the world made to be similitudes and images Irenaeus lib. 2. cap. 6. Such was the crosse that Christ suffered vpon and all other crosses made to the similitude of it of which S. Paul by their fantasie shoulde say God forbidde that I should reioyce but in the crosse of Christ c. whose figures that they vsed in their consecration and baptizing it may appeare in Iren. lib. 1. cap. 18. where although the figure of the crosse be not named yet their termes of redemption confirmation diuision which they vsed in powring on of water annoynting them doe infinyate that they vsed some signes of the crosse to whome they gaue those titles as before is shewed Finally when it is certein by Iren. lib. 2. cap. 6. that they affirmed those similitudes and images in materiall thinges were made vnto the honour of their inuisible and spirituall phantasies there is no doubt but they had in great price the materiall image or signe of the crosse for reuerence of that high mysterie whereof they dreamed the same to be an image or similitude Concerning the images of Iesus which the Carpocratians and other like heretikes made and worshipped Bristow sayth it toucheth not the papistes because they also made and worshipped the images of heathen Philosophers like as the Samaritans ioyned the worshipping of false Gods with the worshipping of our Lorde If I shoulde obiect vnto you the worshipping of the images of saint Sonday saint Hardhuffe saint Vncomber yea saint Christopher and saint George on horseback which al were meere Idolls after your owne diffinition of Idols I wote not howe you coulde quite your selfe from the case of the Samaritanes But Irenaeus and Epiphanius charge the heretikes not onely for ioyning the images of Philosophers and Poets with the Image of Iesus but also for fayning the Image of Iesus and worshipping it Irenaeus againste Basilides lib. 1. cap. 23. saith absolutly Viuntur autem imaginibus incātationibus invocationibus c. They vse images and inchauntmentes inuocations and all the rest of superstitions Here he placeth the vse of images with inchauntementes inuocation of spirites and other superstitions of magike and chapter 24. against the Gnostikes and Carpocratians he saith Etiam imagines quasdam c. Also they haue certayne images painted and some made of other matter saying that the forme of Christ was made by Pilate in that time which Iesus was with men If it had not beene a faulte to haue had these counterfete images Irenaeus woulde not haue ioyned it amonge other hereticall practises of the Carpocratians The like sayth Epiphanius against Basilides and the Gnostikes Haere 24 Habent imagines c. They haue images paynted in coulers some also haue them of golde and siluer and other matter which they say are the images of Iesus and that these images of Iesus were made vnder Pontius Pilate when he was conuersant amongest men And these images they haue closely Moreouer they haue the images of certaine Philosophers c. Who seeth not by this context that Epiphanius accompted it hereticall to haue such images in any vse of religion although they had not made any other images of philosophers besides Also against the Collyridians which with certayne cakes offering as the Papistes doe candles worshipped the image of the virgin Marie he asketh what this desire of making images can be else but a deuilish enterprise yet the Collyridians worshipped no heathen Philosophers with the virgin Marie Neither doeth hee simply charge them that they worshipped her as a God but siue velut ipsam c. Whether these foolish women offer this cake to her as worshipping Marie her selfe or whether they go about to offer the saide stincking offering for her the whole matter is folishe and straunge and a fraude and deceite of the motion of diuelles Therefore that I extende my speech no longer let that which hath beene sayde suffice Let Marie be in honor let the Lord be worshipped And what thinke you woulde he haue iudged of the pilgrimage and offering of men and women to the images of the virgin Marie which coulde not abyde to see a vaile in which was painted the image of Christ or some sainct hanging in a Church of Christians but rent it in peeces at Anablatha Epiph. Epist. ad Ioan Hieron But for the defence of Images Bristowe referreth the reader to Sanders booke of Images and I likewise to my confutation of the same In the meane time it is a small matter that Bristowe vrgeth my confession that crossing at euery step which is saith he a making and great religion of Images is referred by Tertullian vnto tradition of the Apostles seeing that is shewed to haue a later and corrupter beginning and other fables beside by Tertullian referred to Apostolike tradition 2 Of inuocation of sainctes and worshipping of their reliques You remember since the 3. chapter sayth Bristow by your owne report that the true Church counted Vigilantius an heretike for denying the inuocation of Sainctes and the worshipping of their reliques I aunswere that I remember no such matter neither do I finde any where that Vigilantius was publikely condemned for an heretike in his time but onely in the priuate iudgement of Hierome although Bernardus long after account him litle better But of worshipping the reliques of Sainctes and of their images the case say you is all one then by Hieromes iudgement neither of both is to be worshipped For wee worship not sayth he the reliques of Martyrs no nor the sunne and Moone no not Angelles and Archangels Cherubim and Seraphim c But we honor the reliques of the martyrs that wee may worshippe him whose witnesses the martyrs are By which saying and other to the same effecte it is manifest that although Hierome defended some honoring or moderat reuerēce of reliques yet he abhorred idolatrous worshipping of them and much more of their images Where I say the superstition of reliques is receiued of the Ossenes Bristowe sayth it perteyneth not to them because the Ossenes worshipped them for Gods whose reliques they had in such estimation But that is false for they helde Marthys and Marthana for Sainctes proceeding out of the holy seed of Elxai whom they neuer worshipped but as a great Prophet and teacher although Epiphanius saith pro diis adorabantur they were worshipped as Gods meaning that worship which is proper vnto God onely was giuen to them as it is of Papistes vnto sainctes whome they worship as God geuing that worshipp vnto them which is proper onely vnto God as faith inuocation But Bristow would haue the snottie cloutes of Thomas Becket that were worshipped after his death to bee all one with the napkins and partletts that were caried frō the bodie of S. Paul the Apostle to cast out vncleane spirites when hee liued which napkins and partletts yet he cannot proue either that they were euer worshipped or that they were reserued for reliques after the worke of miracles
was wrought by them As for the argument that Chrysostome taketh against the Pagans of the reliques of Babylas the Martyr which he would haue me to applie to my disease was to the confusion of Idolatrie and sorcerie not to the setting vp or mainteyning thereof And what worshippe I pray you was giuen to the reliques of Babylas If God shewed miracles by the presence of his bodie in Daphne as by the bones of Elizeus yet it followeth not that his body or ashes were worshipped more then the bones of Elizeus were Concerning inuocation of Angels which they haue common with the Caianes Bristowe sheweth that the Caianes had other greater heresies which the papistes holde not as though those greater errors coulde excuse this lesser The superstition of Angels that Saint Paul warneth the Ephesians and Collossians to beware of hee sayth they be cleare of it because in all their prayers they conclude per Christum c. Through Christ our Lorde as though they that taught the superstition of Angels did cleane exclude Christ or that it was to be doubted lest the Ephesians and Collosians would forsake Christ and cleaue to Angels but rather lest with the religion of Christ as the cheefe they woulde also admitte the superstition of the Angels whereof were named the sect Angelici in Angelorum cultu inclinati bowed downe in the worship of Angels as S. Augustine saith which therefore helde not the heade because they worshipped not him alone but ioyned Angels in part of his glorie That Angels are ministring spirits it proueth not that therefore they must be prayed vnto but the contrarie for inuocation is due onely to him on whome wee beleeue which is God onely So much the more blasphemous is Bristowe that chargeth Saint Iohn Apoc. 1. to haue prayed to the Angels where he sayth Grace and peace bee to you from him that is and was and is to come and from the 7. spirites that are before his throne and from Iesus Christ. Whereas the consent of all auncient writers is that the seuen spirites are taken for the holy Ghost which is seuen folde in his graces according to the prophecie of Isay 11. The spirite of the Lorde shall rest vppon him the spirite of wisedome and vnderstanding the spirite of counsell and power c. And it is also euident that S. Iohn speaketh of the spirit of God as he was shewed to him in the vision according to the dispensation of his manifolde giftes in the figure of the seuen lampes which are the 7. spirites of God according to the number of seuen Churches of Asia to whome he sendeth the copie of his reuelation for the instruction of all Churches in the worlde Apoc. 4. And albeit wee shoulde expounde these seuen spirites for seuen Angels as some late writers do yet it followeth not that S. Iohn shoulde pray vnto them in those wordes but rather to God for their ministerie to the preseruation of the Churches No more then if he shoulde wishe grace vnto them from heauen it followeth that he prayeth vnto heauen That phrase is often in the Psalmes wherein saluation or helpe is prayed to bee sent from Sion from the holy Hill from the Temple from heauen and yet no man was so madde to say that prayers was made to Sion to the Hill to the Temple to heauen And yet it is more monstrous that hee chargeth me to forget that in the same booke of the Apocalips God doeth promise to make the obstinate Iewes to come and to adore before the feete of one Angell And they shall know that I haue loued thee c. I speak vnto thee Th. Stapleton which profesiest that thou hast perused this booke of Bristowes and allowed it Wast thou awake when thou didest pâ—ruse this argument and allowed it Tell me by thy credite is this the Angell of the Church of Philadelphia of whome this is writen to bee vnderstood for one of those heauenly spirites concerning whose worshippe and inuocation we nowe speake in this controuersie Are epistles then written from the Apostle on earth to Angels in heauen is any of those Angels neither whote nor colde in the seruice of God hath any of them a name that he liueth and is deade hath any of them left his first loue doth any of them suffer the woman Iesabell to preach c Out vpon thine impudence if thou affirme all this and fie vpon thy negligence if thou didest peruse it and allow this argument if thou be ashamed to affirme all the rest As for thee Bristowe it shall be sufficient to heare thy Master reproued for thy fault at this time to make the blushe if any sparke of honest shame bee lefte in thy breast that darest set abroad such an intollerable corruption of the holy scripture against all wit and reason that euer was hearde of 3 Of abstinence from fleshmeate and from marriage Bristow would haue the question of prescript fasting dayes and abstinence from flesh to be all one as they are accompted among the Papistes But there is great difference For Aerius which denyed fasting dayes appointed by the church to be obserued did neuerthelesse as Augustine sheweth out of Philaster teach abstinence from flesh Wherefore Bristowe falsely chargeth me to confesse that the Papists haue the error of abstinence from flesh on fasting dayes common with the auncient fathers of the primitiue churche For on their prescript fasting dayes except for necessitie they did eate neither fish nor flesh nor any thing vntill the euening As for the abstinence from meates against which Iouinian did teach was but such particular abstinence as some men prescribed to them selues not onely from fleshe but also from fish and wine also as appeareth by Hieronyme con Iouin lib. 2. Nec hoc dicinius quòd negemus pisces c. Neither say we this sayth Hieronyme that we deny fishes and the rest of meates if a mans will may be taken in meate but as wee preferre virginitie before marriage so fasting and the spirite before fulnesse flesh Likewise in diuers places he speaketh of the abstinence from wine Furthermore he chargeth me to bring no proofe of that I say the fathers tooke prescript times of fasting and vnmeasurable extolling of sole life in the clergie from the Tatianistes Manichees Montanistes If I brought no proofe in that place it was because I presupposed that Allen knewe what Eusebius reporteth out of Apollonius lib. 5. Cap. 18. That Montanus was the first that prescribed lawes of fasting And that the Manichees in their electes and the Tatianistes in their perfectes allowed not marriage out of Epiphanius Augustine But where I charge the Papistes which Aerianisme for abstinence from flesh Bristowe sayeth I take Richard for Robert because the Aerians abstained from fleshe as the Manichees Tatianistes Montanistes as perteining to the yll god according to the heresie of the Valentinians Admit it were so yet how caÌ„ either Richard or Robert dischardg them selues
describeth that which was seldome or neuer vsed among them rather then that which was vniformely obserued in all their meetinges But out of the scripture I reason affirmatiuely reiecting all the beggerly ceremonies of poperie because God is to be worshipped in spirite truth and yet in an other place I admit som furniture therefore saith Bristowe that I haue misused this text with much babbling to little purpose Mine answere is that although some external rites are necessarie for order and decencie yet the true and proper worshippe of God is onely in spirite and veritie and consisteth not in externall rites no not when they are best vsed Secondly against popishe lessons responses versicles lewde lyes and vncertaine tales read and songe as Gods seruice c. I alledged Mathewe 15. In vaine doe they worship me c. Here he taxeth mine ignorance in the scripture saying that the precepts of men are those which be of men and not of GOD. And are not lewde lyes and vncertaine tales such yea all your vaine distinctions of popish seruice for which you cannot shewe any one commaundement of GOD nor allowance of the Godly Church but of the synagogue of Sathan which your beggerly Logike craueth in this aunswere to be taken for the Catholike Church of Christ. After this he chargeth me to falsifie the Councel of Laodicea cap. 59. when I say it decreed That nothing should be song or read in the Church but the Canonicall bookes of the holie Scripture Vnto which accusation I aunswere that I gaue the summe of the Councel truely and without any falsification That nothing should be read in the Church beside the Canonicall bookes of the Scripture which are there named Bristowe confesseth and the wordes of the Canon are plaine This is sufficient to ouerthrowe Popish lessons where of nine most commonly not one is of the Scripture But Bristowe will make three Councels of Carthage ca. 47. to expound this Canon of Laodicea where it is commaunded that nothing be read vnder the name of the diuine Scriptures but only the Canonical Scriptures If this exposition were allowed yet Popish seruice is not discharged for therein the Machabees and other Apocryphall Scriptures which the Councel of Laodicea doth reiect are read as the diuine Scriptures And as for matters to be soung the Councel reiecting Psalmes made by vnskilfull persons meaneth to admit none but either the Psalmes and Hymnes of the Scripture or at least such as are consonant vnto them and therefore would neuer haue admitted that blasphemous versicle or what the diuel so euer you call it Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit Fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas ascendit By the bloud of Thomas which for thee he did spend Make vs Christ to climbe whither Thomas did ascend Nor a great number of such not onely vnlearned songs but wicked and hereticall ditties that are contained in your Popish portuise Where I said the festiuall daies were kept of the primitiue Church not in honour of the Saints as they are of the Papistes but only for the memorie of the Martyrs c. to imitation Bristowe opposeth a saying of Augustine which to imitation addeth consociation to the merites and aide of their praiers Cont. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21. As for fellowship of their worthinesse is the fruit of imitation the helpe of their praiers is a smacke of that declining time which Bristowe alwaies obtrudeth to vs as the onely primitiue Church which I vnderstand for the first Church of the Apostles and that which was most auncient next vnto them Where I cite out of Augustine de ver rel cap. 55. that Saints and Angels were of Christians in his time honoured with loue not with seruice for imitation not for religion First Bristowe asketh whether he doth not expressely here auouch their honouring Yes verily and as expressely he denieth that they are to be honoured with seruice of religion But seruitus with Bristowe is not the Latine of the Greeke word Dulia it is but mine vnacquaintance is Saint Augustines writings If mine acquaintance in S. Augustines writings were as smal as his skill is in the Greeke language I might be accounted a great straunger in them But let vs heare what Bristowes familiaritie with Saint Augustine hath found of the signification of Dulia De ciuit Dei lib. 10. cap. 1. Latriam quippe nostri vbicunque c. Where so euer in the holie Scriptures is put Latria our interpreters haue translated it seruitus c. verie well therefore the olde Latine interpreters iudged Latria and Doulia to be all one For euen so haue they translated Doulia alwaies by the word seruitus as Exod 6. 13 20. Rom. 8. Gal. 4. 5. Heb. 2. Wherefore Saint Augustine not finding a proper Latine worde to expresse the worship of God and chosing Latria the Greeke word doth onely shewe howe it was his pleasure to vse the terme and not what the worde doth properly signifie For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differeth not from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in signification as euen Suidas doth confesse although he say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a seruice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for wages And therefore like a learned Grecian Bristowe saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is synonomum to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is neuer vsed but for worship of GOD or superstition or religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a generall name for any kinde of seruice due either to GOD or men But what shall I reason with such a blocke as challengeth all authenticall seruice that euer hath bene in any Church to be the Popish seruice although it differ from it both in forme and matter euen as before he saide that Iustines description is the verie summe of the Masse Concerning the tongue in which the seruice is Bristowe saith it maketh no difference in the seruice it selfe but because I holde that it ought to be in the vulgar tongues he will consider my groundes thereof First the fourteenth of the first to the Corinthians proueth it not because he speaketh there of a miraculous gift of tongues A strong reason I promise you nay much rather if a speciall gift of the holie Ghoste must giue place to the edifying of the Church much rather an vnknowne tongue superstitiously vsurped must be abolished Secondly he saith Saint Paule doth not reiect the gift but moderate it for the varietie of certaine much like to some Protestantes that thinke all learning to be the tongues and quoteth Pur. 7. It was not meete that Saint Paule should reiect a gift of the holie Ghost but shewe the right vse of it But where Bristowe noteth me to thinke all learning to be the tongues and quoteth the place he sheweth him selfe to bee a shamelesse lier for although I exemplifie such learning as is most necessarie for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures by knowledge of tongues and rationall sciences yet it followeth
I vsed in the Chapter last before But Sander exclaimeth against the shamelesse interpretation of heretikes which imagine that S. Paul said he that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christs â—â—â—per refuseth to eate by faith the bodie of Christ sitting in heauen 〈◊〉 guiltie of not eating Christs bodie Who euer heard of such a 〈◊〉 Nay rather who euer heard of such a lie For which of yâ— Sacramentaries as you call them doeth so interprete S. Paul Although we say that he is guiltie of Christs bodie which contemneth the same in his Sacrament and either receiueth it negligently or els refuseth to receiue it contumeliously For not only the reprobates receiue vnworthily but sometimes also the elect of whome the Apostle especially speaketh disswading them from receiuing vnworthily wherby as by other sinnes they pro uoke God to punish them deserue eternal damnation if god should deale with them according to their deserts But to condemne a man for eating the bodie of Christ who did eat only the figure of it semeth great vniustice to Sander And yet the scripture neuer saith that any maÌ„ is condemned for eating the bodie of Christ but for eating the Sacrament vnworthily he is guiltie of the bodie bloud of Christ wherof that is a Sacrament Tush saith Sander if it were so meant the talk of Saint Paul would no more hang together then if it were said he that toucheth vnworthily the kinges garment is guiltie of murthering his person I answer first the Sacrament of the bodie bloud of Christ is a thing that more neere coÌ„cerneth Christ then the kings garment doth concerne the king therfore the similitude is nought but yet he that with contempt toucheth the kings garment is guilty of coÌ„tempt of the kings person And he that of malice thrusteth his weapon through the kinges garment might iustly be guiltie of murthering his person euen so and much rather as the neglect or contempt of the Lords sa crament is lesse or more so much is the guiltines against the Lords person although his bodie bloud be no more touched by the contemners then the kings person by the abusers of his garment image crown scepter seal or instrument Sander after this professeth that he is loath to heap vp in this place the manifold witnesses of the auncient fathers coÌ„cerning that euil men eat Christs body whose words he hath partly touched before li. 2. Cap 3. And I am as loth to repete that I haue so often answered vn â—o him others therfore I wil only note the places wher 〈◊〉 fathers cited by Sander are both rehersed more at larg fully answered Namely Theodoret in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—llud autem c. In mine answer to D. Hesk li. 3 Ca. 52. Priâ—osius li. 3. Ca. 50 Sedulius 〈◊〉 Ca 49. S. Hierom in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. â—i 3. Ca. 54 Chrysost in Math. Hom. 83. li. 3 Cap. 46. Augustin de baptismo cont Donatist li. 5 ca. 8. li 3. ca 48. As for Haymo Theophylact late writers I wil noâ— staâ—d vpon their authorities There remaineth only Cy 〈…〉 l in Ioan. li. 9. Ca. 19. vpon these wordâ— Exiuit conti 〈…〉 Iudas went out by by after the supper c. which Sander citeth thus Timet diabolus benedictioris virtutem nâ— sâ—intillam in animo cius accenderit The aâ—uell feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing lest perhaps it might haue kindled a sparke of grace or of repentance in his minde But the words of Cyrill howsoeuer it bath pleased M. Sander to mangle them are thus Timet vt credo diabolus ne morando locus poenitentiae detur quasi a temulentia mentem suam rectius cogitans homo cripiat hac de causa festinat impellit Nam etiam Iudam cùm post panem omnino se parauerit tum moram tum benedictionis virtutem timens ne scintillam in animo eius accenderit ac inde illuminauerit ad meliora retraxerit magna praecipitem agit ecleritate The diuel as I think feareth lest by tarying place might be giuen to repentance the man thinking better might deliuer his minde as it were from dronkennes For this cause he maketh haste driueth forward For with great celeritie he driueth euen Iudas hedlong when after the bread he had altogither prepared himself fearing both the delaie and the vertue of the blessing least it hath kindled a sparke in his minde and thereof hath lightened him and drawen him to better thinges This saying of Cyrillus doth no lesse differ in sense and vnderstanding from Sanders slanderous report of him then it doth in forme context of wordes from that which Sander affirmeth to be his saying For Cyrill plainly caleth it bread which Iudas had receiued Again it was the vertue of the blessing and not the presence of the body of Christ which the diuel feared What is this for the reall presence ACP. X. The reall presence is prooued by the kinde of discerning 〈◊〉 Lordes body First he laboureth to proue that the fault of the Corinthians was not malicious contempt of Christ but such contempt as riseth of negligence and lack of discretion TheÌ„ he reasoneth thus because S. Paul chargeth them to be guiltie not onely of Christes worship and name but also of his owne bodie and bloude with which fault he neuer burthened any other then the vnworthy receiuers or the Iewes that laide iniurious hands vpoÌ„ Christ at his death it must needes be that such a communicant receiueth Christs naturall bodie I answere not onely they are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloude which receiue the communion vnworthily and which laide violent handes on Christes person but euen they also that crucifie the sonne of GOD againe of whom the Apostle speaketh Heb. 6. verse 6. and corrupt the bloud of his Testament by which they are sanctified wholy Heb. 10. vers 29. Neither are they burthened with a greater fault then they committe which vnworthily receiuing the pledge of Christes presence are saide to offend against Christ himselfe But Sander vrgeth the argument of discerning further because the Apostle biddeth them put a difference betweene Christes bodie and all other meates or creatures in the world it is euident that none other meaâ—e or creature is present besides the bodie of Christ. I deny the argument which followeth as this He that despiseth circumcision hath broken the couenant of God as God saith Gen. 17 ergo circumcision is nothing but the couenant of God and not an outward seale and signe thereof He that despiseth Baptisme despiseth the bloude of Christ and the spirit of God by which baptisme is sanctified therefore the water of baptisme is the bloud of Christ or the holy Ghost really Wherefore he that discerneth not the Sacrament which is called and to the worthy receiuer is in 〈…〉 ede the body and bloud of Christ after a certaine ma 〈…〉 r from common meate is guiltie of the bodie and
singularly due but such a worship of which sorte there is but one and in the tenth hee saith such a worshipping that onely is which is due to God who as he hath no fellow in nature so he hath no partaker in honor I aunswere the veneration honor worship or reuerence due singularly to the sacrament is spoken of Augustine in comparison of all other meates and not of all other thinges in generall His wordes are Which did not discerne the sacrament from all other meates by a reuerence singularly due to it that is to say of all other meat onely the sacrament ought to haue that reuerence or honor Euen so the water of baptisme must bee discerned from all other waters veneratione singulariter debita by a veneration or reuerence singularly due vnto it being consecrated to the mysticall washing away of our sinnes and yet no diuine honor must be giuen to the water of baptisme Wherefore S. Augustine meaneth nothing lesse then that the sacrament shoulde bee worshipped as God man really present vnder those visible shapes of bread wine as Sander impudently doth slander him But it is worthie to be remembred saith he That Augustine vseth the word Sacramentum for the substance of Christes fleshe conteined vnder the signe of bread Who wil graunt this vnto Sander well if you will not graunt it he hath reason to prooue it For Augustine saith he would neuer haue granted that either the substance of materiall bread or the forme thereof ought to be honored For honor can be giuē to no vnreasonable creaturs Is this that Sander which defendeth the honoring of images or else be images reasonable creatures But hee careth not what he saith so he may seeme to say something to the matter in hande In deede Augustine woulde neuer defende that diuice honor shoulde be giuen to the sacrament but there is a kinde of honor which may bee giuen euen vnto the vnreasonable creatures not in respect of themselues but in respect of him to whome all honor and glorie is dewe if they be of him taken and appointed to any honorable vse Last of all we must consider what it should meane that Augustine saith The Sacrament may bee honored by our absteining sometimes from receiuing it into our mouthes whereas it is no honor to God if wee shoulde any moment absteine to feede on him by faith and in spirite Therefore it is a worthier kinde of substance which is receiued in the sacrament then the grace is which is the effect of spirituall eating For his grace cannot come except wee first bee made meete to receaue it But his bodie maye come to our bodies and so maie condemne vs before we are meete to receiue it To this friuolous collection I aunswere that there is no honor done to the Sacrament by absteining from it but by humilitie as the similitude of the Centurion declareth who counted himselfe vnworthie that the Lorde shoulde come vnder his roofe Againe Augustine defendeth not the acte of either of both partes as good of it selfe but making that to be indifferent he onely defendeth their intent and meaning which was to yeelde due reuerence to the Lordes sacrament the one by often receauing the other by humble intermission least the offences shoulde in their weake nature breede contempte of so high a mysterie For although wee ought continually to feed on Christ by faith yet it is not necessarie nor conuenient nor possible that the pledge and seale of this spirituall feeding shoulde euerie moment be receaued But only at such times as the Church Elders thereof shall thinke expedient for the renuing of our remembrance and confirming of our faith by the visible tokens of Christes institution So that no worthier substance can bee gathered to bee receaued in the Sacrament then the grace of God And where Sander saith that his grace cannot come except wee bee first made meete to 〈◊〉 I answere that we are not made meete to receiue the grace of God but onely by the grace of God preuenting all preparation of our owne As for his bodie comming into our bodies when it is prooued out of the worde of God it shal be graunted but not before Finally whereas he gathereth it is the same substance of Christ which is receiued of which the Centurion said I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe I answere he may no more vrge the substance of Christ in the one similitude of the Centurion then he wil alow me to vrge it is not the same substance by the other similitude of Manna which Augustine likewise vseth As for the same words of the Centurion vsed in the Lyturgie ascribed to Chrysostome in adoring the sacrament I denie that any adoration is meant vnto the Sacrament or that those wordes are spoken vnto the Sacrament but vnto Christ in heauen whose Sacrament that is What is said or done in the Masse booke I neither knowe nor care That Origen Hom. 5. in diuersos exhorteth them that receiue the Sacrament to vse that speach of the Centurion it prooueth neither adoration nor carnall manner of presence For immediatly before he hath these wordes Inerat nunc dominus sub tectuns credentium duplici figura vel more Nunc enim quando sancti Deo acceptabiles ecclesiarum antistites sub tectum tuum intrant tunc ibidem per eos dominus ingreditur Et in sic existimas tanquam dominum suscipient Et aliud quando sanctum cibum c. The Lorde doth now also enter vnder the roofe of the faithfull in a double figure or manner For nowe when the holy and acceptable to God the rulers of the Churches doe enter vnder thy roofe then euen there the Lorde by them doth enter And thinke thou euen as receiuing the Lorde him selfe And againe when thou receiuest that holy and incorruptible meate c. Beholde Origen saith Christ entreth in a figure and after such manner as he entreth by his ministers of which entrance hee teacheth man likewise to say Lorde I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe therefore this saying importeth no substance of the naturall bodie of Christ really present in the sacrament CAP. V. That the fathers of the first sixe hundreth yeares after Christ did adore the bodie and bloude of Christ in the sacrament of the Altar The first which is Dionysius falsely called the Areopagite could be no writer of the first 600. yeares whom neither Euseb. nor Hieronymus nor Germadius gatherers of all ecclesiasticall writers before their time did knowe Concerning his saying I referre the reader to mine answere to Heskins lib. 2. cap. 47. As for Pachymeres cannot be elder then his autor Dionyse on whom he writeth his Paraphrasis The next is Cyprian which lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith that our sacrifice is Christ but Christ is to bee adored saith Sander ergo the sacrifice which is the Sacrament I answere whatsoeuer after any manner is called Christ