to the king, and though he does not spell it out specifically, those who
would honor images of the king, but not of Christ, have created a god of
the king. During the iconoclastic controversy images of the emperor
were allowed, those of Christ were not. Sander knew this, for unlike
Harding and Gardiner, he knew and employed the same arguments the
eighth- and ninth-century Church had used in its defense of images, a
defense based on the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ.
Surely if we wil goe no further, but to the only nature of flesh, as
flesh, it may not be worshipped with Gods owne honour. But
because the flesh of Christ must be respected, as a thing united to the
Godhead in one person, for the respect and truth also of this union,
we ought to give the same honour to Christes flesh, which we give
to God. For it is made the flesh of the natural Sonn of God.^27The Recusants also denounced Jewel for altering the terms of the debate
when his demands for evidence concerning the reception of communion
under one kind and the reality of the private Mass were met. In the
Challenge Sermon Jewel had made absolute that no contrary example
could be produced. The Catholic replies, however, came seemingly a bit
faster than Jewel had thought they would. Rastell in his A treatise
entitled, Beware of M. Iewelfirst noted that Jewel divided his assertions
into a host of questions, focusing on the supposed invention of private
Mass. Yet, noted Rastell, instead of considering all of these questions as
a piece, Jewel had shifted his ground from one argument to another, all
the while appearing as if he were arguing one point.^28 What had been
Jewel’s modus operandi for private Mass had held true for communion
under one kind. When Harding gave the example of communion
received by bishops visiting Rome which had been sent to them by the
pope, Jewel’s response, that there was no mention of the Mass in the
text, only obfuscated the point for:
‘Which of the three said masse? He that sent the Sacrament, or he
that receaved it, or els the messenger that brought it? It were a
straunge matter to see a Masse and yet no man to say Masse.’ Lo
how closely M. Jewel kepeth his wittes together. He is opposed with
single communion, and he demandeth of the Masse: the objection
goeth upon the receaving the Communion, and he asketh (without
answere making) who saied the Masse.^29Jewel’s response had also not addressed Harding’s real contention:
To this effect then cometh the first article. M Jewel daliehth stil, ye
D. Harding sheeweth not any private masse, that is (by hisTHE CATHOLIC REACTION TO JEWEL 129
(^27) Ibid., ff. 124a.
(^28) John Rastell, A treatise entitled, Beware of M. Iewel(Antwerp: John Fowler, 1566),
ff. 6a–7a.
(^29) Ibid., f. 7b.