureth him as his Father Agayne sayeth Maister Rastell suppose that one were so like thine owne Father whiche is possible ynough that it could not be discerned whiche of the two were thy true father thou werest not to be blamed if thou honour the one in steede of the other I aunswere suppose it were so which is vnlikely ynough I would thinke he were an vnaduised child which would not inquire which of the two were his true father before he chose to honour either of them But Maister Rastel asketh if he should honour no father because he could not discerne the one from the other And I likewise aske him whether hee should honour two men for his father or two fathers in steede of one because he knoweth nor which is his right Father Finally I would aske suche a not profound learned Maister of Arte as Rastel is but such a simple fellowe as Maister Rastell talketh withall in this discourse whether an vnconsecrated cake bee as like the bodie of Christe as one man may be to an other I weene he would say no. But then M. Rastel would take the tale out of his mouth and reply that an vnconsecrated cake and a consecrated be as like as any two men can be But then I would aske him whether any thing wherein they may be counted like is either the thing or the cause or the signe and marke of the thing that is worshipped If not his two cases are as like to these of the sacrament as an aple is like to an oyster SECTIO 30. From the first face of the 93. leafe to the first face of the 98. leafe Three leaues and an halfe of this section are spent in a fonde quarrel of Maister Rastels picking that the Bishop should ascribe that opinion to Dunce and Durande which is not theirs but proper to Thomas of Aquine against which they reason But for al his impudent shamelesse rayling charging the Bishop with lying it is Rastel himselfe which is the lyer and the slaunderer for that whiche the Bishoppe speaketh generally of the schoolemen he draweth maliciously vnto Dunce and Durande Thomas holdeth that transubstantiation is necessarie or else the Churche should committe idolatrie in falling downe
it therefore followe that all or the moste priestes doe vnderstand them whereof a great number can neither conster the Latine of their masse nor of those bookes And generally it may be said that they all vnderstand them not because these writers themselues doe not agree in the interpretation of them The thirde he saith is A plaine lie that in the Masse they make no mention of Christes death whereas the Masse setteth forth the death of Christe more liuely then the new communion For with great outcries he saith that there is mention of his death where it is saide The day before he suffred and The bloud of the new Testament that it shed for you and beeing mindfull of his passion resurrection c. and do this in remembrance of me Here is all the preaching of Christes death that he can finde in the Masse But seeing he grateth vpon the wordes No mention of his death Which was not the Bishops meaning but no profitable mention to the institution of the people who vnderstand nothing although there were neuer so long a sermon of Christes death in Latine yet I say he hath not shewed the death of Christe once mentioned in the Masse I say not by implication but in fourme of wordes whereof he taketh aduauntage to charge the Bishop of a lie But how open plaine lowd impudent a lie it is that The Masse setteth foorth the death of Christ more liuely then the new communion as he termeth it I will not in one worde goe about to confute least I should acknowledge any neuer so small shew of trueth to be in it The fortieth Chapter treateth of priuate Masses as the proclaymer termeth them and solueth his arguments Maister Heskins first rehearsing the Bishoppes Arguments against the priuate Masse first maketh this generall aunswere to them al that they proue it is lawfull for the people to receiue with the Priest but not that it is necessarie And first he chargeth him with falsifying of Hierome In 1. Cor. 11. That the supper of the Lorde must be common to all the people for Christ gaue his sacraments to all his disciples that were present Where saith Maister Heskins he hath left out this worde equally by whiche is meant that poore men haue as good right to the sacrament as riche men but not that it is necessarie that all men present at Masse should receiue with the priest In deed the words of Hierome are these Conuenientibus c. Iam non est Dominica sed humana quando vnâ—s quis quae tanquam caenam propriam solus inuadis alij qui non obtulerit non impereit Ita vt magis propter saturitatem quà m propter mysterium videamini conuenire Caeterùm coena Dominica omniâ—us debes esse communis quia ille omnibus discipulis suis qui aderant Ä™qualiter tradidit sacramenta Coena auteÌ„ ideo dicitur quia Dominuâ— in coena tradidit sacramentum Item hoc ideo dicit quia in ecclesia conuenientes oblationes suas separatim offerabant post communionem quae cunque eis de sacrificijs supersuissent illic in Ecclesia communem coenam coÌ„medentes pariter consumebant Et alius quidem esurit c. Quicumque non obtulisset non communicabat quira omnia soli qui obtulerunt insumebant When you come together c. Nowe is it not the LORDES supper but a mannes supper when euerie one falleth to it alone as it were his owne supper and giueth no parte to another which hath offered nothing so that you seeme to come together rather to fill your bellies then for the mysteries sake But the Lordes supper ought to be common to al men because he deliuered his sacramentes to all his disciples that were present equally And it is therefore called a supper because the Lorde at supper deliuered the sacramente Also he saith this therfore for that when they came together in the Church they offered their oblations seuerally and after the communion whatsoeuer was left to them of the sacrifice euen there in the Church eating a common supper they consumed it together And one truely is a hungred whosoeuer had not offred did not communicate because they that had offred consumed all alone By this let the Reader iudge what falsifying the proclaymer vsed and whether Hierome that condemned seuerall communions of riche men would allowe a singular partaking of the priest alone An other reason he hath of baptisme whiche though it be common to all men and that two speciall times in the yeare were appointed for the ministration thereof yet it may be ministred alone But the example is nothing like for it was alwayes lawfull and often vsed to baptise singuler persons at all times so was it neuer of the Lordes supper because the mysterie that S. Paul speaketh of 1. Cor. 10. Many partaking of one bread cannot bee expressed when one priest receiueth alone The third reason he bringeth is a counterfet decree ascribed to Fabianus of Rome 242. yeres after Christe that people should receiue thryse in the yere which had beene needlesse if they receiued so often as the priest saide Masse In deede the impudent forgerie of this decree is manifest when two hundred yeares after Fabianus the people of Rome as both Saint Augustine and Saint Hierome do write and Maister Heskins cannot denye receiued the communion euery day As for the decree of once a yere receiuing I knowe not when it was made but wicked it was whensoeuer it was made But Chrysostome I wene doth make much for priuate Masses for he writeth but Maister Heskins dare not tell where for shame Nonne per singulos dies offerimus offerimus quidem sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius Do wee not euery day sayth hee make oblation we offer in deede but doing it to the remembrance of his death This question of Chrysos is but an obiection of the vsual phrase of offering which he expoundeth to be nothing else but a celebration of the remembraunce of Christs death and therfore in the end of that discourse for a full resolution he setteth down Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex sed id ipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur Wee offer not another sacrifice as the holie priest but the same alwayes but rather wee make the remembraunce of that sacrifice This correction sheweth what he meaneth by the name of sacrifice And whereas Maister Heskins vrgeth that they ministred dayly none were bound but priests to communicate aboue thrise in the yere he concludeth the priest receiued oftentimes alone But he playeth the papist notably in taking rather then begging two principles one that the people were not bounde which hee is not able to proue another that there was but one Priest in a church whereas at that time commonly there was but one church in a citie in which were many priestes which by his owne confession were bound to receiue as often as
death vntil he come How is he that is to come distinct from him that is present for Saint Paule maketh an exposition of this breade this cuppe which are present to shewe the Lordes death that is to come But let vs heare what Saint Ieronyme sayeth that may helpe him in 1. Cor. 11. Ideo hoc c. Therefore our Sauiour hath deliuered this sacrament that by it we might alwayes remember that he dyed for vs For therefore also when we receiue it wee are warned of the priestes that it is the bodie and bloud of Christ that we might not be thought vnthankefull for his benefites I like this saying verie well which teacheth that the sacramēt is therefore called the bodie bloud of Christ that thereby we might be put in minde of the benefite of Christes death to be thankfull for it And that his meaning is none otherwise his owne wordes shal declare going both before and after Vpon these wordes Gratias egit c. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus vltimam nobis commemorationem sine memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat vt quotiescunque illud viderit possit eius beneficia amicitias memorare quod ille si perfectè dilexit sine ingenti desiderio non potest videre vel fletu That is blessing or giuing thankes euen when hee was to suffer he left to vs his last commemoration or remembrance Euen as a man going into a farre countrey doth leaue some pledge to him whome he loueth that so often as he seeth it he may remember his benefites and frendship which pledge he if he loued perfectly cannot beholde without great desire or weeping In these words you see S. Hierom compareth the sacrament to a pledge which is left in remembrance of loue benefites receiued of him that in person is absent The same writer vpō the same words of our text donec venerit vntill he come thus writeth Tam diu memoria opus est donec ipse venire dignetur So long we haue neede of a remembraunce vntill he him selfe vouchesafe for to come Nothing can bee more plaine to shewe his meaning not to be of a carnall or bodilie presence although as Christ hath giuen vs the president he call the bread and cuppe by the name of the bodie and bloud of Christe The testimonie of Theophylact being a Greeke Gentleman of the lower house I haue hetherto refused to admitt and therefore in this place also will not trouble the reader with him The challenge was made of writers within sixe hundreth yeares after Christe this man liued about a thousande yeres after Christ yet if I would wrangle about his wordes he hath nothing that may not bee reasonably construed on our side without any wresting The fiue and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by S. Basil Rupert S. Basil is alledged de baptismo Oportet accedentem c. It behoueth him that commeth to the bodie and bloud of our Lord to the remembrance of him that was dead for vs and rose againe not onely to be pure from all vncleannesse of bodie and soule lest he eate and drinke to his owne condemnation but also to shewe euidently and to expresse the memorie of him that hath dyed for vs and risen againe And what sayeth Basil in these words that we do not graunt vnderstanding purenesse by faith and repentance Maister Hesk. sayeth in steede of that S. Paule sayde this bread and this cupp he sayeth the bodie and bloud of Christe although I might stande with him that this is no interpretation of Sainct Paules wordes but an exhortation which Basil maketh to the worthie receiuing of the sacrament what inconuenience is it to graunt that it is both bread and wine and also after a spirituall manner his verie bodie and bloud which is receiued of the faithfull But either Maister Heskins note booke serued him not or els his malice against the trueth would not suffer him to see what the same Basil writeth not many lines before these wordes which he citeth vpō the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ of the institution of this blessed sacrament and immediatly after the verie text of the Apostle now in hande As often as you eate of this bread and drinke of this cuppe you shewe the Lordes death vntill he come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then do these words profit vs that eating drinking we might always remember him which dyed for vs and is risen againe and so wee might bee instructed of necessitie to obserue before God and his Christe that lesson which is deliuered by the Apostle where hee sayeth for the loue of Christe doeth constreine vs iudging this that if one hath dyed for all then all are dead M. Heskins denyeth the sacrament to be a remembrance of Christe for feare he shoulde confesse Christ to be absent affirming it is a remembrance only of the death of christ But Basil saith that in eating and drinking we must remember Christe that is dead risen againe for vs and so be transformed into his image by mortification and newnesse of life This is all the profite that Basil gathereth of the institution of the supper of the Lorde Where is then the carnall presence the sacrifice propitiatorie the application of it according to the priestes intention and such like monsters of the Masse The testimonie of Rupertus a burgesse of the lower house I will not stand vpon notwithstanding it little helpeth Maister Heskins cause For he doth not say that the sacrament is so a remembrance of Christes death that it is not a remembrance of Christ him selfe But Maister Heskins sayeth all the rable of sacramentaries cannot bring one couple of catholike authors that saye Saint Paule spake here of materiall bread neither can Maister Heskins bring one single auncient writer within the compasse of the challenge which is 600. yeres after Christ that denyeth that S. Paule spake of materiall breade as the earthly part of the sacrament He hath named Hierome Basil but neither of them denie it as for Theophylact Rupertus although neyther of them also denye it in the places by him cited yet I knowe not why we might not as well produce Berengarius and Bertrame as auncient as they which affirme that Saint Paule spake here of bread But that there is materiall bread in the sacrament as the earthly part thereof we haue already cited Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Origen in 15. Matthaei Cyrill in Ioan. Lib. 4. Cap. 24. and many other Toward the end of this Chapter Maister Heskins taketh vpon him to aunswere an obiection of Oecolampadius who iustly chargeth the Papistes of wilfull ignorance in that they make the body of Christ both the exemplar and the thing exemplified the figure and the thing figured the signe and the thing signified whereas relation must be betwixt two thinges distincted and not of
made and commaunded the same to bee broken if it were made as Christ hath forbiddē images to be made honoured in any religious worship and commaunded such as were so made and worshipped to be broken Maister Iewell durst execute his princes commandement And maister Sander sheweth himselfe a wise man to compare a thing permitted with a thing forbidden a thing of one nature that is ciuil with a thing of an other nature that is religious And these be the seuen wise reasons of one man not so wise as the seuen wise men of Greece But yet to knitte vp the matter we must haue a comparison of the doctrine of the Catholikes with maister Iewels doctrine cōcerning images 1 Christ is as worthy to haue an image as any noble man. To this maister Iewell must aunswere this is no good faith therefore this is his doctrine Christ is lesse honorable then Iulius Caesar. A wittie conclusion Christe refuseth a vaine heathenish honour forbidden by God therefore hee is lesse honourable then Iulius Caesar Nay maister Sander the honour of Christe and Iulius Cęsar are not meete to bee matched together the one the sonne of GOD the other a dampned spirite 2 Christes image is set vp in the Church that wee might remember him loue him and followe him This ende being good maketh the acte of setting vp the Image good Maister Iewell must say it is not well done to set vp such remembrance and to honour it And so I warrant you he sayeth because God hath forbidden it for if your reason be good the good ende maketh the acte to be good the acte of them that killed the Apostles was good because they thought to do God good seruice therein as our sauiour Christe him selfe witnesseth Ioan. 16. vers 2. 3 Item wee adore Christe so perfectly that wee suffer not so much as his image to be vnhonoured Master Iewell must saye Christe is not worthie of so much honour that for his sake his image should be honoured of vs but in deede he would say as Saint Augustine sayth to them which affirmed they honoured the Angels for Gods sake I would you woulde honour Christe as hee hath appointed you then should you learne not to honour images for his sake which he abhorreth 4 Item wee beleeue it to bee a contumely done to Christ if his image be broken Master Iewel must saye It is well done to breake Christs images Yea such images as are worshipped to the contumely of Christ in contempt of his lawe 5 Item it is a contumely to a Prince to breake his image Master Iewell must say it is no contumely to a Prince to haue his image broken But why must hee say so what hath he to doe with Princes images or armes which are matters of ciuile honour If you make the comparison to Christes image it is a foolish tautologie for you sayed the same immediatly before and the comparison is vnfit betweene God and man where the one forbidding the other allowing betweene diuine religious spirituall and true worship and ciuile worldly vaine and transitorie honour Therefore though Princes armes and images may be set vp to the aduauncement of their worldly honour yet the glorie of Christe and his worship requireth no such thinges but vtterly forbiddeth them THE XII or XI CHAP. It is proued out of the worde of God that the images of honorable things ought to be honoured Also that M. Iewell vnderstandeth not the places of scripture alledged by the fathers of the 7. general councel What proportion is betweene a saint his image Iacob adoring the top of Iosephes rod shewed that a creature without sense may be adored for his sake which hath reason and vertue The signe of the crosse shall appeare at the day of iudgement to the confusion of those which haue nowe throwne it downe Pope Adrian writing to the Emperour concerning the second Nicen Councel alledgeth for the making and honoring of images that saying of Genesis God made man according to his owne image and similitude which he expoundeth to consist in free wil and in calling all creatures by their proper names M. Iewel not vnderstanding how these places of scripture cited in that Councel ought to be applied to making and honouring of images mocketh at all those Fathers learning c. And so he might right well being a companie of vnlearned asses and flattering parasites who to currie fauour with that idolatrous Empresse Irene abused the scriptures most shamefully and absurdly to the maintenance of the making and worshipping of images But Maister Sander hath chosen a fewe of those places thinking to wring out some fore matter of them leauing out the rest which hee was ashamed to name for breuities sake And first he bringeth in the authoritie of Damascene a worshipfull Doctour aboue seuen hundreth yeares past which bringeth many of the same places for the same purpose making a comparison betweene him and Maister Iewell and both their books Well let the iudgement be among learned men But Damascene De Ortho. fid cap. 17. frameth an argument thus GOD made man to his owne image For whose cause therefore doe wee worship one an other but bicause we are made after the image of GOD Alledging Basil which faith The honour of the image is transferred into the honour of the paterne Cyrillus likewise reasoneth in Cat. 12. The woodden image of an earthly King is honoured howe much more the reasonable image of god But these reasons that serue for the honouring and reuerencing of man which is Gods true image for Gods sake serue nothing in the worlde for honouring of false images artificiall which containe nothing in them of that which is to be worshipped or honoured in the patterne And therefore Maister Iewel may well mocke such a bald reason as hath no good consequence in it Man being the true image of God made by God him selfe and hauing in him a true similitude of those things which are honourable in God as wisdome holinesse righteousnesse c. is to be honoured for Gods sake therefore a stocke which is a false or counterfet image of Christe made by a cursed man and hath no true resemblance in it of those things that are honourable in Christ is to be honored for Christes sake For what wit sense or shame hath he that maketh such an argument But saith he we must marke the proportion betwene the image and the thing whereof it is an image to see the weight of this reason But what proportion is there betweene truth and falshood euen such there is betwene man the image of God and a blocke the image of man But it beareth mans shape also his name saith he but it beareth it falsely say I. For mans shape is not a dead or insensible shape no more then a dead carcase is a man and much lesse it deserueth the name of a man Yet continuing this proportion hee saith Among all men none
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
other cauil that followeth of lay men artificers preaching in open places ministring the sacramentes deserueth no answere for if they be admitted to the office beeing worthy thereof there is no doubt but they may as well now as in all ages of the Church they haue done neither are they to be takeÌ„ for laymen though they haue beene artificers Yet if they presume without calling and admission of the Church they are no more borne withall among vs then suche as counterfet themselues to be Priestes among the Papistes As Englishe Ioan did to clyme to the Papacie as of late a lewd fellow in Italie feigned himselfe to be a Cardinall as Stephanus in his defence of Herodotus doth witnesse We condemne according to the scriptures not only all intrusion of men without calling but all ambitious and symoniacall practises to procure the outward calling So farre off is it that we allowe euerie man of his owne fantasie to intrude himselfe as this man doth most vainely slaunder vs. The 8. Chap. exhorteth men to heare or to read the expositions of the scriptures not to presume vpon their own vnderstanding If there were nothing in this Chapter but answering to the title thereof I would willingly subscribe vnto it But after he hath exhorted as he promiseth by the counsell of Iames Salomon and Hieronyme that we should heare learne of them whom God hath appointed pastors and teachers in his Church he dissuadeth men also by the authoritie of Paule and Ecclesiasticus to appoint vnto them selues Elders or maisters to be carried about with new and straunge doctrines decreeth That they only are lawfull Elders that haue learned of their fathers For whiche cause Luther was no good Elder allowing women to teach openly contrary to Paul 1. Cor. 14. which is an impudent slaunder of Luther who by no meanes would haue women to teache except it were extraordinarily as the prophetesses of the olde time did namely Debora Holda such like Such stuffe is in the other slaunders That contrition maketh a man more sinner where Luther meaneth of that which is without faith therfore must needs be sinne That a righteous man in euery good worke sinneth mortally where he meaneth that sinne and imperfection is mixed euen with the best works not that good workes are sinne That is also a detestable lye that Luther should teach Euery Christian man to be a priest for the common or publique ministery wheras he neither thought nor spake otherwise then the scripture speaketh which hath made vs Kings Priests Apoc. 1. And no lesse is the slander of Zwinglius That he taught that originall offence is no sinne whereas the worlde knoweth that Zwinglius taught the contrarie and the Papistes come neerer to that errour whiche define it to be no sinne in the regenerate it is as false that he taught That Christian mens children neede not to be baptised As it is true that if they dye without baptisme without any coÌ„tempt of their part it is no cause of condeÌ„natioÌ„ vnto them The saying of Christ except a man be borne againe of water of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaueÌ„ maketh no more for the baptisme of infantes then his saying also except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man drinke his bloud ye haue no life in you maketh to proue that infants must receiue the coÌ„munion for neither in the one speaketh he of the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme nor in the other place of the sacrameÌ„t of his supper But where Luther doth often protest that he will not be taught by man but by God he doeth as euerie Christian man ought to do and yet excludeth not the ministerie of men but the authoritie doctrines traditions and inuentions of men which by Luciferian pride take vpon them to teache that they haue not learned of god But howe shall we vnderstand this saying of Maister Heskins speaking in despight of Luther This is another Paule As though only Paul wer called of God without the ministery of maÌ„ wheÌ„ all the Apostles were so or as though it were a reproche to be so called as Paul was if God do extraordinarily stir vp any man as he did the Apostles EuaÌ„gelistes After his deriding of Paul Zwinglius is condemned by that which Maister Heskins hath saide for writing a booke De claritate verbi Dei How wisely and iustly let the godly Readers iudge Next followeth generall rayling against Oecolampadius Bullingerus Caluinus Bucer of whom his aduersarie meaning I thinke the B. of Sarum learned his heresies then he returneth to vnlearned artificers teaching in corners All which he would haue to be auoyded I suppose because he hath rayled vpon them and called them heretiques for other reason he bringeth none Except this be one that Hieronyme thinketh it not sufficient if a man say he loueth God and yet breaketh the vnitie of the Church The Church once named by and by all is his As though it were no coÌ„trouersie at this day whether the Synagogue of Rome be the Church of God or no. And as though all Christendome had bene at all times and in all places obedient to the Churche of Rome before these fewe yeares And therfore he is bolde to demaunde where it was taught in the Christian worlde that Christes naturall bodie is not in the sacrament nor to be offered nor receiued nor honoured Nay Maister Heskins where was this taught in the affirmatiue for fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Christe As for your other questions of prayer for the dead and prayers to the dead if you bring any reasons for theÌ„ in this your OmnegatheruÌ„ they shal be answered otherwise the readers for me shall resort to other treatises where they be handled of purpose But seeing men must learne the law of their mother that is the Church they must follow Hieronyme which neuer ceased from his youth to seeke knowledge of learned men and trauelled to Alexandria to be instructed of Didymâ—s So did Augustine to Millain to learne of Ambrose No wise man will mislike this counsell But this one thing especially is notable That Damasus being bishop of Rome did send to S. Hieronyme to be answered in certein doubts and disdained not to learne of him I had thought the Pope had had all knowledge In scrinio pectoris in the closet of his brest that he had the spirite of trueth to resolue all doubtes so that he could not erre and that Hieronyme hauing him at Rome needed not to haue sought knowledge at Alexandria But Damasus although euen in that time a ioly stately Prelate as appeareth by some of his Epistles if they be not counterfet yet shewed himselfe farre from that Antichristian pride which the Popes of Rome I cannot say his successors did shew afterward and yet to this day do holde But to omitte Damasus Many learned of Saint Augustine and of other learned men also which were learned them selues They did wel
his bodie This saying M. Heskins hath most vntollerably abused first by false translating and then by leauing out that which expoundeth the mind of Tertullian most clearely For the true vnderstanding of this place we must note two things firste that Marcion against whome he writeth affirmed that the God of the lawe was not the God of the Gospel secondly that Christ had not a true bodie but a fantasticall bodie Against both these errours he reasoneth in this sentence Against the first when he saith he desired to eate the Pascal lambe of the olde lawe which was his owne namely of his owne institution for it was absurd that Christ being God shoulde desire that which was another Gods institution as the heretike sayde the lawe and all ceremonies thereof were And this is directly contrarie to M. Heskins purpose who ioyning with the heretike denyeth that he did desire to eat the Pascall of the lawe and that it was not properly his owne and for this intent to make it serue his turne he translateth falsly vt suum as his owne Passouer alienum any strange thing Against the seconde Tertullian reasoneth in the same sentence which words because M. Heskins could not abyde he hath cleane cut off The wordes are these Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit quia corporis caâ—ebas veritate ergo panem dibuit tradere pro nobis Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis crucifigeretur The bread which he tooke distributed to his disciples he made his bodie saying this is my bodie that is to saye a figure of my bodie And it could haue bene no figure except his bodie had bene of trueth But a vaine thing which is a phantasie cannot receiue a figure Or else if therefore he made breade his bodie because he lacked the trueth of a bodie therefore he should haue giuen bread for vs It made wel for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should haue beene crucified There can nothing bee more euident then that Tertullian by this place ouerthroweth both the transubstantiation and also the carnall presence maintained by the Papistes This M. Heskins because he coulde not brooke he brake off the sentence and commeth out of the matter also to raile against Cranmer of holy memorie first doubting whether the booke set forth in his name were made by him as though Cranmer was not wel enough knowen to be as well able to write a booke as Heskins then that he affirmeth the Papistes vnable to shewe one article of faith so directly contrarie to our senses that all our senses shall by daily experience affirme a thing to be and yet our faith shall teach vs the contrarie Maister Heskins like a wilie Pye obiecteth the article of the resurrection where our senses teacheth vs that mens bodyes be dead and faith teacheth that they shall rise againe But the subtile sophister doth not see I weene a difference betweene it is in M. Cranmers assertioÌ„ is and shal be in his balde obiection Faith teacheth that shal be which our sense teacheth nowe not to be But faith teacheth not that to be white which our sense teacheth to be blacke But he hath another wise instance The senses taught that the wounde which Christe had in his side after his resurrection was verie sore but faith taught the contrarie because his bodie was glorified Seeing the wounde was made after his death reason would iudge that it was insensible especially when he was risen againe froÌ„ death by his diuine power And Thomas was not so rude that he would haue thrust in his hand if he thought it shold haue hurt him and when he did thrust in his hande he perceiued by his senses that it did not hurt But it is pittie to spende any time about so vaine a matter sorenesse being not the thing but a certeine affection of the thing which cannot alwayes be knowen by another mans senses but by his onely that feeleth it as in him that hath the Palsey if his legge were cut off he feeleth nothing yet some such wise man as M. Heskins would thinke it were verie sore But he woulde-faine excuse the matter why he cutteth off Tertulian by the waste promising in another place to do it and willeth you in the meane time to consider that Christes bodie is giuen in the sacrament and further alledgeth out of Tertullian in another place which is in his booke De resurrectione carnis That the fleshe doth eate the bodie and bloud of Christ that the soule may be fedd of God. Where hee meaneth none otherwise then in the former place calling the sacrament a figure of Christes bodie and so an ende with Tertullian Then commeth Isychius disciple of Gregorie Nazianzene who firste dissuading men from vsing of the Iewes ceremonies affirmeth that which M. Heskins denyed that Christe did eat the legall Passouer in his last supper His wordes that are materiall are these Christus primùm celebrauit figuratum Pasca Post canam auem intelligibidem tradit Christ did first celebrate the figuratiue Passeouer but after supper he deliuered the intelligible supper Then followe diuers places to shew that by intelligible he meaneth figured But being graunted that the supper was figured by the pascall Lambe which is the egge that he is so long in brooding yet he is neuer the neerer for the carnall presence and corporall manner of eating no not with that whiche Isychius saith That he tooke the intelligible bloud first in the mysticall supper and afterward gaue the cuppe to his Apostles and that he dranke himselfe and giuing to his Apostles to drinke then he powred the intelligible bloud vpon the altar that is to say his body Now the body of Christ is the Church and all his people He that seeth not that this Father doeth vse figuratiuely these wordes bloud body altar powre drinke c. is worthy to weare a cockes combe a bell Yet Maister Heskins noteth in the margent Christ dranke his owne bloud and gaue it to his Apostles Which if it be true in the litterall sense as he meaneth then it is as true that he powred his owne bloud vpon his owne body in the literall sense For the same bloud which he dranke and gaue he powred on his body But he powred not his natural bloud vpon his body therefore he neither gaue nor dranke his naturall bloud in the litterall sense But you will say his body signifieth his Church and people for whom he powred forth his naturall bloud Well beside that you are inforced to acknowledge a figuratiue speeche you are neuer the neere For although he powred out his bloud for them yet he powred it not vpon them
trueth whereof the Pascall lambe was the figure and shadowe Which trueth was no mysterie newly inuented but practised euer since Moses for not by the fleshe and bloud of the Lambe but by the flesh and bloud of Christ the people were deliuered from death The Lambe was then a sacrament Christe was then and euer shall be the trueth but what neede we more striue wheÌ„ M. Heskins confesseth That the faithfull of the olde Testament did eate the flesh drinke the bloud of Christ spiritually as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. They did all eate the same spirituall meate c. And Cyrill saith We haue no newe mysterie but euen the same that hath beene practised since the time of Moses The twentieth Chapter ioyneth Saint Gregorie and Damascen to confirme the same matter In the beginning of this Chapter he doeth honestly confesse that Gregorie was the last of the higher house Damascen the first and chiefest of the lower house he may make him Vantparlar if he will. But neither of theÌ„ haue any thing materiall for his purpose that he alledgeth them nor for the generall purpose of his bill For Gregories wordes are altogether alegoricall therefore cannot be taken in the Grammaticall sense Hom. 22. Pasch All which thinges do bring forth to vs great edifying if they be discussed by mystical or alegoricall interpretation For what the bloud of the lambe is you haue learned not now by hearing but by drinking which bloud is put vpon both the postes when it is dronke not only with the mouth of the body but also with the mouth of the heart For he that doeth so receiue the bloud of his redeemer that he will not as yet followe his passion hath put the bloud on a post Heare what a great thing is there But that he calleth the sacrament of the bloud the bloud of the redeemer speaking alegorically as he calleth it the bloud of the Lamb meaning the olde Paschal whiche doth signifie the bloud of christ Therfore if Maister Heskins will vrge the bloud of the redeemer dronke not only with the mouth of the body but with the mouth of the heart he may likewise vrge the bloud of the lamb if this be a figuratiue speech so is that But Gregorie proceedeth In the night saith he we eate the lambe because we do now receiue the Lordes body in a sacrament when as yet we do not see one anothers conscience Note here that Gregorie doth not say simply we eate the Lords body but we eate the Lordes body in a sacrament or mysterie comparing the night of the Iewish eating with the mysterie of the Lordes body And in neither of both his sayinges affirmeth the lambe to be a figure of the supper which is the purpose of the Chapter As for Damascen his chiefe words are these For it were too long to rehearse all he being but a knight of the lower house If God the word by willing was made man c. can he not make bread his owne body and wine with water his bloud God saide in the beginning let the earth bring forth greene hearbes and vnto this day beeing holpen strengthened by Gods coÌ„mandement the rayne comming it bringeth forth fruits God said this is my body this is my bloud and do ye this in remeÌ„brance of me by his almightie coÌ„mandement it is brought to passe vntill he come In this testimonie which M. Hesk. rehearseth more at large sauing that he nameth the old Passeouer that Christ did celebrate at his last supper there is no mentioÌ„ of any figure that it was of his supper SecoÌ„dly although the time in which Damascen liued was very corrupt yet there is nothing in these wordes whiche may not wel be referred to the spiritual presence of Christs body vnto the faith of the worthie receiuer M. Heskins maketh a needlesse digression of the coÌ„mandement of consecratioÌ„ which shal be granted to him if he wil not frame a new signification of consecration which none of his Calepines Vocabularies nor Dictionaries do acknowledge For to consecrate is to halow or to separat to an holy vse so we grant the bread and wine to be consecrated But the Papistes call consecrating to change the substances or to transubstaÌ„tiat And so neither Chrysostom nor any other learned man did euer vse that word His wordes as M. Heskins citeth theÌ„ Ho. de pro. Iud. be these And now the same Christ is present which did furnish that table he also consecrateth this For it is not man that maketh the thinges set foorth to be the body and bloud of Christ by consecration of the Lordes table but he that was crucified for vs euen Christ Wordes are spoken by the mouth of the priest but they are consecrated by the power and grace of god This is saith he my body By this worde the thinges set foorth are consecrated And as that voyce that said grow ye multiply ye was but once spoken but yet it feeleth alway effect nature working with it vnto generation so that voyce was but once spoken but through all the tables of the Church vnto this day and vntill the comming it giueth strength to the sacrifice In these wordes because M. Heskins bringeth them in for consecration note that Chrysostome affirmeth all consecration vnto the worldes end to be wrought by the voice of Christ once spoken by him selfe This is my body whereas the Papistes affirme consecration to be by the vertue of these words spoken by a priest So that there is great diuersitie betweene their iudgements of consecration The one twentieth Chapter concludeth the matter of the figure of the Pascall lambe by Haymo and Cabâ—sila There is no doubt but in the lower house M. Heskins may finde many that fauour his bill but seeing it is shut out of the higher house I will not trouble my selfe nor the Reader much to examine the voyces of the lower house Which if they should euery one allowe it yet it cannot be an enacted trueth without the consent of the higher house Onely this will I note that Maister Heskins maketh Haymo elder by 500. yeares then such chronicles as I haue read do account him But this thing in this Chapter must not be omitted that he saith that The sacramentaries cannot bring one father teaching the sacrament to be onely a figure And ioyneth issue with the proclaymer that if he can bring any scripture any catholique counsell or any one approued doctor that by expresse and plaine words doth denie the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament then he will giue ouer and subscribe to him Still he chargeth them whom he calleth the sacramentaries to make the sacrament only a figure or a bare signe which is false But for euidence to informe the men that shall go vpon this issue I will alledge first S. Augustine in plaine and expresse wordes denying that which Maister Heskins and the Papistes call the reall presence of Christes body
beene slaine in a sedition raysed by him where as the worlde knoweth it was in warre that was helde in defence of his countrie The like foolish quarell he hath for putting out of Polycarpus out of the Calender placing Thomas Hutten in his stood all which as vnworthie any aunswer I passe ouer it is sufficiently knowen what Bullinger esteemed of mâ—ns authoritie what Fox if he meane him iudged of the old Martyrs diuinitie The other reasons following I could scarse read without loathsomnesse that preachers must ceasse if writers may not be receiued vnder 1000 yeres antiquitie more that speaking writing are of like authority and such like blockish stuffe The elder writers are allowed not for their age but for their agreement with the worde of God the later preachers are beleeued not for that their speaking is better then Papistes writing but because they speake thinges consonant to the word of God the touchstone and triall of trueth And therefore we receiue not the testimonie of Nicholaus de Lyra the second Burgesse because it is contrarie to the word of God and the consent of the elder Doctours that Christ speaketh of the sacrament when he saith the bread which I will giue is my fleshe which wordes Theophylacte euen nowe affirmed to be spoken of the passion of Christ. The fourth Chapter beginneth a further proofe of the former master by S. Cyprian and Euthymius For proof of the two breads that the text The bread which I will giue is my flesh c. is ment of the sacrament Cyprian is alledged although the place be not quoted but it is in the sermon vpoÌ„ the Lords prayer in these words Panis vitae Christus est c. Christ is the bread of life and he is not the bread of all men but our bread And as we say our father because he is the father of theÌ„ that vnderstand beleeue so we call it our bread because Christ is our bread which touche his body And this bread we pray to be giuen vs daily least we that are in Christe and daily receiue the Eucharistie to the meate of health some greeuous offence comming betweene while beeing separated and not communicating we be forbidden from that heauenly bread we be separated from the body of Christ he himselfe openly saying and warning I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and the bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde Howsoeuer M. Hesk. would falsly gather out of this place Cyprian maketh not two breades but one bread of life Christ God man as for the two respects of his Godhead manhoode that he prateth of cannot make Christ to be two breads but one true foode of our soules And that Cyprian doth apply this text to the sacrament only it is utterly false in that he saith we must pray for this daily bread Christ to feede vs although for some greeuous offence we be restrained from the sacrament as is also euident by these words that follow Quando ergo dicit in aeternum viuere si quis ederit de tius pane vt manifestum est cos vinera qui corpus eius 〈◊〉 Eucharistitum â—â—re coÌ„municationis accipiunt ita contrae timenduÌ„ est erandum ne dam quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore procul remaneat a salute comminante ipso dicente Nist ederitis carnem fâ—ij hominis biberiâ—is sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis Et ideo panem nostrium id est Christum dari nobis quoâ—idie petimus vt qui in Christo manemus vinimus a sanctificatione corpore eius non recedamus Therefore when he saith that he liueth for euer whosoeuer shal eate of his bread as it is manifest that they do liue which touch or come neare vnto his body and by the right of communication receiue the sacrament of thankesgiuing so contrariwise it is to be feared and to be prayed for lest while any being sequestred is separated from the body of Christe he remaine farre from health he himselfe threatening saying except ye shal eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you And therefore we pray daily that our bread that is to say Christ may be giuen to vs daily that we which remaine liue in Christ go not away from sanctification and his bodie In these wordes as in the former Cyprian directly referreth that text to our spirituall communication with the body of Christ by right of which communication we receiue the sacrament thereof And this participation of Christ he calleth Contingere attingere corpus Christi not to touch his body with our teeth or mouth in that sacrameÌ„t as M. Heskins dreameth Here followeth Euthymius of whose antiquitie we haue spoken in the first booke Neuerthelesse we wil examine his saying which is this In 6. Ioan. Duobus modis c. Christ is saide to be bread two wayes that is after his godhead and after his manhood therefore when he had taught the manner which is after his godhead now doeth he also teach the manner which is after his manhoode For he did not say which I do giue but which I will giue for he would giue it in his last supper when thankes being giuen he tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and saide take eate this is my body M. Heskins maruelleth that the aduersaries cheekes waxe not redd for shame to see so plaine a sentence against them But if we knew not that Maister Heskins had beene as impudent as a frier we might maruell that he was not ashamed first to alledge Euthymius as a writer within 6. hundreth yeares after Christ who liued about the yeare of our Lorde 1180. And secondly to make two breads of that which Euthymius saith to be one bread after two manners Finally although Euthymius referred this text to the sacrament yet saith he nothing for the carnall presence in as much as it is manifest that Christ spake there of a spiritual communication of his fleshe or else all infantes are damned that receiue not the sacrament The fift Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by S. Augustine and Chrysostome S. Augustine is alledged De Agricultura agri Dominici a treatise of no account for the authoritie being falsely intituled to Augustine which was the worke of a farre later writer The wordes neuerthelesse are these The table of thy spouse hath whole bread and a holy cuppe which bread although we haue seene broken and brused in his passion yet he remained whole in that his indiuided vnity with his father Of this bread and of this cup our Lorde himselfe saide The bread which I will giue is my fleshe for the life of the world and the cuppe which I wil sanctifie is my bloud which shal
eaten when his fleshe is eaten as a man doth see when his eye or rather his soule by the eye doth see c. For the godhead is not eaten therefore it cannot be spiritually eaten but verily Still he maketh spirite and trueth contrarie as though what soeuer were done spiritually were not done verily But he remembreth not that Cyrill sayeth that he which eateth this fleshe is wholy refourmed or fashioned anewe into Christe Whereby hee doth not onely exclude wicked men but also teache a spirituall eating as the reformation is spirituall And as the worde was made fleshe by an vnspeakable vnion so wee by eating that fleshe are ioyned to him by an vnspeakable vnion Finally where Maister Heskins sayeth that Christs fleshe cannot be verily eaten but in the sacrament he excludeth all them from the benefites of his fleshe which are not partakers of the sacrament and so condemneth all children not come to yeares of discretion O cruell transsubstantiation The Thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the nexte text by Saint Ambrose and Chrysostome The text is This is that breade that came downe from heauen not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse and are dead He that eateth this bread shal liue for euer Saint Ambrose is alledged lib. 8. de initiandi but I thinke he should saye Capitâ— 8. de mysterijs initiandis Reuera mirabile c. Truely it was maruellous that God did rayne Manna to the fathers and that they were fedd with dayly foode from heauen Wherefore it is sayde man did eate the breade of Angels But yet they that did eate that breade in the wildernesse are dead But this breade which thou receiuest this breade of life which came downe from heauen giueth the substance of eternall life And whosoeuer shall eat this breade shall not dye for euer And it is the body of Christ. M. Heskins noteth that he calleth it the body of Christ as though any man doubted thereof But the same Ambrose reacheth that it must bee spiritually receiued in the same booke Chap. 9. In illo sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritualis est In that sacrament Christ is bicause it is the body of Christe therefore it is not corporall but spirituall meate If it be spirituall meate it must be spiritually receiued and not corporally as it is no corporall meate Now followeth a long sentence of Chrysostome Hom. 46. in Ioan. which Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth to make no great mention of the sacrament yet bycause he saith it followeth vpon his iudgement of the sacrament I will set it downe to be considered He saith therefore he that eateth my flesh shall not perish in death he shall not be damned But he doth not speake of the common resurrection for all shal riâ—e again but of that cleere and glorious which deserueth reward Your fathers haue eaten Manna in the wildernesse and be deade He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer He doeth oft repeate the same that it might be imprinted in the mindes of the hearers This was the last doctrine that he might confirme the faith of the resurrection and euerlasting life wherefore after the promise of eternall life he setteth foorth the resurrection after he hath shewed that shall be And howe is that knowne By the scriptures vnto which he doth alwayes send them to be instructed by them When he saith it giueth life to the world he prouoketh them to emulation that if they be moued with the benefite of other men they will not be excluded them selues And he doth often make mention of Manna comparing the difference allureth them to the faith For if it were possible that they liued fourtie yeares without haruest corne and other things necessarie to their liuing much more nowe when they are come to greater things For if in those figures they did gather without labour the things set foorth nowe truely much more where is no death and the fruition of true life And euery where he maketh mention of life For we are drawne with the desire there of and nothing is more pleasant then not to dye For in the olde Testament long life and many dayes were promised but nowe not simply length of life but life without end is promised Herevpon hee noteth that we are come to greater things in the sacrament then the Iewes did in Manna I graunt the faithfull come to greater thinges then the vnbeleeuing Iewes of whome and to whome our sauiour Christ speaketh Otherwise they that were faithfull did eate the same spirituall meate in Manna that we doe in the Sacrament 1. Cor. 10. But if the reall presence be not in the sacrament saith Maister Heskins Manna is greater then a bare peece of breade This comparison is topsi-turuie Chrysostome compareth bare Manna which the wicked receiued with the body of Christ which the godly take Maister Heskins compareth Manna to bare breade The one and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Hierome and S. Cyrill Hierome is cyted Ad Hedibiam quÄ™st 2. Si ergo panis c. Then if the bread which came downe from heauen is the body of our Lorde and the wine which he gaue to his disciples be his bloud of the newe Testament which was shed for many in remission of sinnes let vs cast away Iewish fables and let vs ascend with our Lorde into the great parler paued and made cleane and let vs take of him aboue the cuppe of the newe Testament and there holding the Passeouer with him let vs be made dronke by him with the wine of sobrietie for the kingdome of GOD is not meate and drinke but righteousnesse and ioye and peace in the holy Ghoste Neither did Moses giue vs the true bread but our Lord Iesus hee being the guest and the feast hee him selfe eating and which is euen S. Hierome proceedeth with that which M. Hes. omitteth His bloud we drinke and without him we can not drinke it and daily in his sacrifices we tread out new redd wine of the fruit of the true vine and of the vine of Sorech which is interpreted chosen and of these wee drinke the wine new in the kingdome of his father not in the oldenesse of the letter but in the newenesse of the spirit By these words more that foloweth it is most euident that Hieronyme speaketh of spirituall eating by faith as also by that he saith we ascend with Christ into the parler by which he meaneth heauen and there aboue we receiue the cup of the newe Testament Maister Heskins noteth that the bread which descended from heauen is the body of our Lorde But he must beware he say not that the naturall body of Christ descended out of heauen Againe he forgetteth not to repeat that that bread is the body of Christe but he will not see in Hieromes wordes that Christ gaue wine to his disciples Cyrillus
before he departed from them And although after his resurrection hee appeared to them at sundrie times by the space of fourtie dayes eating and drinking with them to shewe the certeintie of his resurrection speaking of the kingdome of God yet is there no worde of celebrating of the sacrament with them And it is altogether vnlikely that he would giue the sacrament the comfort of his absence at his first returne againe to them and that he woulde celebrate the same to two disciples and not to the whole number of his Apostles who had as great neede to be confirmed in faith as those two Finally if euer he had repeated the vse of the sacrament it is moste probable he woulde haue done it immediatly before his assention but then he did not which S. Luke who sheweth that storie exactly would not haue omitted therefore there is no likelihood that he did it before But admitt that he did then minister the communion doth it followe because bread is onely named therefore the cuppe was not giuen But Maister Heskins woulde haue it proued that the figure Synechdoche is here vsed that is part named for the whole For profe the institution of Christe and practise of the church for more then a thousand yeres after Christ may serue a reasonable man. Also the vsuall phrase of the scripture which by bread meaneth whatsoeuer is ioyned with it to be receiued as Math. 15. Mark. 7. The disciples are accused for eating bread with vnwashed handes c. shall wee here exclude meat and drinke because bread is onely named Also Marke the 3. they had no leysure to eat breade Luke 14. Christe came into the house of the Pharizee to eate bread And Iohn 6. You seeke mee not because you haue seene the signes but because you haue eaten of the breade and are satisfied And 2. Cor. 9. He that giueth seede to the sower shall minister bread for foode And 2. Thess. 3. wee haue not eaten our breade freely And in the same Chapter the disordered persons are exhorted to labour and eat their owne bread In all these places and a great number more breade onely is named in which it were mere madnesse to affirme that only bread is spoken of not meat or drink So the whole supper of Christ cōsisting of bread wine for the outwarde or earthly parte vnder the name of breade the cuppe also is comprehended Wherefore the practise of Christ is not contrarie to his institution as M. Heskins most arrogantly wickedly and vnlearnedly affirmeth The second reason he vseth is that the institution perteineth onely to priestes because Christ did then minister it onely to priests But first that is not proued nor like to be true for seeing our Sauiour Christe did minister the communion in the house of one of his disciples with whom he did eat the passeouer it is not like that he excluded him from the sacrament of the new testament with whome he was partaker of the sacrament of the olde testament For proofe that both he and his familie were partakers of the Passouer with him it is manifest that it was not possible for thirteene persons to eate vp a whole sheepe and other meat also at one meale For it was a sheepe of a yeare olde although it were a verie small one and must be eaten with the head feete the purtenaunce and nothing reserued vnto the morrowe But graunt that onely the Apostles were partakers of the first institution by the same reason that the one part of the sacrament perteined to them only the other parte also might be left to them onely and so the people should haue neither of both kindes because onely priestes had both kindes deliuered vnto them Further he sayeth the doctrine of Saint Paule is not sufficient to proue that the sacrament ought to bee ministred in both kindes for Saint Paule doth but onely set foorth the institution without an exclusiue excluding all other maners but this O shamelesse dogge is not the institution of Christe an exclusiue of all other manners take example of baptisme is it lawfull to baptise with any other lycour then water into any other name then the name of the Father the Sonne ▪ and the holy Ghost yea it is sayed in the Actes that the Apostles baptised in the name of Iesus Christe and yet no man will saye that they brake the institution of Christe and baptised onely in the name of Christe excluding the father and the holy ghoste Euen so it is sayde they continued in breaking of breade shall wee not vnderstande this after the institution as well as the other Againe if the institution of Christ had not heene an exclusiue of all other manners howe doth the Apostle by the institution of Christ reproue another manner brought in by the Corinthians Finally when the holy Ghost by Saint Paule commaundeth euery Christian man and woman to trye themselues and so not onely to eate of that breade but also to drinke of that cupp what Lucifer is that which wil oppose him selfe against the flatt commaundement of the holie ghost 1. Cor. 11. and saye the lay people shall not drinke of that cuppe or may be without the cupp well ynough But the doctrine of the Catholike church as he sayeth is that the whole sacrament is in either of both kindes the bloude is in the bodie and the bodie in the bloud But this is neither the doctrine of Christ nor the doctrine of the church of christ For Christ to shewe that he is a perfect nourishment vnto vs which of necessitie consisteth of meate and drinke and neither of both can be lacking for the nourishment of our bodies hath instituted his sacrament both in bread and drinke to testifie vnto vs that wee are perfectly fedd in him and therefore hath deuided the sacrament into two signes the one to signifie his bodie as meate the other to represent his bloud as drinke and therefore confounded be he the confoundeth these things which his heauenly wisedome hath thus mercifully distinguished Iustinus also a moste auncient writer of the church affirmeth that the sacrament consisteth of a drye and moyst nourishment in Dialog Cum. Tryphone aduersus Iudęos And euen this verie diuision of the sacrament sufficiently confuteth both transubstantiation the carnal presence For if he had purposed to giue vs his naturall bodie in the forme of bread or otherwise in the bread he would not haue deuided his bloud from his bodie But euen hereby he taught vs that hee spake of an heauenly mysticall and spirituall manner of eating his bodie and drinking his bloud by faith and not of a swallowing or gulping in of the same at our mouth and our throte But the cuppe saith Maister Heskins is the bodie of Christ and howe is it consecrated by these words This is my bloud Why where is nowe the plaine wordes of scripture where bloud is taken for a whole bodie But seeing Christ sayth further This is my
with the hart although the eyes eares handes and tong were occupied about the sacrament thereof After M. Heskins noteth that Chrysostome in the place by him cited calleth the sacrament a sacrifice so doth he an hundreth times elsewhere but that proueth not a propitiatorie sacrifice but rather a memory of Christes only sacrifice as he teacheth himself In Ep. ad Heb. Ca. 10. Hom. 17. And here he taketh vpon him to refute the rule of Cranmer or of him that set forth the book in his name as though that learned father was not able to set forth his booke himselfe as wel as this blind buzzard Heskins who hath nothing in effect but that he hath stolne out of Gardiners M. Constantius But let vs heare this wise refutation A sacrifice of thanksgiuing saith he is not receiued of vs but giuen from vs to God. No more is any sacrifice in that it is a sacrifice O the vnlearned confuter of so learned a fathers rule yet that which is receiued is called a sacrifice in respect that it hath bene offered So was the sacrament of the old writers called a sacrifice vnproperly because it was a memorial of the only sacrifice of Christ once offered by him self in respect of that action of the administration which is a sacrifice of thanksgiuing therefore of them was called Eucharistia a thanksgiuing Another reason to proue it no gratulatorie sacrifice is because he calleth it a wonderful sacrifice but thanksgiuing is but an ordinarie duetie Shore vp your drousie eyes M. Hesk. you shal see he calleth it a holie sacrifice so the sacrifice of thanksgiuing He calleth it not a wonderfull sacrifice but a wonderful mysterie except mysterie sacrifice be al one with you but if he had called it a wonderful sacrifice as else where he calleth it a fearfull or terrible sacrifice doth that proue it to be no sacrifice of thankesgiuing Hee calleth it fearful terrible reuerende wonderful in respect of the diuine working of our sauiour Christ to make vs partakers of his bodi bloud by receiuing these outward creatures worthily according to his appointment as for the names I haue answered before they proue no sacrifice propitiatorie But now at leÌ„gth M. Hes. hauing builded on this place of Paule Chrysost. which deny the partaking of the bodie bloud of Christ to them that are made partakers of the table of diuels or otherwise be wicked men giueth S. Paul Chryso a new interpretation S. Paul saith he doth not absolutely deny but conditionally saying that men cannot be partakers of the Lords table of the table of diuels that is that thei ought not so that ye cannot ye ought not is al one with M. Hesk. for ye cannot sayth he if you do wel But thinketh this grosse expositor to escape with this glose I aske him whether light darknes can agree whether Christ Belial can haue any felowship Be these negatiues absolutly or coÌ„ditionally Is it now otherwise to be taken but light and darknesse ought not to agree or cannot agree if they do well Christ Belial ought not to agree or cannot agree if they do well O blinde interpreter or rather shamefull peruerter of the streight wayes of the Lord. You see in despite of the diuell the Popishe doctrine of the wicked receiuing Christ manifestly borne downe by the authoritie of Gods worde and of the auncient fathers and consequently transubstantiation layde in the dust And yet this arrogant expounder as though hee had found out a sworde to cutt in sunder this Gordian knot with like madnesse runneth at Origens saying which he will not vouchsafe to quote least any man shoulde reade it to his shame and ouerthrow of his popish transsubstantiation But it is written in Math. cap. 15. Multa pâ—rro c. Many things may be sayd also of the WORDE him selfe that was made fleshe and verie meate whome whosoeuer shall eate shall loue for euer which no euil man can eate Firste as he hath learned of brazen faced Gardiner he will not certeinly admitt that worke to be Origens which is an impudent shifte when none of them can alledge anye reason why they shoulde doubt of it Secondly he heweth at it with his leaden sworde saying an euil man can not eat of it to his profite but yet hee may eate of it But it followeth in Origen immediately Etenim si fieri posset vt qui malus adhuc perseuerat edat verbum factum carnem cum sit verbum panis viuus nequaquam scriptum fuisset Quisquis ederic panem hunc viuet in aeternum For if it were possible that hee which as yet continueth an euill man shoulde eat the worde made fleshe seing he is the worde and the breade of life it had not beene written whosoeuer shall eate of this breade shall liue for euer Here Origen sayeth that no man can eate him but hee must take profit by him so the knott is too harde for Master Heskins wodden dagger to cleaue a sunder For as hee himselfe concludeth betwixt God and Beliall is none agreement neither can Dagon stand in the presence of the Arke and much lesse wickednesse where Christ is receiued for he is the bread of life reiected of the wicked but cause of eternall life to all that receiue him The one and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact and Anselmus I had thought to haue sayed nothing of these late writers but that Maister Heskins will make Theophylact so auncient as to be three hundred yeres elder then Anselmus which was Archbishop of Caunterburie almoste 500. yeres agoe so that Theophylact shoulde be neere 800. yeres olde But to confute his impudencie Firste you must vnderstande that the Bulgars of whom he was Bishop were not conuerted to the faith before the yeare of Christe 865. and after their first conuersion they agreed with the church of Rome but in processe of time they forsooke the church of Rome and ioyned with the church of Constantinople After this Theophylact was there bishop and although the histories bee not certeine what time he liued yet it must needs be gathered to be when the contention was hote betweene the Greekes Romanes about the proceeding of the holie Ghost because that in his exposition vpon the thirde of Iohn hee inueygheth against the church of Rome defending the Greekes about the proceeding of the holie Ghoste and this was about the yeare of Christ 1049 when Berengarius liued and reproued the church of Rome for the carnall presence that then or not long before was begon to be grossely defended But the chiefe matter he gathereth out of Anselme is that he expoundeth the table in Saint Paule for an altare whereupon Maister Heskins will make a discourse of Altares and proue the vse of them euen from the Apostles times And firste he beginneth with Dionyse the disciple of S. Paule Eccl. Hier. part 3. Cap. 3. Sed
or of any mans meanly learned and therfore I will not vouchsafe such a grosse counterfet of any answere The rest of the Chapter beeing spent in rayling I will answere with silence concluding that as here is little for sole receiuing conteined in this Chapter so for priuate Masse here is nothing at all The two and fortieth Chapter proueth the trueth of those matters of the sacrament by that it hath pleased God to confirme the same with miracles First M. Hesk. compareth himselfe with Helias which challenged the Priests of Baal to shewe a miracle so he challengeth the Lutherans and sacramentaries to bring forth first some miracle But he could neuer heare of any sauing one and that was of Luther which he reporteth of himselfe as he saith in his Booke of the priuate Masse and as Prateolus sayeth in his Booke De Missa Angulari but where it is written I could neuer yet finde though I haue made some searche for it Luther reporteth that the Diuell awaked him out of his sleepe at midnight and disputed with him that the priuate Masse is horrible idolatrie c. For any thing that I can perceiue by the wordes cited by Maister Heskins there is no miracle at al spoken of by Luther but only he confesseth what inward temptations of Sathan he susteined for saying priuate Masse by the space of 15. yeares together Which the Papistes after their accustomed synceritie doe interprete as though he boasted of a miracle as though he were persuaded by the diuell to forsake the priuate Masse as a thing abominable But Luther in deede in this booke written against the priuate Masse vtterly reiecteth all miracles that are alledged to mainteine false doctrine contrarie to the worde of God and namely those miracles that are reported to haue beene done to confirme the credite of the priuate Masse which either were feigned as a great number were or else wrought by the sleight of Sathan to establish idolatrie as in all Heathen nations the diuell hath thus wrought miracles to confirme the people in their errours Thus therefore we are to iudge of miracles that they are euen as the doctrine for which they are alledged so that if Maister Heskins can not proue his priuate Masse and other heresies by scripture they will be made neuerthelesse by miracles But let vs heare in order what worshipful miracles he alledgeth First a feigned fable out of a counterfet writer called Amphilochius that a Iewe sawe in Saint Basils hand a childe diuided Then a tale out of Vituspatium of as good authoritie as Legenda Aurea that the sacramente was turned into bloudie fleshe to a doubting olde man Next out of Optatus Libro 2. Contra Donat. That dogges after they had eaten the sacrament caste vnto them by the Donatistes ranne madde and werried their Maisters Which last might be a true iust punishment of God against the Donatistes for their heresie yet proueth it not that the dogges did eate the body of Christe which God forbid that any Christian man should thinke Another miracle is reported by S. Augustine Lib. 22. De ciuitate Dei Cap. 8. That one of his priestes saying Masse in a house that was molested with the power of the diuell deliuered the house from such disquietnesse This belike is alledged for the priuate Masse But that proueth nothing For Augustine in that place nameth no Masse he saith he offered there the sacrifice of the bodie of Christe praying that the house might be deliuered from that molestatioÌ„ and so it came to passe Now it is nothing credible that he offerâ—d that sacrifice alone but that the owner of the house and all his familie did there communicate with him and therefore here is nothing to helpe the priuate Masse in this miracle Next vnto this interlacing certeine sentences of Bernarde of the vertue of the sacrament he returneth to miracles and then telleth a tale out of Paule the Deacon of a noble woman of Rome for whom S. Gregorie by prayer turned the sacramental bread into the fourme of A very bloudie fleshly litle finger A faire miracle I promise you but if it had beene true Gregorie that was so light of credite to beleeue and report so many miracles would haue written it him selfe But Gregorie though otherwise full of superstition was not yet come to the carnall manner of presence Two miracles are rehearsed of his reporte one of a prisoner that was deliuered out of his chaynes when Masse was saide for him by his wiues procurement supposing he had ben dead Gregorie in deede speaketh of sacrifices whiche perhaps were prayers and not the Masse But if he speake of that prophanation of the sacrament that in his time tooke some strength to offer it for the dead yet he speaketh of another maner of offring then the Papistes vse For thereof he saith in the same place as Maister Heskins confesseth Hinc ergo c. Of this decree brethren gather you certeinely how great a band of conscience in vs the holie sacrifice offered by our owne selues is able to loose if beeing offered for another it could in another loose the bandes of the body These wordes declare the sacrifice was such as euerie one might offer for himselfe which coulde not be the sacrifice of the Masse which only the priest offereth The last miracle is of Agapetus that by giuing the sacrament to a dumb man restored him to his speech Admitting this to be true it maketh nothing for the carnal manner of presence which the Church of Rome at that time had not receiued And although such miracles might now be wrought by Papistes we would giue no more credite vnto them then they could winne by Gods worde for so we are taught by God him sefe Irenaeus a moste auncient writer of great credite testifieth Lib. Cap. 9. that Marcus the heretike by his sorcerie caused the wine in the cup at his ministration to appeare purple and redde like bloud that the people might thinke that Christ dropped his bloud into his cup through his prayer likewise he wrought so cunningly that he multiplied the wine so that out of a litle cruse he filled a great pot so ful that it ranne ouer But the Church of God was not moued by these lying miracles to giue credite to his false doctrine or to think that he had the bloud of Christ in his challice for all that counterfet shewe of bloud which he made no more wil we beleue the Papistes pretending miracles coÌ„trarie to the word of god And as for diuers of these miracles which he alledgeth to confirme the dignitie of the Masse they were done or at least said to be done before the Masse was throughly shapen and therfore if they be true yet they confirme not the doctrin of the Masse which was afterward inuented Finally wheras he vrgeth the proclaymer to bring one miracle for the confirmation of his religioÌ„ although it were an easie matter to bring foorth many signes of
in due examination vprightnesse of faith and puritie of life And this faith hee determineth to be the Apostolique and Catholique faith which must be learned of hearing as Saint Paule saith Faith commeth of hearing and as he saith it must bee learned of the Elders and so bee continued by tradition But Saint Paule saith Hearing must be of the worde of God for Elders may erre as well as youngers but the worde of GOD can not erre neither can he erre that followeth the doctrine of the worde of GOD in any thing Vnto purenesse of life he requireth confession alledging the confession of Augspurge for the confirmation thereof as though Christian confession and the Popish shrift were all one As fond it is that he saith the Apostles were instructed by Christe in the faith of the sacrament before the institution thereof by the miracle of the fiue loaues and in purenesse of life by washing of his disciples feete Where yet was neither contrition confession nor satisfaction After this he rayleth vpon Luther for saying that onely faith maketh men pure and worthie to receiue as though by so saying he did exclude the fruites of repentance and reformation of manners which necessarily do followe of a true and liuely faith which onely maketh vs righteous in the sight of God and worthie receiuers by reputation or acceptation which in the conclusion Maister Heskins himselfe confesseth to be all the worthines that any man hath or can haue to be partaker of the body and bloud of Christ. The foure and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the Fathers vpon the same text with Saint Hierome and Saint Chrysostome S. Hierome is alledged in 1. Cor. 11. Si in linteum vel vat sordidum non illud mittere audeat c. If a man dare not put that thing into a soule cloth or vessell howe much more in a defiled hart which vncleannesse God aboue all things detesteth and which is the only iniurie that can be done to his body For euen therefore did Ioseph that righteous man burie the Lordes body wrapped in a cleane linnen cloth in a newe tombe prefiguring that they which should receiue the Lords body should haue both a cleane minde and a new M. Heskins saith these wordes make plaine for the presence of Christ in that Hierome saith we receiue the body of Christe And who denyeth either the presence of Christ or that we receiue the body of Christ in the sacrament Only we differ whether Christ be present bodily and whether we receiue his body after a corporall manner or after a spirituall or heauenly manner It is pitie he can not see in Hieromes wordes that Christes body must be receiued in a cleane sort as in a cleane vessell And whereas Maister Heskins translateth mittere illud to put that body into a foule cloth or vessell it is maruell he considered not that which aunswereth in similitude to a foule vessell namely a foule heart He thought by that translation or rather falsification to make it seeme that wicked men receiue the body of Christe with the mouth but his authour saith with a filthie heart which is the only iniurie that can be done to the body of Christe therefore he speaketh of the wicked presuming to receiue the sacrament of his body and bloud not affirming that they do it in deede For vpon these wordes He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation he saith Dupliciter reus effectus presumptionis scilicet peccati Being made twise guiltie namely of presumption and sinne and vpon those words He shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde hee saith Quia tanti mysterij sacramentum pro vili despexerit bicause he hath despised the sacrament of so great a mysterie as nothing worth But Maister Heskins citeth another place of Saint Hierome against the licentious doctrine of Luther as he saith that would haue none other preparation but onely faith also to maintaine his carnall presence Lib. 1. Apoll. contra Iouinian Probet se vnusquisque c. Let euery man examine him self and so let him come to the Lords body He would not saith he call it the body of Christe if it were but bread Howe often shall I tell him that it is one thing to say it is breade an other thing to say it is but breade The former we say and also that it is Christes body the latter we vtterly deny But Saint Hierome more at large is cited in 1. Cor. 11. vpon these wordes of Saint Paule Who so euer shall eate of this breade and drinke of this cup of the Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde Sicut scriptum est Omnis mundus manducabit c. As it is written Euery cleane person shall eate it and againe The vncleane soule that shall eate it shall be rooted out from his people And our Lorde him selfe saith If before the altar thou shalt remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee leaue thy gifâ— before the altar and goe and be reconciled to thy brother Therefore the conscience must first be searched if it doe in nothing reprehend vs and so we ought either to offer or to communicate There be some that say he doth not here forbid an vnworthie person from the holy thing but him that receiueth vnworthily If therefore the worthie person comming vnworthily he drawne backe howe much more the vnworthy person which can not receiue worthily Wherfore it behoueth the idle person to cease from vices that he may holily receiue the holy body of our Lord. In these wordes Maister Heskins noteth the preparation required against Luthers onely faith and the thing receiued to be the holy body of our Lorde I haue aunswered before that Luthers onely faith doth not exclude but of necessitie drawe with it all things requisite to a due preparation And that the holy body of our Lorde is receiued of the faithfull wee doe willingly confesse but not of the vnfaithfull and wicked persons For the same Hierome in the Chapter before cited vpon this saying of the Apostle This is my body writeth thus Qui manducat corpus meum bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo Vnde agnoscere se debet quisquis Christi corpus edit aut sanguinem bibit ne quid indignum ei faciat cuius corpus effectus est Hee that eateth my body and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Wherefore hee ought to knowe him selfe who so euer either eateth the body of Christe or drinketh his bloud that hee doe nothing vnworthily to him whose body hee is made This sentence plainely declareth both howe the body and bloud of Christe are eaten and dronken and of whome namely they are so receiued as hee that receiued them is made the body of Christe that is of necessitie spiritually and they are receiued of them in whome Christe dwelleth and they in him therefore of
be saide that he doth eate the bodie of Christe which is not in the bodie of Christe Againe Vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus qui ergo est in eius corporis vnitate id est in Christianorum compage membrorum cuius corporis sacramentum fideles communicantes de altari sumere consueuerunt ipse verè dicendus est manducare corpus Christi bibere sanguinem Christi There is one bread we being many are one bodie he therfore that is in the vnitie of his bodie that is in the coniunction of Christian members the sacrament of which the faithfull communicating are accustomed to receiue from the altar he is truely to be saide to eate the bodie of Christ and to drinke the bloud of christ And againe Nec isti duo ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Vt enim alia taceam non possunt simul esse membra Christi membra meretricis Denique ipse dicent 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 Hoc est enim in Christo manere vt in illo maneat Christus Sic enim hoc dixit tanquam diceret qui non in me manet in quo ego non maneo non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum aut bibere sanguinem meum Neither are those two sortes of men to be saide to eate of the bodie of Christe because they are not to be accompted among the members of Christe For that I say nothing of other matters they can not be both the members of Christ and the members of an harlot Finally he himselfe saying he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him sheweth what it is not in the sacrament only but in very deede to eate the bodie of Christ to drinke his bloud For this it is to abide in Christ the Christ may abide in him For so he spake this as if he had saide he that abideth not in me and in whom I doe not abide let him not say or think that he eateth my body or drinketh my bloud Thus much for Saint Augustines iudgement As for the matter of Auricular confession which Maister Heskins without warrant of Gods worde is so bolde to call Gods ordinaunce vpon the authoritie of his forged Augustine I thinke it not worthie any answere if any man list to see the three properties of a Ghostly Father and two commodities of confession let him resorte to Maister Heskins booke for them Other reason or authoritie he bringeth none for them but this Iewde foolishe and barbarous counterfet whome he called moste falsely and iniuriously S. Augustine The sixe and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theodoret and Anselme Theodoret whom he greatly commendeth he citeth in 1. Cor. 11. vpon this text in hand Sic tui ipsius Index c. So thou being thine owne iudge exactly iudge thine owne life searche and examine thy conscience and then receiue the gifte As this saying is good and godly so it excludeth auricular confession as Chrysostome doth vpon the same place But that you might knowe what Theodoret meaneth by the gifte he citeth him in Dialog 2. Quid appellas donum quod offertur post sanctificationem Orthodoxus Corpus Christi sanguinem christ Eranistes Et credis te participem fieri Christi corporis sanguinis Orthodoxus Ita credo What doest thou call the gift which is offered after sanctification Orthodoxus The bodie of Christe and the bloud of christ Eranistes And doest thou beleeue that thou art made partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christe Orthodoxus So doe I beleeue Thus much Maister Heskins vouchsafeth to rehearse out of Theodoret and saith it is a plain place for the proclaymer both for reall presence and sacrifice But howe plaine it is and howe honestly Maister Heskins rendeth this peece from the rest to abuse Theodorets name you shall perceiue by the whole discourse which I will set downe Orthodoxus Dic ergo mystica symbola quae Deo à Dei Sacerdotibus offeruntur quorumnam symbola esse dicis Eranistes Corporis sanguinis Domini Orthodoxus Corporis eius quod verè est an eius quod verè non est Eranistes Quod verè est Orthodoxus Optimè Oportet enim imaginis esse exemplar Archerypum Etenim pictoret imitantur naturam eorum quae videntur pingunt imagines Eranistes Verum Orthodoxus Si ergo Diuina mysteria corpus quod verè est repraesentant ergo corpus etiam nunc Domini quoque corpus est non in Diuinam naturam mutatum sed impletum Diuina gloria Eranistes Opportunè accidit vt verba faceres de Dâ—uinis mysterijs Nam ex eo ipso tibi ostendam corpus Domini mutari in aliam naturam Responde ergo ad mea interrogata Orthodoxus Respondebo Eranistes Quid appellas donum quod offertur ante inuocationem sacerdotis Orthodoxus Non oportet apâ—rtè dicere est enim verisimile adesse aliquos mysterijs non initiatos Eranister Respondeatur aenigmaticè Orthodoxus Id quod fit ex huiusmodi seminibus nutrimentum Eranistes Aliud etiam signum quomodo nominamus Orthodoxus Commune etiam hoc nomen quod potus speciem significat Eranistes Post sanctificationem autem quomodo ea appellas Orthodoxus Corpus sanguinem Christi Eranistes Et credis te fieri participeni Christi corporis sanguinis Orthodoxus Ita credo Eranistes Sicut ergo symbola corporis sanguinis Domini alia quidem sunt ante inuocationem sacerdotis post inuocationem mutantur alia siunt ita etiam corpus Domini post assumptionem mutatur in Diuinam substantiam Orthodoxus Quae ipse texuisti retibus captus es Neque enim signa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à natura sut Manent enim in priori substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius Intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt quae illa sint quae creduntur Confer ergo imaginem cum exemplari videbis similitudinem Oportet enim figuram esse veritati similem Illud enim corpus priorem habet formam figuram circumscriptionem vt semel dicam corporis substantiam Immortale autem post resurrectionem factum est potentius quà m vt vlla in illud cadat corruptio interitus sessioneque ad dextram Dei dignatum est ab omni creatura adoratur vt quod appelletur corpuâ— naturae Domini Eran. Atqui symbolum mysticum priorem mutaâ— appellationem Neque enim amplius nominatur quod vocabatur prius sed corpus appellatur Oportet ergo etiam veritatem Deum non corpus vocari Ortho. Ignarus
corporis Christi Vocaturque ipsa īmolario carnis que sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio nō rei veritate sed significāte mysterio The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a peculiar maner is called the body of Christe when as in very deed it is the sacramēt of the body of christ And euen the oblation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysteri Those words which are borrowed out of August into the decrees the glose doth thus vnderstand Coeleste sacraementū quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè Vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio◠Vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but vnproperly Therefore it is saide to be after a peculiar manner but not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the body of Christe that is it doth signifie the body of Christe If these testimonies that are taken out of the Romish Bishops owne writings decrees and gloses that are so plaine will not satisfie the Papistes that their doctrine of transubstantiation and carnall presence is neither true ancient nor Catholike it is in vaine to spend more wordes with them as with men that are obstinate and will not be satisfied with any truth contrarie to their presumed heresie The one and sixtieth Chapter maketh a recapitulation of that that is done in this worke Seeing this Chapter containeth no argument or authoritie to defend his cause but only rehearseth what he fantasieth that he hath brought in other places throughout all his booke for the maintenance of the same I referre it to the indifferent readers iudgement what I haue done in this breefe confutation of the same And here I conclude this acte of repeale that notwithstanding this bill offered to the Parleament by Tho. Hesk. in the lower house hath many friends so that the greater part of voyces if the house were diuided might seeme to ouercome the better yet for as much as in the higher house the greatest number haue spoken directly against his bill and no one lord of that house which liued within the compasse of 600. yeres of the challenge hath giuen his voyce to allowe it not only the pretensed acte of Parleament set forth by the said Tho. Hesk. is proued to be false forged counterfet but also the bill that he hath put in to be considered is vtterly reiected condemned spurned out of the house GOD BE PRAYSED A CONFVTATION OF AN IDOLATROVS TREATISE OF NICOLAS SANDER Doctor in Diuinitie which mainteyneth the making and honouring of Images by W.F. Doctour in Diuinitie ECCLESIASTIC 45. The memoriall of the beloued of God is blessed that is to say any thing that maketh vs to remember him that is beloued of God is worthie of praise and honour A Doctour like interpretation and a pithy argument whereupon I may conclude The idols that Salomon made are things that make vs remember Salomon who was the beloued of God and so called of God him selfe therefore the idols were worthie of prayse and honour The preface conteining a breefe declaration which is the true Churche Maister Sander taking in hand so absurde and wicked an argument as is the defence of idolatrie or honouring of Images thought good to present it in the best vessel that he had which is the painted boxe of the Churche which that he might the rather commend to his countrimen he hath taken vpon him to describe it both inside and outside as he saith by certeine knowen truethes in number no lesse then 112. which after they haue been all well vewed and sufficiently considered I doubt not but to the reasonable and indifferent Reader shall appeare nothing else but a faire coloured but yet an empty vessell I will followe his diuisions and where I finde any trueth I will confesse it without wrangling where in steede of trueth he offereth falshode I will breefely confute it 1 The first I graunt that Christe hath alwayes had and alwayes shall haue a Church on earth out of which there is no saluation This Churche consisteth of men whiche beleeue in him haue their faith sealed and confirmed by outward sacramentes 2 The Church is the kindome of Christe the Citie of God and the kingdome of heauen wherein Christ shall reigne for euer 3 The kingdome is spread more largely and gouerned more prudently then any earthly kingdome euer was euen to the endes of the worlde to continue world without end 4 Notwithstanding all this to say that the Churche or this kingdome of Christe was hidden any one houre from the eyes of the worlde is not to make it more obscure then any earthly kingdome euer was as Maister Sander doeth affirme for the glorie of this Kingdome whiche is spirituall neuer did nor shall appeare to the wicked of this worlde The Churche is an article of our faith and faith is of those thinges whiche are not seene Hebru 11. but with spirituall eyes Therfore the exaltation of the Lordes hill that Esaie 2. and Micheas 4. doe speake of is of a spirituall aduauncement and a citie built vpon an hill is euerie true minister of Gods worde Matthewe 5. and not the whole Churche Finally the glorie and ioye that Esaie 60. promiseth vnto the Church and her happie enlargement among the nations Cap. 61. proue no worldly pompe or greatnesse to be seene with carnall eyes but is ment of the ioyfull and comfortable addition of the Churche of the Gentiles vnto the Churche of the Iewes For otherwise these wordes could not be verified of all wicked men All that see them shall knowe them that they are the blessed seede which the Lorde hath blessed 5 The cheefe meane whereby the Church is so clearely seene and so glorious in the sight of men is that Christ being the true light hath cōmunicated his brightnesse to his Apostles sayng you are the light of the worlde A citie built vpon an hill can not be hidden Neither do men light a candel and put it vnder a bushel but vpon a candlestick that it may giue light to al them that are in the house But this brightnesse is heauenly and spirituall not worldly and carnall to be seene of the children of light not of the blind bussards of the worlde 6 The Churche dyed not when the Apostles dyed for Bishops and Pastours succeeded in their place as lightes set vpon the candlestickes which are the seuerall Churches Apoc. 1. 7 The light and glorie of Gods Churche commeth chiefely from the Bishops and Pastours thereof I meane from their heauenly doctrine not from their persons as Maister
Sander perhaps would insinuate And the hystorie of the Church is described by Eusebius Socrates Theodore c. by the doctrine vttered in preaching writings and consent in councels and doings and sufferings of the Elders of the Churches and not altogether or cheefely by their knowen gouernement as Maister Sander affirmeth As for example Eusebius sheweth the doctrine of Clement out of his writing for the allowance of marriage who affirmeth that the Apostles were married begot children Lib. 3. Cap. 30. Socrates sheweth that Spiridion a Bishop of Cypres in time of his Bishopricke of great humilitie kept sheepe Lib. 4. Cap. 12. Sozomenus saith he had a wife and children and sheweth his iudgement for eating flesh on a fasting day accounting him no Christian that would refuse it Lib. 1. Cap 11. Finally although some Churches haue ben known by their Pastors and Bishops yet haue there bene infinite Churches known to be in the worlde whose Bishops Pastours are altogether vnknowen And although some heretical and Schismatical companies haue bene knowen by their heades yet not all for the Acephali were so called because they had no head the Anthropomorphites also were rustical Monkes or Eremites in Aegypt vnder no head of their owne but the Bishop of Alexandria which was a Catholike Niceph. Lib. 13. Cap 10. 8 Although the Churche of Christ ceassed not at the end of the first fiue or sixe hundreth yeares nor the glory of Christes kingdome was euer darkened yet a greate number of the Bishops and pastors of the visible Church began then to be dimme and some altogether darke because they lighted not their candels at the word of God the onely true light shyning in the darke but declined to the inuentions of men and doctrine of diuels according to the prophesie of Saint Paule 2. Thess. 2. of the apostasie and departing from the faith 1. Tim. 4. towarde the comming reuelation of Antichrist Neither is it true that M. Sander saith that after the first 600. yeares the Church was spread into mo countries then it was before but the contrarie For Mahomet soone after peruerted the greatest parte of the worlde whereas Affrica long before was ouerrunne and Christianitie spoyled by the Vandales which were either Heathens or Arrians Notwithstanding some small countries haue beene since that time turned to the Christian profession And as it is true that Pastors and Doctors must still be to the end of the worlde in the Church and Christ neuer forsaketh the same so is it false that Popish Bishops Priestes which either were ignorant or altogether negligent in feeding and teaching the Churche with the foode and doctrine of Gods worde whereof Saint Paule spake Ephesi 4. or taught the doctrine of Diuels in steede thereof be those Pastours and Doctours by whome the preaching of the Gospell is continued though they sitte in the same places where sometime the true teachers satt euen as Antichrist their head sitteth in the Temple of GOD which is the proper place of Christe Neither is the credite of such late writers as account them for successors of the Apostles and godly pastours and teachers sufficient to authorise them for such in deed when their whole life and doctrine is contrarie to the writings of the Apostles and those auncient godly Pastors Doctors 9 We say not that the Church of Christ was knowen for the first â—00 yeres after Christ only or chiefely by the Bishops Pastors therof but by their doctrine agreable to the word of god And therefore it is sufficient ground for vs to deny the later rout that professeth not the same doctrine to be the church of christ The succession of persons or places without the continuance of the same true doctrine can no more defende the Pope poperie then it could defend Caiphas Sadduceisme For Caiphas a Sadducei which denyed the resurrection coulde more certeinly declare his personall and locall successioÌ„ from Aaron then the Pope can from Peter 10 I haue proued before that it is false which Master Sander againe sayeth to be true that Eusebius and other writers point foorth the church of 500. yeres onely or chiefely by Bishops which ruled in Rome Antioche Alexandria c. The doctrine actes of those Bishops agreeable to the scriptures is their description not their personall or locall succession as it was accompted in the latter times when they had nothing else to commende their counterfet Bishops being in life and doctrine contrarie to the worde of God the testimonie of the primitiue church And where he sayeth noting in the margent August Ep. 165. that in olde time they were knowen to be heretikes which departed from the knowen companie of Bishops Pastors agreeing in one faith c. it is verie true but then this faith was proued to be true not onely by successions of Bishops but by the holye scriptures as the same Augustine sayeth in the same place Quanquam nos non tam de istis documentis praesumamus quà m de scripturis sanctis Although wee do not presume so much of those documentes as of the holie scriptures To conclude all practises and councels that are contrary to the holie Scriptures were then refused euen as they be nowe Cyprian refused the practise of ministring the communion with water because it was contrarie to the scripture Augustine refused the practise of Cyprian and the Councell of Carthage â–ª for rebaptizing them that were baptized by heretikes and for the same cause our church refuseth the Masse the Laterane and the Tridentin councels without daunger of schisme or heresie 11 The vniuersall church is a spiritual collection of many members into one bodie whereof Christe is the onely head both in heauen and earth as the Apostle sayeth Eph. 3. Cor. 15. The vnitie hereof is mainteyned by following the direction of his worde and his holye spirite The order of particuler churches is mainteined by the seuerall gouernement of them But their whole church although it be like an armie of men well sett in arraye yet can it haue no one chiefe Capteine in earth to direct it but hee that is omnipotent and fitteth in heauen not onely to ouerlooke it but to rule and order it For no mortall man can looke into all places knowe all cases prouide against all mischiefes nor giue ayde in all dangers 12 Therefore Peter was none such and although Pascere be both to feede and rule yet it is to rule like a Shepeheard and not like an Emperour Neither were the sheepe by Christe committed to Peter more then to the other because hee loued more then the other but Peter was charged as hee woulde by his forwardnesse shewe more zeale and loue then the rest so to employe the same to the feeding of Christes flocke And whereas Maister Sanders quoteth Chrysostome in Ioan Hom. 87. I knowe not wherefore except it were to shewe the prerogatiue of Peter aboue the rest You shall heare what his iudgement was
The bishop of Rome bearing witnesse of him self for his owne aduauntage is not to be credited In that Epistle he sheweth that Acacius by Lyra was cōdemned according to the Councell of Chalcedon which was lawful not only for him but for any other Bishop to haue done in as much as he inuented no newe heresie but did communicate with an other heresie alreadie condemned in a Councell 38 In the third generall Councell holden at Ephesus there is mention that Cyrillus was President of the councell but not that hee was Lieuetenant of the Bishop of Rome although Euasius a late writer in comparison doth so suppose But the wordes of the Councel are these Denique Petrus Ioannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis propter quod Apostoli sancti discipuli esse monstrantur Peter and Iohn are of equall dignitie one with the other bicause they are shewed to be Apostles and holy Disciples This confession of the Councel maketh more against the Popes supremacie then the Lieuetenantship of Cyrillus to the Pope if it were true could proue for it 39 Maister Sander saith without proofe but of declining times almost 500. yeares after Christe and later that the See of Rome had Legates both ordinarie and extraordinarie throughout all Christendome which if it were true proueth no more his supremacie then that the King of Spaine hath dominion ouer all those countries where he hath Legates ordinarie and extraordinarie He citeth the seuenth Canon of the councel of Sardica which was that he might send a Priest from his side Which in deede was a restraint of his vsurped authoritie and not a confirmation or an enlargement thereof For the Canon is this That if any Bishop that was deposed by the Bishops of his owne countrie did appeale to the Bishoppe of the Church of Rome the Bishop of Rome should write to the Bishops of the next prouince to examine his cause and if the partie by his opportunitie should moue the Bishop of Rome the second time to be heard againe then he might send Presbyterum à latere an elder from his side one or more which either with the Bishops aforesaid should iudge and determine the matter or else leaue it wholy to the iudgment of the Bishops of the Prouince By this Canon the singular authoritie of the Romish Bishop is modestly excluded 40 The examples of Bishops Perigenes and Martinus translated by the Bishops of Rome in the declining times proueth not the perpetual supremacie of the Pope seeing by generall Councels al such translations haue bene forbidden in elder times Nic. c. 15. chalc c. 5. 41 The consent of the B. of Rome was not so necessarie to generall Councels but that they were held without his presence or his sending For concerning his personal presence he was not at any of the 4. first approued generall Councels neither any for him at the second of thē which was held at Constantinople where Nectarius Bishop of the citie was president Also the fourth of Chalcedon made the See of Constantinople equal with the See of Rome which although Leo Bishop of Rome disalowed yet did it take place as Liberatus testifieth Cap. 13. 42 Although the Bishop of Rome had his Legate in some prouinciall Councels yet it is great impudencie to say he had them in al. And such as then were present they bare no rule or preheminence but as the Legates of other Bishops Philippus and Asellius were at the Councell of Aphrica in which decrees were made against the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome and yet they subscribed cap. 92 43 That the Pope hath procured a fewe nations to be conuerted within these thousand or 900. yeares as England by Augustine Saxoni by Bonifacius c it can not excuse him from being Antichrist him selfe ▪ although M. Sander saith we account him to be but the forerunner of Antichrist For though Gregorie otherwise a ceremoniall and superstitious man was moued with zeale of Christes glorie to seeke the conuersion of as many as he could yet the Popes which followed after him in procuring the cōuersion of some countries rather by cruell warres then by preaching of the Gospell as Prusia Liuonia Lithuania c. sought their owne glorie and aduauntage vnder the colour of Christes religion and therefore were not diuided against Satan but ioyned with him in hypocrisie 44 As for the conuersion of the Infidels in the newe found landes is a newe found argument to proue the primacie of the See of Rome Like as the conuersion of Elias the Iewe by Pius 5. Many Iewes and some of greate learning as Emanuel Tremelius haue bene conuerted to the Gospel And one within this two yeares was baptized in London 45 That the See of Rome hath so long flourished like a Queene in worldly pompe it is the more like to the See and citie of Antichrist Apoc. 18. verse 7. And that the cities of the other Patriarches and their Bishops be oppressed with Infidels it letteth them not to be true Christians For Esaie 60. prophesieth not of worldly pompe but of the spirituall glorie of the Church which was as great before Constantius stayed the persecution as euer since 46 That no Bishop was euer so honoured of Princes Kings or Emperours as the Pope c it proueth him to be Antichrist and his Church the whore of Babylon Apo. 17. vers 2. 17. cap. 13. 16. 47 That the Frenchmen deposed their King Childericus by the Oracle of Pope Zacharie which discharged them of their lawful othe of obedience it proueth mightily the Pope to be Antichrist Peter saith Feare God honour the King 1. Pet. 2. 48 And much more that Pope Leo the third did transferre the Empire it selfe into the West For Peter commaunded obedience to be giuen to euery ordinance of man for the Lord whether to the King as to the most excellent or to those rulers that are sent of him 1. Pet. 2. 49 That Pope Gregorie the fift gaue an order for the election of the Emperour confirmeth our iudgement of the Pope to be Antichrist as also that Nicholas the first threatened the Emperour Michael the ouerthrowe of the Empire of the East whereof hee by his proud rebellion and disobedience and diuiding the West part from it was a cause 50 That the succession of the Bishops of Rome hath ben continued in histories with the reigne of Emperours and Kings it proueth in deede that the Church of Rome hath ben either very famous when it was gouerned of good Bishops or infamous when it was degenerated into Antichristian tyrannie but this proueth no more the authoritie thereof to be lawfull or the religion good then the succession of Heathen tyrants Emperours Kings great Turkes proueth their religion true or their vsurpation lawfull As for the light of worldly fame that M.S. boasteth of is spirituall darknesse and not the light of the Gospell which our Sauiour speaketh of Luke 5. No man lighteth a candle c.
his deuorse from his first vnlawfull mariage gaue him occasion to enquire and finde out what weake foundation the vsurped power of the See of Rome was buylded vppon 76 King Henrie departed not out of the societie of the churche of Rome onely for the vices of the men thereof but for their false and Antichristian heresies which they obstinately mainteined and ioyned him selfe to the true auncient and vniuersall Church of Christe when hee departed out of that false newe sett vp schismaticall and particuler Synagogue of Rome as Saint Augustine went from the Manichees to the Catholicke church And as King Henrie the eyght knewe whence hee went so knewe hee also whither he went euen from Rome with seuen hilles to Ierusalem which is aboue and is the mother of vs all 77 Hee that goeth out of an hereticall church as King Henrie did must goe to the Catholike church of Christe as hee did without making any newe church or being without a church I knowe not the age of Maister Sander but if hee bee not much aboue fourtie yeares olde hee was borne and baptized as manye other Papistes were in that which hee calleth a newe church or no church which howe hee will aunswere let him and them aduise which holde it necessarie that a man must tarrie in that church in which hee is baptized 78 King Henrie the eight was not without a churche but in the church of Englande a member of the Catholike church of Christe neither did hee call him the supreme head of the church of Englande before that title was giuen him by the Popish Clergie in their submission after they were cast in the premunire Edw. Hall. 79 That hee receiued not fully the true doctrine of Christ as he banished the false vsurped power of the Pope is to bee imputed to the trayterous practises of his dissembling Clergie which although they durste not withstande him in mainteining the Popes authoritie yet they laboured all that they coulde to reteine the Popes doctrine in as many poyntes as they might hereof came the lawe of the sixe articles which mainteined the sacrifice of the Masse transubstantiation communion in one kynde and such other heresies Neuerthelesse the authoritie of Antichrist much Idolatrie superstition and false doctrine was abolished Iustification by faith in Christe was preached the scripture was read in the vulgar tongue which was a beginning of a reformation and returning vnto the true church of Christe and not a setting vp of a newe churche Except Maister Sander will saye that those Kinges of Iuda which refourmed some parte of religion and yet left the hill altares other abuses did set vp a newe church because they made not a perfect reformation Finally where he sayth that King Henrie adioyned himselfe to no companie of faithfull men in earth which had from Christes time liued after that profession of faith which he allowed proueth not that hee set vp a newe church For he ioyned to the Catholike church in so many pointes of true doctrine as hee acknowledged from which the Popish church was departed although he was not rightly instructed in all 80 The church of Englande in King Henries time was a true church although all the doctrine which was then mainteined by publique authoritie through the subtile practises of popish hypocrites was not true And the church of England at this daye is the same that it was then but nowe by publike authoritie embraceing all true doctrine which by the true members of the church in King Henries dayes was mainteined and withstoode by hypocrites or other not yet rightly instructed 81 The church vnto which King Henrie went and brought the realme when he departed from Rome was the same church which began at Ierusalem and so increased into all nations and continueth in the world for euer though not among all nations 82 King Henry went out of the Antichristian church of Rome into the Catholike church of Christe embracing some part of the doctrine therof therefore hee needed no reconciliation to the Romish church but a more perfect information of the church of Christ. 83 In King Edwardes time the reformation began and hindred in his fathers time was perfected and accomplished for all pointes of Christian doctrine neither was there any reconciliation vsed to the churche of Rome but the Church of Englande by publike authoritie perfectly vnyted to the Catholike Churche of Christe ioyning in profession of faith with the best refourmed Christian churches in the worlde 84 The abolishing of forrein power hindred not the ioyning in faith and doctrine with all the Churches of God that were without the realme of England The propitiatorie sacrifices of the Masse was in King Edwardes time abolished by publique authoritie out of the Church of England as it was in King Henries time abhorred of all true members of the Church that were then rightly instructed as much as the supremacie of the Pope 85 The power of being the sonnes of God the power of preaching and forgiuing of sinnes in the Church of Christe is no forreigne power neither was any such power euer excluded but the false and vsurped tyrannie of Antichrist of Rome 86 We beleeue and professe a Catholique or vniuersall Church of Christe whereof we are members and therefore we detest the hereticall schismaticall and particular Church of Rome 87 The Church of England vnder King Edward did professe her selfe to be a member of the most auncient Catholike and Apostolique Church of Christe which is the piller of trueth to bee iudged by the worde of GOD which is the trueth it selfe Iohn 17. being not so ignoraunt but that she could distinguish the worde of GOD from the Church of GOD as the lawe of GOD from the houshold of GOD which is gouerned by that lawe And not as Maister Sanders similitude is as the statutes of England differ from the men of England which make them but the Church maketh not the worde of God but contrariwise the word of God maketh the Church 88 It is not necessarie to shewe a companie of men in a peculiar place as Geneua or any such like for them that will ioyne them selues with the Catholike Church of all the world although it were easie to name diuers companies of men in seuerall places which continued in the true Church out of the Church of Rome both in Fraunce and Italie beside Bohemia which long before was returned out of the Popish Church into the Church of Christ and all the East Churches which neuer ioyned with the Church of Rome 89 The Churches of Zurich and Saxonie be members of the Catholique Church of Christe which is fifteene hundreth yeares olde and vpward although the same Churches were gathered and returned in those places within these three score yeares 90 There needed no embassages to goe to and fro to the Churches of God beyond the seas for reconciliation bicause there was no debate betweene the Church of England and them Although for conference and aduise
the same honour that is due to God himselfe But going ouer his questions againe hee saieth it is graunted for the most part of all men that Images may be made so they be not abused which is vtterly false for no Christian man will graunt that it is lawfull in anye respect to make any Image of God that is to transforme the glorye of the immortall God into the image of a mortal man or to make that monstrous image of the Trinitie with three faces or three bodies of an old man a yong man and a doue Rom. 1. vers 23. The seconde and thirde he sayeth are denyed by the Caluenistes and Lutherans In the fourth there hath been controuersie among the Popish Catholikes some thinking the honor dewe to the thing it selfe by reason that the image is all one with the thing when it exerciseth the act of an image might be giuen to the image therof But other be of another minde Beside this controuersie among the Papistes themselues confessed about the honour of God which is one of the chiefest pointes of Christian religiō note that the former sort make dombe dead images to exercise an act which is a grosse monstrous absurditie But of all those foure questions M. Sanders promiseth to intreate first to proue the making of images lawful and commendable 2. the worshipping of them to be lawfull commendable as the signes of honorable verities for the verities sake which is all one as if you would saye we must worship falsities for loue of verities for betweene veritie falsitie there is no meane the creature in steede of the creator Rom. 1. vers 25. But how absurdly doth he confound images with the signes of all kinds Or what kinde of argument is this Iohn Baptist confessed him selfe vnworthie to loose the latchet of Christes shooe therefore he woulde worship his shooe or we must worship his image Or these a man embraceth a seruant or messenger sent from his friende kisseth a ring that commeth from him loueth to heare of his name esteemeth his picture therefore wee must embrase kisse loue esteeme images of God c. which hee hath not sent vnto vs but expressely forbidden vs to make or haue in any vse of religion But that he shoulde not be mistaken in saying images ought to be honoured he doeth not as a learned man shoulde doe make a lawfull diuision or distinction of honour but like a blinde or craftie Sophister he maketh a confusion and iumbling of diuerse names and kindes of honour to trouble the vnderstanding of a simple reader as of honour due to God to Saintes to our prince to his liuetenant to our parents friends fellowes superiours and to holy remembrance and one of these kindes of honour he will proue due to images and not that which is due to God alone As though all honour of religion were not dewe onely to God Mat. 4. vers 10. and honour of charitie were not to be directed by Gods lawe by which honour of images is expressely forbidden But with M. Sander the difference of honour commeth from the minde and therefore falling downe before an image Kissing c. if he thinke it not to be God nor any reasonable creature but an image of Christ. c. is no idolatrie As if God had not by expresse wordes forbidden the falling downe before images yea although the minde knowe they be false idols For else how are they commended which haue not bowed their knees to Baal nor kissed him with their mouth among so many idolaters and dissemblers But Abraham saith M. Sander adored the people of the land yet was he no idolater As though he could not put a difference betweene ciuile worship religious yea he giueth a rule how to auoide idolatrie Giue God thy heart saith he and after be secure that the honour which is giuen in any respect be for Gods sake all is well By this reason we may worship not onely all idols but we may make idols of all Gods creatures worship them for Gods sake as the Aegyptians did Oxen crocodiles cattes apes onions for they be al good monuments remembrances of God their creatour and better then any forged idoll To auoide which absurditie it were good not only to looke that you worship not any thing for Gods sake but to be sure what God hath commaunded you to worship that to honor with such honour also as he hath appointed So shall you worship God aright honour his ministers ecclesiasticall or ciuil his friendes and your brethren and whatsoeuer else is worthie of any honour But Maister Sander to auoide the offence that might be taken by the termes of adoration worshipping honouring c. protesteth that hee alloweth onely that honouring of images when the partie in the faith of one God and one mediatour Iesus Christ doth direct his honour by the image to the trueth represented which faith and intention doth deliuer him quite from all spice of idolatrie But how false this determination of M. Sanders is we see euidently by the historie of the golden Calfe which Aaron and the people worshipped euen according to his faith and intention namely they worshipped the God which brought them forth of the land of Aegypt by that image euen Iehoua that made heauen and earth Exod. 32. vers 4. 5. Againe what manner of faith this is which is not onely not grounded vppon the worde of God but also cleane contrarie to it children that learne their Cathechisme can sufficiently vnderstand In the ende of this Chapter M. Sander practiseth a figure of popish rethorike which is after great bragges promises of proofe to occupie the reader with some by matters before the performance taken in hand partly that his vnderstanding should not be so quick as when his minde is newly kindled with desire of the sight of such things as he promised partly that being half wearied with other needelesse discourses he shoulde not be so attentiue to consider the force of his reasons Therfore he promiseth first to answere the obiections of the aduersaries yet because that argument is not so fitt for his purpose he turneth it ouer also vntil he haue for disputations sake fayned the honouring of images vnlawful yet proued that the image breakers in the lowe countries did not well THE III. CHAPTER That although the images of Christ and of his saincts had beene falsely worshiped yet the Churches were vniustly spoyled and the images vniustly throwen downe and consequently that the doers of it must needes be the ministers of the diuell Also he noteth the reason of breaking the Brasen serpent The keepers of church goods are Idolaters The foundation of the newe gospell in the lowe countries is shamefull The inconstancie of the Protestantes doctrine It is confessed and therefore needeth no proofe that the act of breaking the popish Idols in the lowe countries if it wanted the authoritie of the Magistrate
suche opinion of hauing Images in the Churche for hereticall This balde reason he learned out of the councell of Nice 2. act 4. of one Epiphanius which taketh vpon him to reiecte and controll the authoritie of this ancient Epiphanius of Cypres But howe falsely they haue affirmed this of him you may see in diuers places of Epiphanius booke against heresies First lib. 1. Tom. 1. he sheweth the punishment of God against Tharra an Image maker which ouer liued his sonne Aran which no man as he saith did before him Secondly lib. 1. Tom. 2. hee sheweth that Simon Magus the father of heretikes made Images of him selfe and his harlot Helena to be worshipped that Carpocrats the heretik made the Images of Iesus and of S. Peter and did cense them and worship them Also Her. 27. he saith Gnostici Carpocratitae c. The Gnostikes and Carpocratites haue Images painted in collours some also of golde and siluer and other matter which they say be the Images of Iesus and that these Images of Iesus were made when hee liued among men vnder Pontius Pilate Againe lib. 2. T. 1. her 55. he sheweth that there were some in Arabia Robas and Edom which worshipped the Image of Moses And Centra Cullyridianos her 79. which worshipped the Images of the blessed virgin Marye he saith Vnde non est c. Howe is not this desire of making Images a diuelish attempt PrÄ™textu enim IustitiÄ™ for the deuil alwais entring into the mind of men vnder pretence of righteousnes deifying the mortal nature in the ere 's of men by variety of arts hath set forth stocks or statues bearing the Image of men And they truely which are worshipped by theÌ„ are dead but they bring in their Images to be worshipped which neuer liued for they caÌ„not be dead which neuer liued Finally Lib. Autorato prima enim scortatio est excogitatio simulachrorum inquit scriptura The inuenting of Images was the first whordome saith the scripture By these places iudge howe true it is which Damascen writeth that his owne church was decked with Images But yet M.S. hath another shift of descaÌ„t that the cause of reÌ„ding this vail might be for auoiding of offence of the weak Iews PagaÌ„s lately coÌ„uerted in that place As thogh Epiphanius doth not plainly declare the cause to haue bin for that it was coÌ„trari to the scriptures The like cause he wold haue to be of the decree of the councell of Eliberis in Spaine Placuit pictâ—ras in ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur aut adoratur in arietibut depingatur It is decreed that there ought to be no pictures in the Church lest that which is worshipped adored should be painted on the walles But the Canon it self sheweth a reason why they would haue no pictures in the churches lest God whoÌ„ onely they worshipped adored might be painted on the wals which were an abhominable absurditie yet hath bene practised iâ— defended men be so prone to Idolatrie But M.S. gathereth that seeing there might be no pictures in churches ergo they might be in priuate houses if they be lawful to be in priuate houses much more they might be permitted in churches A proper ringworm a doctor like argumeÌ„t by which I may coÌ„clude as foloweth There may be no shoppes in churches ergo they may be in priuate houses and if they may be permitted â—n priuate houses much more in churches But yet he hath an other answer This fact of Epiphanius was a priuate zeale which is not to be folowed coÌ„trary to the decree of the catholike church but I reply it was a godly zeal because it was ruled by the coÌ„mandement of God the holy scripture against which no church hath authority to decree But the last answere is as good as cake pudding which yet he thinketh worthy of a note in the margent Images could not be brokeÌ„ before they were set vp therfore the setters vp of Images are ancienter neerer the Apostles time then the pullers down That is out of questioÌ„ Euen so heresies could not be confuted before they were inuented therfore the inuenters of heresies are ancienter neerer the Apostles times then the confuters Note ye papistes for your learninge or else note that this note of Master Sander is not worthye the notinge But hee proceedeth and will prooue as he sayeth that as there were some Images in Churches in the time of Epiphanius so straight after his time they were coÌ„mon in all churches but this straightway was almost 200. yeares after Epiphanius as he citeth out of Nicephorus of one Xenias who he saith was the first that spake against worshipping of Images which howe false it is al men that haue read the works of the ancient writers doe knowe sufficiently The next breaker of Images he would haue to be Serenus bishop of Marsiles who waâ— reproued by Pope Gregorie which wrote vnto him that he shoulde not haue broken the Images but prohibited the people from worshipping of them Lib. 7. Epist. 169. But M. Sander will auoide that â—rohibition by the distinction of adoratioÌ„ that they should not be worshipped as God because Gregorie saith lib. 7. epist. 53. Scio quod c. I know that you desire not the Image of our Sauiour to this purpose to worshippe it as god By which wordes he meaneth that all worshippe is due vnto God and that by worshipping an Image it is made a false God. But it foloweth in the same Epistle saith M. Sander which proueth that Gregorie acknowledged some worshippe due to Images Nos non quasi ante Diuinitatem ante imaginem proster nimur c. We fall not downe before an Image as before the godhead but we worship him whome by the Image we remeÌ„ber to haue ben borne or to haue suffred and also to sitte in the throne But these wordes import no such matter but rather the contrarye except M. Sander can prooue that it is all one to fall downe before an Image and to fall downe vnto an Image Although he seemeth to say that they falled not downe at all before anye Image but onely vsed them for their remembraunce M. Sander continuing his petegrue sheweth that Philippicus the Emperour being a monothelite anno 710. threwe downe the Images of the fathers of the sixe generall councels that were set in the Churche porche of Sophia belike he was afraide they woulde come shortly into the Church Pope Constantine caused the like pictures to be set vp in the Church porche of Saint Peter at Rome And what of this Forsooth hee was an heretike that threwe downe images So was Pope Honorius condemned for a monotholite archeheretike in the seuenth generall councell that mainteined images After him An. 730. Leo persuaded by two Iewes saith the late idolatrous writers threwe downe the images at Constantinople and anno 740. Constantine his sonne a wicked man and an heretike followed him But vnder Irene
afterward they come to giue images some of that honour which is due to God and last of all without all shame to pronounce that an image of Christes death is worthie of all honour And this must needes be saith he except Maister Iewell will say this image is not good yea no doubt but he would say such an image as Maister Sander counteth worthie of all honour is abhominable M. Sander would haue ended this Chapter with this wholesome doctrine but that M. Iewell after long disputation concludeth that the cognisaunces of the crosse are barres laid a crosse and no images which seemeth strange to him bicause he tooke an image to be the resemblance of any thing quicke or dead I had thought such a metaphysicall disputer of images would haue added the intention of the image maker to expresse such a thing necessarie to make it an image of that thing for else as the tale goeth he may haue a great number of crosses on a threed bare coate of some man that hath neuer a crosse in his purse But if by the intent of the makers such crosses in flagges banners targets and coynes were made to the resemblance of Christes crosse yet are they no images forbidden bicause they be not in any vse of religion and therefore this is a foolish quarell not worth ten strawes laide a crosse THE VIII OR VII CHAP. What an idoll is and that our images be neither idolls nor be vsed like idolls Also the difference betweene an idoll and an image Whereof idolatrie tooke his name Howe the Gentiles did abusâ— their images The obiection is aunswered concerning the abuses about the images of Christians An idoll saith S. Paule is nothing in the worlde and I say not that an idoll is any thing 1. Cor. 8. 10. by which words he meaneth that an image made to represent God although it be in matter wood stone golde siluer yet in vse and signification it is nothing but a vaine fantasie of men braines bicause there is but one God which hath no shape or figure and there is no profitable vse in images deuised by men vnto saluation as S. Augustine saith Lib. 18. contra Faâ—st Man. So Ambrose saith in 1. Cor. 10 Simulachrum verò nihil est quia image videtur reâ— mortaâ—ae An idoll or feigned image is in deede nothing bicause it seemeth to be an image of a dead thing These places cited by M. Sander fauour not his distinction for both Augustine Ambrose indifferently call the same an idoll and an image But Origen and Theodoret in deede make this difrence that an idoll is of that thing that is not at all nor euer was seene in the world as a picture of a man with a dogges head an image is of that thing that is or was as an image of Cicero of any other man that liueth But that this distinction is false it appeareth by the Cherubims which being heads without bodies and wings annexed to them haue no resembrance to any thing that euer was seene in the world yet are they called images euen of the Papists theÌ„ selues not idols Now he would proue that the images of the Gentiles were of things that neuer were and therfore to be idolls and the Popish images be of Christe Peter and Paule c. which were therefore they be similitudes but no idols But what helpeth this distinction of the name although it were receiued when God by his coÌ„mandement forbad the making and honoring of the one as much as the other So that this difference is as much able to defend Popish images as when a lawe is made against robbers and theeues a theefe would labour tooth and nayle to shewe the difference of robberie and theft and then hauing proued him self to be no robber would conclude he were no theefe Yet seeing M. San. hath taken paines to gather the difference betweene heathenish idols and Popish images in tenne pointes I will consider them in that order Some idols were feigned monsters all Popish images haue that essentiall truth in the world which they represent This reddition is false for the image of the Trinitie like a man with three faces or thre bodies hath no essentiall trueth Likewise the image of a childe entering into the mouth of the Virgine Marie in the storie of the Annunciation painted in diuers places and namely in the cloyster or walking place of Alsoule Colledge in Oxenford where I haue seene it is an heretical falshood And to omit the images of a thousand feigned miracles as S. Francis preaching to the Geese c. The image of S. Christopher the Giant of S. George with his monstruous dragon of S. Sunday of S. Vncoulber a she Saint with a beard and such like proue that al Popish images haue not that essentiall trueth which they represent 2 All their idolls were without trueth concerning to faith and religion al Popish images containe such a truth as belongeth to Christes faith and religion Beside the answere before confuteth this excuse the commaundement of God being against all similitudes in religion proueth it vtterly false and abhominable 3 Sacrifice was offered to their idolles whereof it was called idolatrie and they idolaters but no sacrifice is offered to Popish idolls but to God alone I say they offered no sacrifice to the stockes but to the Gods whose images they were So do your Papistes offer vp the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing the only sacrifice of Christians as Iustinus saith Decal cum Tryph. and pay your vowes to your images to the Saintes whose images you say they be therefore by your owne definition you are idolaters 4 Their idolls belonged oftentimes to very wicked men â–ª Popish images always to be blessed Saints You shal haue much to doe to proue Francis Dominike Dunstane Becket and such like whose images you worshippe to be blessed Saintes Where also I note that Francis is painted with the print of Christes fiue woundes which is an horrible blasphemie 5 Some of the Gentiles professed them selues to adore the wood or stone you neither professe nor teach any such thing but the contrarie To admit so many thousands of ignoraunt people as honoured the very wood and stones of your images euen you your selues allowe this verse Lignunque crucis venorabile adorant They adore the venerable wood of the crosse and in the next Chapter you alowe the peeces of a brasen image worthie of some honour 6 Some of the Gentiles thought some priuie godhead or power to be contained in their images you teach they be only representations So did they but what mean some of you to take so long pilgrimages to Walsingham Ipswich Boston yea to Campostella in Spaine and to Peter Paul at Rome if you thought not some power to be in those images more then in the images of the same persons at home 7 The wisest of the Gentiles say you adored by their images insensible creatures and by them false Gods
being worshipped with religious honour neither hath the vilenesse of Images defended them from being honoured with Gods honour For the corruption and inclination of mans nature vnto Idolatrie is so great that nothing is so vile or ridiculous but it hath bene honoured as god And therefore Augustine truely sayth in ps 113 Ducit enim affectu quodam infirmo rapit infirma corda mortalium formae similitudo et membrorum imitata compago For the similitude of shape and the counterfetted composition of lymmes doeth leade and with a certaine weake and sicke affection doeth rauishe the weake heartes of mortall men Againe Quis autem adorâ—â— vel orat intuenâ—â—imulachrum qui non sic afficitur vt ab eo se exandiri putet ac ab eo sibi praestari quod desiderat speret For who doeth worshippe or praye beholdinge an Image whiche is not so affected that hee thinketh he is hearde of it and hopeth that shall be performed by it whiche hee desireth Examine your popishe worshippinge of Images by this sayinge of Augustine Maister Sander and either saye hee speaketh vntruely or confesse that your Image-Douly is no better then Idolatrie But Augustine proceedeth aunsweringe the obiection that they are turned to bee deade stockes without sense Plus valent simulachra ad curnandam infelicenâ— anâ—mam quod as habent quod oculos habent narâ—s habent manus habent pedes habent quam ad corrigandam qood non loquentur non videbunt non audient non â—dorabunt non contrectabunt non ambulabunt Images preuayle more to bowe downe or make crooked the vnhappie soule because they haue a mouthe they haue eyes they haue a nose they haue handes and they haue feete then to refourme it or make it streight that they shall not speake they shall not see they shall not heare they shall not smell they shall not handle they shall not walke Go your wayes nowe M. Sander and say that there is no daunger lest Images should be abused to robbe God of his honour because of the basenes of their forme which is lesse then a creature and they be as it pleaseth you to call them manufactures THE X. OR IX CHAP. Master Iewelles iugling is detected concerning the antiquitie and inuention of images and specially his manifest corrupting of Eusebius in that argument Also an image set vp in the honour of Christ aboue fifteene hundreth yeres past The images of Peter Paule were seene of Eusebius M. Iewell falsifieth Eusebius by leauing out adding to false laâ—â—ing false englishing The virginity of Nunner The chaire of S. Iames had in reuerence in the premitiue churche The pieces of Christes image whiche Iulianus the runnagate brake were preserued of the Christians aboue 12. hundreth yeres past Although God commanded the two Cherubes to be made and let in the Tabernacle yet the inuention of Images is not to be ascribed to God for as Epiphanius testifieth There the father of Abraham beinge a worshipper of false gods was a maker of Images long before And because you trifle M. Sander with your distinction of Idoles and Images telling M. Iewel they are Idolâ—â— or wanton pictures and not the Images of holy men whereof the booke of Wisdom S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Augustine Lactantius and S. Athanatius do speake when they saye the inuention of Idols or Images came of the diuel may it please your learned wisdom to vnderstand that Epiphanius speakinge of the Images of the blessed virgin Mary whom you cal your Lady saith Vnde non est simulachrisicum hoc studium diabolicus conatus Howe is not this desire of making images also a deuillishe purpose prÄ™textu enim iustitiae semper subient hominum mentem diabolus mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans stanias humanas imaginis pre se ferentei per artium varietateÌ„ expressit Et mortus quidem sunt qui adorantur ipsi verò imagines quae nunque vâ—xerunâ— neque enim mortuae esse possunt quae nunque vixerunt adorandas introducunt Cont. Collyridianos H. 79. For the diuell alwayes entring into the minde of men vnder colour of righteousnesse deifiing the mortall nature in the eyes of men hath expressed by varietie of artes images representing the similitude of men And they truely which are worshipped are deade but they bring in to be worshipped Images which neuer lyued for they cannot be dead which neuer lyued The iudgement of other fathers shal be added in places conuenient But where as you cauill that euery image is not an idoll because the sonne of God is the image of God whom we woulde not call an Idoll you shewe your frowardnesse rather then defende your distinction For although in the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there be no such difference but it may be called truely an image yet the horrible abuse of images to the dishonour of God hath caused that of Godly writers it is taken in the euil parte whereas the worde is indifferent Euen as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a King which through crueltie of Kinges came to be an odious name of a tyrant So the names of Papa which sometime signified a bishop and Missa the communion for the wickednesse of the Pope of Rome and of the Popishe Masse are nowe abhorred of all true Christians As for the images which Christ sent to Augarus or Algarus and the Veronica of Rome with the images made by Nicodemus S. Luke and shewed by Siluester to Constantinus testified by Damascen the counterfet Athanatius Theodorus the seconde Councell of Nice Nicephorus and Metaphrastes they are good stuffe for Legenda aurea and as M. Sanders will not stay in them because hee knoweth in his conscience they bee forged fables so I will let them passe also and stande vppon the credite of their authors But nowe we come to the famous image of the woman which had the bloudie issue and of Christ set vp on high before her doore on a piller with an herbe that grewe vnder it which when it touched the hemme of the garment of the image of Christ it healed all diseases This M. Iewel wil not call a fable saith he but he himselfe addeth fables to that which is written of Eusebius as first that it was set vp by the woman whiche is vnlike that a poore womaÌ„ which as the Gospel teacheth had wasted all her goods vppon phisitions Mark. 5. could be able to set vp such a costly image of Brasse vppon a piller Secondly it is not like she woulde haue set vp her owne image Thirdly Eusebius saith it was set vp by other men And therefore the reporte of Theophylact which lyued a thousand yeres after is of small credit Secondly he saith that Eusebius sawe this image which is not to be proued by any worde he speaketh although he saith that he had seen other images of Christ of Peter of Paule But nowe to
examine these falsifications pretended First he chargeth the bishop with false Latining and worse Englishing of this greeke following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bishopps latine is Hoc mirum est veteres Ethnicos beneficio affectos a seruatore nostro ista fecisse his english this It is no meruaile that the Heathens receiuing such benifites of our Sauiour did these thinges Here saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Olim in times past is left out in the latine which is false for it is included in the word veteres In deede in the english by the printers fault it is omitted M. Sander woulde iustifie the bolde and false translation of Ruffinus which turneth these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui ex Gentilibus crediderant Such of the Gentiles as had beleeued Where he manifestly addeth the worde crediderant which is not in Eusebius Wherein you may see the equitie of Maister Sanders which findeth faulte with Maister Iewell for leauing out that which he doth not omitte and iustifieth Ruffinus which doth openly adde to the text But for all his trifling about wordes hee sheweth him selfe ignorant of the phrase for when hee hath wrangled as much as hee can the Latine of the Greeke worde for worde is this Nec mirum est eos ex Gentibus qui olim beneficio affecti sunt a seruatore nostro ista fecisse And it is no marueile that those of the Gentiles which of olde time were benefited by our Sauiour Christe haue done these thinges Now Maister Sander like a falsifier rendeth these wordes asunder and will haue all that matter to stande in these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee sayeth must needes signifie those which in times past had beene Gentiles but after had beleeued which wordes if he wring vntill the bloud come foorth yet can hee not make such a signification of them For if Eusebius had meant so hee woulde haue added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some wordes of like effecte Secondly hee would rather haue sayde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that sometime were Gentiles then those that of olde time were Gentiles but that in the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of olde time he had relation vnto the time of Christe Thirdly as maister Sander himselfe afterwarde striuing for the Aduerbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnchaungeablye to be ioyned with the Participle sheweth himselfe a good Grammarian So here diuiding the Aduerbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ioyning it with nothing sheweth himselfe to be a malicious wrangler and a shamelesse falsifier Nowe where hee sayeth it is not like to bee true that Christe bestowed anye greate cure vppon those who shoulde haue tarryed still Heathens because hee more willingly cured the soule then the bodie I aunswere the chiefe ende of his cures was not for the priuate benefite of them that were cured but to shewe himselfe to all men to be the sonne of God the true phisition of body and soule But M. Sander replieth though some were vnkind as the 9. Lepers Luke 17. yea some were carelesse of him as the man that had lyen 38. yeares in the porche and the blinde man vntill he instucted them by his worde Iohn 5. 9. yet those which did set vp images in his honour were not vnkind I aunswere they thought to satisfye them selues with a vaine superstitious and heathenishe kinde of remuneration Thirdly hee sayeth with Theophylact a late writer that this woman which was faithfull did set vp this image but that I haue proued before to bee neither true nor like to be true But this is not all Master Iewels falshod sayeth hee for hee sayeth moreouer Nam Apostolorum Pauli Petri ipsius Christi imagines coloribus ductas seruatas vidimus For wee haue seene the images of Paule and Peter and of Christe drawen in coulours and preserued Here first beside the lacke of eius his which he confesseth to be of no importance he misseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et which he wil needes haue to signifie also What quarrelling merchant is this here is et thrise yet none of them wil serue his turne because the firste is not translated also that it might be thought that Eusebius had seene the former image of brasse But seeing et is twise put once before Apostolorum and then before ipsius Christi by iudgement of all English Grammarians it may truely be translated thus For wee haue seene the images drawen in colours and preserued both of his Apostles Paule and Peter and also of Christ him selfe Againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be translated euen of his Apostles Paule and Peter What Empyre hath Master Sander in Grammer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifye nothing but also when it hath three significations beside and both euen But it pleaseth Master Sander that Eusebius which liued about three hundreth yeares after Christe sawe painted images of Christ himselfe of his Apostles yea but in the hands of Heathen men or men of Heathenish superstition or else perhaps among the Gnostikes Carpocratites heretikes For what one worde of commendation doth he bestowe vpon them He sawe them in deede but if they had bene profitable for Christianitie why did he not make the like or cause them to be made in his church of Caesarea What cause haue you hitherto M. Sander to cry out O the deceit of M. Iewell seeing for any thing you haue shewed it is true which he saith The Phaeniciens being Heathens made these images in the honour of Christe and of his Apostles onely of their heathenish and vaine superstition But you will shewe a further falshoode in M. Iewell and that still in one storie for he proceedeth Et credibile est priscos illos homines nondum relicta auita superstition◠▪ adhunc modum consueuisse colere illos ethnica consuetudine tanquam seruatores And it may well be thought that men in olde times being not yet remoued from the superstitiō of their fathers vsed after this sort to worship them by an heathenish custome as their sauiours That M. Iewell meant no fraud in this translation it is manifest by that which M. Sander confesseth that he set the Greeke wordes by the side of his booke which are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as it is like that those auncient men vnchangably after this maner were accustomed to honour them as Sauiours by an heathenish custome vsed among them This I haue translated worde for worde and what difference is there in sense from M. Iewels translatiō but that nothing of his can please M. San. for first he maketh one quarell that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth vnchangably or without change which M. Iewel hath turned not yet being remoued from the superstition of their fathers But Ruffinus also translateth it ex gentili consuetudine indifferenter of an heathenish custome indifferently and M.
San. himself afterward confesseth that it is an heathenish custome to honour men with setting vp their images And if it was superstitious in the heathen therefore it was superstitious in these Christians which folowed the heathenish custome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any change Secondly he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is spightfully Englished their sauiours And why so I pray you â–ª What other thing doth the worde signifie but a Sauiour of whole or part of body or soule Except you will say that among the Heathen Castor Pollux were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plural number but it was for that they were supposed to be sauiours or preseruers of Mariners which declareth in what sense Eusebius saith these men worshipped them without chaunge by an heathenish custome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen as they worshippe sauiours for example such and so as they called Castor and Pollux I will not therefore sticke with you but that those men of whome Eusebius speaketh in this last sentence were such as professed some lâ—ue of Christe and Christianitie but yet after an heathenish maner Alexander the Emperour worshipped the image of Christe in his Chappell among his other idols Carpocrates the heretique made the images of Iesus and Paul Homer and Pythagoras did cense them with incense and worship them Epiph. lib. 1. Tom. 2. in prefat The Gnostike heretiques had euen such images of Christe painted in colours as Eusebius speaketh of euen as they had the images of Pythagoras Plato Aristotle Epher 27. which heretiques answere directly to the wordes of Eusebius that they made and worshipped the images of Christe and his Apostles without chaunge euen as they made the images of Heathen men whome they had in estimation Againe S. August De moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae cap. 34. speaketh of such worshippers of reliques and pictures euen in his time which yet the Catholique Church did not allowe Nolite mihi colligere professores nominis Christiani neque professionis suae vim aut scientes aut exhibentes Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum qui vel in ipsa vera religione superstitiosi sunt vel ita libidinibus dediti vt obliti sint quid promisserint Deo. Noui multos esse sepulchrorum picturarum adoratores noui multos esse qui luxuriosissimè super mortuos bibant epulas 〈◊〉 laueribus exhibentes super sepultos seipsos sepeliant voracitates ebrietatesque suas deputent religioni Gather not me together such professours of the Christian name as either know not or shewe not the vertue of their profession Seeke not vp the multitude of vnskilfull men which euen in true religion it selfe are superstitious or else so giuen to filthie lustes that they haue forgotten what they haue promised to god I knowe there be many worshippers of tombs and pictures I know there be many which most riotously drinke ouer the dead making banquets for the dead bodies burie them selues vpon the buried bodies and account their gluttonies and dronkennesse to be religion Such Christians they might be of whome Eusebius speaketh But M. San. confessing this maner of honouring by images to be an heathenish custom doth also affirme that it was a laudable custome saying that it was but pusillanimitie scrupulositie in the Iewes that they durst make no images So that to obey the commandement of God is counted of him for a vice and it is a great vertue of magnanimitie to be bolde to do that which God hath forbidden But what reason hath he Forsooth all things that the heathens vsed were not euill Sacrifice was not euill though the heathen did offer sacrifice to diuels Virginitie of Nuns for so it pleaseth him to translate Sanctiomonialium in Augustine although there were no Popish names in his time is not euill bicause the heathen had their vestall Virgines So that by his Logike there is one reason of things good and lawfull if they be well vsed as sacrifice and virginitie and things simply forbidden as making and worshipping of images in religion But nowe we are come to S. Iames Chapter which not heathen men but the brethren at Hierusalem and as Ruffinus translateth it the Bishops in succession did preserue and had in estimation his words folowing imediately after the sentence last intreated of are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the brethren there by succession hauing in estimation the Chaire of Iames the Apostle that is kept vnto this time which Iames was the first that receiued the charge of the Church of Hierusalem of our Sauiour him self and of the Apostles whome also the holy scriptures do shewe to haue bene called the brother of Christ doe euidently shewe vnto all men in what manner both those that were in the old time and those that be euen till our days haue maintained yet do maintaine a worthie reuerence and worshippe of holy men for their godlinesse sake Here M. Sander scoffeth rayleth braggeth and all about the Moone shine in the water Knowe you not Maister Iewel saith he that this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For giueth a reason of that which went before What was that That olde men tarrying in superstition did set vp images whereof the reason followeth bicause the brethren at Hierusalem do honour the chaire of S. Iames. Then he cryeth out O cursed lying spirit c. At length he concludeth that it is manifest that Eusebius alloweth and stoutly defendeth the honour that is giuen to Saints by their images and reliques See what a stout champion Maister Sander wil make Eusebius to be for images and reliques But to returne to your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Maister Sander is there no remendie but either images must be allowed or this connexion be foolish May 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for giue a reason of nothing but as you wil haue it Why may it not rather giue a reason why hee counteth that an heathenish custome of honoring Christ his Apostles by making their images bicause the faithfull brethren at Hierusalem euen from the time of Saint Iames not making an image of him but keeping his chaire that he vsed to sit in as a monument declare euidently what maner of reuerence hath bene giuen by true Christians from the beginning to this day vnto holy meÌ„ that is to haue them in remembrance without superstition and idolatrie but not by making of their images For except this Antithesis be vnderstood it were in deed a folish connexion as euil an argument to proue that they which made images of Christ his apostles after the heathnish custome did wel because the Christians at Ierusalem kept the chaire of S. Iames and had it in estimation So that the matter beeing well considered the coniunction is wiser then Maister S. can vnderstande for all his outcries and amplifications To that which the Bishop saith this image beeing in the streete proueth not the setting vppe of Images in the Churche he aunswereth there were other
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
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
S. Augustine concerninge figures is applyed to Images Images were made without all scruple in the primitiue Church Bowing to the image of Christ in S. Chrisostoms â—ime His liturgie is defended Seuerus painted the images of S. Martine and Paulinus in a holy place S. Gregorie laye prostrate before an holy Image Saint Augustine is cited De doct Christian. lib. 3. cap. 9. Qui aut operatur aut veneratur c. He that worketh or reuerenceth M. Sander translateth worshippeth a profitable signe instituted by gods authority whose strength and signification he vnderstandeth doeth not reuerence or worshippe that which he seeth and passeth away but rather that thing whereunto all suche thinges are to be referred First I note the corruptioÌ„ of Master Sanders translation that turneth Veneratur worshippeth after the popishe meaninge For God did neuer institute any signe to be worshipped in that sense which Master Sander defendeth worshippinge of Images But all signes instituted of God are to be reuerently esteemed regarded as baptisme which we do reuerently esteeme yet we worship not either the water or the action of baptizing Secondly we haue to consider how Master Sander can proue images to be profitable signes instituted by gods authoritie They be profitable saith hee because they bring vs in remembraunce of good thinges I denie this argument because nothing is profitable in religion but that which is instituted by God for otherwise we might bring the gallowes into the Church whiche bringeth vs in remembraunce of Gods Iustice c. as I haue shewed before Likewise the Prophet Abacuc vtterly denyeth Images to be profitable Cap. 2. vers 18. But let vs see how he proueth popishe images to be instituted by Gods authoritie which is al in al for if that be proued we wil not doubt of the profitablenesse of them First he alledgeth the imitation of nature and of nations the institution of some images in the law of Moses last of all the tradition left to his Church freely to make images of good things The former reasons are answered before in their proper chapters namely the lawe of nature and nations cap. 11. the making of some images in Moyses lawe cap 12. also the example of practise of this supposed tradition out of Eusebius cap. 10. And they are all three wiped away with the expresse commaundement of God in his lawe of religion Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image or the likenesse of any thing c. Neuerthelesse let vs see how by tradition left to the Churche images are prooued to be instituted by god We reade saith hee in S. Augustine as well of the Ethnikes as of the Christians There is first one falshood for Augustine in the place by him cited speaketh onely of Ethnikes De consen Euang. lib. 1. cap. 10. which because they had seene Christes image pictured with Peter and Paule imagined that Christ had written bookes to Peter and Paule Secondly he citeth the wordes thus Pluribus locis simul Petrum et Paulum cuÌ„ Christo pictos viderunt quiae merita Petri Pauli etiam propter cundem passionis diem celebrius ac solemniter Roma commendat They sawe in verie many places Peter Paule painted together with Christ because Rome doeth set foorth the merites of Peter and Paule the more famously and solemnly euen for that they suffered both vppon one day In this allegation hee addeth wordes that are not in Augustine Although not contrary to his meaning yet shewing thereby that he borrowed this place as manye of our Englishe papistes doe commonly of some other mans noting rather then of his owne reading But the greatest fault of all is that he doth deceiptfully suppresse the words following immediatly which declare howe profitable Sainte Augustine esteemed the doctrine of Images to be His whole sentence is this Credo quod pluribus locis simul eos cum illo pictos viderunt quia merita Petri Pauli etiam propter cundem passionis diem celebrius solemniter Roma commendat Sic omnino errare meruerunt qui Christum Apostolos eius non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt I beleeue that they haue seene them painted with him in manye places because Rome doeth more notably and solemnely set foorth the worthinesse of Peter and Paule euen because of the same day of their suffering So they were altogether worthy to be deceiued whiche haue sought Christ and his Apostles not in the holy bookes but in painted walles Now see with what honestie Master Sander hath alledged this place of Augustine to prooue that images are of Gods institution But you will saye perhappes this place doeth prooue that Images of Christe and his Apostles were then made by Christians I graunte but not in the Churches for then the Ethnikes coulde not haue seene them because they were neuer suffered to enter into the Churches of the Christians But Gregorie Nyssen in his Oration De Theod. martyr laud. testyfieth that the paynter had set foorth the whole storie of Theodorus the martyr in his Churche And yet the Image of the martyr was none otherwise painted then the fierce and cruell formes of the tyrauntes neyther otherwise on the walles then on the pauemente For he saith Capillorum item concinnator historiae par opuâ— in pauimento quod pedibus calcatur effecit Also the pauier hath made the lyke woorke of historie vppon the pauemente whiche is trodden vnder feete These deuises of painters and pauiers Master Sander is faine to take holde of in steede of the holy scriptures and aunciente writers But if hee saye that Gregorius doeth also allowe these I answere as ornamentes of the Churche not as matter of Gods religion and worshippe whiche yet he shoulde rather haue defaced with Epiphanius then suffred or allowed for inconueniencâ— that folowed This report of Gregorie sheweth the errour of that time rather then prooueth images to be instituted by god That Paulinus caused images to bee painted on the Church walles as it is confessed to be done so it is denied to be well done The like I say of the images painted in Saint Martins Church in Towers in Fraunce witnessed by Gregorius Turonensis although it was long after the time of Paulinus in which Satan beganne to lay the platforme for his Idolatrie whiche afterwarde he brought into the worlde And these be all the arguments that he hath to prooue that images are profitable signes instituted by Gods authoritie Except he meane the text of Paul to the Galat. 5. to be an argument whiche he citeth to prooue that we are made free in Christ both to knowe our signes and images to be images and signes and also to knowe whereof they are signes which the Iewes saith he did not So that the libertie of Christ is by M. Sanders doctrine not from a yoke of bondage and seruitude vnto ceremonies but from ignorance and want of knowledge of the vse of them And whereas by the lawe
or to fall downe before holy images What say you maister Sander will you abide by it Haue you either forgotten the grammer you taught vs before of ioyning the aduerbe with the verbe or thinke you that we haue learned so little either grammer or logike that wee cannot see a difference betweene a proposition affirmatiue and negatiue If a boy should construe Gregories latine as you haue englished it hee were worthie of a dosen strips though he had gon to grāmer schoole but two or three yeres Non quasi ante diuinitatē ante illam imaginē prosternimur We fall not downe before that image as before the diuinitie thus would I english it conster it if it were for my life And that which you make affirmatiue I must make negatiue for I haue learned fiue or sixe twentie yeare agoe that it is a negatiue proposition when the principall Verbe is denyed But perhaps you will gather that though he fell not downe before an image as before God yet he fell downe before it as before an image Howe certeine this collection is you may see by an hundreth examples if you list to consider them If I saye Non quasi ante diuinitatem ante diabolum prosternimur woulde you translate it we fall downe before the deuill but not as before God or rather thus we fal not down before the diuell as we do before God. Non quasi panem lapides commedimus would you turne it thus we eate stones but not as bread or rather we eate not stones as we eate breade Non quasi ante regem ante mendicum prosternimur woulde you translate it thus we fall downe before a begger but not as before a king or else wee fall not downe before a begger as before a king Such examples might bee multiplied infinitely by which you may see what pith there is in maister Sanders argument to proue that Saint Gregory lay prostrate before an image where as contrariwise he denyeth it and maketh such prostration and falling downe with affection of religion to be dewe onely to GOD euen as the Angell infinitly more excellent then all the images that euer were made refusing that honour offered to him by Saint Iohn willed him to giue it to god 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fall downe to god Apoc. 22.9 THE XV. or XIIII CHAP. That the seuenth general councell was a true councell and ought to be obeyed and Maister Iewels slaunders be aunswered concerning the same Where also it is briefly shewed that miracles might and haue bene wrought by holy images Also Maister Iewels vaine arguments against the seuenth generall councell and Irene the Empresse that Maister Iewell committeth three faultes about fiue Latine words that the shadowe of Peter was accounted of vertue and power to heale men That they were and are in possession of honouring images who defended the honouring of them The cause why the seuenth generall councell was called The seuenth generall councell is conferred with the first What Bishops recanted in the seuenth councell The Bishop of Salisburie reiecting the authoritie of this Councell of Nice the second saith it was holden wel neere eight hundreth yeares after Christe and therefore was out of the compasse of those sixe hundred yeares of which he made his challenge Maister Sander answereth it was seuen hundreth yeares before Maister Iewell as though the controuersie were of antiquitie of the men and not of the doctrine The Bishop saide it would require a long treatise to open the whole follie and fondnesse of that Councell M. Sander answereth it is more like that M. Iewell is a fond foole then 350. Bishops of such wit vertue and learning as though their multitude could proue their wit vertue and learning when their words and deeds plainly declare their follie ignorance and vngodlinesse The B. saide Irene the Empresse which gathered this Councell was a wicked woman M. Sander citing diuers writers to and fro in the end concludeth that by repentance she was made a good woman and her zeale towards holy images did make her the better so he bringeth that for an argument which is the matter in controuersie The Bishop said She was the kings daughter of Tartaria an Heathen borne So was Constantine the great saith M. Sander yet was she Christened before she procured that Councell whereas hee doubteth whether Maister Iewell thinke that Constantine was baptized when hee gathered and confirmed the first Councell of Nice The Bishop doth not for that cause onely reiect the second Councel at Nice bicause Irene was an Heathen borne but thereby sheweth that she sauoured of Gentilitie in being earnest to set forward idolatrie And whereas Maister Sander doubteth whether Maister Iewell thinke Constantine were baptized before he gathered the Councel he neede not at al seeing Eusebius which knewe Constantine very well affirmeth that he was not baptized but euen imediatly before his death Contrarie to that fond fable which among other is auouched by Pope Adrian in this Councell that Constantine was cured of a leapresie baptized by Siluester Bishop of Rome And whereas he thinketh it a daungerous matter to take the authorizing of that Councel from Siluester and to ascribe it to one that was not baptized there is no perill at all in it for Constantine did then beleeue in Christ and was certainly determined to be baptized in Iordan if he had not bene preuented by death Yea although hee had beene an Heathen man seeing he gaue no sentence but assented to the sentence of the Bishoppes it had beene none inconuenience at all The Bishop saide She caused that Councell to be summoned in despight of the Councell of Constantinople that had decreed against images Maister Sander although he confesse there was such a Councell yet bicause the whole processe of the actes thereof is not extant being defaced by the idolaters he quarelleth that it was an obscure Councell and asketh by what Emperour it was gathered as though it were not testified that it was gathered by Leo the third but it lacked saith he the Bishop of Romes authoritie and therefore was no general Councell so did the Chalcedonense and the sixt of Constantinople in some partes and yet it went forward with the decree which had bene in vaine if the Romish Bishop had a negatiue voyce in all Councels The Bishop sayde She tooke her owne sonne Constantinus and pulled out his eyes The Councell is not therefore naught saith Maister Sander But she is thereby proued to bee a cruell woman which was the Bishops meaning The Bishop saith She did it onely bycause he would not consent to the idolatrous hauing of images Maister Sander denyeth this but proofe hee bringeth none sauing that hee sheweth there was an other cause why shee might doe it namely bicause hee deposed her of her gouernement wherein hee did well after the example of Asa which is commended in the scripture for that hee did put downe his mother Maachah from her estate bycause she
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
Pope Leo saide at his death that this one thing he should gayne by dying that he shoulde be resolued concerning the question of the immortalitie of the soule Wherein all the learned men in the worlde before could not satisfie him Last of all what an impudent lyer Maister Rastell is you may plainely perceiue when he chargeth the Bishop with this confession That these nine hundreth yeres and more none did euer take this way which he doth follow For although the Bishop made his chalenge of sixe hundreth yeares after Christe â–ª yet did he neuer confesse that in the nine hundreth yeres following none did euer reteine or imbrace the Gospell whiche he teacheth when God be praised there was a number euen in the moste blindest times that sawe the light thereof although they were fewe and persecuted by Antichriste SECTIO 4. From the second face of the 23. leafe to the first of the 38. leafe In which he taketh vpon him to proue that the English communion and seruice doth not followe Christe and his Apostles in taking into their handâ— and blessing the cuppe and the challice nor the primitiue Church in praying toward the East mingling water with the wine signe of the crosse altars incense tapern praying to Saintes and praying for the dead The â— in his sermon affirmed as R. saith 1. The holy coÌ„munion to be restored to the use form of the primitiue Church 2. To the same order that was deliuered appointed by Christ 3. and after practised by the Apostles 4. and continued by the holy doctours and fathers by the space of fiue or sixe hundreth yeares throughout all the catholike Churche of Christ 5. without exception or anye sufficient example to be shewed to the contrarie Al these Master Rast. saith be lyes which is his short aunswere And I coulde aunswere as shortly that then they be lyes of Master Rastells forging For the bishoppe affirmed no such thing of the ceremoniall forme of our Communion but of the doctrine thereof But let vs see his answere at large He woulde know how this Communion of ours doth agree with that which Christ deliuered and theÌ„ rehearseth the institution of Christ beginning at the eating of the Pascall Lambe and the washing of his disciples feete as though either of these perteined to the sacrament and forsoothe we must tell him how many thinges more how many things lesse our order in the coÌ„munion booke hath And firste what scripture we haue for the linnen clothe for the priestes standing on the North side of the table for our prayers confessions collects other ceremonies and seeing wee haue no scripture for these the Communion is not restored to the order appointed by Christ. I aunswere that forasmuch as those matters perteine to order and decencie we haue scripture sufficient to authorize them although as I saide before the bishop speaketh not of the ceremoniall forme of ministration but of the substaunce and doctrine which is the essential forme of the Communion concerning which we haue neyther more nor lesse then Christ vsed and deliuered Yet saith Master Rast. we haue many pointes lesse then was done by Christ at his last supper First he will not presse vs with that question why we do not Communicate after supper which peraduenture yet some doth with the sicke as a thing not vnlawfull nor tyed to any time but by the generall rule of order and decencie but he demandeth why we take not the bread into our handes before we consecrate it as Christ did A profounde question As though we doe not both take it breake it receiue it and deliuer it with our handes as Christ did Or as though Christ appointed at what moment we should touch it or that M. Rastel is able to say that Christ spake nothing of his institution before he touched the breade or as though we did not vse ordinarily before we make the exhortation vnto the Communion to take the bread and breake it and with the cup to set it before vs not to let it stand at the ende of the table as he belyeth vs as though we werâ— ashamed to folow Christ. The seconde thing that we haue lesse then Christ did as he saith is blessinge of the breade which is vtterly false for we blesse it as Christ did not with the signe of the crosse as ye would haue vs but with thanksgiuinge and prayer as the Euangelistes doe testifie that Christe did and as the primitiue and Apostolike Church did practise And therefore Iustinus martyâ— speaking of the sanctified or blessed nourishment of the sacrament calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that nourishement for which thankes is giuen by the worde of prayer receiued of him And touching the reuerende gestures vsed by Christ at his supper as we doubt nothing but that he vsed them alwayes so can M. Rastell with all his prating prooue none other then the Euangelists haue set downe And therefore for his loking on the bread separating it from the rest of the bread on the table blessing it by some special signe as the signe of the crosse c. when he can prooue out of the scriptures we shall bee content to refourme our Communion accordinge to those supposed gestures In the meane time notwithstanding his ruffian like raylinge our order of celebration hath all things instituted and deliuered by Christ to be obserued in the reuerent ministration of this most holy sacrament The seconde lye he chargeth Master Iewell with all is that he saith we haue the same order that was practiâ—ed by the Apostles where as we reade of none order practised by them For Actes the 2. we read saith he that they did breake breade in houses And yet it may be doubted whether that was the communion and actes 13. saith he when the Apostles had fasted and sacrificed they sent forth Paule and Barnabas But where finde you that translation Master Rastell that they sacrificed will you now forsake your owne Latine translation Ministrantibus illis Domino when they ministred vnto the Lorde and so wilfully runne into the curse of the Tridentine councell or will you appeale to the Greeke text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which worde signifieth any publike Ministerie by the iudgement of all learned Graetians and Erasmus himselfe whom you folowe in this translation though you count him an heretike and forsake your Catholike translation confirmed by generall Councelles Well then I see that papists iangle of general councels and catholike interpretations vnto other but they themselues will be holden of none anye longer then they liste But to the matter he saith that S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. testifieth of the veritie of the sacrament but not of the order referringe that to his owne comming As though he doeth not manifestly reforme a disorder or as though other thinges which he saith he woulde set in order at his comminge could be taken for the same thinges that he wrote of in his Epistle But what of al
to make no diference betweene matters of substance and matters of circumstance as hee by his Popish sophistrie doth confounde SECTIO 24. From the secoÌ„d face of the 72. leafe to the second face of the 74. leafe wherin he beginneth to speak of adoration of the sacrameÌ„t Where the bishop saith that the olde doctours neuer make mention of adoration of the sacrament maister Rastell saith the argument is both naught and lying Naught because it may bee they vsed it although they neuer spake of it lying because he saith they do speake of it But to aunswere the naughtinesse of the argument I say maister Rastell is both a naughtie and lying gatherer of the bishoppes argument dismembring that which hee ioyneth together thus Christ his Apostels and the primitiue church neuer made mention of adoration of the sacrament therefore is not to bee vsed And concerning the lying supposed I answere that no auncient doctour speaketh one word of adoration of the sacrament as the verye sonne of GOD but either of adoration of Christ in heauen or of worshipping and adoring that is reuerently handling and honouring of the mysteries of Christ and no more of this sacrament then of the other namely baptisme For aunswere to the places he citeth out of Chrysostome Ambrose Augustine I will referre the reader to mine answere vnto the 45.46 47. Chapters of the second booke of Heskins parleament where this question is handled more at large Sauing that which he citeth out of Hom. 83. out of Chrysost. that we are fed with that thing which the Angels do honour which we confesse to be the body of Christ after a spirituall maner yet pertaineth it nothing to adoration of the sacrament And much lesse that he citeth ex Orat. in Philon. That as we entertaine God here so he wil receiue vs there with much glorie Where he speaketh of honouring God and not adoring the sacrament SECTIO 25. in the 74. leafe The Bishop aunswering a place of Augustine saith we must worship Christ where we eate him but we eate him in heauen by faith therefore we must worship him there M. Rastel sayth we eate him on earth also but proofe he bringeth none greater then his owne saying either of reason or authoritie SECTIO 26. From the end of the 74. leafe to the first face of the 79. leafe The Bishop proueth we must seeke Christe in heauen by these reasons Wee must lift vp our heartes wee must seeke those things which are aboue in heauen where Christ is and not the things that are vpon earth where Christ is not Câ—ll 3. And our conuersation is in heauen from whence wee looke for our Sauiour c. Phil. 3. M. Rastel saith the conclusion is inferred madly and miserably bicause these textes do no more disproue Christes body to bee on earth really then they proue our bodies to be in heauen really as in this short example our conuersation is in heauen and yet Paule was on earth in body when he saide this O wise and happie concluder but blinde and blockish interpretour which reasoneth as though the worde Conuersation in Saint Paules saying did signifie presence or being whereas it signifieth franches or libertie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our franches freedom or conuersation is in heauen Where is nowe your madd and miserable conclusion The Bishops arguments therefore on these places stand firme and vnmoueable that Christ is not on earth in body but in heauen where we must seeke him not climbing with ladders as it pleaseth Maister Rastel to scoffe in so graue matters but ascending by faith and affection set on heauenly and spirituall things As for his exposition of Sursian corda howe wholesome it is you may gather by this one note that in the very beginning â–ª he saith that the body of Christe is not onely lying on the altar and caried in mens handes but also broken and diuided The places hee citeth out of Saint Augustine for adoration be aunswered in mine aunswere to Maister Heskins before mentioned SECTIO 27. The Bishop saith that adoration of the sacrament is a newe deuise of Pope Honorius of three hundreth yeares agoe and after him Vibanus the fourth made an holiday of Corpus Christi c. Maister Rastel is angrie that three hundreth yeares should be counted a little while agoe when it is not three score yeares since Luther sprang vp But if Luther haue taught any doctrine that was not receiued in the Church a thousand and fiue hundreth yeares ago we are content it be accounted newe but whatsoeuer may be proued to haue bene taught 1500. yeares agoe must needes be old though Luther be newe and in comparison of that age Honorius and Vrbanus are but yong children But remitting the antiquitie Maister Rastell will stande for the veritie bicause the Popes lacked no counsell Neither by your doctrine needed they any 2. The Vniuersities were not without great schollers Such as those blinde and hereticall times affoorded 3. Religious houses and orders were not destroyed Yea they swarmed with Locustes to maintaine the kingdome of Absaddon 4. The holy Ghost in true Catholikes was inuincible Yea but there were fewe true Catholikes in those days 5. The wicked spirit in heretiques would haue bene venterous Yea the Pope the Archheretique of the world was venterous ynough when he set vp such idolatrie 6. A good man with the daunger of his life would haue spoken the trueth So did many good men which cost them their liues 7. An heretique for fame would not haue passed vpon death what neede an heretique feare death when heresie was so generally receiued that the true Catholikes were condemned and burned for heretiques by the name of Albigenses Waldenses Pauperes de Lugduno and such like which from time to time were persecuted imprisoned and burned for refusing and disalowing such idolatrie and false worshipping These be the worshipfull reasons he hath to proue the veritie of this bread worship which after he hath dilated more at large hee commeth at length to admiration of the seruice of Corpus Christi day made by Thomas Aquinas which hee thinkeh to be so excellent that the very sound and sense of the Anthemnes Respondes and Versicles declare whence they proceeded And I am of the same opinion for the comparing of such thinges to the sacrament as pertaine nothing vnto it declareth that such comparison came from the spirit of man not from the spirite of god As where it is saide 3. Reg 19. That Helias sawe a cake of bread at his head c. And Iob complaineth of the crueltie of his seruants that would haue eaten his flesh Iob. 31. And as for the holiday though it were instituted but of late yeares yet he taketh it sufficient to proue the adoration necessarie which could not be seene in the Church twelue hundreth yeres before or els that holiday should haue bene set vp long before SECTIO 28. The