many God be blessed follow their example at this day and yet too fewe for it were to be wished that such modestie were in all men The saying of Clemens registred also in the cannon lawe although you alledge it out of a counterfet and barbarous epistle yet is it very godly and worthie of the Apostles scholler That the scripture must not be drawen into straunge and forreigne senses according vnto euerie mans phantasie but the true sense must be taken out of the very Scriptures themselues agreeable to the iudgement of them that haue receiued is from the elders That is the Apostles For there were none other in the time of Clemens whiche went before but euen they The rest of the Chapter conteineth a repetition of that he hath handled in these eight Chapters with a promise that after this prety preamble he will goe immediately to his purposed matter to bee debated in this highe Court of prattlement And yet I weene as you haue had a preamble so you shall haue a preface of other matter for three or foure Chapters more or euer you come to the principall matter In deede great solemnitie becommeth a parleament The ninth Chapter declaring that our redemption was prenunciâ—â—ed by promises figures and prophesies and what the promises be and to whom they were made In this Chapter so long as he followeth the scriptures he hath well and truely satisfied the title shewing that Christ was promised principally to Adam Abraham and Dauid denying that Salomon was promised to Dauid but christ Where I hope he meaneth that Salomon was not promised as Messias but as a figure of him Finally I agree with him in all things for which he bringeth authoritie of the worde of God onely I cannot admitte the exposition that Iacobus de Valentia maketh of the Dominion of Christ from sea to sea that is from the mid lande sea to both the Oceans the South and the North whiche inclose Affrike and Europe from the floudes Nilus and Tanais vnto the endes of the world that be towarde the East which comprehendeth all Asia For since the time of Iacobus de Valentia we haue knowledge of the fourth part of the worlde toward the West called America greater then any of the three other which his circumscriptioÌ„ doeth exclude out of the kingdome of Christ although I doubt not but thither also the founde of the Gospell hath beene carried and is nowe restored in some places although brutish barbarousnesse hath of long time ouerwhelmed it The tenth Chapter toucheth the figures of Christes incarnation passion resurrection and ascention In this Chapter as in the former following the authoritie of the holy scriptures he sheweth that the conception of Sampson was a figure of the incarnation of Christ Ioseph of his betraying Isaac of his suffering the priesthood of Aaron and the sacrifices of his priesthoode sacrifice Ionas of his resurrection Elias of his ascention Wherein I see nothing worthie of reprehension except peraduenture in some collation there be more subtil curiositie then sound stedfastnesse The eleuenth Chapter declareth by the Prophets of what line the Messias should come with his coÌ„ception birth passion death In this Chapter also he doeth well discharge his promise for the historie of the coÌ„ception passion of Christ. If al the rest were like these Chapters we should soone agree The twelfth briefely toucheth a prophesie or two of the resurrection and ascention of Christ. In this Chapter as he promiseth is touched a saying of Dauid Psalm 16. alledged by Peter Act. 2 to proue the resurrection and an other Psalm 67. for the ascention alledged by Paule Eph. 4. in these foure Chapters there is nothing in a manner but that which is confessed of both sides The thirteenth Chapter how that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ both in Priesthood and sacrifice This Chapter promiseth more then it performeth for it sheweth in deed and as the trueth is that Melchisedech was a figure of christ but it scarse toucheth his priesthod and speaketh not one worde of his sacrifice as by a briefe collection of the whole Chapter and euerie parte thereof shall appeare First he there declareth that as the mysterie of our redemption was promised figured prophesied in the olde Testament and accomplished in the New so was the memorial of that redemption which Newe Testament being euerlasting hath an euerlasting Priest an euerlasting sacrifice The euerlasting priest he coÌ„fesseth to be our sauiour Christ. But the euerlasting sacrifice he saith is the very body blod of the same our sauiour Christ. Which as he according to the order of his priesthood did sacrifice in his last supper vnder the formes of bread wine so did he giue authoritie coÌ„mandemeÌ„t to the Apostles ministers of his Churche to do the same saying Hoc facite in meaÌ„ coÌ„memorationem This do ye in the remeÌ„brance of me Beside that these thinges of the euerlasting sacrifice be vttered without all proofe or shadowe thereof marke one horrible blasphemie and an other detestable absurditie For in as much as he affirmeth the euerlasting sacrifice to be Christes body and bloud offered in the supper and it is manifest by the scripture that Christe neuer offered but one sacrifice and that but once Heb. 9.25.10.14 it is euident that he vtterly excludeth the sacrifice of his body vpon the Crosse as not being done according to the order of his euerlasting priesthoode For a prodigious absurditie note this that he graunteth the euerlasting priesthood to Christ Which as the Apostle witnesseth is without succession Heb. 7.24 because it is euerlasting in him and yet he maketh the Apostles and ministers of the Church partakers of that Priesthod to offer that sacrifice which none could offer but he himselfe which is an euerlasting priest after the order of Melchisedech that is both a King and Priest. He proceedeth and affirmeth that Of this new Priesthood and sacrifice there were figures and prophesies which must aswell be performed as the other were of the instituter of them The other figures and prophesies ended in Christ touching the fact but not touching the efficacie and vertue which is eternall The newe Testament with the new priesthood and the new sacrifice are begon and confirmed in the bloud of Christ but must continue alwayes whereof there be figures in the lawe of nature and in the lawe of Moses In the lawe of nature albeit that Seth Noe and other did offer sacrifices vnto God yet were they not figures of this sacrifice now vsed in Christes Church but rather of Christes sacrifice offered vpon the crosse after the manner of Aaron Here marke first that he maketh Christ to haue two sacrifices this sacrifice whiche is now offered I can not tell after what manner and that which he offered on the Crosse after the manner of Aaron Secondly that he maketh Christ a Priest after the maner of Aaron
Christe as betweene the shaddowe and the bodies betweene the image and the trueth betweene the exemplars of thinges to come and the thinges them selues prefigured by the exemplars Therefore as meeknesse patience sobrietie moderation abstinence from lucre hospitalitie also and benignitie ought to be chiefly in a Byshop and amongest all Lay men excelling so also a peculiar chastitie and as I may say Priestly continence that hee doe not onely keepe him selfe fâ—om an vncleane woorke but also the mynde that shall make the body of Christe may be free from casting of the eye and wandring of thought In these wordes Hieronyme maketh the shewe breade a shadowe and figure of the body of Christe but not of the sacrament thereof Neither will Maister Heskins collection of the office of a bishop standing in consecration offering and receiuing the body of Christ helpe him For here is no word of consecrating but of making the body of Christe Mens Christi corpus confectura the minde shall make the body of Christ which if it be not a figuratiue speach Hieronyme speaketh both grossely and vntruely neither of offering the body of Christ but offering vndefiled sacrifices which are prayers Finally if it were plaine that he called the sacrament by the name of that which it signifieth yet hee him selfe is the best expounder of him selfe Where hee sheweth a double taking of the body bloud of Christe spirituall and corporall In Ep lib. 1. cap. Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi caro intelligitur vel spiritualis illa atque diuina dâ— qua ipse dixit caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potus Et nisi manducaueritis carnem meum sanguinem meum biberitis non habebitis vitam aeternam Vel caro sanguis quae crucifixa est qui militis effusus est lancâ—a The bloud and flesh of Christ is vnderstoode two wayes either that spirituall and diuine flesh of which hee saide My flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede And except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue eternall life or else that flesh that was crucified that bloud which was shead by the souldiers speare This place may suffice to expound whatsoeuer either Hieronyme or any other olde writer saith of the consecration offering or receiuing of the body and bloud in the sacrament making a manifest difference betweene that flesh and bloud which is eaten and dronke and that which was crucified which the Papistes teach to bee all one But M. Heskins cannot omit this place without a gird against married Priests of which number he him selfe was once one saying they haue put away the consecration to keepe their women but he did put away his wife that he might returne to consecration Howbeit to the matter As it is verie well knowen Hieronyme was too much addict to the prayse of virginitie so in this Chapter hee cannot simplie condemne the mariage of Byshoppes although he wish rather a continence in them that can absteine and openly saith to professed virgines that either they must marie if they cannot conteine or els continue if they will not marie Ad Demetriadem Next to Hieronyme which is of the higher house hee is faine to place Damascene of the lower house Who sayeth that The shewe bread did figure this breade meaning the sacramentall breade and not as M. Heskins expoundeth it the bodie of Christ in the sacrament For transubstantiation is not so olde as Damascene neither was it receyued in the Greeke Church neither is it at this daye neither doe these wordes helpe him which hee addeth Therefore with all feare and pure conscience and with a sure faith let vs come to him and worship him with all purenesse of minde and bodie Let vs come to him with burning desire fashioning our handes in manner of a crosse let vs receiue this bodie of him that was crucified There can no necessarie collection bee made of this place that Damascene spake of the popishe reall presence And if it might yet it is but one doctors opinion of the lower house whose authoritie we weigh not But why doe not the Papistes holde their handes a crosse when they receyue the sacrament by like all their ceremonies bee not so auncient as Damascene The three and twentie Chapter proceedeth in the proofe of the same by S. Augustine and Isychius Out of Augustine he alleadgeth Ep. 86. Ad Casulanum reprouing one Vibicus Dicit cessisse pani pecus c. Hee saith that the sheepe hath giuen place to breade as though he knewe not that then also the shewe breade was wont to bee set on the Lords table and that now also he doeth take part of the bodie of the immaculate lambe Hee sayth that bloude hath giuen place to the cuppe not considering that nowe also hee receyueth bloude in the cuppe Therefore howe much better and more agreably shoulde hee saye that the olde thinges are passed and newe thinges are made in Christe so that Altar gaue place to Altar sworde to sworde fire to fire breade to breade sheepe to sheepe bloude to bloude For wee see in all these that the carnall oldnesse giueth place to the spirituall newnesse The vnderstanding of this place dependeth vppon the knowledge of the errour of Vibicus And that was this Hee thought that the outwarde ceremonies of the olde lawe did signifie the outwarde ceremonies of the newe Testament that is that carnall thinges did succeede carnall thinges As the lambe did signifie the bread the bloude did signifie the wine in the sacrament and so bread gaue place to the lambe the cuppe to the bloud But this Augustine denyeth For they had bread then and they haue breade nowe they had the fleshe of a lambe then and they haue the fleshe of a lambe nowe they had bloude then and they haue bloude nowe they had carnall thinges then and wee haue spirituall thinges nowe This place therefore is directly against M. Heskins bill of the carnall presence and hath nothinge to prooue that the shewe breade was a figure of the sacrament but onely affirmeth that they had breade as wee haue breade for they had the shewe breade But if there had ben transubstantiation that is no bread in the sacrament hee might easily haue confuted Vibicus saying that breade gaue place to the sheepe But hee confesseth that wee haue bread and affirmeth that they had breade also And where he sayth that wee eate parte of the body of the immaculate lambe hee declareth sufficiently that hee spake of no carnall presence for then hee woulde not haue deuided the bodie of the lambe into partes which the Papistes say euerie one receiueth whole Finally where he saith that the carnall oldenesse gaue place to the spirituall newnesse hee doth moste clearely teach vs that the outwarde ceremonies of the olde Testament were figures of the spirituall things signified and giuen by our sacramentes and not of the outwarde
Christe But by his fauour the prophet in calling the newe sacrifice pure doeth not charge the old with imperfection if they had been offered according to their institution but reproueth the priestes that they had polluted the Lords sacrifices with their couetousnes and hypocrisie and in punishment of their pride which thought God could not bee serued except it were by them threateneth that he will reiect them and the people that were partakers of their sinnes and set vp the spirituall pure worship of his name among the Gentils in all partes of the worlde which shoulde better please God as the Prophete saith then a bullock that hath hornes hooffes And as for the purenes that M. Heskins requireth in the new sacrifices wee haue a sufficient warrant of the holy Ghost Heb. 13. that by Iesus Christ wee offer the sacrifice of prayse always to God that is the fruites of the lippes which confesseth his name doeing good and not forgetting to distribute for with such sacrifices God is pleased By which place you may see that the expositions of the godly before rehearsed are grounded vpon the word of God and not the deuise or imagination of man It is meruell that M. Heskins as the rest of the papistes do in this place doth not builde much vppon the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly doth signifie a sacrifice made of flower and so a kinde of bread but then he lacketh wine and the other worde which the prophete vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth an incense or perfume both excludeth that phantisie and also sheweth that the Prophet according to the common custom of other Prophets speaketh after the capacitie of the people in discribing the spirituall state of Christs Church by the external-figures ceremonies of Moses law And so there is no place in the scripture maketh lesse for the sacrifice of the masse then this text of the prophete Malachie The foure and thirteth Chapter expoundeth the prophesie of Malachie by Martialis and Ireneus M. Heskins desirous to expounde this prophesie by two verie auncient barrons of the high house of parleament beginneth with one Martialis whom to make him seeme more reuerend and auncient he hath adorned with Parleament Robes affirming that he was the disciple of Christ himselfe and after his Maisters death kepte companie almost continually with the Apostle Peter therfore willeth euerie man to giue audience to his speache Now whether euer there were any such disciple of Christ companion of the Apostle as the scripture maketh nomention of him so I will affirme nothing But for as much as the Church neuer heard of any such writer neither by Eusebius or by Hieronyme nor by Gennadius all which gathered the names of all the writers that had ben in the Church of Christe that were knowen in their times and seeing that many hundreth yeares after there is no mention of any such writer and writinges in anye approued authour I will playnely affirme that the authour of such Epistles is more worthie to stand on the pillerie for an impudent counterfeiter then to sit in the Parleament house among the Apostles of Christ and the holy doctors of the Church If there were nothing else to confute him but the title that he giueth himselfe it were sufficient to prooue him a shamelesse forger Martialis Apostolus Christi he tearmeth himselfe in the Diuels name as though the scripture had not defined both of the number and of the calling of the Apostles If any man liste to heare his absurde speach that hee maketh for the sacrifice of the masse let him resorte to M. Heskins swynetrough for I will not vouchsafe to defile my penne and paper to carie awaye such draffe of such pseude-apostles and counterfeit doctors Leauing therefore M. Heskins with his groyne serching in that swill I will chase him away from routing in the holy auntient garden of Irenaeus of whom M. Heskins confesseth that hee is not to be suspected of truth therby insinuating that his Martiall was not so honest but that his credite might come in question But Irenaeus lib. 4. Chapter 32. writeth thus Sed suis discipulis dans consilium c. But also giuing counsell to his disciples to offer the firste fruites vnto God of his owne creatures not as to one hauing neede but that they might be neither vnfruitefull nor vnthankefull he tooke that bread which is of the creature and gaue thankes saying this is my bodie and likewise the cup which is of the same creature that is with vs hee confesseth to bee his bloude and taught the newe oblation of the newe Testament whiche the Church receiuing of the Apostles offereth to GOD in all the world to him which giueth food vnto vs the first fruites of his owne giftes in the new Testament of which Malachias amonge the twelue Prophetes hath foreshewed I haue no pleasure in you saith the LORD Almightie and I will receiue no sacrifice at your handes c. Here M. Heskins I knowe not for what subtiltie had translated verie absurdly primitias munerum suorum the firste fruite of his sacrifices But to the matter What can bee more playne then that Irenaeus speaketh here of the sacrifice of obedience and thankesgiuing celebrated in the sacrament of the Lordes supper For he sheweth the end of the institution to be that they should neither be vnfruitefull nor vnthankfull which oblation the Church obserueth throughout all the world according to the Prophesie of Malachie in the celebration of the Lordes supper although not onely therein M. Heskins cauill of the newnesse of the oblation I haue answered before that it is newe in the manner of the offering which is without such sacrifices ceremonies as the lawe prescribed And whereas the incense and the pure oblation that the Prophet sayeth should be sacrificed to God be both of one nature Irenaeus doth in plaine wordes expound the incenses for spirituall sacrifice namely the sacrifice of prayers Which exposition M. Heskins doth so obstinately contemne lib. 4. Chap. 33. Quoniam ergo nomen filij proprium patris est in Deo omnipotente Iesum Christum offert ecclesia bene ait secundum vtraque in omni loco incensiū offertur nomini meo sacrificium purum Incensa autem Ioannes in Apocalypsi orationes ait esse sanctorum Therefore for as much as the name of the same perteineth to the father and in God almightie the Church offereth Iesus Christ he sayeth well according to bothe and in euery place an incense is offered to my name and a pure sacrifice Nowe S. Iohn in the reuelation sayth that the incense are the prayers of the Saintes The one being a spirituall sacrifice the other is also of the same nature by which it is euident howe the Church offereth Iesus Christ in God almightie namely when shee rendreth moste humble and hartie thankes to God for her redemption by Iesus Christe To which intent much more might be
in one very substantiall flesh therefore the manner of participation of his flesh in the sacrament is also spirituall and not carnall Maister Heskins reiecteth this participation to bee the fruition of the benefites of his body and bloud crucified bycause that saith hee is common to all the sacraments and not proper to this But that the substaunce of all sacramentes is one and the difference is in the manner of dispensation of them wee haue shewed sufficiently in the first booke which were tedious nowe to repeate Wherefore we must now set downe what Chrysostome speaketh of the bloud of Christe This bloud maketh that the kinges image doth flourish in vs This bloud doth neuer suffer the beautie and nobilitie of the soule which it doth alwayes water and nourish to fade or waxe faint For bloud is not made of meate soudenly but first it is a certaine other thing But this bloud at the first doth water the soule and indue it with a certaine great strength This mysticall bloud driueth diuelles farre off and allureth Angels and the Lorde of Angels vnto vs For when the diuelles see the Lordes bloud in vs they are turned to flight but the Angels runne foorth vnto vs This bloud being shed did wash the whole world whereof Paule to the Hebrues doth make a long proces This bloud did purge the secrete places and the most holy place of all If then the figure of it had so great power in the temple of the Hebrues and in Aegypt beeing sprinkled vpon the vpper postes of the doores much more the veritie This bloud did signifie the golden altar Without this bloud the chiefe priest durst not goe into the inward secret places This bloud made the priestes This bloud in the figure purged sinnes in which if it had so great force if death so feared the shadowe how much I pray thee will it feare the truth it selfe This bloud is the health of our soules with this bloud our soule is washed with it she is decked with it she is kindled This bloud maketh our minde cleerer then the fire more shining then golde The effusion of this bloud made heauen open Truely the mysteries of the Church are woonderfull the holy treasure house is woonderfull From Paradise a spring did runne from thence sensible waters did flowe from this table commeth out a spring which powreth foorth spirituall flouds Chrysostome in these wordes doth extoll the excellencie of the bloud of Christe shed vpon the crosse the mysterie whereof is celebrated and giuen to vs in the sacrament and therefore hee saith it is Mysticus sanguis mysticall bloud which wee receiue in the sacrament which word Mysticall M. Heskins a common falsarie hath left out in his translation to deceiue the vnlearned reader Hee laboureth much to proue that Chrysostome spake in this long sentence of that sacrament which is needlesse for as he spake of the sacrament so spake he of the passion of Christe and of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the olde lawe and all vnder one name of bloud By which it is more then manifest that hee vseth the name of bloud figuratiuely and ambiguously therefore nothing can bee gathered thereout to fortifie M. Heskins bill of the naturall bloud of Christ to be in the challice The honourable titles of the sacrament proue no transubstantiation nor carnal presence in this sacramēt more then in the other The same Chrysostome vpon Cap. 9. ad Heb. Hom. 16. sheweth howe the bloud of Christ that purged the old sacrifices is the same which is giuen vs in the sacrament of the new testament Non enim corporalis erat mundatio sed spiritualis sanguis spiritualis Quomodo hoc Noune ex corpore manauis Ex corpore quidem sed a spiritu sancto Hoc vos sanguine non Moses sed Christus aspersit per verbum quod dictum est Hic est sanguis noui testamenti in remissionem peccarorum For that was no corporall cleansing but spirituall and it was spirituall bloud Howe so Did it not flowe out of his body It did in deede flowe out of his body but from the holy spirit Not Moses but Christe did sprinkle you with this bloud by that worde which was spoken This is the bloud of the newe testament for the remission of sinnes Thus let Chrysostome expound him selfe touching the mysticall or spirituall bloud of Christe which both was offered in the old sacrifices and nowe feedeth vs in the sacrament if it were in the olde sacrifices naturally present then is it so nowe if the vertue onely was effectuall so is it also to vs and no neede of transubstantiation or carnall presence The sixt Chapter proceedeth in the opening of the vnderstāding of the same text of S. Iohn by Beda and Cyrillus Although Beda our countriman were far out of the compasse of 600. yeres and so vnfitly matched with Cyrillus a Lord of the higher house yet speaketh he nothing for the corporal presence of Christes body in the sacrament but directly against it His words vpon this text of Saint Iohn are these Hunc panem Dominus dedit c. This bread our Lord gaue when he deliuered the ministerie of his body and bloud vnto his disciples when he offered him selfe to his father on the altar of the crosse And where he saith for the life of the world we may not vnderstand it for the elementes but for men that are signified by the name of the worlde In these wordes Beda according to the custome of the olde writers and the doctrine of the Church of Englande in his time and long after calleth the sacrament the mysterie of the body bloud of Christ and not otherwise Yet M. Heskins pythely doth gather that as he calleth the flesh of Christ on the crosse breade and yet it is verie flesh so the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament is called bread yet it is verie flesh Alas this is such a poore begginge of that in question videlicet that the fleshe of Christ is in the sacrament according to his grosse meaning that I am ashamed to heare it Why might he not rather reason thus the fleshe of Christe on the crosse is called bread and yet it is not naturally bread euen so the bread of the sacrament is called flesh yet it is not naturall fleshe It is plaine that breade in that texte of Iohn is taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode and so the flesh and bloud of Christ on the crosse is our food and the same is communicated to our faith in the sacrament Cyrillus in 6. Ioan. by M. Heskins alledged speaketh neuer a worde either of the sacrament or of Christes corporall presence therein Antiquus ille panis c. The old bread was onely a figure an image and a shadowe neither did it giue to the corruptible bodie any thing but a corruptible nutriment for a little time But I am that liuing and quickening breade for euer And the breade which I will giue
eaten when his fleshe is eaten as a man doth see when his eye or rather his soule by the eye doth see c. For the godhead is not eaten therefore it cannot be spiritually eaten but verily Still he maketh spirite and trueth contrarie as though what soeuer were done spiritually were not done verily But he remembreth not that Cyrill sayeth that he which eateth this fleshe is wholy refourmed or fashioned anewe into Christe Whereby hee doth not onely exclude wicked men but also teache a spirituall eating as the reformation is spirituall And as the worde was made fleshe by an vnspeakable vnion so wee by eating that fleshe are ioyned to him by an vnspeakable vnion Finally where Maister Heskins sayeth that Christs fleshe cannot be verily eaten but in the sacrament he excludeth all them from the benefites of his fleshe which are not partakers of the sacrament and so condemneth all children not come to yeares of discretion O cruell transsubstantiation The Thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the nexte text by Saint Ambrose and Chrysostome The text is This is that breade that came downe from heauen not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse and are dead He that eateth this bread shal liue for euer Saint Ambrose is alledged lib. 8. de initiandi but I thinke he should saye Capitâ— 8. de mysterijs initiandis Reuera mirabile c. Truely it was maruellous that God did rayne Manna to the fathers and that they were fedd with dayly foode from heauen Wherefore it is sayde man did eate the breade of Angels But yet they that did eate that breade in the wildernesse are dead But this breade which thou receiuest this breade of life which came downe from heauen giueth the substance of eternall life And whosoeuer shall eat this breade shall not dye for euer And it is the body of Christ. M. Heskins noteth that he calleth it the body of Christ as though any man doubted thereof But the same Ambrose reacheth that it must bee spiritually receiued in the same booke Chap. 9. In illo sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritualis est In that sacrament Christ is bicause it is the body of Christe therefore it is not corporall but spirituall meate If it be spirituall meate it must be spiritually receiued and not corporally as it is no corporall meate Now followeth a long sentence of Chrysostome Hom. 46. in Ioan. which Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth to make no great mention of the sacrament yet bycause he saith it followeth vpon his iudgement of the sacrament I will set it downe to be considered He saith therefore he that eateth my flesh shall not perish in death he shall not be damned But he doth not speake of the common resurrection for all shal riâ—e again but of that cleere and glorious which deserueth reward Your fathers haue eaten Manna in the wildernesse and be deade He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer He doeth oft repeate the same that it might be imprinted in the mindes of the hearers This was the last doctrine that he might confirme the faith of the resurrection and euerlasting life wherefore after the promise of eternall life he setteth foorth the resurrection after he hath shewed that shall be And howe is that knowne By the scriptures vnto which he doth alwayes send them to be instructed by them When he saith it giueth life to the world he prouoketh them to emulation that if they be moued with the benefite of other men they will not be excluded them selues And he doth often make mention of Manna comparing the difference allureth them to the faith For if it were possible that they liued fourtie yeares without haruest corne and other things necessarie to their liuing much more nowe when they are come to greater things For if in those figures they did gather without labour the things set foorth nowe truely much more where is no death and the fruition of true life And euery where he maketh mention of life For we are drawne with the desire there of and nothing is more pleasant then not to dye For in the olde Testament long life and many dayes were promised but nowe not simply length of life but life without end is promised Herevpon hee noteth that we are come to greater things in the sacrament then the Iewes did in Manna I graunt the faithfull come to greater thinges then the vnbeleeuing Iewes of whome and to whome our sauiour Christ speaketh Otherwise they that were faithfull did eate the same spirituall meate in Manna that we doe in the Sacrament 1. Cor. 10. But if the reall presence be not in the sacrament saith Maister Heskins Manna is greater then a bare peece of breade This comparison is topsi-turuie Chrysostome compareth bare Manna which the wicked receiued with the body of Christ which the godly take Maister Heskins compareth Manna to bare breade The one and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Hierome and S. Cyrill Hierome is cyted Ad Hedibiam quÄ™st 2. Si ergo panis c. Then if the bread which came downe from heauen is the body of our Lorde and the wine which he gaue to his disciples be his bloud of the newe Testament which was shed for many in remission of sinnes let vs cast away Iewish fables and let vs ascend with our Lorde into the great parler paued and made cleane and let vs take of him aboue the cuppe of the newe Testament and there holding the Passeouer with him let vs be made dronke by him with the wine of sobrietie for the kingdome of GOD is not meate and drinke but righteousnesse and ioye and peace in the holy Ghoste Neither did Moses giue vs the true bread but our Lord Iesus hee being the guest and the feast hee him selfe eating and which is euen S. Hierome proceedeth with that which M. Hes. omitteth His bloud we drinke and without him we can not drinke it and daily in his sacrifices we tread out new redd wine of the fruit of the true vine and of the vine of Sorech which is interpreted chosen and of these wee drinke the wine new in the kingdome of his father not in the oldenesse of the letter but in the newenesse of the spirit By these words more that foloweth it is most euident that Hieronyme speaketh of spirituall eating by faith as also by that he saith we ascend with Christ into the parler by which he meaneth heauen and there aboue we receiue the cup of the newe Testament Maister Heskins noteth that the bread which descended from heauen is the body of our Lorde But he must beware he say not that the naturall body of Christ descended out of heauen Againe he forgetteth not to repeat that that bread is the body of Christe but he will not see in Hieromes wordes that Christ gaue wine to his disciples Cyrillus
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
He calleth it a phantasie like to that which ioyned with auarice pulled downe all the Abbeys in England The like phantasie he sayth might moue vs not to honour Christ in heauen and much more the Apostles that honoured Christ in the flesh percase not sufficiently discerning the humanitie from the Deitie and so likewise others that worshipped Christ yet doe euen some of the proclaymers schollers vnderstand not these quiddities Shal they therefore fly the honor of Christ in heauen A wise comparison betweene Christe both God and man who no doubt is to be worshipped both as God as the mediator of God man and the accidents of breade wine or bread and wine when they are not consecrated Christ in the flesh is to be worshipped because he was incarnate and ioyned to the humanitie in a personall vnion but he is not to be worshipped in bread wine or in the accidents of bread wine because he is neither impanated nor inuinated nor inaccidentated that is not ioyned to any of them in a personall vnion To these doubtes that are moued by his owne schoolemen what if the Priest do not consecrate what if he speake not the wordes of consecration what if he had none intention to consecrate in all which cases the schoolemen define that the people committ idolatrie if they worship their hoste First hee sayeth he goeth about to shake the foundation of this sacrament as Brentius doth of baptisme Concerning Brentius although it were easie to defende his assertion euen by the schoolemen yet because it is no matter of our controuersie I will briefely passe it ouer Brentius helde that Christ hath not bound vs to baptise in certein forme of wordes to be pronounced by the minister so the meaning be obserued that he baptise into the name of the Father of the Sonne of the holie ghost Herevpon charitable M. Heskins rayleth on him that he impugneth the forme of baptisme and reiecteth the wordes of baptisme which is vtterly false and then he reasoneth that if the wordes of baptisme may be without daunger omitted why may not the words of consecratiō likewise as though Brentius sayeth they might be omitted where he speaketh of altering the forme of wordes when the same sense remaineth Next to this he farceth in another slaunder of vs that we agree not in the number of the sacraments some admitting three some two some foure and some neuer a one The world knoweth what we holde herein After this he sheweth out of Basil Damascen the necessitie of the forme of baptisme which wee confesse Brentius him self doth not denye At length he defineth contrarie to the scholemen that if consecration be omitted the danger is to the priest not to the people that worship an idol Finally he wil moue the like doubt of our ministration what if the minister of the communion doe neither speake the words of consecration nor haue intent to minister what do the people receiue I aunswer with his intentiō wee haue nothing to doe but for asmuch as nothing is whispered or mumbled in our Communion but so vttered that all men may heare and vnderstand if any thing be omitted that is necessarie to the consecration of the sacrament if the people communicate with him they are in as great fault as he As for Richerus whome he calleth a Caluenist that forbiddeth to pray to Christ and reiecteth the wordes of consecration if any such be let him aunswere for him self we haue nothing to do with him Although we acknowledge not any mumbling of wordes but the whole action according to Christes institution to be the forme of consecration of the sacrament The nine and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstanding of Christes wordes by Irenaeus Tertullian Irenęus is cited lib. 4. Cap. 32. Sed discipulus c. But also giuing counsell to his disciples to offer to God the first fruites of his owne creatures not as to one that hath neede but that they also should neither be vnfrutefull nor vnthankefull he tooke that bread which is of the creature gaue thankes saying this is my bodie likewise he confessed the cupp which is of the creature that is among vs to be his bloud taught the newe oblation of the newe testament which the church receiuing of the Apostles in all the worlde offereth to God. Here M. Hesk. choppeth off the taile for it followeth Euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs the first fruites of his giftes which words do both open the purpose of Irenaeus shewe that the oblation was of bread wine not the naturall bodie of Christ as M. Hesk. gathereth together with the reall presence But for clearer proofe he addeth another testimonie out of Irenęus which he quoteth lib. 5. but it is lib. 4. ca. 34 which it seemeth he redd not him selfe in the author both because he knewe not where it was writen also because he omitteth some wordes in it Quomodo autem constabit eis c. he leaueth out autem eis but thus the wordes are in english But how shall it be knowen vnto them that that bread in which thankes are giuen is the bodie of their Lorde and the cupp of his bloud if they say not that he him selfe is the sonne of the maker of the worlde c. And how againe do they say that the fleshe commeth to corruption receiueth not the life which is nourished of the bodie bloud of our Lord Out of these places he noteth that the sacrament is the bodie and bloud of Christ that our flesh is nourished by the same bodie bloud This we confesse so he meane spiritually but that he will not haue And therfore to drawe the places to his carnall presence nourishing he sayth that Irenaeus hereby impugned two heresies One that Christ was not the sonne of God that made the world but a man liuing in Iewrie which dissolued the law the Prophets all the works of God that made the world The other that the soule only should be saued not the bodie And therefore to confute the former he maketh an argument of the real presence How could a bare naturall man compasse that his bodie should so be if he were not the sonne of God that made the world c. This proceedeth of grosse ignorance or rather of intollerable mallice to deceiue the ignorant For the heresie against which he writeth was not that Christ was a bare man not the sonne of God but that he was the sonne of another God then he that made the world for they made two gods one the maker of the world which they sayd was God of the old testament another the father of Christ which they said was God of the newe testament Now Irenaeus proueth by institution of the sacrament in the creatures of bread wine that Christ is the sonne of God that created the world of none other
him take among his innoceÌ„t disciples that which the faithful know our price But when Augustine him selfe saith the sacraments beare the name of those thinges whereof they are sacraments it is no maruell if the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ be called our price whereof it is a figure or sacrament especially seeing Augustine flatly denyeth that Iudas did receiue the bread which was the Lorde but only the Lords bread This conference therefore maketh against him not for him As for Theophylactes authoritie which he calleth a plaine place for the proclamer wee refuse although it is not so plaine as he pretendeth for we also affirme that the sacrament is not a bare figuration of the flesh of Christ but his flesh in deede spiritually receiued Finally Tertullians place De resur Car. is nothing at all for him Caâ—o corpore c. The flesh eateth the body and bloud of Christ that the soule may be fed with God. For by the body and bloud of Christe he meaneth the sacrament of them which is called by the name of that is figured or signified by it As for the last shift that No Catholique Doctour saith that the sacrament is only a figure is too childish for a Doctour to vse for in these words of Tertullian Corpus meum id est â–ª figura corporis met my body that is to say a figure of my body there needeth not to be added the exclusiue onely for the latter part is a description of the former which must containe all that is in the thing described or else it is nothing worth as for example If I say M. Heskins is a man that is to say a soule it were fond and ridiculous but when I say he is a man that is to say a reasonable â—ight I neede not say he is onely so for I haue said before as much as he is and so hath Tertullian Meaning that the sacrament is a figure but not a common or bare figure but a diuine and mysticall token not only to signifie but also to assure vs of the spirituall feeding of vs with the body and bloud of Christ. The fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by S. Cyprian and Athanasius First he alledgeth Cyprian de cÄ™na Domini in these words Significata olim a tempore Melchisedech c. For vnderstaÌ„ding of which place seeing he referreth his reader to the first booke and 29. Chapter where he handleth it more at large thither also will I referre him for answer where the place is at large rehearsed and discussed But out of the same sermon of S. Cyprian he hath a plaine place for M. Iewel Which is this Nonâ— est â—uius sacramenti doctrina c The doctrine of this sacrament is newe and the Euangelicall schooles first brought foorth this manner of teaching and Christ beeing the teacher This learning was first made knowen to the worlde that Christian men should drinke bloud the eating whereof the authoritie of the olde lawe doeth most straitly forbidde For the lawe forbiddeth the eating of bloud the Gospell commandeth that it should be dronke In which commandemâ—â—tâ— this moste cheefely ought the Christian religion to discerne that the bloud of beastes differing in all thinges from the bloud of Christe hath onely the effect of temporall releefe and the life of them haâ—h an end appointed without reuocation Hereupon he noteth that the Christians drinke the bloud of Christ which I graunt but spiritually for so Cyprian expoundeth himselfe in the same sermon vt sciremus quòd mansio nostra in ipsâ— fit manducatio potus quasi quaedam incorporatio That we should knowe that our eating is our dwelling in him and ouâ— drinking it as it were a certeine incorporatioâ— in him And againe Esus igitur carnis huius quaedam auiditas est quoddem desiderium manendi in eo c. Therefore the eating of his flesh is a certeine desire to abide in him c. These and such like places doe proue a spirituall eating and drinking of his bloud and none other He noteth further that this is called of Cyprian a new doctrine and therefore it can not be the drinking of the figure of the bloud of Christ for that was olde I answere briefly it was so new as the gospel is the new Testament whiche yet was preached to Adam and Eue but not so clearely and distinctly as since the time of Christ and so was the eating of the bodie and bloud of Christe all one with that it is now differing but in manner of reuelatioÌ„ and not in substance of spirituall foode Athanasius is alledged as he is cited in Theodoret Dial. 2. in confus Corpus est c. It is therfore a bodie to whom he saith for them on my right hand Whereof the diuel was enimie with the euill powers and the Iewes and the Greekes By which bodie he was in deede and so was called an high priest and Apostle by that mysteria which he dâ—liuered to vs saying â–ª This is my bodie whiche is broken for you And the bloud of the new Testament not of the old which is shedd for you The Godhead hath neither bodie nor bloud but man which he did take of the virgine Marie He meaneth nothing lesse than that the sacrament was his natural body and bloud but that he could not haue instituted a mysterie of hiâ— bodie and bloud except he had ben a very man which hath bodie and bloud for the godhead hath none And therfore the rule that M. Heskins giueth that scriptures must be alledged in their literal sense in matters of faith is to litle purpose although it may stand well in this place For the mysterie of his bodie proueth his humanitie without any allegorie or other figure as I haue shewed before Athanasius is likewise alledged in the second Nicen counsell Serm. de 〈◊〉 Iesu in Berito How truly I will not say but thus he is reported to say of the bloud of Christ which was said to be in many places which he denietâ— to haue come froÌ„ Christ but from an image that was crucified Nec esse aliter 〈◊〉 a vere Catholicis praeâ—â—r id quod 〈◊〉 à nobis quasi ex carne sanguine Christi aliqâ—id pasâ—â— i◠〈◊〉 inuâ—â—iri nisi 〈◊〉 quod in aera altarit per manus sacerdanuâ— quotiâ—ie spiritualiter officitur Neither is it otherwise to be thought of true Catholiques then is written of vs as though any part of the flesh bloud of Christ may be found in the world but that which on the altar is euerie day made spiritually by the handes of the priestes I do not cite this as the vndoubted authoritie of Athanasius but thinke rather it was forged in his name as many other thinges were in that wicked idolatrous counsel yet it appeared that the maker of that sermon so the Church in such time as he liued had not receiued the Popish corporall presence The one and
haue no substantial grounde in scriptures as though an argument framed out of the scripture of the end vse of the sacrament were not a substantial ground And as for the popish counsell of Florens is a sorie ground without scripture Although 〈…〉 nor as he slaundereth vs that the power of consecration dependeth vpon the will of the receiuer but vpon the wonderfull worke of God with such practice as he requireth The second supposed heresie to be ouerthrowen is that the substance of bread wine do still remaine because Gregorie sayth it is changed into the bodie of Christe But this change is not of substance but of vse for as hee sayth it is changed into the bodie so he sayth it is chaunged into the diuine vertue which words though Maister Hesk. would racke to signifie the diuine flesh of Christ yet cannot he auoyde a manifest figure in the speache of Gregorie therfore it is nothing so plaine for him as he pretendeth To this he adioyneth a defence of the terme of transubstantiation which he confesseth to be but new as in deede the doctrine therof is but yet he compareth it with the terme vsed of olde by the fathers Homousion to signifie that Christe is of the substance of the father But to be short for termes we will not striue let him proue transubstantiation so olde as he pretendeth we will acknowledge the terme The thirde pretended heresie to be ouerthrowen is that he teacheth a reall presence and therefore the wordes This is my bodie are to be vnderstood without trope or figure But this is auoyded in aunswere to the seconde and so we leaue him discharged of M. Hesk. cauils Hierome is alledged ad Hedibiam qu. 2. the place hath bene alreadie handled proued to be against M. Hesk. in the 31. Chap. of this booke whither I referre the reader for breuities sake only in this place I wil deale with such points as were not spoken of there and rehearse the whole discourse of S. Herome together not in patches as M. Hesk. hath done interlacing his fond gloses Questio secunda Quomodo accipiendum sit c. The second question How that saying of our sauiour in Mathew is to be taken I say vnto you I will not drinke from hence forth of this fruite of the vine vntil that day in which I shal drinke it newe with you in the kingdome of my father Out of this place some men build the fable of a thousand yeres in which they contend that Christ shall raigne corporally drinke wine which hee hath not dronke from that time vnto the end of the world But let vs heare that the bread which our Lord brake gaue to his disciples is the bodie of our Lord sauiour as he saith vnto them Take eat ye this is my bodie that the cupp is that of whiche he spake againe drinke ye all of this this is my bloud of the new testament which shal be shed for many c. This is that cupp of which we read in the Prophet I will take the cupp of saluation And in another place Thy cup inebriaeting is verie noble If therfore the bread which came downe from heauen is the bodie of our Lord and the wine which he gaue to his disciples is his bloud of the new testament let vs reiect Iewish fables ascend with our Lord into the great parler prepared made clean let vs receiue of him aboue the cup of the new testament there holding passouer with him let vs be made dronke with the wine of sobrietie For the kingdome of God is not meat drinke but righteousnesse ioy peace in the holy ghost Neither did Moises giue vs the true bread but our Lord Iesus he being the guest the fest he himselfe eating which is eaten His bloud we drinke without him we cannot drinke it daily in his sacrifices wee tread out of the generation of the true vine the vine of Sorec which is interpreted chosen the redde newe wines and of them wee drinke newe wine of the kingdome of his father not in the oldnesse of the letter but in the newnesse of the spirite singing a newe song which none can sing but in the kingdome of the Churche which is the kingdome of the father This bread also did Iacob the Patriarch couet to eate saying if the Lord shal be with me giue me bread to eat and rayment to couer mee For as many of vs as are baptised in Christ haue put on Christ and do eat the breade of Angels and do heare our Lorde saying My meate is that I may do the will of him that sent mee my father that I may accomplish his worke Let vs therefore do the will of his father which sent vs and let vs accomplish his worke and Christ shall drinke with vs his bloud in the kingdome of the Church This is the whole discourse of Hierome and by the distinction of the letter you see what Maister Heskins hath left out both in the beginning and in the ende and yet he raileth at the proclaimer for snatching truncately a fewe wordes to make a shew to deceiue his auditorie But by this whole treatise you may see what the question is and howe it is answered namely that the promise of Christ must bee vnderstoode of a spirituall drinking in the Church which vtterly ouerthroweth the popish fantasie of real presence For Christ is so present at euery celebration of the supper in his church that he eateth his bodie and drinketh his bloud as Hierome sayth which no man except he bee mad wil say to be otherwise then after a spirituall manner and in the end Hierome openeth what is his meate and how he drinketh his bloud with vs and that wee so eat his bodie as we put him on for a garmēt in baptisme and as Iacob did eat it which must needes be spiritually More collections if any man desire let him resort to the 31. Chapter of this second booke The foure fiftieth Chapter testifyeth the vnderstanding of the same words by Isychius S. Augustine Isychius is alledged in Leuit. lib. 6. Cap. 2◠vpon this text He that eateth of the holie things vnwittingly shall put the fifth parte thereunto and giue vnto the Priest the hallowed thing Sancta sanctorum c. The most holie things properly are the mysteries of Christ because it is his bodie of whome Gabriell said vnto the virgin The holy ghost shall come vpō thee and the power of the moste highest shall ouershadowe thee therefore that holy one that shal be borne of thee shal be called the sonne of god And Esay also The Lord is holie dwelleth in the heightes that is to saye in the bosome of his father For from this sacrifice he hath forbidden not onely strangers and soiourners hyred seruaunts but hee commaunded also not to receiue it by ignorance And he taketh it by
taketh to be ordeined of him for as much as it is not by any diuersitie of maners varied or altered But if it were as he fableth that S. Paul ordeined the ceremonial part of the Masse that was vsed in Augustines time the Popish Masse being not the same in ceremoniall partes as he will confesse that it was in Augustines time it foloweth that the Popish Masse is not that which was ordeined of S. Paule for it is well known it was patched peeced together by many peeces long since August time And as certein it is that almost euerie Church in his time had a seuerall forme of liturgie and therefore by his owne words they cannot be that which S. Paule set in order at the Church of that Corinthians The like impudeÌ„cie he sheweth in the next saying of Aug. which he citeth Et ideo non proecipit c. And therfore he coÌ„manded not in what order it should be receiued afterward that he might reserue this place to the Apostles by whoÌ„ he would set the Churches in order It followeth which M. Hesk. hath omitted Etiamsi hoc ille monuisset vt post cibos alios semper acciperetur credo quòd eum moreÌ„ nemo variasset For if he had charged this that it should always be receiued after other meats I beleeue that no man would haue varied froÌ„ that maner When August speketh so expresly of that one order of receiuing the communioÌ„ before meat what boldness is it to say that crouching kneeling other dumb ceremonies although they were not instituted by Christ yet were ordeined by S. Paul vpoÌ„ colour of Aug. authority who in the same epistle wished al such idle ceremonies vtterly to be abolished The next Massemonger he maketh is S. Andrew out of whose legend written by I knowe not what priestes deacons of Achaia he wil proue that S. Andrew did both say Masse and also therin offer in sacrifice the bodie bloud of Christ. But he is too much deceiued if he thinke any man of reasonable vnderstanding will in these dayes giue credite to such fabulous legends after S. Andrew coÌ„meth in S. Iames with his Masse said at IerusaleÌ„ which is in print but not heard of in the Church 600. yeres after Christ yet M. Hesk. saith it is allowed praysed by the proclaymer which is vtterly false for he proueth by a manifest argumeÌ„t that the liturgie which is in print vnder the name of S. Iames is a counâ—erfet because therein is a special prayer conteyned for such as liue in Monasteries whereas there was neuer a monasterie in the world many hundreth yeres after the death of S. Iames. And for a further proofe of the false inscription of that liturgie to S. Iames I will adde this argument that he vseth the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or consubstantial which as the learned knowe was neuer heard of in the Church before the heresie of Arrius was condemned in the Nicene counsell although the Catholike Church did alwayes confesse that Christ was God of the same substance equal with the father and the holy Ghost In deede the B. of Sarum confesseth that there is more in those liturgies against the Papistes then for them as by examining these parcels which M. Heskins citeth we shall easily perceiue First the liturgie of Iames hath these wordes Dominus c. Our Lord Iesus the same right in which he was betrayed or rather in which night he deliuered himselfe for the life of saluation of the world taking bread into his holie vndefiled innocent immortall hands looking vp into heauen shewing it to the God father giuing thankes sanctifying breaking he gaue it to vs his disciples saying Take ye eate ye this is my bodie which is broken for you and giuen vnto remission of sinnes Likewise after he had supped he tooke the cup and mingling it with wine and water looking vp into heauen and shewing it to the God and father giuing thankes sanctifying blessing filling it with the holy Ghost he gaue it to vs his disciples saying Drinke ye all of this this is my bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you and many and giuen for remission of sinnes This saith Maister Heskins was his maner of consecration vnlike the manner of the newe ministers in their communion which only rehearse the words of Christ historically not directing theÌ„ to God as a prayer wherein he lyeth most impudently as euerie man that heareth or readeth the praier immediately before the receiuing of the sacrament can testifie Concerning the tearme of consecration I haue often shewed that in the true sense thereof we both allow vse it although he wold make ignorant obstinat papists that wil neither heare our preachings nor read our writings to beleeue the contrarie only because he saith it Another ridiculous cauil he hath that we take not the bread into our handes before we consecrate it But let it lie on the table as though we had nothing to do with it Surely we do not acknowledge such holines in our hands that it can consecrate the bread but we pray to God to blesse those his creatures of bread wine that they may be vnto vs the bodie and bloud of Christ his sonne our lord If the Papists haue such holy vndefiled and immortal hands as this Iames speaketh of it is more then we knowe or will confesse before they can proue it In the consecration of the wine he chargeth vs that we mingle no water with the wine But when he can proue by the word of God that our sauiour Christ did so we will confesse our errour otherwise we see no necessitie of the water so their own schoolemen do confesse We acknowledge that in the primitiue Church it was an ancient custome to mingle water with the wine but not as a ceremonie at the first but as the coÌ„mon vsage of al men that drank the hotte wines of the East countries but afterward it grewe to be counted a ceremonie including some mysterie and at length with some it excluded the wine altogether as with those that were called Aquarij so daungerous a matter it is to vse any thing in Gods seruice more then is prescribed by himselfe But M. Heskins caÌ„not be persuaded that after al this sanctifying blessing and filling of the cup with the holy Ghost there should bee nothing else but a bare hungrie figure As though there were no choyce but either transubstantiation or a bare hungrie figure In baptisme there is sanctification blessing and filling with the holie Ghost as much as in the communion is there therefore transubstantiation in baptisme because there is not a bare hungrie figure But if I might be so bold as to examine him in his own fained Masse of S. Iames I would aske him how the cuppe is filled with the holie Ghost essentially so that the holie Ghost or any parte of him is conteined in the cupp I dare say he will say
it therefore followe that all or the moste priestes doe vnderstand them whereof a great number can neither conster the Latine of their masse nor of those bookes And generally it may be said that they all vnderstand them not because these writers themselues doe not agree in the interpretation of them The thirde he saith is A plaine lie that in the Masse they make no mention of Christes death whereas the Masse setteth forth the death of Christe more liuely then the new communion For with great outcries he saith that there is mention of his death where it is saide The day before he suffred and The bloud of the new Testament that it shed for you and beeing mindfull of his passion resurrection c. and do this in remembrance of me Here is all the preaching of Christes death that he can finde in the Masse But seeing he grateth vpon the wordes No mention of his death Which was not the Bishops meaning but no profitable mention to the institution of the people who vnderstand nothing although there were neuer so long a sermon of Christes death in Latine yet I say he hath not shewed the death of Christe once mentioned in the Masse I say not by implication but in fourme of wordes whereof he taketh aduauntage to charge the Bishop of a lie But how open plaine lowd impudent a lie it is that The Masse setteth foorth the death of Christ more liuely then the new communion as he termeth it I will not in one worde goe about to confute least I should acknowledge any neuer so small shew of trueth to be in it The fortieth Chapter treateth of priuate Masses as the proclaymer termeth them and solueth his arguments Maister Heskins first rehearsing the Bishoppes Arguments against the priuate Masse first maketh this generall aunswere to them al that they proue it is lawfull for the people to receiue with the Priest but not that it is necessarie And first he chargeth him with falsifying of Hierome In 1. Cor. 11. That the supper of the Lorde must be common to all the people for Christ gaue his sacraments to all his disciples that were present Where saith Maister Heskins he hath left out this worde equally by whiche is meant that poore men haue as good right to the sacrament as riche men but not that it is necessarie that all men present at Masse should receiue with the priest In deed the words of Hierome are these Conuenientibus c. Iam non est Dominica sed humana quando vnâ—s quis quae tanquam caenam propriam solus inuadis alij qui non obtulerit non impereit Ita vt magis propter saturitatem quà m propter mysterium videamini conuenire Caeterùm coena Dominica omniâ—us debes esse communis quia ille omnibus discipulis suis qui aderant Ä™qualiter tradidit sacramenta Coena auteÌ„ ideo dicitur quia Dominuâ— in coena tradidit sacramentum Item hoc ideo dicit quia in ecclesia conuenientes oblationes suas separatim offerabant post communionem quae cunque eis de sacrificijs supersuissent illic in Ecclesia communem coenam coÌ„medentes pariter consumebant Et alius quidem esurit c. Quicumque non obtulisset non communicabat quira omnia soli qui obtulerunt insumebant When you come together c. Nowe is it not the LORDES supper but a mannes supper when euerie one falleth to it alone as it were his owne supper and giueth no parte to another which hath offered nothing so that you seeme to come together rather to fill your bellies then for the mysteries sake But the Lordes supper ought to be common to al men because he deliuered his sacramentes to all his disciples that were present equally And it is therefore called a supper because the Lorde at supper deliuered the sacramente Also he saith this therfore for that when they came together in the Church they offered their oblations seuerally and after the communion whatsoeuer was left to them of the sacrifice euen there in the Church eating a common supper they consumed it together And one truely is a hungred whosoeuer had not offred did not communicate because they that had offred consumed all alone By this let the Reader iudge what falsifying the proclaymer vsed and whether Hierome that condemned seuerall communions of riche men would allowe a singular partaking of the priest alone An other reason he hath of baptisme whiche though it be common to all men and that two speciall times in the yeare were appointed for the ministration thereof yet it may be ministred alone But the example is nothing like for it was alwayes lawfull and often vsed to baptise singuler persons at all times so was it neuer of the Lordes supper because the mysterie that S. Paul speaketh of 1. Cor. 10. Many partaking of one bread cannot bee expressed when one priest receiueth alone The third reason he bringeth is a counterfet decree ascribed to Fabianus of Rome 242. yeres after Christe that people should receiue thryse in the yere which had beene needlesse if they receiued so often as the priest saide Masse In deede the impudent forgerie of this decree is manifest when two hundred yeares after Fabianus the people of Rome as both Saint Augustine and Saint Hierome do write and Maister Heskins cannot denye receiued the communion euery day As for the decree of once a yere receiuing I knowe not when it was made but wicked it was whensoeuer it was made But Chrysostome I wene doth make much for priuate Masses for he writeth but Maister Heskins dare not tell where for shame Nonne per singulos dies offerimus offerimus quidem sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius Do wee not euery day sayth hee make oblation we offer in deede but doing it to the remembrance of his death This question of Chrysos is but an obiection of the vsual phrase of offering which he expoundeth to be nothing else but a celebration of the remembraunce of Christs death and therfore in the end of that discourse for a full resolution he setteth down Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex sed id ipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur Wee offer not another sacrifice as the holie priest but the same alwayes but rather wee make the remembraunce of that sacrifice This correction sheweth what he meaneth by the name of sacrifice And whereas Maister Heskins vrgeth that they ministred dayly none were bound but priests to communicate aboue thrise in the yere he concludeth the priest receiued oftentimes alone But he playeth the papist notably in taking rather then begging two principles one that the people were not bounde which hee is not able to proue another that there was but one Priest in a church whereas at that time commonly there was but one church in a citie in which were many priestes which by his owne confession were bound to receiue as often as
trueth whereof the Pascall lambe was the figure and shadowe Which trueth was no mysterie newly inuented but practised euer since Moses for not by the fleshe and bloud of the Lambe but by the flesh and bloud of Christ the people were deliuered from death The Lambe was then a sacrament Christe was then and euer shall be the trueth but what neede we more striue wheÌ„ M. Heskins confesseth That the faithfull of the olde Testament did eate the flesh drinke the bloud of Christ spiritually as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. They did all eate the same spirituall meate c. And Cyrill saith We haue no newe mysterie but euen the same that hath beene practised since the time of Moses The twentieth Chapter ioyneth Saint Gregorie and Damascen to confirme the same matter In the beginning of this Chapter he doeth honestly confesse that Gregorie was the last of the higher house Damascen the first and chiefest of the lower house he may make him Vantparlar if he will. But neither of theÌ„ haue any thing materiall for his purpose that he alledgeth them nor for the generall purpose of his bill For Gregories wordes are altogether alegoricall therefore cannot be taken in the Grammaticall sense Hom. 22. Pasch All which thinges do bring forth to vs great edifying if they be discussed by mystical or alegoricall interpretation For what the bloud of the lambe is you haue learned not now by hearing but by drinking which bloud is put vpon both the postes when it is dronke not only with the mouth of the body but also with the mouth of the heart For he that doeth so receiue the bloud of his redeemer that he will not as yet followe his passion hath put the bloud on a post Heare what a great thing is there But that he calleth the sacrament of the bloud the bloud of the redeemer speaking alegorically as he calleth it the bloud of the Lamb meaning the olde Paschal whiche doth signifie the bloud of christ Therfore if Maister Heskins will vrge the bloud of the redeemer dronke not only with the mouth of the body but with the mouth of the heart he may likewise vrge the bloud of the lamb if this be a figuratiue speech so is that But Gregorie proceedeth In the night saith he we eate the lambe because we do now receiue the Lordes body in a sacrament when as yet we do not see one anothers conscience Note here that Gregorie doth not say simply we eate the Lords body but we eate the Lordes body in a sacrament or mysterie comparing the night of the Iewish eating with the mysterie of the Lordes body And in neither of both his sayinges affirmeth the lambe to be a figure of the supper which is the purpose of the Chapter As for Damascen his chiefe words are these For it were too long to rehearse all he being but a knight of the lower house If God the word by willing was made man c. can he not make bread his owne body and wine with water his bloud God saide in the beginning let the earth bring forth greene hearbes and vnto this day beeing holpen strengthened by Gods coÌ„mandement the rayne comming it bringeth forth fruits God said this is my body this is my bloud and do ye this in remeÌ„brance of me by his almightie coÌ„mandement it is brought to passe vntill he come In this testimonie which M. Hesk. rehearseth more at large sauing that he nameth the old Passeouer that Christ did celebrate at his last supper there is no mentioÌ„ of any figure that it was of his supper SecoÌ„dly although the time in which Damascen liued was very corrupt yet there is nothing in these wordes whiche may not wel be referred to the spiritual presence of Christs body vnto the faith of the worthie receiuer M. Heskins maketh a needlesse digression of the coÌ„mandement of consecratioÌ„ which shal be granted to him if he wil not frame a new signification of consecration which none of his Calepines Vocabularies nor Dictionaries do acknowledge For to consecrate is to halow or to separat to an holy vse so we grant the bread and wine to be consecrated But the Papistes call consecrating to change the substances or to transubstaÌ„tiat And so neither Chrysostom nor any other learned man did euer vse that word His wordes as M. Heskins citeth theÌ„ Ho. de pro. Iud. be these And now the same Christ is present which did furnish that table he also consecrateth this For it is not man that maketh the thinges set foorth to be the body and bloud of Christ by consecration of the Lordes table but he that was crucified for vs euen Christ Wordes are spoken by the mouth of the priest but they are consecrated by the power and grace of god This is saith he my body By this worde the thinges set foorth are consecrated And as that voyce that said grow ye multiply ye was but once spoken but yet it feeleth alway effect nature working with it vnto generation so that voyce was but once spoken but through all the tables of the Church vnto this day and vntill the comming it giueth strength to the sacrifice In these wordes because M. Heskins bringeth them in for consecration note that Chrysostome affirmeth all consecration vnto the worldes end to be wrought by the voice of Christ once spoken by him selfe This is my body whereas the Papistes affirme consecration to be by the vertue of these words spoken by a priest So that there is great diuersitie betweene their iudgements of consecration The one twentieth Chapter concludeth the matter of the figure of the Pascall lambe by Haymo and Cabâ—sila There is no doubt but in the lower house M. Heskins may finde many that fauour his bill but seeing it is shut out of the higher house I will not trouble my selfe nor the Reader much to examine the voyces of the lower house Which if they should euery one allowe it yet it cannot be an enacted trueth without the consent of the higher house Onely this will I note that Maister Heskins maketh Haymo elder by 500. yeares then such chronicles as I haue read do account him But this thing in this Chapter must not be omitted that he saith that The sacramentaries cannot bring one father teaching the sacrament to be onely a figure And ioyneth issue with the proclaymer that if he can bring any scripture any catholique counsell or any one approued doctor that by expresse and plaine words doth denie the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament then he will giue ouer and subscribe to him Still he chargeth them whom he calleth the sacramentaries to make the sacrament only a figure or a bare signe which is false But for euidence to informe the men that shall go vpon this issue I will alledge first S. Augustine in plaine and expresse wordes denying that which Maister Heskins and the Papistes call the reall presence of Christes body
the body of Christe by Origens owne wordes and therefore the proclamer sayde truely that wee receiue Christe none otherwise in the sacrament then the Iewes did in Manna concerning the substaunce of the spirituall meat And Maister Heskins saith falsely That we excell the Iewes for our incorporation in Christ and therefore receiue him corporally as though the Iewes also were not incorporated into Christe and were not liuely members of his body in as great excellencie as we yea and with a prerogatiue of the first begotten and of the naturall oliue wherein wee are inferiour The place of Ambrose hee cyteth Lib. 9. cap. 1. De sacramentis Sicus verus est Deifilius Dominus noster Iesus Christus c. As our Lorde Iesus Christe is the true sonne of God not as men by grace but as a sonne of the substance of his father euen so it is true flesh which we receiue as he him selfe saith and very drinke This is noted for an other plaine place for the proclamer as though the proclamer did not graunt that we receiue the true flesh and bloud of Christe in the sacrament but spiritually and by faith not carnally nor transubstantiated But Ambrose is the best expounder of him selfe who in the 6. booke and Chap. 1. De sacramentis hath these wordes Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis sacramentum sed verae naturae gratiam virtutémque consequeris Therefore least more should say this as though there were a certaine horrour of bloud but that the grace of redemption might remaine therefore thou receiuest the sacrament truely for a similitude but thou obtainest the grace and vertue of his true nature By which Ambrose expresseth the whole substaunce of the sacrament that it is a similitude of the body and bloud of Christe but not a similitude onely but such a one as by which we receiue the grace and power of that true nature which is resembled by it This place would satisfie a sober minde but a froward heart will admit no wisedome The nineteenth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Eusebius Emiss and S. Augustine Eusebius is cyted out of Hom. 5. pasch Quia corpus assumptum c. Bicause hee would take his assumpted body from our eyes and bring it into heauen it was necessarie that in the day of his supper he should consecraâ—â— vnto vs a sacrament of his body and bloud that it might be celebrated continually by a mysterie which was offered for our price that bicause the daily and vnwearied redemption did runne for the health of all men the oblation of the redemption might be perpetuall and that eternall sacrifice should liue in memorie and that true onely and perfect sacrifice should be present in grace to be esteemed by faith not by shewe neither to be iudged by outward sight but by inward affection Wherevpon the heauenly authoritie confirmeth that my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede This sentence being directly against him as euery man that readeth it may easily perceiue he is neither ashamed to alledge it hauing nothing to gather out of it for his purpose nor yet that is worse most breastly to corrupt it by false translation and wrong distinction or pointing committing that childish sophisticatioÌ„ which is called ab accentu For where the Latine is Et perennis victima illa viueret in memoria semper prÄ™sens esset in gratia vera vnica perfecta hostia fide aestimanda non specie c. hee hath dismembred it by this translation And that perpetuall sacrifice should liue in memorie and alway be present in grace A TRVE ONE ONLY AND PERFECT SACRIFICE to be esteemed by faith and not by outward forme c. And al bicause he would not acknowledge the presence of Christ that onely true sacrifice by grace which is absent in the bodie as the purpose of Eusebius is to shewe And therfore those words that follow are to be vnderstoode by them that goe before Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie therefore departe seeing hee that is the Authour of the gift is also witnesse of the trueth For the inuisible priest with his worde by secrete power conuerteth the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie and bloud The former sentence sufficiently declareth that he speaketh of a spiritual and not a carnall conuersion because his body which is absent from vs and carried into heauen is present with vs by grace and not otherwise Saint Augustine is cyted Tr. 26. in Ioan Cum enim cibo potu c. For as much as men by meate and drinke do this desire â–ª that they should neither hunger nor thirst nothing perfourmeth this truely but this meate and drinke which maketh them of whom it is receiued immortall and incoâ—â—uptible that is the fellowship of the Saints where peace shal be full and perfect vnitie For therefore truely as the men of God haue vnderstoode it before vs our Lord Iesus Christ commended his bodie and bloud in those thinges which of many are brought to one certein thing For the one is made into one of many graynes so consisteth the other coÌ„meth into one of many grapes Because this sentence is clean contrarie to the carnal presence transubstantiation you must cal to remeÌ„brance the glose of a certeine blind Authour that there be three things in the sacrament to be considered The first the sacrament only which is a signe of an holy thing and that is the forme of bread The second the thing signified conteined that is the very bodie of christ The third is signified but not conteined that is the mysticall bodie of christ But this balde distinction is so farre of Augustines minde that he cleane ouerthroweth two partes of it First the carnall presence of Christes bodie conteined when he affirmeth that this meate maketh them of whome it is receiued immortall and incorruptible whiche are onely them that receiue it by faith for if it were conteined wicked men should also receiue it but they receiue it not therefore it is not conteined Secondly he ouerthroweth transubstantiation when he saith that Christe commended his bodie in such thinges as are made one of many as one bread of many graines and one wine of many grapes For the fourme by which Heskins meaneth the accidents of bread is made neither of graynes nor of grapes Therfore the fourme of Bread is none of those things in which Christ commended his body and bloud But when nothing is in Augustine then the collections of Prosper must helpe on this manner Hoc est quod dicimus c. This it is which we say which by al meanes we labour to approue that the sacrifice of the Church is made by two meanes and consisteth of two thinges the visible kinde of the elementes and the inuisible fleshe and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe
God to which purpose he sayth in the 57. Chapter of that fourth booke Quomodo autem iustè Dominus si alterius patris existens huius conditionis quae est secundiòm nos accipiens panem fuum corpus confisebatur temperamentum calicis sui sanguinem confirmanit How did our Lorde iustly if being sonne of another father taking bread which is of this creation that we are ▪ confesse it to be his bodie and the temperament of the cuppe he confirmed to be his bloud Thus you see neither in the one place nor in the other he reasoneth of the diuine power of Christe to make a reall presence or transubstantiation but of the inconuenience that Christ shoulde ordeine his sacrament in the creatures of another god The seconde heresie he impugneth in deede by the receipt of the bodie and bloude of Christe in the sacrament by which our fleshe is nourished vnto immortalitie which nourishing M. Heskins in no wise will haue to be vnderstoode spiritually but corporally and sayeth it doth inuincibly proue the reall presence I will not rippe vp what absurdities do followe if wee say that Christes fleshe doth nourish our flesh corporally or after a carnall manner as of the concoction and digestion thereof to be turned into our nature where he sayed before that our flesh is turned into his fleshe but I will proue out of Irenaeus that he meant nourishing spiritually and not corporally For lib. 5. he hath these wordes Quando ergo mixtus calix factus panis percipit verbum Dei fit eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna quae sanguine corpore Christi nutritur membrum eius est When therefore the cuppe that is mixed and the bread that is made receiueth the worde of God it is made the Eucharistie of the bloud bodie of Christe of which the substance of our fleshe is increased and consisteth howe do they denye that the flesh is capable of the gift of God which is eternall life which is nourished with the bodie and bloud of Christ and is a member of him Here you see plainly that our fleshe is so nourished of the bodie and bloud of Christ that it is increased of the same and so consisteth of them that wee are his members but our bodies are not increased c. but spiritually therefore they are not nourished but spiritually after an heauenly manner But moste plainly for impugning of both the heresies aforesaide and other heresies more of transubstantiation and the carnall presence and the sacrifice propitiatorie of the masse he writeth lib. 4. Cap. 34. Nostra autem consonans est sententia Eucharistiae Eucharistia rursus confirmat sententiam nostram Offerimus enim ei quę sunt eius congruenter communicationem vnitatem praedicantes carnis spiritus Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena caelesti sic corpora nostra percipientia Euchaeristiam iam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Offerimus autem ei non quasi indigenti sed gratias agentes donationi eius sanctificantes creaturam But our sentence is agreeable to the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing and the Eucharistie againe doth confirme our sentence For wee offer vnto him those things that be his owne agreeably setting foorth the communication and vnitie of the fleshe and the spirite For as the breade which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God is not nowe common bread but the Eucharistie consisting of two things an earthly thing an heauenly thing euen so our bodies also receiuing the Eucharistie are not nowe corruptible hauing hope of resurrection And wee offer to him not as to one hauing neede but giuing thankes for his gifte and sanctifying the creature By this place is transubstantiation ouerthrowen where he sayth the sacrament consisteth of two things an earthly and an heauenly the carnall presence when hee defineth it to be a heauenly thing that is a diuine and spiritual communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ the propitiatorie sacrifice when he sayeth that the creatures of breade and wine were offered for a thankes giuing c. That Melancton defending the popish presence abused the authoritie of Irenaeus against Oecolampadius it ought to be no preiudice to vs especially seeing as M. Heskins before confessed that Melancthon him selfe forsooke that opinion in the end Now come we to Tertullian whose testimonie though it bee flatly against him yet hee hath laboured if it were possible by wrestling and wrangling to make it serue his turne or a least to auoyde it that it should not hurt his cause Lib. 4. contra Marcionem Professus itaque c. When therefore he had professed that with desire he desired to eate the Passeouer as his owne for it was vnmeete that God shuld desire any thing pertayning to an other the breade that was taken and distributed to his disciples he made it his body saying This is my body that is to say a figure of my body But it had bene no figure except his body had bene of trueth Here M. Heskins cutteth off but it followeth in Tertullian Caeterum c. For a vaine thing which is a fantasie could receiue no figure Or if therefore he feigned the bread to be his body bicause he lacked the trueth of a body then ought hee to haue giuen the breade for vs It would haue made for Marcions vanitie that the breade should haue bene crucified The alteration falsification and truncation of Tertullians wordes which Maister Heskins vseth was noted in the first booke partly and it wearieth me to note these faultes so often as he committeth them But here he turneth these wordes Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus But it had not bene a figure except it were a body of trueth As though the breade were both a figure and a body of trueth which cleane peruerteth the sense of Tertullian and is contrarie to his purpose as you may see by that which followeth For Marcion agreed with Valentinus against whome Irenęus writte that Christ was not the GOD of the olde Testament and moreouer affirmed that Christe had not a true body but a fantasticall body Against both these hereticall opinions hee reasoneth in this sentence First he saith Christe desired to eat the Passeouer therefore it was of his owne institution for it was vnmeete that God should desire any thing of an other Gods institution And that Christe had a true bodye hee proueth by the institution of the sacrament which was a figure of his body for a fantasticall body or a vaine thing can haue no figure for a figure hath a necessarie relation to a thing of trueth whereof it is a
manducauerunt Eundem inquit eundem non inuenio quomodo intelligam nisi eum quem manducamus nos Quid ergò ait aliquis◠Hoc erat manna illud quod ego nunc accipio Ergo nihil modò venit si antè iam fuit Ergo euacuatum est scandalum Crucis Quomodo ergo eundem nisi quod addidit spiritualem They did eate saith he the same spirituall meate It had suffised that he had said they did eate a spirituall meate he saith the same I can not finde how I should vnderstande the same but the same whiche we doe eate What then sayeth one Was that Manna the same thing that I doe nowe receiue Then is there nothing come nowe if it were then before Then is the slaunder of the crosse made voide Therefore how should it be the same but that he added spirituall I coulde cite other places out of Augustine but that I will not cloie the Reader with two many at once The last parte of the Chapter would proue that the baptisme of Iohn was not the baptisme of CHRIST wherevppon I will not stande because it is an other controuersie out of the purpose of the booke onely I will note these grosse absurdities that hee denyeth the baptisme of Iohn to be the very baptisme and then it followeth that CHRISTE was not baptised with the very baptisme who was baptised of Iohn Secondly he denieth that sinnes were remitted in the Baptisme of Iohn whiche is directly contrarie to the Scripture Luke 3. verse 3. He alledgeth Chrysostome for his proofe but the blinde buzzarde can not see the difference betweene the ministerie of Iohn in his baptisme and the worke of CHRISTE in the same whiche maketh him with his fellowes to imagine a difference of baptismes by as good reason as they might make a difference betweene the Supper whiche was celebrated by CHRISTE him selfe and that whiche was ministered by his Apostles Finally where the Apostle sayeth expressely that the Fathers were baptised hee is so bolde as to say they were not baptised in deede but onely receyued a bare figure of baptisme whiche is as muche for the Apostles purpose as if hee hadde saide nothing at all The thirde Chapter expoundeth the residue of the texte Et omnes candem escam spiritualem c. First he declareth that this one meate whiche the Fathers did eate was Manna and that hee proueth by the authoritie of Saint Chrysostome and Saint Augustine as his manner is to heape vppe testimonies of the Fathers where no neede is of any proofe Secondly he determineth wherefore it is called spirituall meate and the water that flowed out of the rocke spirituall drinke Namely because it was giuen vnto them miraculously and not naturally and for none other cause whiche is altogether vntrue for as it hath beene prooued before both out of the text and confirmed by the iudgement of Saint Augustine manna was called spirituall meate because it fedde the faithfull not onely bodily but also spiritually with the bodie of CHRISTE and the water with his bloud But Maister Heskins seemeth to builde vpon Chrysostomes authoritie who in 1. Cor. 10. writeth thus Quanuis c. Although those thinges that were giuen were perceiued by sense yet they were giuen spiritually not according to the nature of consequences but according to the grace of the gifte By these wordes Chrysostome meaneth that although Manna and the water were sensible things yet had they a spirituall signification and vertue giuen with them for as they were not giuen by the ordinarie course of nature but by speciall Diuine power so they had more then a naturall propertie of nourishment and were to be esteemed according to the speciall grace by whiche they were giuen But Maister Heskins will acknowledge nothing in this miracle of manna but the feeding of their bodies nor in the water of the rocke but the quenching of their thirst and seruing their bodily necessitie In whiche grosse madnesse hee maketh no difference betweene the faithfull and their brute beastes whose thirst and bodily necessitie that water did satisfie as muche as their Maisters So that if the water bee called spirituall drinke only because it was miraculously giuen this horrible absurditie will followe that the cattell whiche dranke thereof did also drinke of the spirituall rocke whiche followed them which rocke was Christ which euerie Christian man detesteth to heare But contrariwise seeing that water was a sacrament of the bloud of Christe we may see no lesse then three heresies of the Papistes about the sacrament ouerthrowen thereby First because all the people did drinke of the sacrament of Christes bloud and not the Priestes onely Secondly that the elementes are no longer sacramentes then they be in vse of ministration For the water which was a sacrament of Christes bloud vnto the Israelites so often as they dranke of it was no sacrament when they occupied it to other necessarie vses Thirdly that bruite beastes as Dogges Apes and myse eating and drinking the bread and wine that hath beene consecrated to the vse of the sacrament doe not eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of CHRISTE For the bruite beastes did drinke of this water which to the faithfull was consecrated in the right vse thereof to be the bloud of CHRISTE Yet did not the bruite beastes touche the sacrament of his bloud But Maister Heskins will haue vs to note That Saint Paule saith not they dranke of that materiall rocke but they dranke of a spirituall rocke which followed them whiche spiritual rocke was Christe And herevpon he condemneth Oecolampadius for abusing Saint Paules wordes The rocke was CHRISTE to make it a figuratiue speache whereas the saide proposition is to be vnderstoode grammatically or literally and not tropically or figuratiuely And so is nothing like to this proposition This is my bodie Peraduenture the Reader looketh for a newe transubstantiation when hee heareth Maister Heskins exclude all tropes and figures from this saying The rocke was Christe But vouchsafe to heare his reason and you shall more maruell at his monstruous impudencie Because it is called a spirituall rocke therefore there is no trope or figure in the speache But admitte that Saint Paule had no relation to the materiall rocke out of which the waters did flowe is this a proper and essentiall praedication to say Christe is a spirituall rocke will not all the Grammarians Logicians and Rhetoricians in the worlde throwe stones at him that will so affirme But all men endewed with reason will confesse that Manna and the rocke are in one sense of Saint Paule called spirituall but the materiall manna was the spirituall meate by Maister Heskins owne interpretation therefore the materiall rocke was the spirituall rocke out of whiche flowed the spirituall drinke But Maister Heskins hath another reason to proue that the material rock was not called the spiritual rocke because the materiall rocke stoode still in the Wildernesse but the spirituall rocke followed them Although Saint Paule
But louers truely doe shewe this desire in mony garments possessions no man euer in his owne bloud But Christ in this hath shewed both his care and his vehement loue toward vs And in the olde Testament when they were more vnperfect that bloud which they offered to idolâ— he himselfe would accept that he might turne them away from idols which also was a signe of inspeakable loue But here he hath prepared a much more wonderfull and magnificall sacrifice both when he changed the sacrifice it selfe and for the slaughter of brute beaste commanded him selfe to be offered Although M. Hesk. hath disioyned this place to make shew of varietie I haue set it down whole and entire Here M. Hesk. triumpheth not a litle rayling against blessed Cranmer for abusing S. Paules words because Chrysostome saith that which is in the cup is that which flowed out of Christes side therfore it must needs be his bloud that corporaly receiued neither can he abide to heare tell of a trope or figure in these wordes Buâ— in spight of his heart Chrysostom must be vnderstood with a trope or figure because he saith immediatly after that Christ willeth the Corinthians to sprinkle his altar with his bloud I am sure M. Hesk. wold not dip his holiwater sprinkle in the challice and shake it ouer the altar Therefore the whole speech of Chrysostom is a continued trope and allegorie And therfore neither M. Hes his presence nor his sacrifice caÌ„ be proued out of this place Concerning the sacrifice I haue often shewed how the ancient fathers called the sacrament a sacrifice namely of thanksgiuing First not of propitiation so we grant that Christ did institute a sacrifice in the supper Secondly vnproperly as a remeÌ„brance of Christes sacrifice and so doth Chrysostome expound him selfe vpon the tenth to the Hebrues Non aliud c. We offer not another sacrifice as the high priest but the same we do always but rather we worke the remeÌ„brance of that sacrifice Another place of Chrysostome he citeth out of his Ser. de Eucharist in Enconija Reputate salutareÌ„ c. Esteeme that wholsome bloud to flowe as it were out of his Diuine and vnpolluted side and so comming to it receiue it with pure lippes This saith he must needes proue a reall presence because it is receiued with lipâ— as the spiritual receiuing is not And these words must be spoken in a plaine maner without all figure because he spake them in a sermon to the common people O blockish reasons surely he hath not read this place in Chrysostom but borowed it of some note book For immediatly before these wordes is a place that hath a great shewe of transubstantiation but in deede it cleane ouerthroweth both the corporal maner of receiuing M. Hesk. two doughtie reasons Num vides panem num viâ—um â–ª Noâ—â— ficut reliqui â—ibi in secessum vadunt Absit ne sic cogites queÌ„aedâ—oâ—â— enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimulatur nihil substantia vemanet nihil superfluit sic hic puâ—a mysteria consumi corporis praesentia Propâ—er quod accedentes ne putetis quod accipiatis Diuinum corpus ex homine sed ex ipsis Seraphim forcipe igneÌ„ quem scilices Esaias vidit vat accipere What doest thou see bread or wine Do they go into the drought like other meal God forbid that thou sholdest so thinke Foâ— as waxe if it be put to the fire is made like vnto it none of the substance remaineth nothing ouerfloweth so here think the mysteries to be consumed by the presence of the bodie Therfore you that come to it think not that you receiue the diuine bodie of a man but that you receiue the fier which Esaie saw with a paire of tongs of the Seraphims themselues If M. Hesk. will not allow any figures in this sermon because it was made to the common people that we receiue not the Lords bodie at the Priests hand but fire from the altar by an Angels hande and that Chrysostome allowed none but a spirituall receiuing of Christ not corporally present on the altar but in heauen he teacheth sufficieÌ„tly both by this place more plainely following the former place which M. Hesk. cited before In 1. Cor. 10. Ad hoc 〈◊〉 nos inducis sacrificiâ—on formidandâ—â— admirabile quod iubet nobis vt cum concordia charitate maxima ad se accedamis aquilae in hac vita facti ad ipsum câ—lum euotemus vel potius supra 〈◊〉 Vbi enim cadâ—uer inquit illic aquilae Cadauer Domini corpuâ— propter mortem nisi enim ille cecidisset nos noÌ„ resurrexissemus Aquilas 〈◊〉 appellat vt oftendat ad alta eum oportere conteÌ„dere qui ad hoc corpus acâ—edit nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune neque ad inferiora trahi repere sed ad superiora seÌ„per volare in solem institiae intueri mentisqué oculum acutissimum habere Aquilaerum enim non gracculorum hec mensa est For vnto this doeth the fearefull and wonderful sacrifice bring vs that he coÌ„mandeth vs that we come vnto him with concord and great charitie and beeing made eagles in this life we flie vp into heauen or rather aboue heauen For where the carkase is saith he there are the Eagles The Lords bodie is the carkas in respect of his death for except he had fallen we had not risen againe And he calleth them Eagles to shew that he must get vp on high that coÌ„meth to this body must haue nothing to do with the earth nor be drawn and creepe to the lower places but alwayes to flie vp on high and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse and to haue a most cleare eye of the minde For this is the table of Eagles and not of Iayes These words may satisfie a reasonable man that Chrysostom in this homily ment none other but a spirituall manner of receiuing of Christe in heauen and not transubstantiated in the sacrament on the altar in earth the other places he soweth together after his manner to peece out his Chapter out of Cyprian De Coen Chrysost. De prodition Iudae August contra literas Pet. Iren. Lib. 4. Cap. 32. are answered at large before in seuerall places namely in order Lib. 1. Ca. 17. Lib. 1. Cap. 18. Lib. 1. Cap. 19. and Lib. 2. Cap. 49. The place of Ambrose In prima oratione praepar c. Deserueth none answere beeing none of his workes but a counterfet as Erasmus and all learned men do iudge that be not wedded to their owne affection The seuententh Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by the exposition of Chrysostome and S. Hierome Chrysostome is cited as before vpon this text In 1. Cor. 10. vpon these wordes The bread which we breake is it not the communication of the bodie of Christ Quare non dixit participatio Why said he not the participatioÌ„ because he wold signifie somewhat