could not remaine The drinke sanctified in the bloud of our Lord brake out of her polluted bowels c. Out of this Historie Maister Heskins gathereth two thinges First that the sacrament in that time was ministred to infantes which was in deede a great abuse contrarie to the worde of god Secondly that this childe receiued onely the cup which is false for though she was not so troubled at the receipt of the bread yet it followeth not that she receiued no bread but contrariwise Cyprian saith the Eucharistie by whiche wordes the fathers alwayes vnderstand the whole sacrament could not remaine in her bodie And whereas he reasoneth foolishly that if she had receiued the bread she should like wise haue beene troubled he must vnderstand that when God worketh a miracle he taketh times and occasions at his pleasure And it is like he would not discouer her pollution that come by bread and wine before she had receiued both bread and wine as the sacrament If I should vrge vpon this place as the scoole men doe whether this that was vomited was the bloud of Christ and what should be done with it or what was done with it in this storie I should trouble him more then he could easily answere Another tale he telleth out of Sozomenus Eccl. hist. lib. 8. Cap. 5. Ioanne Constantinopolitanum c. When Iohn Chrysostome did very well gouerne the Church of Constantinople a certeine man of the Macedonian heresie had a wife of the same opinion When this man had heard Iohn teaching what was to bee thought of God he praysed his doctrine and exhorted his wife to be of the same minde with him But when she did more obey the words of noble women then his conuersation and after many admonitions her husband had profited nothing Except quod he thou be a cōpaniō with me in Diuine matters thou shalt not be hereafter a partaker of liuing with me When the woman heard this promised her consent dissemblingly she cōmunicated the matter with a certeyne maide seruant which shee iudged to be trustie vnto her and vseth her seruice to deceiue her husband And about the time of the mysteries they that be receiued to them know what I say she keping that she had receiued fell downe as though she would pray Her maide standing by giueth her priuily that which she brought in her hand with her which thing when it was put to her teeth it congeled into a stone The woman beeing astonnied fearing least any euil should happen to her for that thing whiche came to passe from God made hast to the Bishop and bewraying her selfe sheweth the stone hauing yet vpon it the markes of her bit and shewing an vnknowen matter and a wonderful colour and also desiring pardon with teares promised that she would agree with her husband And if this matter seeme to any man to be incredible this stone is a witnesse which is kept to this day among the Iewels of the Churche of Constantinople If this storie be true as it is no article of our beleefe yet proueth it not that the communion was ministred in bread only to all the rest that would receiue the cuppe although I wote not what was turned into a stone before the time came she should receiue the cuppe If M. Heskins will vrge she could not haue any thing to conuey into her mouth in steede of the wine I answere she might easily counterfet the drinking by kissing the cuppe and so letting it passe from her without tasting thereof Wherefore this is but a blind and vnreasonable coniecture of Maister Heskins that the sacrament was ministred in one kinde because she that had dissembled in the receipt of one kinde was punished with depriuation from both kindes The last reason he vseth Is that it is testified by learned men that the manner of receiuing vnder one kinde which is vsed in all the Latine Church vpon good Friday on which day the priest receiueth the hoste consecrated vpon maundie Thursday hath been so vsed from the primitiue Church But what learned men they be except such as him selfe and what proofes they haue of this vsage he sayeth not so much as halfe a word The whole matter standeth vpon his owne credite But if he and all the learned of that side should fast from good Friday vntill they haue shewed proofe of such an vse in the primitiue church not as they vse to fast in Lent but from all manner of nourishment there would not one learned Papist be left aliue on gang Monday to shew what proofes they haue found Thou hast seene Reader what his reasons and authorities are iudge of the answers according to thy discretion ¶ The end of the second Booke THE THIRD BOOKE OF MAISTER HESKINS PARLEAment repealed by W. Fulke The first Chapter entereth by Preface into the first text of S. Paule that toucheth the sacrament and expoundeth it according to the letter TThe Preface is out of Didymus that diuine matters are to be handled with reuerence and considering the difficultie of the scriptures by Hierome that in matters of doubt recourse must be had by Irenęus his aduise vnto the most auncient Churches in which the Apostles were conuersant In so much that Irenaeus saith Libro 3. Cap. 4. Quid autem c. And what if the Apostles had left vs no writinges ought we not to haue followed the order of tradition which they deliuered to them to whome they had committed the Churches Wherevpon Maister Heskins gathereth that not onely for matters conteined in scripture but also for traditions vnwritten in the holie scriptures the fathers are to be credited But he goeth farre from Irenaeus minde who confuted the heretiques both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the moste auncient Churches whose traditions must haue beene all our institution if there had ben no scriptures But seeing that scriptures inspired of God by his gratious prouidence are left vnto vs al traditions are to be examined by them that is twise proued after Irenaeus minde whiche is proued both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the Churches Otherwise the scriptures are sufficient of them selues 2. Tim. 3. And no tradition or authoritie is to be receiued which is repugnant or contrarie vnto them The text of Saint Paule that he speaketh is written 1. Cor. 10. Brethren I would not haue you ignorant that all our fathers were vnder the cloude and all passed through the sea and were all baptised by Moses in the cloude and in the sea and did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the same spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christe Where it is to be noted that Maister Heskins in steede of the same spirituall meate and the same spirituall drinke translateth one spiritual meate and one spirituall drinke as though the sense were that the Fathers did all eate drinke of one spiritual kind
praescriptionibus aduersus haereticos which is such as hee saieth that euen religion muste agree to it if with anye reason it will bee credited But in deed it is suche as while Tertulian followed too muche hee fell from the Catholike Church to be an heretike The summe of that saying which M. Rast. hath shamefully gesded falsely translated so that it seemeth he hath not red it in Tertulians booke but in some mans notes that hath ioyned together as it were cantles or patches of Tertulians saying the effecte I saie is this That because some heretikes of his time receiued not all the scriptures and those which they did receiue they receiued not whole but by additions and detractions corruptions and wrong expositions they peruerted them to their purpose his iudgement was that against such heretikes the triall was not to bee made by scriptures by which the victorie should either be none or vncertaine or not sure and therefore in as much as they were not agreed what was scripture and how great was the authoritie thereof he thought that the order of disputinge required that these questions shoulde first be decided Vnto whom the Christian faith pertaineth whose are the scriptures of whom and by whom and when and to whom the learning is deliuered by which men are made Christians For where it shall appeare that the trueth of the Christian learning and faith is there shal be the trueth of the scriptures and of the expositions and of all Christian traditions This is the iudgement of Tertulian But seeinge we receiue all the scriptures Canonicall without addition or detraction yea and for the principal articles of our religion wherein we differ from the papistes we receiue the exposition of the most auncient writers both of the Greeke and Latine Churche not bringinge in any newe doctrine but requiring that the olde doctrine may be restored this rule of Tertulian doth not concerne vs Yet are we able to aunswere to all his demaundes without any taryinge and so as it shall satisfie Tertulian or anye man that vnderstandeth him We say that Christian faith pertaineth to true Christians and that the scriptures are theirs also We say also that the learning by which men are made Christians was deliuered of Christ by his Apostles and Euangelistes in the time of the raigne of Tiberius the Emperour first vnto the Iewes and after vnto the Gentiles making one vniuersall Chruch dispersed ouer the whole worlde And the trueth of this Christian learning and faith thus and then deliuered we do hold and mainteine therefore by Tertullians rule the truth of the scriptures and expositions all Christian traditions are with vs the rather because it cannot be proued that we hold any one article of beliefe but the same is conteined in the manifest wordes of the scriptures by which onely it may be tryed what learning Christ deliuered to his Apostles and they to the churches For seeing the memory of man cānot ascende vnto so many hundreth yeares the certeine remembrance must be had out of Records of writings for so much as no writings are either so auncient or so credible as the holy scriptures the trial must be onely by the scriptures notwithstanding Tertullians opinion as Augustine teacheth in many places of his writings against the Donatistes After this discourse vpon Tertullian he addeth sixe articles more falsely pretending that they are the demaundes of Tertullian but altering them into the manner of a challenge where as I haue both set forth and answered Tertullians demaundes according to his owne words and meaning The first is if we can proue by any sufficient and likely argument that we haue any true Christian faith at all among vs for faith saith hee cleaueth vnto authoritie which they can neuer shewe for themselues c In deede suche faith as cleaueth vnto mennes authoritie wee haue none but suche as cleaueth vnto the worde of God as saint Paule saith faith commeth by hearing of the worde of God which is onely true Christian faith wee haue the whole faith of Christians as we do dayly proue not onely by the auctoritie of scriptures but also by the testimony of aunciēt writers agreeable to the same And because he is so impudent to deny that we haue any true Christian faith at all I demaunde of him why hee doth not then rebaptise those that are baptised of vs seing he is persuaded that neither the minister nor the godfathers whose faith according to their doctrin maketh much fo◠baptisme haue any true Christian faith at all The seconde that the scriptures are deliuered vnto vs that we be the right keepers of them is proued by this argument that we be the church of God vnto whome the scriptures and the custodie of them perteineth That wee are the church of God we proue by this argumēt that we beleeue and teach all that and nothing else but that which God by his holy scriptures hath appointed to be beleeued and taught for Christian faith The thirde we knowe from whome wee haue receiued the gospel not from the Papists Namely frō the doctrine of god and his holy spirite from such ministers as were stirred vp of God and lightened with his spirite according to the scriptures and from the books of the Greekes and Hebrues and not of the papists The fourth we knowe by what successours the gospell came vnto vs from God the authour of it euen from the prophets and Apostles Euangelistes pastours and teachers of the church of all ages florishing in sight of the worlde vntill the comming and tyrany of Antichrist had ouerwhelmed all the worlde with darkenesse by whom they were persecuted and driuen into corners according to the prophecie of Christe in the Apocalipse cap. 12. but yet so as they alwayes continued and testified the trueth oftentimes openly protesting against Antichrist vntill nowe at the length the time being come in which Antichrist must be consumed they are againe brought into the sight of the worlde and the kingdome of Antichrist is made obscure ignominious contemptible The fift we knowe at what time the Gospell was first delyuered vnto the Church of the gentiles namely in the reigne of Tiberius in whose time Christ suffered since which time it hath alwayes continued and shall do to the end of the worlde To the sixt wherein he requireth vs to shew the foundatiō of some Church house communion table or booke c. by which it may bee gathered that a true apostolike religion was within the 600. yeares as void of ornamēts ceremonies reuerence distinction of places and dignities sacraments and solemnities perteining to sacraments as ours is I answere our religion hath all sacraments ornaments ceremonies distinction solemnities reuerence necessarie vnto eternall life and therfore to shewe a monument of a religion voide of these it perteineth not to vs Beside that it is a foolishe and vnreasonable demaund for vs to shewe any such monument remaining aboue 900. yeares when by so often
bloud which is shed for you and that bloud which was shed for vs was separated from his bodie therefore this bloud in the cuppe is separated from his bodie And in verie deede the mysterie of the cuppe is sett forth in that he sayeth his bloud was shedd for vs and not as it remayned in the veynes of his bodie for not his bloud in his bodie but the shedding of his bloud hath washed our consciences from dead workes to serue the liuing god So the breaking of his bodie on the crosse hath made it a spirituall meat for vs to feede vppon and therefore he saith this is my bodie which is giuen for you And so sayeth Hesychius verie well of the crosse Quae etiam superimpositam Dominicam carnem esibilem hominibus reddit nisi enim superimposita fuisset cruci nos corpus Christi nequaquam mysticè perciperemus The crosse maketh our Lordes fleshe layde vpoÌ„ it eatable of men for except it had been layde vpoÌ„ the crosse we should not receiue mystically the bodie of Christ in Leu. lib. 2. Cap. 6. But M. Heskins by miserable detorting of a worde or two woulde make the auncient fathers patrones of his monstrous sacriledge as though they taught whole Christ to be vnder eche kinde of which opinion there is not one title to be found in all their workes First Cyprian de Cana Domini Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem Domini mutatus proâ—urat vitam This common bread being changed into the bodie and bloud of our Lorde procureth life But here Maister Heskins playeth his olde parte most impudently falsifying the wordes of Cyprian by adding Domini and leauing out that which followeth and maketh all out of doubt that Cyprian speaketh not here of the sacramentall bread but of common breade His wordes are these Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam incrementum corporibus ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae Ä™ternae effectum non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione nos Christo vnitos This common breade being chaunged into fleshe and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodies therefore the weakenesse of our faith being holpen by the accustomed effect of thinges is taught by a sensible argument that in the visible sacrament is the effect of eternall life and that wee are vnited to Christ not so much by a bodily as by a spirituall transition You see therefore howe shamefully hee abuseth Cyprian Who seeing hee was so vehement against them that vsed water onely in the cuppe would he think you allowe that neither wine nor water shoulde be giuen Especially when hee giueth a generall rule that the institution of Christe bee precisely obserued and that nothing else is to be done concerning the cuppe then that Christe him selfe did before vs lib. â— Ep. 3. Caecilio But are Papistes ashamed of forgerie to mainteine their false doctrine of transubstantiation After Cyprian hee depraueth the wordes of Irenaeus lib. 5. Calicem qui est creatura suum corpus confirmauit The cuppe which is a creature he confirmed to be his bodie but it followeth which he craftely omitteth Ex quo nostra auget corpora Quando ergo mixtus Calix factus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi c. Of which hee doeth increase our bodies When then the mixed cuppe and breade that is made receiueth the worde of God the Eucharistie or sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christe is made Whether there bee eclipsis or synechdoche in the former wordes thou mayst see plainly here that hee meant not to exclude the bread but that they both together make the sacrament But Maister Heskins alledgeth further out of Irenaeus Sanguis non est nisi a venis carnibus reliqua quae est secundùm hominem substantia Bloud is not but of vaines and fleshe and other substance of man. By these wordes which he vseth to proue that Christe had a true bodie because he had bloud M. Heskins like a wise man would proue that wheresoeuer bloud is there must be fleshe and vaines also wherein all the pudding wiues of Louayne will holde against him In deede bloude commeth from vaynes and fleshe as IrenÄ™us sayeth but it doth not followe that where bloud is there must be vaines and fleshe As for the saying of Bernarde wee are as little moued withall as M. Heskins with Melancthon to whome in his brauerie he sayeth vale and will cleaue to the substantiall doctrine of the fathers for the communion in one kinde of which he is not able to bring one But to conclude this Chapter If he be asked why Christe did institute the sacrament vnder both kindes if it bee sufficient to receiue one he aunswereth to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion But all Christian men ought to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion therefore he did institute it for all Christian men to receiue vnder both kindes And so S. Paule concludeth as often as you eate of this bread and drink of this cuppe you shewe the Lordes death vntil he come Wherefore the scripture is directly contrarie to the sacrilegious decree of the Papistes of receiuing the sacrament in one kinde onely The eyght and sixtieth Chapter proueth the same receipt vnder one kinde to be lawfull by the auncient practise of the Church Before these substantiall proues come in he taketh vpon him to aunswer the obiections of the aduersaries And first of the Bohemnians who vsed that place out of the sixt of S. Iohn Except you eat the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you These such like textes out of that Chapter must needes be inuincible argumentes against the Papistes which holde that those sayinges are to bee vnderstoode of the sacrament first and principally And otherwise for as much as the Lordes supper is a seale and sacrament of that doctrine and participation of the fleshe and bloude of our sauiour Christ which he there teacheth we may necessarily gather that seeing he ioyneth eating and drinking in the thing we may not omitt either of them in the signe And where as the Papistes would shift off that matter with their concomitans of bloud with the bodie it will not serue seeing he requireth drinking as necessarily as eating euen as he is a perfect foode and therefore is not meate without drinke but both meate and drinke Therefore diuerse counsels and specially Bracarense tertium Capitul 1. and it is in the decrees De Con. Dis. 2. cum omne as it reformed many corruptions that were crept into the Church about the ministration of the cup so this was one which they reproued that they vsed to dippe the breade in the cup and so deliuer it to the people Illud verò quod
broken downe thine altares While hee sayth thine he sheweth that the thing is Gods where any thing is offered of any man to God. Vppon pretence of this place Maister Hesk. chargeth vs with great sacriledge for pulling downe their popish altares on which they committed idolatrie and moste horrible sacriledge And therefore wee are commaunded to ouerthrowe such altares to breake downe their pillers burne their images with fire Deut. 7. And whereas he compareth vs to one Iulianus an heathen man that pissed against the altare and therfore was horribly punished hee sheweth his wisedome For there an idolater did vilanously contemne the Christians religion therfore was iustly plaged of God but we as Christians haue obeyed the lawe of God in ouerthrowing their antichristian idolatrous altars And yet I thinke the fact of Iulianus was not worse then the filthinesse of Pope Iohn that lay with his whores vppon your altares In the conclusion of this chapter he affirmeth that the altar sacrifice are correlatiues therefore there coulde be none altars but there was also sacrifice I haue shewed sufficiently howe the old writers called the communion table an altare and the sacrament a sacrifice namely a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation and yet more must I saye vpon M. Heskins discourses that followe The two and thirtieth Chapter vpon occasion that it is proued that the primitiue Church vsed the altare and reputed the bodie and bloud of Christ to be a sacrifice beginneth to treate of the same sacrifice which we commonly call the Masse Because the names of altar sacrifice haue beene vnproperly vsed by auncient writers for wee haue shewed that their altar was a table and their sacrifice a thankesgiuing therefore M. Hesk. will treat of the sacrifice of the Masse And first of the name of Masse which he saith we abhorre and iustly because it hath been vsed of many yeres to signifie a most blasphemous and idolatrous seruice The name he will deriue in all the haste out of the Hebrue tongue from a word that is called Mas from whence the Latines haue deriued their worde Missa being the same that the Greekes called Liturgia and the Latines officium which is in English a seruice To this I aunswere first that if Missa or Masse be nothing but a seruice then Euen song may be called Masse because it is a seruice Secondly it carryeth no shewe of trueth that the Latines would borrowe their name of the Hebrues rather then of the Greekes Thirdly that there is no such Hebrue worde as Maister Heskins affirmeth to bee Mas signifying a seruice as I report mee to all that haue but meane knowledge in the tongue Fourthly that although the name of Missa bee of some antiquitie in the Romane church yet is it neither so auncient as he maketh it and that which is chiefely to be regarded it is neuer founde in the holie scripture But nowe let vs consider his authoritie First Leo bishop of Rome Epist. 79. sayeth thus Necesse est vt quaedam pars populi sua deuotione priuetur si vniut tantùm Missae more seruato sacrificium offerre non possunt nisi qui prima diei parte conuenerint It must needes be that some parte of the people bee depriued of their deuotion if the manner or custome of our onely masse being obserued they cannot offer sacrifice except such as came together the first part of the day Vppon coulour of this place Maister Heskins will not onely prooue that the name of Missa is auncient but also that it is lawfull to saye more then one Masse in one church in one day if two then three if three then tenne if tenne then fifteene and so twentie which the proclaimer sayed could not be proued But you shall see howe lewdly hee abuseth his reader The proclaimers challenge was of tenne or twentie priuate Masses sayed in one church and commonly at one time Maister Heskins bringeth in authoritie of Leo which proueth that when one communion coulde no serue any more then so manie as the church woulde holde at one time it was meete it should be celebrated twise or as often as the same was filled with people vntill all had receiued which as wee confesse to be true so maketh it nothing in the worlde for the priuate Masse but altogether against it as is plaine by the whole treatie going before which Maister Heskins according to his accustomed synceritie hath cleane left out Vt autem in omnibus obseruantia nostra Concordet illud quoque volumus custodiri vt quum solennior festiuitas conuentum populi numerosioris indixerit ad eam tanta multitudo conuenerit quam recipere Basilica simul vna non possit sacrificij oblatio indubitanter iteretur ne his tantùm admissis ad hanc deuotionem qui primi aduenerint videantur hi qui posimodum confluxerint non recepti cum plenum pietatis atque rationis fit vt quoties Basilicā pręsentia nonae plebis impleuerit toties sacrificiū subsequēs offeratur And that our obseruation may agree in al things this also we will haue to be kept that when a more solemne festiuitie shall call together a greater assembly of people and so great a multitude is gathered vnto it that one great Church can not receiue them altogether the oblation of the sacrifice without doubt may be done againe least those only being admitted which came first they which came together afterward might seeme not to be receiued whereas it is a matter full of godlinesse and reason that how often so euer the presence of a newe people shall fill the Church so often the sacrifice following should be offered But M. Heskins vrgeth in the place by him cited that the word missa is vsed which is not denyed but this was almost 500. yeres after Christ about the yere 480. Secondly that the Masse is a sacrifice But he will not see that it is such a sacrifice as all the people offer which can not be a sacrifice propitiatorie but of thankesgiuing Howbeit he saith The Masse is a sacrifice that is or ought by ioyne affection and deuotion of the people to the Priest to be offered of them all What affection or deuotion he would haue to the Priest I do not well vnderstand but let him shadowe him selfe in what fond phrase of word he will yet can he not auoyde but that the people by the wordes of Leo did offer sacrifice in as ample manner as the Priestes and then they were all Priestes Besides this in the words of Leo he obserueth not that it was a custome of the Church before his time to haue but one Masse or Communion in a day so straightly kept that vpon necessitie they would not relent therein vntill he tooke this order with them But Maister Heskins asketh what scripture the proclamer hath to the contrarie for twentie Masses in one Church in one day I aunswere Saint Paule willeth the Corinthians to
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
Sander perhaps would insinuate And the hystorie of the Church is described by Eusebius Socrates Theodore c. by the doctrine vttered in preaching writings and consent in councels and doings and sufferings of the Elders of the Churches and not altogether or cheefely by their knowen gouernement as Maister Sander affirmeth As for example Eusebius sheweth the doctrine of Clement out of his writing for the allowance of marriage who affirmeth that the Apostles were married begot children Lib. 3. Cap. 30. Socrates sheweth that Spiridion a Bishop of Cypres in time of his Bishopricke of great humilitie kept sheepe Lib. 4. Cap. 12. Sozomenus saith he had a wife and children and sheweth his iudgement for eating flesh on a fasting day accounting him no Christian that would refuse it Lib. 1. Cap 11. Finally although some Churches haue ben known by their Pastors and Bishops yet haue there bene infinite Churches known to be in the worlde whose Bishops Pastours are altogether vnknowen And although some heretical and Schismatical companies haue bene knowen by their heades yet not all for the Acephali were so called because they had no head the Anthropomorphites also were rustical Monkes or Eremites in Aegypt vnder no head of their owne but the Bishop of Alexandria which was a Catholike Niceph. Lib. 13. Cap 10. 8 Although the Churche of Christ ceassed not at the end of the first fiue or sixe hundreth yeares nor the glory of Christes kingdome was euer darkened yet a greate number of the Bishops and pastors of the visible Church began then to be dimme and some altogether darke because they lighted not their candels at the word of God the onely true light shyning in the darke but declined to the inuentions of men and doctrine of diuels according to the prophesie of Saint Paule 2. Thess. 2. of the apostasie and departing from the faith 1. Tim. 4. towarde the comming reuelation of Antichrist Neither is it true that M. Sander saith that after the first 600. yeares the Church was spread into mo countries then it was before but the contrarie For Mahomet soone after peruerted the greatest parte of the worlde whereas Affrica long before was ouerrunne and Christianitie spoyled by the Vandales which were either Heathens or Arrians Notwithstanding some small countries haue beene since that time turned to the Christian profession And as it is true that Pastors and Doctors must still be to the end of the worlde in the Church and Christ neuer forsaketh the same so is it false that Popish Bishops Priestes which either were ignorant or altogether negligent in feeding and teaching the Churche with the foode and doctrine of Gods worde whereof Saint Paule spake Ephesi 4. or taught the doctrine of Diuels in steede thereof be those Pastours and Doctours by whome the preaching of the Gospell is continued though they sitte in the same places where sometime the true teachers satt euen as Antichrist their head sitteth in the Temple of GOD which is the proper place of Christe Neither is the credite of such late writers as account them for successors of the Apostles and godly pastours and teachers sufficient to authorise them for such in deed when their whole life and doctrine is contrarie to the writings of the Apostles and those auncient godly Pastors Doctors 9 We say not that the Church of Christ was knowen for the first â—00 yeres after Christ only or chiefely by the Bishops Pastors therof but by their doctrine agreable to the word of god And therefore it is sufficient ground for vs to deny the later rout that professeth not the same doctrine to be the church of christ The succession of persons or places without the continuance of the same true doctrine can no more defende the Pope poperie then it could defend Caiphas Sadduceisme For Caiphas a Sadducei which denyed the resurrection coulde more certeinly declare his personall and locall successioÌ„ from Aaron then the Pope can from Peter 10 I haue proued before that it is false which Master Sander againe sayeth to be true that Eusebius and other writers point foorth the church of 500. yeres onely or chiefely by Bishops which ruled in Rome Antioche Alexandria c. The doctrine actes of those Bishops agreeable to the scriptures is their description not their personall or locall succession as it was accompted in the latter times when they had nothing else to commende their counterfet Bishops being in life and doctrine contrarie to the worde of God the testimonie of the primitiue church And where he sayeth noting in the margent August Ep. 165. that in olde time they were knowen to be heretikes which departed from the knowen companie of Bishops Pastors agreeing in one faith c. it is verie true but then this faith was proued to be true not onely by successions of Bishops but by the holye scriptures as the same Augustine sayeth in the same place Quanquam nos non tam de istis documentis praesumamus quà m de scripturis sanctis Although wee do not presume so much of those documentes as of the holie scriptures To conclude all practises and councels that are contrary to the holie Scriptures were then refused euen as they be nowe Cyprian refused the practise of ministring the communion with water because it was contrarie to the scripture Augustine refused the practise of Cyprian and the Councell of Carthage â–ª for rebaptizing them that were baptized by heretikes and for the same cause our church refuseth the Masse the Laterane and the Tridentin councels without daunger of schisme or heresie 11 The vniuersall church is a spiritual collection of many members into one bodie whereof Christe is the onely head both in heauen and earth as the Apostle sayeth Eph. 3. Cor. 15. The vnitie hereof is mainteyned by following the direction of his worde and his holye spirite The order of particuler churches is mainteined by the seuerall gouernement of them But their whole church although it be like an armie of men well sett in arraye yet can it haue no one chiefe Capteine in earth to direct it but hee that is omnipotent and fitteth in heauen not onely to ouerlooke it but to rule and order it For no mortall man can looke into all places knowe all cases prouide against all mischiefes nor giue ayde in all dangers 12 Therefore Peter was none such and although Pascere be both to feede and rule yet it is to rule like a Shepeheard and not like an Emperour Neither were the sheepe by Christe committed to Peter more then to the other because hee loued more then the other but Peter was charged as hee woulde by his forwardnesse shewe more zeale and loue then the rest so to employe the same to the feeding of Christes flocke And whereas Maister Sanders quoteth Chrysostome in Ioan Hom. 87. I knowe not wherefore except it were to shewe the prerogatiue of Peter aboue the rest You shall heare what his iudgement was
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
his deuorse from his first vnlawfull mariage gaue him occasion to enquire and finde out what weake foundation the vsurped power of the See of Rome was buylded vppon 76 King Henrie departed not out of the societie of the churche of Rome onely for the vices of the men thereof but for their false and Antichristian heresies which they obstinately mainteined and ioyned him selfe to the true auncient and vniuersall Church of Christe when hee departed out of that false newe sett vp schismaticall and particuler Synagogue of Rome as Saint Augustine went from the Manichees to the Catholicke church And as King Henrie the eyght knewe whence hee went so knewe hee also whither he went euen from Rome with seuen hilles to Ierusalem which is aboue and is the mother of vs all 77 Hee that goeth out of an hereticall church as King Henrie did must goe to the Catholike church of Christe as hee did without making any newe church or being without a church I knowe not the age of Maister Sander but if hee bee not much aboue fourtie yeares olde hee was borne and baptized as manye other Papistes were in that which hee calleth a newe church or no church which howe hee will aunswere let him and them aduise which holde it necessarie that a man must tarrie in that church in which hee is baptized 78 King Henrie the eight was not without a churche but in the church of Englande a member of the Catholike church of Christe neither did hee call him the supreme head of the church of Englande before that title was giuen him by the Popish Clergie in their submission after they were cast in the premunire Edw. Hall. 79 That hee receiued not fully the true doctrine of Christ as he banished the false vsurped power of the Pope is to bee imputed to the trayterous practises of his dissembling Clergie which although they durste not withstande him in mainteining the Popes authoritie yet they laboured all that they coulde to reteine the Popes doctrine in as many poyntes as they might hereof came the lawe of the sixe articles which mainteined the sacrifice of the Masse transubstantiation communion in one kynde and such other heresies Neuerthelesse the authoritie of Antichrist much Idolatrie superstition and false doctrine was abolished Iustification by faith in Christe was preached the scripture was read in the vulgar tongue which was a beginning of a reformation and returning vnto the true church of Christe and not a setting vp of a newe churche Except Maister Sander will saye that those Kinges of Iuda which refourmed some parte of religion and yet left the hill altares other abuses did set vp a newe church because they made not a perfect reformation Finally where he sayth that King Henrie adioyned himselfe to no companie of faithfull men in earth which had from Christes time liued after that profession of faith which he allowed proueth not that hee set vp a newe church For he ioyned to the Catholike church in so many pointes of true doctrine as hee acknowledged from which the Popish church was departed although he was not rightly instructed in all 80 The church of Englande in King Henries time was a true church although all the doctrine which was then mainteined by publique authoritie through the subtile practises of popish hypocrites was not true And the church of England at this daye is the same that it was then but nowe by publike authoritie embraceing all true doctrine which by the true members of the church in King Henries dayes was mainteined and withstoode by hypocrites or other not yet rightly instructed 81 The church vnto which King Henrie went and brought the realme when he departed from Rome was the same church which began at Ierusalem and so increased into all nations and continueth in the world for euer though not among all nations 82 King Henry went out of the Antichristian church of Rome into the Catholike church of Christe embracing some part of the doctrine therof therefore hee needed no reconciliation to the Romish church but a more perfect information of the church of Christ. 83 In King Edwardes time the reformation began and hindred in his fathers time was perfected and accomplished for all pointes of Christian doctrine neither was there any reconciliation vsed to the churche of Rome but the Church of Englande by publike authoritie perfectly vnyted to the Catholike Churche of Christe ioyning in profession of faith with the best refourmed Christian churches in the worlde 84 The abolishing of forrein power hindred not the ioyning in faith and doctrine with all the Churches of God that were without the realme of England The propitiatorie sacrifices of the Masse was in King Edwardes time abolished by publique authoritie out of the Church of England as it was in King Henries time abhorred of all true members of the Church that were then rightly instructed as much as the supremacie of the Pope 85 The power of being the sonnes of God the power of preaching and forgiuing of sinnes in the Church of Christe is no forreigne power neither was any such power euer excluded but the false and vsurped tyrannie of Antichrist of Rome 86 We beleeue and professe a Catholique or vniuersall Church of Christe whereof we are members and therefore we detest the hereticall schismaticall and particular Church of Rome 87 The Church of England vnder King Edward did professe her selfe to be a member of the most auncient Catholike and Apostolique Church of Christe which is the piller of trueth to bee iudged by the worde of GOD which is the trueth it selfe Iohn 17. being not so ignoraunt but that she could distinguish the worde of GOD from the Church of GOD as the lawe of GOD from the houshold of GOD which is gouerned by that lawe And not as Maister Sanders similitude is as the statutes of England differ from the men of England which make them but the Church maketh not the worde of God but contrariwise the word of God maketh the Church 88 It is not necessarie to shewe a companie of men in a peculiar place as Geneua or any such like for them that will ioyne them selues with the Catholike Church of all the world although it were easie to name diuers companies of men in seuerall places which continued in the true Church out of the Church of Rome both in Fraunce and Italie beside Bohemia which long before was returned out of the Popish Church into the Church of Christ and all the East Churches which neuer ioyned with the Church of Rome 89 The Churches of Zurich and Saxonie be members of the Catholique Church of Christe which is fifteene hundreth yeares olde and vpward although the same Churches were gathered and returned in those places within these three score yeares 90 There needed no embassages to goe to and fro to the Churches of God beyond the seas for reconciliation bicause there was no debate betweene the Church of England and them Although for conference and aduise
in reformation no doubt but there were mutuall messages betweene them The vnion and communion of our Church with other particular Churches of God throughout the world is spirituall made by the working of the holy Ghost and not by embassages or orders taken by men But the same is declared and shewed by the confession of our faith fully agreeing in all necessarie Articles with them 91 The publique protestations and confessions of our faith doe shewe our reconciliation and coniunction with the Catholique Church of Christ without that it is needfull for vs to exhibite any billes of submission to any singular persons as hath bene vsed in cases of particular discipline as in reconciliation of Vrsarius and Valens to Iulius of Rome Maximus Vrbanus other to Cyprian of Carthage 92 The realme did neuer submit it selfe to Luther Zuinglius or Caluine but to Christe and his Church As for offring of billes of submission to forreigne Bishops it is no part of Christian discipline But if it were a matter of any substance al the Cleargie of England gaue their subscription to the Archbishop of Canturburie and other Bishops for the departure out of the Popish Church into the Church of England That we receiued not the errour of Luther concerning the reall presence it sheweth wee depend not vpon any man further then his doctrine is true and agreeable to the word of God. 93 Caluine and Zuinglius although they receiued some light of vnderstanding by the ministerie of Luther yet came they not from him but were stirred vp of God as he was 94 The realme in King Edwards time neuer purposed to submit them selues to Caluine who although he misliked the title of supreme head in that sense whiche Steuen Gardiner maintained it at Ratisbone as though it gaue vnto the King an absolute authoritie to do what he would in the Church yet in that sence that it was receiued of King Edward and vnderstoode of all godly men that is to bee the highest Magistrate in the Church as well for the ordering of Ecclesiasticall as ciuill matters he neuer did condemne it 95 King Edward retaining that title in the godly sense aboue rehearsed the Church of England notwithstanding was vnited to the Catholique Church of Christ throughout the world 96 When Queene Marie came to the Crowne shee found the realme a member of the Catholique Church of Christe which she forsooke and sought to bring it in bondage againe to the Antichristian See of Rome which by meanes of a Legacie from the Pope brought by Cardinall Poole long before attainted for treason against his Prince and countrie was by an acte of Parleament yeelded vnto Although GOD reserued more then seuen thousand that neuer bowed their knee to Baal of Rome whereof many were cruelly put to death and suffered martyrdome the rest were persecuted and by the protection of God escaped out of that bloudie and fierie persecution 97 The seat of Peter could not be planted at Rome in the dayes of Claudius the Emperour bycause that in the tenth or eleuenth yeare of his Empire Peter was at Antioch reproued by Paule Gala. 2. The last yeare or the first of Nero S. Paule writte his Epistle to the Romanes from Corinth where he taried almost two yeres in which Epistle he sending salutation to sixe and twentie singular persons beside diuers families would not haue omitted to salute Peter if he had bene there But admit that Peter had a seat at Rome yet the Papacie hath not continued from that time but since the dayes of Boniface the third which was more then â—00 yeares after Christe Neither hath the faith of the See of Rome continued without chaunge as M. Sanders saith these 1500. yeares but is altogether in a manner chaunged from the faith of Peter and of the Apostolike Church therefore Queene Marie bringing the realme to that Church did not reconcile it to the true Church of Christ but restored it to the slauerie of the Antichristian tyrannie 98 Seeing the realme is nowe againe returned to the embracing of the doctrine of the Gospell set foorth in the holy scriptures taught in the Primitiue Church many hundreth yeares after Christe continued in all times though vnder persecution of Antichrist and nowe openly and publiquely professed of many nations it is a member of the true Catholike Church of Christe whereof Christe onely is the head and communicateth with the Church of Christ of all nations in all pointes of true religion necessarie to saluation and therefore is no seismaticall Church but a Catholique and Apostolique Church 99 The Catholique Church of Christe whereof the Church of England is a part is an inuisible Church and therefore an Article of our faith which is of things inuisible Heb. 10. and no Church vnder a bushell But Hierusalem that is in heauen is the mother of vs all Gala. 4. Contrariwise the Popish Church which is visible is the Church of Infidels and Rome which is vpon earth is the mother of all Antichristians 100 The preaching of Gods worde is the ground of faith â–ª the celebrating of the sacramentes is the confirmation of the same these exercises haue alwayes beene in the true Churche of God when they be not hindred by persecution 101 The Gospell of Christ hath beene preached vnto all nations And the Church hath had Pastours and teachers froÌ„ Christes time vnto Luthers age Maister Sander asketh where they were through all nations As though it were necessarie they should be in euerie nation at all times Poperie when it was at the largest had not teachers in all nations For many coÌ„tinue in barbarous Gentilisme beside Mahometisme which hath filled the greatest part of the worlde The Church of Christe is scattered in many nations and hath had and now also hath many Kinges that walke in the light thereof And at this time more then the Popish Church hath 102 The true Church in England is honoured nourished by the Kinges whome she honoureth as supreme gouernours heades or rulers thereof And although Ecclesiasticall persons pay subsidies vnto their princes yet are not their Princes and their Courtiers nourished by the goodes of the Church as Maister Sander moste slaunderously reporteth otherwise then it is meete that subiects should contribute to the maintenance of the state of the Prince and their owne defence 103 The worde of God written is in deede honorable and true and conteineth all that doctrine by whiche the Church of God was gouerned two thousand yeres before any word of the Bible was written when by reason of that long life of the Patriarches the tradition might be certeine The Gospell also was preached by the Apostles before any of the foure Gospels was penned but yet agreable to the scriptures of the olde Testament and is the same that is written and none other which written word of God is able to make the man of God perfect and is deliuered vnto the Church of Christe as a moste certeine rule to followe that
of the nayle Beside we see a great difference betweene the reuerent offering of a thing and the honouring or worshipping thereof which yet Master Sander euery where confoundeth But Ambrose speaketh further in the person of the Iewes Ecce clauus in honore est Beholde euen the nayle is in estimation and that which we knocked in to death is a remedy of health and with a certaine inuisible power tormenteth the deuils Kinges are bowed to the iron of his feete Here saith Master Sander we haue the adoration of iron Is this like that Ambrose who before condemned the adoration of the wood for an heathnish error doeth now commende the bowinge to iron why Master Sander doe you not confesse that the Iewes spake this and not Ambrose or Ambrose spake this in the person of the Iewes And who knoweth not in such fictions of persons speaking the Orator must frame his talke as they whome he supposeth to speake are like to say The Iewes then in sport do say kings bow down to a piece of iron meaning to the Emperour in whose creste this iron nayle was is it then the iudgement of Ambrose to allow the bowing to yron in any respect O vaine friuolous argumentes of the Papistes that must borrowe their authority of the complaint of the perfidious Iewes But you may knowe what honour was done to the yron that as the one nayle was placed in an honourable place namely in the Emperours Diademe so an other was placed in his horse mouth for so saith Ambrose De vno clauo frenos fieri precepis she commaunded his bridle to be made of one nayle This was no great honouring of that holy yron to put it to bee champed and slaboured in an horse mouth although Ambrose make a misterie of it And the thirde nayle other writers say was cast into the Sea to staye a tempest All three being thus bestowed by auncient testimonie the Papists haue fourteene more in diuers places of Fraunce Italy Germany beside the fifteenth that was shewed at Paules crosse by maister Iewell since the Queenes reigne But Ruffinus calleth it blessed And Cyrillus healthfull and precious because it leadeth vs to the memory of Christs death So woulde an image of Iudas Iscarioth doe It was the best reason those auncient writers had to defende that supersticious estimation which they had of the signe of the crosse As for the report of Paulinus that the same crosse had a Church and a secreate place made at Ierusalem where it might be honourably reserued which the Bishop brought forth at Easter to be worshipped of the people if it be true yet proueth it not the worshiping of images for the crosse was no image But that it is not like that any church was erected to the Crosse Saint Augustine sheweth that it was counted sacriledge in his time to make a Church vnto any creature Contra. Maximin lib. 1. titu 11. Nonne si Templum alicui saÌ„cto angelo excelentissimo de signis lapidibus faceremus anathematizaremur a veritate Christi ab ecclesia dei quoniam creaturae exhiberemus eam seruitutem quae vni tantum debâ—â—â—r deo si ergo sacrilegi essemus faciendo templum cuicunque creaturae quomodo non est Deus verus cui non templum facimus sed nos ipsi templum sumus If we made a temple vnto any holy and most excellent Angel of woode and stones shoulde we not be accursed from the trueth of Christ and from the Church of God because we shoulde giue that seruice to a creature which is due onely to God If therefore wee shoulde be sacrilegious in making a temple to any creature whatsoeuer how is not he a true God to whom we make no temple but we our selues are his temple Except M. Sander will say the crosse was no creature wee must say with Augustine it ought to haue no temple What superstition and Idolatrie hath done is not the question but what should be done and what is wel done is all the controuersie The feastes of the inuention of the crosse which hee maketh of 1200. yeares olde and the exaltation of nine hundreth beside that the antiquitie of the inuenting is not proued yet argue not any worshippe of the crosse more then the feastes of the Apostles and martirs which were kept onely in remembrance of them and not to adore or worship them That maister Iewell graunteth the signe of the crosse to haue beene had in great regard among the Christians what helpeth it your cause seeing hee alloweth not the superstitious abuse thereof But you say if it be a thing vsed in the whole primitiue Church it must not be called a supersticious abuse for maister Iewel hath submitted himselfe to the first sixe hundreth yeares A man may easely perceiue with what coÌ„science maister Sander handeleth this cause that so impudeÌ„tly affirmeth so manifest an vntruth For who euer heard maister Iewell submit himselfe to the first sixe hundreth yeares in all matters of controuersie Where did he euer take vpon him to discharge the first sixe hundreth yeares of all error and supersticion Although for certeine questioÌ„s vttered in his sermon he made challeng of 600. yeares yet did he neuer allowe of all thinges that were done or taught in the church for 600. years But I pray you let vs see how substancially M. Sander proueth the signe of the crosse to haue ben in estimation with the whole primitiue church His first authour is Tertulian almost 200. yeares from christ And from him he desceÌ„deth to Cyprian Basill Augustine Chrisostome c. Tertulian sheweth only the sining of mens foreheades therewith whethersoeuer they went The later age brought in that signe into baptisme confirmation the Lords supper and almost in to euery ceremony So superstition crepeth like a ringworme at the first as a tollerable indifferent matter then as a holye thing nexte as a necessarie thing and last of all into open and grosse Idolatrie as in the times following those six hundreth years But before all those whom M. Sander nameth Irenaeus lib. 1. testifieth that the ValeÌ„tiniane heretiks brought the signe of the crosse in great estimation calling it Oron confirmatiuam crucem the limit and terme of all things the confirming crosse abusing euen the same testimonies of scripture for the proofe thereof which the Papists doe and namely maister Sander in this Chapter Paulum autem apostolum ipsum reminisci huius crucis dicunt Verbum crucis c. Mihi autem non eueniat gloriari nisi in cruce Christi And they say that euen Paule the Apostle himselfe doth remember this crosse The worde of the crosse c. GOD forbid that I should boast in any thing but in the crosse of christ Seeing therefore so auncient a writer as Ireneus testifieth that the first estimation thereof came from so horrible heritikes howsoeuer the later ages haue abused it it cannot be proued a thing vsed in the whole primitiue church that
S. Augustine concerninge figures is applyed to Images Images were made without all scruple in the primitiue Church Bowing to the image of Christ in S. Chrisostoms â—ime His liturgie is defended Seuerus painted the images of S. Martine and Paulinus in a holy place S. Gregorie laye prostrate before an holy Image Saint Augustine is cited De doct Christian. lib. 3. cap. 9. Qui aut operatur aut veneratur c. He that worketh or reuerenceth M. Sander translateth worshippeth a profitable signe instituted by gods authority whose strength and signification he vnderstandeth doeth not reuerence or worshippe that which he seeth and passeth away but rather that thing whereunto all suche thinges are to be referred First I note the corruptioÌ„ of Master Sanders translation that turneth Veneratur worshippeth after the popishe meaninge For God did neuer institute any signe to be worshipped in that sense which Master Sander defendeth worshippinge of Images But all signes instituted of God are to be reuerently esteemed regarded as baptisme which we do reuerently esteeme yet we worship not either the water or the action of baptizing Secondly we haue to consider how Master Sander can proue images to be profitable signes instituted by gods authoritie They be profitable saith hee because they bring vs in remembraunce of good thinges I denie this argument because nothing is profitable in religion but that which is instituted by God for otherwise we might bring the gallowes into the Church whiche bringeth vs in remembraunce of Gods Iustice c. as I haue shewed before Likewise the Prophet Abacuc vtterly denyeth Images to be profitable Cap. 2. vers 18. But let vs see how he proueth popishe images to be instituted by Gods authoritie which is al in al for if that be proued we wil not doubt of the profitablenesse of them First he alledgeth the imitation of nature and of nations the institution of some images in the law of Moses last of all the tradition left to his Church freely to make images of good things The former reasons are answered before in their proper chapters namely the lawe of nature and nations cap. 11. the making of some images in Moyses lawe cap 12. also the example of practise of this supposed tradition out of Eusebius cap. 10. And they are all three wiped away with the expresse commaundement of God in his lawe of religion Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image or the likenesse of any thing c. Neuerthelesse let vs see how by tradition left to the Churche images are prooued to be instituted by god We reade saith hee in S. Augustine as well of the Ethnikes as of the Christians There is first one falshood for Augustine in the place by him cited speaketh onely of Ethnikes De consen Euang. lib. 1. cap. 10. which because they had seene Christes image pictured with Peter and Paule imagined that Christ had written bookes to Peter and Paule Secondly he citeth the wordes thus Pluribus locis simul Petrum et Paulum cuÌ„ Christo pictos viderunt quiae merita Petri Pauli etiam propter cundem passionis diem celebrius ac solemniter Roma commendat They sawe in verie many places Peter Paule painted together with Christ because Rome doeth set foorth the merites of Peter and Paule the more famously and solemnly euen for that they suffered both vppon one day In this allegation hee addeth wordes that are not in Augustine Although not contrary to his meaning yet shewing thereby that he borrowed this place as manye of our Englishe papistes doe commonly of some other mans noting rather then of his owne reading But the greatest fault of all is that he doth deceiptfully suppresse the words following immediatly which declare howe profitable Sainte Augustine esteemed the doctrine of Images to be His whole sentence is this Credo quod pluribus locis simul eos cum illo pictos viderunt quia merita Petri Pauli etiam propter cundem passionis diem celebrius solemniter Roma commendat Sic omnino errare meruerunt qui Christum Apostolos eius non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt I beleeue that they haue seene them painted with him in manye places because Rome doeth more notably and solemnely set foorth the worthinesse of Peter and Paule euen because of the same day of their suffering So they were altogether worthy to be deceiued whiche haue sought Christ and his Apostles not in the holy bookes but in painted walles Now see with what honestie Master Sander hath alledged this place of Augustine to prooue that images are of Gods institution But you will saye perhappes this place doeth prooue that Images of Christe and his Apostles were then made by Christians I graunte but not in the Churches for then the Ethnikes coulde not haue seene them because they were neuer suffered to enter into the Churches of the Christians But Gregorie Nyssen in his Oration De Theod. martyr laud. testyfieth that the paynter had set foorth the whole storie of Theodorus the martyr in his Churche And yet the Image of the martyr was none otherwise painted then the fierce and cruell formes of the tyrauntes neyther otherwise on the walles then on the pauemente For he saith Capillorum item concinnator historiae par opuâ— in pauimento quod pedibus calcatur effecit Also the pauier hath made the lyke woorke of historie vppon the pauemente whiche is trodden vnder feete These deuises of painters and pauiers Master Sander is faine to take holde of in steede of the holy scriptures and aunciente writers But if hee saye that Gregorius doeth also allowe these I answere as ornamentes of the Churche not as matter of Gods religion and worshippe whiche yet he shoulde rather haue defaced with Epiphanius then suffred or allowed for inconueniencâ— that folowed This report of Gregorie sheweth the errour of that time rather then prooueth images to be instituted by god That Paulinus caused images to bee painted on the Church walles as it is confessed to be done so it is denied to be well done The like I say of the images painted in Saint Martins Church in Towers in Fraunce witnessed by Gregorius Turonensis although it was long after the time of Paulinus in which Satan beganne to lay the platforme for his Idolatrie whiche afterwarde he brought into the worlde And these be all the arguments that he hath to prooue that images are profitable signes instituted by Gods authoritie Except he meane the text of Paul to the Galat. 5. to be an argument whiche he citeth to prooue that we are made free in Christ both to knowe our signes and images to be images and signes and also to knowe whereof they are signes which the Iewes saith he did not So that the libertie of Christ is by M. Sanders doctrine not from a yoke of bondage and seruitude vnto ceremonies but from ignorance and want of knowledge of the vse of them And whereas by the lawe
the first that had it in estimation although afterward it grew to be esteemed of good Christians by a corrupt emulation To the 3. that visiting of Saints tombes and kissing their reliques after the Popish manner was thought to be a superstitious vanitie is proued by the Epistle of the Smyrnenses to the Phylomilienses Euseb. Lib. 4. Cap. 16. Wherein they shew that the Gentiles and Iewes thought best to burne the bodie of Policarpus least the Christians should leaue Christ and begin to worship him and therefore they watched the Christians least they should take his bodie out of the fire Ignorantes nos nec vnquam c. beeing ignorant say they that we can neuer forsake Christ which suffered for all them that shall be saued of the worlde nor worship any other For him truly we adore as the sonne of God but the Martyrs we loue worthily as the Disciples and followers of our Lord for their inuincible loue towardes their King and Maister of whoÌ„ we wish our selfes to be made companions and Disciples Therefore when the Centurian saw the contention of the Iewes they burned his bodie as their maner is being laid in the midst and so at the length we got his bones more precious then precious stones better tried then gold buried theÌ„ where it was meet where also as neere as may be being assembled the Lorde shall graunt vs with ioye and gladdenesse to celebrate his Martyrs byrth day â–ª both to the remembraunce of them that haue fought alreadie and for the exercise and preparation of them that shall fight hereafter Such reuerent burning therfore of their dead corpses laying vp of their reliques as is of loue not of superstition we condeÌ„ne not But such as the papists vsed of their reliques they learned of the heretikes Osseni which as Epiphanius writeth tooke the spittle and other fylthines of the bodies of Marthys and Marthana whom they took for saintes and vsed them for helpe of diseases as the papists did with the snottie napkins of Thomas Becket such a saint as they were And that they should not obiect that some haue done as they doe S. Augustine De moribus eccles Cath. lib. 1. cap 34. Thus writeth Nolite mihi colligere professores nominis Christiani neque professionis suae vim aut scientet aut exhibentes Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum qui vel in ipsa vera religione superstitiosi sunt vel ita libidinibus dediti et obliti sint quid promiserint Deo. Noui multos esse sepulchrorum vt picturarum adoratores Gather not vnto me such professors of the name of Christ for example as neither know nor shewe forth the vertue of their profession Seeke not vp the multitudes of vnskilfull persons which ether in true religion it selfe are superstitious or else so giuen to their lustes that they haue forgotten what they haue promised to god I know there be many worshippers of tombes and pictures c. To the 4. that miracles worked at their chappelles or memorie among the heretikes as the papists be were attributed at the firste tydinges of them vnto the diuilles subtiltie is proued by S. Augustine who speaking of miracles wrought at such places saith De vnitate ecclesiae cap. 1â— Remoueantur ista vel figmenta mendacium hominum vel portenta faâ—lacium spirituum aut enim non sunt vera quae dicuntur aut si 〈◊〉 atiqua mirafacta sunt magis cauere debemus Away with these miracles which are either the forgeries of lying men or the wonders of deceiuing spirites for either chose things that are reported be not true or if any miracles of the heretike are wrought we ought so muche the more to take heede of you The fourth part conteineth 3. articles To the first that to praye for the soules departed was thought repugnaÌ„t to the scriptures is proued by this reason for that although it be an ancient errour yet was it not vsed of the Churche almost for 200. yeares after Christ and the first that we reade of in any authenticall writer that maketh mention of prayer for the deade was Tertulian when he was an heretike whiche learned it of Martianus who laide the firste foundation of purgatorie as appeareth in his booke De anima cap de infeâ—is To the seconde that to offer sacrifice and giue almes for their soules health was accompted impietie I aunswere as to the first vppon which it dependeth Origenes in Iob. lib. 3. sayeth that the Christians did celebrate the day of death Vtpote omnium dolorum depositionem as the layinge aside of all paine Likewise that they did keepe the memorie of their friendes departed as well reioysinge in their rest as prayinge for the lyke godly endinge in faith Also they called together the people with the Cleargie and especially the poore to their buriall feastes vt fiat festiuitas nostra in memoriam requiei defunctis animabus quarum memoriam celebramus nobis autem efficiatur in odorem suauitatis in conspectu aeterni Dei that our feastiuitie may bee made in remembraunce of the reste whiche is vnto the soules of them that are departed whose memorie we celebrate and to our selues into a sauoure of sweete smellinge in the sight of the eternall god This was the iudgement of the Greeke Churche in his time of suche assemblies prayers and almes as was vsed at the buryall of the deade or in remembraunce of them To the thirde that the last willes of founders of almes houses Colledges and monasteries were broken concerning their temporall goodes and legacies and that no part thereof did come to their owne blood and familie concerning almes houses and Colledges of learninge it neede not bee prooued for they are maintained by our doctrine Concerninge Monasteries there were none then but of suche as liued with their owne labours Neuerthelesse if anye legacie of anye founder were to mainetayne Idolatrie and false religion as there were manye of the Paganes whiche were founders of Idolatrous temples and Colledges lyke to the popishe monasteries it is certeine that either they were destroyed or else conuerted to better vses Now if Master Rastell thinke it to bee necessarie that their legacies shoulde be restored to their owne blood and familie vppon the dissolution of such houses hee might doe well to perswade a nomber of popishe gentlemen in Englande that enioye abbeies and their lands to make such restitution and when hee hath brought to passe that all which they haue is so restored wee will beginne likewise to exhort godly gentlemen to doe the like or rather to applye some part of them to the maintenance of learning and religion and to the sustentation of the poore After Maister Rastell hath earnestlye required the aunswere of these questions whiche haue bene so often aunswered in speciall treatises I meane so manye of them as wee maintaine with promise of submission if they be proued he desireth licence to rehearse the saying of Tertulian in his booke De
D. HESKINS D. SANDERS AND M. Rastel accounted among their faction three pillers and Archpatriarches of the Popish Synagogue vtter enemies to the truth of Christes Gospell and all that syncerely professe the same ouerthrowne and detected of their seuerall blasphemous heresies By D. Fulke Maister of Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge Done and directed to the Church of England and all those which loue the trueth AT LONDON Printed by Henrie Middleton for George Bishop ANNO. 1579. The contentes of the seuerall treatises conteined in this Booke 1 The Parleament of Christ auouching the inacted trueth of his presence in the sacrament restored to his veritie and deliuered from the impudent and outragious corruptions of Tho. Heskins 2 That it is lawfull to breake superstitious Images and vtterly vnlawful to honour them with a confirmation of suche true doctrine as Maister Iewel hath vttered in his reply concerning that matter against a blasphemous treatise made by Nicholas Sander 3 The challenge and sound doctrine conteined in M. Iewels sermon mainteined and deliuered from the lewde and slaunderous dealing of Rastel with an answere to his challenge ¶ A CATALOGVE of all such Popish Bookes either aunswered or to be aunswered which haue bene written in the English tongue from beyond the seas or secretly dispersed here in England haue come to our hands since the beginning of the Queenes Maiesties reigne 1 HArding against the Apology of the English church answered by M. Iewel Bishop of Sarum 2 Harding against M. Iewels challenge answered by M. Iewel 3 Hardings reioynder to M. Iewell aunswered by M. Edwarde Deering 4 Coles quarrels against M. Iewell answered by M. Iewell 5 Rastels returne of vntruthes answered by M. Iewel â–ª 6 Rastell against M. Iewels challenge answered by William Fulke 7 Dorman against M. Iewel answered by M. Nowel 8 Dormans disproofe of M. Nowels reproofe aunswered by M. Nowell 9 The man of Chester aunswered by M. Pilkington Bishop of Duresme 10 Sanders on the sacrament in part aunswered by M. Nowell 11 Fecknams Scruples aunswered by M. Horne B. of Winchester 12 Fecknams Apologie aunswered by W. Fulk 13 Fecknams obiections against M. Goughes sermon aunswered by maister Gough and maister Lawrence Tomson 14 Stapletons counterblast answered by M. Bridges 15 Marshall his defence of the crosse answered by M. Caulfehill 16 Fowlers Psalter aunswered by M. Sampson 17 An infamous libell or letter 〈…〉 against the teachers of Gods diuine prouidence and predestination aunswered by Robert Crowley 18 Allens defeÌ„ce of Purgatorie answered by W. Fulk 19 Heskins parleament repealed by W. Fulk 20 Ristons challenge answered by W. Fulk Oliuer Carter 21 Hosius of Gods expresse word translated into English aunswered by W. Fulk 22 Sanders rock of the church vndermined by W. Fulk 23 Sanders defence of images answered by W. Fulk 24 Marshals reply to Caulfhil answered by W. Fulk 25 Shaclockes Pearle answered by M. Hartwell 26 The hatchet of heresies answered by M. Bartlet 27 Maister Euans answered by himselfe 28 A defence of the priuate Masse answered by conâ—ecture by M. Cooper Bishop of Lincolne 29 Certein assertions tending to mainteine the church of Rome to be the true and catholique church confuted by Iohn Knewstub These Popish treatises ensuing for the most part are in answering and those which are not by God assistance as 〈◊〉 will serue shall receiue their seueral replies If the Papistes know any not here reckoned let them be brought to light and they shall be examined 1 Sanders vpon the Lords supper partly vnanswered 2 Allens defence of Priests authoritie to remiâ— sinnes and of the churches meaning concerning indulgences 3 Stapletons fortresse of the faith 4 Stapletons returne of vntruthes 5 Rastels replye 6 Bristowes Motiues and Demaunds collected out of the same 7 Vaux his Catechisme 8 Canisius his Catechisme translated 9 Frarins oration translated ¶ THE AVTHOVR to the Reader ALTHOVGH there is nothing in these bookes which haue beene so long vnanswered but either it is vnworthy any answere or else hath ben satisfied sufficiently before in many treatises extant in the English toung already yet because the aduersaries should not altogether please themselues in their fantasie that they be vnanswerable nor the simpler sort suspect that there is any thing in them that we need to be afraid of I thought good to take in hand this short manner of confutation In which I trust the diligent indifferent reader wil confesse that I haue omitted much matter whereof I might haue taken aduantage rather then that I haue left any argument of importance vnsatisfied Considering therfore what breuitte I haue vsed as was necessarie for me being but one against so many I trust the reasonable Readers will looke for no other vertue of writing at my handes but onely the simple shewing of the trueth and the plaine confutation of the false reasons of the aduersarie Which that they may the better see with more profit perceiue I exhort all such as haue the Popishe Bookes here confuted to conferre their argumentes with mine answers And for them that haue not the bookes at hand I haue so set downe the titles of their Chapters and the cheefe pointes of their treatises collected by themselues in their owâ—â— tables that the perusers may vnderstand I haue left no matter of any moment vntouched In rehearsing of their arguments I haue rather added weight vnto them then taken any force from them in my repetitioÌ„ or abridgement of them so neere as I could by any wit I haue conceiue their order and resolue their Methode What I haue perfourmed in answering let the godly and learned Iudge In the meane time I desire God to graunt that this my labour may be to the glorie of his name and the profite of his Church by Iesus Christe our Lord. THE FIRST BOOKE OF HESKINS PARLEAMENT REpealed by W. Fulke THE first Chapter vpon occasion that this aduersarie this proclamer and challenger he meaneth the B. of Sarum of holy and learned memorie would haue the Scriptures read of all men presupposing the same to be easie to be vnderstanded entereth as by preamble to treate of the difficultie of the Scriptures and to proue that they ought not of all men to be read without an able interpreter or teacher THIS Burgesse for the citie of Rome hauing in purpose to make a speake in the Popish Parleament for the matter of the sacrament of the Masse and douting least his tale should not be long ynough if he vttered nothing but that might seeme directly to appertaine to his cause beginneth with a pretie preamble of eight Chapters long of the difficultie of the Scriptures and the vnderstanding of the same And bicause he hath not aduauntage sufficient of any wordes or writing of the B. of Sarum to inlarge his speach by confuting thereof he feigneth vnto him selfe a monster to fight withall out of Luthers booke De seruo arbitrio who teacheth as he saith That the Scriptures of them selues be
the wine and such like Did they not beate theÌ„ down with the institution of Christ For they coulde well inough distinguishe the substance from the accidentes the matter and forme from the circumstances After this M. Heskins will open a sleight of the proclamer who confesseth that women in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian did carie home the sacrament to their houses and receiued a portion therof in the morning before meat but he numbreth this custome among abuses whereas neither Tertullian nor Cyprian do directly reproue them neither do they allow them by any one worde But I pray you M. Heskins if it bee no abuse that women shoulde carie the sacrament home with them keepe it in their coffers and eate it euery morning next their heart why doe not you of the Popishe Church continue such an auncient custome Why haue you abrogated it and to dissuade them from it tell tales in you legends and promptuaries of some that haue carried it home and founde it turned I cannot tell into what monsters But peraduenture the vsage of the Church in Iustines time will prooue it to bee none abuse For then the sacrament was caried home to them that were absent And here M. Heskins alleadging Iustines Apollogie telleth not in whether Apollogie and setteth downe a forme of wordes which are not in Iustine Apoll. 2. where the matter is spoken of in such forme as he citeth theÌ„ by which once again you may see that his great reading of the doctors was out of other mens notes collections not of his own studie For it semeth he knew not in which Apologie this matter is spokeÌ„ of alleging this saying thus Cum auteÌ„ is qui praest gratias egerit totus populus approhauerit 〈◊〉 qui vicentur apud nos diaconi distribuuÌ„t vnicuique praesentiâ—a vt participent de pane in quo gratiae actae sunt de vino aqua his qui non sunt praesentes deferunt domuÌ„ WheÌ„ he that is chefe hath giuen thankes and all the people hath consented to it these that with vs be called deacons doe distribute of the consecrated bread and of the wine and water to euerie one that is present to receiue and to those that be absente they carie it home But Iustines owne wordes bee these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When we haue ended our prayer there is offered bread and wine and water And the chiefe minister sendeth forth likewise praiers thanksgiuing with al his might and the people giue their consent saying Amen Then is made distribution and participation of those thinges for which thankes is giuen vnto euerie one And to them that are not present there is sent by the deacons By these wordeâ— it can not be proued necessarily that the sacrament was sente to them that were absent but rather part of the breade and wine which was offered in greate plentie the distribution whereof belonged to the Deacons and immediatly after mentioÌ„ is made of the contribution of the richer sorte But admitte that they did send the sacrament to such as were sicke or otherwise to necessarily letted that they could not be present in bodie yet were present in minde and ioyned in prayer with them what maketh this for the popishe reseruation to bee worshipped Euery one that was present there receiued onely the Priestes receiueth amongest the Papistes and hangeth vp the rest ouer the Altar But it is a fine reason of M. Heskins they carried it therefore they reserued it if they reserued it an houre why might they not reserue it as long as they lift But they caried it that it might be receiued presently they hanged it not vp to bee gazed vppon S. Basill also witnesseth that holy men liuing in the wildernesse did reserue the sacrament in their alter Omnes in Eremis 〈◊〉 vitam agentes vbi non est Sacerdos communionem domi seruantes a se ipsis communicant All that leade solitarie liues in the wildernesse where there is no Priest keeping the comâ—union at home de receiue it of them selues M. Heskins falsifieth the wordes in translation sayth they receiued by them selues as though they receiued it alone This fragment of Basils Epistle argueth an abuse of the reseruation but it proueth no hanging vp of the sacrament for adoration That this was an abuse crept in of superstition it is manifest for that it was afterwarde by a Godly councell condemned and forbiddeÌ„ Concil Caesaraugustanum Capit. 3. Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in ecclesia anathema sit in perpetuum Ab vniversis Episcopis dictum est Anathema sit If any person be proued after he hath taken the grace or gift of the Eucharistie not to haue spent it in the Church let him be accursed for euer All the bishops saide let him be accursed Moreouer to prooue a thing to be lawfull by such an vsage as they them selues confesse to bee vnlawfull what abusing of the simple is it S. Hierome also in his apollogie against Iouinian testifyeth that the people of Rome in his time vsed to keepe the sacrament in their houses and receiue it by themselues In this place I cannot tel whether I should suspect that which hath often been prooued before that M. Heskins cyteth his authorities out of note-bookes and collections rather then out of his owne readings and so knowe not what was Hieroms iudgement of this custome of receiuing at home or else that of fraude to abuse the reader hee hath concealed it But the matter of trueth is this There was a custome at Rome to receiue euery day which custome Hierome sayth he doth neither allowe nor reprehende But hee appealeth to the consciences of those men that had communicated at home the same day after they had companyed with their wiues wherefore they durst not go to the Church Quare non ingrediuntur ecclesias an alius in publico alius in domo Christus est quod in ecclesia non licet nec domi licet Why come they not into the Churches Is there one Christ in the publike places another in their priuate house that which is not lawfull in the Church is not lawfull in the house But howe can M. Heskins proue that the people vsed to keepe the sacrament in their houses wherof there is no worde in Saint Hierome but rather it is to bee thought that the Priests did come to them and minister it in their priuate houses which Hierome also disalloweth And howe can he prooue that they did receiue it by them selues when Saint Hierome sayeth communicant they do communicate The last discourse prouing by authoritie of Saint Augustine that vniuersall obseruations of the Church where the Scripture commaundeth not the contrarie are to bee holden for lawes is meerely vaine seeing he can neuer prooue his reseruation to be catholike or vniuersally allowed and practised of the Church and we haue proued it to be contrary to the Scripture The eight and
And of Caluine yet not as Heskins like a lewde lyer slaundereth him to say This is the verie substance of my bodie but it is not my bodily substance but agreeing in effect with all the rest that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued but not after a carnall or bodily manner but after a spirituall vnspeakable manner As for the fiue sectes numbred among the Lutherans which dissent from vs in this point we make none accompt of them Thus where M. Hesk hath gathered as he reckoneth sixteene seueral sectes foure of them being condemned of vs for hereticall with the authors of them fiue agreeing with the papistes in the carnall presence and Luthers owne secte if he dissent from them as Heskins maketh him to doe the sixt tenne are of vs generally refused The other sixe that remaine in Maister Heskins number are falsely forged to disagree when they holde all one thing in effect although they expresse the same thing in diuerse formes of wordes as it is not possible for diuerse interpreters though they agree in sense and interpretation to iump all in one forme of words for then all commentaries should be one But as God giueth his giftes diuersely some expound the scriptures briefely some more at large some more plainly some more obscurely so all these and fiue hundred more God be thanked learned men either in writing or in preaching haue shewed the vnderstanding of Christes wordes hardly fiue of them agreeing in all termes and phrases yet all moste sweetely consenting in one sense and meaning which consent and agreement is more notable when it is vttered in so many diuerse formes of wordes And yet to take away all cauels and flaunders all the churches for the moste parte in Fraunce Scotland Sauoy Heluetia Germanie Hungarie Piemont Polonia c. beside the persecuted Churches of Italians Spanyards and others haue subscribed to one forme of confession concerning not onely the sacrament but all other principall poyntes of religion which wee do likewise receiue in this Church of England And if disagreing of men among themselues were a matter of such importance it were no harde thing to shewe the battels of the schoole doctours among the Papists not onely about other matters but euen about the manner of the presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament transsubstantiation If you say all these whome you reiecte as the Lutherans in this poynt the Swinkefeldians Anabaptistes Libertines Henrinicolaites and such other do all disagree with you from the Catholike church of Rome therefore you are all together naught By this reason all Christianitie might bee condemned of the Iewes and Gentiles because so many sectes and heresies as be vnder the name of Christianitie together with the true Church of Christe be all against Iudaisme Gentilisme But agreeing or disagreeing of men among themselues is a weake argument to proue or disproue any thing onely agreeing with the trueth is a sure reason to allowe and disagreeing from the trueth is a certeine argument to refuse either men or matter propounded by them The two and fourtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the wordes of Christe after the Catholike manner with certein proues of the same First he setteth downe the sayings of the three Euangelistes Mathew Marke and Luke and of the Apostle Paule in which they describe the institution of the sacrament of which he sayeth not one maketh any mention of tropes figures or significations wherein hee vseth a shamelesse kinde of Sophistrie for although they name no tropes or figures or signification yet by the Papistes owne confession Saint Luke S. Paule vse manifest tropes figures and significations namely where they say This cupp is the newe testament in my bloud First it is a trope or figure to saye the cupp for that which is conteined in the cup vnlesse they will say that the cupp of what metall or matter so euer it was was likewise transubstantiated into the bloud of Christe Likewise where he sayeth this cuppe is the newe testament or couenant he must either acknowledge a signification this cuppe signifieth the newe testament or else he must make the newe testament to be nothing else but a cuppe Finally where he sayeth this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud except hee acknowledge a trope or figure he will vtterly denye that which is in the cup to be the bloud of Christe And out of all controuersie this manner of speache vsed by Saint Luke and Saint Paule is a manifest interpretation of the wordes vsed by S. Mathewe and Saint Marke this is my bloud which are all one in sence and meaning and teache vs howe the wordes spoken of the breade are to be interpreted this is my bodie this is the newe testament in my bloude which is as much to saye this is a seale and confirmation of the newe couenaunt which is remission of sinnes purchased by the breaking of my bodie and the shedding of my bloud for you This breade and this cuppe receiued of you shall assure you that you are truely incorporated into my bodie so made partakers of eternall life This interpretation hath in it nothing farre fetched or strange from the words of Christ the vsuall maner of speaking in the scripture But nowe M. Heskins will proue that the wordes of Christ are to be vnderstanded without trope or figure by the slaunders of the Infidels which defamed the Christians in the primitiue Church for eating the fleshe of men and of children as appeareth in Euseb. lib. 5 Cap. 2. 3. in the storie of Blandina and Attalus martyrs when they did eate the flesh of Christ. But none of them neither in Eusebius nor yet Iustine Origen Tertullian or any other that haue written Apollogies defended the Christians by the commaundement of Christ to eat his bodie but vtterly denyed and derided the slaunder that they were sayde to eat the fleshe of men or children as they did other slaunders which had no ground nor similitude of trueth as that they worshipped an Asses head that they companyed together in the dark like brute beastes and such like whereas if they had eaten the naturall fleshe of Christ as the Papists teache they woulde neither haue simply denyed the eating of a mans flesh nor yet haue spared to shewe how it was eaten vnder the formes of bread wine to auoide all crueltie and lothsomnes As for the legend of S. Andrewes passion which M. Heskins sayeth was written per Presbyteros diaconos Achaie is of as good credit as the booke of Beuis of Hampton the like I say of the fable of Amphilochius a newe found olde writer concerning the Iewe that sawe a childe diuided when the sacrament was broken The Legend and festiuall haue many such miracles But why did he not see a man diuided seeing Christe is not nowe a childe but a man Belike the authours of those miracles thought that if they feigned him to be a little child like Tom
Thumb their miracles should be more credited that such a one should be conteined in their cake rather then a tall man of perfect stature O impudent asses But it proueth wel the reall presence saith M. Hes. that Auerrois a Philosopher saith I haue walked ouer the world I haue found diuers sectes and yet haue I found none so foolish a sect is is the sect of the Christians For they deuour with their teeth their God whome they worship Hereof it is easie to perceiue saith he that the fame was that they did receiue and eate Christ whom they honoured But herein M. Hes. bewrayeth either his falshood or his ignoraunce For hee speaketh as though Auerrois were an ancient Philosopher that liued in the dayes of the primitiue Church whereas he was a Spanish Mahometist or rather Athist not past three or foure hundreth yeres ago when Poperie was in the greatest pride and Idolatrie couered the face of the earth His saying therfore proueth nothing but how great an offeÌ„ce the popish Idolatrie did giue to the Heathen Turkes and Iewes And whereas Iustinus in his Apollogie to the Emperour declareth whatsoeuer was done in the assemblies of the Christians he well dischargeth them of all slaunders that were raised against them but defendeth not the corporall eating of mans flesh by the commaundement of Christ although he confesse that they receiued that breade not as common bread nor as common drinke but as their flesh and bloud was nourirished by that foode so they were persuaded that it was the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ for the spiritual foode of their soules As for the curse that Rupertus threatneth to them that adde vnto the word of God â–ª pertaineth not to them that giue the true sense of the word of God whether it be in more wordes or fewer And whereas Rupertus saith these words of Christ I am a vine and this is my body be no like speaches I confesse they are not in euery respect bicause in the one he did institute a sacrameÌ„t in the other he taught as by a similitude the true end vse and signification of the sacrament Yet are they not altogether vnlike bicause they are both figuratiue and so iudged and compared together by the auncient Fathers But Rupertus will proue by two reasons that the latter is no figure First bicause in the former there is a continuation of the Allegorie which proueth it to be a figure in the other there is none such This is a fond reason for both we haue shewed a continuation of the trope where he saide this cup is the newe Testament and although there were none yet that can not exclude a figure no more then when baptisme is called regeneration when the lamb is called the Passeouer which be sacramentall speaches and such like where no continuation of the figure followeth The other reason of Rupertus M. Heskins diuideth into two parts The first is to note the enunciation of both scriptures for he doth not take a braunch of a vine and say I am this vine or this vine is my body but he saith of the bread this is my body A strong reason he saith as signanter by a certaine demonstration of substaunce and speaking of the same sacrament That rocke was Christe and in the time when it was a sacrament it was and might be truely said pointing to the rocke this is Christ and to the water issuing out of it this is the bloud of Christ and so no doubt Christ spake by his spiriâ—e in the consciences of the faithfull The second part of Rupertus reason is that the wordes which followe which is giuen for you c. can not be applied to the figure therefore the sense of that place is proper and not figuratiue But contrariwise these wordes can not be applied to the sacrament therefore the speach is not proper but figuratiue and shewe howe the breade and the cup are the body and bloud of Christe namely as his body is broken and his bloud shed for vs for the vertue of the sacrament standeth in his passion by which his body and bloud offered in sacrifice for our sinnes are made a spirituall foode of our soules The conference that Rupertus maketh betweene the words of Christ and the wordes of the serpent I passe ouer as containing no argument in them for the proofe of M. Heskins bill but onely shewing the corrupt iudgement of the authour whose reasons I am content to weigh but I esteeme not his authoritie as being a late prop of the Popish church The three and fortieth Chapter beginneth to proue the vnderstanding of Christes foresaid wordes not to be figuratiue by the authoritie of the Fathers And first by Alexander and Iustinus Iustine is alledged in this second Apologie in a corrupt Latine translation which he maketh worsse by falsifying the same in his English translation The place hath bene already considered in the first booke Chap. 27. according to the originall Greeke copie I will nowe rehearse the same after his Latine translation and afterward shewe M. Heskins falsification Cum autem c. When he that is ouerseer hath giuen thankes and all the people haue assented they which are called Deacons with vs do distribute to euery one that is present that they may take part in the breade in which thankes is giuen and of the wine and water and carie it to those which are not present And this foode which is called thankes giuing Of which it is not lawfull for any other to take part but he that beleeueth those things to be true which are taught by vs and which is washed in the lauer vnto remission of sinnes and regeneration and so liueth as Christ hath taught Neither do we take these thinges as common bread and a common cup but euen as by the word of God Iesus Christ our sauiour being incarnate had both flesh and bloud so we are taught that the foode through the prayer of his word being consecrated by thankesgiuing of which our flesh bloud by transmutation are nourished is the flesh bloud of Iesus Christ which was incarnate For the Apostles in their coÌ„mentaries which are called Gospels haue taught that he did so coÌ„maund them That when he had taken bread giuen thanks he said Do this in remembrance of me this is my body And likewise when he had taken the cup and giuen thankes that he said This is my bloud and gaue first to them alone M. Heskins hath falsified this author in his translation First where he turneth is qui prÄ™est the prieste as though there were Masse priestes in that time Secondly quae docentur a nobis that be taught of vs as though none should receiue the sacrament but they which beleue the real presence which he surmiseth to be taught to theÌ„ But more notably where he translateth these wordes Sie verbi sui oratione consecratum gratiarum actione alimentum ex quo caro nostra sanguis per
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
and Sauiour doe worke For this sacrament which thou reciuest is made with the worde of Christ. And againe Thou hast read of all the workes of the worlde that he saide they were made be commanded and they were created Therefore the worde of Christ which could of nothing make that which was not can it not change those thinges that are into that they are not For it is no lesse thing to giue newe natures to thinges then to chaunge natures Hitherto you haue heard Ambrose speaking earnestly for a change of nature in the sacrament now heare him expound it in the same place for a spirituall change Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus moâ—m ante benedictionem verborum coelestium aliâ— species nominatur post consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aâ—ud dicitur post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur It was the verie fleshe of Christ which was crucified which was buried therefore this is truely a sacrament of that flesh our Lord Iesus crieth out saying This is my bodie Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after the consecration the bodie of Christ is signified He himselfe saith it is his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud And in the same place againe In illo sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritualiâ— est In that sacrament Christ is because the bodie of Christe is Therefore it is not corporall meate but spirituall meate Wel then the bread is chaunged from the nature of coÌ„mon bread to be a true sacrament of the bodie of Christ wherby Christ his bodie is signified and to be spiritual meate and this is the change and conuersion he speaketh of and nor the Popish transubstantiatioÌ„ Next is alledged Chrysostome Hom. 83. in Matth. Non sunt c. These are not the works of mans power he that then in that supper made these things he also now worketh he performeth them We holde the order of ministers but it is he which doth sanctifie and change these things Here is a change or transmutatioÌ„ but no word of the maner of the chaunge therfore it maketh nothing for Popish transubstantiation and this place hath beene more then once answered before by Chrysost. authoritie After him he citeth Cyrillus ad Colosirium in these words Vâ—uificatiâ—â—em c. The quickening WORDE of God vniting himselfe to his own flesh made that also quickning How when the life of God is in vs the WORD of God being in vs shall our bodie also be able to giue life But it is an other thing for vs to haue the sonne of God in vs after the manner of participation and an other thing the same to haue beene made flesh that is to haue made the bodie which he tooke of the blessed virgin his owne bodie Therefore it was meete that he should be after a certeine manner vnited to our bodies by his holie flesh precious bloud which we receiue in the quickening blessing in bread and wine For least we should abhorre fleshe and bloud set vpon the holie altars God condescending to our fragilities inspireth to the thinges offered the powre of life turning them into the trueth of his owne flesh that the bodie of life may be found in vs all certeine seede giuing life Here Maister Heskins in his translation cleane leaueth out Quodammodo after a certeine manner Christe is vnited to our bodies by the sacrament and so is this chaunge made after a spirituall manner for otherwise this place is directly against transubstantiation where he saith we receiue the flesh and bloud of Christ in bread and wine Euthymius is the next In Matth 26. Quemadmodum c. As he did supernaturally Deifie as I may so say his assumpted flesh so he doeth also vnspeakably chaunge these thinges into his quickening bodie and his precious bloud and into the grace of them When he saith the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of his bodie and bloud it is easie to vnderstand that he meaneth a spirituall chaunge and the last clause is an exposition of the former they are chaunged into the bodie and bloud of CHRISTE that is into the grace of them Remugius followeth 1. Cor. Cap. 10. The fleshe whiche the worde of God the father tooke vpon him in the wombe of the virgin in vnitie of his person and the breade which is consecrated in the Church are one bodie of Christe for as that flesh is the body of Christ so this bread passeth into the bodie of Christe neither are they two bodies but one bodie He meaneth that the bread is a sacrament of the very and onely true bodie of Christ otherwise his antiquitie is not so great to purchase him authoritie but as a Burgesse of the lower house what so euer he speake The rest that remaine although I might well expound their sayings so as they should not make for Popish transubstantiation which the Greeke Church did not receiue yet beeing late writers out of the compasse as Damascen Theophylact Paschasius I omit them But of all these doctors M. Heskins gathereth that it is a maruelous and wonderfull worke that is wrought in this chaunge of the sacramentall bread and wine therefore he would proue it caÌ„ not be into a bare token or figure but it may well be into a spirituall meate to feede vs into eternall life which is a wonderful and great work of God as likewise that the washing of the bodie in baptisme should be the washing of the soule from sinne And therfore be saith very lewdly that the institution of sacramental signes as the Pascall lambe and such like is no wonderfull worke of God and as fondly compareth he the institution of sacramentes with bare signes and tokens of remembrance as the twelue stones in Iordane c. And yet more lewdly with the superstitious bread vsed to be giuen to the Cathechumeni in Saint Augustines time that had no institution of god Finally touching the determination and authoritie of the late Laterane counsell for transubstantiation as we doe not esteeme it beeing contrarie to the worde of God so I haue in the first booke shewed what a grosse errour it committed in falsification of a text of scripture out of Saint Iohns Gospell The two and fiftieth Chapter openeth the minds of S. Basil S. Ambrose vpon the wordes of Christ. Basil is cited Quaest. comp explic qu. 17â— In aunswere to this question with what feate what faith or assured certeintie and with what affection the bodie and bloud of of Christ should be receiued Timorem docet c. The Apostle teacheth vs the feare saying He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his own damnation but the credite
before he departed from them And although after his resurrection hee appeared to them at sundrie times by the space of fourtie dayes eating and drinking with them to shewe the certeintie of his resurrection speaking of the kingdome of God yet is there no worde of celebrating of the sacrament with them And it is altogether vnlikely that he would giue the sacrament the comfort of his absence at his first returne againe to them and that he woulde celebrate the same to two disciples and not to the whole number of his Apostles who had as great neede to be confirmed in faith as those two Finally if euer he had repeated the vse of the sacrament it is moste probable he woulde haue done it immediatly before his assention but then he did not which S. Luke who sheweth that storie exactly would not haue omitted therefore there is no likelihood that he did it before But admitt that he did then minister the communion doth it followe because bread is onely named therefore the cuppe was not giuen But Maister Heskins woulde haue it proued that the figure Synechdoche is here vsed that is part named for the whole For profe the institution of Christe and practise of the church for more then a thousand yeres after Christ may serue a reasonable man. Also the vsuall phrase of the scripture which by bread meaneth whatsoeuer is ioyned with it to be receiued as Math. 15. Mark. 7. The disciples are accused for eating bread with vnwashed handes c. shall wee here exclude meat and drinke because bread is onely named Also Marke the 3. they had no leysure to eat breade Luke 14. Christe came into the house of the Pharizee to eate bread And Iohn 6. You seeke mee not because you haue seene the signes but because you haue eaten of the breade and are satisfied And 2. Cor. 9. He that giueth seede to the sower shall minister bread for foode And 2. Thess. 3. wee haue not eaten our breade freely And in the same Chapter the disordered persons are exhorted to labour and eat their owne bread In all these places and a great number more breade onely is named in which it were mere madnesse to affirme that only bread is spoken of not meat or drink So the whole supper of Christ cōsisting of bread wine for the outwarde or earthly parte vnder the name of breade the cuppe also is comprehended Wherefore the practise of Christ is not contrarie to his institution as M. Heskins most arrogantly wickedly and vnlearnedly affirmeth The second reason he vseth is that the institution perteineth onely to priestes because Christ did then minister it onely to priests But first that is not proued nor like to be true for seeing our Sauiour Christe did minister the communion in the house of one of his disciples with whom he did eat the passeouer it is not like that he excluded him from the sacrament of the new testament with whome he was partaker of the sacrament of the olde testament For proofe that both he and his familie were partakers of the Passouer with him it is manifest that it was not possible for thirteene persons to eate vp a whole sheepe and other meat also at one meale For it was a sheepe of a yeare olde although it were a verie small one and must be eaten with the head feete the purtenaunce and nothing reserued vnto the morrowe But graunt that onely the Apostles were partakers of the first institution by the same reason that the one part of the sacrament perteined to them only the other parte also might be left to them onely and so the people should haue neither of both kindes because onely priestes had both kindes deliuered vnto them Further he sayeth the doctrine of Saint Paule is not sufficient to proue that the sacrament ought to bee ministred in both kindes for Saint Paule doth but onely set foorth the institution without an exclusiue excluding all other maners but this O shamelesse dogge is not the institution of Christe an exclusiue of all other manners take example of baptisme is it lawfull to baptise with any other lycour then water into any other name then the name of the Father the Sonne ▪ and the holy Ghost yea it is sayed in the Actes that the Apostles baptised in the name of Iesus Christe and yet no man will saye that they brake the institution of Christe and baptised onely in the name of Christe excluding the father and the holy ghoste Euen so it is sayde they continued in breaking of breade shall wee not vnderstande this after the institution as well as the other Againe if the institution of Christ had not heene an exclusiue of all other manners howe doth the Apostle by the institution of Christ reproue another manner brought in by the Corinthians Finally when the holy Ghost by Saint Paule commaundeth euery Christian man and woman to trye themselues and so not onely to eate of that breade but also to drinke of that cupp what Lucifer is that which wil oppose him selfe against the flatt commaundement of the holie ghost 1. Cor. 11. and saye the lay people shall not drinke of that cuppe or may be without the cupp well ynough But the doctrine of the Catholike church as he sayeth is that the whole sacrament is in either of both kindes the bloude is in the bodie and the bodie in the bloud But this is neither the doctrine of Christ nor the doctrine of the church of christ For Christ to shewe that he is a perfect nourishment vnto vs which of necessitie consisteth of meate and drinke and neither of both can be lacking for the nourishment of our bodies hath instituted his sacrament both in bread and drinke to testifie vnto vs that wee are perfectly fedd in him and therefore hath deuided the sacrament into two signes the one to signifie his bodie as meate the other to represent his bloud as drinke and therefore confounded be he the confoundeth these things which his heauenly wisedome hath thus mercifully distinguished Iustinus also a moste auncient writer of the church affirmeth that the sacrament consisteth of a drye and moyst nourishment in Dialog Cum. Tryphone aduersus Iudęos And euen this verie diuision of the sacrament sufficiently confuteth both transubstantiation the carnal presence For if he had purposed to giue vs his naturall bodie in the forme of bread or otherwise in the bread he would not haue deuided his bloud from his bodie But euen hereby he taught vs that hee spake of an heauenly mysticall and spirituall manner of eating his bodie and drinking his bloud by faith and not of a swallowing or gulping in of the same at our mouth and our throte But the cuppe saith Maister Heskins is the bodie of Christ and howe is it consecrated by these words This is my bloud Why where is nowe the plaine wordes of scripture where bloud is taken for a whole bodie But seeing Christ sayth further This is my
places for answere Neuerthelesse he will touch a word of Oecolampadius where he saith that the inward man is fed by faith which is so straunge to him that he neuer read the like phrase in any authentike authour By which woondring he sheweth him selfe to be a great stranger in S. Augustine who saith In Ioan. Tr. 25. c. Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede maÌ„ducasti Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly Beleeue thou hast eaten Here faith feedeth the soule for it feedeth not the belly The last text he citeth out of Chrysostom is alledged more at large in the 30. Chapter of the second booke where it is also answered The fift Chapter teaching that Manna and the water of the stone be figures of the body and bloud of Christ by Origen and Saint Ambrose That the olde writers called Manna and the water figures of the body and bloud of Christ it shal be no controuersie betweene vs and M. Heskins but whether they denied them to be sacraments of the body and bloud of Christe or affirmed them to bee nothing but prefigurations of the sacrament is nowe the question betwixt vs And therefore these long sentences out of Origen and Ambrose make nothing for him but much against him But let vs viewe them Origen is cited In Num. Hom. 7. Modo enim c. Nowe when Moses came vnto vs and is ioyned to our Aethiopesse the lawe of God is not nowe knowne in figures and images as before but in the very apparence of the truth And those things which were first set foorth in darke speaches are nowe fulfilled in plaine shewe and trueth And therefore he which declared the plaine forme of figures and darke speaches saith we knowe that all our fathers were vnder the cloude and all passed through the sea c. Thou seest howe Paule assoyleth the darke riddles of the lawe and teacheth the plaine shewe of those darke speaches And a little after Then in a darke manner Manna was the meate but nowe in plaine shewe the flesh of the sonne of God is the true meat as he himselfe saith â–ª my flesh is meat in deed and my bloud is drink in deede M. Heskins thinketh this is as plaine as neede to be for his onely figure and the bodily presence and me thinke it is as plaine for the contrarie For he affirmeth that Manna was the same spirituall meate that the flesh of the sonne of God is nowe and layeth the difference in the obscure manner of deliuering the one and the plaine manner of deliuering the other which can not be vnderstoode of the outwarde signes which are in both of like plainenesse or obscuritie but of the doctrine or worde annexed to the signes which to them was very darke and to vs is very cleere that Christes fleshe and bloud are our meate and drinke For it is well knowne that Origen knewe neither the Popishe transubstantiation nor the bodily presence For writing vpon the fifteenth of Saint Matthewe after hee hath shewed that the materiall part of the sacrament goeth into the bellie and is cast foorth hee addeth Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest non indignè comedenti illum Et haeâ— quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore Multa porro de ipso verbo dici possent quod factum est caro verÃssque cibus quem qui comederie omnino viuet in aeternum quem nullus malus edere potest Neyther that matter of the breade but the woorde which is spoken of it is that which doth profite to him which eateth it not vnwoorthily And these thinges are of the typicall or symbolicall bodye Many thinges also might bee sayde of the Worde it selfe which was made flesh and the true meate which hee that shall eate shall vndoubtedly liue for euer which no euill man can eate Doest thou not here see Christian reader what Origens minde was of transubstantiation when hee speaketh of the matter of the breade whiche is eaten And what his iudgement was of the bodily presence when hee calleth it the typicall and symbolicall or figuratiue bodye distinguishing it from the woorde made fleshe and the meate in deede Finally whether hee thought that any euill man could eate of the bodye of Christ which is the spirituall part of the sacrament To Origen he ioyneth Ambrose or rather disioyneth him for hee diuideth his saying into two partes pretending to inueigh against Oecolampadius for leauing out the former parte but in deede that hee might raise a dust with his stamping and staring least the latter part might be seene to be as it is a cleare interpretation of the former and an application of the writers minde concerning the corporall manner of presence I will rehearse them both together Ille ego ante despectus c. Euen I before despised speaking in the person of the Gentiles conuerted am nowe preferred am nowe set before the chosen Euen I before a despised people of sinners haue nowe the reuerend companies of the heauenly sacramentes nowe I am receiued to the honour of the heauenly table The rayne is not powred downe on my meate the spring of the earth laboureth not nor the fruite of the trees For my drinke no riuers are to be sought nor welles Christe is meate to me Christe is drinke to me The fleshe of GOD is meate to me the bloud of GOD is my drinke I doe not nowe looke for yearely increase to satisfie me Christe is ministred to mee daily I will not bee afrayde least any distemperature of the ayre or barrennesse of the countrie shoulde hang ouer mee if the dilligence of godly tillage doe continue I doe not nowe wishe the rayne of Quayles to come downe for me which before I did maruell at Not Manna which earst they preferred before all meates bicause those Fathers which did eate Manna haue hungered My meate is that which doeth not fatten the bodye but confirmeth the heart of man Before that breade which came downe from heauen was woonderfull to mee For it is written hee gaue them bread from heauen to eate but that was not the true breade but a shaddowe of that was to come The father hath reserued for me that true breade from heauen That breade of GOD descended from heauen to mee which giueth life to this worlde It hath not descended to the Iewes nor to the Synagogue but to the Church to the younger people For howe did that breade which giueth life descend to the Iewes when all they that did eate that breade that is Manna which the Iewes thought to bee the true breade are deade in the wildernesse Howe did it descend to the Synagogue when all the Synagogue perished and fainted beeing pyned with euerlasting hunger of fayth Finally if they had receiued the true breade they had not sayde Lorde giue vs alwayes this breade What doest thou require O Iewe that hee shoulde giue vnto thee The
tarie one for an other 1. Cor. 11. for the Communion By which it is euident that it is not lawfull for euery man to haue his priuate Masse as M. Heskins would most absurdly proue As for the sacrifice propitiatorie of their Masse hath all those scriptures against it that set foorth the only propitiatorie sacrifice of Christ and namely Heb. 9. 10. Furthermore M. Heskins findeth the name of Masse vsed of Saint Ambrose Ep. 33. Ego mansi in munere missam facere coepi orare in oblatione Deum vt subueniret I did abide in mine office I beganne to say masse to pray to God in the sacrifice that he would helpe Howe faithfull a reporter of antiquitie Maister Heskins is to be coūted this place among a great number doth sufficiently declare and that he receiued not this text out of Ambrose him selfe but out of some other mans collection or relation Ambrose in that Epistle writing to his sister Marcellina about deliuering of a church to the heretiques which he refused to do at the Emperour Valentinianes request writeth thus Sequenti die erat autem Dominica post lectiones atque tractatum dimissis Catechumenis Symbolum aliquibus competentibus in baptisterijs tradebam Basilicae Illic nunciatum est mihi comperto quòd ad Portianam Basilicam de palatio decanos misissent vela suspenderēt populi partem eò pergere Ego tamen mansi in munere missam facere coepi Dum offero raptum cognoui a populo Castulum quendam quem Presbyterum dicerent Arriani Hunc autem in platea ostenderant transeuntes Amarissimè flere orare in ipsa oblatione Deum coepi vt subueniret ne cuius sanguis in causa Ecclesiae fieret certè vt meus sanguis pro salute non solùm populi sed etiam pro ipsis impijs effunderetur Quid multa Missis Presbyteris Diaconis eripui iniuria virum The day following which was Sunday when the learners of Catechisme were dismissed after the Lessons that were read and the treatise made vpon them I was instructing in the Creede certaine that desired Baptisme in the baptizing place of the Church There it was tolde me after it was knowne that they had sent officers from the Palace vnto the church called Portiana hanged vp clothes for the Emperor that part of the people were going thither I for all that abid in mine office I beganne to let it goe While I offered I vnderstoode by the people that one Castulus was taken by force whome the Arrians saide to be a priest Him had they found as they passed by in the streate I beganne to weepe most bitterly and to pray to God in the very oblation that hee would helpe that no mans bloud might bee shed in the cause of the Church and truely that my bloud might be shed not onely for the sauegard of the people but also for the vngodly them selues What neede many wordes I sent Priestes and Deacons and deliuered the man from iniurie I knowe M. Heskins will not allowe me to translate missam facere to let goe the Church seeing they had entered vpon it the rather bicause offero and oblatione doth followe But notwithstanding seing Masse is neuer named in S. Augustin Hierome nor any other place of Ambrose in his or their authenticall writings I can not of the onely colour and coniecture of oblation folowing be resolued that S. Ambrose vseth missam facere to say Masse For although I confesse that the name of Missa for the Communion began neare about that time to be in vse yet did they neuer vse that phrase missam facere but missum or missarum solennia celibrare to celebrate the Masse or the solemnities of Masses for so they called the administration of the Communion Whereas missam facere can not be translated to say Masse but rather to make Masse Againe if the only cōiecture of offero and oblatione following were sufficient to proue missa to signifie Masse M. Heskins might by the like colour of Priestes and Deacons following translate Missis Presbyterie Diaconibus c. with Masses Priests and Deacons I deliuered the man from iniurie But to take it at the worst that the name of missa is here vsed for Masse yet was this within the time of the Bishops limitation no Popish Masse but a Christian communion although some abuses perhaps were in it And for the decrees of Thelesphorus Sixtus Alexander and such like Bishoppes of Rome bycause they bee meere mockeries and counterfeted long after their times to get credite by the antiquitie of their names I will loose no time in confuting them And whereas M. Heskins saith the proclamer reiecteth them without proofe although it be not to be required that in a sermon such matters should be debated at large as in publique writings are throughly knowne to be debated and determined among the best learned yet will I adde this one disproofe or two of those Epistles to be forged First Eusebius which was a most diligēt gatherer of such writings found none such in his time Secondly if there were nothing else the very barbarous phrase of them all and the false Latine that is in many is sufficient to conuince them for counterfets seing there was no vnlearned womā in Rome in those times but spake better Latin thē these men feigne those learned Bishops to haue writen in those decretall Epistles But M. Hesk. will proue Alexander to be the Authour of that Epistle which is ascribed to him and therein will vse neither bare wordes nor faint likelyhoods In deed for likelihoods he vseth none either faint or strong but in steede of authoritie whereof he bosteth he vseth none at all but very bare wordes He onely quoteth in the margent The 6. Counsel of Constantinople not naming so much as in what part or action thereof this matter is intreated of the actes of that counsel being contained in a great booke as large as M. Hesk. third book at the least And surely although I haue vsed some diligence in search yet I can finde no such matter nor this Alexander once named in that Counsell In deede I found long since Dionysius authoritie cited by the name of Dionyscus Areopagisa Bishop of Athens which is the matter that perhaps deceiued M. Hes. or him that ministred notes of authorities vnto him But to be short the assurance remaineth still vnshaken which the proclamer made in his sermon that the name of Masse is not found in ancient writers vntil 400. yeres after christ As for the Masse it selfe if hee meane that forme of seruice vsed in the Church of Rome and of them commonly called Masse he knoweth it was not throughly peeced together 600. yeares after christ For Gregorie had no small share in it and he confesseth in this Chapter that Telesphorus Sixtus Alexander Felix added somewhat vnto it As for the preparatorie prayers of Ambrose hee doth well not to auouch them to be his bicause
no. And why then may not the bodie of Christ be present and yet not corporally nor locally conteyned in pixe corporax cupp hand or mouth but after a spirituall manner as the holy Ghost is in the cuppe by his owne Iames his saying The last quarrell he picketh is to our ministers who sayeth he haue none authoritie to consecrate because they receiue it not from the catholike succession As for that authoritie which we haue receiued of God by the outwarde calling of the church wee minde not to exchange with the Popes triple crowne and much lesse with Maister Hesk. shauen crowne But to shape him an answere according to his lewde obiection seeing many are suffered to minister in our church which were made priestes after the Popish order of antichrist why should he denye any of them them at the least to haue power to consecrate according to the Popish diuinitie though the wordes be spoken in English so long as he hath intentionē consecrandi before he be of them disgraded and hath his indebeble character scraped out of his handes and fingers endes I aunswere he is not able to defend his opinion that thei cannot consecrate neither in Sorbona of Paris nor in the schoole of Louain To shutt vp this Chapter he flappeth vs in the mouth with S. Mathewes Masse testified by Abdias in the diuels name a disciple of the Apostles as hee saith but one that sawe Christ him selfe as M. Harding sayeth in verie deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more then Caunterburie tales And thinketh he that such fables will nowe bee credited except it bee of such as wilfully will be deceiued The fiue and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the manner of consecration vsed and practised by the disciples of the Apostles and the fathers of the primitiue and auncient church His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian but a late writer who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgie which Peter Paule and the Apostles vsed Although that which he rehearseth of Clemens his Liturgie be to small purpose litle or nothing differing from that hee had before of Iames yet Nicolaus Methon is too yong a witnesse to bee credited in this case For he was not of yeres of discretion to discerne that for the authenticall writing of Clemens which the more auncient church by a thousand yeres could not haue perfect knowledge to be his Neither doth the testimonie of Proclus help him any whit For as it is not to be doubted but S. Iames the other Apostles Clemens also appointed some forme of Liturgie for the churches by them planted instructed which is all that Proclus saith yet how proueth M. Hesk. that those which we haue were the same which were written by Iames Clemens or any other of lawful antiquitie when wee bring manifest demonstrations for the contrarie Againe where he saith that Peter vsed the Liturgie of Clemens he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which sayth that Peter vsed a Liturgie of his own cōsisting of three praiers only The next witnesse should be Dionysius falsly surnamed Areopagita but that he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstantiation carnal presēce priuate Masse or sole cōmunion therefore vnder pretence of his obscuritie he dare cite neuer a sentence out of him Then follow the Liturgies vnder the names of Basil Chrysost. verie litle in words nothing at al in matter differing from that former Liturgie ascribed to S. Iames which because M. Hesk. knoweth we cannot receiue as the lawful writings of Basil Chrysost. he would vnderprop them by the authoritie of Proclus B. of Constantinople as he did S. Clem. S. Iames masse euen now The reason alledged by Proclus will cleane ouerturne his ground worke proue that none of these Liturgies were writen by thē to whom they be ascribed For Proclus sayeth that Basil and Chrysostom made the auncient Liturgies receiued from the Apostles shorter cutting many things away frō them because they were too long for the peoples colde deuotion to abide First this is a colde reason to alter the tradition of the Apostles so many yeres continued in the church for want of the peoples deuotion But be it that they followed this reason then doth it followe moste manifestly that this Liturgie which is ascribed to S. Iames is none of his because it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But if M. Hesk. will defende that of S. Iames then hee must needes refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it therfore none abridgements of it After these Liturgies hee addeth the testimonie of the sixt counsell of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretike wherein it is reported the S. Iames Basil Chrysostome ministred in their Liturgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water But this proueth not that these Liturgies which we haue are the same that were set forth by those fathers as for the water they striue not for it but for wine to be vsed not water onely Finally where the fathers of that counsell call the celebration of the communion an oblation and an vnbloudie sacrifice they speake in the same sence that the elder fathers vse the same termes otherwise that counsell being an hundreth yeres without the compasse of the challenge hath no place but in the lower house among the Burgesses whose speaches may be hearde but they haue none authoritie to determine in this cause by M. Heskins order according to the challenge Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latine church as though Clemens if he were bishop of Rome and wrote a Liturgie as he affirmeth before that of his making might not serue the Latine church But Ambrose is cited lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca. 5. Vis scire c. Wouldest thou knowe that the sacrament is consecrated with heauenly wordes Marke what the wordes be The Priest sayth Make vnto vs faith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ which the day before he suffred tooke bread in his holie hands looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thanks blessed it brake it being broken gaue it to his Apostles and disciples saying Take ye eat ye all of this for this is my bodie which shal be broken for many Likewise also he tooke the cupp after he had supped the day before he suffered looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thankes he blessed it deliuered it to his Apostles disciples saying Take ye and drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud M. Hesk. passeth ouer that the oblation of the church is the figure of the body bloud of Christ for feare he should be espied taken with such an assertion he flyeth in all the haste to other words of
Christ it is euident that he neither beleeued transubstantiation nor the carnall presence nor consecration nor intention after the manner of the Papistes as also by this that hee calleth the bread and wine after consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplaries or figures You see therefore howe with patches and peeces rent off here and there he goeth about to deceiue the simple readers which either haue no leasure or no boookes or no skill to trie out his falsifications and malicious corruptions The like sinceritie hee vseth in citing Chrysostomes Masse for so he calleth his Liturgie in which is a prayer for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius which was seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostomes death and therfore could not possibly be written by him Besides this there be diuers copies in the Greeke tong one that Erasmus translated which is very vnlike that copie which is printed in Greeke since that time as the learned sort doe knowe The wordes he citeth be in a manner the same that were in Basils Liturgie sauing that in the end he addeth Permutans ea sancto spiritu tuo changing them by the spirt This change may well be without transubstantiation as hath bene often shewed before The saying of Ambrose is more at large in the Chapter next before As for the praier of the Popish Masse that the oblation may be made the body and bloud of Christ as it is vnderstoode of them is nothing like the prayers of the elder Liturgies although in sound of some words it seeme to agree And as foolishly as vniustly he findeth fault with our praier in the communion that wee receiuing the creatures of breade and wine in remembrance of Christes death according to his institution may be made partakers of his most blessed body bloud S. Iames S. Clement and the rest saith he prayed not that they might receiue bread and wine No more doe we thou foolish sophister But that receiuing bread and wine we might be partakers of Christes body and bloud and this did all the Apostolike and Primitiue Church pray as we pray in baptisme not that we may receiue water but that receiuing water we may be borne a newe Neither did they euer pray that the breade and wine might be transubstantiated into the body bloud of Christ but that they might be made the body bloud of Christ to theÌ„ after a spirtual sacrameÌ„tal maner But I am much to blame to vouchsafe these childish sophismes of any answere Next to this he would knowe what authoritie the Protestants can shewe that the eating and drinking of bread wine is of Christes institution That it is a part of his institution the Euangelists S. Paul do shewe most euidently But though he tooke breade and wine in his hands saith M. Heskins he changed it before he gaue them so that it was no more bread and wine but his body and bloud and therefore we charge Christ with an vntrueth to say that receiuing of bread and wine is of Christes institution O Maister of impietie and follie Christ made no such change in his handes but that which was in the cup was still the fruit of the vine as he himself testified saying I wil no more drinke of this fruit of the vine vntill the day come when I shall drinke it a newe with you in the kingdome of my father Math. 26. As for the praier of those Liturgies of Iames and Basil That God would make them worthie to receiue the body and bloud of Christe without condemnation proueth not that they meant to receiue the body of Christ after a corporall maner nor that the very body of Christe may be receiued to damnation The thirde Liturgie of Chrysostome which Erasmus expoundeth hath it otherwise Dignos nos redde potenti manu â—ua vt participes simuâ— immaculati tui corporis preciosi tui sanguinis per nos omnis populus Make vs worthy by thy mightie hand that we may be partakers of thy vndefiled body and of thy precious bloud and so may al the people by vs This prayer is godly sound and so are the other being rightly vnderstoode namely that they which eate of that bread drinke of that cup of the Lord vnworthily as S. Paule saith do eat and drinke their owne damnation not considering the Lords body But M. Heskins vrgeth that the spiritual body of Christ or Christ spiritually cannot be deliuered by the Priestes to the people but the real body may Yes verily much rather then the body of Christ corporally euen as the holy Ghost may be deliuered in baptisme and as eternal life and forgiuesse of sinnes may be giuen in preaching the Gospell and none of these feinedly but truly yet otherwise are they giuen by God otherwise by this Ministers But in this distinction of M. Hes â–ª it is good to note that he maketh Christ to haue a reall body which is not spirituall a spirituall body which is not reall Christ hath in deede a mysticall body which is his Church and that is not his natural body but by spiritual coniunction vnited to his only true naturall body But of this mystical body M. Hes. speaketh not Further he taketh exceptions to our prayer affirmeth that It is not the institution of Christe to receiue the creatures of breade and wine in the remembrance of his death But notwithstanding all his childish blockish quarels our prayer is waranted by the Apostles words 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat of this bread drinke of this cup ye shewe the Lords death till he come In the last part of this Chap. he will determine of the intention of the ministers of the new Church And that is that Desiring to receiue the creatures of bread wine they exclude the body and bloud of Christ. Who euer heard a more shamelesse lye or a more inconsequent argument But seing there be two sorts of ministers in this new founded Church he wil speake of them both one sort were made Popish Priestes so haue authoritie to consecrate but they lacke intention now they be fallen to heresie there is a second sort which thought they could not haue intention to consecrate yet being none of the greasie and blasphemous order they lack authoritie But I wold there were not a third sort of whom I spake in the last chap. that wer made popish Priestes and so continue but in outward dissimulation ioyne with vs if these intend to consecrate when they minister the coÌ„munion how can M. Hes. dissuade the Papists from receiuing of them or count their sacrameÌ„t nothing but bare bread And wheras M. He. seemeth in the end to inueigh against such I will willingly confesse that they are worse then he is or such as professe what they are but not worse then hee hath beene in King Henries King Edwards dayes when he dissembled and swaâ—e as deepely as any of them all As for our intention seeing it is
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
sacrificare locis probentur Ait namque authoritas legis Diuinę Vide ne offeras holocausta tua in omni loco quem videris sed in loco quem elegeris Dominus Deus tuus Episcopus Deo sacrificans testes vt praefixum est secum habeat plures quà m alius sacerdos Sicut enim maioris honoris gradu fruitur sic maioris testimonij incrementatione indiget In solennioribus quippe diebus aut septem aut quinque aut tres diaconos qui eius oculi dicuntur subdiaconos atque reliquos ministros secum habeat qui sacris induti vestimentis in fronte a tergo presbyteri è regione dextra laeuáque contrito corde humiliato spiritu ac prono stent vultu custodientes eum à maleuolis hominibus consension eius praebeant sacrificio Peracta auē consecratione omnes cōmunicent qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus Sic enim Apostoli statueruns sancta Romana tenes ecclesia And when the priestes do sacrifice they ought not to do it alone but let them take witnesses with them that they may be proued to do sacrifice to the Lord perfectly in places dedicated to god For the authoritie of Gods law sayeth Take heede thou offer not thy burnt offerings in euerie place which thou shalt see but in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose Let a bishop sacrificing to God haue witnesses with him as is before sayed more then another priest For as he enioyeth a degree of greater honor so he hath need of the increase of greater testimonie For in more solemne dayes let him haue with him either seuen or fiue or three deacons which are called his eyes the subdeacons and the rest of the ministers which being cloathed in the holie vestimentes let them stand before and behind him the priests ouer against him on the right hand on the left hande with contrite heart humbled spirite sober countenaunce preseruing him from malicious men let them giue their consent to his sacrifice And when the consecration is ended let al communicate which will not be depriued of entrie into the church These be the wordes of that Epistle which M. Hesk. mangleth and falsifieth thus Episcopus c. The bishop doing sacrifice vnto God let him in the solemne dayes haue either seuen or fiue or three deacons which be called his eyes subdeacons other ministers First he leaueth out That no priest ought to sacrifice alone but must take witnesses with him Secondly that a bishop ought to haue more then another priest at all times Thirdly hee citeth the words so as though the bishop should haue no neede of witnesses but only on solemne dayes Fourthly he leaueth out how the deacons other ministers should stand before and behind the bishop which will not agree with his popish altar for who can stande before the popish priest except he stand in the windowe or vppon the altar Finally wheras omnes may reasonably be vnderstood of al present he restraineth it onely to the ministers which if it were so yet it ouerthroweth the Popish priuat Masse For if there be twentie or fortie priests clarkes as there be often so many at Masse sometimes an hundreth more as at a Synode yet not one of them wil receiue with the priest neither are they banished that refuse to cōmunicate But to proue that this word all should be referred to all the clergie he citeth the Can. 9 Apost Si quis episcopus c. If any bishop c. when the oblation is made do not communicate either let him shew a cause that if it be reasonable he may obteine pardon or if he shew none let him be excommunicated as one that is cause of offence to the people giuing suspition of him which did sacrifice that he hath not wel offered it This Canō must be no interpretatiō of the Epistle and though it were yet is his priuate Masse in neuer the better case for here are still a number necessarily bounde to communicate with the Priest vnder paine of excommunication But M. Hesk. sayeth possible it might be that when the bishop had bene three attendant vpon him or such small number they might all haue cause to absteine This is a possibilitie not to like to come in esse or being once in 20. yeares For where findeth he that the bishop might haue but three with him The decree before cited requireth three deacons at the least beside subdeacons other ministers of which in the auncient church there was great store diuerse functions as acolytes exercistes readers dorekeepers c. But admitt it were possible that all these should absteine yet saith he there is no prohibition for the priest to receiue alone The decree sayeth they ought not to sacrifice alone and both it the Canon commaund all Christians especially the Clergie that be present to cōmunicate yet M. Hesk. sayeth they are not prohibited to saye Masse alone or that it is not sayd that the priuate Masse is naught What reason is in these aunswers let the readers iudge But for cleare proofe ouerthrow of the proclaimers challēge M. Hesk. sayth that in the Masse of Chrysost. there is a plain rule giuen what was to be done when the priest receiued alone that the Proclaimer had not learned so farre as to know this Indeed this is an high point of learning M. Hesk. that the proclaimer could neuer attain vnto to play with your readers noses so impudently which cannot smell out your falshod when you beare them in hande that that was Chrysostomes Masse which was written seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostome was dead as appeareth plainly by the prayer for Pope Nicolas the Emperour Alexius that is in it which the proclaimer as vnlearned as you make him yet had wit to finde out laye abrode to your open shame and to all their shames that vse the same Liturgie as authenticall rightly to be ascribed to Chrysostome The issue that you ioyne that priuate Masse is not naught nor prohibited in scripture councel or catholike writer is tryed alreadie by sufficient euidence giuen by the B. of Sarum against Harding by answere to your counterfet and false euidence vttered in this chapter in the next As for the receiuing of a sicke man alone hath nothing to do with priuate Masse which sole receiuing if it were admitted yet a case of extreme necessitie approoueth not an vsuall dayly contempt of Christes holy institution The one and fortieth chapter prooueth that the masse may bee said and the Sacrament receiued ▪ without a number of communicantes at one time in one place When all is saide and done saith M. Hesk. the Masse shal be holy and good and this shal be a trueth that a priest saying Masse or any other man godly disposed sicke or whole may receiue the holy sacrament alone for profe of this
more certeintie and better credite then the Papists can bring any shewed by God since the restitution of the Gospell yet because our doctrine is the same that was confirmed by all the miracles of Christ and his Apostles we seeke no confirmation thereof by later miracles but onely by the scriptures And herein we followe the example of S. Augustine who vrgeth the Donatistes to proue themselues to be the Church of God only by Canonicall scriptures not by miracles whereof they boasted more then the Catholikes Lib de vnitate Ecclesiae Cap. 16. Et sic ostendat vt non dicat verum est quia ego hoc dico aut quia hoc dixit ille collega meut 〈◊〉 illi collegae mei aut illi Episcopi vel clerici vel laici nostâ—i aut ideo verum est quia illa illa mirabilia fecit Donatus vel Pontius vel quilibet alius aut quia homines ad memorias mortuorum nostrorum orant exaudiuntur aut quia illa illa ibi contingunt aut quiae ille fraeter noster aut illa soror nostra tale visum vigilans vidit vel tale visum dormiens somnianis Remoueantur ista vel figmenta mendacium hominum vel portenta fallacium spirituun ut eniâ—â— non sunt vera quÄ™ dicuntur aut sihÄ™reticoruÌ„ aliqua mira facta sunt magis canere debemus And so let him shewe the Churche that he do not say this is true because I say it or because such a one my fellowe saide it or those my fellowes or those our bishops or clearkes or laymen or it is therfore true because Donatus or Pontius or any other hath done those and those miracles or because men pray at the memories of our dead men and are heard or because those thinges those things happen there or because this our brother or that our sister sawe such a vision waking or dreamed such a vision sleeping Let these thinges be set aside which are either the counterfetting of lying men or els the wonders of deceiuing spirits for either those things are not true that are told or else if any miracles are done of heretiques we ought the more to beware of them And after a litle he saith in the same Chapter Sed verum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi diuinarum scripturarum canonicis libria ostendant quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credere oportere quòd in Ecclesia sumus quia ipsam quam tenemus commendauit Mileuitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius vel alij innumerabiles nostre coÌ„munionis episcopi aut quia nostrorum CollegaruÌ„ concilijs ipsa praedicata est aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis quae frequentat communio nostra tanta mirabilia vel exauditionuÌ„ vel sanitatum fiant ita vt latentia per tot annos corpora Martyrum quod possunt a muâ—tis interrogaÌ„tes audire Ambrosio fuerint reuelata ad ipsa corpora caecus multorum annorum ciuitati Mediolanensi notissimus oculos luménque reciperet aut quia ille somnium vidit ille spiritu assumptus audiuit siue ne iniret in partem Donati siue vt recederet à parte Donati QuÄ™cunque talia in Catholica fiunt ideo sunt approbanda quia in Catholica fiunt non ìdeo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt But whether they holde the Churche or no let them shew none otherwise but by the Canonicall Bookes of the holie scriptures for neither do we say that men ought therfore to beleeue vs that we are in the Church because Optatus of Mileuitum or Ambrose of Millain or innumerable other Bishops of our fellowship haue commended this Church whiche we holde or because it is set foorth and praysed in the councels of our fellowships or because that in holy places thorough the world which our fellowship doth frequent so great miracles are done either of hearing mens prayers or of restoring to health so that the bodies of Martyrs which haue been hidden so many yeres which thing if they wil ask they may heare of many were reuealed to Ambrose at the same bodies one that had ben blind many yeres very well knowen to the citie of Millain receiued his eyes and sight or because this man saw a dreame or that man was taken vp in spirit and heard either that he shold not go into the faction of Donatus or that he should depart from it Whatsoeuer such things are done in the Catholike Church they are therefore to be allowed because they are done in the Catholike Church but the Church it selfe is not therby proued Catholike because these things are done in it And thus much concerning miracles The issue that M. Hesk. ioyneth is tried by all Catholike ancient Doctors that the Masse is idolatrie because it is a worshipping of creatures in steed of the creator although none of the olde writers call the Masse Idolatrie whiche had neither name nor being in their dayes The three and fortieth Chapter maketh recapitulation of the conference of the Masses of the Apostles and Fathers of the primitiue Church and of the Catholike Church that now is with a breefâ— confutation of the conference made by the proclamer betweene thâ— Masse of Saint Iames and that is now vsed The recapitulation conteining nothing but that which is confuted in the discourse at large I will omitte it and come to the conference that the Bishop made betweene the liturgie falsely ascribed to S. Iames and the Popishe Masse beeing content for the time to call it Saint Iames Masse as Maister Heskins doth although neither it is a Masse nor such as it is was it writteÌ„ by S. Iames the Apostle but by some of much later time as appeareth by the prayer therein conteined for such as liue in Monasteries and other thinges fauouring of the errours of that time in which it was written The first point of the conference is that S. Iames saide Masse in the common tong vnderstoode of the people the Papistes say Masse in a straunge tonge M. Heskins answereth that this point toucheth not the substance for the Masse may be good though it be not vnderstood but he himselfe maketh the doctrine of the Masse to be of the substance of it wherefore seeing there lacketh doctrine in the Masse there lacketh one of the foure substantiall partes But he would make the reading of the epistle and Gospel in Latine Doctrine and good doctrine What doctrine that is by which the people are not taught let reasonable men iudge for although all the Masse were nothing but scripture yet it were not good to be read in the Church in a straunge tong 1. Cor. 14. because it were not profitable for edifying His childish sophismes of Plato his substance and his accidents I disdaine to rehearse the trueth is manifest The second comparison S. Iames spake out of the words of consecration They in their Masse suppresse them and keepe them
nec festinantes nec accurrentes Tel me I pray thee If any King had commanded and said if any man haue done this or that let him not come to my table wouldest not thou haue done any thing for his sake God hath called vs into heauen vnto the table of the great and wonderfull King and doe we refuse and make delayes neither making haste nor comming to so great and excellent a matter This place of Chrysostome doth teach vs that Christes bodie commeth not downe corporally to vs but that we are called vp into heauen to receiue him there spiritually by faith This is in deede a great and wonderfull mysterie which Chrysostome doeth garnish with many figures as he was an eloquent preacher to make the people to haue due reuerence thereof Neither is Luthers doctrine one hayre breadth differing from Chrysostoms iudgement concerning the preparation necessarie for all them that shall receiue the sacrament worthily howsoeuer it pleaseth Maister Heskins neuer to haue done railing and reuiling him charging him with that which I thinke the holy man neuer thought certeine I am he neuer did teach but the contrarie And because this is the last testimonie he citeth out of Chrysostome I thought good to set downe one place also directly ouerthrowing his transubstantiation for which he striueth so egerly It is written Ad Caesa. monachum Et Deus homo est Christus Deus propter impassibilitatem homo propter passionem vnus filius vnus Dominus idem ipse procul dubio vnitarum naturarum vnam dominationem vnam potestatem possidens etiamsi non consubstantialiter existant vnaquaeque incommixta proprietatis conseruas agnitionem propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis panem nominamus Diuina autem illum sanctificante gratia mediante sacerdote liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in ipso remansit non duo corpora sed vnum filij corpus predicattâ—r sic haec Diuina inundante corporis natura vnum filium vnam personam vtraque haec secerunt Christe is both God and man God because of his impassibilitie man for his passion being one sonne and one Lord he himselfe doubtlesse possessing one domination one power of the two natures being vnited although they haue not their being consubstantially and either of them vnmingled doeth keepe the acknowledging of his propertie because they are two vnconfounded For euen as the bread before it be sanctified is called of vs bread but when the grace of God doth sanctifie it by meanes of the priest it is in deede deliuered from the name of bread and is compted worthie of the name of our Lordes bodie although the nature of the bread hath remained in it and it is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne so both these the diuine nature ouerflowing the body haue made one sonne one person I knowe Stephan Gardener when he can not aunswere this place denyeth it to bee written by Iohn Chrysostome ascribing it to an other Iohn of Constantinople but seeing it caÌ„ not be denied to be an ancient authoritie it is sufficient to proue the doctrine of transubstantiation to be newe and vnknowen to the Churche of God in the elder times The fiue and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same by Isichius and S. Augustine To garnishe his Booke with the name of Isichius he continueth his most vniust and slaunderous quarrell against Luther as though he denied all preparation requisite to the woorthie receiuing of this holie sacrament which is so impudent an vntruth that all the world doth see it And God in time will reuenge it Isichius is cited In 26. Leuit. Probet autem c. Let a man examine him selfe and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cuppe What manner of examination doeth he speake of It is this that in a cleane heart and conscience and to him that intendeth to repent those thinges wherein he hath offended men should participate of the holy things to the washing away of their sinnes M. Hesk. would make men beleeue that Luthers doctrine were contrarie to this saying and multiplieth his slaunders against him which seeing they be without al proofe yea and manifest proofe to the contrarie it shall suffice to denie them and so to consider what he will bring foorth of S. Augustine He citeth him Ad Iulianum Ep. 111. Whereas in deede ther is no such Epistle in any good edition of Augustine and the treatise he speaketh of may rather be called a Booke then an Epistle for the length of it But the stile of it is as like vnto the stile of Augustine as our Asse is to a Lyon. It hath no inscription to whom it should be directed and therefore some say to Iulianus some to Bonifacius It beginneth O mi frater c. and so continueth in such balde Latine that Erasmus hath not only reiected it out of the number of Augustines Epistles but also out of his authenticall workes such iudgement or honestie M. Heskins vseth in citing the fathers all is fishe that commeth to his nette I will set downe the wordes Ab ijs pietas c. From them let the pietie of our Lorde Iesus Christe deliuer vs and giue himselfe to be eaten who saide I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen he that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting life in him But let euerie man before he receiue the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ examine himself and so according to the commandement of the Apostle let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that vnworthily eateth the bodie and bloud of our Lord eateth and drinketh his owne condemnation making no difference of the bodie of our Lorde Therefore when we shall receiue we ought before to haue recourse to confession and repentance and curiously to searche out all our actions and if we finde in vs any punishable sinnes leâ— vs hasten quickely to washe them away by confession and true repentance least we with Iudas the traytor hyding the diuell within vs doe perish protracting and hyding our sinnes from day to day And if we haue thought any euill or naughtie thing let vs repent vs of it and let vs make hast to scrape that speedily out of our heart This is the saying of this counterfet and forged Augustine out of which Maister Heskins gathereth not only his manner of presence to be such as the wicked receiue the bodie bloud of Christ but also his auricular confession But what the iudgement of the true Augustine is you haue hearde before concerning the former as for the later question is neuer touched in all his owne workes De ciuit Dei Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Non dicendum eum manducare corpus Christi qui in corpore non est Christi It is not to
the Papistes say that men may eat Christ which doe not beleeue at all And it is a very childish sophisme out of which M. Heskins woulde gather that if to eate be to beleeue and it be not lawfull for the Iewes to eate Christe it is not lawfull for them to beleeue in christ For continuing in Iudaisme they can no more beleeue in Christ then they can eate the flesh of Christe But contrariwise by their doctrine if the sacrament be giuen to a Iewe that is no Christian yet he eateth the body of Christ as he that beleeueth in Christe The testimonie of Theophylact although it make little for M. Hesk. yet as alwayes before so nowe at the last I will refuse to examine bicause I will not yeeld to his authoritie he being a late writer But M. Hesk. noteth vpon the Apostles words We haue an altar that the Church hath but one altar which is the body of Christ and that is very true of the true Catholique Church but the hereticall and schismaticall Church of Rome hath many thousand altars which they can not say are all one altar although they cauill that their infinite multitudes of hostes are one sacrifice of Christes body Therefore the Church of Rome is not the Catholique Church of Christe by his owne reason And the saying of Hierome which he citeth Lib 2. in Hose Cap. 8. and wresteth against vs doth very aptly condemne him selfe and his felow Papistes for heretiques Vnum esse altare c. The Apostle teacheth that there is in the Church but one altar and one faith one baptisme which the heretiques forsaking haue set vp to themselues many altars not to appease God but to increase the multitude of sinnes therefore they are not worthie to receiue the lawes of God seeing they haue despised them which they haue receiued before And if they shall speake any thing out of the scriptures it is not to be compared to the words of God but to the senses of Ethnikes These men do offer many sacrifices and eate the flesh of them forsaking the only sacrifice of Christ nor eating his flesh â–ª whose flesh is the meat of the beleeuers whatsoeuer they do counterfeting the order and custom of the sacrifices whether they giue almes whether they promise chastitie whether they counterfet humilitie and with feigned flatterings deceiue simple persons the Lord will receiue nothing of such sacrifices We forsake not the only sacrifice of Christ once offred but our whole trust is in the merits of that sacrifice therefore we set vp no newe altars The Papistes set vp an other sacrifice and therefore other altars If our allegation interpretation of the scriptures may not be warranted by the spirite of God iudging in the same scriptures by other textes that are plaine and euident we desire not that any man shall receiue them as the Papistes doe whatsoeuer the Popish Church doth define though it be contrarie to the expresse word of god And although wee admitte not that grosse and carnall manner of Christes body in that sacrament that they doe hold yet do we eate the flesh of Christ verily after that maner which the Papistes themselues do confesse to be the only profitable eating thereof namely that which is spirituall What our workes be I referre them to the iudgement of God wee boast not of them And although fasting for merite bee iustly punishable by statute yet godly and Christian fasting is not cleane exiled out of our Church though not so often perhaps vsed as meere it were it should Our doctrine of fasting is sound and agreeable to the word of God and therefore we dare iustifie it our doing wee will not iustifie nor excuse our faultes but humbly submitte our selues to his iudgement who knoweth our hearts of whome we craue pardon for our offences and grace to keepe his commandements But now to conclude this matter I will produce one testimonie of Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome which I thinke shuld be of great weight with al Papists if they giue in deed such reuerence either to that See or to antiquitie as they pretend And thus he writeth Cont. Eusychet Certè sacrameÌ„ta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi diuina res est propter quod per eadeÌ„ diuinÄ™ efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia natura panis vini â–ª Et certè imago vel similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysterioruÌ„ celebratur Satis ergo nobis euidenter osteÌ„ditur hoc in ipso Domino Christo sentienduÌ„ quod in eius imagine ê“fitemur celebramus sumimê° vt sicut hÄ™c in diuinaÌ„ traÌ„ feuÌ„t spiritu sancto ê‘ficiente substantiaÌ„ ê‘manent tamen in suÄ™ ê“prietate naturae sic illud ipsuÌ„ mysteriuÌ„ principale cuius nobis officientiaÌ„ veritatemque veraciter reprÄ™sentat ex ijs quibus conflat propriè permanentibus vnuÌ„ ChristuÌ„ quoniam integruÌ„ veruÌ„que permanere demonstret Certainly the sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing therefore by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet the substance nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be And surely an image or similitude of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries Therfore it is shewed vnto vs euidently ynough that we must iudge the same thing euen in our Lord Christ him selfe which we professe celebrate receiue in that which is an image of him that as by the working of the holy Ghost they passe into a diuine substance yet abide stil in the propertie of their owne nature euen so the same principal mysterie doth shew that one Christ abideth whole and true whose efficiencie truth it doth truly represent vnto vs those thinges of which he consisteth properly still remaining Thou seest gentle reader that this auncient Bishop of Rome first doth vtterly ouerthrowe transubstantiation when he saith that the substance nature of the bread wine do remaine still in the sacraments although they be a diuine thing Secondly that he excludeth the carnall maner of presence when he saith we celebrate receiue an image and similitude of the body bloud of Christ in the sacraments lastly that he aduoucheth the spiritual diuine maner of presence of Christ when he saith that the sacrameÌ„ts are turned into a diuine substance which he meaneth not of the substance of the deitie but of the heauenly wonderful manner of presence by which Christ vouchsafeth to giue vnto his faithfull members his very body and bloud in a mysterie And that the Church of Rome in much later times did not acknowledge this carnall presence it shal appeare euen out of the Popes own Canon law euen in the decrees De Consecrat distinct 2. Cap. Hoc est Coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo nominatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentuÌ„
corporis Christi Vocaturque ipsa īmolario carnis que sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio nō rei veritate sed significāte mysterio The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a peculiar maner is called the body of Christe when as in very deed it is the sacramēt of the body of christ And euen the oblation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysteri Those words which are borrowed out of August into the decrees the glose doth thus vnderstand Coeleste sacraementū quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè Vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio◠Vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but vnproperly Therefore it is saide to be after a peculiar manner but not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the body of Christe that is it doth signifie the body of Christe If these testimonies that are taken out of the Romish Bishops owne writings decrees and gloses that are so plaine will not satisfie the Papistes that their doctrine of transubstantiation and carnall presence is neither true ancient nor Catholike it is in vaine to spend more wordes with them as with men that are obstinate and will not be satisfied with any truth contrarie to their presumed heresie The one and sixtieth Chapter maketh a recapitulation of that that is done in this worke Seeing this Chapter containeth no argument or authoritie to defend his cause but only rehearseth what he fantasieth that he hath brought in other places throughout all his booke for the maintenance of the same I referre it to the indifferent readers iudgement what I haue done in this breefe confutation of the same And here I conclude this acte of repeale that notwithstanding this bill offered to the Parleament by Tho. Hesk. in the lower house hath many friends so that the greater part of voyces if the house were diuided might seeme to ouercome the better yet for as much as in the higher house the greatest number haue spoken directly against his bill and no one lord of that house which liued within the compasse of 600. yeres of the challenge hath giuen his voyce to allowe it not only the pretensed acte of Parleament set forth by the said Tho. Hesk. is proued to be false forged counterfet but also the bill that he hath put in to be considered is vtterly reiected condemned spurned out of the house GOD BE PRAYSED A CONFVTATION OF AN IDOLATROVS TREATISE OF NICOLAS SANDER Doctor in Diuinitie which mainteyneth the making and honouring of Images by W.F. Doctour in Diuinitie ECCLESIASTIC 45. The memoriall of the beloued of God is blessed that is to say any thing that maketh vs to remember him that is beloued of God is worthie of praise and honour A Doctour like interpretation and a pithy argument whereupon I may conclude The idols that Salomon made are things that make vs remember Salomon who was the beloued of God and so called of God him selfe therefore the idols were worthie of prayse and honour The preface conteining a breefe declaration which is the true Churche Maister Sander taking in hand so absurde and wicked an argument as is the defence of idolatrie or honouring of Images thought good to present it in the best vessel that he had which is the painted boxe of the Churche which that he might the rather commend to his countrimen he hath taken vpon him to describe it both inside and outside as he saith by certeine knowen truethes in number no lesse then 112. which after they haue been all well vewed and sufficiently considered I doubt not but to the reasonable and indifferent Reader shall appeare nothing else but a faire coloured but yet an empty vessell I will followe his diuisions and where I finde any trueth I will confesse it without wrangling where in steede of trueth he offereth falshode I will breefely confute it 1 The first I graunt that Christe hath alwayes had and alwayes shall haue a Church on earth out of which there is no saluation This Churche consisteth of men whiche beleeue in him haue their faith sealed and confirmed by outward sacramentes 2 The Church is the kindome of Christe the Citie of God and the kingdome of heauen wherein Christ shall reigne for euer 3 The kingdome is spread more largely and gouerned more prudently then any earthly kingdome euer was euen to the endes of the worlde to continue world without end 4 Notwithstanding all this to say that the Churche or this kingdome of Christe was hidden any one houre from the eyes of the worlde is not to make it more obscure then any earthly kingdome euer was as Maister Sander doeth affirme for the glorie of this Kingdome whiche is spirituall neuer did nor shall appeare to the wicked of this worlde The Churche is an article of our faith and faith is of those thinges whiche are not seene Hebru 11. but with spirituall eyes Therfore the exaltation of the Lordes hill that Esaie 2. and Micheas 4. doe speake of is of a spirituall aduauncement and a citie built vpon an hill is euerie true minister of Gods worde Matthewe 5. and not the whole Churche Finally the glorie and ioye that Esaie 60. promiseth vnto the Church and her happie enlargement among the nations Cap. 61. proue no worldly pompe or greatnesse to be seene with carnall eyes but is ment of the ioyfull and comfortable addition of the Churche of the Gentiles vnto the Churche of the Iewes For otherwise these wordes could not be verified of all wicked men All that see them shall knowe them that they are the blessed seede which the Lorde hath blessed 5 The cheefe meane whereby the Church is so clearely seene and so glorious in the sight of men is that Christ being the true light hath cōmunicated his brightnesse to his Apostles sayng you are the light of the worlde A citie built vpon an hill can not be hidden Neither do men light a candel and put it vnder a bushel but vpon a candlestick that it may giue light to al them that are in the house But this brightnesse is heauenly and spirituall not worldly and carnall to be seene of the children of light not of the blind bussards of the worlde 6 The Churche dyed not when the Apostles dyed for Bishops and Pastours succeeded in their place as lightes set vpon the candlestickes which are the seuerall Churches Apoc. 1. 7 The light and glorie of Gods Churche commeth chiefely from the Bishops and Pastours thereof I meane from their heauenly doctrine not from their persons as Maister
of Peters authoritie notwithstanding all his prerogatiue in Act. Apost Hom. 3. Iam illud considera quòd Petrus agit omnia ex communi discipulorum sententia nihil authoritate sua nihil cum imperio Nowe consider this also howe euen Peter doth all things by the common decree of the disciples nothing by his owne authoritie nothing by commaundement or with rule 13 Therefore it is false which Maister Sander affirmeth that the gouernement of the faithfull was committed to one aboue all other for it did as well perteine to euery Apostle as to Peter to feede the sheepe of Christe And when distinction for orders sake was made in the ministerie by God Peter acknowledged the Apostleship of the circumcision which was neither the greatest nor the chiefest parte of the church to be allotted to him Gal. 2. vers 7. Therefore although there be one flocke of Christ vpon earth yet Christe is the onely one shepeheard thereof as he affirmeth Iohn 10. vers 16 Although hee haue many seruauntes that ouersee his sheepe as they bee scattered in many places whose collection into one flocke as it is not locall nor visible so they must needes haue an almightie and inuisible shepeheard to gather them together and no mortal man were he neuer so excellent least of all the Pope the vilest man aliue 14 For which cause although euery particuler flocke must haue one Pastour which is not necessarie for some may haue more then one yet cannot the whole church militant on earth haue one earthly man to be head therof And albeit M. Sander woulde proue it particuler in respect of the whole number of the elect yet is it vniuersall in respect of all perticuler congregations on earth at one time and so vniuersall as no singular man can possibly knowe it much lesse gouerne it 15 And therefore although Christe the vniuersall shepeheard wil suffer no particuler church to continue without a seruaunt to ouersee it vnder him yet will hee committ to no seruaunt any charge which is impossible for him to execute as is the ouersight of the Catholike or vniuersall Church vppon earth And here note the impudencie of the Papistes which affirme that their particular Synagogue of Rome is the Catholike or vniuersall Church and yet denye the whole church of Christ militant on earth to be the Catholik churche 16 It shall neuer be proued that Peter was made by Christe the firste sheapheard ouer all the sheepe of Christ on the earth otherwise then as all the Apostles were And yet if that were true and that which Maister Sander inferreth also that one chiefe sheapeheade shoulde be like Peter as one that executeth the same office that Peter did yet it followeth by no reason of consequence that he concludeth that all other bishops are excluded from this office sauing he that occupyeth his place at Rome if euer he had any there For he that were moste like to Peter in giftes meete to execute such an office were by all reason more meete to succeede Peter then euery vnlearned asse wicked helhound that is aduaunced into that chaire of Rome where Peter is supposed to haue sitt 17 Nowe seeing Peter is sayd first to haue sit at Antioche and afterward to haue remoued to Rome what reason is there seeing his supremacie was personall that his successoures of Antioche after his death shoulde not claime it as well as they of Rome if it went by right of succession For change of place can make no change of right And the title of Antioche is the elder therfore the better Except Master Sander will say that Rome hath it by his legacie and then he must shewe vs S. Peters last will and testament 18 And whereas he sayeth it is well knowen that S. Peter dyed at Rome it is not so well knowen as that Christ dyed at Ierusalē wherfore the Bishop of Ierusalem should more reasonably claime this supremacie vicarship vnto christ And that Peter writeth from Babylon it is an argument he was not at Rome but in Babylon of Aegypt although S. Hierom thinketh he was at Rome and calleth Rome Babylon as the seat of Antichrist which M Sander is content to take that he might haue some colour of Scripture to proue that S. Peter was at Rome Although it be such as may serue to proue Rome to be the seate of Antichrist but not the chiefe seat of the Church of christ Apoc. 19. 19 It is true that among al countries and cities none was so notable as the citie and people of Rome because of the seat of the Empire that was there in which respecte also the churche of Rome was muche noted and reuerenced so long as it continued in synceritie But the bishops thereof haue not bene so notable as many other of other cities What one bishop of Rome like to Athanasius of Alexandria Chrysostome of Constantinople Ambrose of Millain Yea poore Augustine of Hippo or Osius of Corduba in their times or before their times And whereas hee saieth no places so conuenient for the head of Christes churche to be setled in it is altogether false because it was not conuenient that the heade of Christs churche should be setled there where Antichrist shoulde sit lest the one should be taken for the other 20 And although it were graunted that Italie is the fittest place for worldly Empire yet it foloweth not that it is aptest for spirituall gouernement For in all worldly respects the land of Promise far excelleth Italie which now is the most slauishe countrie in Europe being parted into so many seignories almost as there be great cities as Machiauill doth confesse 21 Although at somtime no citie in Italie was so notable as Rome yet was it not so alwayes since Christes birth for it hath bene diuers times taken and destroyed by the Gotthes and for many yeares left vnhabited And although it was most notable in worldly glory yet that was most vnmeete for to set vp the kingdom of Christ when it was in greatest glory it did alwaies withstand it Therefore Ierusalem in the lande of promise if God woulde haue chosen one citie for his vicare to sit in had bene in all respectes the meetest place in the worlde 22 That he saith no Apostle was more glorious then S. Peter it is vntrue for S. Paule affirmeth that he was equall with him and the rest laboured more then they all 2. Cor. 11. vers 5. 1. Cor. 15. vers 10. But admit that Peter was the chiefe yet it followeth not which M.S. affirmed that the bishop of Rome hath the most notable predecessor or founder of his chaire that euer anye bishop had For the bishop of Antioche hath the same by his owne confession and the elder title 23 Where he saith that the church of Rome was also founded by S. Paule it is a manifest vntruth for the church was there before S. Paule euer came there as it is plaine by
godly then any bishop of Rome in his time Likewise when the Sea of Rome vsurped prerogatiue it was reiected by the Councell of Africa which decreed that none should appeale thither discouered the counterfaiting of the bishops of Rome Con. Mileuit Cap. 22. Conc. Aphrican Ep. ad Coelestin Likewise it was reiected of the church of Alexandria whereof great dissention arose Con Affric Cap. 68. That Irenaeus Tertullian Optatus Hierom Augustine Eugenius Theodoretus poynted to the church of Rome as to a witnesse of trueth it proueth her clearnesse from those heresies in their tymes but giueth her none authoritie ouer other churches nor yet maketh her a rule of trueth to all churches for then there needed none other arguments against heretikes but the authoritie of the church of Rome whereas the testimonie of that church was one of the weakest reasons they vsed and that least preuailed 32 That he affirmeth other cities to haue chosen Bishops of their owne tongue it is also true of Rome For he cannot shewe one Pope that was ignorant of the Latine tongue while it was spoken in Rome And not many I thinke not one ignorant of the Italian tongue since that time although they were borne in other countries Besides that it is the fondest reason that euer I heard one or other alledge that the Popes haue bene borne in diuerse countries therefore they are supreme heade of the church more then other bishops that were bishops in the countries where they were born and yet more foolish that speaking of Bishops of other tongues hee nameth so manye places all of one tongue As Syna Antioche Galile Ierusalem Bethelem which are all of one tongue Campania Thuscia Aquileia Pisa Genua Bononia Millaine Parma Rauenna which are all Italian Gascoyne Lorayne Sauoy Burgundie Rhemes Tholose which are all frenche Saxonie Bauier Hollande Alsaria Mastriche which are all duche Cappadocia Thracia Creta Sicilia Sardinia Athens Nicopolis which are all Greeke There remaineth Spaine which is in a manner Italian and last of all Englande and Affrick So that there are not past fiue or sixe diuerse tongues of so many places as hee hath alledged to bleare the eyes of foolish Papistes As if one shoulde saye the Bishops of Caunterburie haue beene borne some in Yorke shire some in Durham some in Chester some in London some in Norfolke some in Cambridge c. Some in Italie some in Greece some in Fraunce some in Wales some in Normandie therefore that churche of Caunterburie is the chiefe Sea in the worlde 33 The See of Rome in deed was verie forward in vsurping authoritie of a chiefe iudge ouer other churches as Victor in excommunicating the bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter But they vtterly neglected his sentence yea and diuerse did not as Maister Sanders sayeth gently wish him not to deale so seuerely but sharpely rebuked him for his presumption and contention as Eusebius sayeth lib. 5. Cap. 25. Extant autem verba illorum qui victorem acriter reprehenderunt Equibus Irenaeus c. Their wordes are extant which sharply reprehended Victor of which number Irenaeus was one And whereas hee sayeth that Saint Cypriane desyreth Pope Stephanus to depose Martianus bishop of Arles in Fraunce it is false for hee exhorteth Stephanus beeing somewhat slacke against the Nouatians to write his letters vnto his fellowe Bishops in Fraunce as he him self oft had done that they woulde depose Martianus the heretike and suffer him no longer to insult ouer the churche which argueth the remissenes of Stephanus to doe that which was the charitable duetie of euerie bishop as Cyprian sheweth but proueth not his authoritie ouer all bishops That Felix the thirde deposed Aacarius bishop of Constantinople hee shewed the time of the full reuelation of Antichriste to bee at hande yet did hee it not of his owne authoritie but by authoritie of a Synode and afterwarde by a Synode restored him But Iustinianus the Emperour deposed two bishoppes of Rome Syluerius and Vigilius by his owne authoritie 34 That the bishop of Rome hath beene made the Committie of diuerse Councels to receiue the subscription of such as haue beene noted of heresies after their repentance it prooueth no superioritie in the worlde but a good opinion that those Councels had of his fidelitie 35 The letters of Leo to Flauianus and Theodosius proue not that the Patriarches Flauianus and Anatolius were commaunded to giue an accompt to the Bishop of Rome but rather Leo humbly desyred the Emperour Theodosius to commaunde a Synode to bee gathered in Italy because Flauianus had appealed not onely to the Bishop of Rome but to all the Bishopâ— of Italie Ep. 23. And that hee writ that Anatolius shoulde confesse his faith before hee were ordeined it was his good councell to the Emperour no commaundement to either of them Ep. 31. 36 It is false that all nations appealed to the Pope of Africa did excommunicate all them that so would or thought meete to appeale Concil Mileuit Ca. 22. Concil Aph. Ep. ad Coelest And although some appealed to the iudgement of the church or Bishop of Rome yet that proueth no generall authoritie The Councell of Sardike which M. Sanders citeth Can. 7. did moderate those appeales which had not bene lawfull if they perteined to the Bishop of Rome de iure of right Liberatus whom he citeth for the appeale of Athanasius affirmeth that the Councel of Chalcedon confirmed by the Emperor gaue no place to the contradiction of the Bishop of Rome nor his legates Cap. 13. which disproueth his supremacie more then any appeale can proue it As for the appeale of Athanasius if any were it was euer ruled by the Emperour who appointed him a synode to iudge his cause at Tyre Socrat. lib. 1. Cap. 28. Theodorete testifieth that after he was called to Rome by Iulius the bishop by the Emperour Constantius his commaundement his cause was referred to the councell of Sardica when he had first appealed to the Emperour Constans lib. 2. Cap. 4. He citeth Chrys. Ep. ad Innocentium to proue that he did appeale to the Bishop of Rome where there is no such matter Only he declareth how iniuriously he was dealt withal by meanes of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria from whome he appealed not to the Bishop of Rome but to a Synode Of the appeale of Flauianus we haue spoken euen now by the confession of Leo himselfe Ep. 23. As for other appeales of later times they proue the ambition of the Romish bishops that would receiue them although of many they were misliked 37 That Gelasius affirmed bishops condemned by prouincial councels were restored by the Pope alone hee citeth his Epist. ad Faustum in which is no such matter yet if it were so I say it proueth nothing but the ambition of that See which before his time began to encrease toward a supremacie and not long after obteined that it sought for But from the beginning it was not so
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
it might not be deceiued by vncerteine traditions and inuentions of man in steeede of the doctrine of God. 104 The Popishe Church hath not kept the worde of God faithfully but in a corrupt and false Latine translation The certeintie therfore of the scriptures was not receiued from them but from the Iewes concerning the olde Testament in Hebrue and from the Gręcians concerning the new Testament in Greek Although the very common Latine translation of the Bible is sufficient to conuince the Popish Church of horrible heresies and blasphemies 105 To refourme the Church according to the doctrine of the holie scripture and the example of the Primitiue Church is not like as if one reading of the olde lawes of England in an other Ilande would say it were England and that the countrie whiche is so called is departed from olde England For chaunge of Lawes cannot change places and regions but departing from the trueth of Gods worde is a departing from the Churche of Christe and the returning to that trueth is a returning to the Church of Christ notwithstanding Maister Sanders wise similitude The Prophetes in deede Esaie Ieremie c. by the lawe of Moses shewed the errours of the Church of Ierusalem and by it sought the reformation thereof But they renounced not the lawful gouernement of the high Priest because it was established by the lawe whereas the tyrannicall vsurpation of the Pope is contrarie to the lawe of Christ and therefore is moste iustly renounced 106 It is graunted that the Church of Rome was once a principall parte of the Churche of Christe But the successions of Popes since Popes were hath not continued so without interruption as the successions of the highe Priestes at Ierusalem by meanes of so many Schismes Antipapes and translation of the See from Rome to Auinion with so many and so long variations of the See. And the succession of Christians except in a fewe hath vtterly failed as Esaie saith of Ierusalem how is the faithfull citie become an harlot Esaie 1. 107 It is graunted that of olde time the Romane faith was accounted the catholike faith while it was so in deed euen as the Britanne faith the French faith the Germane faith was likewise But that whiche he inferreth is vtterly denied namely that the Pope and his citie haue continued in the profession of that faith to this day For the contrarie beeing proued it is not onely the euill manners of the Pope and that citie that haue moued vs to departe from the Churche but the false religion therof Although it is nothing like that where suche a sinke of all abhominations is and hath beene openly and generally seene aswel in the Popes as in the people of his citie there should be a true and sincere faith and religion whiche bringeth foorth wicked and vngodly fruites 108 The glorie of Christes Church and kingdome is not like to the kingdome and glorie of an earthly Empire but contrarie to it namely it is spirituall and not carnal inwarde and not outwarde in appearance of weaknesse pouertie foolishnesse and not of strength riches and wisedome 1. Cor. 1. 109 The wayes to see and heare the Church of God is to heare the worde of God whereof commeth faith by the eyes whereof the Church of God is seene and not by bodily eyes to be painted out loe here loe there for the kingdome of God is within vs Luc. 17. vers 21. 110 Notwithstanding any thing repeated in this article conteined in seuerall articles before 19.20.64.18.22.24.25.26.31.46.27.41.42.56.43.45.48.36.39.67.65.68.20 the Popish Church is the Church of Antichrist therefore we haue iustly departed from it to the Churche of Christ. 111 In the Church of Christ is the word of God the sacramentes forgiuenesse of sinnes the holie Ghost the communion of Saintes and Christ himselfe which is the onely head and sauiour thereof But whether the Papistes holde this Church or we let them proue as S. Augustine vrgeth the Donatistes by none of these fonde and carnall reasons but only by the authoritie of the scriptures De vnitate Eccles. Cap. 16. 112 The rest of the preface is consumed in dissuading the Papists of England frō dissembling their professiō of Papistrie exhorting them to make open confessiō therof which next vnto their conuersion I wish as much as M. Sander that if they may not be conuerted to become true Christians and good subiectes they might be knowen as they are for open heretikes enimies of their Prince and Realme ¶ A TREATISE OF IMAGES OF Christe and of his Saintes and that it is vnlawfull to breake them and lawfull to honour them c. THE FIRST CHAPTER THe Argument of the treatise following In which he noteth especially The storie of the spoyle of Images in the lowe countries The diuersitie of sectes there The holie Bible burnt Hermannus a preacher capteine of the spoyle THE defence of idolatrie whiche he taketh in hand beeing so abhominable to be heard among Christians after he hath first sought to dasell mens eyes with the vaine glitering glorie of the Romish Church now he goeth about to tickle their eares with a plausible tale of some disorderly doinges in breaking of Images in the lowe countries As though the inconsiderate zeale of a fewe image breakers or perhaps the licentious riot of some pilfering spoylers beeing either Papistes or of no religion that were mixed with them were sufficient to excuse such horrible Idolatrie as the Papistes daily commit and M. Sander is not ashamed to defend He pretendeth as though his purpose were no more but to answere an obiection of I cannot tell what Protestants nor he him selfe is able to name any of credite which affirmed that the casting downe of idolatrie in the lowe countries and liberty of preaching the gospel procured by a few naked base men against an armed Prince and so many wealthy persons as were enimies to it must come of the mightie hand of God and that it was a great miracle Whiche thing might well and truely be saide without allowing of any thing that was done beside order For there is no doubt but God directed all things to his glory although men sought not the same by lawfull ordinarie meanes It was no miracle saith M. Sander because they were not resisted in suche places where the spoyle was made But so much the greater was the miracle that in so many places the heartes of the magistrates with the people were so daunted that they durst make no resistance The storie as M. Sander reporteth it is that the Lordes of the low countries dissenting from king Philip about the Spanish inquisition the king lyke to be assaulted by the Turkes in Naples and Malta resorte was made to a certaine preacher not called by anye auctoritie in the woods and fieldes neere to Antwerpe The first quarrell he picketh is to the preachers callinge whiche in suche times as religion is in a manner ouerthrowne and defaced by Idolatrie as
his body and the signe of the crosse is the body it selfe crucified who euer heard these monsters proceed out of our mouthes Againe The communion is taught to be but holy bread Priestes and Bishops need haue no temporal possessions except they thēselues be Priestes and Bishops Priestes and Bishops are equal by Gods law therefore Popish Priestes which be the diuels Priestes must be equall with Christian Bishops which for gouernment sake are preferred before Christian Ministers Finally if the Papistes burne oure malicious and false translations of the Bible they are saide to burne the holy Bible of Iesus Christe If the Protestants burne the Hebrue Greeke Latine Duch text as they did in the Low countries they are cōmended as holy workers in the Lords vine No M. Sander thy malicious eares neuer heard that which thy slanderous pen hath set downe that any man was of vs commended for burning any text of the Bible and if by disorder and through ignorance any texts were burned yet thou feignest too impudently in saying they burned the Duch text And whereas thou wouldest excuse the purposed malicious burning of English Bibles by the falsenesse of their translations beside that thou speakest absurdly in all learned mens eares who knowe the trueth of them by conference of them with the originall toungs yet this bewrayeth your malice against the word of God that hauing so long complained of our false translations neuer a papist of you all will take the paines to translate the Bible truly that the people might be rightly instructed in Gods word by your true translation if you feared their peruerting by our false translation ¶ CAP. 4. or as the errour of his Printer hath made it CAP. 3. and so continueth in that errour to the end which I note bicause there should be no varying in the conference of his booke and mine answere The petegreu of such as heretofore haue destroyed the altars the temples the chalices of God or the images of Christe and of his Saintes with aunswere to certaine obiections which might seeme to make for image breakers Also he noteth a notable storie of honour done to Church plate in the auncient time This blaser of the Popes armes pretending to drawe a petegreu of such as haue destroyed altars temples c. rehearseth a beadroll of Infidells and heretiques which haue defaced the true religion of God which pertaineth nothing to them that by lawfull authoritie deface and destroy the monuments of Popish Idolatrie hauing an expresse commandement of God so to doe You shall ouerthrowe their altars breake downe their pillers ye shall cut downe their groues and burne their grauen images with fire Deu. 7. v. 5. But this he saith pertaineth not vnto vs to execute except we had conquered an heathen nation that worshipped Iupiter and Iuno Mars and Minerua c. By what commandement then did Ezechias Iosias and all the godly Kings destroye and deface the monuments of Idolatry in the land of Iuda which was no heathen nation but the most peculiar people of God By what authoritie did they destroy the hill altars or high places in which the people did offer sacrifice only to God 1. Reg. 3. Finally by what precept did Ezechias breake downe the brasen serpent which was a figure of Christ infinitely more excellent then al the images of the Papistes bicause that had a godly beginning wheras theirs haue a wicked beginning a worse continuance and abuse This cōmandemēt therfore serueth against al Idolatrie whether it be committed of people that are heathnish or of such as hauing so◠sacraments of God are degenerated into false religiō Idolatry Wherfore the examples that M. S. alledgeth beside that some of them are very violently drawne to image breakers do nothing touche them that deface false religion but such as destroy true religion The Philistines were punished for looking vpon the arke Vzza for touching it vpon a good intent Ieroboam for forsaking the temple of Salomon and setting vp two prophane Temples with Idols in them which M. Sander omitteth and making priests of the vilest of the people This last prank saith he is practised in Anwerpe How so M. S New temples are erected Why sir is it lawfull to haue but one temple as then at Ierusalem Newe ministers are made in Schisme I trust they be not so vile rascals as the multitude of your Popish hedge priestes But where be the idols in the newe temples of Anwerpe that were in Ieroboams Temple But let vs heare the rest of his examples The seruantes of Iessabel destroyed the altars of God in the dayes of Elias It is very true And Elias with the godly people destroyed the altars of Baal and slew his Priests Nabuchodonosor burned the Temple of Salomon he did wickedly Balthasar abused the holy vessels he smarted for it But Iehu destroyed the religion of Baall and the ornamentes thereof and he is commended so be all the godly Kinges for destroying of idolatrie 2. Reg. 10.18.23 In Malachie God reproueth the Priests for offering the blind and lame and the polluted bread Manasses the priest set vp a false Temple in mount Garizim Antiochus Epaphanes defiled the temple of God Pompeius entered into the sanctuarie All these did wickedly but they that with Lawfull authoritie deface and destroy idolatrie doe that which is right in the sight of the Lord 2. Reg. 18. 23. Christ honored the Temple with his presence yet he chased out the abusers therof Luc. 19. Ioan 2. c. The Christians in Tertullians time vsed crossing of their forheades to shewe them selues Christians but no worshipping of any crosse as the Papists do yet came that estimation of the crosse from the Valentinian heretikes Irenaeus Lib. 1. Ca. 1. An. 150. The Nouatians kept conuenticles from the Catholiks such are the assemblies of the Papistes separated from the Churche of God though they be neuer so many in number as the Arrians in the East and in Affrica were The Manichees did hate the Image of Christe whom they denied to be a very man testified in the 2. Councel of Nice which was almoste 800. yeares after Christe when Images were made and honoured yet M. Sander noteth it Anno Dom. 280. when in the Churche of God were no Images of Christ. But among the heretikes Gnostici was there images of Christ which they honoured An. 129. Ire Lib. 1. Cap. 24. Dioclesian and Maximian commanded the Churches of Christians to be destroied the Bibles to be burned so did the Papistes at Orleans and Anwerpe to the Churches in all places where they come for the Bibles burning Yet the good man chargeth the protestants at Anwerpe in S. Frances monasterie for burning the Bible When Georgius an Arrian Bishop was brought into Alexandria by force there was great sedition and spoyle of Church goodes there hath beene as great sedition and spoyle in bringing in of Catholike Bishops of Rome greater also as many hystories do
witnesse and the Papistes wil not denie so many Schismes haue ben about election of their Popes But neerer to the matter Iulian the Apostata with the paganes pulled downe the image of Christ that was set vp in the streete of Caesarea Philippi in remembraunce of the miracle done vpon the woman that was healed of her issue of bloud not in the Church to be worshipped Wel he shewed his malice but he did no hurt to Christian religion This example hurteth not them that lawfully pul downe deface Images in the Church of Christ for Epiphanius before Iulian did so at Anablatha Epiph. epi. 34. But Iulianus did obiect vnto the Christians that they did worship the woode of the crosse when they painted Images therof on their foreheades and before their houses Hereof M. Sander gathereth that the Christians had a grauen image of Christe him selfe euen from his owne time in Paneade or Caesarea Philippi as images of the crosse before their houses for the image of Christe Eusebius testifieth it was set vp by the Heathen men and not by Christians Lib. 7. Cap. 18. Although it is not like that it was set vp in Christes time when it is manifest by Iosephus that the Iewes could not abide so much as the image of the Emperour or of his standerd the Eagle to be set vp among them The images of the crosses set before their doores declare they had not them and much lesse any other of Christ and his saintes in Churches which Iulian would not haue omitted to proue them woode worshippers and idolaters Cyrillus in deede defendeth these signes of crosses as better memorials of Christ and of his vertues then the Images of the Gentiles yet he defendeth not setting vp of crosses or any images in Churches creeping to them which is the filthie idolatrie of the Papists Iulian the vncle of this Apostata did sit vpon the vessels vsed at the communion in despight of our religion and was iustely plagued therefore Eustachius the heretike kept his conuenticles in priuate places he would not be ruled by his Bishop The protestants kepe open assemblies whē they are not hindred by persecution and are ordered by the Bishops Elders of their Church though they will not be obedient to the Hereticall Bishops of the Popishe Church The same Eustachius condemned the marriage of Priestes as the Papistes doe Ep. Con. Gangr Vigilantius iustly reproued the Christians for superstitious estimatiō of reliques which Hieronyme could not honestly defend for all his quarrelling To conclude Chrysostome complayneth of the iniurie done to him his church and the sacraments by barbarous souldiers Optatus of the like by the Donatistes Victor by the Arrians all these and an hundreth more that might be brought of like examples beeing actes of Infidels and Heretiques against true religion doe not proue but the commaundement of God must be executed against false religion by them who haue authoritie of God so to doe But now he commeth to answere our obiections and first the example of Epiphanius a godly bishop of Cyprus whose wordes I will first set downe as they are conteyned in an epistle of his to Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem Praeterea quod audini c. Moreouer whereas I heard that some men did murmur against me because that when we went together to the holie place whiche is called Bethel that there I might make a gathering with you after the Ecclesiasticall manner and was come to the village which is called Anablatha and had seene there as I passed by a candle burning and had inquired what place it was and had learned that it was a Churche and came into pray I found there a vale hanging at the doore of the saide Church steyned and painted and hauing the image as it were of Christe or of some Saint for I doe not well remember whose Image it was Therefore when I saw this thing that the Image of a man did hang in the Church of Christ contrarie to the authoritie of the scriptures I rent it and gaue councel to the keepers of that place that they should rather wrappe some dead poore man in it carry him to buriall in it And they contrariwise murmured said if he would haue rent it it had beene meete that he should haue giuen vs another vayle and haue changed it Which when I heard I promised that I would giue them one and send it shortly Now there was some stay in the meane time while I seeke to send them a very good vaile in steed of that. For I thought one should haue ben sent me out of Cypres But now I haue sent such a one as I could get And I pray you that you will commaunde the elders of that place to receiue this vale which we haue sent by this bearer And to charge them that here after no such vayles be hanged vp in the Church of Christ which are against our religion For it becommeth your honestie to haue such carefulnesse to take away scrupulositie which is vnworthie of the Church of Christ and the people which i◠committed to you These be the words of Epiphanius in his Epistle translated by S. Hierom. For answere to this first he will not affirme whether that Epiphanius the byshop of Cypres wrote this Epistle or some other of that name because Damascen that impudent corrupter of antiquitie when he can not answere the Epistle he moueth such suspition in his Apologie for the worshipping of Images But let Hierome himselfe testifie the matter Contra errores Ioan Hierosol ad Pampathiam in the end of the Epistle Secondly he answereth that notwithstanding the iudgement of Epiphanius it is not against the authoritie of the scriptures to haue Images in the churches for then shoulde not Theodorus the martyr haue had his martyrdome painted on the walles as Gregorius Nyssenus witnesseth In deede Gregorius Nyssenus which liued somewhat after Epiphanius speaking of the ornaments of the Churche affirmeth that there was the history of the martyr painted on the wall but so farre from anye spice of adoration that the same was also expressed vppon the pauement which men did tread vppon Like as for ornamente there were grauen also in woode the Images of beastes These were the beginnings and as it were the first budding vp of Idolatrie in the church yet gainesaide by godly men and forbidden in the councell of Eliberis Another reason he hath of those simple mens authoritie that hang vp the Image and their murmuring which was not for putting downe the Image but for that he gaue them not another vail or curtaine first That it was not his priuate opinion it appeareth in this that he writeth so confidently thereof to the bishop of Ierusalem in whose dyocesse Anablatha was and who was present whē the saide Image was defaced But if he had thought saith M. Sander the hauing of Images to bee an heresie he woulde haue noted it in his booke of Fourescore and more heresies where he noteth no
suche opinion of hauing Images in the Churche for hereticall This balde reason he learned out of the councell of Nice 2. act 4. of one Epiphanius which taketh vpon him to reiecte and controll the authoritie of this ancient Epiphanius of Cypres But howe falsely they haue affirmed this of him you may see in diuers places of Epiphanius booke against heresies First lib. 1. Tom. 1. he sheweth the punishment of God against Tharra an Image maker which ouer liued his sonne Aran which no man as he saith did before him Secondly lib. 1. Tom. 2. hee sheweth that Simon Magus the father of heretikes made Images of him selfe and his harlot Helena to be worshipped that Carpocrats the heretik made the Images of Iesus and of S. Peter and did cense them and worship them Also Her. 27. he saith Gnostici Carpocratitae c. The Gnostikes and Carpocratites haue Images painted in collours some also of golde and siluer and other matter which they say be the Images of Iesus and that these Images of Iesus were made when hee liued among men vnder Pontius Pilate Againe lib. 2. T. 1. her 55. he sheweth that there were some in Arabia Robas and Edom which worshipped the Image of Moses And Centra Cullyridianos her 79. which worshipped the Images of the blessed virgin Marye he saith Vnde non est c. Howe is not this desire of making Images a diuelish attempt PrÄ™textu enim IustitiÄ™ for the deuil alwais entring into the mind of men vnder pretence of righteousnes deifying the mortal nature in the ere 's of men by variety of arts hath set forth stocks or statues bearing the Image of men And they truely which are worshipped by theÌ„ are dead but they bring in their Images to be worshipped which neuer liued for they caÌ„not be dead which neuer liued Finally Lib. Autorato prima enim scortatio est excogitatio simulachrorum inquit scriptura The inuenting of Images was the first whordome saith the scripture By these places iudge howe true it is which Damascen writeth that his owne church was decked with Images But yet M.S. hath another shift of descaÌ„t that the cause of reÌ„ding this vail might be for auoiding of offence of the weak Iews PagaÌ„s lately coÌ„uerted in that place As thogh Epiphanius doth not plainly declare the cause to haue bin for that it was coÌ„trari to the scriptures The like cause he wold haue to be of the decree of the councell of Eliberis in Spaine Placuit pictâ—ras in ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur aut adoratur in arietibut depingatur It is decreed that there ought to be no pictures in the Church lest that which is worshipped adored should be painted on the walles But the Canon it self sheweth a reason why they would haue no pictures in the churches lest God whoÌ„ onely they worshipped adored might be painted on the wals which were an abhominable absurditie yet hath bene practised iâ— defended men be so prone to Idolatrie But M.S. gathereth that seeing there might be no pictures in churches ergo they might be in priuate houses if they be lawful to be in priuate houses much more they might be permitted in churches A proper ringworm a doctor like argumeÌ„t by which I may coÌ„clude as foloweth There may be no shoppes in churches ergo they may be in priuate houses and if they may be permitted â—n priuate houses much more in churches But yet he hath an other answer This fact of Epiphanius was a priuate zeale which is not to be folowed coÌ„trary to the decree of the catholike church but I reply it was a godly zeal because it was ruled by the coÌ„mandement of God the holy scripture against which no church hath authority to decree But the last answere is as good as cake pudding which yet he thinketh worthy of a note in the margent Images could not be brokeÌ„ before they were set vp therfore the setters vp of Images are ancienter neerer the Apostles time then the pullers down That is out of questioÌ„ Euen so heresies could not be confuted before they were inuented therfore the inuenters of heresies are ancienter neerer the Apostles times then the confuters Note ye papistes for your learninge or else note that this note of Master Sander is not worthye the notinge But hee proceedeth and will prooue as he sayeth that as there were some Images in Churches in the time of Epiphanius so straight after his time they were coÌ„mon in all churches but this straightway was almost 200. yeares after Epiphanius as he citeth out of Nicephorus of one Xenias who he saith was the first that spake against worshipping of Images which howe false it is al men that haue read the works of the ancient writers doe knowe sufficiently The next breaker of Images he would haue to be Serenus bishop of Marsiles who waâ— reproued by Pope Gregorie which wrote vnto him that he shoulde not haue broken the Images but prohibited the people from worshipping of them Lib. 7. Epist. 169. But M. Sander will auoide that â—rohibition by the distinction of adoratioÌ„ that they should not be worshipped as God because Gregorie saith lib. 7. epist. 53. Scio quod c. I know that you desire not the Image of our Sauiour to this purpose to worshippe it as god By which wordes he meaneth that all worshippe is due vnto God and that by worshipping an Image it is made a false God. But it foloweth in the same Epistle saith M. Sander which proueth that Gregorie acknowledged some worshippe due to Images Nos non quasi ante Diuinitatem ante imaginem proster nimur c. We fall not downe before an Image as before the godhead but we worship him whome by the Image we remeÌ„ber to haue ben borne or to haue suffred and also to sitte in the throne But these wordes import no such matter but rather the contrarye except M. Sander can prooue that it is all one to fall downe before an Image and to fall downe vnto an Image Although he seemeth to say that they falled not downe at all before anye Image but onely vsed them for their remembraunce M. Sander continuing his petegrue sheweth that Philippicus the Emperour being a monothelite anno 710. threwe downe the Images of the fathers of the sixe generall councels that were set in the Churche porche of Sophia belike he was afraide they woulde come shortly into the Church Pope Constantine caused the like pictures to be set vp in the Church porche of Saint Peter at Rome And what of this Forsooth hee was an heretike that threwe downe images So was Pope Honorius condemned for a monotholite archeheretike in the seuenth generall councell that mainteined images After him An. 730. Leo persuaded by two Iewes saith the late idolatrous writers threwe downe the images at Constantinople and anno 740. Constantine his sonne a wicked man and an heretike followed him But vnder Irene
Constantine anno 796. by the seconde councell of Nice images were restored and their worship established Of these stories of pulling downe and setting vp of images M. Sander noteth that the mainteiners of images passed their aduersaries in foure things The first that they were quietly set vp and broken downe with tumult so were many heresies by the subtile serpent quietly setled which without great tumult could not be rooted out as the Arrian heresie for example But that images were vsed from the Apostles and Christ him selfe he promiseth to shewe afterward The second whereas they were set vp in diuerse countries they were pulled downe only in Greece a wise matter whereas idols were worshipped in the days of Ezechias throughout all the worlde they were pulled downe onely in Iewrie And yet against this idolatrous councell of Nice Carolus Magnus Emperour of the West writ a booke which is yet extant The thirde prerogatiue the idolaters haue had two generall councels of their side the idoll breakers none and yet hee confesseth they had one at Ephesus another at Constantinople but he sayeth they had them by stealth that is marueile when they were gathered by the Emperours as all other generall councels were And many of them sayth he recanted after so did they of Nice when the Emperours which followed immediatly after the Nicen councell threwe downe the images as their predecessours had done Finally where as hee alledgeth the sixte councell of Constantinople for images there is not one worde in all that councell to defende them but a counterfect Canon foysted in by the idolatrous councell of Nice which they say was made foure or fiue yeres after vnder Iustinian to cloke their forgerie The fourth that notwithstanding so many Emperours resisting yet images at length preuailed among the Greekes which haue them at this day painted as he sayeth doe reuerence them but hee sayeth falsly if hee meane they worship them as the Papistes do theirs and they are only painted on walles or tables not carued or grauen lest they shoulde be worshipped They continue still also enemies to the Church of Rome if continuance be any matter to iustifie their doings But nowe he concludeth howe vaine a thing it is to oppose Epiphanius which was but one man and a fewe hereticall Emperours against all the rest of the fathers and the generall councels As though because hee hath cited onely Epiphanius there were none of the fathers against images but hee beside that he skippeth ouer the Eliberin councell cited by him selfe But what fathers and councels haue beene against images I shall haue better occasion to shewe hereafter Nowe he proceedeth in his peuish pelfe there were heretikes called Bogomili anno 1180. which condemned the worshipping of images All is not good that heretikes condemne the Arrians condemned the Manichees the Pellagians condemned the Arrians There was neuer any heresie but allowed some good thinges ▪ and condemned some euill things Next he adioyneth Anno Do. 1160. the Waldensies whome hee calleth beggers of Lyons yet Pauperes signifieth not beggers but poore men which were true Christians and condemned not onely idolatrie but also all Papistrie The Sarazens also iustly condemne the Papistes for Idolaters whose idols being so contrarie to the manifest commaundement of God were a greate occasion to make so many nations to forsake Christianitie and for the Mahometists to continue in their wicked and false religion Last of all hee commeth to Wickelefe Hus. Luther c. and them of the lowe countries whome especially hee chargeth with sacriledge But to omitt their fact which I haue often shewed cannot be defended if it wanted lawfull authoritie all the stories that hee bringeth or can bring of godly princes and other persons erecting altars churches colledges c. and furnishing true religion with all ornamentes meete for the same are nothing to the purpose to defende the temples of idols with their idols and altars and other their trumperie from destruction by godly and lawfull authoritie At length hee alledgeth the decrees of Arcadius Honorius Theodosius and Valentinianus which alloweth the erecting of their owne images and of all notable men as Iudges Magistrates c. which when it was a ciuile honour vsed among the Romanes and nothing at all touched religion I marueile with what face hee can alledge it for setting vp of images in churches to bee worshipped and yet that honouring of the Emperours images is condemned by Saint Ierome in Daniell lib. 1. Cap. 3. Likewise that they decreede that such as fledd to the Emperours image should be safe from violence which was only a ciuil policie to bring the maiestie of the Emperour in estimatiō with the common people therefore it followeth not that much lesse they would haue commaunded the image of Christe to haue bene pulled downe which could not be set vp but to the dishonour of Christ because he hath forbidden it And therfore they made a decree that wheresoeuer it was set vp it should be taken downe M. Sander sayeth that M. Iewel alledging this edict doth translate tolli to be taken downe which signifieth to bee taken vp as though the decree had been of crosses on the grounde to be taken vp lest they shoulde bee trodden vppon but when M. Sander hath sayed his pleasure tolli signifieth to be taken cleane awaye And although in Iustinian Ti. 11. lib. 1. the signe of our sauiour Christ is forbidden to be grauen or painted on the grounde in flint or marble yet it followeth not but the edict cited by the bishop of Sarum may be vnderstood of taking away all images wheresoeuer they were The conclusion of the Chapter is that he findeth nothing on Maister Iewels syde but Infidels Iewes heretikes Idolaters or else he maketh many lyes vpō Christian Princes as though the lawe of God were nothing but Paganisme Epiphanius were an heretike the fathers of the councell of Eliberis were rennagates or Iewes the edictes of the Christian Emperours were restreined by Maister Sanders glose because an image was made by the woman that was healed saith he but Eusebius sayeth by the Gentiles lib. 7. Cap. 16. and the Gospell reporteth that shee had consumed all her goods vppon Phisitions and therefore was not able to set vp such a piller and two such images of brasse one of Christe the other of her selfe as those were reported to bee From which day forwarde saith he all Catholike fathers and Councels and Christians made and reuerenced holy images as it shall appeare afterward Of all the lowde lyes that euer I heard this may goe for the whetstone What shall appeare afterward we shall consider afterwarde But in the meane time remember his lye sufficiently confuted euen by such testimonies as hee himselfe hath alledged by way of obiection the Epistle of Epiphanius and the councell of Eliberis THE V. OR IIII. CHAP. That the worde of God forbiddeth not generally the making of all kinde of images and in what sence images
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
examine these falsifications pretended First he chargeth the bishop with false Latining and worse Englishing of this greeke following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bishopps latine is Hoc mirum est veteres Ethnicos beneficio affectos a seruatore nostro ista fecisse his english this It is no meruaile that the Heathens receiuing such benifites of our Sauiour did these thinges Here saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Olim in times past is left out in the latine which is false for it is included in the word veteres In deede in the english by the printers fault it is omitted M. Sander woulde iustifie the bolde and false translation of Ruffinus which turneth these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui ex Gentilibus crediderant Such of the Gentiles as had beleeued Where he manifestly addeth the worde crediderant which is not in Eusebius Wherein you may see the equitie of Maister Sanders which findeth faulte with Maister Iewell for leauing out that which he doth not omitte and iustifieth Ruffinus which doth openly adde to the text But for all his trifling about wordes hee sheweth him selfe ignorant of the phrase for when hee hath wrangled as much as hee can the Latine of the Greeke worde for worde is this Nec mirum est eos ex Gentibus qui olim beneficio affecti sunt a seruatore nostro ista fecisse And it is no marueile that those of the Gentiles which of olde time were benefited by our Sauiour Christe haue done these thinges Now Maister Sander like a falsifier rendeth these wordes asunder and will haue all that matter to stande in these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee sayeth must needes signifie those which in times past had beene Gentiles but after had beleeued which wordes if he wring vntill the bloud come foorth yet can hee not make such a signification of them For if Eusebius had meant so hee woulde haue added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some wordes of like effecte Secondly hee would rather haue sayde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that sometime were Gentiles then those that of olde time were Gentiles but that in the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of olde time he had relation vnto the time of Christe Thirdly as maister Sander himselfe afterwarde striuing for the Aduerbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnchaungeablye to be ioyned with the Participle sheweth himselfe a good Grammarian So here diuiding the Aduerbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ioyning it with nothing sheweth himselfe to be a malicious wrangler and a shamelesse falsifier Nowe where hee sayeth it is not like to bee true that Christe bestowed anye greate cure vppon those who shoulde haue tarryed still Heathens because hee more willingly cured the soule then the bodie I aunswere the chiefe ende of his cures was not for the priuate benefite of them that were cured but to shewe himselfe to all men to be the sonne of God the true phisition of body and soule But M. Sander replieth though some were vnkind as the 9. Lepers Luke 17. yea some were carelesse of him as the man that had lyen 38. yeares in the porche and the blinde man vntill he instucted them by his worde Iohn 5. 9. yet those which did set vp images in his honour were not vnkind I aunswere they thought to satisfye them selues with a vaine superstitious and heathenishe kinde of remuneration Thirdly hee sayeth with Theophylact a late writer that this woman which was faithfull did set vp this image but that I haue proued before to bee neither true nor like to be true But this is not all Master Iewels falshod sayeth hee for hee sayeth moreouer Nam Apostolorum Pauli Petri ipsius Christi imagines coloribus ductas seruatas vidimus For wee haue seene the images of Paule and Peter and of Christe drawen in coulours and preserued Here first beside the lacke of eius his which he confesseth to be of no importance he misseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et which he wil needes haue to signifie also What quarrelling merchant is this here is et thrise yet none of them wil serue his turne because the firste is not translated also that it might be thought that Eusebius had seene the former image of brasse But seeing et is twise put once before Apostolorum and then before ipsius Christi by iudgement of all English Grammarians it may truely be translated thus For wee haue seene the images drawen in colours and preserued both of his Apostles Paule and Peter and also of Christ him selfe Againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be translated euen of his Apostles Paule and Peter What Empyre hath Master Sander in Grammer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifye nothing but also when it hath three significations beside and both euen But it pleaseth Master Sander that Eusebius which liued about three hundreth yeares after Christe sawe painted images of Christ himselfe of his Apostles yea but in the hands of Heathen men or men of Heathenish superstition or else perhaps among the Gnostikes Carpocratites heretikes For what one worde of commendation doth he bestowe vpon them He sawe them in deede but if they had bene profitable for Christianitie why did he not make the like or cause them to be made in his church of Caesarea What cause haue you hitherto M. Sander to cry out O the deceit of M. Iewell seeing for any thing you haue shewed it is true which he saith The Phaeniciens being Heathens made these images in the honour of Christe and of his Apostles onely of their heathenish and vaine superstition But you will shewe a further falshoode in M. Iewell and that still in one storie for he proceedeth Et credibile est priscos illos homines nondum relicta auita superstition◠▪ adhunc modum consueuisse colere illos ethnica consuetudine tanquam seruatores And it may well be thought that men in olde times being not yet remoued from the superstitiō of their fathers vsed after this sort to worship them by an heathenish custome as their sauiours That M. Iewell meant no fraud in this translation it is manifest by that which M. Sander confesseth that he set the Greeke wordes by the side of his booke which are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as it is like that those auncient men vnchangably after this maner were accustomed to honour them as Sauiours by an heathenish custome vsed among them This I haue translated worde for worde and what difference is there in sense from M. Iewels translatiō but that nothing of his can please M. San. for first he maketh one quarell that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth vnchangably or without change which M. Iewel hath turned not yet being remoued from the superstition of their fathers But Ruffinus also translateth it ex gentili consuetudine indifferenter of an heathenish custome indifferently and M.
images whiche Eusebius sawe and where should he see them but in the Churche in Constantine his time I haue shewed before where he might see them among the Heathens and Heretikes And that he sawe none in the Church appeareth in the Panaegynt ad Paulin. Tyr. Epū Lib. 10. Cap. 4. where a godly Church is described in euerie small parte and ornament of it yet no image at all spoken of which should not haue beene omitted if it had beene seene there especially beeing such necessarie ornamentes of Churches as the Papistes account them But Iulianus the runnagate saith he out of the tripertite historie Lib. 6. Cap. 41. brake that Image and the Christians afterwarde gathered vp the peeces and laide them in a Churche If this be not giuing of honour to Christes images he cannot tell what is honouring of Images Yes M. Sander to set candels before them to kneele to them to pray to them to kisse them to offer to them to make vowes to them to ascribe health to them c. These are honouring of images vsed of Papistes other maner of honouring then those Christians are saide to haue vsed For if it be credible that the peeces of brasse lay in the streete vntill Iulianus was dead that they might be gathered vp of the Christians and were not molten to none other vse by the Paganes yet why did not the Christians rather melt them make them a new image then lay them vp in the Church But M. Iewell is charged to speake if he dare what he would do if he chaunced to come into the same Church where the image of Christ were kept whether he would follow Iulianus in breaking it rather then the Christians in reseruing it He is now at rest with God hauing fought a good fight fulfilled his course and kept the faith wayting for the crowne of righteousnes which shal be giuen him by God the righteous iudge in that day so that he can make M. Sander none answer but thus I thinke he would haue resolued his question when he liued in this world He wold neither followe the spightfull malice of Iulian nor the superstitious emulation of those Christians but do with it as it became a Christian man according to Gods commandement and his calling And for my parte M. Sander I dare speake vnto you what I thinke I am one which esteeme monuments as much as any one poore man of my degree In so muche that a wise man perhaps might say vnto me Insanis veteres statuas Damasippus emendè And therfore if I had in my priuate possessiō such images of Christ Peter and Paul as Eusebius did see and that I were assured they were the true counterfets of their bodies or countenances as those which he did see were supposed to be I would so esteeme them as I do the Images of Caesar Pompeius Tulla and such like and peraduenture for the rarenesse much more but not a pinne the more in respect of religion For I do so honour auncient images that I make as great account of a peece of Nero or Heliogabalus as I do of Constantius and Theodosius But if I had authority of a Church in which were an image of pure gold representing the whole stature countenance apparell of Christ as he walked vpon the earth which were abused to idolatrie as your Popish images haue beene and are in some places vnto this day I would rather breake it in peeces by the example of Ezechias cast it into the deepe sea then either I would suffer idolatrie to be committed vnto it or preserue it to be a snare to them that liued after me to runne a whoring after it But as for your euill fauoured blockes and stones which haue none other shape or name but such as the idol of the workemans brayne hath giuen them and being set vp to be worshipped I would no more esteeme them then the myre in the streete or that whiche is more vile although you crie vntill you be hoarse they are the holy images of Christe of the blessed Trinitie of Saint Peter and S. Paule For to a Christian man they are abhomination THE XI or X. CHAP. That by the lawe of nature honour is due to the images and monuments of honourable personages And by what meanes that may be knowen Also that the law of nature standeth always immutable how the law of nature may be known Seuen causes of honoring artificial images God preferred images before only sounds of words The art of making images is good All nations honored Images that were worthie of honour The image breakers are ashamed to confesse that they breake Christes images The doctrine of the Catholikes concerning Images Maister Iewels contrarie doctrine to the same The holie Ghoste by Saint Paule hath well giuen vs warning saying Take heede that no man spoyle you through philosophie and vaine deceipt according to the tradition of men and not according to Iesus Christ. Col. 2. ver 8. and by the same sentence he hath also taught vs how we should esteeme all that doctrine that is commended vnto vs without the worde of God vnder what glorious and plausible title so euer namely for vaine deceitfulnesse By which rule when we examine this Chapter of Maister Sanders booke swelling with suche a proude title of the Lawe of nature we doe plainely perceiue that it is nothing else but a deceiptful vanitie with vaine sounde of wordes and friuolous reasons to goe about to make vs thinke that God hath written one law in nature and a cleane contrarie to that in his worde and holie scriptures The honouring of images in case of religion beeing expressely forbidden by the lawe of God written and the same an hundreth times repeated by the Prophetes and Apostles is the eternall wil of God and hath nothing in nature vncorrupted which is the ordinaunce of God contrarie vnto it And therefore I maruell what nature is in Maister Sanders iudgement whose lawe he defendeth to be neuer changed although God hath ruled his people in diuers manners sometime by inspiration somtime by outward voice custome and tradition sometime by written letter of the Lawe last of all by writing his own lawe of grace and spirite in their hearts I passe ouer that he calleth the last Gods owne lawe as though the rest were but borrowed but what is that vnchaungeable law of nature but Gods eternall lawe if that be not changed by the lawe written in letters then surely the lawe of nature abhorreth worshipping of images in religion which the lawe written forbiddeth Thus his first exposition ouerthroweth all the purpose of his Chapter Now to the second He hath two speciall grounds to helpe vs to finde out what the lawe of nature is in any case The one is the iudgement of right and sound reason the other is the practise of all nations But where shall we finde sound reason in any natural man When the light shineth in darknesse and the darkenesse
better then a piece of brasse which was a figure of Christe and yet he was not blasphemous against the death of Christe But heare his reason Christe vouchsafed to segregate it from other wood to make it the instrumēt of his passion Where find you that Christ did choose his crosse I thinke it was rather appointed to him by the Iews then prouided by him selfe if you say he did segregate it in his secret determination I answere that so he did segregate Iudas Annas Caiphas Pilate the Iewes and souldiers to be instruments of his passion And yet none of them therefore to be regarded or worshipped except of those detestable heretikes that thinke they were profitable instruments of our redemption But O holy swords axes of tyrants and tormentours that were embrued with the bloud of the Martyres O holy fire that burned them O holy water that drowned them O holy gallowes and ropes that hanged them For why should not these also haue their regard and worship according to the proportion of their deserts whose eternal felicity they were instruments to procure Yet once againe M. Iewell is challenged for denying the cognisances of the crosse in flags banners or targets to be images Also the letter that Ezechiel sawe in vision the crosse that Constantine sawe in the ayre the marks in mens garments and the mysticall letters in the temple of Serapis First touching the mark which Ezechiel saw it is not described of what figure it was onely that a marke was set for Tau signifieth a marke and not onely the name of a letter which in that time perhaps it had not so did S. Cyprian read it Contra Demetrianum transi mediam Ierusalem notabis signum super frontes virorum Go through the middest of Hierusalem and thou shalt marke a signe vpon the foreheads of the men The signe that Constantine sawe was the character of the name of Christ in two letters X P after this maner as both Euseb. witnesseth and his coynes yet remaining do shew ☧ Eu. de vit Con. lib. 1. and therefore no crosse nor signe therof The marks that haue appeared in mens garments perhaps were imagined rather thē images as children imagine dragons Gryphons in the clouds The mystical letters in the temple of the idol Serapis could haue no relation to the crosse of Christ which the idolaters knew not Therefore the follie of those ecclesiastical writers is bewraied that thoght christianitie much helped by such heathenish superstitious fantasies as for the rest I answere as M. Iewell that they are but barres laide one ouer an other and no images Yet M. San. maruelleth what blind ignoraunce this is so to say But to make the matter more plaine on his side hee maketh the shape of Christe hanging with his armes abroad all one with these signes or characters aforesaid which is no blinde ignorance but wilfull abusing of his readers without all shame or shape of honestie And yet he will baffull vs with a doutie definitiō of an image as he saith out of Gregorie Nazianzen that euery similitude likenesse or shape of one thing taken out according to the samplar of an other thing is an image then he runneth out into his old cōmon place of inward imaginations But I pray you syr who euer in those days or in ours sawe the crosse that Christ dyed on to make an image thereof according to the samplar If none but the painter or grauer hath imagined it then is it an image of an imagination which is the samplar thereof and not of the crosse of Christ and so it is counterfet and consequently by your own distinction an idoll And in very deed so many diuers figures and formes therof as we see to be made argue that there is no certaine truth knowne vnto men of what forme or figure it was for some make it headlesse thus ✚ some draw one barre through the other thus ✚ some drawe this barre at the vpper end some through the middest some make circles some squares some triangles at the foure endes some make them blunt some make them sharp c. some make the crosse ragged some euen so that there is no certentie and if al these be images of Christes crosse it skilleth not what proportion be kept in making of images according to the paterne Hitherto therfore M. San. fond argument to proue worshipping of images by M. Iewels confession hath no force to enter into any reasonable mans credite bicause hee hath neither proued these signes of the crosse to be images nor such regard as M. Iewel confesseth to haue bene a worshipping of them in that sense that the controuersie is betweene vs for worshipping of images But whearas maister Iewell saith the same crosses were not set vp in any Temple maister Sander confesseth not the same but other such as they were for proofe wherof he citeth a new found old Doctor called Euodius Bishop of Vzal in Affrike writing about S. August time a book of the miracles of S. Stephen in which he saith S. Stephens image was painted with a crosse on his shoulder c this old Doctor was firste painted at Louan anno 1564. but he cometh too late to claime his antiquitie after so many hundred yeares in which neither he nor his writing was euer harde off That the people were taught to kneele down to crosses which Maister Iewel denieth he proueth by the example of Probianus of whom Sozomenus in the tripartite historie doth write That being somtimes a pagane but afterwarde made a christian he did in some parte follow the doctrine of the Christians But he wolde not adore the cause of all our health that is the moste holy crosse Hee beeing of this minde the diuine power apeared to him and shewed him the signe of the crosse set on the aulter of that church And did manifestly declare that since Christ was crucified all thinges that were done for the vtilitie of mankinde had not been done by any meanes without the vertue of the reuerend crosse neither of holy Angels nor of godly men Here saith maister Sander it is euident that the signe of the crosse was set vpon the alter of S. Michaels church in Constantinople Yea sir in that vision if it were true But it is small euidence to proue that it stoode in the churche in deede For if it had stoode on the alter in such honorable estimation Probianus wolde not haue contemned it before But where you say he was compted no perfect Christian because he wolde not adore the holy crosse of Christ you walke still vnder your cloude of ambiguitie For how proue you that the adoration here spoken of is that kneeling to the crosse which the Bishop denieth to haue been taught it seemeth that Probianus newly conuerted from paganisme had not yet that honorable estimation of the reprochefull signe of the crosse which the Christians of that time had But whereas M. Iewell vpbraideth them with
forsoth my lord Here is an open falshood decreed and approued that Angels and soules of men haue bodies of ayer or fire and be circumscriptible But if M. Sander will stand in the defence of it because it is so decreed by this general councel at least let him heare the greatest councell for multitude that is read of namely The Laterane Cap. 1. Vnus est Deus indiuisus in essentia discretus in personis creator omnium c is ab initio temporis vtramque de nihilo condidit creaturam corporalem spiritualem Angelicam scilices mundanam Dęinde humanam quasi cōmunem ex spiritu corpore constitutā There is one God vndiuided in essence distinct in persons the creator of all thinges c. He in the beginning of time created both the creatures of nothing the bodily creature and the spirituall namely the Angels and the world Afterward the humane creature as common consisting both of a spirite and of a bodie Now let M. Sander aduise himselfe whether he will iustifie the Nicene councel with condemning the Laterane for their decrees be directly contrarie one to the other For impietie beside that which we haue already shewed Iohn deputie of the East to whome al the synode agreed vttered these wordes out of Sophionius Praestat iurantem peierare quam planè iuramentum in destructionem venerandarum imaginum seruare It is beter for him that sweareth to be forsworne then in deed to keep his oth to the destruction of reuerend images If this also may be excused from impietie what say you to that conclusion Gaudeant exultant qui Christi habentes imaginem sacrificium illi offerunt Let them reioyce and be glad which hauing the image of Christ doe offer sacrifice to it In this conclusion sacrifice whiche is the honor properly due to GOD alone euen by the Papistes confession is giuen to an image If none of al these be impietie yet to condemne the Pope of Rome for an heretike I answere with M. Sander is counted great impietie and a pernicious errour But Honorius sometime Pope of Rome was in this councell condemned for an heretike Action 6. To. 2. and Actione 7. in the definition His second reason in defence of this councel is that euerie word vttered by any father is not the determination of the whole councel no more then the voyce of euerie burgesse is an act of Parleament This granted we haue shewed the consent of the synode to moste of the speeches we haue recited which maketh a full determination His third reason is that the scriptures are better applied for honouring of images then they are impugned by Maister Iewell as he hath partely shewed What he hath shewed and how wel he hath applied them we haue seene already His fourth reason is that the miracles there tolde are not against the faith and therefore not to be derided but credited If all that be against the faith whiche is against the worde of God those miracles that are brought to confirme the worshipping of images must needes bee againste the faith That I speake not of so many dreames as be there alledged to proue the same But M. Sander thinketh images might as wel worke miracles as the shadowe of Peter did heale diseases Saint Paules girdle or napkins did heale diseases and driue out diuels But Peter him selfe confesseth that not he himselfe much lesse his shadowe or any vertue in him did heale diseases but onely Iesus Christ. Ye men of Israel saith he why maruel you at this or why look ye vpon vs as though by our owne power godlines we had made this man to walke If Peters owne person may not be looked vnto to haue any prayse of the miracle muche lesse his shadowe or Paules girdle and napkins and least of all his image for God vsed those as meanes by whiche he wrought but their images he neuer vsed Againe no man was so madde to worship Peters shadowe or Paules napkins or Elizaeus staffe for that he hath vp also although it wrought no miracle As for the hearbe which was reported to grow vnder the image in Paneade it tooke no vertue of the image if any such hearbe were but of god Although in that point Eusebius as I thinke was more credulous then a wise man shold haue ben to write such a strange matter vpon reporte which he might haue seene himselfe within a fewe dayes iourney After these generall answers he promiseth to bring a most euident reason why euerie man ought to beleeue obey the same generall councel vnder paine of euerlasting damnation And what is that I pray you Forsooth they that defended honouring of images were in possession of honouring of images because it had beene impossible that images had beene ouerthrowen if they had not beene first set vppe and honoured A lawlike reason in deede Why Master Sander will you defende a possession without a title The setting vp and worshipping of Images when it first entered into the Churche was but a Disseisure of the true and spirituall worshippe of God therefore by diuers assises holden at Constantinople Ephesus was dispossessed and the true worshippe of God restored vntill this packed Iurie of Nice put her out of possession againe And where you reiect the councels of Constantinople and Ephesus as priuate conuenticles as holden in the darke hating the light because the whole processe of their calling and actes is by your false Idolatrous Councell of Nice defaced you shewe your selfe both voide of reason and honestie Of reason because many councels were helde and thinges in them decreed obserued although the recordes of them are not to be found at large Of honesty because you would take aduauntage of your owne wronge who haue burned the recordes and then vrge your aduersarie to shew them You say they folowed in this councell the vse of their forefathers The councell of Constantinople also folowed the vse of their elder fathers whose writings they alledged against images As Epiphanius Estote memores dilecti filij ne in ecclesiam imagines inferatis nec in sanctorum cęmiterijs eas statuite sed perpetuò circumferte deum in cordibus vestris Quia etiam nec in domo communi tolerentur Non enim fas est Christianum per oculos suspensum teneri sed per occupationem mentis Be mindefull beloued children that you bring no images into the Churche neither set ye them vp in the buriall places of the saintes but alwayes carye about God in your heartes But neither in a common house let them be tollerated For it is not lawfull for a Christian man to be held in suspense by the eyes but by occupying of the minde Againe they cited Chrisostomes saying Nos perscripta sanctorum fruimur presentia non sanè corporum ipsorum sed animarum imagines habentes Non quae ab ipsis dicta sunt animorum illorum imagines sunt Wee enioye the presence of the saintes by
painted-vaile Theodosius commanded the image of our sauiour to be taken downe where so euer it should be found This sentence of M. Iewels he will confute And first concerning the examples of Ezechias and Epiphanius he will not say one word more then he hath said before cap. 3. cap. 4. Sauing that hee affirmeth Ezechias brake downe but one image that was abused and left the Cherubims the altar the temple which were obscure images of christ And therfore he thinketh if som one image of theirs that hath chanced to be abused were broken by this example yet all the rest should stand But if it please his wisedome to read the historie better he shall find that Ezechias destroyed all images that were forbidden of god As for the Cherubims were made by Gods appointment the altar and the temple were no images Finally what image is there in the Popish Church but it hath bene abused to grosse idolatrie To the lawe of Theodosius he saith it is both misreported and misse Englished Misreported bicause the Emperour ment such honour to the crosse that he would not haue it lye on the ground whereof how true or likely it is we haue spoken before in the 13. Chapter whither also M. Sander referreth vs. It is misse Englished he saith in translating tolli to be taken downe which signifieth to be taken vp I haue answered before that tolli signifieth generally to be taken away without respect of vp or downe And yet bicause M. Sander and his fellowe Papistes thinke they haue taken Maister Iewell in such a great fault for Englishing tolli to be taken downe they shewe I can not tell whether more spightfull malice or grosse ignorance or ridiculous captiousnesse For tolli doth signifie as wel to be taken downe as to be taken vp For else howe shall we English these words in the nineteene of Saint Iohns Gospel Rogauerunt Pilatum vt frangerentur eorum crura tollerentur They desired Pilate that their legges might bee broken and that they might be taken downe Likewise Ioseph desired Pilate Vt tolleres corpus Iesu that hee might take downe the body of Iesus But the 73. Canon of the sixt Councell of Constantinople doth confirme this interpretation of M. Sander as he supposeth and the reading of this lawe in Iustinianâ— Code Which Canon bicause he not onely choppeth into three pieces but also displaceth euery one of them omitting that which sheweth the true sense of the Canon I will set it downe word for word as it is Cum crux viuifica illud salutare nobis ostenderit nos omne studium adhibere oportet vt â—iper quam ab antiquo lapsu saluari sumus cum qui par est honorem hebeamus Vnde mente sermone sensu adorationeÌ„ ei tribuentes crucis figuras quae nonnullis in solo ac pauimento fuent câ—â—nino deleri iubemus Nâ— incedentium conculcatione victoriae nobis tropeaeuns iniuria afficiatur Qui secus secerit excommunicâ—â—i decernimus For as much as the quickening crosse hath shewed vnto vs that sauing health it behoueth vs to vse all diligence that to it by which we are saued from the olde fall we giue that honour which is due Wherefore giuing reuerence vnto it both in minde in worde and in sense we commaund that the figures of the crosse which of some men are made in the ground and pauement be vtterly put out or taken away least the trophee of our victorie by treading vpon of them that walke about be iniuried He that shall doe otherwise we decree that he be excommunicated Concerning the authoritie of this 73. Canon first I must say the trueth that it was not made by the sixt Councell which either made but nine Canons or none at all The second Councell of Nice liking some of these 102. Canons saith they met againe foure or fiue yeare after in the time of Iustinian and made these Canons But how so euer it was it was not of that Councel nor of that authoritie but of a later time when imagerie beganne to be more esteemed Nowe to the purpose I say this Canon doth not helpe the vnderstanding of that auncient lawe which was made almost three hundreth yeares before to be meant of crosses on the ground only which needed not to haue bene forbidden in this Canon if the former lawe of Theodosius and afterward registred by Iustinian had bene made onely against crosses on the ground but the execution of that lawe might haue beene required Nowe touching the sense of this Canon it is this they did so much honour the death of Christe which they call the quickening crosse that they would not haue the figure of the woodden crosse to be troden vnder foote This was their iudgement about 700. yeares after christ The later age was more superstitious and brake out into open idolatrie And whereas M. Sander cauelleth at M. Iewels translation of Signum saluatoris for the image of our Sauiour which saith he is the signe of the crosse he affecteth too great a tyrannie in the Latine tong that wil haue no mans translation stand but his owne I am sure signum is often taken for an image and in this place none but a froward quareller would take it otherwise and for the signe of the crosse there is no probable coniecture that it should be so taken in this place Hee misliketh not the order taken by the Councell of Mentz that images abused should be altered or taken away but he will haue the question generall whether it be expedient to permit images to be honoured or no in which question the daunger of idolatrie must be compared with the profite of images the daunger hee counteth small the profite great And considering the question at this day hee counteth there is no daunger at all neither was there euer any great daunger and this he will proue by nine reasons The first the newe Gospellers haue preuailed so much with their doctrine of images that it is not lightly possible they should be honoured too much The diuell yet confesseth that the doctrine of the Gospell hath chased away idolatrie in most places I would to GOD it had in all The 2. in the most Popish times the people seeing the Sextan sweepe copwebs from the images and putting thâ— crosse so homely vnder his cloake might see a great difference betweene the reuerence giuen to images and the honour giuen and due to the sacrament of the altar As though the Priest also did not sometimes carrie the Pixe in his bosome with the consecrated cake in it and sometime they might as well see him burne his breaden Gods as the Sextan sweeping copwebs from the golden idolls and yet none of these were euer able to keepe the people from idolatrie 3 It is lesse euill to suffer some one to doe amisse then to falsifie the whole lawe and right it selfe And here againe he opposeth the lawe of idolatrous nations against the lawe
Whether the same degree of honour be due to the Images of Christ or of his Saintes which is due to Christ and to the Saintes themselues Three things are to be considered in an artificial image M. Iewels forging is detected Doulia onely cōmeth to Christ by his image M. Iewell alledgeth wordes out of a booke which is forged The Churche honoureth not the image for his owne sake M.S. confesseth this pointe to be in controuersie betweene the Catholikes themselues But yet he saith it is a question of phylosophie rather then of diuinitie which the church hath not determined As though the churche had any thing to do to determine questions of phylosophie or as though a question about the true worship of God were not a question of diuinitie His sophisticall reasons on both sides are superfluous to repeat seeinge we take neither of both parts but denie that any kinde of religious honour is to be giuen to images yet briefely I will runne ouer the contentes of the chapter Three things he saith are to be considered in an artificial image the matter the forme and the representation The two former deserue no honour in religion but the representation onely The image as a representation is considered either as a part from the trueth and then it hath a lesse honour thē the trueth or els together with the trueth and then it must haue all one honour with the trueth And then he maketh the question this whether as his minde is in one instant mooued and caried by the meane of the image to the remembrance of the trueth so the honor of both be all one or no But if he were in the schooles at Cambridge the boyes would tell him that there can bee no mouinge in one instant because in euerie moouinge there must bee the marke from whence and the marke whereunto the moouinge is Neuerthelesse hee aunswereth this question with a doughtie distinction that the honour giuen to the image and to Christe is either the same in number or the same in kinde or degree And his opinion is that it is the same in number but not in degree And of this aunswere he maketh the seuenth generall councell auctor Actione 4. Where Iohannes vicegerent of the East saith Non sunt duae adorationes sed vna adoratio imaginis primi exēplaris cuius est imago There are not two adorations but one adoration of the image and of the first examplar whereof it is an image And here he raileth against M. Iewel for falsifying and forging in translating duae adorationes two sortes of worshipping and exemplifyinge his doctrine by Latria and Doulia whereof Iohannes meant not but the contrarie is taught before in the same Action How impudent and shamelesse the cauill of Master Sander is I haue shewed before when I rehearsed howe Constantius bishoppe of Constantia in Cypres affirmeth that he woulde giue the same honour to images that he did to the holy trinitie that giueth life vnto whome al the rest did assent So that M. Sanders opinion is contrary to the determination of the councel For he holdeth that not Latria but Doulia only commeth to Christ by his images By which opinion you see how greatly Christ is promoted that in steed of Latria a Diuine honour which they confesse to be due to him he must be content with the lower degree of honor by his image because the image can receiue nor cary no greater But if the image be neither a receiuer nor a carier Christ must lose all his honour as he doth indeed which is that way offered Yet saith Master Sander doth not his image any more hinder his honour then Sainte Paule doth For when I honour S. Paule for Christs sake no greater honour then Doulia commeth to Christ Verely Master Sander how it is when you honour S. Paule I knowe not but when I honour him for Christes sake I honour not him but Christ with Diuine honour as the onely author of those giftes of his spirite by whiche he is preferred before other men And where you say M. Iewel alledgeth wordes out of a book of Carolus Magnus written against that Idolatrous synode of Nice which is forged you speake not more peremtorily then falsly and perniciously For what reason haue you to prooue that booke to be forged forsooth you aske howe could Carolus Magnus write such a book which built so many churches and monasteries As though Churches and monasteries could not bee builded but by an idolater Yea which so diligently obeyed the B. of Rome which crowned him As though the bishop of Rome crowned him Emperour to be his slaue and an Idolater who left so many reliques at Aquisgraine and a little image of our Ladie with other Iewels Paraduenture as truely as the image of Diana came to the Ephesians from Iupiter Who caused the French men to conforme themselues in their Church song to the Romanes But where finde you that hee caused them to conforme themselues in image worshipping to the Grecians Finally a booke of such smal credit that neither the librarie whence it was taken nor towne where it is printed nor the man who printed it is named These be weightie reasons to discredit the booke as though it were necessarie that euery booke must come out of a librarie some haue ben preserued in priuate studies some haue beene closed vp in walles The place and name of the printer is not expressed for that it is like to haue bee printed where it might not be suffered to be solde But the very stile argueth it is not forged in our time and I haue before it a testimony of Mattheus West-monasteriensis which was writen about 200. yeares agoe that such a booke was written against that councell by Albinus or Alcuinus and presented to the French King Carolus whose name it beareth not perhappes written by him but by his commaundement and authority published After this he discourseth vpon Thomas of Aquines opinion which holdeth that diuine honour which they cal datria is due to the image of Christ which if it be an errour saith maister Sander it is an errour in Phisophie which to affirme is a most shamelesse absurditie Last of all he concludeth against S. Thomas that a lesse degree of honour is dewe to images then to the paterne affirming that the church honoreth not the image for his own sake for no man is taught to beleeue in images or to cal them his gods or to do sacrifice to them What say you M. Sander who teacheth pilgrimage to images doth not your churche And how can they pray to thē if they do not beleeue in them Who teacheth them to cal an image Christ that is their lord and God but euen you which defend images to be honoured by the names that they haue of the things whereof they be images Therefore when you call an ymage Christ you call it God and Lord sauiour and redeemer The image of the Trinitie
is the order of Melchisedech and consisteth nothing at all in offering of breade and wine as is manifest by the Apostle to the Hebrewes who sheweth in what respect Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech As impudent as this is blasphemous is his next argument that by verye expresse commaundement of Christ in his last supper they must offer him vp saying Do this in rememberance of me As though Christ which neuer sacrificed himselfe but once that on the crosse had at his supper offered himselfe to his father in sacrifice As for the testimonies of the Fathers which he citeth are easily answered that they spake of sacrificing Christe figuratiuely and vnproperly as some of them confesse namely Chrysostome whome hee citeth ad Heb. Hom. 17. which when he had demaunded saying Doe we not offer Christ daily he answereth yes but rather wee celebrate the remembrance of his sacrifice the other which hee citeth out of Dionyse hath no word of offering Christ although Dionyse be no writer within the compasse of sixe hundreth yeares Neither do these words of the Liturgie intituled to S. Basil which he rehearseth speake more then of an vnbloudie sacrifice which is the sacrifice of thanksgiuing although the Liturgie is not of such antiquitie credit as it is pretended And of as little is that he citeth out of Ambrose in Psal. 38. which no man learned of sound and indifferent iudgement will receiue for the worke of S. Ambrose Such false principles must leane vpon counterfet Doctours SECTIO 46. From the 152. leafe to the 154. leafe in which he taketh in hand â—o shape a generall aunswere to the particular questions which M. Iewell moueth Hauing proued nothing hitherto but him selfe to be a lying marchant a blasphemous and vnlearned defender of the sacrifice of the Masse to all the rest of the questions of Indiuiduum vaegum merit ex opere operato applying of the sacrifice of the Masse accidents remaining the case of the mouse eating the sacrament c. He aunswereth that these termes for any thing he knoweth were neuer vsed within the compasse of 600. yeares but the matters were beleeued and that he will proue by consent of learned men and the voyce of the Church since those 600. yeares This is in deede as he saith merily but falsely to the Bishop in the beginning of his booke which way to Croydenâ— a poke ful of plumbs the Bishop asketh proofe within in 600. yeares of Christ and M. Rastell will bring proofe without those 600. yeares the Bishop requireth antiquitie whereof the Papistes haue so impudently bragged and Rastel will bring foorth noueltie But he hath a proper similitude to shewe that these Articles though they were not knowne to the auncient Church for 600. yeares after Christe yet are they not to be refused no more then the fruites of Autumne bicause they appeared not on the trees in Aprill are to be reiected Thus you see by this delicate similitude he denyeth the Church of Christe his Apostles Euangelistes Martyrs Confessours Pastours teachers for 600. yeares together to haue beene a season fruitfull of matters of trueth hauing nothing but greene ornaments and gay flowers promising the wholesome fruites of Poperie that haue appeared and waxed ripe in the latter time of the Church as in the Haruest or moneth of September If this similitude can be defended without contumely of Christ and the Primitiue Church let al the Papistes clap their hands at it and say O learned M. Rast. that with so short an answere hath satisfied all M. Iewels demaunds But he will choake the Bishop and vs all with the last question Where is it read saith he within 600. yeares after Christ that our blessed Lady was preached or named the mother of mercy the handmaiden of the Trinitie the spouse of the holy Ghost the Queene of heauen the Empresse of hell and yet if you beleeue in deed that she is the mother of God all these Articles do follow like as the rest of that veritie which saith this is my body It is well that M. Rastell confesseth these titles neuer to haue ben giuen to the Virgine Marie neither by Christ nor by his Apostles nor by any in al the Church for 600. yeres after christ Nowe syr I will answere your question I do as constantly beleeue with my heart and more effectually then I can expresse with wordes that the holy and blessed Virgine Marie is the mother of hers and our Sauiour Iesus Christ the sonne of God very God and very man Yet all those titles which you confesse to be neither read in any antiquitie of 600. yeâ—res after Christe I abhorre and protest to be wicked idolatrous and blasphemous And wheras you say that common sense teacheth that a Kings mother is a Queene and not of no place you trow which is tried false by common experience for King Dauidâ— mother was no Queene I trowe nor fiue hundreth more that haue beene in the world since his time I aunswere yet if it were graunted in earthly Princes it followeth not in the King of heauen For by the like reason and more probable I might argue the mother of a man is a woman therefore the mother of God is a Goddesse from which blasphemie Saint Bonauenture a Popish Saint is of no force if he doe not farre exceede it when he saith to the Virgine Marie Iure matris impera filio and againe Coge Deum c. By the authoritie of a mother commaunde thy sonne and compel God to be merciful to sinners c. SECTIO 47. in the 154. leafe The Bishop declareth the vanitie of the Papistes aunswere which is that no Masse is priuate bicause that euery Priest communicateth with all Priestes that say Masse for that by this reason there should be no excommunication whereas the partie excommunated would say hee would communicate with the Prieste that saith Masse in Calicute Maister Rastel saith he that is excommunicate from one Church is excommunicated from al Churches therefore he that is in the Communion doth communicate with all Priestes But hee vnderstandeth not the Bishops argument or at least he will not vnderstand it For the sophistrie of the Popish argument resteth in the ambiguitie of this worde Communicate which signifieth to receiue the Lordes supper at one time and in one place with others of their Church which the Papistes take for receiuing generally so that the Priest in Louaine receiuing at his Masse alone communicateth with the Priest that likewise receiueth at his Masse alone in Calicut Now if this receiuing wer a sufficient coÌ„munion a Priest being excoÌ„municated in Louane so that no Priest wold suffer him to receiue with him at his Masse if he would contemne their excoÌ„munication might say Masse him selfe say that although none of you Louane Priestes will communicate with me yet I wil communicate with the Priest that this day saith Masse in Calicut yea I will communicate with you
To the â— that to confesse a mans sinnes to the priest is a vaine and superstitious trauell is proued by Chrysostome In Psalmo 50. Non dico vt confitearis conseruo tuo vt exprobret dicito Deo qui curat ea I bidde thee not confesse thy sinnes to thy fellowe seruaunt that he may vpbraide thee tell them to God which healeth them That to seek to make vp a ful and perfect satisfaction by fasting praying almesdeedes c. is iniurious to the passion and merites of Christ is proued by that saying of S. Iohn The bloud of Iesus Christ doth purge vs from all sinnes and if we confesse our sinnes he is faithful and righteous that he will forgiue our sinnes and purge vs from all vnrighteousnesse 1. Ioan. 1. The 7. that the knowledge of the scriptures is a sufficient licence for a man to be a publike teacher in the Church we denie likewise that there is no difference betweene the ministerie of the Churche and the people althoughe that to speake properly of the terme priesthoode all true Christians are alike Priestes to God as it is most manifest 1. Pet. 2. vers 5. Apoc. 1. verse 6. To the 8. That Christian Princes had the auhoritie of supream head ouer the church in that sense which it is giuen to our souereigne is proued by Constantine Theodosius Martianus c. who called the generall councels made lawes for establishment of religion punished Bishoppes and other of the Cleargie offenders and not onely the Emperours but also many other Kinges of Spaine and Fraunce who had the like authoritie in their Dominions as appeareth in all histories and in the actes of the councels generall and prouinciall The 9. that faith onely iustifieth after one be baptised and sanctified is proued by Basil in an Homily of humilitie Hom. 51. speaking of a man baptised and sanctified Haec enim est perfecta ac integra gloriatio in Deo quando neque ob iustitiam suam quis se iactaâ— sed nouit quidem seipsum verè iustiâ—iÄ™ indigum esse sola autem fide in Christum iustificatum For this is a full and perfect reioycing in God when a man doeth not boast himselfe of his righteousnes but knoweth him selfe truely to be voide of true righteousnesse and to be iustified by onely faith in Christe The 10. that all the iustice and holinesse of good men is but an imputatiue iustice c. is not saide of vs which affirme that faith onely is imputed for righteousnesse and not the holines or iustice of any man But we affirme that all the workes of men be they neuer so holie and righteous are imperfect and therefore deserue not the rewarde of Iustice promised in the lawe to the perfect obseruers thereof and to none other The 11. that the keeping of 40. dais fast had no coÌ„mandement from Christ or his Apostles it is manifest by Eusebius which affirmeth that Montanus the heretike was the first that prescribed lawes of fasting Lib. 5. Cap. 16. also he reporteth that there was no certeintie of the time of fasting before Easter for some fasted one day some two dayes some more some compting their day 40. houres of day and night Lib. 5. Cap. 20. And Augustine plainely sayeth Quibus autem diebus non oportet ieiunare quibus oporteat prÄ™cepto Domini vel Apostolorum non inuenio definitum What dayes we ought not to fast or what dayes we ought to fast I finde it not defined by the commandement of our Lord or of his Apostles As for the abstinence from flesh in Lent for ciuill pollicies sake because it toucheth not religion we neede shew no proofe of it To the 12. that aneiling of Christians hath ben abhorred of Christians it is hard to proue because that Popish aneiling by the Priests with oyle consecrated by the Bishop was not in vse in that time The first that is read to vse suche like aneiling about 400. yeres atfer Christ was Innocentius who appointed that al christian men vnder his obedience should vse oyle as witnesseth Sigebertus But Durand and other writers ascribe the institution of this extreame vnction to Felix the fourth who liued about 514. yeares after Christ so that vntil that time this Popishe sacrament was not knowen in the Church And as for reseruation of the sacrament of the altar forbidden I shall need no better authoritie for M. Rastel then the counterfet epistle of Clemens Bishop of Rome Epi. 2. Tanta in altario Holocausta offerantur quanta populo sufficere debent Quòd si remanserint in crastinum non reseruentur sed cum timore tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur Let so many hosts be offered in the altar as may serue the people But if any remaine let them not be reserued vntil the next day but with feare and trembling spent out by the diligence of the Clearks And for other men that can discerne trueth froÌ„ forgerie the testimonie of Euagrius Li. 4. ca. 36. may serue which reporteth an old custome of the church of CoÌ„stantinople to send for childreÌ„ that went to schoole to spend whatsoeuer remained of the sacrament after the coÌ„munion The thirde parte conteineth foure articles To the first that calling vpon Saints in heauen was accounted then blasphemie is proued by S. Augu. which so accouÌ„ted calling vpon Angels or any other creature Conf. Li. 11. Cap. 42. Quem inuenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi an eundum mihi fuit ad Angelos qua prece Quibus sacramentis Whom should I finde that might reconcile me vnto thee Should I haue gone to the Angels With what prayers With what sacraments And yet I confesse some seedes of that errour were scattered in his time But before his time Epiphanius rehearseth it among the heresies of the Caiani that they did call vpon angels Tom. 3. Haeres 38. and calling vpon dead men he compteth it an heresie of the Heracleonites Hae. 36. And Contra Collyridianos he vtterly condemneth al worshipping either of dead Saints or any else or the virgine Marie as them that robbe God of his honour for what greater honour can we doe vnto God then to call vpon him in al our afflictions â–ª Psal. 50. And Dauid saieth Whom haue I in the heauen but thee and I haue desired none in the earth with thee Psal. 73. To the second that the setting vp of images of Christe in Churches was counted idolatrie it is manifest by Epiphanius who as he testifieth in his epistle vnto Iohn bishop of Ierusalem did rend a vaile in which such an image was painted Cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem scidi illud c. When I had seene this thing that in the Churche of Christ contrarie to the authoritie of scriptures an image of a man did hang I rent it in peeces c. As for the signe of the crosse I haue shewed before out of Irenaeus that the Valentinian heretikes were