other cauil that followeth of lay men artificers preaching in open places ministring the sacramentes deserueth no answere for if they be admitted to the office beeing worthy thereof there is no doubt but they may as well now as in all ages of the Church they haue done neither are they to be takeÌ„ for laymen though they haue beene artificers Yet if they presume without calling and admission of the Church they are no more borne withall among vs then suche as counterfet themselues to be Priestes among the Papistes As Englishe Ioan did to clyme to the Papacie as of late a lewd fellow in Italie feigned himselfe to be a Cardinall as Stephanus in his defence of Herodotus doth witnesse We condemne according to the scriptures not only all intrusion of men without calling but all ambitious and symoniacall practises to procure the outward calling So farre off is it that we allowe euerie man of his owne fantasie to intrude himselfe as this man doth most vainely slaunder vs. The 8. Chap. exhorteth men to heare or to read the expositions of the scriptures not to presume vpon their own vnderstanding If there were nothing in this Chapter but answering to the title thereof I would willingly subscribe vnto it But after he hath exhorted as he promiseth by the counsell of Iames Salomon and Hieronyme that we should heare learne of them whom God hath appointed pastors and teachers in his Church he dissuadeth men also by the authoritie of Paule and Ecclesiasticus to appoint vnto them selues Elders or maisters to be carried about with new and straunge doctrines decreeth That they only are lawfull Elders that haue learned of their fathers For whiche cause Luther was no good Elder allowing women to teach openly contrary to Paul 1. Cor. 14. which is an impudent slaunder of Luther who by no meanes would haue women to teache except it were extraordinarily as the prophetesses of the olde time did namely Debora Holda such like Such stuffe is in the other slaunders That contrition maketh a man more sinner where Luther meaneth of that which is without faith therfore must needs be sinne That a righteous man in euery good worke sinneth mortally where he meaneth that sinne and imperfection is mixed euen with the best works not that good workes are sinne That is also a detestable lye that Luther should teach Euery Christian man to be a priest for the common or publique ministery wheras he neither thought nor spake otherwise then the scripture speaketh which hath made vs Kings Priests Apoc. 1. And no lesse is the slander of Zwinglius That he taught that originall offence is no sinne whereas the worlde knoweth that Zwinglius taught the contrarie and the Papistes come neerer to that errour whiche define it to be no sinne in the regenerate it is as false that he taught That Christian mens children neede not to be baptised As it is true that if they dye without baptisme without any coÌ„tempt of their part it is no cause of condeÌ„natioÌ„ vnto them The saying of Christ except a man be borne againe of water of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaueÌ„ maketh no more for the baptisme of infantes then his saying also except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man drinke his bloud ye haue no life in you maketh to proue that infants must receiue the coÌ„munion for neither in the one speaketh he of the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme nor in the other place of the sacrameÌ„t of his supper But where Luther doth often protest that he will not be taught by man but by God he doeth as euerie Christian man ought to do and yet excludeth not the ministerie of men but the authoritie doctrines traditions and inuentions of men which by Luciferian pride take vpon them to teache that they haue not learned of god But howe shall we vnderstand this saying of Maister Heskins speaking in despight of Luther This is another Paule As though only Paul wer called of God without the ministery of maÌ„ wheÌ„ all the Apostles were so or as though it were a reproche to be so called as Paul was if God do extraordinarily stir vp any man as he did the Apostles EuaÌ„gelistes After his deriding of Paul Zwinglius is condemned by that which Maister Heskins hath saide for writing a booke De claritate verbi Dei How wisely and iustly let the godly Readers iudge Next followeth generall rayling against Oecolampadius Bullingerus Caluinus Bucer of whom his aduersarie meaning I thinke the B. of Sarum learned his heresies then he returneth to vnlearned artificers teaching in corners All which he would haue to be auoyded I suppose because he hath rayled vpon them and called them heretiques for other reason he bringeth none Except this be one that Hieronyme thinketh it not sufficient if a man say he loueth God and yet breaketh the vnitie of the Church The Church once named by and by all is his As though it were no coÌ„trouersie at this day whether the Synagogue of Rome be the Church of God or no. And as though all Christendome had bene at all times and in all places obedient to the Churche of Rome before these fewe yeares And therfore he is bolde to demaunde where it was taught in the Christian worlde that Christes naturall bodie is not in the sacrament nor to be offered nor receiued nor honoured Nay Maister Heskins where was this taught in the affirmatiue for fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Christe As for your other questions of prayer for the dead and prayers to the dead if you bring any reasons for theÌ„ in this your OmnegatheruÌ„ they shal be answered otherwise the readers for me shall resort to other treatises where they be handled of purpose But seeing men must learne the law of their mother that is the Church they must follow Hieronyme which neuer ceased from his youth to seeke knowledge of learned men and trauelled to Alexandria to be instructed of Didymâ—s So did Augustine to Millain to learne of Ambrose No wise man will mislike this counsell But this one thing especially is notable That Damasus being bishop of Rome did send to S. Hieronyme to be answered in certein doubts and disdained not to learne of him I had thought the Pope had had all knowledge In scrinio pectoris in the closet of his brest that he had the spirite of trueth to resolue all doubtes so that he could not erre and that Hieronyme hauing him at Rome needed not to haue sought knowledge at Alexandria But Damasus although euen in that time a ioly stately Prelate as appeareth by some of his Epistles if they be not counterfet yet shewed himselfe farre from that Antichristian pride which the Popes of Rome I cannot say his successors did shew afterward and yet to this day do holde But to omitte Damasus Many learned of Saint Augustine and of other learned men also which were learned them selues They did wel
you adore by your images no vnreasonable creature but only blessed soules and one god First I say you misreport the wisest of the Gentiles for they defended their idolatrie by saying they worshipped in those images diuerâ— Gods not meaning that they were so but that they worshipped diuers vertues of one God as in Minerua the wisdome of God in Mars the strength of God in Ceres the liberalitie of God c. Augu. In Psal. 96. Sed existit nescio quis disputator c. But there is a certeine disputer I wot not who which thought himselfe to be learned and saith I doe not worship that stone nor that image which is without sense for your prophet could not know that they haue eyes and see not and to be ignorant that that image hath no life that yet neither seeth with eyes nor heareth with eares Therefore I doe not worship that but I adore that which I see and serue him whom I see not Who is he The God whiche being inuisible is president of that image By this means yeelding a reason of their images they seeme to themselues to be eloquent because they worship not idols and worship diuels They answere we worship not euill spirites but euen the Angels whome you so call do we worship the vertues of the great God and the ministers of the great god I would you would worship them you should easily learne of them not to worship them Thus Augustine in whiche saying beside that he sheweth what defence the Heathen had for their idolatrie he sheweth that the true worship of Angels is not to worship them by images or otherwise but onely to learne of them not to worship them but God alone But howe can M. Sander say they adore no vnreasonable creature by their images when they adore the image of the crosse which was both an vnreasonable an insensible creature And how doth he worship one God more then this Heathen man whose feigned excuse S. Augustine reporteth 8 The diuels ruled the images of the Gentiles giuing oracles out of them c. but the faith of Papistes whiche endeuouring to keepe Gods commandementes do set vp images to a good end so beautifieth their work and worship that it is not possible for the diuel to abuse them If we beleeue that the diuel gaue oracle out of the Heathnish idols and not rather that they were feigned by the subtiltie of men we may likewise thinke that the diuell gaue answers out of Popish images which are likewise saide to haue spoken as that Roode in Dunstones time to decide the controuersie for marriage of Priestes many other feigned in the Bookes of Popish miracles Secondly where heard the Papistes out of Gods wordes this faith of setting vp Images Thirdly how doe they indeuour to keepe Gods commaundement in setting vp of idols when they breake a manifest commaundement of God which forbiddeth images to be worshipped 9 The diuels coueted to mainteine their idols The same couet to ouerthrowe Popish images No verily they loue Popish images by which God is dishonoured as wel as they did loue Heathenish images As for the tale of the diuels persuading Iulian the Apostata to breake the image of Christ at Paneade which is not like to haue continued vnto his dayes if we receiue it which was written by no writer of his time nor an hundreth yeares after it proueth no hatred that the diuel had of images but of Christ might be a subtile practise of his to bring the Christians with fonde emulation to esteeme such a thing more then it was worthie because their enemie hath defaced it 10 Their idols were dedicated to an Heathenish purpose Popish images to a vertuous intent But how can that be a vertuous intent which is contrarie to Gods coÌ„mandemeÌ„t Last of all he will aunswere our obiection that Popish images haue been abused in making their eyes to moue and their lippes to wagge c. First he saith these were but abuses of particular men where the Bishop was a sleep but not allowed in the Church yea the Gospel hath been abused Gods curse light of that comparison which matcheth images with the Gospell But were al Bishops high and low in your Church so sound a sleepe that not one could see these horrible abuses to punish them For what one exaÌ„ple can be brought of any one among so many that hath beene punished by the Papists for such detestable abuse Secondly he answereth these abuses are committed by men not yet euerlastingly condemned not by diuels which haue their torments increased when they aproch to such holy things as they haue no power of As though wicked men could worke such things but by the diuels procurement who wil no more be afraide to abuse an image then to persuade a man to abuse it which deserueth both one punishment Thirdly if suche practisers of abuse liued in Luthers time they commonly became runnagates with the first if any such haue repented and confesseth their wicked facts it is to your shame M. Sa. not to ours for they were yours when they did suche things To conclude I wish the Reader to consider howe vaine and foolish the whole scope of this Chapter of M. Sanders booke is to shewe the difference of idols images in the second commandement when God wrote not the same in Greeke out of which tong this supposed difference is deriued but in Hebrue euen the common Latine translation which the Papistes doe followe calleth that which the Greekes terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an idoll by the name of Sculptile a grauen image and when he hath made his difference as farre a sunder as he can all images are as well forbidden in that commaundement as idols in any seruice of God or vse of religion THE IX OR VIII CHAP. That it is no idolatrie to giue conuenient worship to some creatures whether images be creatures or no. Also in one argument of M. Iewels 4. great faultes are found that a creature may be set vp to be honoured That an image is rather a workemanship then a creature That the Kinges garment on his backe is honoured M. Harding had confessed that images by a consequent might be worshipped The Bish. of Sarum said An image is a creature and no god And to honour a creature in that sorte as it is set vp to the end to be worshipped although not specially to that end is idolatrie therefore by Maister Hardings owne confession images are set vp to be vsed to idolatrie This is the argument that hath foure as great faultes in it as there be knots in a rush The first fault is that he putteth Idolum in steede of Imago The second that he putteth Doulia in steede of Lâ—triae The thirde faulte is that he presupposeth that we may set vp no creature to the intent that it may be any wayes honoured The last faulte that he affirmeth an image to be a creature The first and
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
the simple But let vs follow him whether he leadeth vs In the Epistle to the Romanes be mo obscure then plaine places yea the matter of iustification how hard it is the controuersies thereupon risen may suffise to declare Such is M. Heskins diuinitie that he counteth al scripture obscure that caÌ„ not easily be wrested to maintein poperie Otherwise ther is nothing more clere then the doctrin of iustification though the Owles Battes of our time either can not or will not see it But it is no easie matter to reconcile the saying of S. Paul Rom. 3. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe that which Iames saith Iac. 2. what auayleth it my brethren if a man say he haue faith if he haue no workes can faith saue him And after he concludeth euen so faith if it haue no workes it is dead in it selfe It is an easie matter to reconcile these places to him that can put a differeÌ„ce between him that hath faith in deede him that onely saith he hath it betweene a true liuely faith a false dead faith finally between the cause of iustification that goeth before the effectes therof that followe after In the same Epistle Cap. 10. concerning the reiection of the Iewes calling of the Gentiles there are many places that trouble M. Heskins as that out of Esay for calling of the Gentiles I am found of them that sought me not c. But against Israel c. yet afterward he asketh if God haue forsaken his people aunswereth God forbid such like The matter is not so hard as it seemeth to him but who so doth read the text attentiuely may see the difference betweene a perticuler reiectioÌ„ of many an vniuersal reiection of all a temporal reiection of most the finall reiection of al. The former is true the latter is false The matter of predestination no man denyeth but it is a great secreat yet so much as the spirite of God hath reuealed of it for our comfort is not so hard but it may be easily vnderstood And as for that contrarietie which he seemeth to finde betweene these two texts Rom. 9. It is neither in him that willeth nor in him that ruâ—neth but in God that hath mercie that other Rom. 7. To will is present with me but I finde no meanes to performe that which is good is so absurd that I thinke it would not enter into the head of any vnlearned man to make a doubt whether the will which is in a regenerate man by the grace of Gods election was the cause of his election before the world was made A like difficultie he findeth betweene these places God will haue all men to be saued and 〈◊〉 to the knowledge of the trueth â–ª 1. Tim. 2. and that Rom. 9. Who can resist his will. And againe Many are called fewe are chosen If master Heskins would vnderstande like a man and noâ— like a childe the verie wordes following would teache him that in the first sentence by all men are meant all forces of men as well Kings and Princes as inferior subiectes After this he repeateth another doubt of Algasia What Paule meaned to wish him selfe accursed from Christ for the Iewes which doubt is increased by an obiection of Hieronyme that he had sayed before I am sure that neither death nor life c. nor any other creature can separate vs from the loue of god In which saying he seemeth to affirme that he so feruently loued Christ that nothing could separate him from his loue in the other he seemeth for the loue he bare to the Iewes to wish that he were sepaerated from Christ as though he loued the Iewes better then Christ. A short aunswere is best Although his desire was exceeding vehement yet it was more for zeale of Gods honour then for loue of the Iewes And although he loued Christ feruently â–ª yet the boast he maketh of assurance was not of that loue wherewith he loued Christ but of that loue wherwith Christ loued him And yet there is another doubt moued by Algasia vpon the wordes of Paule Rom. 5. For scarse will any man dye for a righteâ—us man But yet for a good man it may be that one dare dye The obscuritie of which place hath moued two contrarie heretikes to take their heresies thereof Marcion who made two Gods a iust GOD of the Lawe for whome fewe dyed and a good God of the Gospell Christ for whome innumerable Martyre haue suffered Arâ—ius contrarywise calleth Christ the iust God vppon the Psalme 71. Lord giue thy iudgements to the King and thy righteousnesse to the Kings sonne The good God he called father of heauen of whome Christ saide none is good but God. These doubtes Master Heskins moueth but he aunswereth none The place is not so darke that eyther such doubt should be made of it or such farre fetched expositions sought as the heretikes made For a man may be righteous in some case for which he is condemned to dye which is not simply a good man and for such a one will hardly any man giue his life although peraduenture for a very good man some woulde venture to dye But Christ dyed for vs being his enemies iustly condemned altogether naught or wicked which no man would euer do but he The douts of Algasia are matched with the foure questions of Amandus of which one was of that place 1. Cor. 15. He must reigne till he haue put all things vnder his feete The last enimie that shal be subdued is death For he hath put all things vnder his feete But when he sayeth all things are put vnder him it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things vnder him When all things are subdued vnder him then shall the sonne himselfe also be subiect vnto him that put all things vnder him that God may be all in all â–ª The question is howe the sonne shal be subiect to the father when he is equall with him And this doubt is answered by Hillarius lib. 11. de Trin. M. Heskins doth often declare that he had rather men should be taught by him to doubt then to be resolued in doubtes for he vouchsafeth not so much as to recyte the aunswere of Hillarius but onely to cyte the place But the aunswere is easie by the distinction of the two natures in Christ for he shall neuer be subiect in his diuinitie but in his humanitie wherein he is nowe exalted reigneth vntill all his enimies be put vnder his feete Yet another doubt vpon Coll. 1. Where Paul writeth Nowe ioye I in my suffrings for you and fulfill the rest of the afflictions of Christ in my fleshe for his bodie which is his Church Here he seemeth to make the passion of Christ insufficient Not a-whit for as Christ suffered once in his owne person for their redemption so he suffereth daily in his members for their
thing that he saith or all the Papistes in the world it is not necessarie that Christs body should be eaten with our mouth after a corporall manner that we may haue coniunction with his body For then infants which eate not the sacrament should want a necessarie manner of the coniunction of their bodies with the body of Christe and so be out of hope of resurrection The places of Cyrill that hee citeth in 6. Ioan. Cap. 14. be cited before the one Lib. 2. Cap. 17. the other Lib. 2. Cap. 34. where they are answered Then followeth a discourse to proue that communion or fellowship ought not to be had with heretiques which is very true and therefore not to bee had with Papistes the greatest heretiques that are After the saying of Haimo rehearsed hee is angrie with vs that we will reiect his authoritie being as he saith neare a thousand yeares of age but surely in some Chronicles that I haue read he is an English man generall or prouinciall of Friers preachers and I am sure there was neuer a Dominike Frier in the world one thousand yeares after Christe and they that make him oldest make him to be 840. yeares since christ The parcell of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. wherevnto he would compare his Haimo is rehearsed more at large Lib. 1. Cap. 18. and that of Cyrill Cap. 15. in 6. Ioan. The sixe and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by S. Cyrill and S. Thomas Cyrill whom vnfitly he matcheth with Thomas of Aquine is cited in 17. Ioan. Cum trinitas vnum natura sit c. For as much as the Trinitie in nature is one let vs consider how we our selues also among our selues corporally and with God spiritually are one The only begotten sonne comming out of the substance of God his father and possessing in his nature the whole father was made flesh according to the scriptures and hath vnspeakably ioyned and vnited himselfe to our nature For he that is God by nature is made man in deede not Theophorus that is hauing God in him by grace as they that are ignorant of the mysterie do contend but he is both very God and very man So he hath ioyned together in him selfe that is one those things which according to nature differ very much among them selues and hath made vs partakers of the diuine nature For the communication of the spirite and as I may say the dwelling was first in Christ and from him hath perced into vs when being made man he him selfe annoynted and sanctified his temple with his owne spirite The beginning therefore and the way by which we are made partakers of the holy spirite and are vnited to God is the mysterie of christ For we are all sanctified in him Therfore that he might vnite euery one beetwene our selues God although we be asunder both in body and soul yet he hath found out ae meane agreeable to the counsel of his father his own wisdom For blessing the beleuers by the mystical communion by his body he hath made vs one body both with himself and also among our selues For who shall thinke them straunge from this naturall vnion which by the vnion of one holy body are vnited in one Christe For if we all eate one bread we are all made one body For Christe suffereth vs not to be diuided and disioyned Therefore all the Church is made the body of Christ and euery one of vs the members of Christe after S. Paule for being conioyned to one Christ by his body bicause wee haue receiued him in vs which is indiuisible our members be rather appropriated to him then to vs. Concerning the vnitie of God the father with the sonne of the two natures of God and man in Christ and of the vnitie of the members of Christ with their head which M. Hesk. noteth out of this place of Cyril it shall be no neede to speake seeing there is no controuersie betweene vs but that these three vnities be there Only of the maner how we be vnited is the difference We are vnited to the body of Christ but whether by eating the same with our mouthes or by faith through the vnspeakable working of Gods spirite is all the question All the holde he catcheth of this place is that Cyrill calleth it a naturall vnion as he doth also in the same place a corporall vnion by which he meaneth not that we are vnited after a naturall manner or after a bodily manner but that we are vnited vnto the very humane nature and body of Christ but after an heauenly and diuine manner For thus it followeth in the same place I meane in Lib. 11. Cap. 26. of Cyrill vpon the 17. of Iohn which M. Hesk. note booke belike did not serue him to set downe Quod autem corporalis haec vnio ad Christum participatione carnis eius acquiritur ipse rursus Paulus de mysterio pietatis differens testatur quod alijs inquit generationibus non est agnitum filijs hominum sicut nunc reuelatum est sanctis apostolis eius prophetis in spiritu esse gentes cohaeredes concorpores comparticipes promissionis in Christo. Si autem omnes inter nos in Christo vnum sumus corpus nec inter nos solùm verùum etiam cum eo qui per carnem suam ad nos transiuit quomodo vniuersi inter nos in Christ vnum non erimus And that this corporall vnion vnto Christ is obtained by participation of his flesh Paule him selfe againe doth testifie disputing of the mysterie of godlinesse which in other ages saith he was not knowen to the sonnes of men as it is nowe reuealed to his holy Apostles and Prophetes in the spirite that the Gentiles should be coheires and of the same body and compartners of the promise in Christe If then we be all one body among our selues in Christe and not among our selues only but also with him which by his flesh is come vnto vs howe shall we not be all one both among our selues and in Christe This place of Paule by which the faithfull of the Gentiles are saide to be made one body with the faithfull of the Iewes speaketh nothing of eating of the body of Christe in the sacrament but of the spirituall incorporation by faith in the promises of the Gospell nowe made common vnto the Gentiles with the Iewes whereof the sacrament is not a bare signe but a liuely and effectuall seale and confirmation Moreouer the same Cyrill in the same booke Cap. 22. in 17. IoaÌ„ writeth thus Nihil ergo mali accidere vobis potest aiâ— si carne alfueâ—o cum deitatis incae potestas quÄ™e vos huc vsque seruauit in posterum etiam seruatura fit HÄ™c non ideo dicimus quia Domini corpuâ— non magni aestimemus sed quia mirabiles hos effectus gloriae denoâ—is attribuendos pat amus Nam ipsum etiam Domini corpus coniuâ—cti virtue
subiect to their masters which hath another name in Greek This other name is Doulia whereof S. Paule saith in another place Serue ye one another by charity I pray you M. Sander if you be not turned into such an Image whole worship you defend tell me simply whether the difference of these honors be not as great as the distinction of the two tables religion and charitie but how prooue you that Doulia which is here taken for a ciuil worshippe may be applyed to Images whom you honour with a religious worshippe Yes mary saye you by this it is prooued that we may serue Sainte Paule In deede if you had liued when Sainte Paule liued it had bene your dutie to haue honoured him with ciuill honor or seruice of loue but nowe he is dead I say plainly you ought not to serue him nor worship him with any religious honor So saith Augustine De vera religione cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum Let it not be our religion the worshipping of deade men and againe Honoramus eos charitate non seruitute We honour them with loue not with seruice Loe Master Sander here is your Doulia or seruitus denyed to Saintes that are dead The foundation of your argument being thus ouerthrowen we will suppose it doth stande that Saint Paule is still to be serued how prooue you that we must worshippe his Image Forsothe we must thinke anye thinge that is his to be aboue vs at leaste in signification for S. Paules owne excessiue honour In deede Master Sander you doe well to call it an excessiue honour But by this reason I muste muche more worshippe all Gods creatures For if I must thinke any thing of Sainte Paules to be aboue mee and to worshippe it then much more must I thinke any thinge of Gods to be aboue mee and consequently I must worshippe it Now the vilest creature in the worlde yea the deuill himselfe is more properly a thinge of Gods then an Image is a thinge of Sainte Paules therefore I muste thinke euerye one of Gods creatures to bee aboue mee and worshippe it for his sake O blockishe blindenesse of Idolatrous papists But it vexeth you that Maister Iewell calleth your worshippinge of Images Idolodoulia because you will not haue it Idololatria for the Images of Christ and S. Paule you saye be no Idoles because Idoles are instrumentes to serue and honour the deuill withall Verily such be your Images of Christ and Saint Paule though not by your intention yet by the holy ghostes determination Last of al M. Iewell himself is proued to be a seruer of Images if not with Latria yet with Doulia Papae A strange matter but howe is it prooued so to be Marye sir hee confesseth himselfe to honour the sacrament of Christes Supper which he teacheth to be an Image of Christes bodye and blood but he will not giue Gods owne honour to bread and wine therefore it followeth inuincibly that M. Iewell serueth that is to say he honoureth some Image Ha ha he M. Sander hath a pleasaunt witte if he be in iest but if he in earnest as I am afraide he is I will saye no more but that hee is a wrangler If M. Iewel say the sacrament is an Image doth he speake properly or figuratiuely If figuratiuely then the honouring of that which is not an Image properly prooueth not that he honoureth that which is an Image properly Againe when he speaketh of honouring doth he meane adoratiō worshipping kneeling to the sacrament which he condemneth or els reuerent esteeming of the mysteries of Christ what hath this to doe with falling downe to stockes and stones Finally doe we serue all thinges that wee honour for M Sander maketh them all one if wee doe then men must serue their wiues whom they must honour and men serue the weake partes of their body which they honour most These be the inuincible arguments for defence of Idolatrie THE VII CHAP. What an artificiall Image is Of the naturall and artificiall Image And how some honour may be giuen to artificiall Images Also the obiection answered concerning that the Image of Christ is no liuing Image Concerning the Image of the blessed Trinitie The abstracting of the image from the matter and the ioyning of the same with the trueth Master Iewell denyeth that the cognisances of the crosse are images This Chapter conteineth a metaphysicall discourse of images naturall and artificiall The effecte whereof is this that the nature of a thing cannot be expressed in an artificiall image but by a naturall image onely as the soone is the image of his father expressing his fathers nature But an artificiall image is the onely image of the person or rather of the personall shape of him that it representeth And this being confessed he sayeth it is an easie matter to aunswere the argument that is made to proue the image of Christ to be a liuing image because his Godhead cannot be represented in an image For that image representeth such externall shape of Christ as hee had in deede But if he haue not forgotten him selfe he sayed before that an artificiall image is an image onely of the person or rather the personall shape of him whom it representeth But neither the person nor yet the personall shape of Christ is represented by such an image therefore it is a lying image For the externall shape of Christes bodie is not the personall shape of Christe For as Christes person differeth from the person of euery other man so his image must differ from the person of euery other man or else it is a false image by Master Sanders owne groundes But Master Sander sayeth that as by his manhood the faithfull were ledd to his diuine nature when hee liued so by his image wee are ledd to his humaine shape from thence to his humanitie and so vpwarde to his diuine nature Here is an handsome ladder but that the steppes stande too farre a sunder for any man to clymbe by it For I denye that his disciples were ledd by his manhod to vnderstande or beleeue his Godhead but onely by faith through his holy spirite inwardly and outwardly by his doctrine and the workes of his Godhead Yet sayeth he if wee paint as much as his Apostles sawe it is no lying sight What neede wee paint that which wee may more liuely see in our selues and in any other liuing man then in a deade image namely the outwarde shape of a man After this he gathereth conclusions firste that it is neither possible nor lawfull to make an image which may expresse the nature of God of Angels or of any other creature Secondly it is possible and lawfull to make the image representing the personall propertie of any knowen creature This is true in the second table of the lawe but not in the first Thirdly The blessed Trinitie and infinite persons of Angels cannot properly ▪ be expressed by any artificiall image If