only at this time but at many other times also bewrayed their naturall ignorance that the grace of God in their illuminatioÌ„ in due time afterward might appeare more glorious But doth it therefore followe that the sayings of Christe were hard or their vnderstanding darke A blinde man can not see the Sunne is it therefore a good conclusion that the Sunne is darke and not easie to be seene Howbeit it is well to be marked that once againe hee putteth difference betweene the liuely voyce of Christ and his word written in dead letters making opposition betweene The liuely voyce in the eare and the deade letter in the eye As though the vnderstanding of the scripture consisted either in the eare or in the eye when neither the eye hath seene nor the eare hath heard neither haue they ascended into the heart of man such things as God hath prepared for them that loue him 1. Cor. 2. Es. 64. But God hath reuealed them vnto vs by his spirit which spirit searcheth out al things euen the depthes or greatest secretes of god Neuerthelesse here is brought in Hieronyme ad Paulinum Habet nescio quid latentis energiae viua vox c. The liuely voyce hath I knowe not what hidden vertue and being vttered froÌ„ the mouth of the author into the eare of the disciple soundeth more strongly Wherfore Aeschynes when he was banished at Rhodes and that Oration of Demosthenes was read which he made against him when all men did woonder at it and praise it sighing he said What if ye had heard the beast himself sounding out his owne words This writeth Hieronyme to persuade Paulinê° not only to satisfie him self with his writings but also to trauel that he might so him heare him whom he had known before only by his writing that by the example not only of heathen Philosophers but also of holy men of the Church as the next wordes following immediatly do plainely testifie Haec non dico quod sit in me aliquid tale c. I say not these things for that there is in me any such matter whiche either thou mayest or art desierous to learne but bicause thy feruent heate and desire of learning ought to be commended euen without vs Thy wit is pregnant and commendable without a teacher 3. So farre is it off that Hieronyme meant to compare the word of Christ spoken with that which is writen whose force is as great by his spirite in the scriptures which this dogge calleth the deade letters as it was in his voyce when it was vttered But howe impudently the name of Hieronyme is abused against his plain iudgment wherby he not only alloweth lay men to read the scripturs but also confesseth that they receiue great fruit therby may appeare by this one place amoÌ„g many written in Esaiam libro 4. cap. 11. Frequenter euenit vt homines soeculi It commeth to passe verie often that lay men being ignorant of the mysticall sense are yet fedde with the plaine and simple reading of the scriptures 33. And in his epistle vpoÌ„ the same CoÌ„mentarie he affirmeth that Ignoratio scripturarum ignoratio Christi est Ignorance of scriptures is the ignorance of christ Shortnes will not suffer me to point the places only to the confusioÌ„ of the aduersary if any dout or would see more let them reade the places at the full The sixt All men haue not the gift of knowledge of prophesie nor of interpretation of tongues therefore euerie man hath not the vnderstaÌ„ding of the scripturs neither be they easie to be vnderstanded of euerie man. First I pray you note that he maketh interpretatioÌ„ of the scriptures and the interpretatioÌ„ of tongs al one secondly what force is in this reason all men haue not extraordinarie gifts of tongs of healing of knowledge of prophesie of interpretation of tongues c. Therefore the scriptures are so harde as they cannot be vnderstood by the ordinarie gifte of prophesie which is promised to all the seruaunts of God young olde men and women vpon whom his holy spirit is powred 10.2 Act. 2. I am ashamed to troble the readers with any more words in answer vnto such a grosse consequence The seuenth God hath ordeined first Apostles â–ª secondly Prophetes thirdly teachers c. Now if the scriptures be easie for euerie mans vnderstanding then either these states be superfluous or else euerie man is a teacher and prophete but this were a great absurditie therfore the scriptures are hard full of difficulties If a yong Sophister had D. Heskins in the scholes at Cambridge where somtime he hath been a Sophister he would with one common warde which is Nego consequentiam auoyde the pikes of all these seuen arguments Alas poore man is there no vnderstaÌ„ding of the scriptures but such as may make a man a teacher an extraordinarie prophete are there no degrees of knowledge but either the highest perfection or the depest ignorance Will this reason follow Men may profite in knowledge by reading therefore teaching is superfluous or this teaching is necessarie therfore reading is vnprofitable What shall I say to these reasons but that they are giuen ouer into a reprobate minde which are so furiously bent to withstand the trueth that they set not foorth so much as any shadowe of reason The second Chapter to proue that the scriptures be not easie reciteth certaine harde and obscure places of the olde Testamente The purpose of this Chapter as of the next also is al together foolishe and vnreasonable for who is so mad to denie but that ther are diuerse places both in the old and newe Testament which bee obscure and hard to be vnderstode not onely of the ignorant but euen of the best learned yet doeth it not therefore followe because something is harde therefore all is so or because some places in the scripture are harde therefore there is no profite in reading of all the rest But let vs see these places recited First he nameth all the prophetes the books of Iob the book of Psalmes the Preacher the song of Salomon Al which books in his iudgement are so hard as they cannot be vnderstoode without an interpreter Wel let vs graunt great difficultie to be in these books as in diuers other is all time lost therfore that is spent in reading of them The harder they be the more diligently they are to be red that they may be vnderstood The difficultie to good scholers will not dull but wheâ— â—heiâ— desire to learne â–ª to 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 to conferre to seâ—â—e 〈…〉 to find CoÌ„cerâ—ing Genesis he alledgeth out of Hieronyme the tradition of the vnbelâ—uing Iewes that they might not read it before they were 30 yeres olde But Hieronyme him self wold haue yong childrens tender tongs seasoned with sweet Psalmes â–ª and exercised in studie of the scriptures and Prophets which you M. Heskins professe to be so difficult For he instructing Laeta 〈◊〉 she should bring â—p her
the 58. verse he concludeth and sayeth plainly that it is the same breade that came downe from heauen and that who so eateth of this breade shall liue eternally Secondly that the promise of giuing his flesh is not to be restrayned to the giuing of the sacrament his wordes are plaine that he will giue his fleshe for the life of the worlde which all true Christians will acknowledge to haue beene perfourmed in the sacrifice of his death and not at his last supper Finally that his flesh must not bee separated from his spirit nor his spirit from his flesh he doth as plainly teach vs when he affirmeth that it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing that except we eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud we haue no life in vs For neither the flesh profiteth but as it is made quickening by the spirite neither do we participate the life of his spirite but as it is communicated vnto vs by his fleshe by which we are made fleshe of his fleshe and bone of his bone which holie mysterie is liuely represented vnto vs in the blessed sacrament And this your aduersaries confesse Maister Heskins not denying as you charge them that any one worde of that Chapter perteineth to the sacrament but affirming the sacrament to bee a seale of the doctrine which is deliuered in that Chapter and not otherwise The iudgement of the olde writers consonant to this vnderstanding shall followe afterwarde in confutation of M. Heskins vngodly and hereticall distinction not of the two natures in Christ but of participation of the one without the other which hee maketh by his two last breades The thirde Chapter proueth by the doctours that the sixt of S. Iohn speaketh as well of the bread Christes fleshe in the sacrament as of the bread his godhead Chrysostom is alledged in Ioan 6. Hom. 44. Iam in mysteriorum c. Nowe will he come to the setting forth of the mysteryes and first of his godhead he sayeth thus I am the breade of life this was not spoken of his bodie of which about the ende he sayeth The breade which I will giue is my flesh but as yet of his godhead for that is bread because of God the worde euen as this bread because of the spirite comming to it is made heauenly breade Maister Heskins asketh if we do not here plainely see a distinction of breades I answere no forsooth but a distinction of two natures in one breade Againe he asketh Doth not nowe the sixt of S. Iohn speake of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament I aunswere that no such thing appeareth by these wordes of Chrysostome otherwise then as the sacrament is a liuely representation of that his bodie which he gaue for the life of the world And that Chrysostome meaneth not to diuide Christe into two breades as M. Heskins doth he teacheth speaking of the same mysterie of his coniunction with vs by his fleshe Hom. 45. Vester ego frater esse volui communicaui carnem propter vos sanguinem per quae vobis coniunctus sum ea rursus vobis exhibui I would be your brother and so I tooke parte of fleshe and bloud for you and the same things I haue giuen you againe by which I was ioyned vnto you So that not the godhead of Christ alone nor his flesh alone is giuen vs as two breades but Christ by his flesh is ioyned vnto vs as one bread of life Let vs nowe see what S. Augustine sayeth who expounding the same text writeth thus Our Lorde determineth consequently howe he calleth him selfe bread not onely after his godhead which feedeth all things but also after his humaine nature which is assumpted of the worde of God when he sayeth afterwarde And the bread which I will giue is my flesh c. Once againe M. Heskins asketh whether Augustine teach not a plaine difference of the bread of the Godhead of Christe and the bread of his manhood And once againe I aunswer not so but he teacheth directly the contratie namely Christe God and man to be one breade and not two breades And that the doctrine of this Chapter is not to be restrained vnto the sacrament the same Augustine in the same place teacheth abundantly while hee maketh no mention of the Lordes supper vntill he come to the ende and then sheweth that the mysterie of this fleshe and bloud is represented in the supper when it is celebrated of the Church in remembrance of his death passiō Huius rei sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis sanguinis Christi alicubi quotidie alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Dominica mensa praeparatur de mensa Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit The sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ in some places euery day in other some at certeine space of dayes betweene is prepared in the Lordes table and is taken at the Lordes table of some vnto life of some vnto to destruction But the thing it selfe whose sacrament it is to all men is to life and to no man for destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker thereof Note here also the distinction betweene the sacrament and the thing wherof it is a sacrament and that the sacrament may be receiued to destruction but not the thing or matter of the sacrament which is the bodie and bloud of Christ. To these Barones he wil ioyne two Burgesses and the first shal be Theophylact one of them which he sayeth is well towarde a thousand yeare olde Hee woulde fayne get him credite by his antiquitie but he ouer reacheth too farre to make him so auncient which cometh nerer to fiue hundred then to a thousande yeares But let vs consider his speache in 6 Ioan. he writeth thus Manifestè c. He speaketh manifestly in this place of the communion of his bodie For the bread sayeth he which I will giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world And shewing his power that not as a seruant nor as one lesse them his father he should be crucified but voluntarily he sayeth I will giue my flesh for the life of the world Note sayth M. Hesk. that Christ spake manifestly of the communion of his bodie Who doubteth or denyeth that but that he spake not of the communion of his bodie which we receiue in the sacramēt Note saye I that Theophylact speaketh manifestly of his crucifying and nor of the communion in the sacrament After this he interlaceth a fond excourse of the authoritie of the later writers whome he affirmeth and wee confesse to haue written plainly of his side whereas hee sayeth the olde writers did write obscurely and then he taxeth Bullinger for alledging Zwinglius whome he slaundereth to haue
in one very substantiall flesh therefore the manner of participation of his flesh in the sacrament is also spirituall and not carnall Maister Heskins reiecteth this participation to bee the fruition of the benefites of his body and bloud crucified bycause that saith hee is common to all the sacraments and not proper to this But that the substaunce of all sacramentes is one and the difference is in the manner of dispensation of them wee haue shewed sufficiently in the first booke which were tedious nowe to repeate Wherefore we must now set downe what Chrysostome speaketh of the bloud of Christe This bloud maketh that the kinges image doth flourish in vs This bloud doth neuer suffer the beautie and nobilitie of the soule which it doth alwayes water and nourish to fade or waxe faint For bloud is not made of meate soudenly but first it is a certaine other thing But this bloud at the first doth water the soule and indue it with a certaine great strength This mysticall bloud driueth diuelles farre off and allureth Angels and the Lorde of Angels vnto vs For when the diuelles see the Lordes bloud in vs they are turned to flight but the Angels runne foorth vnto vs This bloud being shed did wash the whole world whereof Paule to the Hebrues doth make a long proces This bloud did purge the secrete places and the most holy place of all If then the figure of it had so great power in the temple of the Hebrues and in Aegypt beeing sprinkled vpon the vpper postes of the doores much more the veritie This bloud did signifie the golden altar Without this bloud the chiefe priest durst not goe into the inward secret places This bloud made the priestes This bloud in the figure purged sinnes in which if it had so great force if death so feared the shadowe how much I pray thee will it feare the truth it selfe This bloud is the health of our soules with this bloud our soule is washed with it she is decked with it she is kindled This bloud maketh our minde cleerer then the fire more shining then golde The effusion of this bloud made heauen open Truely the mysteries of the Church are woonderfull the holy treasure house is woonderfull From Paradise a spring did runne from thence sensible waters did flowe from this table commeth out a spring which powreth foorth spirituall flouds Chrysostome in these wordes doth extoll the excellencie of the bloud of Christe shed vpon the crosse the mysterie whereof is celebrated and giuen to vs in the sacrament and therefore hee saith it is Mysticus sanguis mysticall bloud which wee receiue in the sacrament which word Mysticall M. Heskins a common falsarie hath left out in his translation to deceiue the vnlearned reader Hee laboureth much to proue that Chrysostome spake in this long sentence of that sacrament which is needlesse for as he spake of the sacrament so spake he of the passion of Christe and of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the olde lawe and all vnder one name of bloud By which it is more then manifest that hee vseth the name of bloud figuratiuely and ambiguously therefore nothing can bee gathered thereout to fortifie M. Heskins bill of the naturall bloud of Christ to be in the challice The honourable titles of the sacrament proue no transubstantiation nor carnal presence in this sacramēt more then in the other The same Chrysostome vpon Cap. 9. ad Heb. Hom. 16. sheweth howe the bloud of Christ that purged the old sacrifices is the same which is giuen vs in the sacrament of the new testament Non enim corporalis erat mundatio sed spiritualis sanguis spiritualis Quomodo hoc Noune ex corpore manauis Ex corpore quidem sed a spiritu sancto Hoc vos sanguine non Moses sed Christus aspersit per verbum quod dictum est Hic est sanguis noui testamenti in remissionem peccarorum For that was no corporall cleansing but spirituall and it was spirituall bloud Howe so Did it not flowe out of his body It did in deede flowe out of his body but from the holy spirit Not Moses but Christe did sprinkle you with this bloud by that worde which was spoken This is the bloud of the newe testament for the remission of sinnes Thus let Chrysostome expound him selfe touching the mysticall or spirituall bloud of Christe which both was offered in the old sacrifices and nowe feedeth vs in the sacrament if it were in the olde sacrifices naturally present then is it so nowe if the vertue onely was effectuall so is it also to vs and no neede of transubstantiation or carnall presence The sixt Chapter proceedeth in the opening of the vnderstāding of the same text of S. Iohn by Beda and Cyrillus Although Beda our countriman were far out of the compasse of 600. yeres and so vnfitly matched with Cyrillus a Lord of the higher house yet speaketh he nothing for the corporal presence of Christes body in the sacrament but directly against it His words vpon this text of Saint Iohn are these Hunc panem Dominus dedit c. This bread our Lord gaue when he deliuered the ministerie of his body and bloud vnto his disciples when he offered him selfe to his father on the altar of the crosse And where he saith for the life of the world we may not vnderstand it for the elementes but for men that are signified by the name of the worlde In these wordes Beda according to the custome of the olde writers and the doctrine of the Church of Englande in his time and long after calleth the sacrament the mysterie of the body bloud of Christ and not otherwise Yet M. Heskins pythely doth gather that as he calleth the flesh of Christ on the crosse breade and yet it is verie flesh so the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament is called bread yet it is verie flesh Alas this is such a poore begginge of that in question videlicet that the fleshe of Christ is in the sacrament according to his grosse meaning that I am ashamed to heare it Why might he not rather reason thus the fleshe of Christe on the crosse is called bread and yet it is not naturally bread euen so the bread of the sacrament is called flesh yet it is not naturall fleshe It is plaine that breade in that texte of Iohn is taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode and so the flesh and bloud of Christ on the crosse is our food and the same is communicated to our faith in the sacrament Cyrillus in 6. Ioan. by M. Heskins alledged speaketh neuer a worde either of the sacrament or of Christes corporall presence therein Antiquus ille panis c. The old bread was onely a figure an image and a shadowe neither did it giue to the corruptible bodie any thing but a corruptible nutriment for a little time But I am that liuing and quickening breade for euer And the breade which I will giue
ignorance which knoweth not the vertue and dignitie thereof which knoweth not that this bodie and bloud is according to the trueth but receiueth the mysteries and knoweth not the vertue of the mysteries Vnto whome Salomon sayth or rather the spirite which is in him When thou sittest to eat with a Prince attende diligently what things are set before thee He also compelling openly and constraining him that is ignorant to adde a fifth parte For this fifth parte being added maketh vs to vnderstande the diuine mysteries intelligibly Nowe what the fifth parte is the wordes of the Law giuer may teache thee For he sayth he shall add a fifth parte with that he hath eaten And howe can a man adde a fifth parte of that which he hath alreadie eaten and consumed For he biddeth not another thing or from any other where But a fifth parte to be added of it or with it or as the 70. interprete vpon it Then the fifth parte of it vpon it is the worde which was vttered by Christ him selfe vpon the Lordes mysterie For that being added deliuereth and remoueth vs from ignorance as to thinke any thing carnall or earthly of those holie things but decreeth that those thinges shoulde bee taken diuinely spiritually which is properly called the fifth part for the diuine spirite which is in vs and the worde which he deliuered doth sett in order the senses that are in vs and doth not onely bring foorth our taste vnto mysterie but also our hearing sight and touching smelling so that of these things which are verie high we do suspect nothing that is neare to lesse reason or weake vnderstanding This place M. Hesk. noteth that the mysteries are called a most holy thing and a sacrifice We confesse it is a most holy thing a sacrifice of thanksgiuing for so the fathers meant and not a propitiatorie sacrifice Moreouer he noteth that it is called the verie bodie and bloud in verie deede Although the wordes of the author sounde not so roundly yet let that be graunted also what is then the conclusion Marie then haue ye a plaine place for the proclaimer issue ioyned thereupon that no one writer of like auncientie sayth it is not the verie bodie For thè plainesse of the place I wish always that the author may be his own expositor First where he sayth that the fifth part added maketh vs to vnderstand the mysteries intelligibly that is as he vseth the terme spiritually mystically although M. Hesk. translate intelligibiliter easily Secondly where he sayth wee must thinke nothing carnally or earthly of the holy things and that the worde of God decreeth that they should be taken diuinely and spiritually As for the issue it was ioyned tryed in the one and twentieth Chapter of the first booke But wee must heare what Hesychius sayth further Quicunque ergo sanctificata c. Whosoeuer therfore shal eat of the things sanctified by ignorance not knowing their vertue at we haue saide shall adde a fifth parte of it vpon it and giue it to the Priest into the sanctuarie For it behoueth the sanctification of the mysticall sacrifice and the translation or commutation from thinges sensible to things intelligible to be giuen to Christ which is the true Priest that is to graunt and impute to him the miracle of them because that by his power and the worde vttered by him those things that are seene are as surely sanctified as they exceede all sense of the flesh Out of these words M. Hesk. would proue transubstantiation because he saith there is a translation or cōmutation from things sensible to intelligible that is from bread which is perceiued by the senses to the body of Christ which in this manner is not perceiued by senses But M. Hesk. must proue the bodie of Christe to bee no sensible thing but a thing which may be perceiued by vnderstanding only or else his exposition wil not stand for here is a diuision exposition of things sensible intelligible which is a plaine ouerthrow of popish transubstantiatiō carnall presence for that wherunto the things sensible are changed is not a sensible thing as the naturall bodie of Christ is but they are changed into things intelligible ▪ that is which may only by vnderstanding be conceiued so is the spiritual feeding of our soules by faith with the verie body bloud of christ Next Augustin is cited in Ps. 33 a place which hath ben cited answered more then once alreadie Et ferebatur c. And he was carried in his own bāds Brethren how could this be true in a man c. I will remit the reader to the 10. Chap. of this second book where it is answered by Aug. him self in the same exposition Christ caried himself saith Aug. in his hands quodam modo after a certaine manner but not simply Maister Hesk. iangling of an onely figure hath bene often reproued wee make not the sacrament such an onely figure as Dauid might carrie in his handes of him selfe for Dauid could make no sacrament of him selfe but such a figure as is a diuine and heauenly worke to giue in deede that it representeth in signe An other place of Augustine is cyted De Trin. lib. 3. cap. 4. but truncately as he termeth it for he neither alledgeth the heade nor the feete by which the scope of Augustines wordes might be perceiued But the whole sentence is this Si ergo Apostolus Paulus c. If therefore the Apostle Paule although hee did yet carrie the burthen of his body which is corrupted and presseth downe the soule although he did as yet see but in part and in a darke speach desiring to be dissolued and to bee with Christ groning in himself for the adoption wayting for the redēption of his body Could neuerthelesse preach our Lord Iesus Christ by signifying otherwise by his tong otherwise by his Epistle otherwise by the sacrament of his body bloud for neither his tong nor the parchments nor the ynke nor the signifying sounds vttered with his tong nor the signes of the letters written in skinnes do we call the body and bloud of Christ but only that which being taken of the fruits of the earth being consecrated with mysticall prayer we do rightly receiue vnto spiritual health in remembrance of our Lords suffring for vs which when it is brought by the hands of mē to that visible forme it is not sanctified that it shuld be so great a sacramēt but by the spirit of god working inuisibly whē God worketh al these things which in that work are done by corporall motions mouing first the inuisible parts of his ministers either the soules of men or of secret spirits that are subiectes seruing him what maruel is it if also in the creature of heauen earth the sea al the ayre God maketh what he wil both sensible and inuisible things to set forth him selfe in them as he him selfe knoweth it shuld
Ambrose following Vide c. See all those be the Euangelists words vnto these words Take either the bodie or the bloud from thence they be the wordes of christ Note euery thing Who saith he the day before he suffered tooke breade in his holie hands Before it be consecrated it is bread but after the wordes of Christe be come vnto it it is the bodie of christ Finally heare him saying Take ye eat ye all of it this is my bodie And before the wordes of Christ the cuppe is full of wine water after the wordes of Christ haue wrought there is made the bloud which redeemed the people To the like effect be the words taken out of his treatise de oration Dom. Memini c. I remember my saying when I entreated of the sacraments â–ª I told you that before the wordes of Christ that which is offered is called bread when the wordes of Christ are brought forth nowe it is not called bread but it is called his bodie Here M. Hesk. triumpheth in his consecration of the vertue therof But he must remember what Ambrose saith De ijs qui myster initiant Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus c. Our Lord Iesus him selfe doth speake alowde This is my bodie before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is named another kinde but after the consecration the bodie of Christ is signified And lib. de Sac. 4. Cap. 2. Ergo didicisti c. Then hast thou learned that of the bread is made the bodie of Christ that the wine water is put into the cup but by consecration of the heauenly word it is made his bloud But peraduenture thou sayest I see not the shew of bloud But it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud that there may bee no horror of bloud yet it may worke the price of redemption Here M. Hesk. for all his swelling brags hath not gained one patch of his popish Masse out of the auncient writers for none of them vnderstoode consecration to cause a transsubstantiation of the elements into the naturall bodie of Christe but only a separation of them from the common vse to become the sacraments of the bodie bloud of christ As for the foolish cauil he vseth against protestants refusing to follow the primitiue church for loue liking of innouation is not worthie of any reputation for in al things which thei followed Christ most willingly we folow theÌ„ but where the steps of Christs doctrin are not seene there dare we not follow them although otherwise we like neuer so well of them The sixe thirtieth Chapter declareth what was the intention of the Apostles fathers in about the consecratioÌ„ in the Mass. M. Hesk. will proue that their intention was to transsubstantiate the bread wine into the bodie bloud of christ And first the idol of S. Iames is brought forth on procession in his Liturgie which M. Hesk. had rather call his Masse Miserere c. Haue mercie vpon vs God almightie haue mercie vpoÌ„ vs God our Sauiour haue mercie vpon vs ô God according to thy great mercie send down vpon vs vpoÌ„ these gifts set forth thy most holy spirit the Lord of life which sitteth together with thee god the father the only begotteÌ„ sonne raigning together being consubstantiall coeternall which spake in the law the prophets in thy newe testament which discended in the likenesse of a doue vpon our lord Iesus Christ in the riuer of Iordan abode vpon him which descended vpon thy Apostles in the likenesse of fierie tongue in the parler of the holy glorious Sion in the day of Pentecost send down that thy most holy spirite now also ô lord vpon vs vpon these holie giftes set forth that comming vpoÌ„ theÌ„ with his holie good glorious presence he may saÌ„ctifie make this bread the holy body of thy Christe and this cup the precious bloud of thy Christ that it may be to all that receiue of it vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes and life euerlasting M. Heskins saith he would not haue prayed so earnestly that the holy Ghost might haue sanctified the bread and wine to be onely figures and tokens which they might be without the speciall sanctification of Gods spirite as many things were in the lawe As for only figures and tokens it is a slaunder confuted and denyed a hundreth times alreadie But what a shamelesse beast is he to affirme that the sacraments of the olde lawe which were figures of Christe had no speciall sanctification of the holy Ghost or that baptisme which is a figure of the bloud of Christ washing our souls may be a sacrament without the speciall sanctification of Gods spirite you see howe impudently he wresteth and wringeth the wordes of this Liturgie which if it were graunted vnto them to be authenticall yet hitherto maketh it nothing in the world for him But let vs heare how S. Clement came to the altar Rogamus vt mittere digneris c. We pray thee that thou wouldest vouchsafe to send thy holy spirite vpon this sacrifice a witnesse of the passions of our Lord Iesus Christ that he may make this breade the body of thy Christ and this cup the bloud of thy Christ. Here saith M. Heskins his intent was that the bread and wine should be made the body bloude of christ And so they be to them that receiue worthily But M. Heskins will not see that he calleth the bread and wine a sacrifice before it is made the body and bloud of Christ by which it is plaine that this Clemens intended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice as the Papistes pretend to do S. Basil in his Liturgie hath the same intention in consecration Te postulamus c. We pray and besech thee ô most holy of al holies that by thy wel pleasing goodness thy holy spirit may come vpon vs and vpon these proposed gifts to blesse and sanctifie them to shew this bread to be the very honourable body of our Lorde God Sauiour Iesus Christ and that which is in the cup to be the very bloud of our Lord god sauiour Iesus Christ which was shed for the life of the world Of this praier M. Hes. inferreth that Basil by the sanctification of the holy ghost beleeued the bread and wine to be made Christes body bloud he meaneth corporally traÌ„substantially But that is most false for this praier is vsed in that liturgie after the words of consecration when by the Popish doctrine the body and bloud of Christe must needes be present imediatly after the last sillable vm in hoc est corpuâ— meâ—um pronounced Wherefore seeing the Author of this Liturgie after the words of coÌ„secration pronounced praieth that God will sanctifie the breade and wine by his spirite and make it the body and bloud of
sacrifice of thankesgiuing or a memoriall of the sacrifice of Christ by which it is easie to iudge howe the doctrine that the Papistes do nowe holde of the propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse doth agree with the auncient Liturgies ascribed to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church The eight and twentieth Chapter treateth of the prayer for acceptation of the oblation or sacrifice made in the Masse and vsed as well by the Apostles as the Fathers That the Apostles and Fathers commended to God by prayers the sacrifice which thei offered it is a manifest argument that they offered not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe for that needeth no commendation of our prayers They prayed therefore that their sacrifice of thankes giuing and duetifull seruice celebrated in the memorie of Christes death might be acceptable to God as you shal see by al their prayers First the Liturgie vntruly ascribed to Iames praieth thus Pro oblatis c. For these offred and sanctified precious heauenly vnspeakable immaculate glorious feareful horrible diuine gifts let vs pray to our Lord God that our Lord God accepting them into his holy heauenly mentall and spirituall altar for a sauour of spiritual sweet smell may giue vs againe and send vnto vs the diuine grace and gift of the most holy spirite These sanctified giftes can not be the body and bloud of Christe which are holy of them selue but the bread and wine sanctified to be a memoriall of the death of Christe in a spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing Saint Clement if wee beleeue Nicholas Methon prayed thus Rogamus c. We pray thee that with mercifull and cheerefull countenaunce thou wilt looke vpon these giftes set before thee thou God which hast no neede of any thing and that thou mayest be pleased with them to the honour of thy Christ. These wordes are plaine that he offered not Christe but the breade and wine to bee sanctified to the honour of Christe namely that they might be made the body and bloud of Christe to as many as receiue them worthily In the Liturgie imputed to Basil the Priest prayeth thus Dominum postulemus c. Let vs desire the Lorde for these offered and sanctified the most honourable giftes of our Lorde God and for the profite of the goods of our soules that the most mercifull God which hath receiued them in his holy heauenly intelligible altar for a sauour of sweete smelling would send vnto vs the grace and communion of his holy spirite The same wordes in a manner be in the Liturgie fathered vppon Saint Chrysostome though it be manifest that it was written seuen hundreth yeares after his death as is shewed before Pro oblatis c. For the offered and sanctified precious giftes let vs pray the Lorde that our mercifull God who hath receiued theÌ„ in his holy heauenly intelligible altar may send vs therfore grace the gift of the holy Ghost Maister Heskins would haue vs note that these Fathers seeme to pray for their sacrifice which we note very willingly for thereby is proued that their sacrifice was not the very body of Christ for that nedeth no commendation of our prayers Wel S. Ambrose followeth Lib. de Sacr. 4. Cap. 6. Petimus c. We pray and desire that thou wilt receiue this oblation in thy high altar by the handes of the Angels as thou hast vouchsafed to receiue the gifts of thy seruant righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that which thy high Priest Melchisedech offered to thee The very name of gods heauenly mental intelligible holy high altar do argue a spirituall sacrifice and not a reall oblation of the naturall body and bloud of christ Next to these Liturgies Maister Heskins adioyneth the wordes of the Canon of the Popish Masse agreeing in effect with these of Ambrose but nothing at all in vnderstanding For that the Papistes esteeme their sacrifice to be very Christ God and Man which none of the auncient fathers did For which cause the Bishop of Sarum iustly reproued those three blasphemies in their Canon not in respect of the words but in respect of their vnderstanding of them The first that they seeme to make Christ in his fathers displeasure that he needeth a mortall man to be his spokesman The second that the body of Christe should in no better wise bee receiued of his father then a Lambe at the handes of Abel The third that they desire an Angel may come and carie away Christes body into heauen These three blasphemies M. Heskins taketh vpon him to auoyde or excuse To the first after many lowd outcries and beastly raylings against that godly learned father of blessed mâ—mory he answereth defending it first by example of these auncient Liturgies that they prayed for their sacrifice but this helpeth him not for they neither thought nor saide that their sacrifice was very Christe God and Man but a sacrament and memoriall of him Afterward hee saith the meaning of their Church is not to pray for Christe but by Christ to obtaine fauour bicause they say in the end of euery prayer per Christum Dominum nostrum by our Lord Christ. But this hole is too narrowe for him to creepe out at For he confesseth that he prayeth for his sacrifice and he affirmeth that his sacrifice is Christ therfore he praieth for Christ. To auoyde the second blasphemie hee saith that the meaning of their Church is not to pray that God will accept the sacrifice which is acceptable of it selfe but their deuotion and seruice and them selues the offerers as hee did accept Abell and his sacrifice c. and so flyeth to the example of the olde Liturgies but that will not serue him For their sacrifice was not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ but a seruice and duetie of thankesgiuing in remembrance of Christe And therefore they might well pray that their sacrifice might be accepted as Abell and his sacrifice as Noe and his burnt offering and so of the rest but this meaning will not stande with the wordes of their Canon which are that God will accept the sacrifices that is the body and bloud of Christ as hee accepted the giftes of his iust seruaunt Abell c. Therefore they must either chaunge the wordes of the Canon or his aunswere to the second accusation by the meaning of their Church can not stande howe so euer Hugo Heskins would seeme to salue or rather to daub vp the matter To the third and last hee aunswereth denying that the meaning of their Church is that the body of Christe should be caried by an Angel but that their prayers should bee offered by an Angel or Angels in the sight of GOD making a long and needlesse discourse of the ministerie of Angels and howe they offer our prayers to GOD which is nothing to the purpose For the Maister of the sentences affirmeth that an Angel must be sent to
defile my name what so euer they sanctifie to me I am the Lorde Say to them and to their families Euery man that is of your seede and commeth to the holy things what so euer the children of Israel shall sanctifie vnto the Lord and his vncleannesse be vpon him that soule shall be rooted out of my presence I am the lord Such threatnings are set foorth against them that only come to those thinges that are sanctified by men But what shall a man say against him which dare be bolde against so greate and such a mysterie For looke howe much greater a thing then the temple is here according to the Lords saying by so much the more greeuous and fearefull it is in the filthinesse of his soule to touch the body of Christ then to touch Rammes or Bulles for so the Apostle hath saide wherefore he that eateth the bread and drinketh the cup of the Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lorde But more vehemently and also more horribly he doth set foorth and declare the condemnation by repetition when hee saith Let euery man examine him selfe and so let him eat of this bread and drinke of this cup. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his condemnation not discerning the Lordes body If then he that is onely in vncleannesse and the propertie of vncleannesse we learne figured in the lawe hath so horrible a iudgement howe much more he that is in sinne and presumeth against the body of Christ shall draw vnto him selfe horrible iudgement First I will note M. Heskins falsifications which are two the one as it seemeth partly of ignoraunce of the Greeke tong partly of greedinesse to drawe Basils wordes to his vnderstanding for where the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heere is a thing or one greater then the temple he turneth it looke howe much greater this is then the temple as though hic which is an Aduerbe were a Pronoune The other is altogether of malitious corruption for he translateth his Latine Contra corpus Christi audet which is He dareth presume against the body of Christe hee translateth it Hee dareth to presume vpon the body of Christ as though he receiued the body of Christe Nowe he noteth two differences in these wordes of Basil the one of the sacrifices of the olde lawe which were Bulles and Rammes the other of the newe lawe which is the body of Christ. But in the wordes of Basil there is no mention of any sacrifice of the newe lawe onely he compareth the ceremonies of the olde lawe with the heauenly part of the sacrament of the newe Testament which we confesse to be the body and bloud of Christ. The second difference is the vncleannesse of the lawe made vnworthie partakers of the sacrifices but deadly sin maketh men vnworthie receiuers of the body of Christe Yet hath Basil no such wordes of receiuing the body of Christ by wicked men Onely he denounceth their grieuous punishment that presume against the body of Christ when with vnreuerence and vnrepentance they presume against such and so high a mysterie as the blessed sacrament is and this is the plaine sense of his wordes without any cauilling If M. Heskins will vrge their touching of the body of Christ it is a very nice point and must either be referred to a figuratiue speach or else it will breede infinite absurdities Basils mind is plaine the wicked ought not to presume to touch the blessed sacrament which after a certaine manner of speaking is the body of Christe But he annexeth an other place of Basil Dominê° dicens c. The Lorde saying Here is one greater then the temple teacheth vs that he is so much more vngodly that dare handle the body of our Lorde which hath giuen him selfe for vs to be an oblation and offering of sweete sauour by howe much the body of the onely begotten sonne of God exceedeth Rammes and Bulles not in reason of comparison for the excellencie is incomparable This place saith Maister Heskins proueth well that the receiuer of the sacrament receiueth the body of the onely begotten sonne of God and not a bare figure for else howe should hee sinne incomparably by receiuing vnworthily I aunswere hee sinneth incomparably not bicause he receiueth the body of Christe vnworthily but bicause the body of Christe being offered vnto him to be receiued he doth contemne it refuse it most vnthankfully and iniuriously Againe Basil doth here compare the outward signes or elements of the old sacrifices with the thing represented and offered by our sacrament the like speaches he hath of Baptisme But that you may heare him saith Maister Heskins by most plaine wordes teach that the body of Christe is receiued of euill men hearken what he saith de baptism lib 1. cap. 3. Si verò is qui c. If he that for meate offendeth his brother falleth from charitie without the which both the workes of great giftes and iustification do nothing auayle What shall a man say of him which idly and vnprofitably dare eate the body and drinke the bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ But M. Heskins to make it seeme more plaine on his side hath cut off those wordes which doe plainly declare that Basil speaketh not of wicked men that are voyde of the spirite of God but of such as be not zealous and earnest ynough to practise mortification reuocation therefore it followeth immediatly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thereby much more greeuing the holy spirite which wordes being added to the former doe plainely testifie that Basill speaketh not of wicked and vngodly persons but of the faithful in whom the spirite of God was and yet they had not so great care of profiting in newnesse of life as they ought to haue For against the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idly and vnprofitably he opposeth afterwarde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 earnestly and effectually so that those Aduerbes idly and vnprofitably are spoken in comparison and not simply as if he saide they take nothing such paines in mortification as they should they profite nothing in comparison that they might by the Lordes body which labour not to be renewed according to his spirite and as he saith they grieue the spirit of God whereby they are sealed to eternall life when they doe not with more earnestnesse and profite come to the Lordes table The second Authour Hierome is cited in Psal. 77. Haec de his c. These wordes are spoken of them which forsooke GOD after they had receiued Manna For nowe in the Church if any man be fed with the flesh and bloud of Christ and doth decline to vices let him knowe that the iudgement of God doth hang ouer him as Paule the Apostle saith He that shall take the body and bloud of our Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde I maruell what Maister Heskins meaneth to alter the wordes of Hierome for he
is so truely honourable as those who continued to the end of their life according to that image of GOD wherevnto they were first made such are all the Saintes Setting the question of images aside see howe he honoureth the Saintes with the dishonour of the redemption of Christ which was needlesse to them if they continued in the image of God in which they were first made The Apostle witnesseth that by Christe we are restored vnto the image of God from whom by sinne we are fallen Coll. 3. ver 10. For to say that any man hath cōtinued according to the image of God to his liues end is to say that he neuer sinned Furthermore he saith their images are made in the faith of Gods church A wholsome faith which is cōtrarie to Gods word yea he concludeth there is no doubt but by the force of Gods word we are bound to honour Saints images bicause thei are made according to the shape of them in that behalfe as they were most like vnto god First where is that worde of God M. San by whose force we are bound You seeme to be an anthropomorphite when you say that Saintes images are made according to the shape of them in that behalfe as they were most like vnto god For the images of Saints when they are best made are made but according to the shape of their bodies And were the Saints most like to God in the shape of their bodies O brutish heretique But let vs see an other conclusion in this Popish proportion Our Ladies image approcheth neerer to hir in nature then she doth approch to God therefore her image must be more honored for her sake then she her selfe for Gods sake By the former proposition we must learne that the man which made our Ladies image is able to make a truer image thē God who made our Ladie to his image For to compare the substances of the images is nothing to the purpose to shew the excellencie of the images as you your selfe M. San. in your Metaphysicall abstractions haue taught vs For an image of stone being like to a man is a better image then one of golde being not like to him I say a better image not a better matter And will you now compare the matter of our Ladies image for so you cal her as liker in nature to her substance then her substance is to God to proue her image in it more to be honoured then the image of God in her Truly if you be so insensible that you see not that grosnesse of this falshod I am ashamed in respect of that Vniuersitie which gaue you the title of a Doctour not worthie with these arguments to step out of the schooles of the sophisters Last of al you reason thus the image of God in vs may be dimned darkned insomuch that men haue ben worshipped as Gods but our Ladies artificial image being onely knowne or called by the name of her shape and image can neuer be principally worshipped as our Lady her selfe You play the sophister too foolishly for no more can a man so long as hee is knowne and called by the name of the image similitude of God b◠principally worshipped as God him selfe But that name forgotten man hath bene worshipped as God so hath the image of our Ladie bearing the name of our Ladie bene worshipped as her selfe or rather as GOd him selfe neither hath the insensiblenesse of images defended them from daunger of being worshipped as God. An other testimonie of scripture that Pope Adrian citeth is Gen. 28. of the stone which Iacob set vp right for a monument or standing image saith M. San. and powred oyle vpon it and called the name of the place Bethel that is the house of god Therefore we may set vp images and honour them a substantial reason For make as mysticall interpretations as you can of the stone to signifie Christe the oyle the spirituall vnction of the holy Ghost yet was it no image but a signe or monument erected in remembrance of the vision by a speciall instinct of Gods spirite which when the Israelites would drawe into an example of wilworship erecting a temple there and setting vp an image thereon the place was called of the Prophetes Bethauen that is the house of vanitie and not Bethel the house of god O see the 4.5 10. Chapter And whereas Augustine noteth that although he called the stone Gods house yet hee worshipped not the stone neither sacrificed to the stone nor called it God You thinke to escape by aunswering that no more doe you adore images of stone with godly honour or with any honour for the stones sake But Augustine denyeth that he resorted afterward to it that he adored the stone with any honor at al or in any respect or that he did any thing like to idolatrie but you adore the image of Christ cal it Christe and goe a pilgrimage to it therefore Iacobs example can not shrowd you from idolatrie For although the annoynting of the stone were a consecration of it to be a holy monument by a speciall direction of Gods spirite yet it followeth not that it was any adoration of the stone or that euery man may set vp and annoynt stones after that manner which hath no such warrant of Gods worde or his spirite And that God chose one place aboue another for his honour it proueth not that men may choose one stocke aboue another to make an idoll thereof or an image to worship as you had rather call it The thirde text of scripture is that Iacob adored the toppe of Iosephs rodde or scepter Heb. 11. Which Sedulius saith did mystically betoken the kingdome of Christ to be honoured in the end of the worlde as he adored the rodde or scepter of his sonne Yet is there here no image honoured Nay here is not the toppe of Iosephe◠scepter honoured out of the scripture For the Hebrue text is He worshipped toward the bedshead Gene. 47. vers 31. And the Greeke text Heb. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he worshipped toward the end of his staffe or leaning vppon the end of his staffe So that neither in the Hebrue nor Greeke there is any worshipping of the staffe or scepter of Ioseph The 4. text of scripture God appearing to Moses bad him pull off his shooes for the place where he stoode was holy ground The presence of God made the ground-holie What then Therefore an image appointed to bring vs to the remembraunce of holie thinges may be holy honoured I denie the argument where is the presence of God in the image to make it holie The 5. Dauid honoured the Arke and daunced before it The Arke was a holie sacrament ordeined by God therefore hath he nothing to do with images forbidden of God. The 6. God cōmandeth the brasen serpent to be made Nu. 21. Shewe the like speciall commaundement to dispense with the general lawe Thou shalt not make
except they denied the institution of the sacrament patterne of reformation to be conteyned in the scriptures But if it be granted saith M. Rast. whiche is to farre absurde that S. Paule did reduce the Corinthians to the first originall and institution Why doe not rich men now bring meate to the Church and receiue the sacrament after they haue filled their bellies Forsooth because Christe instituted no such maner of suppers And why saith he do you not washe one anothers feete hauing a commandement so to do But if this commandement be litterally to be vnderstanded why doe you Papistes breake it If it be not why do you require that of vs which you confesse is not required to be done of any Humilitie is commaunded whereof our Sauiour Christe gaue vs example in that fact that God graunt we may obserue the outwarde ceremonie he commanded not to be obserued of any but that which was signified thereby ▪ And whereas Maister Rastell compareth the receiuing of both kindes by the lay people with that ceremonie of washing of feete to make it seeme that the iustitution of Christ might be altered in the one aswell as in the other he declareth what reuerence or estimation he hath of the institution of Christe For as that ceremonie of washing of feete is and may be altogether omitted as he fantasieth by the authoritie of the Church so not only one kind of the sacrament but both kindes also may be likewise taken away both from the people the priest if it please the Churche of Rome If he denie the conclusion what hath he gayned by the argument of that example Or what hath he proued against this our assertion that nothing is to beleeued without the expresse worde of God conteined in the scriptures SECTIO 3. From the first face of the 19. leafe to the second of the 23. leafe Of the disagreement of the Gospellers Whereas the Bishop had saide that the light of the Gospell is now so mightily and so farre spread abroade that it was to be hoped no man would lightly misse his way as before in time of darkenesse and perish wilfully it offendeth M. Rastel that he should boast of this glorious light of the Gospel which he a most obstinate blinde man will not vouchsafe to see Likewise that he calleth the heresie of Papistrie the darkenesse of the time afore And he would knowe where this glorious light of the Gospell is to be seene Concerning the light of Poperie because the Kingdome of the beaste by Gods iudgement is darkened in these partes of the worlde where he is knowen to sitte which maketh M. Rastel and his complices to gnaw the tonges for anger he is faine to demonstrate the light a farre off beyond the reache of any mans eyes sight among the newe found landes and the wilde Indians conuerted as he saith not by the Protestants but by Popish monkes and Friers Although it were easie to proue that protestantes also haue planted some Churches in those newe founde landes as in Gallia Antartica but what follie were it to boast of that How far and wide the Gospel is spread in Europe he that is so blind that he will not see who can make him acknowledge it Euen Italy Spaine haue yeelded great numbers of Martyrs confessors Al other regions of Europe in a maner at this day haue either vtterly banished Papistry or at lest by publik authoritie giuen libertie to the Gospel as England Ireland Scotland Flanders Holland France Germanie Denmark Bohemia Polonia Hungaria Suetia Gothia c. But M. R. seeing he cannot shewe his Popishe light abroade he wil shewe it in corners of mens harts because as he supposeth there is neuer a citie in which there is not some Papistes and therefore he wil conclude that the Gospel is not mightily and farre spread abroade By which reason he may proue that it neuer was nor shall be mightily spread abroade for euer there haue beene and shal be enimies that will not imbrace it Another reason he would seeme to bring of sixe diuers kindes of Gospellers wheras therere is but one Gospel which is a fond malicious cauill for I can bring more then 16. kinds of Papists which differ in some opinions and ceremonies wheras al the difference he can assigne amongst them that be truly accounted professors of the Gospell is either in one article of the sacrament or else in outward rites and ceremonies which cannot exclude any of them from the possession of the Gospel so long as they al agree in the doctrine of eternal saluation He vrgeth vs as Tertullian did the Marcionistes heretikes of his time to shew the beginnings of our Churches which wee do daily when we approue our doctrine to be grounded vpō the foundation of the Prophets Apostles bringing in no new Gospel as those heretikes did whereof they could not deduce the beginning from the Apostles Euangelistes of christ And whereas he saith we haue no one vndouted true iudge teacher or faith because we read Luther the Doctors old new with iudgement that is because we builde not our faith vppon any one man as they do vpon their proude Pope but vpon Christ his eternall word I answer we haue a most certein faith groūded vpon the teaching of a most holie maister euen the spirite of Christ in his word who is a most vndouted iudge both for wisdome authoritie to determine all controuersies Wheras the Papists building altogether vpō men haue no vndouted iudge teacher or faith not only because al men are liers vnconstant by corrupt nature but also because they cannot agree among themselues whether the Pope or the councel is the superior iudge teacher or rule of faith But M. Ra. as the rest of the Papists do gloryeth much that we haue receiued the gospel frō the Pope whose iudgment in expositiō therof we shold as well receiue as we acknowledge his fidelitie in keeping it without corruption But we vtterly denie that we haue receiued the Gospell from the Pope but rather from the Greeke Churche neither doe we acknowledge any fidelitie of the Pope in keeping of the Gospel whome we accuse of shamefull corrupting the Latine text therof and as for burning of the Books either he could not the same being dispersed into so many copies or he needed not when he persuaded al men that the Gospell had none other sence but that it pleased him to frame vnto it Finally when Pope Leo the tenth accounted the Gospel nothing else but a fable of Christe whiche brought them so great honor and wealth as who seeth not either how reuerently the Pope preserued the Gospell or for what cause he kept it vndestroied Finally M. Rastels prophane iesting of riding post to heauen declareth himselfe to be a right Papist that is to say an Atheist which maketh a scorne of religion and of the hope of the life to come euen as the same
iustice that Dauid doeth promise to execute against al the wicked of the land Psalm 101. to incourage men to cruelty and contention but all in vaine like as his purpose for which he alledgeth them was wicked namely to ouerthrowe the true and naturall sense of the scripture But yet the same Origen is directly against maister Heskins in that cause for which he is alledged as appeareth plainely in Leuitici cap. 16. Hom. 9. An tu putas qui vix diebus fectis ad Ecclesiam venis c. Thinkest thou whiche scarcely commest to the Church vpon the holy dayes giuest no heede to heare the wordes of God nor takest any paines to fulfill his commandements that the Lordes lot can come vppon thee Yet we wish that after you haue heard these things you would take paines not only in the Church to heare the wordes of God but also at home in your houses to be exercised and to meditate in the Lawe of the Lorde day and night Go your wayes now and boaste of Origens authoritie that the scriptures are not to be read of all men when in a publique Sermon he exhorteth all the people to the diligent reading of them and sharply reproueth them for their negligence in this behalfe The third Chapter to declare the newe Testament not to be easie to be vnderstanded â–ª bringeth diuers obscure places of the same As I said before there was neuer man yet so foolish to affirme the scriptures to be so easie that there was no obscure place in them but that nothing needful to saluation is so obscure in them but that it may be easily vnderstoode by conference of other places where the fame is most plainely set foorth But let vs see his wise reasons to proue the new Testament to be hard bicause some places therein be hard to be vnderstanded The Euangelistes Matthewe and Luke seeme to varrie in the Genealogie of Christ therefore all is not easie What then They both doe manifestly agree in that which is materiall for our faith â—hat Christe was the seede of Abraham and the sonne of Dauid In the rest what straunge matter is it if one pedegree be brought from one principall ancester by seuerall discents lineall and collaterall natural and legall by the male and by the female â–ª For the second obscure place Chrysostome is alledged who Numbereth it among the hid thinges howe Elizabeth being of the tribe of Leuie may be called the cousen of Marie A perillous doubt in solution whereof though a number be ignoraunt yet I doubt not but they may be saued And yet by conference of the stories of scripture it is easie to finde that men of the tribe of Iuda might marrie of the Priestes daughters and the Priestes did marrie euen of the Kings daughters of Iuda By which mariages cousenage might easily be vnderstoode to growe betweene the two tribes â–ª notwithstanding the lawe of Num 36. Which did forbid only those marriages by which the inheritances might be confounded The third doubtfull place is in Marke 13. Where it is said that Of that day and houre knoweth no man no not the Angels in heauen nor the sonne him selfe but the father And Chrysostome is againe alledged to shewe that this is a doubtful place and yet a simple Christian that knoweth the two diuers natures in Christ humane and diuine can easily solute it and say that although Christe by his godhead knoweth all things yet as he was man he knewe not all things The fourth proofe is taken out of the example of Algasia and Hedibia two godly women and studious of the scriptures whereof the one found twelue the other eleuen doubtes in the newe Testament and sent to S. Hieronyme for resolution of them I maruell M. Heskins hath so small discretion to alledge these examples which do quight ouerthrowe his purpose If not onely men but women also may read the scriptures and profite so well in the studie of them that they can finde but eleuen or twelue doubts in the whole newe Testament for resolution whereof they did as became good schollers send so farre for the iudgement of their learned maister But M. Heskins not content to shewe that they douted will also set downe some of their douts namely this one moued by Algasia Why Iohn the Baptist should send his disciples to Christ to aske this question Art thou he that shalt come or do we looke for an other seeing he both knewe openly pointed at Christ with his finger before Although this good woman doubted of this matter yet it is easie to answer that theÌ„ he sought the instructioÌ„ of his disciples rather then the confirmation of his owne knowledge An other was moued by Hedibia Howe Christ in Iohn 20. forbad Marie to touch him when Matthew 28. affirmeth that the women held his feete It seemeth to M. Heskins that one of these must be vntrue I dare say it seemed not so to Hedibia although she could not perfectly reconcile these places But seeing that both these reports are true it is plaine ynough that he suffered Marie Magdalene to holde his feete so much as was sufficient to confirme the certeintie of his resurrection forbad her not vntil she shewed her self too much addicted to his bodily preseÌ„ce Another doubt is howe Marke saith the women came to the sepulchre when the Sunne was rysen and then saith Marie Magdalene came early in the morning when it was yet darke A woman sitting at her distaffe woulde easily solue this doubt and say that it was darke when they set foorth of their dores but the Sunne was risen by that time they came to the Sepulchre Yet another doubt of Hedibia whether Christ breathing on his Apostles gaue them the holie Ghost when he promised to send him after his ascension There is no doubt but he did then in some small measure but afterwardes sent him with most plentifull vertue and power To conclude what needed Austen to haue written a great volume De consensu Euangelistarum what needed the comentaries of Hieronyme Ambrose vpon the Euangelistes or the Homilies of Chrysostome Augustine and the expositions of so manie learned men c. if the Scriptures be so plaine easie O foolish conclusion as though the Scriptures may not planely set foorth vnto vs all things necessarie for vs to learne and yet the same things with all other things conteined in them be set forth more plainly largely to the instruction increase of our faith hope comfort obedience c. by Comentaries Homelies expositions yea admonitions and exhortations The fourth Chapter conteineth certeine hard places of the Epistles M. Heskins taketh great paines in those Chapters to proue that which no man doubteth of that there be some hard and darke places in the Scriptures and yet it followeth not but that the Scriptures are a light vnto our steppes a lanterne vnto our feete the worde of the Lord giueth wisedome vnto
exercise of patience confirmation of faith Then the Epistle to the Hebrues hath two sore sentences Heb. 6. 10. For it is not possible that they which were once lightened and haue tasted of the heauenly gift and were made partakers of the holie Ghoste and haue tasted of the good worde of God and of the power of the world to come if they fall away should be renewed againe by repentance seeing they crucifie againe to them selues the Sonne of God and make a mocke of him And againe For if we sinne wilfully after we haue receiued the knowledge of the trueth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinnes but a fearefull looking for of iudgement and violent fire which shall deuour the aduersaries The difficultie of these places resteth in one point and in a manner in one worde in eche of the sentences For the Apostle excludeth not from repentance euery one that falleth and sinneth but him onely which sinneth so wilfully that he falleth cleane away from christ For then there is no repentance nor remission because he sinneth against the holie Ghost as did Iudas Alexander the coppersmith Iulian the Apostata such like The contention of Hieronyme Augustine about Peters dissimulation is the last example of difficultie which did not arise of any obscuritie of the place but of Hieronymes immoderate and ouer great zeale to defend Peter where the holie Ghost saith plainly he was worthie to be reprehended But for as much as these two great doctors could not agree about the exposition of this place it doth not so much declare the hardnesse of the Scriptures as it doth discourage vs to finde the certeine exposition of them at all times in the iudgement of the doctours which both in this place and many other are not onely diuers but oftentimes contrarie one to another The conclusion of the Chapter is not all amisse wherein he dissuadeth not men from reading the scriptures but from rashnesse of iudgement and exhorteth the readers of them to humilitie and modestie that so the spirite of GOD may rest vppon them which will leade them into all trueth The first Chapter declareth the mindes and iudgements of the Fathers and Doctours vpon the difficultie of the scriptures It is not ynough for this bold Burgesse to trouble the house in prouing that which no man doth gainesay but he wil also charge men with impudencie and arrogancie which giue him no occasion of this his long and vaine speache But herein he sheweth his witt more then his honestie For bicause he can not disproue that which they say he laboureth to proue that which they do not denie And nowe of the doctours substantially no doubt Origen must beginne who saith That these wordes of Paule Brethren you are called into libertie Gal 5. is an hard place and that the holy Ghost must be found in the scriptures with much labour and sweat c. We say likewise with Dauid that the godly mans studie must be in the lawe of the Lorde day and night But that Origen would not for the difficultie of the scriptures dissuade any Lay man from reading of them is manifest by this place in Gen. Capit. 26. Hom. 12. Tenta ergo tu ô auditor habere proprium puteum proprium fontem vt tu cum apprehenderis librum scripturarum incipias etiam ex proprio sensu proferre aliquem intellectum secundum ea quae in Ecclesia didicisti tenta tu bibere de fonte ingenij tui Assay therefore thou ô hearer to haue a pit of thine own a spring of thine owne that euen thou also when thou takest in hand the booke of the scriptures maiest beginne to bring foorth some vnderstanding of thine owne wit and according to those thinges which thou hast learned in the Churche assay thou also to drinke of the spring of thine owne witte Here Origen will not only haue men to reade the scripture but also incourageth them to seeke out the interpretation by their owne studie But Hieronyme next to Origen in his Epistle to Paulinus both noteth diuerse obscure places in the scripture and also counselleth Paulinus to vse the helpe of interpreters And who is it that mislyketh his councel especially if it be to exhort one that meant to be a teacher in the Church as Paulinus was Yet neuerthelesse we shewed before that Hieronyme would haue euen infantes brought vppe in the knowledge of the scriptures and exhorteth not onely men but women also to the studie of them and commendeth husband men and labourers for their knowledge of the scriptures And although he confesse the questions of Algasia to be full of difficulties yet he both commendeth her studie in the scriptures and desire to be resolued in her doubtes Yet Basill teacheth that all the scriptures are not to be published and made common For there are poyntes of learning or of doctrine that are to be kept close and the obscuritie which the scripture vseth is a kinde of silence so framing those points of learning that a man may hardly vnderstand them The wordes of Basil are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is according to Erasmus translation exercising a minde vnapte for the contemplation of this doctrine and that for the profite of them that exercise them selues in the scriptures Which last wordes M. Heskins hath fraudulently left out and so he is cleane contrarie to M. Heskins purpose Although Basill speaketh not expressely of reading the Scriptures by the faithfull but of publishing the mysteries of Christian religion that were receiued by tradition without Scripture For in his short definitions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this question whether it be expedient that they which are new come to the faith should be instructed in the holie Scriptures he aunswereth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This question may be dissolued by those things that were sayde before For it is both conuenient necessarie that euery man for his neede should learne out of the diuine Scriptures both for the certeine persuasion of godlinesse also that he be not accustomed vnto mans traditions But S. Ambrose also in fewe words saith much to this matter calling the Scripture of God the great sea hauing in it a deepenesse without bottome of deepe senses vnderstandings into the which many floods do enter But this letteth not S. Ambrose vpon 118. Psal. Serm. 1. to exhort the laye people to read the Scriptures Et tu lege prophetam vt videat lege vt apperiat os tutum And thou also read the Prophet that thou mayst see read that he may open thine eyes And againe Quod sisugias lectionem propheticam si domi non legas in ecclesia audire nolis c. But if thou flye from the reading of the Prophetes if thou read not at home thou wilt not heare in the Church but while thou feinest to heare those things that are read c. And if in your iudgement
which the holy Ghost in expresse words denyeth Heb. 7.11 But the first that figureth both the priesthood and sacrifice of the new law is Melchisedech So that this priesthood is peculiar only to our sauiour Christe as both Dauid Psal. no. and the Apostle to the Hebrues the 7. do proue it there is no doubt but Melchisedech was a figure of Christ But what sacrifice hee offered the scripture maketh no mention neither is M. Heskins able to shewe For first he hath rehearsed the historie of him which is written in Gen. 14. And Melchisedech king of Salem brought foorth breade wine and he was a priest of the most high God Therfore he blessed him saying blessed is Abraham of God most high possesser of heauen and earth and blessed be the most high God which hath deliuered thine enimies into thine hande And Abraham gaue him tithe of all In which words there is no mentioÌ„ of any sacrifice Afterward he compareth him in all those points in which the Apostle to the Hebrues doth Heb. 7. Which are these that he was king of rightuousnesse and king of peace without father without mother without kinred on earth Hauing neither beginning of dayes nor end of life but is likened to the sonne of God and continueth a Priest for euer that he blessed Abraham and that Abraham payde tythes vnto him In all which applications there is not one worde of any sacrifice Neither in the apostle nor in M. Heskins therefore as I sayde in the beginning M. Heskins hath not satisfied the title of his Chapter And verily the Apostle in these two pointes onely considereth the Priesthoode of Melchisedech that he blessed Abraham which had the promises and receiued tythes of him in whose loynes Leuie the father of Aarons Priesthoode was tythed who vndoubtedly would not haue omitted the sacrifice of breade and wine if there had bene any when he applyed the interpretation of his name which was a great deale lesser matter And surely it seemeth that Maister Heskins could not handsomely frame an application thereof else would he not haue admitted so plausible a matter and so commonly prated of among the Papistes He sawe first in the text was no mention of oblation secondly if there had bene oblation of bread and wine it would not well haue figured that sacrifice wherein they say is neither bread nor wine The fourteenth Chapter declareth after the minde of Chrysostome that Iob was a figure of Christ for the desire his seruants had to eate his flesh Maister Heskins doth well to adde after the minde of Chrysostome for it is plaine by the text that the words of eating his flesh are meant of hatred and not of loue Either that Iobs seruaunts shewed their desire to be reuenged of their maisters enimies of whoÌ„ he speaketh in the two verses before or else as Saint Hieronyme thinketh that he had procured his seruants hatred for his intertainment of straungers and other vertues mentioned in the next verse following Pro hospitalitatibus eius virtute quae caeterâ— sancti Deo placuerunt odium seruorum contraxerat So that this matter standeth not vpon any certaine figure of the scripture but onely vpon Chrysostomes minde vnto which you heare the contrarie minde of Hieronyme But â—owe let vs consider what the authoritie of Chrysostome maketh for him his wordes are as he cyteth them out of Hom. 45. in 6. Ioan. Vt autem non solùm per dilectionem c. But that we should be conuerted into that flesh not onely by loue but also in deede it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath giuen vs For when he would shewe his loue toward vs he hath mixed himself with vs by his body and made himself one with vs that the body might be vnited to the hed These last words For this is the maner of them that loue especially in M. Heskins traÌ„slation are left out I know not for what causes peraduenture of negligence This did Iob signifie by his seruants of whome he was loued especially which declaring their loue did say Who would giue vs that we might be filled with his flesh Which thing Christe did that he might binde vs to him with gâ—â—â—ter loue and that he might shewe his desire that he had to vs suffering him selfe not onely to be seene of them that desire but also to be touched and eaten and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh and all to be filled with the desire of him Wherefore let vs rise from that table as Lyons breathing fire terrible to the diuell and let vs knowe our heade and what loue he hath shewed vnto vs Parents haue oftentimes giuen their children to be nourished of other but I doe feede with mine owne flesh I giue my selfe vnto them I fauour all I giue an exceeding good hope to all of things to come He that giueth him self so vnto vs in this life much more in the life to come I would be your brother and I tooke flesh and bloud with you for your sakes and by what thinges I am ioyned to you the same I haue giuen to you againe In this long speach of Chrysostome what is there that maketh for Maister Heskins bill that hee hath promoted into the Parleament house and not rather altogether against it For first it can not bee necessarily concluded out of this place that Chrysostome speaketh of the Lordes supper but rather of that table meate giuing and eating of Christes flesh which is spoken of in the sixt of Saint Iohn where no worde is of the sacrament or supper which at that time was not instituted Secondly if we should neuer so much vnderstand this speach of the sacrament yet must we graunt it to be figuratiue or else there wil folow infinite absurdities beside such as M. Heskins affirmeth Wherfore I will reason thus Christ by this saying of Chrysostome is none otherwise eaten then he is seene but he is not seene corporally but spiritually by faith therefore he is not eaten corporally but spiritually by faith And likewise thus as Christ is touched and teeth fastned in his flesh so is he giuen or eaten but he is not touched corporally or naturally nor teeth fastned in his flesh corporally but spiritually therefore hee is not giuen nor eaten in the sacrament corporally but spiritually The maiors of these argumeÌ„ts are Chrysostoms words the minors are the confessions of the Papistes which affirme Christes body to be in the sacrament inuisibly and doe correct the recantation of Berengarius where he affirmed that the body of Christ is torne with the teeth the conclusions I trust be rightly inferred But nowe let vs see what handsome stuffe M. Heskins gathereth out of this text of Chrysostome First that we are ioyned to Christe two wayes by loue and by the thing it selfe Which in other termes is called spiritually and really Marke this wise diuision of spiritually and really as though such things as are ioyned spiritually
prefigurate the truth of his body likewise For it importeth an equalitie of both their doings Melchisedech by breade and wine did represent or prefigurate the truth of his body and Christ also by breade and wine did represent the truth of his body For Christ could not doe also that which an other had not done Therefore very foolish are M. Heskins oppositions of typicall passeouer and true passeouer and figure and truth where the argument is a consentaneis and not a dissentaneis The other friuolous interpretation that he maketh of the bread comforting mans heart being both out of the minde of Hieronyme and out of his purpose I omit At length hee commeth to an other place of Hieronyme ad Heliodorum Ep. 1. Absit vt de ijs quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt God forbid that I shuld speake any euil of thē which succeeding the apostolike degree doe make the body of Christ with their holy mouth M. Heskins translateth it which do consecrate bicause in the word make which Hieronyme vseth hee should be enforced to acknowledge a figuratiue speach But let him turne ouer all his vocabularies Calepines and dictionaries vnto which he sent vs ere while and he shall not finde this Verbe conficio signifying to consecrate but to make to dispatch or to kill Likewise he leaueth out these wordes which folowe immediatly Per quos nos Christiani sumus by whome wee also are Christians It is euident that Hieronyme speaketh hyperbolically of the dignitie of priestes for as to speake properly we are not made Christians by them no more is the bodie of Christ made by them But where he speaketh properly he vseth proper tearmes as Contra Iouin lib. 2. In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum In the figure of his bloud he offered not water but wine Here he calleth the sacrament the type of his bloude and saith it is wine And in the same booke he saith of Christ that although it be written of him that he hungred and thristed and went often to diner yet excepto mysterio quod in typum suae passionis expressit probandi corporis veritate nec gulae scribitur seruisse nec ventri Excepting the mysterie whiche he expressed in figure of his passion and in prouing the trueth of his bodie it is not written that he did serue his throte or bellie Meaning that it is not saide expressedly what he did eate and drinke but onely a◠his last supper and after his resurrection to proue the trueth of his body The other collection that hee maketh that because priestes doe consecrate with their mouthe therefore the faith of the receiuer maketh not the presence of Christ in the sacrament beside that it is not Hieronymes word yet it proueth nothing because as there be causes that worke altogether alone so there be causes which be helping and concurre with other of which sorte is the faith of the receiuer necessarilie to conceyue with the ministerie of the Minister that Christ may bee present That Christian Priestes should not be contemned if they be good it is easily graunted if they be naught the ministerie is to bee honoured but not the person Out of Chrysostom are alledged two long testimonies the one out of his homilies de prodit Iudae But by that also an other greater benefit was shewed that that lamb was a signe of the lambe to come and that bloude shewed the comming of the Lordes bloude and that sheepe was an example of the spirituall sheepe That lambe was a shadowe this lambe the trueth But after the sunne of righteousnesse shined the shadowe was put away by the light And therefore on the same table both the passeouers were celebrated both that of the figure and that of the trueth For as painters are wont to shadowe the table that is to be painted with certayne lineamentes and so with varietie of colours to make it perfecte Euen so Christ did in the table Hee did both describe the figure of the Passeouer and shewed the passeouer of trueth Where wilt thou that wee prepare for thee to eate the passouer That was the Iewish passouer but let the passouer giue place to the light and the image be ouercome of the trueth If this place be well considered it maketh altogether against the Bill of transubstantiation For the similitude of the Painters Table hauing in it shadowes and colors applyed vnto the pascal lambe and the sacrament declareth that they both together make a perfect image to shew and represent the true lambe Christ which was offered for vs the olde pascall being the shadowing the new sacramēt which he calleth also a passouer being the varietie of colors by which the passouer of trueth is discribed and plainely shewed Therfore M. Heskins collections are vaine and from the authors meaning For his purpose is not to make the pascall lamb a figure of the sacramēt but of christ and both the lamb the sacrament figures of Christ but yet the lambe a shadowing figure like the first draught of a painter the sacrament a cleare demonstration like an image in colors It is therfore verie babish that he groūdeth vpon the word of the Passeouer shewed in the table that the bodie of Christ was really present on the table in the sacrament wheras it is plain that Chrysostom speaketh of shewing by signes as by colours an image is set forth in a painted table As childish it is that he will oppresse the proclamer to tell him why Hierome and Chrisostom call not the Iewish pascal light trueth veritie as they doe our pascall seeing by it they receiued Christ◠as well as wee in our sacramente A sore matter The Iewishe pascall represented if I may vse that tearme vnder correction of M. Heskins dictionarie the true pascal Christ as our sacrament doeth who is the light trueth and veritie the sacramente they call not the pascall lambe light nor trueth but by a figure as they call it manye other thinges But when they speake properlie they vse other tearmes so doth Chrysostome Homi. Ex. Psal. 22. 116. Sapientia ędificauit sibi Domum supposuit columnas septem parauit mensam suam misit seruos suos conuocans omnes dicens venite edite de panibus meis bibite vinum quod miscui vobis quia istam mensam preparauit seruis ancillis in conspectu eorum vt quotidie in similitudinem corporis sanguinis Christi panem vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sacramento ideo dicit parasti in conspectu meo mensam aduersus eos qui tribulant me Wisedome hath builded hir an house shee hath set vnder seauen pillers shee hath prepared hir table shee hath sent foorth her seruantes calling all men to hir and saying come and eate of my breade and drinke of the wine that I haue powred foorth for you and because
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
elementes of our sacraments By which it is manifest that spirituall thinges and not carnall thinges are the substance of our sacraments Nowe to M. Heskins collections He saith that the old sacrifices of the lambe were not figures of the sacrament denying now in one word that he laboured to proue before in 7. Chapters but of the bloudie sacrifice of Christ offered vppon the crosse after the maner of Aaron Concerning the sence of Augustines words let the readers weigh my collection his by Augustines place and by the rest of the Epistle that is of the same matter But marke here once againe that hee maketh the sacrifice of Christs passion a sacrifice after the maner of Aaron and consequeÌ„tly Christ a priest after the maner of Aaron directly contrarie to the scriptures in expresse words Heb. 7. Secondly he vrgeth that which Augustine saith we nowe receiue bloud in the cup by which he wil exclude the distinction of spirituall receiuing But all in vaine except he can conclude that we receiue partem de agni immaculati corpore part of the vndefiled lambes bodie For if the one be spirituall so is the other I am sure the naturall bodie of Christ is not deuided into parts but wee do spiritually receiue nourishmeÌ„t al of one bodie To be short if that which Augustine addeth of spirituall newnes succeeding carnall oldnes were not a sufficient demonstration of a spirituall receiuing I woulde bring other places of Augustine to shewe the same most plainly But the thing being so apparant I will not mistrust the iudgement of any indifferent reader so much as to trouble him with more testimonies which shall better come in where more shewe is for M. Heskins bill But we must passe ouer to Isychius whose wordes are set downe at large in Cap. 24. Leui. The verie number of the loaues doth call vs to a contemplation of the coÌ„mandement So doth the setting forth of theÌ„ that he doth not coÌ„mand theÌ„ to be made a burnt offering as those things which be of the frying pan of the girdiron of the fornace but that they shold be set on the table one ouer against an other that it shold be lawful only for the priestes to eat of theÌ„ not for the Leuites so that they also must eate theÌ„ in a holy place And also that they are called holie of holies vnderstand what is said for the Lord shall giue thee vnderstanding remember the mysticall table of which it is commaunded that none should beginne except the intelligible Aaron that is Christe For he began it first excepte also his sonnes which by him are made Christes and haue put on him which yet they are commaunded to eate in a holie place And hee is that holy of holies that they may haue a principall and vndespised sanctification These loaues of two tenthes for they are of God and man of the same being perfect in both are set sixe ouer against sixe The mysticall supper is set here and it is set in the worlde to come Sixe loaues are one proposition or setting foorth as the mysterie it seâ—fe is perfecte and maketh them that enioye it perfecte And in sixe dayes this visible creature was made and the sixt day man was made for whome Christe prepared his mysticall table But yet altogether are rightlie twelue loaues because the Apostles that were twelue in number first supped at the Lordes table Here is an allegoricall interpretation of the shewe breade to signifie the Lordes supper but that proueth it not a prefiguration of the sacrament For there is great difference betweene an allegory and a figure of a thing to come But to the poynte of the bill here is nothing for the carnall presence but somewhat against it First where hee saith that the Christians whom allegorically he calleth the sonnes of the intelligible Aaron induti sunt eo haue put on him meaning they are baptised for as manie as are baptised in him haue put him on But they haue put on him onely spiritually therefore they are commaunded to eate him onely spiritually Secondly the twelue loaues whiche signifieth the bodie of Christ signifieth the twelue Apostles also which mystically were his bodie by which you may see hee speaketh of no carnall presence Thirdly he calleth it a mysterie and a mysticall supper which will not stande with M. Heskins corporal collectioÌ„s No more wil that which he addeth That it is a cleane table first as making cleane secondly as hauing no lies or infectioÌ„ such as are in the misteries of the pagaÌ„s Where it is to be laughed at that he will proue a corporal presence because it cleanseth sinnes for then shal we haue the same presence in baptisme and the Papistes in holie water which they affirme to clense sinnes also But it is a per se that Isychius addeth Moreouer extolling his glorie and aduauncing the dignitie of this mysterie into an height he addeth it is the holie of holies of the Lordes sacrifices for a perpetuall lawe Therefore prayer is holie the reading of holie scripture is holie and the hearing of the interpretation thereof to be short all things that are done and sayed in the Church of God according to the lawe are holie But the holie of holies of the Lordes sacrifice of all things that are offered and done to his glorie is the table which Christ setteth forth of his owne sacrifice Here is a great commendation of that mysticall Table which Christ hath set forth of the sacrifice of his death which no man doubteth to be moste holie in the right vse thereof and in respect of him that feedeth vs with his bodie and bloud at that table But what is all this to the corporall and carnall presence But M. Heskins woulde finde a contradiction in the wordes of Oecolampadius in that he sayeth the bread is sanctified and yet it hath no holinesse in it whereas that holie man speaketh plainly and distinctly that it is sanctified and doth sanctifie in the right vse of it not in the nature of it self The foure twentieth Chapter applying the continuall reseruation of the Shew bread to the reseruation of the sacrament proueth the same reseruatioÌ„ by the olde fathers by the perpetual practisâ— of the Church That the sacrament of some was reserued in the elder dayes of the Church it is not so great a controuersie as whether it ought to bee reserued by the institution of Christe Neither is the simple reseruation one of the proclaymers articles as M. Heskins saith but whether it should be hanged vp in a Canopie for an ydol as the Papistes vse it As for reseruation how slenderly it is proued by him we shall see by examination of his witnesses For as touching his application thereof vnto the reseruation of the shewe breade because it is but his owne iudgement I will not vouchsafe to aunswere it otherwise then to denye it to be of any force to proue his purpose His first witnesse
any part vntill the next moâ—ning therefore he saith in Leuit. 7. Ho. 5. Nam Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat dicebat eis accipite manducate non distulit nec seruari iussit in erastiâ—um For that bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples and said vnto them take ye eate ye he deferred not neither commanded it to be reserued vntill the next day By which wordes it is manifest that as he disallowed the reseruation so was it not in vse in the East Church in his time And that M. Heskins may be snarled in his owne coarde he must call to minde what paines he tooke to proue the Pascall Lambe to be a figure of this sacrament and how earnestly he vrgeth that the trueth must answere the figure in all things iustly inso much that he alledgeth this text that not a iote or apricke of the law shall passe vntill all be fulfilled Nowe of the Pascal lambe there was an expresse coÌ„mandement that no part of it should be reserued vntill the next day therfore by his owne figures textes manner of reasoning I conclude that the sacrament may not be reserued at all The fiue and twentith Chapter proueth the same by Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time For Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time then sixe hundreth yeares after Christ we doe not admit their authoritie But M. Heskins promising Counsells beginneth with the institution of Iustinian That Monasteries of Virgines should haue libertie to choose a Priest which should bring vnto them the holy Communion Herevpon he will build reseruation for they did not celebrate to them saith he but they brought it As though he that bringeth the worde of God to theÌ„ doth not preach before them but bringeth a Sermon in his bosome But for as much as that decree speaketh not onely of a Priest but also of a Deacon I can be content to thinke that he brought the sacrament with him and did not consecrate there but what maketh this for reseruation to the vse of adoration which is the matter in question â–ª Or else for an ordinarie custome of reseruation if the sacrament were brought from the next Church where and when it was celebrated to the Monasterie not to be hanged vp in a cannopie but to be receiued presently But it is a proper reason that M. Heskins vseth for may be reserued for a short time why not for a long time For answere of this I will referre him to his owne Popish decrees that forbid such reseruation for feare of putrifaction and rottennesse At last commeth the Counsels of Wormes and Remes in which times it is certaine that great corruptions preuailed in the church then followeth the Counsell of Laterane commended for generall held Anno. 1215. speaking of the diligent reseruation of the sacrament with much adoe about the authoritie of Counsels But all not worth a rush The generall Counsell of Laterane falsified the text of scripture tract to both in wordes and sense alledging it thus in their second Canon or Chapter against Ioachim Abbas Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus that which the father hath giuen me is greater then all Whereas the trueth of the text is the father which hath giueÌ„ them to me is greter then all A wise and worshipfull Counsel that can not confute an errour but by falsifying of the scripture And this is the Counsell that first decreed transubstantiation Last of all commeth the Counsel of Trent in our days and that not so vainely alledgeth of The age of the Nicen Counsell to haue acknowledged reseruation as M. Heskins impudently affirmeth therevpon that The Nicen Counsell did agâ—â—se reseruation Next he iangleth of the authoritie of the Church as though what so euer the synagogue of Antichrist doth affirme were the difinition of the Church of christ And in the end he ioyneth an other issue with the proclamer That if he can bring any plaine scripture catholique doctour or counsel that by expresse wordes forbiddeth reseruation he will subscribe For scripture the institution do ye this in remembrance of me proueth the sacrament to be an action and not a name of a thing that may be reserued for euery action is in mouing Secondly all Catholique doctours in a manner and all Counsels generall and prouinciall that speake of this sacrament call it Eucharistia whiche is a giuing of thankes which name can not be rightly applyed to the bread and wine only but to the whole vse of them according to Christes institution Thirdly the expresse decree of Clemens his owne Doctour is against reseruation alledged in the Chapter next before Fourthly Origen in Leuit. Chap. 7. Hom. 6. the place also cyted in the latter end of the 24. Chapter The sixe and twentith Chapter answereth the cheefe obiection of the aduerâ—aries Our cheefe argument hee saith against the reseruation and our very Achilles against all other rites vsed in the sacraments is that in the institution thereof there is no mention made of reseruation But there he belyeth vs For we say it is directly against the commaundement of the institution take and eate and do this in remembrance of me I would aske this question of him Was it lawfull for the Apostles to haue reserued it when Christ coÌ„manded it to be eaten If he say no let him shewe me why it is more lawfull nowe to reserue it then it was then seeing we haue the same commaundement continued doe this in remembrance of me that is take and eate it Moreouer we say it is cleane contrarie to the end and forme of the sacrament that it should be reserued and caried about to be worshipped For it is spirituall meate whose end vse and fruit is in eating not in keeping and carying about or worshipping But nowe let vs see Maister Heskins profound Diuinitie in solution of our argument There be three manner of doings as concerning the scripture One is to do so much as the scripture biddeth An other to do against that the scripture biddeth The third to do something besides that the scripture biddeth Concerning the first hee saith that As Christ tooke breade and wine made it his body and bloud commaunded it to be eaten and dronken in remembrance of him so he that taketh bread and wine and doth consecrate it eat it and drinke it in remembraunce of his death c. doth as much as the scripture biddeth him and is blamelesse in this respect This is true and all this doe we in our Church therefore are we blamelesse by his owne conclusion But they that being commaunded to eate and minister to bee eaten doe not eate it nor giue it to be eaten but keepe it and hang it vp doe manifestly breake this commaundement and so doe the Papisteâ— For they doe against that the scripture biddeth And whereas he alledgeth the sixt Counsell of Constantinople reprouing the Armenians for ministring with wine without water it seemeth that both
an ende of his life Euen so also he sayth of Seth and Enos with other As for the beginning of the generation of Melchizedech and the ende of his life he ouerpasseth it in silence Wherefore if the historie bee looked on he hath neither beginning of dayes nor end of life So in deede the sonne of God neither hath beginning of his being neither shall haue ending Therefore in these most great and verie diuine things was Melchizedech a figure of Christ our lord And in his priesthood which agreeth rather to man then to God our Lord Christ was an high Priest after the order of Melchizedech For Melchizedech was an high Priest of the Gentiles And our Lord Christ offered a holy and healthfull sacrifice for all men If I sayde neuer a word as I neede not to say many yet the indifferent reader would see that here is no comparison of Melchizedechs bread and wine with the sacrament of the Lordes supper Yea he would easily see that he speaketh of the sacrifice of his death which our sauiour offered for all men both Iewes and Gentiles And much more plainly by that place which M. Heskins addeth out of the first dialogue If therefore it appertaineth to Priestes to offer giftes and Christ concerning his humanitie is called a Priest he offered none other sacrifice but his owne bodie This speaketh Theodoret expressely of the true sacrifice of his death and not of the fained sacrifice of his supper nor yet of any sacrament or figure of his onely true sacrifice which the olde writers as I shewed before do often call a sacrifice oblation burnt offring c But that M. Heskins cannot gaine by the doctours wordes he will winne by reason First if wee denye that Melchizedech was a figure of Christe his Priesthood saying he was a figure onely of his eternitie then wee ioyne with Eutyches who graunted the diuinitie of Christe and denyed his humanitie vnto which his priesthood properly perteyned But who tolde M. Heskins that wee denye Melchizedech to be a figure of Christs Priesthood when wee most constantly affirme that he was a figure of his eternall Priesthood vnlesse Maister Heskins thinke the humanitie of Christe hauing once conquered death is not nowe euerlasting It is not our exposition that mainteineth the heresie of Eutyches that the nature of Christes bodie is absorpt into the diuinitie but it is your heresie of vbiquitie and carnall presence Maister Heskins that mayntaineth it most manifestly in verie deede though in wordes you will say the contrarie But Maister Heskins followeth his reason and vrgeth vs that it is the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice wherefore if Christe resemble Melchizedech in Priesthood he must resemble him in sacrifice and that is the sacrifice of breade and wine for other sacrifice wee reade none that Melchizedech offered I aunswere as wee reade of none other so wee read not in the Scripture one worde of that sacrifice of breade and wine as hath beene often declared at large And seeing the scripture expresseth not what sacrifice Melchizedech offered wee are content to be ignorant of it satisfying our selues with so much as the scripture affirmeth that Christ offering him selfe once for all on the Crosse was in the same called a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech as wee haue shewed at large before out of Hebr. 5. 7.9.10 But it is a sport to see how M Heskins skippeth to fro as it were one whipped at a stake when hee woulde reconcile his transubstantiation with this counterfet sacrifice of breade and wine Christe sacrificed in breade and wine In breade and wine I say a kinde of foode more excellent then the breade and wine that did figure it I meane with Theodoret and Hierome the true bread and wine that is the bodie and bloud of Christ that is to say no bread nor wine But if you giue him a lash on the other side and saye if Christ sacrificed not naturall bread wine then he answered not your figure he wil leap to the other side say with Cyprian Isychius that Christe offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech did and in one place he sayeth he occupyed bread and wine in his sacrifice so did he a table and a cuppe and other things but was any thing his sacrifice that he occupyed therein sauing onely that which he offered he will say no. Did he offer bread and wine hee dare not aunswer directly and so the poore man to vpholde two lyes the one contrarie to the other is miserably tormented The one and thirtieth Chapter concludeth this matter of Melchizedech by S. Augustine and Damascene S. Augustine is alledged vppon the 33 Psalme whose wordes are these The sacrifices of the Iewes were before time after the order of Aaron in offrings of beastes and that in a mysterie The sacrifice of the bodie and bloud of our Lord which the faithfull and they that haue read the Gospell do knowe was not yet which sacrifice is nowe diffused throughout all the worlde Set before your eyes therefore two sacrifices both that after the order of Aaron and this after the order of Melchizedech For it is writen the Lord hath sworne and it shall not repent him Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech Of whom is it saide thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech of our Lord Iesus christ For who was Melâ—hizedech The King of Salem And Salem was that Citie which afterward as the learned haue declared was called HierusaleÌ„ Therefore before the Iewes reigned there this Melchizedech was Priest there which is written of in Genesis the Priest of the high god He it was that mett Abraham when he deliuered Loth from the hande of his persecutors and ouerthrewe them of whom he was helde and deliuered his brother And after the deliuerie of his brother Melchizedech mett him so great was Melchizedech of whom Abraham was blessed he brought forth breade and wine and blessed Abraham And Abraham gaue him rythes See ye what he brought forth and whome he blessed And it is sayed afterwarde Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech Dauid sayed this in the spirite long after Abraham Nowe Melchizedech was in the time of Abraham Of whome sayeth he in anâ—â—her place â–ª Thou arâ— a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech 〈◊〉 of him whose sacrifice you knowe Here saith Maister Heskins is sacrifice auouched and the sacrifice of the body and bloud of our Lorde who saith nay But this is not the sacrifice of the masse but the sacrifice of CHRISTES death whereof the holy sacrament is a memoriall But Augustine saith farther The sacrifice of Aaron is taken away and them beganne the order of Melchizedech Very well but once againe this sacrifice is the sacrifice of Christes death the remembraunce whereof is celebrated in the Lordes Supper where let the Reader obserue that he doeth yet againe denie the
sacrifice of Christes passion to be a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech contrarie to the expresse worde of God affirmeth that it was after the order of Aaron saying that The sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech was onely as the Supper Here note that he maketh the sacrament more excellent then the sacrifice of Christes death by so muche as the Priesthoode and sacrifice of Melchisedech is more excellent then the sacrifice and priesthoode of Aaron But Augustine hath more yet if it will helpe vpon the same Psalme Con. 3. Before the kingdome of his father he chaunged his 〈◊〉 and left him and went his way because there was the sacrifice according to the order of Aaron And afterwarde he himselfe by his body and bloud instituted a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech Therefore he chaunged his countenance in the priesthoode and left the nation of the Iewes and came to the Gentiles By this we must needes vnderstand that Christe did institute a sacrifice of his body and bloud after the order of Melchizedech Yea verily But howe doe wee vnderstand that this was in the sacrament Therefore for any thing that is here shewed it is no slaunder that the Pope hath turned the holy sacrament into a sacrifice to obscure the glorie of Christe and his onely sacrifice once offered on the crosse For although the Fathers did sometimes call the sacrament a sacrifice yet they meant nothing but a memoriall or sacrifice of thankesgiuing for that one sacrifice offered once on the crosse for the redemption of the whole worlde Whereof none other shal be a better witnesse then Augustine himselfe and in his exposition of this selfe same Psalme Saginantur ergo illo Angeli sed semel ipsum exinaninit vt manducaret panem angelorum home formam serui accipiens in similitudinem hominum factus habitu inuentus vt homo The Angels therefore are fead with that bread meaning the diuinitie of Christe But he emptied himselfe that man might eate the bread of Angels taking the shape of a seruant beeing made like vnto men and in his habite was found as a man Humilianit se factus obediens vsque ad mortem mortem autem crucis vt iam de cruce commendarâ—tur nobis carâ— sanguis Domini 〈◊〉 sacrificium quia mutauit vultum suum coram Abimelech id est eoram regno patris He humbled himselfe and was made obedient to the death euen the death of the crosse that now the body and bloud of our Lorde might be commended to vs from the Crosse beeing the new sacrifice because he chaunged his countenaunce before Abimelech that is before the kingdome of his Father By this it is manifest that Augustine referred the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech vnto the crosse of Christ whereof we are made partakers in the holy mysteries of his blessed supper So that as well the body and bloud of our Lorde as the newe sacrifice in those mysteries are commended to vs to be participated from the crosse where they were truely and essentially offered vnto God by the eternall spirite of our sauiour Christ wherby he procured euerlasting redemption The same Augustine in his Ep. 23. to Bonifacius Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso tamen in suet 〈◊〉 non sobèrâ— per omnes paschÄ™ solennitates sed omni die populiâ— immolatur nec vbique mentitur qui interrogatus eum respondarit immolari Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem â—arum rerum quaruÌ„ sacramenta suÌ„t non habereÌ„t omnino sacramenta non essent Ex haec autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est Was not Christe once onely offered vppe by himselfe And yet in a sacrament â–ª not onely at euery solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people neither doeth he lye which being asked the question answereth that he is offered For if sacraments had not a certeine similitude of those thinges whereof they are sacramentes they should not be sacramentes at all And of this similitude oftentimes they take the names euen of the very thinges themselues Therfore as after a certeine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith What can be vttered more plainely either against the Popishe sacrifice or against their carnal presence This one place may expound whatsoeuer in Augustine or any other olde writer is spoken of the sacrifice of the Lordes supper and of the presence of Christes body and bloud therein After Augustine M. Heskins citeth Chrysostome in Mat. 26. to proue that the sacrament is now of the same force that it was when it was first ordeined by Christe at his last supper These workes are not of mans power what thinges he did then in that supper he himselfe doth nowe worke he himselfe doeth make perfect We holde the order of Ministers but it is he himselfe that doeth sanctifie and chaunge these thinges With my disciples saith he doe I keepe my Passeouer For this is the same table and none other This is in nothing lesser then that For Christ maketh not that table and some other man this but he himselfe maketh both Hieronyme followeth a vaine discourse against I wote not what Petrobrusians and Henricians that denied the body of CHRISTE to be consecrated and giuen by the priestes as it was by Christe him selfe Whome peraduenture Petrus Cluniacensis Maister Heskins Author doeth slaunder when they saide none otherwise then Chrysostome saide before and that which Maister Heskins himselfe affirmeth That Christ and not man doth consecrate But by this place also are confuted the Oecolampadians and Caluinistes if we will beleeue Maister Heskins who first rauing against Cranmer vrgeth the worde of sanctification of the bread and wine that Chrysostome vseth charging Cranmer to haue saide that the creatures of bread and wine cannot be sanctified Which no doubt that holy Martyr spake of the substance and not of the vse in the sacrament Then he snatcheth vppe Chrysostomes wordes Transmutat he doeth transmute and change them This is easily aunswered He chaungeth the vse but not the substance But for more confirmation Origen is called to witnesse Lib. 8. Cont. Celsum We obeying the creator of all thingâ—s after we haue giuen thankes for his benefites which he hath bestowed vpon vs doe eate the bread which is offered which by prayer and supplication is made into a certeine holier bodie which truly maketh them more holie which with a more sound minde do vse the same Here by Origens playne wordes the vse doth sanctifie the worthie receiuers And though you adde to Ambrose his phrase De pane fit corpus Christi of the bread is
beginning of this Chapter â–ª he saith there was neuer heretiques but had some shew of argumentes to auouche his heresie and bringeth in diuerse examples only the proclaymer made no argument in his 〈◊〉 for that he would haue the people receiue his bare proclamation What arguments he vsed let the world iudge the Papistes if they can study to answer him But Oecolampadius he saith hath heaped vp scriptures to proue the ascention of Christ which the Papistes doe graunt yet acknowledge his presence on the earth in the sacrament as though his departing out of the world and presence in the world concerning his bodily presence could stand together Then he flyeth to his diuine power by which he is able to be present in diuerse places as well as do such and such miracles as he rehearseth and wisheth that we should not be so streight and cruell to the body of Christ as to giue it no greater prerogatiue then vnto any other body Verily we do acknowledge as great prerogatiue thereof as he himselfe hath giuen it whereof we haue vnderstanding by his holy worde and otherwise it were madnesse in vs to take vpon vs to be liberall to him which giueth all thinges And if we found as good authoritie for the vbiquitie or pluralitie of placing of his body as we finde for the feeding vs thereby into eternall life we would as easily confesse the one as we doe the other But we finde not in deede as M. Heskins saith that he himselfe hath giuen or would giue his body that prerogatiue to be euery where or in more places then one at once As for the possibilitie we extend it no further then his will. We know he can do what soeuer he will. And many thinges we know he cannot do because he wil not But M. Heskins to assure vs of his will hath nothing to bring but that which is al the controuersie which most impudently he affirmeth that he hath proued both by scriptures and doctours that Christ hath caused his bodie to be in diuers places at one time which neither scripture nor any Doctour of antiquitie euer did affirme in proper manner of speaking otherwise in figuratiue speech we may truly say we eate in the sacrament the body of Christe which is in heauen when to speake properly and without figure we eate but the bread which to the faithfull receiuer is a sacrament and seale of our spirituall nourishment whiche we receiue of his flesh and bloud after a diuine and vnspeakable manner vnto eternall life saith rather lifting vs vp into heauen then bringing Christes body into the earth Maister Heskins saith the scriptures that say Christ is in heauen speake without exclusiues or exceptiues and therefore there is no denial imployed but that he may be beleeued to be also on the earth in the sacrament When Peter in the Actes 3. affirmeth that Christ must be conteined in heauen which is meant of his humanitie vntill the time of restoring of all thinges is not this an exclusion of all other places or beeings of his humanitie When Paule to the Colossians Colo. 3. willeth them to seeke those thinges that are aboue and where Christ is at the right hand of God to set their mindes on thinges aboue and not on things vpon the earth is not the reâ—son because Christ concerning his humanitie is aboue not vpon earth Is not this an exclusiue and exception When Christe sayeth not only I goe to my father but also I leaue the worlde Ioan. 16. Whiche saying the Apostles confessed to be plaine and without all parable Is not this a manifest exclusion of his bodily presence from the worlde So that it is manifest that this ascention and abiding in heauen concerning his humane nature in which he ascended is an excluding and shutting out and denying of all other places or presences of his bodie then to be in heauen only But now that he hath thus tombled vp the authorities of the scripture he wil take in hand to answer the obiections brought out of the Doctours And first shal be the saying of Augustine Ad Dardanum ep 57. Which place contrarie to his bragg in the beginning he alledgeth truncatly by halfe beginning at the middest thereof But this place is in Augustine Et sic venturus est illa angelica voce testante quemadmodum ire visus est in Coelum id est in eadem carnis forma atque substantia cui profectò immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstulis Secundùm hanc formam non est putandus vbique diffusus And he shall come euen so as that voyce of the Angel doth testifie euen as he was seene to go into heauen that is in the same fourme and substance of his fleshe to which truly he hath giuen immortalitie but he hath not taken the nature from it According to this fourme he is not thought to be diffused in all places All this hath Heskins left out and beginneth thus Cauendum est enim no ita veritatem astruâ—muâ— hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus Non est enim consequens vt quod no Deo est ita sit vbique vt Deus For we must beware that we doe not so affirme the Deitie of the man that we take away the trueth of his body For it is no consequent that that which is in God should so be euerie where as God is Note here that Saint Augustine doeth not onely flatly denie the vbiquitie of Christes body but also affirmeth that it reteineth still the nature of a bodie which is to be conteined in one onely place Againe he sayeth in the same Epistle Iesus vbique per id quod Deus est in coelo autem per id quod homo est Iesus by that he is God is euerie where by that he is man he is in heauen Nowe let vs heare howe wisely Maister Heskins will auoide this authoritie First he sayeth that Augustine in this epistle speaketh not of the sacrament and therefore these sentences make not against that matter But when Augustine speaketh generally of the bodie of Christ that it reteineth the nature of a body that it is not euerie where c. he doeth not except the sacrament Although it is false that Heskins saith for in the latter end of that Epistle he hath these wordes Huius corporis caput est Christus huius corporis vnitas nostro sacrificio commendatur The head of this bodie is Christ the vnitie of this bodie is commended in our sacrifice By sacrifice as Maister Heskins will confesse he meaneth the celebration of the sacrament Wherefore he forgate not the sacrament in that Epistle but that he might haue made exception thereof if he had thought good The seconde aunswere of Maister Heskins is a balde distinction that a thing may be at one time in many places two wayes the one is by nature the other by gifte By nature he confesseth that the body of Christe can not be in two places
to the end of the worlde he is both gone away and is here is come againe and hath not forsaken vs For he hath carried his bodie into heauen he hath not taken away his Maiestie from the worlde And in the same treatise speaking of his presence in the sacrament Si bonus es ad corpus Christi pertines quod significat Petrus habes Christum in praesenti in futuro In presenti per fidem in praesenti per signum in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum If thou be a good man and perteynest to the bodie of Christe thou hast that which Peter doeth signifie that is Christ in present and in that which is to come In present by faith in present by signe in present by the sacrament of baptisme in present by the meate and drinke of the altar And againe Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundùm Maiestatem suam secundùm prouidentiam secundùm ineffabilem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus vsque ad consuÌ„mationem saeculi Secundùm carnem verò quam verbum sumpsit secundùm id quod de virgine natus est secundùm id quod a Iudae is prÄ™hensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis inuolutus quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare quoniam conuersatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hic est non enim recessit prÄ™sentia maiestatis Aliter secundùm praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundùm prÄ™sentiam carnis rectè est discipulis Me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundùm praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modò fide tenet oculis non videt c. That is He spake of the presence of his bodie For according to his Maiestie according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled that was saide of him Beholde I am with you all the dayes vnto the end of the worlde But according to the fleshe which the worde tooke vpon him according to that he was born of the virgin according to that he was taken of the Iewes that he was crucified on the tree that he was taken down from the crosse that he was wrapped in linnen clothes that he was laied in the sepulchre that he was openly shewed in his resurrection you shall not always haue me with you Why so because he was conuersant with his disciples according to the presence of his body by the space of 40. dayes and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he ascended into heauen and is not here For there he is where he sitteth at the right hand of his father And he is here also For he is not departed concerning the presence of his Maiestie otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes But according to the presence of his flesh it was well saide to his disciples but me shall ye not alwayes haue For according to the presence of his flesh the Church had him a few dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eyes These places and such like of which a number might be brought out of diuers authours I wish the Readers to consider for the presence of his body in the worlde or in many places at one time and to see how they will stande with Popish transubstantiation The thirteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of an other text in the sixt of Saint Ioan. The text he meaneth is this Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you That this should be spoken of in the sacrament of the Lordes supper he wil proue by this reason as a man must haue birth and nourishment so there be two sacraments baptisme the supper by which we are born and nourished vnto eternal life and both necessarie for as Christ speaketh here of the one so to Nicodemus he speaketh of the other except a man be borne of water and of the spirite c. But seeing he himselfe denieth the necessitie of the one and of the other but in them that are of type age c. it is manifest that neither the one place is of baptisme nor the of the other supper but as these sacramentes are seales to testifie the grace of regeneration preseruation But if his reason faile the doctours interpretation shall helpe namely Cyprian and Theophylacte The place of Cyprian hath bene already rehearsed and â—onsidered in the fourth Chapter of this booke whether I referre the Reader for breuitie sake The other place cited by Maister Heskins to proue that Cyprian by this word Eucharistia meaneth the bodie of Christ is Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra legem Euangelij c. They contrarie to the lawe of the Gospell and also your honourable petition before penance done and before confession made of their most greeuous and extreeme offence before hand was laide on them by the Bishop and the Cleargie for repentance dare be bolde to offer for them and giue them the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing that is to prophane the holy bodie of our Lorde Thus much Heskins rehearseth but Cyprian proceedeth Cum scriptum sit c. Seeing it is writen he that eateth this bread and drinketh this cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shal be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lorde By these wordes which Maister Heskins concealeth it is apparent how they did prophane the bodie of Christ that gaue the sacrament to vnpenitent offenders namely in that sense which S. Paule saith they are guiltie of the death of Christ. That Theophylacte vnderstandeth this text of the receiuing of the Diuine mysteries and requireth faith in the receiuers although it make litle for his purpose yet because he is a late writer I will not spende time about his authoritie The fourteenth Chapter expoundeth the same text by S. Augustine and Cyrill Out of Saint Augustine are alledged foure places one In Ioan. Tra. 36. Quomodo quidem detur c. How it is giuen and what is the manner of the eating of this bread ye knowe not Neuerthelesse except ye eate that flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you This did he speake not to dead carkases but to liuing men By this place sayeth Maister Heskins is proued that the Iewes knewe not the manner of eating of Christes fleshe in the sacrament And no maruell for his disciples did not yet knowe it nor could before the sacrament was instituted and therefore
non aspernanter sed sapienter audiamur Euen as we knowe though against these mens will two in one fleshe Christe and his Church without any filthinesse euen as with faithfull heart and mouth wee receiue the Mediatour of God and man Iesus Christe giuing vs his fleshe to bee eaten and his bloud to be drunken although it seemeth a more horrible thing to eate the fleshe of man then to kill him and to drinke the bloud of man then to shed it And in all the holie scriptures if any thing figuratiuely spoken or done be expounded according to the rule of sounde faith of any things or wordes which are conteyned in the holie scriptures let not the exposition be taken contemptuously but let vs heare wisely Where is nowe that should pinche the proclaimer by the conscience of receiuing the bodie of Christ with the mouth Where is that lewd insultation against Maister Horne whome he sayeth he heard in Cambridge abuse the figuratiue speach and place it there where it should not be placed c. When S. Augustine maketh this whole text a figuratiue speache And if Maister Horne as he sayeth did not place the figuratiue speach as Augustine doeth why did not such a doubtie doctour as Maister Heskins is either in another sermon openly confute him or in priuate conference admonishe him of it But such hedgecreapers as he is that dare not ioyne with a much weaker aduersarie then that reuerend father is in any conference or open disputation can shoote out their slaunderous boltes against them when they are a farre of and prate of placing and displacing of Augustine when he himselfe as I haue shewed most impudently peruerted and displaced the wordes and sense of Augustine euen in this verie sentence whereuppon he thus taketh occasion to iangle Out of Cyrill are alledged two places neither of both any thing to his purpose but directly against him the former In 1â— Ioan. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the bodie could not otherwise be brought to vncorruptiblenesse and life except the bodie of naturall life were ioyned to it Doest thou not beleeue mee saying these thinges I pray thee beleeue Christ saying Verily verily I saye vnto you except you shall eaâ—e the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you Thou hearest him openly saying that wee shall not haue life except wee drinke his bloude and eate his fleshe He sayeth in your selues that is in your bodie The same fleshe of life by right may be vnderstanded life What is there here for the sacrament or that euery Christian man of our side will not graunt But belike the second place maketh all playne Non negamus c. Wee do not denye that with right faith and syncere loue wee are spiritually ioyned to Christe but that wee haue no manner of coniunction with him after the fleshe that truely wee do vtterly denye and that wee saye to be altogether contrarie to the holye Scriptures For who hath doubted that Christe is euen so the vine and wee the braunches that wee receiue life from thence into vs Heare Saynt Paule saying that we all are one bodye in Christ For although wee be many yet we are one in him for wee all take parte of one breade Or peraduenture doth hee thinke that the power of the mysticall blessing is vnknowen to vs which when it is done in vs doeth it not make Christe to dwell in vs corporally by the participation of the fleshe of Christe For why are the members of the faithfull the members of Christ Knowe ye not sayeth he that the members of the faithfull are the members of Christe Shall I then make the members of Christ the members of an harlott In this place Cyrill sayeth that Christe doth dwell corporally in vs but howe by participation of the fleshe of Christe which as he tooke of our nature so hath he againe giuen the same vnto vs to bee in deede our nourishment vnto eternall life which thing is testified vnto vs by the sacrament euen as the vnitie wee haue one with another and all of vs with Christe is testified in that we all take part of one breade Otherwise I see nothing in this place that may help Maister Heskins For such as our vnitie is such is our participation of his flesh and as we are members of his body so doe we eate his body This M. Heskins must graunt if he will allowe Cyrills authoritie but our vnitie participation and coniunction of members though it be in his body of his flesh and vnto him as our head yet is not after a carnall manner no more is the eating of his flesh nor the corporall dwelling of him in vs after a carnall or corporall manner but after a diuine and spirituall manner The place of Chrysostome hee cyteth hath bene once or twice considered already The fifteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Leo and Euthymius The place of Leo is cyted out of Serm. 6. de Ieiu sep mens Hanc confessionem c. This confession most welbeloued vttering foorth with all your heart forsake ye the vngodly deuises of heretiques that your fastings and almes may be defiled with the infection of no errour For then the offering of sacrifice is cleane and the giuing of almes is holy when they which performe these things vnderstand what they worke For as our Lord saith except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you you ought so to be partakers of the holy table that you doubt nothing of the trueth of the body of Christe and of his bloud For that is taken with the mouth which is beleeued by faith and in vaine doe they answere Amen which dispute against that which is receiued Leo in these words as Maister Heskins is enforced to confesse speaketh against the Eutychian heresie which denyed the trueth of Christes body after the adunation therof to the Diuinitie as the papistes do indeed though not in words by their vbiquitie traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ saith thei cannot be partakers rightly of the sacrameÌ„t of his body bloud which do not acknowlege that he had a very body bloud Therfore it is intollerable impudencie in M. Hes. to note a place for M. Iewel wheÌ„ he him selfe after confesseth that he spake not of the trueth of his body in the sacrament And whereas he saith the mouth receiueth that which is by faith beleeued it helpeth him nothing for he meaneth nothing else but that those men cannot receiue with their mouth the sacrament of his flesh and bloud which deny him to haue true flesh bloud for the sacrament is a seale and confirmation of faith Nowe how far Leo was from transubstantiation or vbiquitie we haue shewed before in the 11. Chapter of this booke where his saying may be read The testimonie of Euthymius is cyted In 6. Ioan. Nisi comederitis
Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud you shall haue no life in you They thought this impossible but he shewed that it was altogether possible and not that only but also necessarie which also he did vnto Nicodemus He addeth also of his bloud signifying the cup which as is saide already he would giue to his disciples in the last supper Here Euthymius a late writer and out of the compasse of the challenge vnderstandeth this text of the sacrament yet speaketh hee nothing of the carnall manner of eating As for the other place he braggeth of in Matth. 26. which he cyteth in the 58. Chapter of this booke how little it maketh for him I wish the reader before he go any further to turne to the Chapter and consider The sixteenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text in hand by the Ephesine Counsell The woordes of the Epistle of the Ephesine Counsell vnto Nestorius be these Necessario hoc c. This also we do adde necessarily for shewing foorth the death of the onely begotten sonne of God after the flesh that is of Iesus Christe and confessing together his resurrection and ascention into heauen we celebrate it in our Churches the vnbloudie seruice of his sacrifice so also doe we come to the mysticall blessings and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy body and precious bloud of Christ the redeemer of vs all Not taking it as common flesh which God forbid nor at the flesh of a sanctified man and ioyned to the word according to the vnitie of dignitie or as possessing a diuine habitation but truely quickening and made proper vnto the word it selfe For he being naturally life as God bicause he was vnited to his owne flesh professed the sonne to haue power to giue life And therefore although he say vnto vs Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you yet we ought not to esteeme it as of a man that is one of vs For howe can the flesh of a man after his owne nature be a quickening flesh But as verily made his owne flesh which for vs was both made and called the sonne of man. The Fathers of this Counsell do not as M. Heskins saith expound this text of the sacrament or declare what they receiue in the sacrament but rather shew what they iudged of that flesh whereof they receiued the sacrament namely that it was not the flesh of a pure man as Nestorius affirmed but the flesh of the son of God therfore had power to giue life being eateÌ„ by faith either in the participation of the sacrament or without it And whereas he noteth a plaine place for M. Iewel when they say They were made partakers of the body and bloud of Christ there is no more plainenesse then M. Iewell will confesse But where he addeth Receiuing it not as coÌ„mon flesh but as the flesh truely giuing life he corrupteth the sense of the Counsel referring that to the receiuing of the sacrament which they vnderstand of their iudgement of the flesh whereof they receiued the sacrament Finally where he would helpe the matter with the opinion of Cyril of our corporall coniunction with Christ howe little it auayleth we shewed before in aunswere to that place Cap. 14. But least he shuld lacke sufficient proofe of this matter he confirmeth his exposition by the erronious practise of the Church of Aphrica from Saint Cyprians time vnto Saint Augustines time at the least which imagined such a necessitie of thaâ— sacrament by this place Except ye eate c that they ministred the Communion to infants he might haue added that some did minister it to dead folkes But this absurditie which followeth of the exposition will rather driue al wisemen from that exposition then moue them to receiue it And although the Bohemians vsed this text to proue the communion in both kindes yet doth it not followe that it is properly to be expounded of the sacrament The seuenteenth Chapter expoundeth the next following by S. Augustine and Cyrill The text he will expound is He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life in him That this text is not to be expounded of the sacrament it is manifest by this reason that many doe eate the sacrament that haue not life in them as Augustine whom he alledgeth most plainly affirmeth But let vs see his profes for his exposition First Augustine Tr. 26. in IoaÌ„ Hanc non habet c. He hath not this life that eateth not this bread nor drinketh this bloud For without is men may haue temporall life but eternall they can not He therefore which eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud hath no life in him and he that eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath life eternall He hath answered to both in that he saith life euerlasting It is not so in this meate which we take to sustaine the life of this body For he that shall not take it shall not liue Nor yet he that shall take it shall liue For it may be that by age or sicknesse or any other cause many which haue taken it may dye but in this meat and drinke that is the body and bloud of our Lord it is not so For both he that taketh it not hath not life he that taketh it hath life and that eternall Although there be not one word spoken here of the sacrament and M. Heskins him selfe alledgeth the words following in which he confesseth that Augustine expoundeth this meate and drinke of the societie of Christ and his members which is his Church yet either so blinde or obstinate he is that with vaine gloses he will go about to drawe Augustine to his side First he saith though this meate signifie the mysticall body of Christe yet it signifieth not that alone but his naturall body in the sacrament whereof he hath neuer a worde in this treatise of S. Augustine secondly Augustine did not go about to instruct the people what they should receiue but how wel they shuld receiue it Which is vtterly false for hee doth both and there is no better way to instruct men howe well they should receiue the sacrament then to teach them to consider what they do receiue And therfore the conclusion of this treatise which he cyteth is altogether against him Hoc ergo totum c. Let all this therfore auayle to this end most welbeloued that we eaâ—e not the flesh and bloud of Christ onely in a sacrament which many euill men doe but that we eate and drinke euen to the participation of the spirit that we may remaine in the body of our Lorde as his mâ—mbers that we may be quickened by his spirite and not be offended although many do nowe with vs eate and drinke the sacraments temporally which in the end shal haue eternal torments Oâ—t of these wordes M. Hes doth
gather that Augustine doth acknowledge both spiritual and corporal receiuing by like bicause he saith that many euil men do eat and drinke the body bloud of Christ in a sacrament but what he meaneth is plain by his owne words in the same treatise Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio nec maÌ„ducat spiritualiter carnem eiuâ— nec bibit eius sanguinem licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus saecramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat bibit This it is therefore to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ to haue him abiding in him And by this he that abideth not in Christe and in whome Christ abideth not out of dout neither eateth spiritually his flesh nor drinketh his bloud although carnally and visibly hee presse with his teeth the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ but rather eateth and drinketh to his owne damnation the sacrament of so excellent a thing And that the wicked receiue not Christ at all neither spiritually nor corporally he writeth in the 59. Tr. in Ioan. Illi manducabant panem Dominum ille panem Domini contra dominum illi vitam ille poenam They meaning the Apostles did eat the bread which was our Lorde but he meaning Iudas did eat the Lords bread against the Lord they did eate life hee did eat punishment Here he denyeth that Iudas did eat Christe who did only eat the bread which Christ gaue him and not that bread which was Christe as the rest did But nowe let vs see howe Cyrillus doth expound this text of the sacrament In 15. Ioan. Mariet enim c. Both the natures abide inuiolated and of them both Christâ— is one but vnspeakably and beyonde that mans mynde can vnderstand The woorde conioyned to the manhoode hath so reduced it wholy into him selfe that it is able to giue life to thinges lacking life So hath it expelled destruction from the nature of man and death which by sinne was very strong it hath destroyed Wherefore he that eateth the flesh of Christ hath euerlasting life For this flesh hath the word of God which is naturally life Therefore he saith and I will raise him againe in the last day He said I that is my body that shall be eaten shall raise him again For he is none other then his flesh I say not that bicause he is none other by nature but bicause after his incarnation he suffereth not him selfe to be diuided into two sonnes I therefore saith he which am made man by my flesh in the last day will raise them vp which do eat it But yet an other place of Cyrill In 6. Ioan. Cap. 14 Oportet c. Truely it must needes so haue bene that not only the soule by the holy Ghost should ascend into blessed life but also that this rude and earthly body by a like natured taste touching and meate should be brought to immortalitie In neither of both these sentences is one worde of the sacrament and thereforâ— they fauour M. Hesk. exposition as much as nothing at al. The eighteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text in the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn by Origen and S. Ambrose The text is My flesh is verily meat and my bloud is verily drinke And here hee maketh a fond and childish discourse of the difference of verus cibus true meate and verè cibus meate in deede or verily meate Which distinction is confounded by Origen one of his pretended expositors in the very text by him alledged and in many other places of his workes where he speaketh of this text But to the exposition before he commeth to Origen hee toucheth a place of Chrysostome That reipsa conuertimur in â—arnem Christi in very deede we are turned into the flesh of Christ. Which wordes if they be not vnderstoode of a spirituall conuersion good Lord what a monstrous transubstantion shall we haue of our flesh into the flesh of Christ But Papistes had rather mingle heauen and earth together then they will depart from their prodigious absurdities But to Origen in Num. Hom. 7. Lex Dei c. The lawe of God is not nowe knowen in figures and images as before but euen in plaine trueth and such things as were before set forth in a dark speache are nowe fulfilled in plaine maner trueth Of which things these that followe are some Antea in aenigmate fuit baptismus in nube in mari nunc autem in specie regeneratio est in aqua Spiritu sancto Tunc in aenigmate erat Manna cibus nunc autem in specie caro verbi Dei verus cibus sicut ipse dicit Caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potur Before Baptisme was in a darke manner in the clowde and in the sâ—â— but nowe regeneration is in plaine manner in water and the holie Ghost Then Manna was the meate in a darke manner But nowe the fleshe of the worde of God is the true meate in a plaine maner as he him selfe sayth my fleshe is meat in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede In these wordes Origen teacheth that the sacramentes of the Gospell are cleare and plaine whereas in the lawe they were obscure and darke Neither doth he denye that the Gospell hath figures but affirmeth it hath none other figures but such as serue to open and set forth the mysteries more plainly whereas the ceremonies of the olde lawe did rather hide and couer them And if it be true as M. Heskins sayeth that the Gospell hath no figures I woulde knowe what be all the ceremonies of the Popish Church figures of the Gospell or false inuentions of men But if wee will beleeue him our onely spirituall receiuing is impugned by Origen In what wordes good sir he answereth The fleshe of the sonne of God is eaten in verie plaine manner And may not this be spiritually as well as regeneration is spiritually wrought in baptisme and yet in the same playne manner that this eating is spoken of But let vs heare what Origâ—n him selfe will say in the same booke Hom. 16. Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem Christi non solùm sacramentorum ritu sed cum sermones eius recipimuâ— in quibus vita consistit sicut ipse dicit c. We are sayde to drinke the bloud of Christe not onely in the ceremonie of the sacramentes but also when wee receiue his sayings in which life consisteth as he him selfe saith In these wordes hee teacheth such a drinking in the sacramentes as in beleeuing his woorde and therefore it must needes bee spirituall and not carnall And as the cloud and Sea was baptisme so was Manna
transmutationem aluntur ipsius incarnati Iesu Christi carnem sanguinem esse educti sumus Into this English with foysting in a parenthesis and chaunging his letter EVEN SO WE BE TAVGHT THAT THE FOODE wherewith our flesh and bloud be nourished by alteration WHEN IT IS CONSECRATED BY THE PRAYER OF HIS WORD TO BE THE FLESH AND BLOVD OF THE SAME IESVS INCARNATED In this beastly racking peruerting he hath left out thankâ—giuing not knowing wher to place it The cause of this falsification is for that he can not abide that the food after it is consecrated shuld nourish our bodies which Iustinê° doth most expresly affirme But before I proceede to his collections I will gather my selfe out of this place that which the Papistes wil not wel like of and yet although they would burst for anger thei can not auoyde but that they be necessarie collections First that there was no priuate Masse in his dayes for all that were present did communicate Secondly that the people as well as the ministers receiued in both kindes Thirdly that the things wherof they were partakers were bread wine and water which after they were consecrated were the nourishment of their bodies Now let vs heare M. Hes. collection for the reall presence First he saith not these things were signes figures tokens therefore they were none A tried argument of the authoritie of a man negatiuely Secondly he saith they were taught that by consecration they were made by the power of Gods worde the flesh and bloud of Christ that was incarnated We beleue the same likewise Thirdly M. Hes saith the real presence was as certaine to the primitiue Church as the incarnation So saith not Iustinus neither that the sacrament was the same substance of naturall flesh and bloud of Iesus that was incarnat by that diuine wonderful means by which he was incarnate and this do we most constantly beleeue And therefore here is no plaine place for the proclamer to proue the reall presence whereof Iustine speaketh none otherwise then the proclamer did speak beleeue while he liued But M. Heskins although there was neuer seene a more impudent falsifier of the Doctours sayings and meanings and euen in this place as I haue plainely discouered most lewdly corrupted the authours wordes by false translation yet he shameth not to slaunder holy and learned Cranmer of the same crime But what should an harlot do but after she hath plaied the strumpet call euery honest woman shee meeteth whore first Cranmer saith he reporteth as though Iustine should say the sacrament is but called the body of Christe This is first an intollerable lye For Cranmer saith it is called the body of Christ he saith not it is but called so that is only called so Secondly Cranmer saide out of Iustinus that these creatures after they be consecrated do nourish the bodies and are chaunged into them And therein he saith most truely and as the wordes of Iustine are and as the Latine translation is and Maister Heskins most falsely hath corrupted them as I shewed before Of which falsification being guiltie in his owne conscience he fleeth from his former Latine translation which is true in this point to the translation of Petrus Nannius a Papist which yet helpeth him not but by false pointing and displacing of the wordes Ita quoque per preces verbi illius cibum ex quo caro nostra sanguis per immutationem aluntur cum benedictus fuerit Iesu ipsius incarnati carnem sanguinem didicimus esse But the Greeke Article is so placed as it can abide no such patcherie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euen so we are taught that that foode after thankes are giuen for it by prayer of his word of which our flesh and bloud by permutation are nourished is the flesh and bloud of that Iesus which was incarnated So are the very wordes of Iustine But to helpe out the matter Ambrose is alledged Lib. 4. de sacra Cap. 5. Before it be consecrated it is bread but when the wordes of Christ are come to it it is the body of Christ. But the same Ambrose in the same booke and Chapter saith of the sacrament in the prayer of the Church Fac nobis inquit hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabileÌ„ quod est figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi Make vnto vs saith the priest this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus christ By these wordes it is manifest how Ambrose and the Church in his time tooke the breade to be the body of Christ. The like may be said of Augustine whose wordes M. Heskins cyteth De verbis Domini ser. 8. Before the wordes of Christ that which is offered is called breade when the words of Christ are spoken now it is not called breade but is called his body Who seeth not that these words are vttered by comparison it is not caled bread but his body that is it is rather called his body then bread as S. Paule saith Christe sent me not to baptise but to preach that is rather to preach then to baptise But nowe commeth in the authoritie of Alexander somtime Byshop of Rome to which I will not vouchsafe to make any answere bicause it is a meere forgerie and counterfet Epistle as all the pack of these decretall Epistles are that are feined in the name of those auncient holy Martyrs sometimes Bishops of the citie of Rome by some lewde Losel that could not write true Latine as is easie to see of all men that will take paines to read such beastly baggage I will giue you a taste of this counterfet Alexander speaking of holy water If the ashes being sprinkled with the bloud of a heifer did sanctifie the people much more shall water sprinkled with salt and hallowed with godly prayers See howe the brutish blasphemous Asse transferreth the argument of the Apostle Heb. 9. from the precious bloud of Christ to his beggerly holy water I wil therfore leaue M. Heskins rooting with his groyne in this draffe sacke and passe to the next Chapter The foure and fortieth Chapter by occasion of the wordes of Alexander treateth of the adoration and honouring of Christes body in the sacrament It is a worshipfull Alexander that gaue you the occasion of this discourse by his wordes But let the occasion goe we will looke to the matter First he rehearseth halfe a side of M. Iewels wordes against the adoration of the sacrament out of which he gathereth two arguments the one thus Christ neuer gaue coÌ„mandement to worship the sacrament ergo it is not to be done This argument he answereth is negatiue and therfore concludeth nothing But vnder correction of his great Logike when God chargeth vs to do that onely which he commaundeth an argument of negatiues of Gods commaundement concludeth al things to be vnlawfull which God hath not commaunded Hee bringeth examples
from our sight but also place it in heauen and in steede therof he leaueth the sacrament of his bodie and bloude which no man doubteth but it ought to be honoured as so high a mysterie deserueth but not as God or Christe The other saying of Eusebius which hee addeth doeth shewe howe it is to be honoured When thou commest to the reuerende altare to be satisfied with heauenly meates beholde with faith the holy bodie and bloud of thy God honour it wonder at is touch it with thy minde take it with the hande of thy heart and cheefely receiue it with the inwarde draught What can be layed more plainely for the spirituall receiuing and the like reuerence to be giuen to so holie a sacrament But because M. Heskins thinketh this saying to make more against him then for him therefore he sayeth to auoyde cauilling Eusebius proceedeth sone after in these words Sicut autem c. As any man comming to the faith of Christe before the wordes of baptisme is yet in the bands of the olde deis but when the words are spoken is foorthwith deliuered from all dregâ— of sinne So when the creatures are set vppon the holie altares to be blessed with heauenly words before they be consecrated by inuocation of the most highest name there is the substance of bread wine but after the wordes of Christ the bodie bloud of Christ. This is a plaine place for M. Iuell what else But if it be rightly vnderstood it is a plaine place against M. Hesk. for he sheweth the change or transubstantiation that is in the Lordes supper to be the same that it is in baptisme which is spirituall and not carnall and so doth verie fitly compare them together or else his similitude were to no purpose if it were not to shewe by that which is don in baptisme what is likewise done in the other sacrament M. Heskins still blattereth of a bare figure which is of vs always denyed Consequently he citeth Bernarde whose authoritie I leaue vnto him being a burgesse of the lower house in which he hath many voices as he hath neuer a one in the vpper house though he wrest their speaches most iniuriously To confirme some phrase of Bernard he rehearseth certein phrases of the old writers like to them in words but not in sense which haue bene aunswered alreadie as Hierom. ad Hed. qu. 2. Our Lord Iesus is the feaster the feast he that eateth and which is eaten Ambrose in praepara ad miss which is none of his but falsly intituled to him Thou art the Priest and the sacrifice wonderfully and vnspeakably appointed And Augustine in Psal. 33. He was borne in his owne hands But he leaueth out a worde which expoundeth both Augustine and all the rest that speake so quodam modo after a certeine manner Christ was borne in his owne hands is the feast that which is eaten the sacrifice I say quodam modo therefore not simpliciter Last of all he wil ioyne issue to subscribe on this point that the proclaimer can bring but one auncient doctor that saith the sacrament is not to be adored To whome I answer that forasmuch as in the primitiue church the opinion of transubstantiation was not knowen there neuer grew any question of the adoration of the sacrament as that Papistes nowe do vse it and commaund it The eyght and fortieth Chapter confuteth the rest of the proclaymers wordes before rehearsed against the honouring of Christ in the sacrament The words which he taketh vpon him to confute are these It is a newe deuise to worship the sacrament About three hundreth yere past Pope Honorius commaunded it to be lifted vp and the people reuerently to bowe vnto it How doth he confute these words First he saith it is no newe deuise but the contrarie that is the denying of the adoration is not past fourtie yeres old and yet he confesseth before that some infected with the heresie of Berengarius Wickliffe might whisper it in corners yet Berengarius and Wickliffe preached openly beâ—ore them Bertrame wrote a booke to Charles the great wherein he confuteth the reall presence which began in that time to be receiued of some as it seemeth vpward euen to Christ al the auncient fathers are against that carnall presence consequently against adoration But to proceede Admitting that Honorius was the first that commaunded it to be worshipped which was 300 yeres agoe yet is he elder then Oecolampadius not defamed of heresie as Oecolampadius was yes M. Hesk he is defamed of more then heresie and proued to bee an antichrist As for the continuance of 300. yeres in an errour can make no prescription against the trueth But he saith it is a fond argument of the proclaimer Because Honorius commaunded the adoration of the sacrament therefore it was neuer in vse before But if it were generally beleeued vsed in all ages before as M Hesk. would beare vs in hande what neede had Pope Honorius to commaund it He saith in like manner the fleshly sort of them dispute to mainteine their shamelesse abode with their women it is a newe deuise that priests should not marrie inuented by Vrban and Gregorie Whether M. Heskins were marryed or else had a shamelesse abode with a woman I leaue to be tryed by God the countrie in the countie of Cambridge But to the purpose I haue not heard any affirme these late Popes to be the first forbidders of marriage and therefore it is to no purpose that he citeth Syluester before them and Calixtus before him and the counterfet Canons of the Apostles before them all And yet by the prohibition of the latest Popes it is certeine that Priestes were married vntill their time And for as much as the scripture alloweth their marriage and condemneth the forbidders thereof and the eldest fathers in the primiâ—iue church confesse no lesse it is not to bee regarded although a whole hundreth Popes in a rowe did euery one forbid it The like example he bringeth of fasting in Lent decreede in the eight Toletane counsell neere 700. yeres after Christe but yet affirmed of Hierome to be a tradition of the Apostles For so they vsed to father such ceremonies and vsages as they knewe not the beginning of them vpon tradition of the Apostles neuerthelesse he cannot shewe any Pope or any councell before Honorius that did commaund adoration of the sacrament wherefore the wordes are vnconfuted vntill the contrarie can be shewed After this the Proclaimer sayth he falleth to mocking the Scholasticall doctours as S. Thomas Duns Durand Holcos and such like to make it seeme a dangerous thing to honour the sacrament for that the people cannot discerne the accidents from the bodie of Christ and so may committ idolatrie in honouring the outwarde formes in steede of Christ or if the priest do â—mitt consecration This M. Heskins calleth a mocking but he is not able to auoide it in good earnest
He calleth it a phantasie like to that which ioyned with auarice pulled downe all the Abbeys in England The like phantasie he sayth might moue vs not to honour Christ in heauen and much more the Apostles that honoured Christ in the flesh percase not sufficiently discerning the humanitie from the Deitie and so likewise others that worshipped Christ yet doe euen some of the proclaymers schollers vnderstand not these quiddities Shal they therefore fly the honor of Christ in heauen A wise comparison betweene Christe both God and man who no doubt is to be worshipped both as God as the mediator of God man and the accidents of breade wine or bread and wine when they are not consecrated Christ in the flesh is to be worshipped because he was incarnate and ioyned to the humanitie in a personall vnion but he is not to be worshipped in bread wine or in the accidents of bread wine because he is neither impanated nor inuinated nor inaccidentated that is not ioyned to any of them in a personall vnion To these doubtes that are moued by his owne schoolemen what if the Priest do not consecrate what if he speake not the wordes of consecration what if he had none intention to consecrate in all which cases the schoolemen define that the people committ idolatrie if they worship their hoste First hee sayeth he goeth about to shake the foundation of this sacrament as Brentius doth of baptisme Concerning Brentius although it were easie to defende his assertion euen by the schoolemen yet because it is no matter of our controuersie I will briefely passe it ouer Brentius helde that Christ hath not bound vs to baptise in certein forme of wordes to be pronounced by the minister so the meaning be obserued that he baptise into the name of the Father of the Sonne of the holie ghost Herevpon charitable M. Heskins rayleth on him that he impugneth the forme of baptisme and reiecteth the wordes of baptisme which is vtterly false and then he reasoneth that if the wordes of baptisme may be without daunger omitted why may not the words of consecratiō likewise as though Brentius sayeth they might be omitted where he speaketh of altering the forme of wordes when the same sense remaineth Next to this he farceth in another slaunder of vs that we agree not in the number of the sacraments some admitting three some two some foure and some neuer a one The world knoweth what we holde herein After this he sheweth out of Basil Damascen the necessitie of the forme of baptisme which wee confesse Brentius him self doth not denye At length he defineth contrarie to the scholemen that if consecration be omitted the danger is to the priest not to the people that worship an idol Finally he wil moue the like doubt of our ministration what if the minister of the communion doe neither speake the words of consecration nor haue intent to minister what do the people receiue I aunswer with his intentiō wee haue nothing to doe but for asmuch as nothing is whispered or mumbled in our Communion but so vttered that all men may heare and vnderstand if any thing be omitted that is necessarie to the consecration of the sacrament if the people communicate with him they are in as great fault as he As for Richerus whome he calleth a Caluenist that forbiddeth to pray to Christ and reiecteth the wordes of consecration if any such be let him aunswere for him self we haue nothing to do with him Although we acknowledge not any mumbling of wordes but the whole action according to Christes institution to be the forme of consecration of the sacrament The nine and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstanding of Christes wordes by Irenaeus Tertullian Irenęus is cited lib. 4. Cap. 32. Sed discipulus c. But also giuing counsell to his disciples to offer to God the first fruites of his owne creatures not as to one that hath neede but that they also should neither be vnfrutefull nor vnthankefull he tooke that bread which is of the creature gaue thankes saying this is my bodie likewise he confessed the cupp which is of the creature that is among vs to be his bloud taught the newe oblation of the newe testament which the church receiuing of the Apostles in all the worlde offereth to God. Here M. Hesk. choppeth off the taile for it followeth Euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs the first fruites of his giftes which words do both open the purpose of Irenaeus shewe that the oblation was of bread wine not the naturall bodie of Christ as M. Hesk. gathereth together with the reall presence But for clearer proofe he addeth another testimonie out of Irenęus which he quoteth lib. 5. but it is lib. 4. ca. 34 which it seemeth he redd not him selfe in the author both because he knewe not where it was writen also because he omitteth some wordes in it Quomodo autem constabit eis c. he leaueth out autem eis but thus the wordes are in english But how shall it be knowen vnto them that that bread in which thankes are giuen is the bodie of their Lorde and the cupp of his bloud if they say not that he him selfe is the sonne of the maker of the worlde c. And how againe do they say that the fleshe commeth to corruption receiueth not the life which is nourished of the bodie bloud of our Lord Out of these places he noteth that the sacrament is the bodie and bloud of Christ that our flesh is nourished by the same bodie bloud This we confesse so he meane spiritually but that he will not haue And therfore to drawe the places to his carnall presence nourishing he sayth that Irenaeus hereby impugned two heresies One that Christ was not the sonne of God that made the world but a man liuing in Iewrie which dissolued the law the Prophets all the works of God that made the world The other that the soule only should be saued not the bodie And therefore to confute the former he maketh an argument of the real presence How could a bare naturall man compasse that his bodie should so be if he were not the sonne of God that made the world c. This proceedeth of grosse ignorance or rather of intollerable mallice to deceiue the ignorant For the heresie against which he writeth was not that Christ was a bare man not the sonne of God but that he was the sonne of another God then he that made the world for they made two gods one the maker of the world which they sayd was God of the old testament another the father of Christ which they said was God of the newe testament Now Irenaeus proueth by institution of the sacrament in the creatures of bread wine that Christ is the sonne of God that created the world of none other
fiftieth Chapter sheweth the minde of Iunencus Euseb. Emissen vpon the wordes of Christ. Iuuencus a Christian Poet is cited Lib. 4. Euang. Histor. Haec vbi dicta dedit palmis sibi frangere panem c. When he had thus said he tooke bread in his handes and when he had giuen thankes he diuided it to his disciples and taught them that he deliuered vnto them his owne bodie And after that our Lorde tooke the cuppe filled with wine he sanctified it with thankesgiuing and giueth it to them to drinke and teacheth them that he hath diuided to them his bloud and saith this bloud shall remitte the sinnes of the people Drinke you this my bloud Because this Poet doeth but onely rehearse the historie in verse without any exposition and interpretation and saith no more then the Euangelistes say I will not stand vpon him onely I will note the vanitie of Maister Heskins which like a young child that findeth miracles in euerie thing he seeth still noteth a plain place for Maister Iewel a plaine place for the proclaymer when either there is in it nothing for his purpose or as it falleth out oftentimes much against him Euseb. Emissen is cited Hom. 5. Pasc. Recedat omne c. Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie depart For truely he which is the auctour of the gifte is also the witnes of the trueth For the inuisible priest by secrete power doth with his worde conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie bloud saying thus This is my bodie And the sanctification repeated take and drinke saith he this is my bloud This place hath beene often answered to be ment of a spirituall and not a carnall conuersion as diuerse other places out of the same homilie alledged by M. Hesk. himself doe proue First it foloweth immediately Ergo vt c. Therfore as at the will of our Lord sodenly commanding of nothing the height of the heauens the depths of the waters the wide places of the earth were in substantiall beeing euen so by like power in the spirituall sacramentes vertue is giuen to the word and effect to the thing Therefore how great and notable thinges the power of the Diuine blessing doeth worke and how 〈◊〉 ought not seeme to the too strange and impossible that earthly and mortall thinges are chaunged into the substance of Christ aske of thy selfe which now art borne againe into Christe Here saith M. Heskins he proueth the chaunge possible I graunt and with all sheweth what manner a chaunge it is euen such a one as is in regeneration namely spirituall The same is shewed in the other places following Non dubites quispiâ—â— c Neither let any man dout that by the wil of the Diuine power by the presence of his high maiestie the former creatures may passe into the nature of the Lordes bodie when he may see man himselfe by the workmanship of the heauenly mercie made the bodie of christ And as any man comming to the faith of Christ before the wordes of baptisme is yet in the band of the olde debt but when they are rehearsed he is forthwith deliuered from all dregges of sinnes So when the creatures are set vpon the holie altars to be blessed with heauenly wordes before they be consecrated by inuocation of the highest name there is the substance of bread and wine but after the wordes of Christe the bodie and bloud of christ And what maruell is it if those things which he could create with his word beeing created he can conuerte by his worde Yea rather it seemeth to be a lesse miracle if that which he is knowne to haue made of nothing he can now when it is made chaunge into a better thing Vpon these sayings Maister Heskins vrgeth the chaunge I acknowledge the chaunge and vrge the kinde or manner of chaunge to be spirituall according to the examples of baptisme regeneration Vnto these authorities hee annexeth a large discourse of transubstantiation and citeth for it diuers testimonies olde and newe what the olde are we will take paynes to viewe as for the younger sorte we will not sticke to leaue vnto him First Gregorie Nicene is cited Serm. Catech. de Diuin Sacram. Sicut antem qui panem videt quodammodo corpus videt humanum c. And as he that seeth bread after a certeine manner seeth a mans bodie because bread beeing in the bodie becommeth a bodie so that diuine bodie receiuing the nourishment of bread was after a certeine manner the same thing with that meate as we haue said beeing turned into the nature of it For thâ—t which is proper to all flesh we confesse to haue apperteined to him For euen that bodie was susteined with bread but that bodie because God the WORDE dwelled in it obteined Diuine dignitie Wherefore we doe nowe also rightly belieue that the bread sanctified by the worde of God is chaunged into the bodie of God the WORDE Maister Heskins after his vsuall manner translateth Quodammodo in a manner if not falsely at the least obscurely But that worde Quodammodo that is after a certeine manner looseth all the knotte of this doubt For euen as the bodie of CHRISTE was bread after a certeine manner because it was nourished with bread and bread was after a certeine manner the bodie of Christ euen so we beleeue that the sacramentall bread is after a certeine manner chaunged into the bodie of Christ that it may be the spirituall foode of our soules Ambrose is cited De his qui initian Cap. 9. Where Maister Heskins beheadeth the sentence for it is thus Prior enim â—ux quà m vmbra veritas quà m figura corpus authoris quà m manna de coelo For light is before the shadowe the trueth before the figure the bodie of the authour before manna from heauen Which wordes we may vnderstand howe he taketh the bodie of Christe that sayeth it was before manna namely for the effecte of his death and sacrifice perfourmed by his bodie But M. Heskins beginneth at these wordes Forte dicat c. Peraduenture thou mayst say I see another thing How doest thou assure me that I take the bodie of Christ And this remaineth for vs to proue Howe many examples therefore doe we vse that we may proue this not to be that which nature hath formed it but which the blessing hath consecrated and that there is greater force of blessing then of nature for by blessing nature it selfe is chaunged Moses helde a rodde hee cast it doâ—ne and it was made a serpent Againe he tooke the serpent by the tayle and it reâ—â—rueth into the nature of the rodde Thou seest therefore by the prophets grace the nature of the serpent and of the rodde to 〈◊〉 beene twise changed And after many exaÌ„ples Quod si c. If then the benediction of man was of so great power that is chaunged nature what say we of the very diuine consecration where the very wordes of our Lorde
which terme he giueth to the waters in baptisme Maister Heskins chattereth I wot not what about it nor to what purpose Certaine it is that he vseth not the terme as the Papistes doe for they apply it only to the sacrament of the altar as they call it Leo is cited Serm. 7. de pass dom Iesus confisij sui certus c. Iesus being at a point with him selfe and ready to doe his fathers disposition without feare finished the olde Testament and made the newe Passeouer For his disciples sitting with him to eate the mysticall supper while they in the house of Caiphas were treating howe Christ might be slaine he ordaining the sacrament of his body and bloud did teach what manner of sacrifice should be offered to God and from this mysterie remoued not the traytour This place being against Maister Heskins where hee calleth it the sacrament of his body and bloud c. hee would aunswere the matter by this principle that olde writers did so call the very naturall body of Christ in the sacrament which is all the matter in question But hee will proue it by an other saying in the same place Vt vmbrae c. That shaddowes might giue place to the body and images might ceasse vnder the presence of the trueth the olde obseruance is taken away with a newe sacrament the sacrifice passeth into the sacrifice bloud excludeth bloud and the festiuitie of the lawe while it is chaunged is fulfilled These wordes must needes bee referred to the passion of Christe whereof the sacrifice is a memoriall for the sacrifice of Christe and his bloud shedding on the crosse was the very fulfilling of the shaddowe and image of the Paschall Lambe in the olde lawe and not the institution of the sacrament whiche is a figure or sacrament thereof And so the groundwork of al M. Hes. building is quite ouerthrown The seuen and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same wordes by S. Cyrill and S. Gregorie Cyrillus is cited as he is often ad Colosyrium Non dubites an c. Doubt thou not whether this be true when hee saith manifestly This is my body but rather receiue the worde of our Sauiour in faith For seeing hee is the trueth hee doth not lye Maister Heskins inferreth that the wordes of Christe are manifest and so to be taken in the literall sense without figure bicause he vseth these wordes Christ saide manifestly this is my body but this is a childish mockerie Christe saide manifestly I am the doore Doeth it therefore followe that it is no figuratiue speach and that the woordes of Christe are manifest and therefore to bee taken in the literall sense And yet I beleeue bicause Christ saide manifestly I am the doore that he is in deede the doore though not literally but figuratiuely taken It greueth M. Hes. that the proclamer should play with Duns his indiuidâ—um vagum saying that by the like meanes hee might disgrace the faith of the trinitie to open the quiddities of distinctions and relations of persons that bee spoken thereof And I thinke the same if hee shoulde teach that holy mysterie after the schoole manner not after the word of god But he returneth to an other place of Cyrill Ne horreremus carnem sanguinem Bicause this place is already rehearsed more at large and answered in the 51. Chap. of this booke I will send the reader backe to consider it in that place Gregorie is cited Lib. 4. dialog cap. â—8 Debemus itaque praesens sÄ™culum c. We ought therfore seing we see this present world to be passed away with al our mind to contemne it to offer to god the daily sacrifices of teares the daily sacrifices of his body and bloud For this sacrifice doth singularly saue the soul from eternal destruction which repayreth to vs the death of the only begotten by a mysterie Who although since he arose from death he doth not now dy and death shal haue no more dominion of him yet liuing in him self immortally incorruptibly is sacrificed againe for vs in this mysterie of the holy oblation For his body is there receiued his flesh is diuided for the health of the people his bloud is shed not nowe vpon the hands of the Infidels but into the mouthes of the faithfull Hereof therefore let vs consider what sacrifice this is for vs which for our deliuerance doeth followe the passion of the onely begotten Sonne For which of the faithfull ought to haue any doubt that in the same houre of the immolation the heauens are opened at the Priestes voyce that the companies of Angels are present in the mysterie of Iesus Christ That the lowest things are coupled to the highest earthly things are ioyned to heauenly thinges and that one thing is made of thinges visible and inuisible Of these last wordes of ioyning high and lowe heauenly and earthly thinges he maketh a greate matter which is saith hee that Christe is ioyned to the earthly formes of breade and wine Where note I praye you that he nameth the accidents of things for the thinges them selues which is a toy to mocke an ape And yet he pleaseth him selfe so well therein that he would drawe Irenaeus which is cleane contrarie to transubstantiation to bee a great patrone thereof Irenaeus saith as wee haue shewed before more at large that Eucharistie consisteth of two thinges earthly and heauenly Nowe hee inquireth of vs what is the heauenly part of the sacrament And he reasoneth that it is neither the grace of God nor thanksgiuing nor the worde of God nor sanctification Well what is it then Gregorie saith it is the bodye of Christ and so say we spiritually receiued But if I shuld aske M. Hes. what is the earthly part of the sacrament hee wil say the accidents of bread wine but sauing his wisdome accidents be neither earthly not heauenly but the earthly thing must needs be a substantiall thing what other earthly substance can there be but the substance of bread and wine He saith that corporall receiuing is here auouched by Gregory Then must he tel me how in these words the sacrifice of teares is matched with the sacrifice of his flesh and bloud and how the death of Christe is repaired by a mysterie howe the fleshe of Christ is diuided or parted if this can not bee done but spiritually then Christes body can not be eaten but spiritually The iudgement of Barnard which followeth we leaue to be weighed according to the corruption of the age in which he liued The eigth and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition among the eldest Fathers by Euthymius and Isidorus Although neither of these writers are within the compasse of the challenge yet bicause Euthymius vseth much to followe auncient Doctours and Isidorus was neere the time of the challenge I will set downe their places and examine their wordes Euthymius is cyted In 26. Math. Sicut vetus testamentum c.
saintes in heauen what the rest be he doth not determine he meaneth Siluester Isodore Innocentius Betram Durand Holcot Dunce c. Which if they haue written any thing that is ridiculous in defence of Poperie it were better men should laugh at their follie then be still deceiued with their errours But whereas M. Hesk. will set a player on a stage and a boy in the Paâ—â—is to answere the Bishop I weene it be more then the reuerend M. Doctor Heskins reuested in Doctoralibus and inthronized in his Doctours chayer dare well take vpon him to doe That whiche followeth in this Chapter is consumed in cyting and vrging of the forenamed wryters whose authoritie we doe not admitte appealing alwayes from the lower house of punys Burgesses to the higher house of auncient Barons The sixtieth Chapter proceedeth in exposition of the same text by Theophylacte and Paschasius Although we might demurre vpon the vnderstanding of those wordes of Theophylact In 14. Matth. That the bread wine are transelementated into the vertue of his flesh bloud yet considering the corrupt time in which he liued his authoritie is not worth the striuing for And whereas Maister Heskins would make him so say no more then the olde fathers Hilar. Iren. Cyril Chrysost. c. Seeing we haue already considered their testimonies it were superfluous to repeate them againe in this place and as often as it pleaseth Maister Heskins to abuse their names The one and sixtieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of the same wordes by Oecumenius and Anselmus Oecumenius saith litle to the purpose too or fro But Anselmus goeth more roundly to the matter as one that was the scholler of LanfraÌ„cus which wrote against Berengarius Neuerthelesse vpon these wordes of his riseth some other matter Neque eminet For we do neither altogether exclude a figure froÌ„ this sacrament nor admit an only figure This place M. Hesk. would haue to expound Tertullians figure but we haue shewed before it will not serue Vnto this he addeth Augustine cited in the Popes decrees but not to be found in his workes in these wordes The bodie of Christ is both the trueth and a figure The trueth whyle the bodie and bloud of Christ in the vertue of the holie Ghost is made of the substance of bread and wine but that is the figure which is outwardly perceiued De cons. Dist. 2. Cap vtrum When these wordes are found in any worke of S. Augustines we will make aunswere to them otherwise we may not receiue them of the onely credit of the Popes law Vnlesse they haue such meaning as the saying of Hilarius B. of Rome which followeth Corpus Christi c. The bodie of Christ which is takeÌ„ at the altar is a figure whyle the bread wine are seene outwardly and a truth while the bodie and bloud of Christ inwardly are beleeued It seemeth to me this saying to be playne ynough that the sacrament is an outward figure of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is inwardly receiued spiritually by faith As Gratian also reporteth the wordes of the same Hilarie De Cons. Dist. 2. Vbi pars est Non enim est quantitas visibilis in hoc aestimanda mysterio sed virtus sacramenti spiritualis The visible quantitie is not to be regarded in this mysterie but the spirituall vertue of the sacrament But M. Heskins proceedeth and by Anselmus authoritie he will auoide the trifling sophysticall argument made by Maister Pilkinton in the open disputation holden in Cambridge By like Maister Heskins had not learned the solution at that time and therefore nowe he sendeth it ouer the sea to him The argument was this Christe tooke bread he blessed bread he brake bread wherfore he gaue bread to his disciples if he gaue bread then not his bodie M. Heskins saith he so vseth the words as though by the actes which the verbes expresse nothing had beene done Yes M. Heskins he chaunged the vse but not the substance But by the like sophisme saith Maister Heskins he might proue that he gaue no sacrament of his bodie For that he deliuered which he tooke but he tooke bread no sacrament therfore he deliuered bread no sacrament But by his patience this sophisme of his is nothing like Maister Pilkintons argument For in one proposition he speaketh of the substance in the other of another qualitie or affection beside the substance as in this example that which you bought in the shambles you haue eaten but you bought cowe fleshe therefore you haue eaten caulfes fleshe Euerie childe seeth this followeth not But if I speake of the substance in both alike it followeth as thus That which you bought in the market you haue eaten but you bought mutton therfore you haue eaten mutton Vpon the premises graunted this argument followeth of necessitie and such is the argument of Maister Pilkinton which all the Papistes in Louayne can not answere The tâ—o and sixtieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Rupertus and Nicholaus Methonen In this whole Chapter is nothing worth the reading and much lesse the aunswering for he doeth nothing but cite and vrge the sayings of these two late writers of whose authoritie he knoweth we make none account as there is no reason why we should they being members of the Popish Church For the auncient writers whome he nameth their sayinges haue beene already weyghed and aunswered The three and sixtieth Chapter taryeth in the exposition of the same wordes by Innocentius Germanus The authoritie of Pope Innocent the third which called the Laterane Counsell in which transubstantiation was first decreede must needes be of great credite with vs But Germanus bishop of Constantinople the Popes sworne enimie I marueile why hee is ioyned with the Pope For that he saith is small to M. Heskins purpose and therefore he helpeth him out with Damascen yet he confesseth his saying subiect to cauilling For where he writeth that in the sacrament Dominus conspicitur c. Our Lorde is both seene and suffereth him selfe to be touched by the feâ—â—full and holy mysteries c. and so sayeth Chrysostome thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him c. Maister Heskins sayeth we reason and so wee maye in deede that we eat him as we see him which is onely by faith But M. Heskins with profound Logike wil aunswere this argument that a thing is sayde to bee seene when the outwarde formes are seene and so Christe is seene when the formes of bread and wine are seene But by his fauour a thing is seene when the proper formes accidents thereof are seene but the forme or accidents of bread and wine are not the proper formes of Christes bodie therefore Christes bodie is not seene by them no more then I see a man when I see the house wherein he is or then I see a knife when I see the close case or sheath wherein it is And
suppressing the rest for very shame they make so much against him Surely in all reasonable mens consciences what so euer hee left out of this place hee left the aduauntage of his owne cause and no title againste him But let vs see here what Maister Heskins a man of inuention passing Sinon the GrÄ™cian hath gathered out of it There bee two thinges in this place plainely taught The first is the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in that he so reuerently calleth the sacrament vnder one kinde the portion of the Lords body and the other he calleth the cup of the holy bloud For the spiritual bloud is not contained in external or material vessels No syr but the sacrameÌ„t of his natural bloud is wherof he speaketh as it is manifest by the words immediatly before the portion of the Lords body for his natural body is not broken into portions but the bread which is a sacrament thereof is broken and therby is shewed what wicked men receiue both in this saying of Gelasius in the other of Leo not the naturall body of Christe which cannot be receiued in portions but a portion of the sacramental bread which is therfore called the body of Christ bicause it is so indeed to them that receiue it worthily is consecrated to that vse that it may be the coÌ„munication of the body of christ And as it hath ben often shewed sacraments beare the names of the very things wherof they are sacrameÌ„ts The second thing that he teacheth saith M. Hes. is that he calleth not these two kindes Sacramentum a sacrament but Sacramenta sacramentes in the plural number signifying therby that each of them is a whole sacrament O new Diuinitie theÌ„ ye Papistes haue eight sacraments But are you such a prudent gatherer M. Hes it appeareth you wil lease none aduantage for the taking vp I commend you But for all that doth not your Authour Leo call both kindes sacramentum a sacrament and that is more for it is too too childish to reason of the singular number doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kindes Vnum idémque mysterium one and the same mysterie And when he vseth the plural number the ground of your Achillean argument doth he not say Integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur Let them take the whole sacramentes or else let them be kept from the whole signifying that they which tooke the bread onely tooke but halfe the sacramentes and none took the whole but they that tooke the cup also But nowe for the practise of the Primitiue Church to haue receiued in one kinde he saith that in time of persecution the Priest deliuered them of the sacrament wrapped in fine linnen clothes to carie home with them and to receiue it secretly by them selues and this could bee none other but the sacrament vnder the foâ—ne of breade Admit it were so that they caried home the sacrament yet it followeth not but they might as well carie the wine in a faire pot as they caried the breade in a faire cloth And although TertulliaÌ„ writing to his wife name bread only yet doth it not followe but that he comprehendeth the cup also The wordes of Tertullian are before rehearsed and answered Lib. 1. cap. 24. 27. Next is brought in Basil. Episto ad Caesareant patriciam Illud autem c. As for that to be a grieuous thing in the times of persecution any man to be inforced to receiue the communion with his owne hand the Priest or Deacon not being present it is more then nedeth to proue for bicause the same thing is by a long custome and by the very vse of things established For all they that in the wildernesse lead a solitarie life where there is no Priest keeping the communion at home communicate of them selues But in Alexandria and Aeâ—ypt euery one of the people for the most part haue the communion in their owne house For when the Priest doth consecrate the sacrifice and distribute it we must well beleeue to participate and receiue it For in the Church the Priest giueth part and he that taketh it receiueth it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand It is therfore the same thing in vertue whether a man take one part of the Priest or many parts together Of the credite and authoritie of this Epistle which being cited in the name of Saint Basil is not to be found in all his workes I haue spoken before sufficiently as also of the reseruation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first booke cap. 27. But for the communion in one kinde I see nothing that he saith sauing that Maister Heskins gathereth that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hote countries conueniently in their own kind such long time as they were forced to reserue the sacrament in the wildernes and else where But I aunswere him that such strong wine as they haue in those hote countries will bee kept longer from sowring then the breade will bee from moulding and therefore his gathering is altogether fond ridiculous But now you shall heare a more plaine testimoine for this receipt vnder one kinde if you will hearken to S. Cyprian He is cited In sermone de Lapsis a long saying to litle yea to no purpose at all Praesente ac teste meipso c. Heare what came to passe my selfe beeing present and witnesse The parentes of a childe flying by chaunce while for feare they tooke no good aduisement leaft their young daughter vnder the cherishing of a nource the nource brought her so left vnto the Magistrates They before an Idole where the people were gathered because for her age she could yet eate no flesh gaue vnto her bread mixed with wine which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish Afterwarde the mother receiued her daughter But the litle mayde could no more speake and declare the offence that was committed then vnderstand it before and forbidde it Through ignorance therfore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her whyle we were sacrificing But truely the girle beeing among the Saintes not abiding our prayer and supplication sometime was constrained to crie out sometime with vehement greefe of minde was tossed here and there euen as though a tormentor compelled her the ignorant soule by such tokens as she could acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those yong and tender yeres But after the solemnities beeing accomplished the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present and when the rest had receiued and her place was next the little one by the instinct of Gods Maiestie turned away her face pressed her mouth with her lippes stopped refused the cuppe Yet the Deacon persisted and though it were against her will powred in somewhat of the sacrament of the cuppe Then followed belking and vomite In a bodie and a mouth that was defiled the Eucharistie
For both they haue taken vppon them one administration and both are appointed forerunners wherefore he sayde not this truely it Helias but if ye will receiue it this is hee That is if with diligent studie and with a gentle not a contentious mynde you will consider the dooings of them both Thus Chrysostome And yet I am not ignorant that else where he supposeth that Helias the Thesbite shall come before the day of iudgement which sauoureth of a Iewish fable more then of a Christian trueth as is plainly proued before The fourth Chapter beginneth to declare by the holy fathers of what things Manna and the waters be figures He beginneth this Chapter with a shamelesse lye for he sayeth that wee affirme Manna to be a figure only of the worde of God which is vtterly false for wee affirme that it was a sacramentall figure of the bodye of Christe and so a figure that it was in deede the bodie of Christ after a spirituall manner to them whiche receiued it worthelie But Maister Heskins will haue it a figure not onely of the worde of God but also of the bodie of Christe in the sacrament and so a figure that is was nothing else but a bare figure and not a sacrament And this hee hopeth to prooue out of Sainct Ambrose ad Iren. Ep. 62. Quaeria◠me c. Thou askest mee why the Lorde God did rayne Manna to the people of the fathers and doeth not nowe rayne it If thou knowest he rayneth and daily rayneth from heauen Manna to them that serue him And that bodily Manna truely is founde at this day in many places But nowe it is not a thing of so greate miracle becaus◠that which is perfect is come And that perfecte is the breade from heauen the bodie of the virgine of which the Gospell doeth sufficiently teache thee Howe much better are these things then the former For they which did eate that Manna that is that breade are deade But whosoeuer shall eate this breade shall liue for euer But it is a spirituall Manna that is a rayne of spirituall wisedome which is powred into them that be wittie and searching is from heauen and deweth the myndes of the Godly sweeteneth their iawes Because there is nothing in this saying of Saint Ambrose for his purpose hee falleth into a greate rage against Oecolampadius for leauing out of this sentence Quanto praestantiora sunt haec superioribus Howe much more excellent are these then the other aboue rehearsed Which howesoeuer it was as I am sure it was not of a falsifying mynde so no man in the worlde might worse exclaime against falsifying of the doctours then Maister Heskins as I haue often shewed and doubt not but I shall shewe hereafter But to the purpose it is euident that Saint Ambrose in the former sentence speaketh of Manna as a corporall foode not as a sacrament in which respect there is no comparison between it the body of christ And he is so farre from saying that Manna as it was a sacrament was but a figure of the bodie of Christ as M. Heskins belyeth him that he saith not at all that it was a figure But hee chargeth vs with two other wicked opinions namely That the sacramentes of the newe lawe giue no grace and that they are of no more excellencie then the sacraments of the olde lawe To the first we aunswere and say that the sacramentes giue not grace of the worke wrought as they teach but that GOD giueth grace by his sacramentes in all his elect wee affirme And to the second wee aunswere that as in substaunce the sacramentes of the olde time were not inferiour to oures so in cleerenesse of reuelation and vnderstanding oures are farre more excellent then theirs and that the place of Saint Ambrose which Maister Heskins doeth next alledge doeth very well shewe Oriente autem c. The sonne of righteousnesse arising and more bright sacramentes of Christes body and bloud shining foorth those inferiour thinges or sacramentes should cease and those perfect should be receiued of the people Maister Heskins noteth that if the sacrament were but a bare signe it should not be so magnified by Saint Ambrose But so often as hee chargeth vs with a bare signe so often must we charge him againe with an impudently For wee doe as much detest a bare signe or figure as hee doth a signe or figure As for the three kindes of Manna that Maister Heskins gathereth is altogether out of Saint Ambrose his compasse For hee hath no more but the bodily Manna and the spirituall Manna as the signe and the thing signified And the rayne of spirituall wisedome is the spirite of GOD which sealeth inwardly in the heart that whiche is expressed outwardly by the externall signes I maruell Maister Heskins alledgeth not Saint Ambrose vpon this text 1. Cor. 10. whose woordes might seeme to haue more colour of his bare figure although they be flat against it in deede Manna aquaquae fluxit de Petra haec dicit spiritualia quia non mundi lege parata sunt sed Dei virtute sine elementorum commixtione ad tempus creata habentia in se figuram futuri mysterij quod nunc nos summus in commemorationem Christi Domini Manna and the water which flowed out of the rocke these he calleth spirituall bicause they were not prepared by the order of the world but by the power of God with out commixtiō of the elements created for a time hauing in them a figure of the mysterie to come which nowe we receiue in remembraunce of Christe our Lorde By these wordes it is euident that our sacraments do so differ from theirs as a figure of that which is to come and a remembrance of that which is past do differ For all sacramentes haue their strength of the death of christ Secondly we see that this father calleth our sacrament a mysterie in remembrance of Christ which speach is farre from a corporall manner of presence that M. Heskins would maintaine by his authoritie The other places cited out of Euthymius a late writer as we haue often saide affirme that Manna was the figuratiue bread and a figure but not Christe which was the trueth Howbeit he meaneth nothing else but that Christ was not in flesh present to the fathers in Manna before he was incarnate and so vseth the terme figure as a prefiguration and shadowing not of the sacrament but of Christ him selfe which is the matter of the sacrament euen as Christ him selfe in the 6. of S. Iohn opposing Manna against the true bread that came downe from heauen speaketh not of that spirituall meat which Manna was to the faithfull but of the outward creature which was onely considered of the wicked to fill their bellies and not to feede their soule But M. Heskins remitteth his reader for al matters concerning the 6. of Iohn to the second booke 36. chapter c. and so do I to the same
bread which he giueth to all which he giueth daily which hee giueth alwayes it is in thy selfe that thou maiest receiue this bread Come vnto this bread and thou shalt receiue it Of this bread it is said all they that estrange them selues from thee shall perish If thou estrange thy self frō him thou shalt perish If thou come neere vnto him thou shalt liue He is the bread of life He that eateth life can not die For howe doth he die ▪ whose meate is life How shall he fayle which hath that vitall substance Come ye vnto him and be satisfied for he is breade Come ye vnto him and drinke for he is a wel Come ye vnto him and be lightened for he is light Come ye vnto him and be deliuered for where the spirite of the Lord is there is libertie Come ye vnto him and be absolued for he is remission of sinnes You aske who this may be Heare ye him selfe saying I am the breade of life he that commeth to me shall not hunger and hee that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst You haue heard him and you haue seene him and you haue not beleeued him therefore you are dead The latter part of this long discourse sufficiently expoundeth the former That Christe and the flesh and bloud of God which M. Heskins noteth to be a plaine place for the proclamer is so our true meate and drinke as he is breade as he is a well as he is light as he is libertie as he is remission of sinnes that is after a spiritual maner And where he saith Manna was a figure or shaddowe and not the trueth of that which was to come he meaneth of Manna as it was corporall meate and eaten of the vnfaithfull that are dead and not as it was spiritual meat and eaten of the faithfull which are aliue as S. Augustine saith Moreouer it is to be noted that S. Ambrose saith that he which eateth this bread which is life can not dye Therefore no wicked man eateth this bread this meate this flesh of God which with S. Ambrose are all one As for the difference of our sacramentes what it is we haue shewed before and this place sheweth none For Ambrose speaketh of Manna as a corporall meat and not as it was a spirituall meate and sacrament The sixt Chapter declareth that Manna was a figure by the testimonie of S. Cyprian and Chrysostome It hath bene often confessed that Manna of the olde fathers is called a figure of the body of Christ but that it was only a bare figure and not the body of Christe vnto the faithful that is it we deny Cyprian is cited to litle or no purpose in ser. de Coen Dom. Huius panis c. Of this bread Māna was a figure which rayned in the desert So whē we are come to the true bread in the land of promise that meat fayled M. Heskins saith it is more manifest then that it can be denyed that this bread he speaketh of is the holy bread of the sacrament in which he acknowledgeth to be no breade at all Then as manifest as he maketh it it was a figure of Christ which is the spiritual matter of the sacrament and not of any holy breade thereof But this he saith will be proued by the last wordes of that sermon which in deede proue the cleane contrarie to his purpose Sed nos ipsi c. But we also being made his body both by the sacrament and by the thing of the sacrament are knit and vnited vnto our heade euery one being members one of an other shewing the ministerie of loue mutually do communicate in charitie are partakers of one cup eating the same meate and drinking the same drinke which floweth and runneth out of the spirituall rocke which meate and drinke is our Lord Iesus Christ. Here is a plaine place for the proclamer the meate and drinke is our Lorde Iesus Christe But what proclamer denyeth that our meat and drinke in the sacrament is the body and bloud of Christe This we deny that the same is present after a bodily maner or after a bodily manner receiued but spiritually onely or by faith euen as the same writer faith immediatly before Haec quoties agimus c. As often as we doe these things we sharpen not our teeth to eate but with sincere faith wee breake and diuide that holy bread But how can M. Heskins auoyde this that we are made the body of Christe as we are partakers of his body in the sacrament whiche must needes be spiritually Howe liketh he the distinction of the sacrament and the thing or matter of the sacrament when with Papistes either there is no difference made betweene the sacrament of his body and his body it selfe or else the sacrament is nothing else but the accidents of breade and wine by which we are neither made the body of Christ nor vnited to him But to auoyde our glose of spiritualitie he fleeth backe to the saying of Cyrillus in 15. Ioan. which he hath so often repeated and yet mangled and gelded least the true sense might be gathered out of it Non tamen negamus c. Yet do we not denye but that we are spiritually ioyned to Christ by right faith and sincere loue but that we haue no manner of coniunction with him after his flesh that truely we doe vtterly deny and say it to be altogether repugnant to the holy scriptures For who hath doubted that Christe is also a vine and we the branches which from thence receiue life into vs Heare what Paule saith that we are all one body in christ For although we be many yet are we one in him For we all take part of one breade Or doeth he thinke perhaps that the vertue of the mystical benediction is vnknown to vs Which when it is done in vs doth is not make Christ to dwell in vs corporally by communication of the flesh of Christ. For why are the members of the faithfull the members of Christ c. In these wordes Cyrillus reasoneth against an Arrian which abusing this text I am a Vine and my father is the husband man saide it was spoken of the deitie of Christ and could not be expounded of his manhoode which Cyrill denyeth shewing that we are not onely spiritually ioyned to Christe as to God but also corporally that is to his body as to man yet after a spirituall manner as the textes by him alledged doe proue sufficiently and namely the argument taken of the vertue of the mysticall blessing which by communication of his fleshe maketh vs his members of his body which all men confesse to bee so after a diuine manner that euen they which neuer receiued that sacrament are yet members of Christe hauing put him on and beeing ingrafted to him in baptisme But Maister Heskins will tell vs the difference of the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament out of August in deede out of the sentences of
illud c. But beholde that more reuerently that after the venerable signes are layde vppon the altare by which Christ is signified and receiued there is present by by a description of saintes or holy ones It is meete that a false matter should begin with a counterfet doctour I haue shewed before that neither Eusebius nor Hierome nor Gennadius knewe any such Dionyse by the space of fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Christ therefore his testimonie must be so many hundred yeares short of the Apostles times But M. Hesk. wil not see that his Dionyse calleth the sacrament signes by which Christ is signified and receiued He can see nothing but the altar in that saying Next to Dionyse he bringeth Ambrosius in orat prÄ™parâ—t ad missaâ—t a meere counterfeit as Erasmus hath obserued therefore worthie of none answere But before I proceede to the next author that he citeth for the altar which is Augustine I will set downe a manifest disproofe of M. Hesk. proofe that altars haue ben vsed since the Apostles times Firste it is certeine that our sauiour Christ did institute this sacrament at a table at no altar whereas if it had bene a sacrifice he would haue caused an altar to be made which had bene soone done Secondly the Apostle Paul calleth it the Lords table neuer calleth it an altar M. Hesk. alledgeth for the sacrament out of the actes of the Apostles that the disciples continued in breaking of bread in euery house but I suppose he wil not dreame that there was an altar in euerie house In the primitiue church when the people mett in corners secrete places no man of reason wil imagin they had altars set vp in those places Nay it is certein by Origen Amobius they had neither altars nor teÌ„ples nor images Origen Cont. Cel lib. 4. reporteth that the heathen man Celsus obiecteth against vs that we haue no images nor altars nor temples The like is in Arnobius lib. 2. against that Gentiles who declareth that they acuse vs that we haue neither temples nor images nor altars By these auncient writers it appeareth that it was a common obiection of the heathen men against the Christians that they had no altars The like sheweth Tertullian ad Scapulam Itaque sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris sed Deo nostro ipsâ—ut sed quo modo prÄ™cepit Deus pura prece Therfore we also do offer sacrifice for the health of the Emperour but vnto our God his only but as God hath commaunded with pure prayer These wordes of Tertullian declare that the Christians had neither altar nor sacrifice other then prayer In Cyprians time also it was a table de cana Dom. Inter Dominicae mensae cormuines animalis homo non recipitur the naturall man is not receiued among the guestes of the Lords table And although of diuerse of the olde writers it was called an altar yet was it so called improperly euen as the communion was called of them a sacrifice for still it was a table and nothing like the popish altars which are of stone set against a wall for they stoode in the midst of the church so that the people came rounde about them as appeareth by Eusebius lib. 10. ca. 4. ad Paulin. Tyr. Episc. Absoluto templo sedibus excelsissimis ad honorem praesidentium subsellijs ordine collocatis ornato post omnia sancto sanctorum videlicet altari in medio constituto The temple being finished and garnished with high seates for the honour of the gouernours lower seates placed in order after all the holie of holies that is to saye the altar placed in the middest The like hath Augustine de verb. Dom. Ser. Ioan. Ser. 46. de eo quod scrip qui manduc Christus quotidie pascit Mensa ipsiut est illa in medio constituta Quid causae est ô audientes vt mensam videatis ad epulat non accedatis Christ feedeth daily that is his table which is placed in the middest What is the cause O you hearers that seeing the table ye came not to the feast Hee speaketh to the nouices or Catechumeni Gregorius Nazianzenus calleth it a table ad imperator Irasceus shewing what intercessors he would bring to pacifie the Princes displeasure as the death passion resurrection ascension of Christ. Aut etiam mensam hanc ad quaÌ„ communiter accedimus meae sabutis rypos quos eodem celebro ore quo nunc fungor legatione sacram dico ad superna ducentem mystagogiam or else euen this table vnto which wee come all together and the figures of my saluation which I do celebrate with the same mouth with which nowe I execute this Ambassage of intreatie I meane that holy mysterie leading to high things Beside the table in the saying of Greg marke what termes he vseth in describing the sacrament he calleth it the types or figures of his saluation and a holy and heauenly mystagogie Chrysost. most commonly calleth it a table for example Hom 45. in Ioan. A mensa hac prodit fons qui fluuios spirituales diffundit From this table commeth a spring which powreth forth spirituall riuers And in a great number of places he calleth it the holie table But nowe wee must heare Maister Hesk. citing Augustine lib. 9. Conf. Ca. 13. Illa imminente c. Shee the day of her death being as hand was not carefull to haue her bodie sumpâ—uously buried or to be spiced with spices or coueted to haue a solemne monument or to be buryed in her own country These things shee did not commaunde vs but onely shee desired that remembrance of her should be made as thine altare which shee without any dayes intermission had serued From whence she knewe the holie sacrifice to be dispensed by which the hand writing was put out that was against vs. In these wordes S. Augustine calleth it an altar reporting the superstitious request of his mother according to the errour of that time We make no question but that they did call the table an altar but we affirme they called it so vnproperly euen as they did call the sacrament a sacrifice and the minister a priest and the deacon a Leuite And as they called it an altare so there is fewe or none but called it a table also and so doth Augustine often times as de cultur agr Dom. Mensa sponsi tui panem habet integrum poculum sanctum The table of thy spouse hath whole bread and a holie cupp And againe Contra liter Petilian lib. 2. Chap. 47. Non dicunt ifta nisi qui de Mensa Domini vitaiâ— suâ—ruâ—nt sicut Petrus non iudicium sicut Iudas None say these things but such as receiue life at the Lordes table as Peter and not damnation as Iudas But Maister Heskins hath another place out of Saint Augustine wherein hee calleth it the altare of God Sermone ad infant Hoc quod videris
no man of learning will acknowledge them to be his And seeing the Greeke Liturgies are very vnlike the Latine Masse hee doth but mocke the ignorant readers to say they be all one Finally hee doth most absurdly conclude that his Masse should be within the compasse of Saint Augustines rule ad Ian. Ep. 118. That those thinges which the vniuersall Church obserueth throughout the worlde we may vnderstand that they are retayned as ordained either of the Apostles them selues or of the generall Counsels whose authoritie in the Church is most profitable Illa que per orbem vniuersa obseruat Ecclesia datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel a plenarijs concilijs quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrim a authoritas statuta retineri Thus hath M. Hes. cited Augustine to haue a starting hole vnder the name of the church but Saint Augustines wordes are somewhat otherwise Illae autem quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus quÄ™ quidem toto terrarum orbe obseruantur datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel plenarijs concilijs quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas commendata atque statuta retineri sicuti quod Domini passio resurrectio ascensio in Coelum aduentus de Coelo Spiritus sancti anniuersaria solennitate celebrantur si quid eliud â—ale occurrerit quod seruatur ab vniuersis quacunque se diffundat Ecclesia Those things which we obserue being not written but deliuered which truely are obserued throughout all the world it is giuen to be vnderstoode that they are retained as commended and decreed either by the Apostles or by generall Counsels whose authoritie in the Church is most wholsome as that the Passion resurrectioÌ„ of our Lord and his Ascention into heauen and the comming of the holy Ghost from heauen are celebrated with yerely soleÌ„nitie or if there be any such like matter which is obserued of all men wheresoeuer the Church spreadeth her self But seing the Popish Masse was vnknowne to the world in Augustines time neuer vsed throughout the worlde of all men for the orientall Churches neuer receiued it to this day if it haue no better holde then it getteth by this place of Augustine it must needes fall to the ground And thus much concerning the name fourme of the Masse In the next Chapter we shall heare of the matter or substance of the Masse it selfe The three and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the Masse it selfe Maister Heskins first with rayling tearmes taketh exception to the proclaymers diuision of the Masse into foure partes Prayers consecration receiuing doctrine except he adde oblation as the fifte or comprehend it vnder the name of consecration Moreouer he saith this is but a description of Masse in the large signification But the Masse it selfe properly is the holie consecration of the bodie and bloud of Christ the holy oblation and offring of the same in the memoriall and remembrance of his passion and death with humble and lowly thankes lawdes and prayses for the same and holy receiuing of that body and bloud so consecrated Here is the Lions skinne couering the asse but yet not so closely but the long eares may be seene hanging out For as the forme of these wordes for the most parte may be applyed to the holy communion so almost by euerie word he vnderstandeth another thing then either the scriptures or the auncient fathers do teache as we shall best see in the examination of the partes which followe First where he sayeth the proclaymer cannot abide consecration he sayeth falsely for both he graunteth consecration and the presence of Christes bodie and bloud but not the Popish charming nor their carnall manner of presence whiche how they be proued by M. Heskins let the readers iudge Oblation the second part he sayeth is proued in the first book and declaration of the prophesies of Melchisedech Damascen Malachie and in the 37. Chapter In the same places let the reader consider the answere In receiuing which is the thirde part two things saith Maister Heskins offend the proclaymer that is receiuing vnder one kinde and receiuing of the Priest alone The former is defended by him Lib. 2. from the 64. Chap. to the end of 67. Chap. there it is in this booke confuted The priuate receiuing he saith shall be defended afterward In doctrine the 4. part he knoweth not what faulte the proclaymer can finde wherein is greatest fault of all but M. Heskins will haue nothing to be the doctrine of the Masse but the Gospell and Pistle and other scriptures that are read in it In prayer the fift and last parte he findeth two faultes namely prayer to Saintes and for the dead for triall of these he will haue recourse to the primitiue Church It is well he can haue no recourse to the holie scriptures nor to the most ancient Church which is properly called the primitiue Church although these two errors be of great antiquitie But before M. Heskins vndertake these trials he girdeth at the communion ministred in copes and the proclaymer wearing Aarons garment for a bishoprick If the Popish priestes had no more pleasure to say masse in their vestments then the proclaymer to minister in copes I thinke the common sort of Papistes would haue lesse deuotion to the Masses then Gods people haue to the communion when it is ministred without any ceremoniall attyre But Maister Heskins will proue that neuer yet was heard off that Christ himselfe saide Masse For he instituted the Masse in his last supper and that he will proue by Cyprian but why doth he not rather proue it by the Euangelistes Forsooth because the scriptures haue no such vnproper speech to make any shewe of the Masse as Cyprian and the rest of the fathers haue Well let vs heare how Cyprian affirmeth that Christ saide Masse Maister Heskins saith First for the consecration Lib. 2. Ep. 3. He writeth thus Vt in Genesi c. That the blessing in Genesis by Melchisedech the priest might be duely celebrated about Abraham the image of the sacrifice appointed in bread and wine goeth before which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling offered bread the cup mixed with wine and he that is that fulnesse hath fulfilled the veritiâ— of the prefigured image In these wordes M. Heskins forgetting that Christ offred bread wine gloseth vpon the veritie of the image fulfilled by Christ and expressed by Cyprian in other wordes Obtulit c. He offred the same thing which Melchisedech had offered that is bread and wine euen his bodie and bloud Here againe is bread and wine offered by Christe which is his bodie and bloud after a spiritual manner as it was offered by Melchisedech Hitherto no worde of consecration nor of the carnall manner of presence but directly against it Nowe let vs heare howe he proueth oblation Quaerendum est c. It must be asked whom they haue folowed For if in the sacrifice which is
taketh to be ordeined of him for as much as it is not by any diuersitie of maners varied or altered But if it were as he fableth that S. Paul ordeined the ceremonial part of the Masse that was vsed in Augustines time the Popish Masse being not the same in ceremoniall partes as he will confesse that it was in Augustines time it foloweth that the Popish Masse is not that which was ordeined of S. Paule for it is well known it was patched peeced together by many peeces long since August time And as certein it is that almost euerie Church in his time had a seuerall forme of liturgie and therefore by his owne words they cannot be that which S. Paule set in order at the Church of that Corinthians The like impudeÌ„cie he sheweth in the next saying of Aug. which he citeth Et ideo non proecipit c. And therfore he coÌ„manded not in what order it should be receiued afterward that he might reserue this place to the Apostles by whoÌ„ he would set the Churches in order It followeth which M. Hesk. hath omitted Etiamsi hoc ille monuisset vt post cibos alios semper acciperetur credo quòd eum moreÌ„ nemo variasset For if he had charged this that it should always be receiued after other meats I beleeue that no man would haue varied froÌ„ that maner When August speketh so expresly of that one order of receiuing the communioÌ„ before meat what boldness is it to say that crouching kneeling other dumb ceremonies although they were not instituted by Christ yet were ordeined by S. Paul vpoÌ„ colour of Aug. authority who in the same epistle wished al such idle ceremonies vtterly to be abolished The next Massemonger he maketh is S. Andrew out of whose legend written by I knowe not what priestes deacons of Achaia he wil proue that S. Andrew did both say Masse and also therin offer in sacrifice the bodie bloud of Christ. But he is too much deceiued if he thinke any man of reasonable vnderstanding will in these dayes giue credite to such fabulous legends after S. Andrew coÌ„meth in S. Iames with his Masse said at IerusaleÌ„ which is in print but not heard of in the Church 600. yeres after Christ yet M. Hesk. saith it is allowed praysed by the proclaymer which is vtterly false for he proueth by a manifest argumeÌ„t that the liturgie which is in print vnder the name of S. Iames is a counâ—erfet because therein is a special prayer conteyned for such as liue in Monasteries whereas there was neuer a monasterie in the world many hundreth yeres after the death of S. Iames. And for a further proofe of the false inscription of that liturgie to S. Iames I will adde this argument that he vseth the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or consubstantial which as the learned knowe was neuer heard of in the Church before the heresie of Arrius was condemned in the Nicene counsell although the Catholike Church did alwayes confesse that Christ was God of the same substance equal with the father and the holy Ghost In deede the B. of Sarum confesseth that there is more in those liturgies against the Papistes then for them as by examining these parcels which M. Heskins citeth we shall easily perceiue First the liturgie of Iames hath these wordes Dominus c. Our Lord Iesus the same right in which he was betrayed or rather in which night he deliuered himselfe for the life of saluation of the world taking bread into his holie vndefiled innocent immortall hands looking vp into heauen shewing it to the God father giuing thankes sanctifying breaking he gaue it to vs his disciples saying Take ye eate ye this is my bodie which is broken for you and giuen vnto remission of sinnes Likewise after he had supped he tooke the cup and mingling it with wine and water looking vp into heauen and shewing it to the God and father giuing thankes sanctifying blessing filling it with the holy Ghost he gaue it to vs his disciples saying Drinke ye all of this this is my bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you and many and giuen for remission of sinnes This saith Maister Heskins was his maner of consecration vnlike the manner of the newe ministers in their communion which only rehearse the words of Christ historically not directing theÌ„ to God as a prayer wherein he lyeth most impudently as euerie man that heareth or readeth the praier immediately before the receiuing of the sacrament can testifie Concerning the tearme of consecration I haue often shewed that in the true sense thereof we both allow vse it although he wold make ignorant obstinat papists that wil neither heare our preachings nor read our writings to beleeue the contrarie only because he saith it Another ridiculous cauil he hath that we take not the bread into our handes before we consecrate it But let it lie on the table as though we had nothing to do with it Surely we do not acknowledge such holines in our hands that it can consecrate the bread but we pray to God to blesse those his creatures of bread wine that they may be vnto vs the bodie and bloud of Christ his sonne our lord If the Papists haue such holy vndefiled and immortal hands as this Iames speaketh of it is more then we knowe or will confesse before they can proue it In the consecration of the wine he chargeth vs that we mingle no water with the wine But when he can proue by the word of God that our sauiour Christ did so we will confesse our errour otherwise we see no necessitie of the water so their own schoolemen do confesse We acknowledge that in the primitiue Church it was an ancient custome to mingle water with the wine but not as a ceremonie at the first but as the coÌ„mon vsage of al men that drank the hotte wines of the East countries but afterward it grewe to be counted a ceremonie including some mysterie and at length with some it excluded the wine altogether as with those that were called Aquarij so daungerous a matter it is to vse any thing in Gods seruice more then is prescribed by himselfe But M. Heskins caÌ„not be persuaded that after al this sanctifying blessing and filling of the cup with the holy Ghost there should bee nothing else but a bare hungrie figure As though there were no choyce but either transubstantiation or a bare hungrie figure In baptisme there is sanctification blessing and filling with the holie Ghost as much as in the communion is there therefore transubstantiation in baptisme because there is not a bare hungrie figure But if I might be so bold as to examine him in his own fained Masse of S. Iames I would aske him how the cuppe is filled with the holie Ghost essentially so that the holie Ghost or any parte of him is conteined in the cupp I dare say he will say
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
one thing to it selfe bycause euery relatiue must haue a correlatiue For aunswere to this obiection hee saith hee will not vse the quiddities of the schooles but plaine examples but hee pretendeth quiddities where the matter is plaine his examples be mere sophistications The first is That in the diuine presence be sundrie relations grounded vpon the one nature of God. Therefore relation must not be of necessitie betwixt two things distinct A wise example as though the persons betweene which there is relation be not two distinct thinges though they be one vndiuided GOD There is relation betweene the person of the Father and the person of the Sonne therefore the Father is not the Sonne nor the Sonne is the Father yet are they both with the holy Ghost one God. The second example Christ being transfigured in the mount shewing him self in a glorious maner was an exemplar or figure of him selfe nowe in glory and of his glorious comming It is well that he fleeth out of the schooles before he vttereth these absurdities for surely euery boy in Cambridge that hath but once kept sophisme would hisse at him for this assertion wherein he confoundeth the substaunce with the accidents But to leaue the schoole termes which M. Heskins can not nowe abide bicause they bewray his follie I deny that Christes body then was a figure or exemplar of his body now but the glory of his body then was a figure of his glory now and wherewith he shall come and I am sure hee will confesse that they be two distinct thinges for his glory nowe is greater then the brightnesse of the Sunne wherevnto it was then compared Likewise to his third example I answere denying That his immortall body which he shewed to Thomas with the signes and tokens of his woundes was an exemplare of the same body both mortall and passible I say that his immortall body was no exemplar of his mortall body but euen the very same chaunged in qualitie not in substance and the signes of his woundes were signes of his passion and they were two distinct things It is all one that hee citeth out of Chrysostome that Christe shall come to iudgement with the signes of his passion wherevpon he gathereth That Christes body shall then be a signe memoriall or exemplar of it selfe The scripture saith they shall see him whome they haue perced but whether with signes of woundes I dare not say sauing Chrysostomes authoritie but admit he shall come with the same print of woundes yet I deny that his body shall be a figure exemplar or memoriall of it selfe but those signes should be an argument of their crueltie and vngodlinesse that crucified him You see the plainnesse of these examples howe they are plainely against him and that it still remaineth vnremouable that a signe and the thing signified be distinct things Therefore the sacrament being a signe figure exemplar and memoriall of the body and bloud of Christ is not the same after a corporall manner The sixe fourtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Whosoeuer therefore shall eate of this bread drinke of the cupp c. The text is this Whosoeuer shall eat of this bread drink of this cupp of the Lord vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde M. Heskins requireth to the worthie receiuing two things faith and charitie and therefore he concludeth that neither heretikes nor scismatikes can receiue worthily which we confesse to be true Afterward he chargeth vs with abusing this text in two points The one that we affirme material bread to remaine after consecration the other that we deny that wicked men can receiue the body and bloud of Christ and both these errors he promiseth to confute but in the end you shal see they be so assured truthes that all the smoake and mist of his confutation can not darken the light of their veritie The first witnesse he citeth for interpretation of the text is S. Cyprian Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra Euangelij legem c. They against the lawe of the Gospell and your honourable petition before repentance shewed before open confession made of a most grieuous and extreme offence before hands laid on by the Bishop and the cleargie vnto repentance are so bolde as to offer for them and giue them the Eucharistie that is to prophane the holy body of our Lord seeing it is written Whosoeuer shall eate of the bread and drinke of the cup of the Lord vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lord. Of these wordes M. Heskins gathereth that the body of Christe is deliuered and not materiall bread for if materiall bread and not the body is deliuered then the bread is prophaned and not the body A proper collection If the Kings seale for a benefite be deliuered to the Kings enimie or a traitour that receiueth it vnreuerently and vnthankfully is not the King iniuried and his fauour abused I thinke al wise men wil graunt and not say the waxe and parchment only is iniuried and abused bicause the Kings body is not deliuered but waxe and parchment Moreouer I maruell howe M. Heskins can auoyd blasphemie when he saith in the literall sense the body of Christe is prophaned or vnhallowed for to speake properly the body of Christe can not be prophaned or vnhallowed but the sacrament of his body which beareth the name thereof may and the abuse of the sacrament is iustly counted an iniurie vnto his body and bloud whereof it is a sacrament although his body in deed can suffer no iniurie or hurt But the Cyprian acknowledged bread and wine to remain in the sacrament many places of his writings do clearly shew namely lib. 1. ep 6. ad Magnum Denique vnanimitatē Christianam firma sibi atque insuperabili charitate connexam etiā ipsa domini sacrificia declarant Nam quando Dominus corpus suū panē vocat de multorū granorū adunatione congestū populū nostrū quem portabat indicat adunatū Et quando sanguinem suum vinum appelat de botris atque acinis plurimis expression atque in vnum coactum gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum Finally euen our Lords sacrifices doe declare the Christian vnanimitie which is knitted vnto him with an insuperable vnitie For when the Lorde calleth bread which is made one by the gathering together of many cornes his body hee declareth our people which he did beare to be vnited together And when he calleth wine which is pressed out of many clusters and grapes and so gathered into one his bloud hee doth likewise signifie our flocke coupled together by cōiunction of the multitude that is brought into one Here you see the bread which is now the sacrament and is called the body of Christe to be made of many graines likewise the wine to be pressed out of many grapes by which nothing can be vnderstoode but materiall
bread and wine The same Cyprian Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium thus writeth Sic verò calix Domini non est aqua sola aut vinum solum nisi vtrumque sibi misceatur quomodo nec corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi vtrumque adunatum fueris copulatum panis vnius compage sclidatum quo ipsâ— sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus So water onely or wine onely is not the Lordes cup vnlesse both be mingled together euen as onely meale or onely water can not be the body of Christe except both be ioyned and coupled and compacted together in one breade by which very sacrament our people is shewed to be vnited Here bread made of meale and water is called the body of Christ therefore material bread The next authoritie M. Hesk. citeth is Chrysostome Hom. 83. in 26. Matth. Non permittam c. I will not suffer these things to be done I will first deliuer vp my life before I wil deliuer the lords body to any person vnworthily and I will suffer my bloud to be shed rather then I will giue that most holy bloud to any other then to a worthie receiuer Out of this saying he gathereth that the body of Christ may be receiued of an vnworthie wicked person How be it no such thing followeth of these words for though Chrysostome deliuer the body of Christ it followeth not that they receiue it which receiue the sacrament vnworthily which is as much as to refuse it Chrysostome in the same Homely saith this sacrament to be a symbole and signe of Christ crucified and speaking of the cup he saith Sed cuius gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit Perniciosam quandam hÄ™resim radicitus euellere voluit eorum qui aqua in mysterijs vtuntur ita vt ostenderet quia quando hoc mysterium traderet vinuÌ„ tradidit iam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensa vino vsus est Ex germine autem ait vitis quae certè vinum non aquam producit But wherefore did hee not drinke water but wine after his resurrection Hee would plucke vppe by the rootes a certaine most pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the mysteries so that he would shew that both when he deliuered this mysterie he deliuered wine nowe after his resurrection in the bare table of the mysterie he vsed wine And he saith of the fruit of the vine which truly bringeth foorth wine not water Now compare these two sayings of Chrysost. in one sermon Christ deliuered wine Chrysost. would not deliuer the body bloud of Christ see whether the later proue any transubstantiation or carnall manner of presence Besides this it is good to note that Chrysostome saith that Christ vsed wine in the sacrament after his resurrection contrarie to all the Papistes which holde that he ministred to the two disciples at Emaus in bread only And bicause M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of Christes body to the wicked and thereby will gather that the wicâ—ed receiue the very body of Christe let him heare also what Chrysostome saith in the same place speaking of the vnworthy comming to the sacrament Illud enim pessimum est ficus Paulus ait Christum conculcare testamenti sanguinem ducere communem spiritus gratian contemnere For this is the worst thing that can be as Paule saith to tread Christe vnder feete and to esteeme the bloud of the couenaunt as vncleane and to contemne the grace of the spirite Will he say that very body of Christe is troden vnder the feete of the vnworthie receiuer And bicause he standeth so much of the word body and bloud Chrysostome saith further Nullus communicet nisi ex discipulis sit nullus impuro animo sicut Iudas panem assumat ne similia patiatur Corpus Christi etiam hÄ™c multitudo est quare cauendum tibi est qui hÄ™c mysteria ministras ne Dominum irrites corpus hoc non purgando ne acutum gladium pro cibo praebeas Let none communicate except he be of the disciples Let no man with an vnpure minde as Iudas receiue the bread least he suffer the like punishment Euen this multitude also is the body of Christe wherefore thou that doest minister these mysteries must take heede that thou prouoke not the Lorde by not purging this body least thou deliuer a sharpe sword in steed of meat In this saying let the indifferent reader obserue that Iudas receiued bread and wicked men receiue bread that the multitude of Christians is the body of Christe as the sacrament is finally that the minister to a wicked man deliuereth a sharpe sword in steede of spirituall meate and let him iudge howe honestly M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of the body and bloud of Christ to the wicked to exclude bread and to proue that they receiue the very body of Christ. His third witnesse is Origen Hom. 5. in diuorsos Quando sanctum cibum illudque incorruptum epulum accipis c. When thou receiuest that holy meat and the vncorrupt banquet when thou inioyest the bread and cup of life thou eatest and drinkest the body and bloud of the Lord then the Lord entreth vnder thy roofe and do thou then humbling thy selfe followe this Centurion and say Lorde I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe For where he entreth vnworthily there he entereth to the condemnation of the receiuer Here M. Heskins first noteth the presence of Christe secondly that the sacrament it not bare bread both which are graunted thirdly that the body of Christe may be receiued of euill men But all men will confesse that this is an Alegoricall and figuratiue maner of speaking that Origen vseth and may be wel vnderstoode according to the rule of sacraments which beare the names of those things whereof they be sacramentes And seeing Origen doth else where expresly affirme that euill men do not neither can eate the body of Christe in Matth. Cap. 15. it is great vnshamefastnesse to wrest his figuratiue saying in these wordes contrarie to his plaine meaning vttered in plaine wordes Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth this may be obiected and referreth vs to the thirtieth Chapter of this booke for the answere whither I also referre the reader both for the place it self and for the replie to M. Heskins answere The seuen and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstanding of the same by S. Basil and S. Hierome Saint Basil is alledged de baptism Li. 2. QuÄ™st 93. Quoniam Deus in lege c. For so much as God in the lawe hath ordained so great a paine against him that in his vncleannesse dare touch the holy things for it is written to them figuratiuely but for our aduertisement And the Lord saide vnto Moses say to Aaron and his sonnes that they take heede to the holy things of the children of Israel and they shall not
and that the puritie of so greate grace shoulde not make a dwelling for it selfe in vnworthie persons I am verie wel content that this place shal determine the controuersie betweene vs Cyprian sayeth the maiestie of GOD doth neuer absent it selfe from the sacramentes but either hee worketh saluation or damnation by them as well in baptisme as in the Lords supper for hee speaketh of both in the plurall number And seeing infidels and wicked persons cannot bee partakers of the spirite of Christe it followeth they cannot bee partakers of the bodie of Christe for Christ his bodie is neuer separate from his spirite But Augustine contra Crescen is alledged the place is not quoted but it is lib. 1. Cap. 25. Quid de ipso corpore c. What shall wee saye euen of the bodie and bloude of our Lorde the onely sacrifice for our health Although the Lorde him selfe doeth saye Except a man doe eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud he shall haue no life in him doeth not the Apostle teache that the same is made hurtfull to them that vse it amisse For he sayeth whosoeuer shall eate the breade and drinke the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shal bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde But it followeth imediately Ecce quemadmodum obsint diuina sancta malè vtentibus Cur non eodem modo baptismus Behold how diuine and holy things do hurte them that vse them amisse why not baptisme after the same manner By which woordes it appeareth that Augustine speaketh of the sacrament and not of the thing signifyed by the sacrament For he compareth baptisme ministred by heretikes with the Lordes supper vnworthily receiued which comparison cannot stande except you vnderstande the outwarde parte of the sacrament in bothe Baptisme is ministred by heretikes that is to say the outwarde sacrament of baptisme the bodie of Christe is receiued vnworthily to destruction that is the outwarde sacrament of the bodie of Christe for as wee heard in the last Chapter Res ipsa sacramenti the thing it selfe of the sacrament is receiued of euery man to life of no man to destruction whosoeuer doth receiue it The fiftieth Chapter sheweth the vnderstanding of the same â—ext by Effrem Primasius Effrem is cited in tract de die Iudicij Si procul a nobis est Siloe c. If Siloe whither the blinde man was sent be farre from vs yet the precious cuppe of thy bloude full of light and life is neere vs beeing so much neerer as hee is purer that commeth vnto it This then remayneth vnto vs O mercifull Christ that being full of grace and the illumination of thy knowledge with faith and holinesse wee come to thy cuppe that it may profite vs vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes not to confusion in the day of iudgement For whosoeuer being vnworthie shall come to thy mysteries hee condemneth his owne soule not cleansing himselfe that hee might receiue the heauenly king and the immortall brydegrome into the moste pure chamber of his brest For our soule is the spouse of the immortall bridegrome and the heauenly sacramentes are the couple of the marriage For when wee eate his bodie and drinke his bloude both hee is in vs and wee in him Therefore take heede to thy selfe brother make speede to garnish continually the chamber of thine heart with vertues that hee may make his dwelling with thee with his blessed father And then thou shalt haue praise glorie and boasting before the Angels and Archangels with great ioy and gladnesse thou shalt enter into Paradise This saying being directly contrarie both to the corporall manner of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christe and also to that absurde opinion that the wicked receiue the body of Christe Maister Heskins is not ashamed not onely to alledge it as making for him but also tryfleth off the nearnesse of the bloud of Christe which hee sayeth wee denye when wee affirme Christe to bee alwayes in heauen As though the bloude of Christe cannot purge and clense vs except it come downe from heauen and bee powred in at our mouthes As though faith cannot make Christ him selfe to dwell in vs. But where Effrem sayeth his bloud is so much the neerer as hee is purer that commeth vnto it why cannot M. Hesk. vnderstand that the more vnpurer the receiuer of the cup is the further off the bloud of Christ is and so farthest of all from them that be most vnpure that is the wicked and the reprobate But hee woulde haue the bloud of Christ to be as neere the wicked as the godly Againe when Ephrem saith when wee eate and drinke his body and bloude hee is in vs and wee in him with what face can Maister Heskins or any papist in the worlde saye that the wicked receiue the bodye and bloud of Christe in whom Christe is not nor they in him The like syncerity hee vseth in racking the wordes of Primasius Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in mee and I in him As though he should saye they that so eaâ—â— as it is to bee eaten and so drinke as my bloud is to be dronken For many when they seeme to receiue this thing abide not in God nor God in them because thei are affirmed to eate their own damnation M. Hesk. hath so corrupted this place in translation that you may see hee ment nothing but falshood trechery The latine text he citeth thus Qui edit meane carneus bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo pro eo ac si diceret qui sic edent vs edenda est sic bibent vs bibendus est sanguis meus Multi enim cùm hoc videantur acciperâ— in Deo non manent nec Deus in ipsis quia sibi iudicium manducare perhibentur He translateth in English thus He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in mee and I in him As if he should say they that so shal eate my flesh as it is to be eaten and shall so drinke my bloud as it is to be dronken For many when they are seene to receiue this sacrament neither dwell they in God nor God in them because they are witnessed to eate and drinke their owne damnation Now let the reader though hee bee but a meane Latinist iudge whether he haue not corrupted Primasius in translation especially where hee sayeth Multi cùm hoc videantur accipere whiche is manye when they seeme to receiue this thing namely the body and bloud of Christe of whiche hee spake Maister Heskins turneth it into manye when they are seene to receiue this sacrament Many seeme to bee Christians that are not many seeme to bee baptized with the holy Ghoste which are not so many seeme to eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe which doe not because God dwelleth not in them nor they in god Therefore take awaye Maister Heskins false translation and this saying of Primasius
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
content to permitte to the Pope of the Elder Rome to be Primus Sacerdotum according to the definition of the Canons it proueth not his pretended supreame authoritie ouer all other men but onely that he was first in Order For hee himselfe deposed two Popes Syluerius and Vigilius And where Maister Sander interpreteth the definitions of the Cannon to be all the foure first councells he ouerreacheth too much for the Pope could neuer proue his primacie by the Councell of Nice although he forged a decree thereof as is shewed before 63 It is true that Phocas the traytor and murderer of his M. Mauritius vsurping the Empire for a great summe of monie receiued of Boniface the thirde determined the controuersie between Constantinople and Rome giuing Rome the title of Antichrist which from such a holy beginning it claimeth and vsurpeth vnto this day But if the See of Rome had beene the head of all churches by the word of God what neede had the Bishop of Rome to buy it of Phocas but onely to shewe himselfe the successor of Simon Magus not of Simon Peter 64 As it is true that God vsed the peace and authoritie of the Romane Empire to spread abroade the doctrine of the Gospel so is it altogether vntrue that Constantine resigned the citie of Rome to Syluester the Bishop thereof because he builded another imperiall citie in the East to keepe those partes of the Empire in peace and subiection For it is well knowen that many hundreth yeres after Constantine the great his successors inioyed the citie and pallaces of Rome vntill they were defaced by the Gothes and yet afterward the citie was restored to Iustinianus the Emperour out of the handes of the Gothes by Bellisarius and Narses And whereas M. Sander saith that neuer any Emperour of the West had his seate at Rome after Constantinus he sheweth either his great impudence or ignorance in histories For although some of them occupied in warres kept at Milliane Treueres or other cities yet is it vtterly false that there was neuer any Emperour suffered to make his ordinarie mansion place at Rome For Honorius Valentinianus Iunior dwelt at Rome before the subuersion of it by the Gothes many other euen vnto Augustus After which time Italy being oppressed with barbarous nations was no place for the Emperours safetie to dwell in In which meane time the Pope grewe to such greatnesse that he made challenge not onely to the citie but euen to the Empire it selfe taking vppon himselfe Antichrist to remoue it from the East vnto the West which was in deede a great miracle but such a miracle as was more meete for Antichriste to make then the successour of Peter 65 It is true that Rome hath lost no preheminence by the departure of the Emperor for as Chrysostome sheweth in 2. Thes. Antichrist was to succeed the Emperour in the seat of the Empire being made voide and to vsurpe all auctoritie both of God and men pretending the seat of Peter but being in deede the seat of the beast Apoca. 13. and of the Whore of Babylon Apo. 17. as both Augustine and Hieronym doe often times confesse Augu. De Ciuit. Dei. lib. 18. cap. 2. 22. Hie. Algas 9.11 In Esai lib. 13. cap. 47. 66 Although it be confessed by vs that the prerogatiue of the first place was graunted to the bishoppes of Rome in many metings and councels yet is it not granted that it was so alwayes nor in all generall councels And therefore this our confession prooueth not the Pope to be suche a starre candell or light as M. Sanders doeth imagine Nor that hee shoulde bee heade of the church because hee was first in place no more then an archbishoppe is head of the churche of his prouince because he is first in place although his church be compared to the members of a body For all particular churches make but one bodye whereof Christ is the onely head for it were a monstrous body that shoulde haue two heades and therefore it is truely saide in the councel of Basil Papa non est caput principale nec ministeriale vniuersalis ecclesiae The Pope is neither the principall nor the ministeriall heade of the vniuersall churche And therefore as it is saide in the same place the Pope neuer had any prerogatiue but by concession or permission of councels Now make what you can M. Sander of our confession and your owne popish councels 67 It is a faint proofe that the church of Rome is the head rote and mother of all churches because Ambrose and Hierome called the faith of the church of Rome the Catholike faith at suche time as it was true and Catholike in deede As if a man shoulde say the faith of the church of Englande is all one with the Catholike fayth therefore the churche of Englande is the head roote and mother to all churches Likewise that the Vandales which were barbarous people and Arrians calleth the Catholikes Romanes differing from them in nation as much as in religion 68 The fathers neuer beleeued that the Romaine churche cannot erre in the profession of their faith For Cyprian lib 4. Epist. 3. ad Romanos c. Falshood canne haue no accesse to the Romanes meaneth not as M.S. saith such Romaines as tarye in the vnitie of S. Peters chaire but of such as continue in the faith which S. Paule praised therefore hee saith Ad Romanos quorum fides c. The Romanes whose faith was praised by the Apostles Againe he speaketh not of erringe in profession of fayth but of falshood in winking at Scismatikes which sought for a refuge in S. Peters Chaire the principal churche beinge iustly banished out of other Churches And that Cyprian thought not that the Churche of Rome cannot erre in profession of faith it is most manifest by this that if he had bin so perswaded he woulde not haue contrary to the iudgement of the churche of Rome decreed with his felow bishops to adnihilate the sacraments ministred by heretikes As for the decretall epistle of Lucius we reiect it as a counterfet with all the rest of that rable in which these ancient bishops of Rome are faine to write so barbarously as no Carter did speake Latine in their time when they liued and alway extoll the dignity of that See of Rome as though in these great persecutions they had nothing els to talke of but their prerogatiues priuiledges The testimonies of Leo which he citeth sauour of a Romane stomake drawing as neere to the Antichristian pride as the man was to the time which wrote them Barnarde was but a late writer when Antichrist was in the top of his pride therefore his iudgement argueth the corruption of his time Finally when so many Popes haue bin condemned for heretikes what impudācie is to say the Pope or See of Rome cānot erre ▪ 69 To proue that the Emperours acknowledged the church of Rome to be the head of all churches he citeth
Iustinian which was almost 660. yeares after christ Cod. de summa trini◠lege 4. writing to Pope Ioannes Sanctitas vestra capu◠est omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum Your holines is heade of all holy churches I will not quarrell with him that he citeth the words otherwise then they are read in that Epist. by which it seemed he saw not the book himself but I answere that this epistle is a meere counterfet and forged euidence being not founde in the auncient coppies and therefore hath no glose of age vppon it as it is testified by Gregorius Haloander in a marginall note vppon the same Epistle No maruaile if a false title be defended with a forged euidence For if no men had admonished vs of that forgery yet the verie style vnlike Iustinians writing in other places argueth a later inuenter then either that Ioannes or Iustinian Likewise he citeth the saying of Eugenius not long before bishop of Carthage which called the Churche of Rome the head of all Churches and yet he reposed not all his confidence in the bishoppe of Romes aucthoritie but saide he woulde write to his brethren the other bishoppes that they might come to demonstrate the true faith against the Arrians especially to the bishop of the Church of Rome which is the head of all the Churches meaning the principall Churche Vict. lib. 2. 70 Thirdly hee citeth the words of the bishop of Patara intreatinge the Emperour Iustinian for Syluerius bishoppe of Rome whom he had banished There is not one king as Syluerius is Pope ouer the church of that whol world This bishoppe being 550. yeares after Christ and a suter also is not sufficient to make the Bishop of Rome so great a king And whereas Maister Sander sayeth that the Emperor yeelded to his saying repented willed him to be restored and therfore chargeth M. Iewel with impudency for alledging the example of Iustinian banishing Syluerius and Vigilius to proue that he had somewhat to doe in the churche of Rome affirming that hee might as well alledge the homicide and adultery of Dauid to prooue that hee had somewhat to doe with an other mans wife the trueth is M. Sanders forgeth a matter contrary to al histories which affirme that Syluerius dyed in banishment And how vnlike it is that Iustinianus repented of the banishinge of Syluerius vppon the words of the bishop of Patara in respect that he was Pope ouer the church of the whole worlde appeareth by this that he afterward banished Vigilius his next successor in the same sea The wordes of Liberatus whom M.S. citeth cap. 22. bee these Quem audiens imperator reuocari Roman◠Syluerium iussit c. Whom when the Emperour heard he commaunded that Syluerius shoulde be called againe to Rome and that iudgement should be made of these letters so that if it were prooued that they were written by him the bishop might remaine in any citie and if they were prooued to bee false he shoulde bee restored to his owne See. These wordes doe manifestly shew that Iustinian repented him not of banishing the Pope as a thing vnlawfull for him to doe but onely that whereas it was alledged in the Popes behalfe that the letters of treason were forged which he was charged to haue written to the Emperours enemies Iustinian was content that his cause might come to a newe iudgement and if he were found cleare to bee restored if not to continue in banishment To conclude the sayinges of Gregory bishop of Rome in defence of his owne dignitie are of small credit And yet they are a great deale more modest then the proude decrees of his successours For he challengeth the hearing of such controuersies only as arise in those dioces which haue no Metropolitane or Patriarche of their owne to resort vnto to determine them And againe I cannot tell what bishop is not subiect to the Apostolike See if any fault be found in them otherwise all the bishoppes are equall lib. 11. Ep. 58. lib. 7. Ep. 64. 70 The fame glorie and authoritie of the auncient church of Rome is a shame and dishonour to the present popish church of Rome Because it keepeth not nowe but hath altogether reiected the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles that Irenęus commended in his time libr. 3. Cap. 3. nor holdeth that rule or beleefe of the Apostles vndefyled which Ambrose praised in his time Ep. 81. 71 This land of Britaine receiued the faith of Christ as Gildas a Britaine a more auncient and certeine writer then Ado M. Sanders author in the time of the reigne of Tiberius 160. before Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome by the preaching of the Apostles and Euangelists as some write of Saint Paule some of Saint Simon of Cana some of Saint Philip some of Ioseph of Aramathia Neither did Eleutherius sende Fugatius and Damianus by him selfe or as of authoritie but being required by Lucius or Leuer Maure one of the little Kinges of some shiere of Britaine as Ninnius a Britaine doeth testifie For that Lucius was King of all Britaine it is proued false by all the Romaine histories which testifie that the Emperour was then soueraigne of Britaine vnder whome ruled certeine petie Kinges in some partes not throughly conquered 72 Beda an English Saxon more like to knowe matters of this lande then Prosper a forreyne writer affirmeth that the Britaine 's against the Pellagians heretiks desired ayde of the Bishops of Fraunce who by a Synod there gathered sent Germanus and Lupus two Bishops to confute the Pelagians without any sending to Rome or from Coelestinus Bishop of Rome lib. 1. Cap. 17. Likewise the seconde time at the request of the Clergie of Britaine Germanus returneth with Seuerus to roote out the heresie of the Pellagians 73 The zeale of Gregorie the first is to be commended that he sent Augustine to conuert the Saxons to the faith of Christe although the superstitions which hee brought in with the Christian faith cannot be defended The diligence of Augustin in teaching according to his knowledge deserueth praise yet can it not make him an Apostle because an Apostle hath his calling immediatly of God Gal. 1. If we report his pride and crueltie as wee finde in our histories written by Papistes let the worlde iudge whether we or they do him iniurie 74 From Vitellianus the Pope was Theodorus a Grecian sent to be Archebishop of Caunterburie rather to reteine the countrie vnder the vsurped authoritie of the Romish bishop then to instruct them in matters perteining to the faith For the Pope him selfe was afraide of him that beeing a Gręcian hee shoulde teache any thing contrarie to the Romishe religion Beda lib. 4. Cap. 1. 75 King Henrie the eight found his dominions subiect to the tyrannie of the Pope of Rome which vppon good ground and authoritie of the scriptures hee banished out of his realme what cause soeuer papistes do surmise or to speake plainly notwithstanding the iniurious and contumelious dealing of the Pope about
now by the papistes cannot bee but extraordinarie and yet lawfull as hauinge authoritie of God and approbation of Gods Churche mooued with chariti◠to call men out of the blindnes of Idolatrie into the light of the Gospell This I saye as if he had not bin called thither to preach by the Church of God which was in persecution in those places which is an ordinarie a most lawfull calling The seconde fault he findeth is of their preaching in the woodes and fieldes which hath not bene vsed in a Christian countrie but in time of warre As though he hath not reade that in Affrica when the Arrians which are as good Christians as the papists persecuted the true Catholikes and draue them out of the cities they were constrained to meete in such places as they could in woods or fieldes or desert corners That there were sectes amonge them it was to be lamented and yet not to bee marueiled for there muste bee euen heresies amonge you sayeth the Apostle that they which are tryed may be made manifest 1. Corinth 11. verse 19. That the feast of the Assumption was chosen wherein they began the spoile I hope it was of no hatred to the Virgin Mary whom they honour with such honour as is due to her and called her blessed because God hath chosen her to be a mother of Christ although they allow not the new cōception of Christs body vnder forme of bread by the popish priests compared in dignitie by papistes vnto the blessed Virgine as I remember in fiue pointes M. Sander is angry that the newe preachers hate that feast of the Assumption of Mary yet keepe holy the day of the death of S. Paule and S. Thomas They hate it because of the popishe fable of the Assumption of the body of the virgin liuing which yet M. Sander is ashamed of and calleth it the daye of her death The other feastes which they keepe they keepe not in the honor of men but to the honour of God they vse the dayes in which the people is accustomed to be assembled as things indifferent which except it be in cases of offence geuing may well be vsed The watche worde giuen by a boye who striking the Image saide Marye thou must come downe is a vaine matter and yet much more probably to bee defended then the prayers of the Idolaters made to that deafe Idole Blessed Lady helpe me c. Pater noster qui es in coelis c. After the watche worde followed the spoyle of all Idoles and monuments of Idolatrie the magistrates forbidding in vaine I saide before the disordered doing of priuate men cannot bee defended although where M.S. chargeth them with stealinge and caryinge away I am perswaded he slaundereth them as men of as good credit as he do testifie except some pilfering theeues thrust in amongst them who as the report goeth being apprehended were iustly punished The maner of their vtter defacing of al tables and all that belonged to them whiche Master Sander so muche misliked if it had not wāted lawful authoritie had been verie commendable yea euen the pissing vpon the foule Idoll of the altar might haue bene defended by the example of Iehu which turned the temple of Baall into a lakes if it had bene done by the commandement of a zelous Magistrate For M.S. most impudently doth bely vs when he saith that by our doctrine their Masse cake is a mysticall figure of Christes bodye when it is rather a foule stinking and abhominable Idoll If any Library was destroied by them with the bibles doctors works maps of countries it was very euil barbarously done of them yet I am sure they burned no booke of holy scriptures knowing them to be such as the papists doe not by tumult of a few ignoraunt persons but by consultation deliberation of the wisest of them knowing them to be the holy scriptures wilfully defacing them not more with flames of fire then vilainous despightful words It is wel known that D. Cole the papist being visitor in Cambridge when a Bible was brought to him to be defaced called it bible bable They defaced the Friers kitchin stuffe spoyled and caried away their vitailes stuffe it was more then may be defended I thinke more then was true and especially that they shoulde bring strumpets into the Abbeyes to prouoke the yong Monkes and Fryers to lust which was needlesse for their chastitie is well inough knowne But lest the fault should be laid vpon a disordered multitude without a head M.S. saith they had one Hermanus a preacher to their captaine which had bin a theefe and had lost one of his eares if his report be true he was like to be captaine of such a band As for the praier of the Nuns that stopped his mouth that he was able to say no more to them let them beleeue it that thinke papistes cannot lye There might be cause why Hermanus would geue ouer his perswasions when hee sawe them obstinate though his mouth were not stopped with their prayer To conclude although the defacing and destroying of Idolatrie be good yet may it not be attempted without auctoritie and order vnder pretence of zeale and therefore this fact of the lowe countrie men is not by anye wise man defended howsoeuer their zeale may be praised or the worke of god in their inconsiderate doings may be considered THE II. CHAP. The state of the question concerninge the adoration of holy Images where also a reason is giuen of the order which is taken in the booke following In this chapter hee mooueth foure questions 1. whether Images may be made 2. whether any Images may bee worshipped 3. whether it bee expedient that anie shoulde be worshipped 4 with what kinde of worship Images may be worshipped To the first he aunswereth that Images may be made To the seconde that these Images onely may be worshipped in respect of Christian religion which bring vs in minde either that there is a God or that there are three persons of the Trinitie or which represent Christ or his holy Angels and Saints by which he alloweth the making and worshippinge of the Images of god or of the trinity beside the images of Christ men and Angels To the third he answereth that it is expedient that Images should be worshipped To the fourth he defendeth it for more probable that the same degree of honor is not due to the Image of Christ of our Lady or of other saintes which is due to Christ our Lady other saintes themselues but there is a certaine proper honour due to holy Images which may be called a worship or honour due to a good remembraunce or monument These be his owne wordes by which hee sheweth himselfe contrary to other Papistes that defende that Images are to be worshipped with the same honour that is due to the thinges whereof they are Images As that the Image of God is to be worshipped euen with
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
in M. Iewell thinking the signe of the crosse not to be an image or that to haue the signe of the crosse in great regarde for Christes sake is not to worship the same signe and consequently to worship an Image Also the materiall word of Christes crosse is holy as a signe and as a relique A miracle wrought by the woode of Christes crosse The bishop of Ierusalem brought forth the crosse to be adored euerye Easter The Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian made a lawe in the honour of the crosse By M. Iewels confession the signe of the crosse was had in great regarde among the Christians S. Stephens image painted and hanged before his sepulchre with a crosse on his shoulder Probianus was accompted no perfect Christian because he would not adore the holy crosse of Christ. M. Iewell is conuinced by words of his owne alledging The writers of hymnes S. Chrysostome did set forth some parcell of Christs crosse to be adored and kissed Maister Sander telleth vs that when he speaketh of the worshipping of the crosse he meaneth either the materiall crosse whereon Christ suffred or els the signe and image thereof The material crosse he saith is not onely holy as the signe of him that died on it but also as sanctified with the blood of christ As though the blood of Christ was a sanctification vnto an vnsensible blocke of wood It was the aulter whereon the sacrifice of our redemption was offred Although it be sometimes so called vnproperly because it seemed so in the eyes of men yet our Sauiour Christ himselfe was both the priest and the sacrifice the temple the altar of our redemption whereof Augustine saith De fide ad Petrum Dia. ca. 2. Iste igitur est qui in se vno totum exhibuit quod esse necessarium ad redemptionis nostrae sciebat effectum idem scilicet sacerdos sacrificium idem Deus templum This is he that in himselfe onely exhibited all whatsoeuer he knewe to be necessarie for the effecte of our redemption the same being both the prieste and the sacrifice the same beeinge God and his temple But a temple he could not be except an altar were within him and not without him Christ is therefore the holy altar and not the cursed crosse But he addeth that it is an holy relique and not onely an Image If there were so great holinesse in that materiall crosse it is maruaile none of the Apostles made any acounte of it nor any of the faithfull not Ioseph and Nicodemus which with muche lesse suite might haue obteyned it of Pilate then the body of Iesus Nor the church by the space of three hundreth yeares vntill the time that Helena is saide to haue founde it with the two crosses of the two theeues whiche I take to bee but a fable and an imposture of some that after Helena was dead forged a crosse nailes affirminge that they were founde by Helena For it soundeth like no trueth that Eusebius whiche knewe the same Helena the mother of Constantine the great and writeth of her deuotion and of her doinges in the holy lande woulde haue omitted suche a noble inuention of the crosse with so manie miracles about the same eyther in his storie or in the life of Constantine I knowe there is a shorte note of it in his Chronicles but that seemeth to be added by some other since his time whiche he would not haue omitted to declare at large in his storie where hee setteth out in many words matter of muche lesse importaunce then that supposed inuention was Againe they that in latter times write of it as Ambrose Ruffinus Socrates Theodoretus and Sosomenus seeme to haue receyued that matter onely of reporte and of no written monument for scarce one of them agreeth with another For to omitte how incredible it is that the Iewes woulde haue buried that crosse to keepe it from the Christians whiche they more safely might haue burned Wherefore should they burie with it the two other crosses of the theeues And admitte there were suche holinesse in Christes crosse that it coulde not corrupt yet howe were not the other two crosses rotten in three hundreth yeares lyinge in the earth But admitting that storie to be true as I promise you it is no article of my beliefe what meaneth M. Sander to saye the materiall crosse is not onely an Image by which he meaneth that it is an Image whereof I praye you shoulde it bee an Image Will you nowe confounde the thinge with the image thereof as you doe offer the Image with the thing â—f that materiall crosse were an image then the images thereof be images of an Image which is nothinge of it selfe and then by your owne rule they be Idoles But you saye it was an instrument of our redemption and therefore holy If that be a good reason Pilate Annas Cayphas Iudas the souldiers which crucified Christ were holy for they were instruments of our redemption But Ambrose De obitu Theodosiâ— calleth it the standerde of saluation the worde of trueth yea life it selfe I praye you giue Ambrose in his eloquente oration leaue to vse rethoricall figures of amplification and let him expounde him selfe in the same Habeat Helena quae legat vnde crucem domini recognoscat inuenit ergo titulum regem adorauit non lignum vtique quia hic gentilis est error vanitas impiorum sed adorauit illum qui pependit in ligâ—o Let Helena haue somewhat that shee may reade whereby she may know the lordes crosse Therefore she founde the title shee worshipped the kinge not the wood verilye for this is an heathnishe errour and a vanitie of vngodly men but shee worshipped him that hath hanged on the wood Thus Ambrose although he credited this inuention yet he affirmeth it is an heathnishe errour and a vanitye of wicked menne to woorshippe the tree that Christ dyed on much more the signe or Image thereof seeing al worshippe belongeth to God. But Master Sander replyeth that he saieth Non insolentia ista sed pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni this is no insolencie but godlinesse when honour is giuen to the holy redemption Speakinge of honour due to the woode in respectâ— that it belongeth to Christ. But Ambrose speaketh not one worde of honour due to the wood of the crosse but defendeth the estimation of the crosse of Christ which iâ— our redemption For speaking of the nayle which Helena caused to bee forged into the diademe of her sonne the Emperour he saith Sapienter HelenÄ™ egis quae crucem in capite regum leuauit locauit vt crux Christi in regibus adoretur Non insolentia ista c. Helena did wisely that lifted vp the crosse in the heade of kinges and so placed it that the crosse of Christ might be worshipped in the kinges This is no insolencie c. as aboue So that he speaketh not of the woode of the crosse but of the iron
it might be no supersticious abuse Next to this he citeth Chrisostome Or. 1. De adorat cruâ—is that not onely the Crosse it selfe whereon Christe dyed but also the signe and shape of it ought to be worshiped and adored And againe he citeth afterward in this Chapter either the same or such an other Hom. de adoratione crucis But in all Chrisostomes workes there is no book oration homily sermon or treatise of any such title There be in the second tome two homilies de cruce latrone and a third de cruce dominica but in none of them is any such words as he citeth eius figuram effigiem coledam adorandamque or any thing to such purpose Wherefore I can not otherwise thinke but this is some blinde forgerie vnder the name of Chrisostome which is not extant in all his authenticall writings But Chrisostome in deede calleth the crosse whereon Christ dyed which was so much esteemed and whereof euery man desired to haue a peece inclosed it in golde hanged it about their neckes c. lignum condemnationis the woode of condemnation and the signe thereof so much vsed and esteemed Simbolum mortis the signe of death in demost ad gent. quod Chr. sit Deus But M. Sander will proue the worshipping of the signe of the crosse by lawe if it will not stande with diuinitie hee citeth Cod. Iust. tit 11. tom l. Vnica but it is Cod. Iust. lib. 1. tit 8. le nemini licere c. The Emperours Theodosius and Valentinianus made a law in these words Cum sit nobis cura diligens per omnia superni numinda religionem tueri signum Saluatoris Christi nemini licere vel in solo vel in silice vel in marmoribus humi positis insculpere vel pingere sed quocunque reperitur tolli granissima paena mulctandis â–ª si qui contrarium statutis nostris tentauerint specialiter imperamus Where as we haue diligent care to defend the religion of the highest God in all thinges wee specially commaunde that it shal be lawfull for no man to graue or paint the signe of our sauiour Christ either in the ground or in flint or marble stones lying on the ground but whersouer it is found to be taken away vnder a most greuous forfet to be paid of theÌ„ that attempt that which is contrary to our statuts Cod. Iust. Ti. 11. vnica This was a kinde of honoring the signe of the Crosse saith he when it was forbidden to be grauen on the ground least it should be dishonored if it were troden on euen as Helena S. Ambrose witnessing feared to tread vpon the crosse of Christ which he calleth the sacrament of saluation Of Helena we heard before that shee worshipped not the crosse howe much soeuer she made thereof And if this lawe were to be vnderstood as M. San. would haue it yet here is no worshipping of the crosse spoken of But touching the vnderstanding of this lawe M. Iewel is reproued first in citing it out of Petrus Crinitus who leaueth out these wordes humi positis lying on the ground which Iustinians Code addeth then in false translation wherof he wil speake afterward But concerning the first for as much as Petrus Crinitus was a learned man about that time when bookes beganne to be printed before this coÌ„trouersie of images was moued his report is more to bee credited then the Printers presse for the auncient reading of this lawe how so euer M. Sander fondly compareth him with Iustinian corrupted Moreouer to proue this corruption probable those wordes humi positis are altogether superfluous for when he had saide before in solo on the ground â–ª what neede he add afterward lying on the ground Also the disiunctiue vel or set before these words in solo which M. Sander hath cleane left out in his translation doth sufficiently declare that the Emperours meaning was to prohibite all grauing and painting of the signe of Christe whether it were of the crosse or of the image of Christ either on the ground or else where bicause it is against the religion of the high God to make any images or signes of him to any purpose As for the daunger of treading vpon the signe of the crosse is not in any one word of this lawe touched Neither was it a thing regarded in the deepest dungeon of Poperie for crosses images of Christ and of the Trinitie are yet to be seene of their making vpon a great number of graue stones in England to this day which argue that either the Papistes did against this lawe or else that this lawe had no such meaning as M. Sander feigneth it to haue But M. Iewell confesseth that the signe of the crosse was had in great regard among the Christians for that most worthie price that was offered vpon it and yet hee confesseth not that either they worshipped the signe of the crosse or that their regard was no greater theÌ„ it ought to haue bene For if any such regard had bene due to the signe of the crosse by Gods ordinaunce the Apostles that deliuered to vs all the counsell of God would not haue omited it in their writings Eph. 20. vers 20. 27. And M. Sander him selfe after he hath iangled a while confusely of regarding and worshipping at length confesseth that euery regard is not commonly taken for a worshipping but some is as the couetous mans regarding of money So that his argument and his conclusion is nothing else but a sophisticall conuersion of particulars which nothing toucheth the matter in controuersie Some worshipping is a regarding therefore some regarding is worshipping Both these are true and yet the regarding of the signe of the crosse is not thereby proued a worshipping thereof And yet he is not ashamed to proceede as though he had proued all regarding to be worshipping For hee saith If M. Iewell had a piece of that crosse that Christe dyed on he would preferre it before golde and siluer c. and this regard should be a worshipping or honouring of it I beleeue if M. Iewell had a piece that had bene worshipped hee would haue burned it and so would I. And yet if I had but a pibble stone that came out of the land of promise I would keepe it and make much of it so would I doe of the crosse if it were free from idolatrie but I would worshippe the one no more then the other How long will this sophisticall Doctour walke vnder a cloud of ambiguitie of words Let him either proue such honoring worshipping as the Papistes vse vnto the crosse or signe therof which is the thing we impugne to haue bene vsed in the eldest Primitiue Church or else let him striue about termes and words among sophisters children But if M. Iewel should take the crosse for no better then a common piece of wood hee should saith hee be blasphemous against the death of Christ. O grieuous accusation Ezechias tooke the brasen Serpent for no
that blasphemous prayer which they make to the crosse kneeling on their knees O crux aue spes vnica Alhaile O crosse our onely hope M. Sander saith those wordes doe so conuince his blasphemous doctrine that he shall neuer be able to auoide the argument whiche is grounded vpon them You haue need M. Sa. to set a good face on those wordes euen of the same metall that your crosse to whom you speak is oftentimes made But what Herculian argument I pray you do you bring forth Forsooth S. Paul vsed the same phrase when he said God forbid that I should glorie but only in the crosse of Christe But good sir S. Paul speaketh neither to the wodden crosse nor of the signe thereof but of the death of christ And you would make men beleeue that you do so Namely that you say not those wordes to the crosse but to Christ crucified Thus you would couer your shame with impudencie But you cannot so escape for Thomas Aquinas a great Saint and Doctour of your Church 3. Sen. di 9.91 ar 2 q. 4. affirmeth that the crosse of Christ is to be worshipped with the sâ—me Latria or Diuine worshippe that Christ crucified is to be worshipped that euen vnto the crosse you speake when you say all hayle O crosse our onely hope And if you will say this was but one Doctours opinion yet the very wordes of that hymne and the rubrike thereof shall conuince you that you speake to the crosse and not to Christ Beata cuius brachijs preciâ—on pependit sÄ™culi flatera facta est corpori prÄ™damque tulit Tartari Blessed is that crosse on whose armes the price of the worlde did hang it was made a beame to weigh his bodie tooke the pray away from hell Immediately after these words the rubrike biddeth the quire turne to the altar where the crosse standeth as M. Sander saith and then follow these wordes All hayle O crosse our onely hope in this time of passion increase rightehusnesse to godly men giue pardon to guiltie persons By these it is plaine that this prayer is made to the crosse and not to Christ neither is it any thing like to the phrase which S. Paule vseth of glorying in the crosse of Christ. And that Maister Sander neede not to make the matter so straunge of their speaking to the crosse this hymne sung on the exaltation day and so often repeated in Anthemes and Versicles doth sufficiently declare Crux fidelis inter omnes arbor vna nobilis nulla silua talem prosert froÌ„de flore germine dulce lignum dulces clauos dulce pondus sustinens Sola digna tu fuisti ferre precium saeculi atque portum preparare nauta mundo naufrago quem facer cruor perunxit fusus agni Corpore O faithfull crosse the onely noble tree among all no groue bringeth foorth such a tree in leafe in flower in budde bearing that sweet wodde those sweete nayles that sweete weight Thou onely hast beene worthie to beare the price of the world and beeing a mariner to prepare a hauen for the worlde that made shipwracke whiche the holie bloud shed out of the lambes bodie hath annointed What insensible blockes are they that prate thus to and of an insensible stocke But to iustifie the former blasphemous hymne Maister Sander will proue that it was made of olde time either of Hilarie Ambrose Fortunatus Sedulius Prudentius or Gregorie or else he cannot tell of whom or when But what is his reason trow you Marie because it doeth concerne the holy time of Lent and is receiued not onely in England but also in Italie Fraunce and Spaine O inuincible reasons it was not for naught that he bragged that Maister Iewell should neuer be able to auoide the argument that is grounded on these wordes The last writer cited for the worshippe of the crosse is Chrysostome Hom. de adorat cruc saying Hodiernus dies preâ—iosae crucis venerationi constitutus est This day is appointed to the worshipping of the precious crosse Admodum beati ij qui castis labijs sanctoque ore eam vt amplexantur exeunt Very blessed are they that go forth with chaste lippes and holie mouth to kisse it But what a mockerie is this that those wordes whiche this author speaketh allegorically of the spiritual crosse that is to say of the death and redemption of Christ which no man doubteth but with all honor it is to bee imbraced should be drawn to a wooden image of I cannot tel what crosse to be worshipped licked and kissed For it followeth immediatly Re enim vera illud domini verbum implent Si quis me sequi velit seipsum abneges tollatquecrucem suam et me sequatur For they doe in verie deede fulfill that saying of our Lord if any man will follow me let him deny him selfe take vp his crosse follow me And expounding what crosse he meaneth he saith An vt lignum vnusquis quae nostrum ferat certè non Que enim hÄ™c virtus est Sed vt ad pericula instructi simus sanguineÌ„ in animis nostris suum ferentes ad cÄ™dem et mortem quotidie parati ita omnia faciamus vt si ad vesperum nos victuros esse non speraremus What doth he commande euery on of vs to bear a peece of wood No surely For what vertue is that but that we shoulde bee furnished against daungers and carying about his blood in our minds we should be ready to be slaine to die and so do all thinges as if we hoped not to liue vntill the euening Chrysostome also in many other places speaketh magnifically of the crosse but then he meaneth the death and passion of CHRIST he commendeth also the figure of the crosse but yet with out any adoration of it of the crosse he saith in epist. ad Colloss Hom. 3. Deo reconciliauit per seipsum per mortem per crucem Papè quomodo illa rursus commiscuit etenim ne putares vnum esse neque crucem aliquid esse iuxta seipsam per seipsum dicit He hath reconciled vs to God by him selfe by his death by his crosse good lorde how he hath againe ioyned these together for that thou shouldest not thinke that they are one nor that the crosse is any thing by it selfe he saith by himselfe The signe of the crosse he calleth the signe of death to put the people in remeÌ„brance not only of the death of Christ but also of their own suffring patience So farre he was of from setting vp the signe of the crosse to be adored or kneeled vnto that grosse idolatrie had not preuailed in his time nor long after THE XIIII OR XIII CHAP. That other holy images both might be adored profitably and without Iewish bondage by S. Augustines owne doctrine and also were adored within the first sixe hundreth yeares after Christe with a defence of S. Chrisostomes liturgie against M. Iewell Also that the generall doctrine of
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
had made an idoll in a groue and destroyed her idolles and burned them by the brooke Elledron 1. Reg. 15. verse 13. But Maister Sander will defend her title of succession bicause she was elder then her sonne and to bee honoured of him O cunning Lawyer that will make the wife inheritour to her husband and that in the Empire before her sonne begotten by her husband which had the Empire by discent Concerning the diuorcement of Constantinus from his first wife Marie and marrying of an other as I knowe not the cause so I will not take vpon me the defence The Bishop saide the Bishops and Doctours of that Councell manifestly corrupted the Scriptures Maister Sander sayth it is not so as hee hath proued in parte what he hath proued you may reade in the twefth Chapter but bicause he is so impudent to defend those corruptions and deprauations I will set downe some of them Theodosius Amorij citeth this text for images What thinges so eueer are written they are written for our learning Ioannes Legate of the East citeth this Shew me thy face for it is beautifull Theodorus alledgeth this saying God is maruellous in his Saintes An other to proue that images must be set on the altar vseth this text No man lighteth a candle and putteth it vnder a bushell c. An other this text to proue images necessarie to knowe God by them As wee haue heard so wee haue seene in the citie of our god These are not the one halfe of those beastly applications of the scripture vsed in that blasphemous Councel but these are sufficient to shewe what learned bewclearks they were in the holy word of God and the interpretation thereof The B. saide They falsified the holy Fathers without shame Maister Sander saith nothing but that hee doeth belye them What shall we say of the falsifying of Basil in Oratione 40. Martyres for the worshipping of images which Oration is extant and no such matter found in it Shall we beleeue the forged Oration in the name of Athanasius of the image of Christe in Beritus which being stricken by a Iewe bloud issued out of the side of it Howe impudently doe they deny the authoritie and writings of Epiphanius Amphilochius Theodotus Eusebius which were brought against the irreligious vse and honouring of images by the Councels of Constantinople and Ephesus slaundering also Eusebius of Arrianisme The B. saide They sayde Imago melior est quà m oratio An image is better then a prayer Here are three faultes found in citing fiue wordes Great faultes I warrant you The first he writeth they saide which one onely Bishop did say but in the end of that fourth action all the Bishops and Legates subscribed and allowed all that had bene saide in defence of images and no man reclamed therefore hee might well write they saide The second fault is he said not melior est imago but maior est imago greater i◠an image for a thing may bee greater which is not better This is no great fault but an ouersight and the sense is not altered for in this case he meaneth by greater better The thirde fault that he translateth Oratio for prayer which signifieth an oration or speech Yet doeth it signifie a prayer also But if the circumstance of this place would haue it to be taken for speeche or an oration or sermon the absurditie is nothing lesse to say there is greater force to teache in an image then in a sermon oration or speeche But seeing you finde so many faultes in the citing of that saying to excuse it from absurditie I pray you see if you can finde as many in this which I cite spoken by Ioannes the Monke Priest and deputie or vicar of the East to defend it from blasphemie Nisi fuissent necessariae imagines eas propter stabilitionem factorum non fuissent osculati vt etiam meo iuditio cum sanctis Euangelijs veneranda cruce aequivaleant Except images had bene necessarie he would not haue kissed them for the establishing of deeds so that in my iudgement they are of equall worthines with the holie Gospels and the reuerend crosse Act. 4. The B. said And againe whosoeuer wil not adore the godly images accursed be he This M. Sander confesseth to be written in deed and to be true sauing that he cauilleth at the translation of Diuinas imagines into godly images which he saith should be diuine images But how liketh he the saying of Constantine Bishop of Constantia in Cypres which affirmeth that he will worship images with that honour which is due to the blessed Trinitie accurseth him that refuseth with the Manichees and Marcionites vnto which sentence al the rest agree Where is nowe the distinction of Doulia and Latria when they will worship the image of Christ with the same honour that is due to the Trinitie What saith he to the zeale of Ihon the deputie of the East which affirmeth that it is better to admitte all stewes of whores and brothels into the citie then to deny the worshipping of images If these be not beastly and blasphemous absurdities worse then childish sayinges whiche he can not abide the Bishop to tearme them let the world iudge Hitherto M. Sander hath made no defence for this idolatrous rablement which he calleth the seuenth generall councell But he will answere all the Bishops arguments against it with these 4. reasons First he saith there is no impietie or falshoode approued or decreed in that councel A substantial reason which concludeth vpon that whiche is in controuersie But yet to lay open his shamelesse impudencie I will proue that to haue beene decreed and approued in that councell which he him selfe will not denie to be impietie and falshood Action 5. We read thus out of the booke of one Ihon Bishop of Thessalonica De Angelis Archangelis eorum potestatibus quibus nostras animas adiungo ipsa Catholica Ecclesia sic sentis esse quidem intelligibiles sed non omnino corporis expertes inuisibiles vt vos gentiles dicitis verum tenui corpore preditos aereo siue igneo vt scriptum est Qui facit Angelos suos spiritus ministros eius ignem vrentem c. Of Angels Archangels and of their powers vnto which also I adioyne our soules the Catholike Churche doth so thinke that they are in deede intelligible but not altogether voide of body and inuisible as you Gentiles say but that they haue a thinne body that either of ayer or of fire as it is writen which maketh his Agels spirites and his ministers a burning fire c. Herevpon Thorasius the Patriarke saide Ostendit autem pater quod Angelos pingere oporteat quādo circumscribi possunt vt homines apparnerunt Sacra synodus dixit etiā Domine This father hath shewed that we ought to paint the Angels also seing they may be circūscribed haue appeared as men The holie synode said Yea
their writinges verilye not hauing the images of their bodies but of their mindes For those thinges whiche are saide by them are the images of their mindes Likewise they cited the saying of Amphilochus sometime bishoppe of Iconium Non enim nobis sanctorum corporales vultus in tabulis coloribus effigiare curae est quoniam hijs opus non habemus sed politicè illorum virtutum memores esse debemus We haue no regarde to counterfet the corporall faces of the saintes in tables with coloures because we haue no need of them but we ought to be wisely mindfull of their vertues Moreouer they rehearsed the sayinge of Theodotus bishop of Ancyn Sanctorum formas species ex materialibus coloribus formari minimè decorum putamus horum cutem virtutes quae per scripta traditae sunt veluti viuas quasdam imagines reficere subinde oportet Ex hijs enim ad similem imitationem zelum peruenire possumus Dicant enim nobis qui illas erigunt quaenam vtilitas ex illis ad se redit an quòd qualiscunque recordatio eos habeat ex tali specie contemplatione sed manifestum est quòd vana sit eiuscemodi cogitatio diabolicae deceptionis inuentum We thinke it nothing at al seemely that the formes and shapes of the saintes shoulde be fashioned in materiall collours but their vertues whiche are deliuered by their writings as certain liuing images we ought often times to renue For by them we may come to the like imitation and zeale For let those which set vp images tell vs what profite commeth vnto them by them is it that a certaine remembrance come to them by such shape and sight But it is manifest that such cogitation is vaine and an inuention of diuelishe deceipte What shall here rehearse the testimony of Eusebius who whē the Empresse Constantia required to haue an image of Christ answered that no such images were to be made with many other sayings of Basil Gregorie Athanasius and other cited in that Councell which M.S. maketh so obscure as though they had mett by candle light and whispered in corners that they durst not be a knowne of But if it deserued not the credit of a councell what needed Irene to haue gathered this worshipfull councel of Nice against it And where M.S. for further allowance of it saith it was confirmed registred for a knowne lawful general councel throughout al christendom he speaketh out of al compasse of the trueth For the Emperour Charles the great would not receiue it but write or at the leastwise cōmanded Albinus or Alcuinus his teacher to write a booke against it in his name which booke is yet extant How it was receiued in Britaine Matheus Westm. testifieth in these words Eodem anno Carolus rex Francorum c. The same yeare Charles the king of Fraunce sent a synodall booke into Britane in whiche manye thinges were founde contrary to the true faith and especially this that it was defined by the consent of almost all the doctors of the East that images ought to be worshipped which doctrine the Catholike Church doeth altogether accurse Against which Albinus wrote an Epistle beinge marueilously well indighted by the authoritie of holy scriptures and the fame brought vnto the Frenche king with that synodall booke in the presence of the bishops and noble men These thinges considered the conference that he maketh betweene this councell and the first helde at the same place is chyldishe and ridiculous for though they were both helde in one place called by Emperours or Popes equall in number disputation in both 4. Patriarks in both custome obserued the decree put in execution c. yet they disagreed in that which is the onely authority of councels The first decreed according to the word of God the later cleane contrary to it The first confirmed the Catholike faith which alwayes was held the later a newe heresie of Idolatrie of which the Churche was cleare more then sixe hundreth yeares And therefore what soeuer hee talketh of the authoritie of general councels is vaine wicked for a general councel of Angels is not to be beleeued against the holy scriptures what is more plaine in the scriptures then the forbidding of Idolatrie and worshippinge of Images The great prerogatiue that Master Sander findeth in this councell that so many bishops recanted in it as in none other is a fonde matter to authorize it Rather it sheweth what turne coates they were which changed as euerie prince was affected Finally the nomber of names that he rehearseth of them that beleeued as this councell decreed maketh it not of sufficient credit beside that he is not able to proue it of many whom he nameth as Beda Theophylacte Euthymius c. It were an easie matter to proue as many mo of more antiquitie which beleeued the contrary As Clemens Alexandrinus Origines Irenaeus Iustinus Cyprianus Lactantius Epiphanius Arnobius Tertulianus Augustinus Chrysostomus Hieronymus Ambrosus Athanasius Basilius Gregorius Naza Eusebius Osius and 18. bishoppes with him in the councel of Eliberis Theodosus and 21. bishoppes with him in the councell of Laodicea Aurelius and 71. bishops with him in the councell of Carth. 5. Amphylochius Iconiensis Theodorus Ancyramus Serenus Massiliensis Claudius Taurinensis Albinus Carolus magnus yea Gregorie 1 of Rome and Ionas of Orleance against the worshipping of Images If I woulde descende to later times as Master Sander doth I might add a great number more as Waldo Masilus Henricus de Gandauo Iohn Wiclef Iohn Hus Hierome of Praga and many other So that there remaineth in recorde foure to one that M. Sander can name for the vse and worshippinge of images against either one or both And the greatest part more ancient then the second councell of Nice which he woulde maintaine by rehearsing so many names of men that allowed it the most part were since it was holden scarse two or three before it was helde THE XVI OR XV. CHAP. That M. Iewell himselfe bringeth such reasons for worshipping breade and wine in the sacrament of the Alter because he saith they are the image of Christs bodie and bloude as may right well serue for the worshipping of all holy images It is proued by maister Iewells owne words that the image of an holy thing may be worshipped with what intent an image it made Maister Iewell hath filthie and vnhonest images in his owne booke This Chapter conteineth nothing else but a shameles cauilling and quarrelling vppon maister Iewels words with little wit lesse learning and least of all of honestie The bishoppe writeth thus The olde fathers in their writings commonly cal the sacrament a representation a remembrance a memory an image a likenesse a samplar a token a signe a figure And in an other place he writeth thus Neither do we onely adore Christ as verye God but also worship and reuerence the sacrament holy mistery of Christes bodie Here vppon maister Sander reasoneth
all Councels is and ought to be by the authoritie of the holy scriptures The Apostles thēselues in the Councel of Hierusalem decided the controuersie of circumcision by the scriptures Act. 15. A worthy paterne for al godly Councels to folow Constantine also in the Councel of Nice charged the Bishops there assembled by his commandement to determine the matter by the authoritie of the holy scriptures Euangelici enim Apostolici libri necnon antiquorum Prophetarum oracula planè instruunt nos inqui sensu numinis Proinde hostici posua discordia sumamus ex dictis diuini spiritus explicatione◠The bookes of the Gospels and the Apostles and also the Oracles of the auncient Prophetes do plainly instruct vs saith he in the vnderstanding of god Therefore laying away hatefull discord let vs take explications out of the sayings of the holy Ghoste Therdor lib. cap. 7. By this charge it is manifest how truely M. Rastel faith that the decree of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equalitie of the Sonne in substance with the Father was made only by tradition and not by the authoritie of the scriptures For the Councel examining by scriptures the tradition and receiued opinion of the Fathers and finding it agreeable to them did confirme the same And whereas the Arrians quarrelled that this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not found in the scriptures and therefore would refuse it it helpeth nothing M. Rastels vnwritten verities for the trueth of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proued by an hundreth textes of scriptures as the truth of the Trinitie is although neither of both words are found in the scriptures We quarell not as those heretiques did and M. Rastel a Popish heritique doth of letters syllables words and sounds but we stand vpon the sense meaning vnderstanding doctrine which we affirme to be perfectly contained in scripture what so euer is necessarie to saluation as S. Paul saith Al scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to improue to correct and to instruct in righteousnes that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect to al good workes 2. Tim. 3. And therefore olde customes being referred vnto the custome of the Church of God in the time of the Patriarches Prophetes Apostles and Doctours that followed the same vnitie of Gods wordes is the thing wee desire might preuaile in all our controuersies of religion and so the sentence is wel inough placed if Momus could let any thing alone SECTIO 2. Frō the second face of the 12. leafe to the first face of the 19. leafe When any order giuen by God is broken or abused saith the Bishop the best redresse thereof is to restore it againe into the state that it was first in the beginning M. Rastel saith the Bishop can not tell where of he speaketh For whereas he affirmed that S. Paule had appointed an order touching the ministration of the sacramentes vnto the Corinthians M. Rastell will not simplie graunt that this order was appointed by God although S. Paule himself say he receiued it of christ which he deliuered to thē For this difference hee maketh That an order giuen by God must be obserued without exception and yet he addeth an exception of reuelation and especial licence from god But what so euer order S. Paule did giue he saith is subiect vnto the Church to remoue or pull vp as it shall please her Thus the blasphemous dog barketh against the spirit of god But I trust al sober Christian minds will rather beleue S. Paul then Rastel who saith of such orders as were giuen by him 1. Cor. 14. If any man seem to be a prophet or spirituall let him know the things that I write to you that they be the cōmandements of god But now M. Ra. will take vpon him to teach vs the order giuē that Paul speaketh of namely That the Christians had certein charitable suppers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after which as August saith before which as Chrysost. saith they did vse to receiue the sacramēt Note here that M. Rast. which wil haue old customes tried by the fathers bringeth in here two Doctors one contrarie to the other To the purpose This order was taken away by cōtention disdaine of the rich against the poore therfore Paule purposed to bring them againe to that order of sitting eating their supper altogether that rich with the pore by saying That which I receiued of the Lord I deliuered to you And not to reforme any abuse of the sacramēt by reducing it to the first institution This iudgement of M. Rastell is partly by him proued by the authoritie of Theophylact but chiefly it standeth vpon his owne authoritie without further reason Howbeit it is manifest by the scripture that Paule reproued that mingling of prophane suppers with the Lordes supper appointing their priuate houses for their bodily refreshings of eating and drinking Haue you not houses saith he to eate and drinke in By which saying it is manifest he would haue no eating and drinking in the Church as M. Rastell dreameth but onely the eating and drinking of the Lordes supper And therefore that abuse of mingling their bodily suppers with the spirituall supper of the Lorde whereof came so many abuses and especiall the seuering and sundering of the congregation into diuers partes which ought to haue receiued altogether he laboureth to reforme by bringing it to the first institution of the Lord him selfe But M. Rast. following his owne dreame asketh what there was in the institution for sitting together or a sunder for eating at Church or at home Yes forsooth Christe did institute his supper to be a foode of the soule and not of the body and therefore to be celebrated in the congregation and in common as the saluation is common and not to bee mingled with prophane banquets of bellie cheare for which priuat houses and companies are meet and not the Church of god And wheras M. Rastel chargeth M. Iewel with not vnderstanding this place which he alledgeth namely therefore when you come together to eate tarie one for an other which he saith pertaineth no more to the institution of the sacrament then a pot full of plumbs doth to the highway to London he sheweth all his wit honestie at once For he denyeth that any thing that Saint Paule there rehearseth namely these wordes take eate this is my body c. is the institution of the sacrament or the originall paterne of reforming the Corinthians disorder bicause time place vesture number of communicants and such other accidentall and variable circumstà nces be not therein expressed So that by his diuinitie either the institution of the sacrament is not at all contained in the scriptures or else there is an other first paterne to reforme abuses by then this that is set downe in the scriptures I would maruel at these monstrous assertions but that I see the obstinate Papists cannot otherwise defend their Popish Masse
manner of the being hath generall rules to order it by but no particulars expressed But Maister Rastell will not condemne the fact of Benet because Saint Augustine dare not condemne the fact of those virgins that drowned themselues contrarie to the commandement Thou shalt not kil because they might haue an extraordinarie spirite as Sampson had and because S. Ambrose commendeth the fact of his brother Satyrus one that was not baptised and therefore might not receiue the sacrament which hanged it about his necke in a tempest and escaped All these notwithstanding if he will not admitte that Saint Benet did euill in breaking the commandement of Christ yet let him heare what the Church decreed in the 3. councel of Carthage the 6. Canon Placuit vt corporibus defunctorum Eucharistia non detur Dictum est enim a Domino accipite edite Cadauera autem nec accipere possunt nec edere It is decreed that the sacrament of the Eucharistie be not giuen to the bodies of them that are dead For it is saide by our lord Take ye and eate ye But dead carcases can neither take nor eate The councell vseth the same reason that the bishop doeth but M. Rastel wiser then the councell sayeth that it is no good reason SECTIO 9. From the first face of the 46. leafe to the seconde face of the 47. leafe The Bishop affirmeth that Albertus Pighius one of the greatest pillers of the Popish parte findeth fault with the Masse M. Rastel denying him to be a great piller perhaps thinking himselfe to be as great confesseth that booth he and oâ—her do so but that it is not in the body of the Masse but in the garments and he saith they shew the better conscience to confesse the trueth whereas protestants will acknowledge no faults one by an other which is a shamelesse ly But what conscience the whole Popish Church hath hereby it may be seene that seeing there be faultes in the Masse so long ago espied yet not one of them is by the Pope and his cleargie reformed SECTIO 10. From the seconde face of the 47. leafe to the second face of thâ— 48. leafe That the Bishop in his sermon refuseth to speake of transubstantiation real presence or sacrifice and chuseth to speake of the communion in both kindes of the Canon of the Masse and of the priuate Masse Maister Rastel sayeth it is a timerous bragging and vaine glorious weakenesse But how well he hath quit himselfe in those cases that Maister Rastell imagineth he was afraide to deale with his learned writings doe more sufficiently declare to his true prayse then Maister Rastels rayling surmises are able to obscure And those thinges beeing taken from the Masse which he chooseth to speak of would make the Masse a poore sacrifice and smally to be regarded SECTIO 11. From the second face of the 48. leafe vnto the first face of the 58. leafe Wherein he speaketh of seruice in the mother tongue The Bishop reproueth the vse of the vnknowen tonge in the Masse by the authoritie of S. Paule that will haue all things in the Church done to edifying and that prayers and thankes giuen in the Church be such as the people to them may answere Amen Maister Rastell quarreleth that this fault is common to the Masse with Euensong and Mattins therefore it is no proper fault of the Masse A proper reason rayling and lying are no peculiar faultes to Maister Rastel but common to him with Maister Harding Maister Sanders Maister Alen and an hundreth more therefore he doeth Maister Rastel wrong that reproueth him of rayling and lying But before he answere the Bishops obiections he wil make no lesse then fiue obiections him selfe against him out of the same place of Saint Paule wherein he triumpheth 1 Why all the Psalter of Dauid is read in the English Church when all the Psalmes be not vnderstoode of all English men Forsooth syr there is no Psalme but something may be vnderstoode of euerie Englishe man that hath capacitie of vnderstanding and the rest that they may learne to vnderstand them 2 How many people be there that vnderstand not the easiest Chapter of the Gospell muche lesse the Prophets and Psalmes But sir they are often read that they may the better be vnderstoode or at least so much of them as is necessarie for them to knowe for their saluation 3 Where singing is vsed howe can they vnderstande any thing Such singing as taketh away vnderstanding is forbidden in our Church both by the booke and by iniunction 4 How can a thousand people vnderstande him that hath a small voice or Cornishe men or Northerne men a fine Londoners speech c. The Bishop should haue care to prouide a man as well for voyce as for other qualities able to edifie the people and suche nations of the Queens obedience as vnderstande not the English tongue haue their prayers in their owne tongue whiche he saith he had forgotten I thinke he saith as it is for a lyer should haue a good remembraunce 5 He saith we haue one Chapter for the better learned of the Parishe another for the poorer which is a flam fiue of his owne deuising Yet he saith there would be no end of confusion if nothing should be read in the congregation but that which should be vnderstoode of all that are present as though he were wiser then the holie Ghoste which in expresse wordes hath so commaunded that al may learne that all may be comforted meaning all the congregation not a man of a straunge language comming in chaunceably or curiously beeing none of that flocke But what answere hath he to Saint Paule euen a most shamefull shifte and impudent lie Namely that Saint Paule speaketh onely of preaching which he graunteth must be in the vulgar tongue and the Gospell and Pistle he could be content should be also if it pleased the Popes holinesse But Saint Paule nameth expressely not onely preaching but also praying giuing of thankes and singing of Psalmes or Hymnes But he obiecteth that Saint Paule saith he that speaketh with tongues edifieth himselfe and he that giueth thankes in a strange tongue doeth giue thankes well It is true if his prayer and speeche be godly and priuate but in the congregation the Apostle by no meanes alloweth any man to vse a strange tongue Yes saith M. Rast. if there be an interpreter In deede S. Paule speaketh of them which had a miraculous gifte of strange tongues which might be vsed to set forth Gods glorie so that there were an interpreter that the Churche might be profited otherwise he would haue Gods gift to be silent in the Churche To be short M. Rast. affirmeth preaching it selfe to be so vnnecessarie that pictures may not onely supplye the wante thereof but also are necessarie for the faithfull people and more profitable then a most eloquent and learned sermon of M. Iewell himselfe Who would reason any longer with such an
celebration of the communion an oblation or sacrifice of the bodie and blood of christ It is great leudenesse and deceiptfulnes to vrge the termes vsed by the doctors and to refuse their meaning sufficiently expressed in diuers places of their writings SECTIO 17. in the 64. leafe Whereas the bishop saith it is Christ which presenteth â—s and maketh vs a sweet oblation in the sight of his father M. Rastell denyeth that it followeth not that the priest offereth not Christ because Saint Augustine saith de ciuit dei lib. 10. cap. 20. that as the church is offered by Christ so Christ is offered by the Church But that which Augustine maketh here common to al the Church maister Rastel restreineth to his popish priests And although Augustine in the same place expounde himselfe sufficiently when he saith the daily sacrifice of the church is a sacrament of the oblation of Christ yet in Cap. 5. of the same book he speaketh most plainely Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum id est sacrum signum est Therefore the visible sacrifice is a sacrament that is to say an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifie What can bee saide more plainly concerning his meaning by the terme of sacrifice SECTIO 18. From the first face of the 65. leafe to the ende of the 67. leafe The blasphemous prayers of the Popishe Canon which desireth God to accept the body of his sonne as he did accept the sacrifice of Abel and of Melchisedech he excuseth by vehemency of deuotion and by the vnworthines of the offerer as though either of both should be the cause why Christs body should not be acceptable of it selfe Last of all he flyeth to the example of the figuratiue speaches vsed by the holy ghost in the Psalmes and canticles as where God is saide to sleepe to awake as giant refreshed from his wine yea to the rethoricall figures vsed by men as he saith by Bernard Bonauentur Gregorie in the hymmes of the church which he matcheth vnfitly with the holy scriptures But how will he make this prayer a figuratiue speach that it may be excused by any such example For seeing he will admit no figure in the word body or oblation the other wordes are plaine without figure God to accept the sacrifice of Abel c. SECTIO 19. From the 68. leafe to the seconde face of the 69. leafe The foolish prayer of the Canon that an Angel should carie away the body of Christ he defendeth to be meant after a spirituall manner caueleth of the bishops translating of perferri to be caried away which signifieth to be caried vp which is a toy to mocke an Ape for neither doth the bishop talke of Angels backes such other bables as M. Rastel deliteth to prate of but of the fond absurditie of the Papistes which imagine the ministerie of Angels necessarie for the carying of Christs body or as he saith excusing the matter for the acceptacioÌ„ of their sacrifice But in very deede this prayer being taken out of the old liturgies wherein they desired not the sacrament but their sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing to be presented to God by the ministery of Angels is so absurde when it is applyed to the transubstantiated body that it can haue no reasonable sense as it had in the liturgie cited by S. Ambrose and other old liturgies where the like prayer is made for their sacrifice but they beleued not their sacrifice to be the very natural body of Christ as the Papists say they doe SECTIO 20. in the 69 leafe Where the bishop giueth ouer to speak further of the Canon maister Rastel saith it was because he had no mater against it but his owne misunderstanding But what matter he had howe well hee hath mainteined it his aunsweres to maister Harding sufficiently declare SECTIO 21. in the 70. leafe Against adoration of the sacrament he saith we haue no arguments at al but such as may serue for ouerthrow of all orders in the Church In deede these argumentes may well and worthily serue to ouerthrow all plantes not planted by christ For why may not one hatchet serue to cut downe an hundreth fruitlesse and hurtfull trees SECTIO 22. in the same leafe to the second face of the 71. leafe That Christ gaue no commaundement of adoration he saith it is no sufficient reason first because we must not condemne all voluntary seruice of God which is without his commaundement Then belike S. Paul was not well aduised when he condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is voluntarie worshippe of God without his commaundement Coll. 2. vers 23. And where as he cauilleth of them that worshipped our sauiour Christ in the fleshe I aunswere as many as acknowledged him to be the sonne of god knewe they had an expresse coÌ„mandemeÌ„t to worship him The rest reuerenced him as the prophet of god And whereas he saith like a protestant that an argument of authority negatiue is naught and protestant like I aunswere an argument of mans authoritie negatiue is naught but an argument of Gods authority negatiue I am content it be counted protestant like in as much as God hath expresly forbidden what so euer he hath not commaunded in his worship Deuter. 12. vers 32. Contrariwise to reason from the authoritie of men negatiuely is Papistlike and the best argument they haue for many things as if they be asked why say they not masse in englishe they will answere because the Church hath not commanded them Why doe you not giue the communion to Infants Maister Rastel saith in this booke because the Church doth not commaund it Why doth not the priest weare his chisible other vestments at euen song Because the church hath not commaunded it But maister Rastel saith Christ hauing said the sacrament to be his body needed not to commaunde the same to bee worshippid no more then the king when he speaketh to the Lords in the darke needeth to bid theÌ„ put of their caps A dark example for such an obscure argumeÌ„t But when will he proue that Christ is the same in the sacrament that the king is in the darke for remoue the darke the king is seene but take away the accidentes of breade and wine by your owne schoolâ— doctrine and where is the bodie of Christ SECTIO 23. From the seconde face of the 71. leafe to the 2. face of the 72. leafe He decideth the argument taken out of the authoritie of saint Paule negatiuely who declareth the whole institution of Christ and neuer willed adoration to be vsed to the sacrament And asketh whether S. Paul command vs to stand kneele lye or fit to tumble leane vpon brest or elbowes I aunswere whatsoeuer of these gestures is decent orderly he hath appointed the other he hath forbidden And yet the protestantes logike which hee doth so delicately contemne is not so simple
one question or two about this diffuse argument I would demaund Doeth God forbid by the second commaundement naturall or artificiall images If artificiall then they haue no comparison with naturall images Againe syr are our seeing and hearing from whome these images you speake of first doe come by your Philosophie actions or passions If they be passions howe are they compared with making of grauen images whiche are actions Finally where he saith this prohibition was not immutable but temporall to that people he passeth all bounds of reason and common vnderstanding as by the iudgment of God is become like vnto those Idols whome he defendeth For hauing graunted before that Idolatrie was forbidden by this precept nowe he restraineth the forbidding of idolatrie only to the Iewes of that time as though it were lawfull for Christians who more streightly then the Iewes must worship God in spirit and trueth Iohn 4. and are commaunded to keepe them selues pure from Idols 1. Iohn 5. THE VI. OR V. CHAP. That the word of God only forbiddeth Latria which is Gods own honour to be giuen to artificiall images leauing it to the lawe of nature and to the gouernors of his Church what other honour may be giuen to holy images Also the place of Exodus Thou shalt not adore images is expounded and that Christe by his incarnation taketh away all idolatrie that Maister Iewell vainely reproueth Doctour Harding condemneth his owne conscience and is proued a wrangler The difference in honour betweene Latria and Doulia As M.S. saith images are forbidden to be worshipped as they are forbidden to be made so say I but with a farre differing vnderstanding They may not be made to any vse of religion so they may not be worshipped with any religious worship which apperteineth to god For our religion is a seruice of God onely And where he saith as Images might be made by the authoritie of Moses or of the gouernours of Gods people so they wert not to be taken for Gods so they may be likewise worshipped by the authoritie of Gods church this only prouiso being made that Gods owne honour be not giuen vnto them I aunswere that as neither Moses nor any gouernour had authoritie to make any images in any vse of religion other then God commanded no more hath the Church any authoritie to allowe any worshipping of them whiche she hath none authoritie by God to make but an expresse commandement forbidding both the making the worshipping of them in the first table of the law which concerneth onely religion Nowe we haue saide both let vs consider M. Sanders reasons First he saith God forbidding his owne honour to be giuen to images left it to the lawe of nature and to the gouernors of his Churche what honour images should haue Concerning the lawe of nature he saith that God perceiued that when images of honourable personages are made honor was due vnto them What lawe of nature is this M. Sander that is distinct from the law of God Or what nature is that whose lawe alloweth the worshipping of images In deed the corruption of mans nature is to worship falshode in steed of trueth but the law of nature hath no such rule beeing al one with the lawe of God as nature is nothing else but the ordinaunce of god And where find you one title in the lawe that God hath leaft it to the gouernours of his Church to appoint a worship meete for images Worde you haue none letter you haue none nor pricke of a letter sounding that way But you haue collections First of the signification of Latria as though God had written his Lawe in Greeke and not in Hebrue and yet Latria according to the Graecians hath no such restraint to signifie the seruice of God only but euerie seruice of men also and is all one that Doulia and so vsed of Greeke writers excep◠we will say that Doulia which you will haue to be giuen to images is a more slauish seruile worship then that whiche you would haue vs to giue to God. But you will helpe your distinction with the confusion of the commandementes because God saith in the 1. precept Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me and then saith immediately Thou shalt not make nor worworship images but these cōmandementes are distinct or else you shall neuer make tenne And whereas you alledge that he saith immediatly after I the Lord thy God am a iealous God that maketh cleane against you For by those wordes the Lorde declareth that he can no more abide the vse of images in his religion then a iealous man can abide any tokēs of an adulterer to be about his wife therefore idolatrie in the scriptures is often called fornication So the circumstances helpe you nothing but is altogether against you But what an horrible monster of idolatrie is this that after you haue once confessed that Gods incomprehensible nature cannot be represented by any artificiall image you affirme that Christe by his incarnation hath taken away idolatrie that we should not lacke some corporall trueth wherein we might worship the Diuine substance Whereas Christ himselfe telleth vs that nowe the time is come that God shall not be worshipped as before in bodily seruice at Ierusalem or in the mountaine but in spirite and trueth Ioan. 4. The image of Christe you say is a similitude of an honourable trueth whereas no idol doth represent a trueth A worshipfull trueth I promise you Christe you say was man but I say he is both God and man a person consisting of those two natures Your image representeth onely a person consisting of one nature but suche a one is not Christe therefore your image representeth a falshoode and is by your owne distinction an Idol For the Diuine nature you confesse cannot be represented by an artificiall image Againe what an image is it of his humanitie It can not expresse his soule but his bodie onely Last of all why is it an image rather of Christ then of an other man Seeing in lineamentes and proportion of bodie it hath no more similitude vnto Christes bodie then to an other mans But that it pleased the caruer to say it is an image of Christ. O honourable blockes and stones But Philo the Iewe was cited for a fauourer of this interpretation that images are none otherwise forbidden to be made or worshipped then to be made or worshipped as GODS Howe vaine the authoritie of a Iewe is for a Christian man to leane vnto I shall not neede to say especially when it is well knowen that the Iewes also not considering in whether table this commandement is placed vnderstand by it that all images generally are forbidden And Philo saith nothing to helpe him For first in Decal he saith when God had spoken of his owne substance and honour order would that he should tell how his holy name was to be worshipped And againe De eo quis haer rer Diuin Vt solus
Deus c. That God onely might be truely worshipped What can be reasonably gathered of these wordes but that al honour is due to God and therfore none to idols which are forbidden to be made If Philo a Iewe will not serue Augustine a Christian is alledged who Super Exod. 9.71 allowing that diuision of the tenne commandementes by which three onely are saide to apperteine to God saith Et reuera c. And truely that which is saide Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me is more perfectly expounded when forged things are forbidden to be worshipped First for the diuision of the coÌ„mandements Aug. is not constant with him selfe For In Quaesti Nou. Vet. Test. Quest. 7. he writeth thus Non sint tibi Dij alij praeter me primum verbum hoc est Es subiecit secundum Non facies tibi vllam similitudineuâ— â–ª Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me this is the first worde or commandement and he addeth the second Thou shalt not make to thy self any similitude By which it is manifest that to worship images is not all one with hauing other Gods. But M. Sander will answer our obiection that God forbiddeth all honour of images thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worship them Adoration saith he is a doubtfull worde For Abraham adored the people of the lande Gen. 23. Very true but with a ciuill worship whereof we speake not nowe He made obeysans to them or as we say he made courtesie to them And the Angel refused to be adored saying adore god Therefore there is an adoration proper to God for Angels sometime haue beene adored Nay M. Sander therefore all religious worshippe perteineth to god For S. Iohn was not so madde to worship the Angel as God but as the messenger of God with a religious and not a ciuill worshippe And when you say Angels haue beene adored as Gen. 18. and Iudicum 13. I answere in both places they were adored with ciuill worship supposed by Abraham and Manohah to be honourable men and not to be Angels But when you cite Augustine to fortifie your distinction of Latria and Doulia you hurt your cause by his iudgement more then you further it by his authoritie For whereas he in Exod. 94. saith that Latria is due to God as he is God Doulia is due to God as he is our Lorde it followeth that that worship which is called Doulia as well as that which is called Latria is due onely to God who is our onely Lord and wil not giue his glorie to grauen Images Es. 42.8 1. Cor. 8.6 Theodoret saying that God calleth his people from the worshipping of diuels euen as Saint Paule 1. Cor. 10. sheweth that worshipping of images is the worshipping of diuels And whereas Maister Sander saith it can not possibly be saide that Christes images is dedicated to the diuell I say plainely with Theodoret and Paule it is dedicated to the diuell when it is worshipped For the Images of the Gentiles were not by the intente of the makers and worshippers dedicated to deuils but to God and godly men and women but when they were honored with religious honour which appertaineth onely to God the spirit of God saith they were dedicated to deuils And euen the same reason is of the Image of christ of the Trinitie of Peter or any other honoured with religious worshippe Thus Augustine and Theodoret cited by him are both against him Well yet he will disproue the comparison that M. Iewell maketh betweene Gods wordes and M. Hardings Iewell God saith thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen Images M. Hardinge saieth thou shalt make to thy selfe grauen Images But M. Sander saieth neither God nor M. Harding say so that is they do not meane so for God expounding his meaning added thou shalt not adore them nor giue them the honor due to God aboue therefore M. Iewell did euill to deuide Gods saying and by that diuision hee is sure that hee hath condemned his owne conscience So that by M. Sanders interpretation to make Images and to adore them is all one But M. Iewell seeinge them to be distincte matters to make and to worshippe without condemning his conscience did speak first of making and then of worshippinge of Images And although M. Sander be either so blind or so wilful that he cannot see or will not acknowledge the distinction of the two tables of the Lawe the matter of one being religion the other charitie yet M. Iewell did well inough consider that the Queenes Maiesties Image grauen in her coyne and such like pictures as nothing at all concerned religion nor nothinge at all forbidden were made by a commandement of the first table Now followeth another comparison Iewell God saith thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worshippe them M. Harding saith thou shalt fall downe to them and worshippe them But M. Sander answereth that M. Harding defendeth that another degree of honour incomparably inferiour to that which is due to God may be giueÌ„ to images not that which is due to god Wel then is M. Hard. Sander to contrary to other papists as great doctors as they But yet M. Iewels comparison doth stand For God forbiddeth al worship of Images Master Hard. aloweth some worship of Images Again how wil you distinguish the falling downe to God from falling downe to Images And therfore M. Iewel is no wrangler for meane Harding what he can meane his saying and meaning is contradiction to the saying and meaning of god But you wil affâ—rme saith M. Sander that al maner of honour is forbiddeÌ„ to be giuen to any kind of Image You haue against you the opinion of the law of nature the word of God the iudgement of the ancient fathers the decrees of general councels the practise of the whole church as hereafter shal be declared Verily M. Sander if you can bring al these authorities to vphold the worshipping of Images you shal do more then any man was euer able to do before you but hitherto you haue brought nothing worth the hearing But in the meane time you wil proue that there are two kindes of honour the one due to God alone the other to his creatures so to Images But you must proue that there be two kindes of religious honor or els you proue nothing for your purpose For ciuil honor wil not helpe you one iote for worshipping of Images except you be of that minde as Boniface a gentleman about Stamford was that would salute the sacrament of the altar with curtesie these words God giue you good morrow good Lord. And what haue you to proue this your distinction Nothing in the world but a saying of Augustine lib. 10. cap. 1. De ciuit Dei. that Latria by a certaine consent of ecclesiasticall writers hath bene taken for that seruice which is due to God that there is another seruice due to men according to which the Apostle coÌ„mandeth seruants to be