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
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
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
proued that seruice in an vnknowne tongue is neither so auncient as it is pretended nor yet so allowed in all times but that euen a popish councel hath decreed against it SECTIO 40. From the second face of the 135. leafe to the 139. leafe in which he speaketh of the title of the vniuersall bishop To the bishops challenge that the bishoppe of Rome was not called an vniuersal bishop or head of the vniuersall Church he answereth that the title was due although it was not vsed and after his accostomable manner cauilleth of the worde vniuersall whereas the bishop doth sufficiently expound himselfe by addinge or head of the vniuersall Church which he taketh in hand to proue giuing ouer the former title of vniuersall First by a lowsie counterfett Epistle most falsely ascribed to Anacletus which he citeth to be the second but it is in the thirde in which the vnlearned asse that counterfeted that Epistle interpreteth the name of Peter giuē him by Christ which was Cephas ▪ to signifie a head and beginning whereas by the Gospell we learne that Cephas was a stone as Peter is if the knowledge of the Syrian tongue shoulde fayle vs. His seconde authoritie is out of Cyprian Lib. 3. ep 11. The wordes of certaine scismatikes that tooke part with Nouatus against Cornelius bishop of Rome and vppon their repentaunce beeinge in Africa were receyued into the Churche These men confessed that they did acknowledge Cornelius to bee a bishoppe of the most holy Catholike Churche whereas before they refused him and claue to Nouatus a false bishoppe of Rome not lawfully ordained like as afterwarde they acknowledge that there shoulde bee but one bishoppe of a Catholike Church meaning in one citie for else they shoulde haue denyed Cyprian and all other bishoppes of the worlde to bee bishoppes sauinge onely Cornelius the bishoppe of Rome whereas Cornelius being lawfully called to be bishop of Rome they had taken part with Nouatus which would be a bishoppe by intrusion He citeth also Cyprian lib. 1. ep 3. heresies haue risen of none other cause but that the priest of God is not obeyed and that there is not one priest of God in the Churche for a time and one iudge in steede of Christ thought vpon whiche Cypriane speaketh not of one priest to be as iudge of all the Churche but of one in euerie Churche and namely he speaketh of himselfe complaininge that he was contemned by a leude heretike and scismatike called Felicissimus with his complices His thirde author is Ambrose in 1. Tim. 3. whiche although it bee denyed to be the worke of Ambrose but rather set forth of some man of muche later time in the name of Ambrose to get more credite vnto his writing yet receyuinge it as Ambrose what sayeth hee Forsoothe that Damasus was a gouernour of the Church of Christ whiche is the house of God whiche he sayeth in none other sense then S. Paule enstructed Timothie to behaue himself in the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God not meaning to make him supreame head of all the Church of Christ no more did Ambrose meane to make Damasus then bishop of Rome His fourth authour is Cyrillus whome hee citeth in Lib. Thesau a counterfette place not to bee founde in all the workes of Cyrillus by whome so euer it was forged His last authour is Gregorie Libro 4. Epistola 32. who sayeth that although the charge of all the Churche was committed to Peter as chiefe of the Apostles yet he was not called an vniuersall bishoppe I confesse the charge of al the Church was committed to Peter whiche was not bishoppe of one Churche but an Apostle sent vnto the whole worlde as all the rest of the Apostles were But that prooueth not the supremacie of the bishoppe of Rome who if hee were a right bishoppe yet were hee no Apostle and so hath nothinge to doe with the charge and commission of an Apostle Hee nameth also Sainte Augustine whiche in diuers places calleth Rome Sedem Apostolicam a seate Apostolike whiche is nothinge else sayeth Maister Rastell but that place whiche may plante and pull vppe sette and lette and hath his power ouer the whole worlde But where learned hee this deffinition of a seate Apostolike O impudent and arrogaunt disputer All Churches that were planted and honoured with the presence of the Apostles were called Apostolike seates yet did they neuer claime neither would Rastell giue vnto them that whiche he maketh to bee the deffinition of a seate Apostolike As for Augustine doeth often call Rome Babylon the seat of Antichrist De ciuit Dei lib. 16. cap. 17. lib. 18. cap. 2. 22. SECTIO 41. From the 139. leafe to the 144. leafe in which he speaketh of the reall and corporall presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament The bisho◠saith the people were not taught that Christs body is really substantially corporally carnally or naturally in the sacrament Master Rastell saith although these termes be not founde yet that which is signified by them is found For thus he vseth in euery matter to trifle about termes as though the bishop did striue for wordes and sylables and not for the matter And he would haue the bishop to bring out of any antiquitie that the people were taught to beleeue that the bodie of Christ is onely figuratiuely sacramentally significatiuely tropically imaginatiuely in the sacrament to the denyal of all presence and reallitie as though a sacramental presence were not a presence and a reall presence also if by reall you meane that whiche is in deede and not counterfeted though it bee not after a grosse and carnall manner For that Christ is present and truely receyued in his sacramentes wee doe gladly confesse whiche is all that any aunciente writers speaketh of his presence Hierome Isychius Cyrillus Origen Augustine or Chrysostome whose names he citeth or any other within 600. yers after christ But to maintein that grosse corporall maner of presence or receiuing which the papistes doe now holde there is none of the olde writers that saith any thing to the purpose As for Damascen is far out of the compasse a corrupt writer and yet more grosse in termes then his iudgement was as it were easie to prooue if his authoritie were of any weight But Master Rastel asketh if these words be not plaine inough This is my bodie which shall bee deliuered for you Luk. 22. Hee maketh them somewhat plainer by chaunging the pretertence into the future for Luke reporteth the words which is giuen for you I againe aske him whether these wordes bee not as plaine This cuppe is the Newe Testament in my blood which is shedde for you Wee doubt not but that it is the sacrament of his true and naturall body for we make not two bodies of Christ as the papistes doe a naturall bodie and a spirituall bodie which true and naturall bodie of Christ being in heauen is giuen vnto
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
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
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
Christ it is euident that he neither beleeued transubstantiation nor the carnall presence nor consecration nor intention after the manner of the Papistes as also by this that hee calleth the bread and wine after consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplaries or figures You see therefore howe with patches and peeces rent off here and there he goeth about to deceiue the simple readers which either haue no leasure or no boookes or no skill to trie out his falsifications and malicious corruptions The like sinceritie hee vseth in citing Chrysostomes Masse for so he calleth his Liturgie in which is a prayer for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius which was seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostomes death and therfore could not possibly be written by him Besides this there be diuers copies in the Greeke tong one that Erasmus translated which is very vnlike that copie which is printed in Greeke since that time as the learned sort doe knowe The wordes he citeth be in a manner the same that were in Basils Liturgie sauing that in the end he addeth Permutans ea sancto spiritu tuo changing them by the spirt This change may well be without transubstantiation as hath bene often shewed before The saying of Ambrose is more at large in the Chapter next before As for the praier of the Popish Masse that the oblation may be made the body and bloud of Christ as it is vnderstoode of them is nothing like the prayers of the elder Liturgies although in sound of some words it seeme to agree And as foolishly as vniustly he findeth fault with our praier in the communion that wee receiuing the creatures of breade and wine in remembrance of Christes death according to his institution may be made partakers of his most blessed body bloud S. Iames S. Clement and the rest saith he prayed not that they might receiue bread and wine No more doe we thou foolish sophister But that receiuing bread and wine we might be partakers of Christes body and bloud and this did all the Apostolike and Primitiue Church pray as we pray in baptisme not that we may receiue water but that receiuing water we may be borne a newe Neither did they euer pray that the breade and wine might be transubstantiated into the body bloud of Christ but that they might be made the body bloud of Christ to theÌ„ after a spirtual sacrameÌ„tal maner But I am much to blame to vouchsafe these childish sophismes of any answere Next to this he would knowe what authoritie the Protestants can shewe that the eating and drinking of bread wine is of Christes institution That it is a part of his institution the Euangelists S. Paul do shewe most euidently But though he tooke breade and wine in his hands saith M. Heskins he changed it before he gaue them so that it was no more bread and wine but his body and bloud and therefore we charge Christ with an vntrueth to say that receiuing of bread and wine is of Christes institution O Maister of impietie and follie Christ made no such change in his handes but that which was in the cup was still the fruit of the vine as he himself testified saying I wil no more drinke of this fruit of the vine vntill the day come when I shall drinke it a newe with you in the kingdome of my father Math. 26. As for the praier of those Liturgies of Iames and Basil That God would make them worthie to receiue the body and bloud of Christe without condemnation proueth not that they meant to receiue the body of Christ after a corporall maner nor that the very body of Christe may be receiued to damnation The thirde Liturgie of Chrysostome which Erasmus expoundeth hath it otherwise Dignos nos redde potenti manu â—ua vt participes simuâ— immaculati tui corporis preciosi tui sanguinis per nos omnis populus Make vs worthy by thy mightie hand that we may be partakers of thy vndefiled body and of thy precious bloud and so may al the people by vs This prayer is godly sound and so are the other being rightly vnderstoode namely that they which eate of that bread drinke of that cup of the Lord vnworthily as S. Paule saith do eat and drinke their owne damnation not considering the Lords body But M. Heskins vrgeth that the spiritual body of Christ or Christ spiritually cannot be deliuered by the Priestes to the people but the real body may Yes verily much rather then the body of Christ corporally euen as the holy Ghost may be deliuered in baptisme and as eternal life and forgiuesse of sinnes may be giuen in preaching the Gospell and none of these feinedly but truly yet otherwise are they giuen by God otherwise by this Ministers But in this distinction of M. Hes â–ª it is good to note that he maketh Christ to haue a reall body which is not spirituall a spirituall body which is not reall Christ hath in deede a mysticall body which is his Church and that is not his natural body but by spiritual coniunction vnited to his only true naturall body But of this mystical body M. Hes. speaketh not Further he taketh exceptions to our prayer affirmeth that It is not the institution of Christe to receiue the creatures of breade and wine in the remembrance of his death But notwithstanding all his childish blockish quarels our prayer is waranted by the Apostles words 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat of this bread drinke of this cup ye shewe the Lords death till he come In the last part of this Chap. he will determine of the intention of the ministers of the new Church And that is that Desiring to receiue the creatures of bread wine they exclude the body and bloud of Christ. Who euer heard a more shamelesse lye or a more inconsequent argument But seing there be two sorts of ministers in this new founded Church he wil speake of them both one sort were made Popish Priestes so haue authoritie to consecrate but they lacke intention now they be fallen to heresie there is a second sort which thought they could not haue intention to consecrate yet being none of the greasie and blasphemous order they lack authoritie But I wold there were not a third sort of whom I spake in the last chap. that wer made popish Priestes and so continue but in outward dissimulation ioyne with vs if these intend to consecrate when they minister the coÌ„munion how can M. Hes. dissuade the Papists from receiuing of them or count their sacrameÌ„t nothing but bare bread And wheras M. He. seemeth in the end to inueigh against such I will willingly confesse that they are worse then he is or such as professe what they are but not worse then hee hath beene in King Henries King Edwards dayes when he dissembled and swaâ—e as deepely as any of them all As for our intention seeing it is
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
his bodie This saying M. Heskins hath most vntollerably abused first by false translating and then by leauing out that which expoundeth the mind of Tertullian most clearely For the true vnderstanding of this place we must note two things firste that Marcion against whome he writeth affirmed that the God of the lawe was not the God of the Gospel secondly that Christ had not a true bodie but a fantasticall bodie Against both these errours he reasoneth in this sentence Against the first when he saith he desired to eate the Pascal lambe of the olde lawe which was his owne namely of his owne institution for it was absurd that Christ being God shoulde desire that which was another Gods institution as the heretike sayde the lawe and all ceremonies thereof were And this is directly contrarie to M. Heskins purpose who ioyning with the heretike denyeth that he did desire to eat the Pascall of the lawe and that it was not properly his owne and for this intent to make it serue his turne he translateth falsly vt suum as his owne Passouer alienum any strange thing Against the seconde Tertullian reasoneth in the same sentence which words because M. Heskins could not abyde he hath cleane cut off The wordes are these Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit quia corporis caâ—ebas veritate ergo panem dibuit tradere pro nobis Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis crucifigeretur The bread which he tooke distributed to his disciples he made his bodie saying this is my bodie that is to saye a figure of my bodie And it could haue bene no figure except his bodie had bene of trueth But a vaine thing which is a phantasie cannot receiue a figure Or else if therefore he made breade his bodie because he lacked the trueth of a bodie therefore he should haue giuen bread for vs It made wel for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should haue beene crucified There can nothing bee more euident then that Tertullian by this place ouerthroweth both the transubstantiation and also the carnall presence maintained by the Papistes This M. Heskins because he coulde not brooke he brake off the sentence and commeth out of the matter also to raile against Cranmer of holy memorie first doubting whether the booke set forth in his name were made by him as though Cranmer was not wel enough knowen to be as well able to write a booke as Heskins then that he affirmeth the Papistes vnable to shewe one article of faith so directly contrarie to our senses that all our senses shall by daily experience affirme a thing to be and yet our faith shall teach vs the contrarie Maister Heskins like a wilie Pye obiecteth the article of the resurrection where our senses teacheth vs that mens bodyes be dead and faith teacheth that they shall rise againe But the subtile sophister doth not see I weene a difference betweene it is in M. Cranmers assertioÌ„ is and shal be in his balde obiection Faith teacheth that shal be which our sense teacheth nowe not to be But faith teacheth not that to be white which our sense teacheth to be blacke But he hath another wise instance The senses taught that the wounde which Christe had in his side after his resurrection was verie sore but faith taught the contrarie because his bodie was glorified Seeing the wounde was made after his death reason would iudge that it was insensible especially when he was risen againe froÌ„ death by his diuine power And Thomas was not so rude that he would haue thrust in his hand if he thought it shold haue hurt him and when he did thrust in his hande he perceiued by his senses that it did not hurt But it is pittie to spende any time about so vaine a matter sorenesse being not the thing but a certeine affection of the thing which cannot alwayes be knowen by another mans senses but by his onely that feeleth it as in him that hath the Palsey if his legge were cut off he feeleth nothing yet some such wise man as M. Heskins would thinke it were verie sore But he woulde-faine excuse the matter why he cutteth off Tertulian by the waste promising in another place to do it and willeth you in the meane time to consider that Christes bodie is giuen in the sacrament and further alledgeth out of Tertullian in another place which is in his booke De resurrectione carnis That the fleshe doth eate the bodie and bloud of Christ that the soule may be fedd of God. Where hee meaneth none otherwise then in the former place calling the sacrament a figure of Christes bodie and so an ende with Tertullian Then commeth Isychius disciple of Gregorie Nazianzene who firste dissuading men from vsing of the Iewes ceremonies affirmeth that which M. Heskins denyed that Christe did eat the legall Passouer in his last supper His wordes that are materiall are these Christus primùm celebrauit figuratum Pasca Post canam auem intelligibidem tradit Christ did first celebrate the figuratiue Passeouer but after supper he deliuered the intelligible supper Then followe diuers places to shew that by intelligible he meaneth figured But being graunted that the supper was figured by the pascall Lambe which is the egge that he is so long in brooding yet he is neuer the neerer for the carnall presence and corporall manner of eating no not with that whiche Isychius saith That he tooke the intelligible bloud first in the mysticall supper and afterward gaue the cuppe to his Apostles and that he dranke himselfe and giuing to his Apostles to drinke then he powred the intelligible bloud vpon the altar that is to say his body Now the body of Christ is the Church and all his people He that seeth not that this Father doeth vse figuratiuely these wordes bloud body altar powre drinke c. is worthy to weare a cockes combe a bell Yet Maister Heskins noteth in the margent Christ dranke his owne bloud and gaue it to his Apostles Which if it be true in the litterall sense as he meaneth then it is as true that he powred his owne bloud vpon his owne body in the literall sense For the same bloud which he dranke and gaue he powred on his body But he powred not his natural bloud vpon his body therefore he neither gaue nor dranke his naturall bloud in the litterall sense But you will say his body signifieth his Church and people for whom he powred forth his naturall bloud Well beside that you are inforced to acknowledge a figuratiue speeche you are neuer the neere For although he powred out his bloud for them yet he powred it not vpon them
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
beene slaine in a sedition raysed by him where as the worlde knoweth it was in warre that was helde in defence of his countrie The like foolish quarell he hath for putting out of Polycarpus out of the Calender placing Thomas Hutten in his stood all which as vnworthie any aunswer I passe ouer it is sufficiently knowen what Bullinger esteemed of mâ—ns authoritie what Fox if he meane him iudged of the old Martyrs diuinitie The other reasons following I could scarse read without loathsomnesse that preachers must ceasse if writers may not be receiued vnder 1000 yeres antiquitie more that speaking writing are of like authority and such like blockish stuffe The elder writers are allowed not for their age but for their agreement with the worde of God the later preachers are beleeued not for that their speaking is better then Papistes writing but because they speake thinges consonant to the word of God the touchstone and triall of trueth And therefore we receiue not the testimonie of Nicholaus de Lyra the second Burgesse because it is contrarie to the word of God and the consent of the elder Doctours that Christ speaketh of the sacrament when he saith the bread which I will giue is my fleshe which wordes Theophylacte euen nowe affirmed to be spoken of the passion of Christ. The fourth Chapter beginneth a further proofe of the former master by S. Cyprian and Euthymius For proof of the two breads that the text The bread which I will giue is my flesh c. is ment of the sacrament Cyprian is alledged although the place be not quoted but it is in the sermon vpoÌ„ the Lords prayer in these words Panis vitae Christus est c. Christ is the bread of life and he is not the bread of all men but our bread And as we say our father because he is the father of theÌ„ that vnderstand beleeue so we call it our bread because Christ is our bread which touche his body And this bread we pray to be giuen vs daily least we that are in Christe and daily receiue the Eucharistie to the meate of health some greeuous offence comming betweene while beeing separated and not communicating we be forbidden from that heauenly bread we be separated from the body of Christ he himselfe openly saying and warning I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and the bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde Howsoeuer M. Hesk. would falsly gather out of this place Cyprian maketh not two breades but one bread of life Christ God man as for the two respects of his Godhead manhoode that he prateth of cannot make Christ to be two breads but one true foode of our soules And that Cyprian doth apply this text to the sacrament only it is utterly false in that he saith we must pray for this daily bread Christ to feede vs although for some greeuous offence we be restrained from the sacrament as is also euident by these words that follow Quando ergo dicit in aeternum viuere si quis ederit de tius pane vt manifestum est cos vinera qui corpus eius 〈◊〉 Eucharistitum â—â—re coÌ„municationis accipiunt ita contrae timenduÌ„ est erandum ne dam quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore procul remaneat a salute comminante ipso dicente Nist ederitis carnem fâ—ij hominis biberiâ—is sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis Et ideo panem nostrium id est Christum dari nobis quoâ—idie petimus vt qui in Christo manemus vinimus a sanctificatione corpore eius non recedamus Therefore when he saith that he liueth for euer whosoeuer shal eate of his bread as it is manifest that they do liue which touch or come neare vnto his body and by the right of communication receiue the sacrament of thankesgiuing so contrariwise it is to be feared and to be prayed for lest while any being sequestred is separated from the body of Christe he remaine farre from health he himselfe threatening saying except ye shal eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you And therefore we pray daily that our bread that is to say Christ may be giuen to vs daily that we which remaine liue in Christ go not away from sanctification and his bodie In these wordes as in the former Cyprian directly referreth that text to our spirituall communication with the body of Christ by right of which communication we receiue the sacrament thereof And this participation of Christ he calleth Contingere attingere corpus Christi not to touch his body with our teeth or mouth in that sacrameÌ„t as M. Heskins dreameth Here followeth Euthymius of whose antiquitie we haue spoken in the first booke Neuerthelesse we wil examine his saying which is this In 6. Ioan. Duobus modis c. Christ is saide to be bread two wayes that is after his godhead and after his manhood therefore when he had taught the manner which is after his godhead now doeth he also teach the manner which is after his manhoode For he did not say which I do giue but which I will giue for he would giue it in his last supper when thankes being giuen he tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and saide take eate this is my body M. Heskins maruelleth that the aduersaries cheekes waxe not redd for shame to see so plaine a sentence against them But if we knew not that Maister Heskins had beene as impudent as a frier we might maruell that he was not ashamed first to alledge Euthymius as a writer within 6. hundreth yeares after Christ who liued about the yeare of our Lorde 1180. And secondly to make two breads of that which Euthymius saith to be one bread after two manners Finally although Euthymius referred this text to the sacrament yet saith he nothing for the carnall presence in as much as it is manifest that Christ spake there of a spiritual communication of his fleshe or else all infantes are damned that receiue not the sacrament The fift Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by S. Augustine and Chrysostome S. Augustine is alledged De Agricultura agri Dominici a treatise of no account for the authoritie being falsely intituled to Augustine which was the worke of a farre later writer The wordes neuerthelesse are these The table of thy spouse hath whole bread and a holy cuppe which bread although we haue seene broken and brused in his passion yet he remained whole in that his indiuided vnity with his father Of this bread and of this cup our Lorde himselfe saide The bread which I will giue is my fleshe for the life of the world and the cuppe which I wil sanctifie is my bloud which shal
to the end of the worlde he is both gone away and is here is come againe and hath not forsaken vs For he hath carried his bodie into heauen he hath not taken away his Maiestie from the worlde And in the same treatise speaking of his presence in the sacrament Si bonus es ad corpus Christi pertines quod significat Petrus habes Christum in praesenti in futuro In presenti per fidem in praesenti per signum in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum If thou be a good man and perteynest to the bodie of Christe thou hast that which Peter doeth signifie that is Christ in present and in that which is to come In present by faith in present by signe in present by the sacrament of baptisme in present by the meate and drinke of the altar And againe Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundùm Maiestatem suam secundùm prouidentiam secundùm ineffabilem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus vsque ad consuÌ„mationem saeculi Secundùm carnem verò quam verbum sumpsit secundùm id quod de virgine natus est secundùm id quod a Iudae is prÄ™hensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis inuolutus quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare quoniam conuersatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hic est non enim recessit prÄ™sentia maiestatis Aliter secundùm praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundùm prÄ™sentiam carnis rectè est discipulis Me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundùm praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modò fide tenet oculis non videt c. That is He spake of the presence of his bodie For according to his Maiestie according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled that was saide of him Beholde I am with you all the dayes vnto the end of the worlde But according to the fleshe which the worde tooke vpon him according to that he was born of the virgin according to that he was taken of the Iewes that he was crucified on the tree that he was taken down from the crosse that he was wrapped in linnen clothes that he was laied in the sepulchre that he was openly shewed in his resurrection you shall not always haue me with you Why so because he was conuersant with his disciples according to the presence of his body by the space of 40. dayes and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he ascended into heauen and is not here For there he is where he sitteth at the right hand of his father And he is here also For he is not departed concerning the presence of his Maiestie otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes But according to the presence of his flesh it was well saide to his disciples but me shall ye not alwayes haue For according to the presence of his flesh the Church had him a few dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eyes These places and such like of which a number might be brought out of diuers authours I wish the Readers to consider for the presence of his body in the worlde or in many places at one time and to see how they will stande with Popish transubstantiation The thirteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of an other text in the sixt of Saint Ioan. The text he meaneth is this Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you That this should be spoken of in the sacrament of the Lordes supper he wil proue by this reason as a man must haue birth and nourishment so there be two sacraments baptisme the supper by which we are born and nourished vnto eternal life and both necessarie for as Christ speaketh here of the one so to Nicodemus he speaketh of the other except a man be borne of water and of the spirite c. But seeing he himselfe denieth the necessitie of the one and of the other but in them that are of type age c. it is manifest that neither the one place is of baptisme nor the of the other supper but as these sacramentes are seales to testifie the grace of regeneration preseruation But if his reason faile the doctours interpretation shall helpe namely Cyprian and Theophylacte The place of Cyprian hath bene already rehearsed and â—onsidered in the fourth Chapter of this booke whether I referre the Reader for breuitie sake The other place cited by Maister Heskins to proue that Cyprian by this word Eucharistia meaneth the bodie of Christ is Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra legem Euangelij c. They contrarie to the lawe of the Gospell and also your honourable petition before penance done and before confession made of their most greeuous and extreeme offence before hand was laide on them by the Bishop and the Cleargie for repentance dare be bolde to offer for them and giue them the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing that is to prophane the holy bodie of our Lorde Thus much Heskins rehearseth but Cyprian proceedeth Cum scriptum sit c. Seeing it is writen he that eateth this bread and drinketh this cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shal be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lorde By these wordes which Maister Heskins concealeth it is apparent how they did prophane the bodie of Christ that gaue the sacrament to vnpenitent offenders namely in that sense which S. Paule saith they are guiltie of the death of Christ. That Theophylacte vnderstandeth this text of the receiuing of the Diuine mysteries and requireth faith in the receiuers although it make litle for his purpose yet because he is a late writer I will not spende time about his authoritie The fourteenth Chapter expoundeth the same text by S. Augustine and Cyrill Out of Saint Augustine are alledged foure places one In Ioan. Tra. 36. Quomodo quidem detur c. How it is giuen and what is the manner of the eating of this bread ye knowe not Neuerthelesse except ye eate that flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you This did he speake not to dead carkases but to liuing men By this place sayeth Maister Heskins is proued that the Iewes knewe not the manner of eating of Christes fleshe in the sacrament And no maruell for his disciples did not yet knowe it nor could before the sacrament was instituted and therefore
both of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament that is the bodie of Christ as the person of Christ consisteth of God man seeing Christ himselfe is very God ▪ and verie man Because euerie thing conteineth in it the nature and trueth of those thinges of which it is made but the sacrifice of the Church is made of two the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament that is the bodie of Christ therefore there is the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament This last sentence M. Hesk. hath not translated But he noteth three things in these words affirmed which the sacramentaries denie that is that the Church hath a sacrifice that therein is a sacrament which is the fourmes of bread and wine and that there is present the very body and bloud of Christ which he calleth the thing of the sacrament Concerning the tearme of sacrifice it is a stale quarrell whereby he meaneth the sacrifice of thankes giuing or the Eucharistie For the formes of bread wine that is as Maister Heskins meaneth the accidentes it is false he hath nothing tending to that end he saith Specie elementorum that is the kinde of elementes which is the substance and not the accidentes of bread and wine And for the presence heare his owne wordes in the same booke Escam vitae accepit poculum vitę bibit qui in Christo manet Cuius Christus habitator est Nam qui discordat a Chricto nec panem cius manducat nec sanguinem bibit etiamsi tanto rei sacramentum ad iudicium suę praesumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat He hath receiued the meat of life and drunke the cuppe of life which abideth in Christ in whom Christ dwelleth But he that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth his bread nor drinketh his bloud although he receiue euerie day indifferently the sacrament of so great a thing vnto the condemnation of his presumption This place is plaine against the corporall eating of Christe and M. Heskins wise distinction seeing the wicked by the iudgement of Prosper out of Augustine eate onely the sacrament that is bread and wine and not the bodie bloud of Christ which is not eaten but by faith The twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Saint Hilarie and Euthymius Hilarius is cited Lib. 8. de Trinitat Que scripta sunt c. Let vs reade those thinges that be written and let vs vnderstande those things that we shall read then shal we performe the dutie of perfect faith Such thinges as we learne of the naturall trueth of Christ in vs except we learne of him we learne foolishly and vngodly For he him selfe saith my flesh is meat in deed my bloud is drinke in deede He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him There is no place left to doubt of the trueth of his flesh and bloud For now by the profession of our Lord himselfe it is verily fleshe and verily bloud And this beeing taken and dronken bring this to passe that Christ is in vs and we in Christ. Out of these wordes he noteth three thinges The first that the text is spoken of the sacrament conteyning the bodie and bloud of Christe of the veritie whereof there should be no doubt The second is the corporall receiuing of Christ in the sacrament The third is that thereby Christ is in vs and we in him To the first note this text is none otherwise spoken of the sacramēt as we haue often shewed then as the sacrament is a seale of this eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud which is also without the sacrament And that we should not doubt of the trueth of his fleshe and bloud it is true we confesse he hath true flesh true bloud with the same doeth feede vs but that this flesh and bloud is conteined in the sacrament Hillarie saith not but Heskins Neither doeth he speake of any corporall receiuing of Christe in the sacrament which is the second note but seeing he dwelleth in all them that receiue him which is the thirde note there is no place for the corporal receiuing which the Papists confesse to be common to the wicked in whome Christ dwelleth not nor they in him But to proue the corporall receiuing he hath another place out of the same booke Si enim verè c. For if the WORDE was verily made flesh and we doe truely eate the worde made flesh in the Lordes meate how is he not to be thought to abide naturally in vs which being borne a man hath taken vpon him the nature of our flesh now inseparable hath admixed the nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder the sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated vnto vs. This with him is a plaine place and much adoe he maketh about this worde naturally by which he meaneth nothing else but truly for otherwise M. Heskins if he be in his right wittes wil confesse that the abiding of Christe in vs is not naturall nor after a naturall manner but spirituall and after a Diuine manner And although he spake plain ynough of the participation of his flesh vnder a sacramēt yet more euidently in the same booke in these wordes Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit verè homo ille qui ex Maria natus fuit Christus est nosque verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnum erimus quia Pater in eo est ille in nobis quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit vnitatis If therefore Christe did verily take vpon him the flesh of our bodie that man which was borne of Marie was verily Christ and we doe verily receiue the fleshe of his body vnder a mysterie and thereby shall be one because the Father is in him and he in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie Here he saith we do verily eate the flesh of his bodie but if you aske how He aunswereth vnder a mysterie as before he said vnder a sacrament Therfore to take that absolutely as M. Heskins doth which of him is spoken but after a certeine manner as vnder a sacrament or a mysterie is a grosse abusing both of the authour and of the readers Euthymius is cited In Ioan. Caro mea c. My fleshe is meate in deede It is true meate or moste conuenient meate as which nourisheth the soule which is the moste proper part of man And likewise of the bloud or else he saide this confirming that he spake not obscurely or parabolically I maruel what Maister Heskins gayneth by this place Forsooth that this is no figuratiue speech but a plain speech signifying none otherwise then the wordes sound Well yet we must not cast away that which Euthymius saide
Maister Heskins so often confesseth to be onely profitable and which we finde in the scriptures and auncient doctors we haue the sacrament so perfectly boulted and fined to our hand that we acknowledge no branne or drosse at al to be in the bread neither yet any dregges at all in the cuppe whatsoeuer there is in the Popish challice which the priest hath sucked and licked so drie that there is not one droppe of the bloud of Christe in it to quench the thirst of the poore people The fiâ—e and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text and endeth it by Euthymius and Petrus Cluniacensis Euthymius is cited In 6. Ioan. following the exposition of Cyrillus as he doth often of the olde Greeke writers Si ergo videritis c. If therfore ye shal see the sonne of man ascending where he was before what will you say He speaketh of the assumption of him selfe into heauen ascending according to his humanitie where he was before according to his Diuinitie For he that can make this fleshe heauenly can also make it meate of men Maister Heskins inferreth vpon this saying that the argument of the ascention vsed by Christ is vaine to proue the spirituall eating but good to proue the reall eating of his fleshe Note here first that he counteth the argument of his ascention expounded and vsed by Augustine in the Chapter next before to be vaine Secondly although Cyrillus vseth the argument of Christes ascention to prooue that Christes flesh being eaten may as well giue life as it could ascend into heauen doth it therefore proue a reall corporal or carnal presence eating of Christes bodie which is taken away by his ascention But he saith The flesh of Christ was spiritually the meate of the holie fathers in the olde lawe therefore that needed not to be proued possible which was knowen so long before A wise reason as though Christ had to doe with faithfull Iewes and not with Infidels that neither knew nor beleeued any such matter or if hee had spoken to the Patriarches them selues as though they had knowne and vnderstoode the mysteries of Christ so distinctly and plainly that Christes instruction had bene needelesse to them But Maister Heskins in all his arguments and expositions almost setteth downe that as certeine and granted which is the whole matter in controuersie His meate is flesh in deede his flesh is not eaten spiritually c. He must haue an easie aduersarie or else he shall gaine litle by such petition of principles The saying of Petrus of Clunie though he be but a late writer conteineth more against him then for him for he denieth the mangling of Christs flesh after the Capernaites imaginations and teacheth that it is Diuided without paine parted without diminution and eaten without consumption because it is the spirite that quickeneth and because his fleshe beeing so receiued and vnderstoode giueth eternall life What can we here vnderstand but a spirituall receiuing The sixe and thirtieth Chapter createth of the next text by Augustine Chrysostome This text is this it is the spirite that quickeneth the fleshe profiteth nothing This text is made so familiar he saith that boyes and girles can blatter it against Christes presence in the sacrament as though they denied the vertue of his fleshe that denie your carnal presence in the sacrament But we must heare Saint Augustine Tract 27. In Ioan. Quid est quod adiâ—ngit c. What is that he ioyneth It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Let vs say vnto him for he suffreth vs not gainsaying but desirous to know O Lord good Maister how doeth not the flesh profite any thing when then hast said except a man eate my flesh drink my bloud he shal not haue life in him Doth not life profite any thing And wherfore are we that that we are but that we may haue eternal life which thou doest promise by thy flesh What then is it it profiteth not any thing The flesh profiteth nothing but as they vnderstoode it For they vnderstoode fleshe so as it is rent in peeces in a dead bodie or solde in the shambles not as it is quickened by the spirit It is therfore so saide the flesh profiteth nothing as it is saide knowledge puffeth vp a man Shall we nowe then hate knowledge God forbid And what it is then Knowledge pâ—ffeth vp beeing alone without charitie Therefore he added But charitie doth edifie Therefore adde charitie to knowledge and knowledge shal be profitable not by it selfe but by charitie So now likewise the fleshe profiteth nothing that is the fleshe alone But let the spirite come to the flesh as charitie commeth to knowledge and it profiteth verie much For if the flesh had profiâ—ed nothing the worde should not haue beene made flesh that it might dwell in vs If Christ haue profited vs much by his flesh how doeth the flesh profite nothing at all But the spirite by the flesh hath done some thing for our health The fleshe was that vessel marke what it had in it not what it was The Apostles were sent did their flesh profite nothing If the flesh of the Apostles profited vs not could our Lordes flesh not profite vs For how came the sound of the word vnto vs but by the voyce of the flesh From whence the stile From whence the writing All these workes be of the flesh but the spirite mouing it as his instrument Therefore it is the spirite which quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing As they vnderstoode flesh so do I not giue my flesh to be eaten Maister Heskins doth glorie that he bringeth not this sentence truncately as the heretiques do but wholy that the reader should not be defrauded of S. Augustines right meaning vpoÌ„ this scripture And here again he repeateth his rotten distinction that Christ giueth not his flesh by lumpes peeces yet giueth it corporally that S. Augustine meaneth none otherwise But as long a sentence as he rehearsed he hath omitted the very interpretation of his text in hand Which Augustine maketh in these wordes Quid est spiritus vita Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt What is spirite and life spiritually to be vnderstanded neither is there one worde in all that treatise for the corporall presence or receiuing And yet we coÌ„fesse that Christ truly giueth vs his fleshe we are truely fed therewith but not after a corporall maner but after a spiritual vnspeakable maner Chrysostome is cited hom 46. In Ioan. Quid igitur caro c. What then Doth the fleshe profite nothing He speaketh not of the very flesh God forbid but of them that carnally take those things that are spoken And what is it to vnderstand carnally Simply as the thinges are spoken and not to thinke any other thing of them For thâ—se thinges that are seene are not so to be iudged but all mysteries are to be considered with inwarde eyes that is spiritually
He that eateth not my flesh and drinketh not my bloud hath no life in him selfe How doeth the fleshe profite nothing without the which no man can liue See that this particle The flesh profiteth not any thing is not spoken of the fleshe it selfe but of the carnall hearing M. Hesk. saith that Chrysostome needeth no expositor to open his exposition And I am of that same iudgment For he is so plaine against al grosse and carnal imagination about these mysteries that nothing can be plainer He saith to vnderstand these thinges in the sixt of Iohn simply as they are spoken is to vnderstād them carnally which ought not to be for all mysteries must be vnderstood spiritually the receiuing of Christ in the sacrament is a mysterie therfore it must be vnderstāded spiritually The seuen and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Theophylact S. Bernarde Theophylacte following Chrysostome as he doth very much whē he is not carried from him by the corruption of his time saith That the wordes of Christ must be vnderstood◠spiritually Whervpon M. Hesk. maketh an obiection how those words may be vnderstood spiritually yet the carnal presence receiuing retained He answereth that the Papists also confesse the words of Christ must be vnderstode spiritually and first alledgeth Theophylacte to proue that he allowed the carnal presence which though they do not vndoutedly proue it yet considering the time in which he liued it may be granted that he did allow it What then Marie spiritual vnderstāding letteth not the carnal presence But I haue shewed before that while Theophylact wold followe Chrysost. yet mainteine the errour of his time no maruel though he were contrarie to himself But spiritual vnderstanding by M. Hesk. definition is to vnderstand that these thinges are not done by any naturall meane but by the spirit of God namely transubstantiation such like But Chrysostom as we sawe in the Chapter before determined otherwise of spirituall vnderstanding of this scripture namely that the sayings must not be taken simply as they are spokē but as mysteries be considered with the inward eyes But M. Heskins hath a plaine place for the proclaymer out of S. Aug. serm Ad Infant Quod videtis in altari panis est c. That which you see on the altar is bread and the cuppe which also your eyes do shew you But that faith requireth to be instructed the bread is the bodie the cup is the bloud In the mind of some man such a thought may arise Our Lorde Iesus Christ we know whence he receiued flesh namely of the virgin Marie he was nourished grewe vp was buried rose again ascended into heauen thither he lifted vp his bodie from whence he shall come to iudge both the quick the dead There he is now siting at the right hand of the father how is therfore bread his bodies or that which is in the cuppe how is it his bloud Brethren therefore those things are called sacraments because one thing is seene in them another thing is vnderstanded That which is seene hath a corporall forme that which is vnderstoode hath a spirituall fruite What plainnes is in this place except it be against transubstantiation and the reall presence let the readers iudge And withal I must admonish them that M. Hesk. citeth it farre otherwise then it is in Augustine beside that he leaueth out that which followeth maketh all the matter as plain as a pack staffe which are these words Corpus ergo Christi c. Therfore if thou wilt vnderstand the body of Christ heare the Apostle saying to the faithful you are the bodie of Christ his mēbers If you therefore be the bodie of Christ his members your mysterie is set on the table you receiue the Lords mysterie you answer Amen to that which you are in answering you consent Thou hearest therefore the body of Christ thou answerest Amen Be thou a mēber of the bodie of Christ that thy Amen may be true Why then in bread Let vs here bring nothing of our owne Let vs also heare the Apostle Therfore when he spake of this sacrament he saith One bread we being many are one bodie Vnderstand this and reioyce By these wordes it is moste manifest that Augustine excludeth the carnall presence affirming the elementes to be the bodie and bloude of Christ euen as we are the bodie and members of Christ and that is spiritually mystically as we are the bread namely by significatiō not by transubstantiation The testimonies of Algerus and Bernard I leaue to M. Hesk. for that they are without the compasse of the challenge The eight and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Euthymius and Lyra. Euthymius is cited In 6. Ioan. in these words Spiritus est qui viuificat c. It is the spirite that quickeneth Now he calleth the spirit the spiritual vnderstanding of those things which are said likewise the flesh to vnderstand them fleshly For the speech is not now of his flesh which quickeneth Therefore he saith to vnderstand these thinges spiritually giueth that life which I spake of before but to vnderstand them carnally it profiteth nothing Maister Hesk. wold fain make Euthymius to speak for him if he could tell how to wring him in but it wil not be Spiritual vnderstanding is as Chrysost. before in the 36. Chap. hath declared not as M. Heskins would racke it to make it stand with his grosse and carnal vnderstanding From the iudgement of Lyra as no compotent Iudge I appeale although in this place he speake nothing for M. Heskins but rather against him for he agreeth with the rest that the wordes must be spiritually vnderstanded The nine and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text by S. Augustine and Cyrill The text is this the wordes that I speake vnto you are spirite and life of which Augustine writeth thus Tra. 27. In Ioan. Quid est c. What is it they are spirite and life They are spiritually to be vnderstoode Hast thou vnderstoode them spiritually they are spirite and life Hast thou vnderstoode them carnally Euen so also they are spirite and life but not to thee M. Heskins hauing once made a blind determination of spirituall vnderstanding taketh spirituall vnderstanding wheresoeuer he findeth it for carnal vnderstanding carnall vnderstanding for spirituall vnderstanding without all ryme or reason But still Chrysostome lyeth in his way to vnderstand carnally is to vnderstand things simply as they are spoken for all mysteries must be vnderstood with inward eyes that is spiritually When the inward eyes see the bread they passe ouer the creatures neither do they thinke of that bread which is baked of the baker but of him which called himselfe the bread of eternal life Cyril is cited Cap. 24. In 6. Ioan. Verba quae c. The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirit
Thumb their miracles should be more credited that such a one should be conteined in their cake rather then a tall man of perfect stature O impudent asses But it proueth wel the reall presence saith M. Hes. that Auerrois a Philosopher saith I haue walked ouer the world I haue found diuers sectes and yet haue I found none so foolish a sect is is the sect of the Christians For they deuour with their teeth their God whome they worship Hereof it is easie to perceiue saith he that the fame was that they did receiue and eate Christ whom they honoured But herein M. Hes. bewrayeth either his falshood or his ignoraunce For hee speaketh as though Auerrois were an ancient Philosopher that liued in the dayes of the primitiue Church whereas he was a Spanish Mahometist or rather Athist not past three or foure hundreth yeres ago when Poperie was in the greatest pride and Idolatrie couered the face of the earth His saying therfore proueth nothing but how great an offeÌ„ce the popish Idolatrie did giue to the Heathen Turkes and Iewes And whereas Iustinus in his Apollogie to the Emperour declareth whatsoeuer was done in the assemblies of the Christians he well dischargeth them of all slaunders that were raised against them but defendeth not the corporall eating of mans flesh by the commaundement of Christ although he confesse that they receiued that breade not as common bread nor as common drinke but as their flesh and bloud was nourirished by that foode so they were persuaded that it was the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ for the spiritual foode of their soules As for the curse that Rupertus threatneth to them that adde vnto the word of God â–ª pertaineth not to them that giue the true sense of the word of God whether it be in more wordes or fewer And whereas Rupertus saith these words of Christ I am a vine and this is my body be no like speaches I confesse they are not in euery respect bicause in the one he did institute a sacrameÌ„t in the other he taught as by a similitude the true end vse and signification of the sacrament Yet are they not altogether vnlike bicause they are both figuratiue and so iudged and compared together by the auncient Fathers But Rupertus will proue by two reasons that the latter is no figure First bicause in the former there is a continuation of the Allegorie which proueth it to be a figure in the other there is none such This is a fond reason for both we haue shewed a continuation of the trope where he saide this cup is the newe Testament and although there were none yet that can not exclude a figure no more then when baptisme is called regeneration when the lamb is called the Passeouer which be sacramentall speaches and such like where no continuation of the figure followeth The other reason of Rupertus M. Heskins diuideth into two parts The first is to note the enunciation of both scriptures for he doth not take a braunch of a vine and say I am this vine or this vine is my body but he saith of the bread this is my body A strong reason he saith as signanter by a certaine demonstration of substaunce and speaking of the same sacrament That rocke was Christe and in the time when it was a sacrament it was and might be truely said pointing to the rocke this is Christ and to the water issuing out of it this is the bloud of Christ and so no doubt Christ spake by his spiriâ—e in the consciences of the faithfull The second part of Rupertus reason is that the wordes which followe which is giuen for you c. can not be applied to the figure therefore the sense of that place is proper and not figuratiue But contrariwise these wordes can not be applied to the sacrament therefore the speach is not proper but figuratiue and shewe howe the breade and the cup are the body and bloud of Christe namely as his body is broken and his bloud shed for vs for the vertue of the sacrament standeth in his passion by which his body and bloud offered in sacrifice for our sinnes are made a spirituall foode of our soules The conference that Rupertus maketh betweene the words of Christ and the wordes of the serpent I passe ouer as containing no argument in them for the proofe of M. Heskins bill but onely shewing the corrupt iudgement of the authour whose reasons I am content to weigh but I esteeme not his authoritie as being a late prop of the Popish church The three and fortieth Chapter beginneth to proue the vnderstanding of Christes foresaid wordes not to be figuratiue by the authoritie of the Fathers And first by Alexander and Iustinus Iustine is alledged in this second Apologie in a corrupt Latine translation which he maketh worsse by falsifying the same in his English translation The place hath bene already considered in the first booke Chap. 27. according to the originall Greeke copie I will nowe rehearse the same after his Latine translation and afterward shewe M. Heskins falsification Cum autem c. When he that is ouerseer hath giuen thankes and all the people haue assented they which are called Deacons with vs do distribute to euery one that is present that they may take part in the breade in which thankes is giuen and of the wine and water and carie it to those which are not present And this foode which is called thankes giuing Of which it is not lawfull for any other to take part but he that beleeueth those things to be true which are taught by vs and which is washed in the lauer vnto remission of sinnes and regeneration and so liueth as Christ hath taught Neither do we take these thinges as common bread and a common cup but euen as by the word of God Iesus Christ our sauiour being incarnate had both flesh and bloud so we are taught that the foode through the prayer of his word being consecrated by thankesgiuing of which our flesh bloud by transmutation are nourished is the flesh bloud of Iesus Christ which was incarnate For the Apostles in their coÌ„mentaries which are called Gospels haue taught that he did so coÌ„maund them That when he had taken bread giuen thanks he said Do this in remembrance of me this is my body And likewise when he had taken the cup and giuen thankes that he said This is my bloud and gaue first to them alone M. Heskins hath falsified this author in his translation First where he turneth is qui prÄ™est the prieste as though there were Masse priestes in that time Secondly quae docentur a nobis that be taught of vs as though none should receiue the sacrament but they which beleue the real presence which he surmiseth to be taught to theÌ„ But more notably where he translateth these wordes Sie verbi sui oratione consecratum gratiarum actione alimentum ex quo caro nostra sanguis per
of many that worshipped Christe yet had they no commaundement of him so to doe A great number worshipped him not as God but as the Prophete of God for which they had commandement in the lawe and they that worshipped him as God most especially But M. Heskins will make the like argument Christ gaue the sacrament of his body to the Apostles onely and gaue no commaundement that all people should receiue it indifferently wherefore it ought not to be done Reuerend M. Doctour I denye your antecedent for ye can not proue that he gaue it only to his Apostles nor that he gaue no commaundement for he gaue an expresse commaundement to continue the same ceremonie vntil his comming againe as S. Paule doth testifie Therefore your argument is as like as an apple is like an oyster But to passe ouer the rest of his babbling against the proclamers learning too well knowne to bee defaced by such an obscure Doctours censure I come to his second argument S. Paule that tooke the sacrament at Christes hand and as he had taken it deliuered it to the Corinthians neuer willed adoration or godly honour to be giuen to it This argument he will not vouchsafe to aunswere as concluding nothing but he denyeth the antecedent saying It is false that S. Paul deliuered no more to the Corinthians then Christ did First he will make Paule a lyar when he saide that which I receiued I deliuered c. But howe will he proue that he deliuered more then Christ did If you can spare laughter in reading I could not in writing Forsooth S. Paule deliuered to the Corinthians that the vnwoorthie receiuer shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of Christ whereas Christ when he instituted the sacrament gaue no such lawe O noble Diuine as though that if Christ at his supper had vsed no longer discourse of this sacrament then those fewe words which the Euangelistes doe rehearse as a summe thereof yet it was not necessarily to be gathered that the vnworthie receiuer contemning the body bloud of Christ which is offered to him is guiltie of haynous iniurie against the same and therefore it is necessarie that euery one that receiueth it should examine him selfe that hee receiue it worthily Whether Christ receiued Iudas or no which is not agreed vpon but if he did knowing him by his diuine knowledge to be a reprobate though not yet discouered to the knowledge of man hee gaue vs none example to receiue notorious wicked persons whome wee as men knowe to be vnwoorthie without repentance But to make the matter out of doubt Saint Paul though not by the terme of adoration yet willed honour to be giuen to the sacrament When he saith let a man examine him selfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cup. For a man cannot examine him self without great honor giuē vnto the sacrament And for more manifest proofe Saint Paule referreth the honour or dishonour that is done by woorthie or vnwoorthie receiuing not to the grace of GOD or merite of Christes passion but to the sacrament Who so eateth this breade and drinketh this cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ. Nay rather hee referreth the honour or contempt of the sacrament to the body and bloud of Christe whose sacrament this is as the wordes are plaine But who would thinke that Maister Heskins would play the foole so egregiously to abuse his reader with ambiguities and aequiuocations as though there were no difference betweene adoration and honouring that is giuing of due reuerence vnto the sacraments and worshipping them as Gods. But S. Augustine I trowe helpeth him Ep. 118. ad Ian. Placuit c. It hath pleased the holy Ghost that in honour of so great a sacrament the body of Christ should enter into the mouth of a Christian man before other meates I holde him as blinde as a beetle that seeth not honour in this place to signifie reuerence which is giuen to holy things and not adoration which pertayneth onely to god His last reason to proue that Saint Paul taught the adoration of the sacrament is that which is the whole controuersie that Saint Paule taught the carnall presence but that remaineth to bee proued afterward The fiue and fortieth Chapter proueth by the same Doctours that the proclamer nameth that the sacrament is to be honoured This is a meere mockerie the Bishop speaketh against adoration of the sacrament as God M. Heskins proueth that it is to bee honoured that is to say reuerenced as a holy ceremonie And none otherwise then the sacrament of baptisme as wee shall see by his proofes First Chrysostom being one that is named by the Bishop maketh so cleere mention thereof as M. Heskins thinkes the reader will maruell hee was not ashamed to name him And what saith he De sacerdotio lib. 6. thus he writeth Quum autem ille c. But when he meaning the Prieste hath called vpon the holy Ghost and hath finished that sacrifice most full of horrour and reuerence when the common Lord of all men is daily handled in his handes I aske of thee in what order shall wee place him Howe great integritie shall we require of him How great religion For consider what handes those ought to be which doe minister what manner of tong that speaketh those words Finally then what soule that soule ought not to be purer and holier which hath receiued that so great and so worthie a spirit At that time euē the Angels do set by the Priest and all the order of heauenly powers lifteth vp cryes and the place neere to the altar in honour of him which is offered is full of the companies of Angels Which thing a man may fully beleeue euen for the greate sacrifice which is there finished And I truly did heare a certain man reporting that a certaine wonderfull olde man and one to whome many mysteries of reuelations are opened by God did tell him that God did once vouchsafe to shewe him such a vision and that for that time he sawe as farre as the sight of man could beare soudenly a multitude of Angels clothed in shining garments compassing the altar finally so bowing the heade as if a man should see the souldiers stand when the king is present which thing I do easily beleeue In these words Chrysostom doth hyperbolically amplifie the excellencie of the Ministers office vnto which no man is sufficient But notwithstanding he rehearseth a vision by hearesay of angels reuerencing the presence of God to aduance the dignitie of the ministerie yet speaketh he not one worde that the sacrament is to be worshipped adored as god And therefore M. Heskins maketh a poore consequence the ministration of the sacrament is honourable ergo much more a man ought to honour the sacrament The ministration of baptisme is honourable doth it therefore followe that the water of baptisme is to be worshipped as God An
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
figure the sacrament is a figure of Christes body therefore Christe hath a true body That this is the true meaning of Tertullian it appeareth plainely by the wordes before alledged and by these that followe and by the whole discourse of his worke Lib. 5. hee saith Proinde panis calicis sacramento iam in Euangelio probauimus corporis sanguinis Dominici veritatem aduersus phantasma Marcionis Therefore by the sacrament of the breade and the cuppe nowe in the Gospell we haue proued the trueth of the body and bloud of our Lorde against the fantasie of Marcion But M. Hes. interpretation of Tertullians meaning is not onely false but also ridiculous He saith that Tertullian to proue that Christ had a true body bringeth in the institution of the sacrament saying that Christ made the breade his true body therefore hee had a true body as though Marcion whiche woulde not beleeue that Christe had a true body when he liued on the earth would acknowledge that Christe had a true body in the sacrament But Marcion acknowledged the sacrament to be a figure of Christes body and therevpon Tertullian inferreth that hee had a true body whereof the sacrament was a figure But nowe it is a sport to see howe M. Heskins taketh vpon him To open Tertullian and to deliuer him from the sacramentaries His saying hath two partes the one that Christe made the breade his body the other that he saith This is my body that is to say a figure of my body Nowe hee will require of the aduersarie whether of these two parts he will receiue and he is certaine they wil not receiue the former part bicause Zuinglius OecolaÌ„padius Bullinger with the rest denieth the bread to be the naturall body of Christ. But he is fouly beguiled for al these we with theÌ„ will neither receiue the first part by it selfe nor the latter part by it selfe but both parts together as they are vttered by Tertullian that Christ so made the bread his body that hee made it a figure of his body That is to say that hee made it a sure vndoubted pledge of his body And we agree with Cyprian De caeâ— Deuâ— that The bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples to be eaten being not chaâ—nged in shape but in nature by the almightie power of the word was made flesh and with S. Ambrose li. 4. de sacr cae 4. That this bread before the wordes of the sacrament is bread but when the consecration commeth to it of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Places often answered before by interpretation of the same Authours And we do so vnderstand Tertullian as he is not contrarie to him selfe nor to any Catholique writer of his time in this matter which is Maister Heskins rule to vnderstand a Catholique Authour And we so vnderstand the sacrament to bee a figure as it is not a bare figure But nowe bicause Maister Heskins must needes acknowledge the sacrament to be a figure he maketh two kindes of figures A figure of a thing absent and a figure of a thing present Bicause there is no doubt of the former I will touch onely the latter An example of a figure of a thing present he maketh in these wordes As the spouse beholding her very husband and seeth the scarres and tokens of wounds that he suffered for her defence and safegard and of his children and hers is brought in remembrance of his louing kindnesse and of the dangers sustained for her sake In which case although the substance of the man be present yet to his wife he is a figure and token of remembraunce of him selfe absent in condition of a man nowe in fight dangered with sore and deepe woundes For nowe he is no such man but whole sound a perfect man. Haue you not heard a wise similitude thinke you Is the substance of the man present a figure of his actioÌ„s passions absent or rather the scarres present a token of his wounds suffered and actes passed If hee be so grosse that he cannot distinguish betweene substance and accidents and the properties and effectes of them both yet very children can plainely see that the substance of the man occasioneth no such remeÌ„brance as he speaketh of but the scarres of the woundes neither do they bring the substance of the man in remeÌ„brance but the actions and passions of the man And therfore this is too blockish an example that a figure may be of a thing present in substance But Augustine Lib. sentent Prosperi doth helpe this matter as he weeneth Caro carnis c. The flesh is a sacrament of the flesh and the bloud is a sacrament of the bloud By both which being inuisible spirituall and intelligible is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues and diuine Maiestie M. Hes. noteth that the inuisible body of Christ in the sacrament is a figure of the same visible Very good But let me goe with him Although S. Augustine or Prosper speake not of an inuiâ—ible body But he saith directly that the flesh and the bloud in the sacrament are both spirituall and intelligible flesh and bloud which is as much as I aske Then the spirituall flesh of Christe which is in the sacrament doth signifie that visible and palpable body of Christ then the which nothing can be said more plainly against the corporall presence nor for the spiritual presence But he obiecteth further that the scriptures also vse such speaches saying that Christe was made in the likenesse of a man Ph. 2. When he was a man in deede and so Tertullian might well cal it a figure although it be the body it self As though S. Paule in that place speaketh of the substance of his humanitie not rather of the base shewe and condition that he tooke vpon him in his humanitie whereas he might haue behaued him self as God being both God and man Yet Augustine hath two places by conference whereof this thing shall appeare that the sacrament is both a figure and the very thing it selfe The first place is in Psal. 3. speaking of Iudas the traytour which place M. Heskins read not in Augustine but in some other mans collections for both he cyteth it truncately also addeth wordes both in the Latine and the English which are not in Augustine although he do not alter the sense But Augustines wordes in deede are these Et in historia c. And in the historie of the newe Testament the patience of our Lord was so great and woonderfull that he suffered him so long as though he had bene good Whereas he was not ignorant of his thoughtes when he had him present at the feast in which he commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and his bloâ—d The other place is cyted Ep. 162. Our Lorde him selfe doth suffer Iudas a diuill a theefe and his seller He letteth
fiftieth Chapter sheweth the minde of Iunencus Euseb. Emissen vpon the wordes of Christ. Iuuencus a Christian Poet is cited Lib. 4. Euang. Histor. Haec vbi dicta dedit palmis sibi frangere panem c. When he had thus said he tooke bread in his handes and when he had giuen thankes he diuided it to his disciples and taught them that he deliuered vnto them his owne bodie And after that our Lorde tooke the cuppe filled with wine he sanctified it with thankesgiuing and giueth it to them to drinke and teacheth them that he hath diuided to them his bloud and saith this bloud shall remitte the sinnes of the people Drinke you this my bloud Because this Poet doeth but onely rehearse the historie in verse without any exposition and interpretation and saith no more then the Euangelistes say I will not stand vpon him onely I will note the vanitie of Maister Heskins which like a young child that findeth miracles in euerie thing he seeth still noteth a plain place for Maister Iewel a plaine place for the proclaymer when either there is in it nothing for his purpose or as it falleth out oftentimes much against him Euseb. Emissen is cited Hom. 5. Pasc. Recedat omne c. Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie depart For truely he which is the auctour of the gifte is also the witnes of the trueth For the inuisible priest by secrete power doth with his worde conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie bloud saying thus This is my bodie And the sanctification repeated take and drinke saith he this is my bloud This place hath beene often answered to be ment of a spirituall and not a carnall conuersion as diuerse other places out of the same homilie alledged by M. Hesk. himself doe proue First it foloweth immediately Ergo vt c. Therfore as at the will of our Lord sodenly commanding of nothing the height of the heauens the depths of the waters the wide places of the earth were in substantiall beeing euen so by like power in the spirituall sacramentes vertue is giuen to the word and effect to the thing Therefore how great and notable thinges the power of the Diuine blessing doeth worke and how 〈◊〉 ought not seeme to the too strange and impossible that earthly and mortall thinges are chaunged into the substance of Christ aske of thy selfe which now art borne againe into Christe Here saith M. Heskins he proueth the chaunge possible I graunt and with all sheweth what manner a chaunge it is euen such a one as is in regeneration namely spirituall The same is shewed in the other places following Non dubites quispiâ—â— c Neither let any man dout that by the wil of the Diuine power by the presence of his high maiestie the former creatures may passe into the nature of the Lordes bodie when he may see man himselfe by the workmanship of the heauenly mercie made the bodie of christ And as any man comming to the faith of Christ before the wordes of baptisme is yet in the band of the olde debt but when they are rehearsed he is forthwith deliuered from all dregges of sinnes So when the creatures are set vpon the holie altars to be blessed with heauenly wordes before they be consecrated by inuocation of the highest name there is the substance of bread and wine but after the wordes of Christe the bodie and bloud of christ And what maruell is it if those things which he could create with his word beeing created he can conuerte by his worde Yea rather it seemeth to be a lesse miracle if that which he is knowne to haue made of nothing he can now when it is made chaunge into a better thing Vpon these sayings Maister Heskins vrgeth the chaunge I acknowledge the chaunge and vrge the kinde or manner of chaunge to be spirituall according to the examples of baptisme regeneration Vnto these authorities hee annexeth a large discourse of transubstantiation and citeth for it diuers testimonies olde and newe what the olde are we will take paynes to viewe as for the younger sorte we will not sticke to leaue vnto him First Gregorie Nicene is cited Serm. Catech. de Diuin Sacram. Sicut antem qui panem videt quodammodo corpus videt humanum c. And as he that seeth bread after a certeine manner seeth a mans bodie because bread beeing in the bodie becommeth a bodie so that diuine bodie receiuing the nourishment of bread was after a certeine manner the same thing with that meate as we haue said beeing turned into the nature of it For thâ—t which is proper to all flesh we confesse to haue apperteined to him For euen that bodie was susteined with bread but that bodie because God the WORDE dwelled in it obteined Diuine dignitie Wherefore we doe nowe also rightly belieue that the bread sanctified by the worde of God is chaunged into the bodie of God the WORDE Maister Heskins after his vsuall manner translateth Quodammodo in a manner if not falsely at the least obscurely But that worde Quodammodo that is after a certeine manner looseth all the knotte of this doubt For euen as the bodie of CHRISTE was bread after a certeine manner because it was nourished with bread and bread was after a certeine manner the bodie of Christ euen so we beleeue that the sacramentall bread is after a certeine manner chaunged into the bodie of Christ that it may be the spirituall foode of our soules Ambrose is cited De his qui initian Cap. 9. Where Maister Heskins beheadeth the sentence for it is thus Prior enim â—ux quà m vmbra veritas quà m figura corpus authoris quà m manna de coelo For light is before the shadowe the trueth before the figure the bodie of the authour before manna from heauen Which wordes we may vnderstand howe he taketh the bodie of Christe that sayeth it was before manna namely for the effecte of his death and sacrifice perfourmed by his bodie But M. Heskins beginneth at these wordes Forte dicat c. Peraduenture thou mayst say I see another thing How doest thou assure me that I take the bodie of Christ And this remaineth for vs to proue Howe many examples therefore doe we vse that we may proue this not to be that which nature hath formed it but which the blessing hath consecrated and that there is greater force of blessing then of nature for by blessing nature it selfe is chaunged Moses helde a rodde hee cast it doâ—ne and it was made a serpent Againe he tooke the serpent by the tayle and it reâ—â—rueth into the nature of the rodde Thou seest therefore by the prophets grace the nature of the serpent and of the rodde to 〈◊〉 beene twise changed And after many exaÌ„ples Quod si c. If then the benediction of man was of so great power that is chaunged nature what say we of the very diuine consecration where the very wordes of our Lorde
of our Lords words bringeth in the perfection of certeintie who said This is my bodie which is giuen for you doe this in remembraunce of me In this aunswere seeing he bringeth no exposition but onely citeth the bare wordes of the text there is nothing that maketh for M. Heskins He saith the wordes are plaine inough and neede none other interpretation It is true before the worlde was troubled with the heresie of carnall presence the text seemeth plaine ynough these wordes Do this in remeÌ„brance of me were thought a sufficient interpretation of those words This is my bodie and so doth Basill vse them But S. Ambrose he saith is so plaine that if his mother the Church had not beene good to him he should haue bene shut out of the doores For Oecolampadins reiected his book of the sacraments as Luther did the Epistle of S. Iames. Touching Luther although he were too rash in that censure yet had he Eusebius for his author twelue hundreth yeres before him And not only OecolaÌ„padius but many other learned men do thinke both the phrase and the matter of that booke to be vnlike S. Ambrose But for my part let it be receiued I hope M. Hesk. shal gaine litle by it he hath noted many short sentences which I wil rehearse one after another First Lib. 4. Ca. 5. Antequam Before it be consecrated it is bread but when the wordes of Christe are come to it it is the bodie of christ Finally heare him saying take eate ye all of it This is my bodie And before the words of Christ the cuppe is full of wine and water when the wordes of Christe haue wrought there is made the bloud which redeemed the people Ibi. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Tu forte Thou peraduenture sayest my bread is vsuall bread but this bread is bread before the wordes of the sacramentes when consecration is come to it of bread it is made the fleshe of Christ. And againe in the same Chapter Sed audi but heare him saying that sayeth he saide and they were made he commanded and they were created Therefore that I may answere thee Before consecration it was not the bodie of Christe But after consecration I say vnto thee thaâ— now it is the bodie of christ He saide and it is made he commanded and it is created And in the same booke Cap. 5. Ipse Dominus Our Lord Iesus himselfe testifieth vnto vs that we receiue his bodie and bloud shall we doubt of his trueth and testification Out of these places he concludeth not onely that figures be excluded but also that the tearme of consecration is vsed seriously I graunt but not in such sense as the Papistes vse it but as the worde signifieth to hallow or dedicate to an holie vse How figures be excluded and how these places are to be taken that are so plaine as he pretendeth I pray you heare what he writeth in the same bookes of sacramentes Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Ergo didicisti quòd ex pane corpuâ— fiat Christi quòd vinum aqua in calicem mittitur sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi Coelestis Sed fortò dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis vt nullus horror cruoris sit precium tamen operetur redemptionis Didicisti ergo quia quod accipis corpus est Christi Therefore thou hast learned that of the bread is made the body of Christ and that the wine and water is put into the cup but by consecration of the heauenly worde it is made his bloud But perhappes thou sayest I see not the shewe of bloud Yet hath it the similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud that there may be no horror of bloud yet it may worke the price of redemption Thou hast learned then that that which thou takest is the bodie of christ Here you see it is so the bodie of Christ as it is the similitude of his death so the bloud as it is the similitud of his bloud Moreouer in the same book Ca. 5. Dicit sacerdos c. The priest saith make vnto vs saith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. And Cap. 6. Ergo memores c. Therefore beeing mindefull of his most glorious passion and resurection from hell and ascention into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudie sacrifice this holie bread and cup of eternall life And againe Lib. 6. cap. 1. Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipiâ— sacramentuÌ„ sed verae naturae gratiam virtus émque consequeris Therfore lest any man should say this and there should be a certeine horror of bloud but that the grace of redemption might remaine therefore truely thou takest a sacrament for a similitude but thou obteinest the grace vertue of his true nature Thus Ambrose hath spoken sufficiently to shewe him selfe no fauourer of Maister Heskins bill although as the scripture teacheth he call the sacrament the bodie bloud of Christ and declareth why it is so called because it is a figure similitude and a memoriall thereof The three and fiftieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of Christes wordes by Gregorie Nicene and S. Hierome Gregorie Nicene is cited Ex serus Catatholico De Diuinis sacram Qua ex causa panis in eo corpore mutatus c. By what cause the bread in that bodie beeing chaunged passed into the diuine power by the same cause the same thing it done now For as there the grace of the word of God maketh that bodie whose nourishment consisted of bread and was after a certeine maner bread So bread as the Apostle saith by the word of God and prayer is sanctified not because it is eaten growing to that that it may become the bodie of the WORDE but foorthwith by the worde it is chaunged into the bodie as it is saide by the WORDE This is my bodie This place saith Maister Heskins ouerthroweth three heresies The first of Luther or Lutherans that the sacrament is not the bodie of Christ except it be receiued Gregorie saith it is not the bodie of Christ because it is eaten But that is no ouerthrow to Luthers assertion for Gregorie meaneth that the sacrament by nourishing our bodies is not made the bodie of Christe as the breade that a man eateth is turned into his bodie and so was the bread that our sauiour did eat turned into the substance of his bodie while he liued but by the power of God this notwithstanding it is made that bodye of Christ only to the worthie receiuer Of which aâ—sertion M. Hesk. saith they
Euen as the olde Testament had sacrifices and bloud so hath the newe namely the body and bloud of our Lorde Nowe he did not say These are the signes of my body and my bloud but these thinges be my body and bloud Therefore we must not looke to the nature of those things that are set foorth but to the vertue of them For as he did supernaturally deifie if I may so speake his assumpted flesh so doth he also vnspeakably transmute these thinges into the same his quickening body and into his precious bloud and into the grace of them And the bread hath a certaine similitude vnto the body and wine to bloud For both the bread and body are earthly but the wine and the bloud are airie and hote And as bread doth comfort so the body of Christe doth the same and much more it sanctifieth both the body and the soule And as the wine doth make glad so the bloud of Christ doth the same and moreouer is made a defence Although the chiefest partes of this place are answered in the 17. Chapter of the first booke and in the 51. Chap. of this second booke yet as M. Hes. gathereth here two other matters so I wil make answere to them First he saith That the figuratiue glose of the sacrameÌ„taries is flatly denied But by what words I pray you â–ª Marrie where he saith Christ saide not these be signes of my body and bloud but these are my body and bloud if this be a flat deniall of a figure bicause Christe saide not so then is it likewise in these speaches he saide not the rocke was a signe of Christe but the rocke was Christe the Lambe is the Passeouer c. Euthymius meaneth not to exclude all figures from the saying of Christ but to shew that the sacrament is not a bare naked and vaine signe but a true signe of the very body and bloud of Christe giuen to the faythfull in the administration of the supper The second matter that Maister Heskins noteth is of the vnspeakable transmutation and that must needes bee meant of transubstantiation of the breade and wine into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christe by this reason there be foure thinges called the bodie of Christ. 1. The figure 2. The Church 3. The merite fruite or vertue of his passion 4. And his bodie naturall but it can not be into the figure nor into the Churche Nor into the spirituall bodie of Christe I meane the merite vertue and grace of Christes passion Ergo it must needes be spoken of the naturall bodie of Christ. But vouchsafe gentle Reader to runne ouer once againe these wordes of Euthymius which in Latine are these Ita hec ineffabiliter transmutaâ— in ipsum vinificâ—â—â— corpus in ipsius prÄ™ciosum sanguinem siâ—on in gratiam ipso 〈◊〉 Euen so he doth vnspeakably transmute and change thesâ— thinges into the same his quickening bodie and into his owne precious bloud and into the grace of them Now tell me whether M. Heskins doth flatly denie that which Euthymius doeth flatly affirme that the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of the bodie and bloud of Christ By whiche words he doth sufficiently expound what kind of change he meaneth of them into the bodie and bloud of Christ not a corporall but a spirituall transmutation To the rest of the sentence which is a good exposition of the former parte shewing both the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament and for what cause they are vsed to represent the bodie and bloud of Christe namely for the similitude they haue vnto the bodie and bloud of Christ Maister Heskins sayeth nothing But let the reader weigh it well and he shall see it cleane contrarie both to transubstantiation and the carnall presence Nowe we come to Isodorus whom he confesseth to be somewhat out of the compasse of the challenge and his wordes De Offi. Eccle. Lib. 18. are these Sacrificium c. The sacrifice that is offered of the Christians vnto God Christe our God and Maister did first institute when he commended to his Apostles his bodie and his bloud before he was betrayed as it is read in the Gospel Iesus tooke bread and the cuppe and blessing them gaue vnto them In this place is nothing for the carnall presence but that Isydore calleth the sacrament the bodie and bloud of Christ which we also do and acknowledg to be so rightly called And Maister Heskins can conclude nothing but vpon a negatiue he saith not he gaue a figure so may I conclude he saith not he gaue his naturall body and no figure After this he reasoneth as fondely of Christes blessing of the bread which although the Euangelistes do expound to be giuing of thanks yet admit blessing to signifie consecration and what hath he gayned Forsooth Christ wold not haue blessed it to make but a figure still he playeth the foole with that bable but a figure onely a figure a bare figure which we vtterly doe forsake But toward the ende of the Chapter he falleth to gathering his voyces and affirmeth that none of the olde fathers cal the sacrament a figure except Tertullian onely wherein he lyeth impudently for beside Ambrose and Augustine which both vse the very worde figure we haue shewed in due places that both they in a manner al the rest of the fathers haue either written plainely against the carnall presence or else nothing for it As for his last challenge that all the protestants must bring forth when any countrie did professe the same religion that is now preached is vaine and hath beene sufficiently aunswered in other treatises It is certein that all nations that were conuerted by the Apostles before they were corrupted by heresie and Antechristianitie professed the same religion that we doe As for the alterations in King Henries time King Edwardes and the Queenes Maiesties that now is it is easie to answere King Henrie began the worke whiche King Edwarde finished and the Queene repayred and vpholdeth in spight of the diuel and the Pope As for the consent and peace of the Popishe Church it proueth nothing but that the diuell had then all thinges at his will and therefore might sleepe on both sides but now hee is disturbed of possession of the house nowe he stormeth and of Robin good fellowe which he was in the Popishe time is become playne Sathan the Diuell The nine fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the same text by the fathers of the latter days first Damascen Haymo Before M. Heskins begin his pretended exposition he chargeth Luther to be a proude contemner of the fathers who reuerenced them as much as it was meet they should be reuerenced although he preferred one authoritie of scripture before a thouâ—â—nd Cyprians Augustines Next to Luther he rayleth on the bishop of Sarum whoÌ„ he calleth the proclaymer charging him with mocking of the holie fathers whereof some he saith be
before he departed from them And although after his resurrection hee appeared to them at sundrie times by the space of fourtie dayes eating and drinking with them to shewe the certeintie of his resurrection speaking of the kingdome of God yet is there no worde of celebrating of the sacrament with them And it is altogether vnlikely that he would giue the sacrament the comfort of his absence at his first returne againe to them and that he woulde celebrate the same to two disciples and not to the whole number of his Apostles who had as great neede to be confirmed in faith as those two Finally if euer he had repeated the vse of the sacrament it is moste probable he woulde haue done it immediatly before his assention but then he did not which S. Luke who sheweth that storie exactly would not haue omitted therefore there is no likelihood that he did it before But admitt that he did then minister the communion doth it followe because bread is onely named therefore the cuppe was not giuen But Maister Heskins woulde haue it proued that the figure Synechdoche is here vsed that is part named for the whole For profe the institution of Christe and practise of the church for more then a thousand yeres after Christ may serue a reasonable man. Also the vsuall phrase of the scripture which by bread meaneth whatsoeuer is ioyned with it to be receiued as Math. 15. Mark. 7. The disciples are accused for eating bread with vnwashed handes c. shall wee here exclude meat and drinke because bread is onely named Also Marke the 3. they had no leysure to eat breade Luke 14. Christe came into the house of the Pharizee to eate bread And Iohn 6. You seeke mee not because you haue seene the signes but because you haue eaten of the breade and are satisfied And 2. Cor. 9. He that giueth seede to the sower shall minister bread for foode And 2. Thess. 3. wee haue not eaten our breade freely And in the same Chapter the disordered persons are exhorted to labour and eat their owne bread In all these places and a great number more breade onely is named in which it were mere madnesse to affirme that only bread is spoken of not meat or drink So the whole supper of Christ cōsisting of bread wine for the outwarde or earthly parte vnder the name of breade the cuppe also is comprehended Wherefore the practise of Christ is not contrarie to his institution as M. Heskins most arrogantly wickedly and vnlearnedly affirmeth The second reason he vseth is that the institution perteineth onely to priestes because Christ did then minister it onely to priests But first that is not proued nor like to be true for seeing our Sauiour Christe did minister the communion in the house of one of his disciples with whom he did eat the passeouer it is not like that he excluded him from the sacrament of the new testament with whome he was partaker of the sacrament of the olde testament For proofe that both he and his familie were partakers of the Passouer with him it is manifest that it was not possible for thirteene persons to eate vp a whole sheepe and other meat also at one meale For it was a sheepe of a yeare olde although it were a verie small one and must be eaten with the head feete the purtenaunce and nothing reserued vnto the morrowe But graunt that onely the Apostles were partakers of the first institution by the same reason that the one part of the sacrament perteined to them only the other parte also might be left to them onely and so the people should haue neither of both kindes because onely priestes had both kindes deliuered vnto them Further he sayeth the doctrine of Saint Paule is not sufficient to proue that the sacrament ought to bee ministred in both kindes for Saint Paule doth but onely set foorth the institution without an exclusiue excluding all other maners but this O shamelesse dogge is not the institution of Christe an exclusiue of all other manners take example of baptisme is it lawfull to baptise with any other lycour then water into any other name then the name of the Father the Sonne ▪ and the holy Ghost yea it is sayed in the Actes that the Apostles baptised in the name of Iesus Christe and yet no man will saye that they brake the institution of Christe and baptised onely in the name of Christe excluding the father and the holy ghoste Euen so it is sayde they continued in breaking of breade shall wee not vnderstande this after the institution as well as the other Againe if the institution of Christ had not heene an exclusiue of all other manners howe doth the Apostle by the institution of Christ reproue another manner brought in by the Corinthians Finally when the holy Ghost by Saint Paule commaundeth euery Christian man and woman to trye themselues and so not onely to eate of that breade but also to drinke of that cupp what Lucifer is that which wil oppose him selfe against the flatt commaundement of the holie ghost 1. Cor. 11. and saye the lay people shall not drinke of that cuppe or may be without the cupp well ynough But the doctrine of the Catholike church as he sayeth is that the whole sacrament is in either of both kindes the bloude is in the bodie and the bodie in the bloud But this is neither the doctrine of Christ nor the doctrine of the church of christ For Christ to shewe that he is a perfect nourishment vnto vs which of necessitie consisteth of meate and drinke and neither of both can be lacking for the nourishment of our bodies hath instituted his sacrament both in bread and drinke to testifie vnto vs that wee are perfectly fedd in him and therefore hath deuided the sacrament into two signes the one to signifie his bodie as meate the other to represent his bloud as drinke and therefore confounded be he the confoundeth these things which his heauenly wisedome hath thus mercifully distinguished Iustinus also a moste auncient writer of the church affirmeth that the sacrament consisteth of a drye and moyst nourishment in Dialog Cum. Tryphone aduersus Iudęos And euen this verie diuision of the sacrament sufficiently confuteth both transubstantiation the carnal presence For if he had purposed to giue vs his naturall bodie in the forme of bread or otherwise in the bread he would not haue deuided his bloud from his bodie But euen hereby he taught vs that hee spake of an heauenly mysticall and spirituall manner of eating his bodie and drinking his bloud by faith and not of a swallowing or gulping in of the same at our mouth and our throte But the cuppe saith Maister Heskins is the bodie of Christ and howe is it consecrated by these words This is my bloud Why where is nowe the plaine wordes of scripture where bloud is taken for a whole bodie But seeing Christ sayth further This is my
bloud which is shed for you and that bloud which was shed for vs was separated from his bodie therefore this bloud in the cuppe is separated from his bodie And in verie deede the mysterie of the cuppe is sett forth in that he sayeth his bloud was shedd for vs and not as it remayned in the veynes of his bodie for not his bloud in his bodie but the shedding of his bloud hath washed our consciences from dead workes to serue the liuing god So the breaking of his bodie on the crosse hath made it a spirituall meat for vs to feede vppon and therefore he saith this is my bodie which is giuen for you And so sayeth Hesychius verie well of the crosse Quae etiam superimpositam Dominicam carnem esibilem hominibus reddit nisi enim superimposita fuisset cruci nos corpus Christi nequaquam mysticè perciperemus The crosse maketh our Lordes fleshe layde vpoÌ„ it eatable of men for except it had been layde vpoÌ„ the crosse we should not receiue mystically the bodie of Christ in Leu. lib. 2. Cap. 6. But M. Heskins by miserable detorting of a worde or two woulde make the auncient fathers patrones of his monstrous sacriledge as though they taught whole Christ to be vnder eche kinde of which opinion there is not one title to be found in all their workes First Cyprian de Cana Domini Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem Domini mutatus proâ—urat vitam This common bread being changed into the bodie and bloud of our Lorde procureth life But here Maister Heskins playeth his olde parte most impudently falsifying the wordes of Cyprian by adding Domini and leauing out that which followeth and maketh all out of doubt that Cyprian speaketh not here of the sacramentall bread but of common breade His wordes are these Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam incrementum corporibus ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae Ä™ternae effectum non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione nos Christo vnitos This common breade being chaunged into fleshe and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodies therefore the weakenesse of our faith being holpen by the accustomed effect of thinges is taught by a sensible argument that in the visible sacrament is the effect of eternall life and that wee are vnited to Christ not so much by a bodily as by a spirituall transition You see therefore howe shamefully hee abuseth Cyprian Who seeing hee was so vehement against them that vsed water onely in the cuppe would he think you allowe that neither wine nor water shoulde be giuen Especially when hee giueth a generall rule that the institution of Christe bee precisely obserued and that nothing else is to be done concerning the cuppe then that Christe him selfe did before vs lib. â— Ep. 3. Caecilio But are Papistes ashamed of forgerie to mainteine their false doctrine of transubstantiation After Cyprian hee depraueth the wordes of Irenaeus lib. 5. Calicem qui est creatura suum corpus confirmauit The cuppe which is a creature he confirmed to be his bodie but it followeth which he craftely omitteth Ex quo nostra auget corpora Quando ergo mixtus Calix factus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi c. Of which hee doeth increase our bodies When then the mixed cuppe and breade that is made receiueth the worde of God the Eucharistie or sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christe is made Whether there bee eclipsis or synechdoche in the former wordes thou mayst see plainly here that hee meant not to exclude the bread but that they both together make the sacrament But Maister Heskins alledgeth further out of Irenaeus Sanguis non est nisi a venis carnibus reliqua quae est secundùm hominem substantia Bloud is not but of vaines and fleshe and other substance of man. By these wordes which he vseth to proue that Christe had a true bodie because he had bloud M. Heskins like a wise man would proue that wheresoeuer bloud is there must be fleshe and vaines also wherein all the pudding wiues of Louayne will holde against him In deede bloude commeth from vaynes and fleshe as IrenÄ™us sayeth but it doth not followe that where bloud is there must be vaines and fleshe As for the saying of Bernarde wee are as little moued withall as M. Heskins with Melancthon to whome in his brauerie he sayeth vale and will cleaue to the substantiall doctrine of the fathers for the communion in one kinde of which he is not able to bring one But to conclude this Chapter If he be asked why Christe did institute the sacrament vnder both kindes if it bee sufficient to receiue one he aunswereth to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion But all Christian men ought to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion therefore he did institute it for all Christian men to receiue vnder both kindes And so S. Paule concludeth as often as you eate of this bread and drink of this cuppe you shewe the Lordes death vntil he come Wherefore the scripture is directly contrarie to the sacrilegious decree of the Papistes of receiuing the sacrament in one kinde onely The eyght and sixtieth Chapter proueth the same receipt vnder one kinde to be lawfull by the auncient practise of the Church Before these substantiall proues come in he taketh vpon him to aunswer the obiections of the aduersaries And first of the Bohemnians who vsed that place out of the sixt of S. Iohn Except you eat the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you These such like textes out of that Chapter must needes be inuincible argumentes against the Papistes which holde that those sayinges are to bee vnderstoode of the sacrament first and principally And otherwise for as much as the Lordes supper is a seale and sacrament of that doctrine and participation of the fleshe and bloude of our sauiour Christ which he there teacheth we may necessarily gather that seeing he ioyneth eating and drinking in the thing we may not omitt either of them in the signe And where as the Papistes would shift off that matter with their concomitans of bloud with the bodie it will not serue seeing he requireth drinking as necessarily as eating euen as he is a perfect foode and therefore is not meate without drinke but both meate and drinke Therefore diuerse counsels and specially Bracarense tertium Capitul 1. and it is in the decrees De Con. Dis. 2. cum omne as it reformed many corruptions that were crept into the Church about the ministration of the cup so this was one which they reproued that they vsed to dippe the breade in the cup and so deliuer it to the people Illud verò quod
pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis nec hoc probatum ex Euangelio testimonium receperunt vbi Apostolis corpus suum commendauit sanguinem Seorsim enim panis seorsim calicis commendatio memoratur Nam intinctū panem alijs Christum praebuisse non legimus excepto illo tantùm discipulo quem intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderet non quae sacramenti huius institutionem signaret That also is to be condemned that to make perfect the communion they deliuer to the people the sacrament dipped in the cupp neither haue they receiued this testimonie brought out of the Gospell where he deliuered to his Apostles both his bodie his bloud for seuerally of the breade and seuerally of the cupp the deliuerie is mentioned For we read not that Christ gaue dipped bread to others except that disciple only whome the dipped soppe shewed to be the traitour of his maister but did not set forth the institution of this sacrament Note here the iudgement of this Counsell that the institution of Christ is to be obserued Secondly that they are condemned that receiue not the testimonie of that first institution as an onely rule to followe in the ministration of the sacrament as the Papistes do Thirdly that the bloud must not be deliuered in the bread and the body in the cuppe but seuerally the breade and seuerally the cup must be deliuered Fourthly that the communion is not perfect without both kindes which euen they confessed that dipped the bread in the wine and so gaue it foorth Fiftly consider if this Counsel could not allowe the ioyning of both kinds in one soppe what would they haue thought of taking one kinde cleane away But to follow Maister Heskins The second obiection and that presseth him hardest is the saying of Gelasius bishop of Rome That the diuision of one and the same mysterie cannot be done without great sacriledge To auoyde this most manifest and cleare authoritie he thinketh it sufficient to shewe that the decree was made against other heretiques namely the Manichees Eutychians as though it were sacriledge in one kinde of heretiques and lawful in an other He saith the Manichees to cloake their heresie would dissemblingly receiue the breade and would not receiue the cup bicause they held that Christ had but a fantasticall body without bloud And the Eutychians ioyned with them which receiued the breade as a sacrament of the diuine body of Christe in which was no bloud Concerning the Eutychians there might bee some such fantasie if they ioyned with the Manichees in this point which presently I doe not remember that I haue read But concerning the Manichees it is certaine there was an other cause of their refusall of the cup bicause they condemned all drinking of wine And of them it seemeth that Leo spake Serm. 4. de quadra which M. Heskins rehearseth Abducunt se c. They withdrawe them selues from the sacrament of the health of man and as they deny Christe our Lorde to be borne in the veritie of our flesh so they doe not beleeue that he did verily die and rise againe and therefore they condemne the day of our health and of our gladnesse with the sadnesse of their fasting And when to couer their infidelitie they are so bold to be present at our mysteries they so temper them selues in the communion of the sacraments that sometimes they are more safely hidden With vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe but the bloud of our redemption they altogether refuse to drinke which thing we will your holinesse to vnderstand for this cause that suche kinde of men may be knowne to you and by these tokens and that they whose sacrilege and dissimulation shall be found out being noted and bewrayed by the Priestly authoritie may be banished the societie of the Saints This M. Hes. confesseth to be spoken against the Manichees And I wold he would further note that Leo chargeth them with dissimulation ioyned with sacriledge which yet is more tollerable then the Papistes open impudencie and violent sacriledge But here he noteth a plaine place for the proclamer in that Leo saith with vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe but that Leo so calleth the sacrament of the body of Christ which after a certaine manner is the body of Christe and not simply or absolutely it appeareth by that which followeth imediatly that those heretiques refuse to receiue the bloud of our redemption whereby hee meaneth the cup and the sacrament of his bloud for if hee should not meane the outward sacramentes but the body and bloud of Christ indeed how could his body be receiued without his bloud Therefore it is manifest hee speaketh of the signes and not of the things signified euen by their owne rule of concomitance And nowe followeth the whole saying of Gelasius Comperimus autem c. We haue found out of a certaintie that certaine men after they haue receiued a portion of the holy body do abstaine from the cup of the holy bloud who bicause I knowe not by what superstition they are taught to be withholden let them without all doubt receiue the whole sacramentes or else let them bee forbidden from the whole For the diuision of one and the same mysterie can not be done without great sacriledge Maister Heskins to shift off this place saith it was written against the Manichees But that is altogether vnlike for then Gelasius would not haue saide he knewe not by what superstition they were led for he knewe well the blasphemies of the Manichees Wherefore it is certaine they were other such superstitious people as the Papistes be nowe But if it were written against the Manichees the Papistes following their steppes shall gaine nothing but proue them selues to ioyne with the Manichees Secondly Maister Heskins saith the diuision of one mysterie is not the diuiding of the cuppe from the breade but of the body of Christ from his bloud which the Manichees did Although hee bee worthie to be knocked in the head with a mall that will not vnderstand Gelasius to speake of the sacrament yet there is no shadowe of reason to shrowde him most impudently affirming the contrarie For the Manichees did not diuide the body of Christe from his bloud but vtterly denyed him to haue either body or bloud Againe when hee saide immediately before that they should eyther receiue the whole sacramentes or abstaine from the whole hee addeth this for a reason For the diuision sayth hee of one and the same mysterie can not bee done without greate sacriledge Hee therefore that denyeth him to speake one title of diuiding the one kinde from the other is woorthie to bee diuided in peeces and to haue his partes with hypocrites where shall bee weeping and gnashing of teeth But as though he had not passed impudencie her selfe alreadie hee falleth on rayling against the proclamer that had not brought foorth past halfe a score wordes of this place
suppressing the rest for very shame they make so much against him Surely in all reasonable mens consciences what so euer hee left out of this place hee left the aduauntage of his owne cause and no title againste him But let vs see here what Maister Heskins a man of inuention passing Sinon the GrÄ™cian hath gathered out of it There bee two thinges in this place plainely taught The first is the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in that he so reuerently calleth the sacrament vnder one kinde the portion of the Lords body and the other he calleth the cup of the holy bloud For the spiritual bloud is not contained in external or material vessels No syr but the sacrameÌ„t of his natural bloud is wherof he speaketh as it is manifest by the words immediatly before the portion of the Lords body for his natural body is not broken into portions but the bread which is a sacrament thereof is broken and therby is shewed what wicked men receiue both in this saying of Gelasius in the other of Leo not the naturall body of Christe which cannot be receiued in portions but a portion of the sacramental bread which is therfore called the body of Christ bicause it is so indeed to them that receiue it worthily is consecrated to that vse that it may be the coÌ„munication of the body of christ And as it hath ben often shewed sacraments beare the names of the very things wherof they are sacrameÌ„ts The second thing that he teacheth saith M. Hes. is that he calleth not these two kindes Sacramentum a sacrament but Sacramenta sacramentes in the plural number signifying therby that each of them is a whole sacrament O new Diuinitie theÌ„ ye Papistes haue eight sacraments But are you such a prudent gatherer M. Hes it appeareth you wil lease none aduantage for the taking vp I commend you But for all that doth not your Authour Leo call both kindes sacramentum a sacrament and that is more for it is too too childish to reason of the singular number doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kindes Vnum idémque mysterium one and the same mysterie And when he vseth the plural number the ground of your Achillean argument doth he not say Integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur Let them take the whole sacramentes or else let them be kept from the whole signifying that they which tooke the bread onely tooke but halfe the sacramentes and none took the whole but they that tooke the cup also But nowe for the practise of the Primitiue Church to haue receiued in one kinde he saith that in time of persecution the Priest deliuered them of the sacrament wrapped in fine linnen clothes to carie home with them and to receiue it secretly by them selues and this could bee none other but the sacrament vnder the foâ—ne of breade Admit it were so that they caried home the sacrament yet it followeth not but they might as well carie the wine in a faire pot as they caried the breade in a faire cloth And although TertulliaÌ„ writing to his wife name bread only yet doth it not followe but that he comprehendeth the cup also The wordes of Tertullian are before rehearsed and answered Lib. 1. cap. 24. 27. Next is brought in Basil. Episto ad Caesareant patriciam Illud autem c. As for that to be a grieuous thing in the times of persecution any man to be inforced to receiue the communion with his owne hand the Priest or Deacon not being present it is more then nedeth to proue for bicause the same thing is by a long custome and by the very vse of things established For all they that in the wildernesse lead a solitarie life where there is no Priest keeping the communion at home communicate of them selues But in Alexandria and Aeâ—ypt euery one of the people for the most part haue the communion in their owne house For when the Priest doth consecrate the sacrifice and distribute it we must well beleeue to participate and receiue it For in the Church the Priest giueth part and he that taketh it receiueth it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand It is therfore the same thing in vertue whether a man take one part of the Priest or many parts together Of the credite and authoritie of this Epistle which being cited in the name of Saint Basil is not to be found in all his workes I haue spoken before sufficiently as also of the reseruation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first booke cap. 27. But for the communion in one kinde I see nothing that he saith sauing that Maister Heskins gathereth that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hote countries conueniently in their own kind such long time as they were forced to reserue the sacrament in the wildernes and else where But I aunswere him that such strong wine as they haue in those hote countries will bee kept longer from sowring then the breade will bee from moulding and therefore his gathering is altogether fond ridiculous But now you shall heare a more plaine testimoine for this receipt vnder one kinde if you will hearken to S. Cyprian He is cited In sermone de Lapsis a long saying to litle yea to no purpose at all Praesente ac teste meipso c. Heare what came to passe my selfe beeing present and witnesse The parentes of a childe flying by chaunce while for feare they tooke no good aduisement leaft their young daughter vnder the cherishing of a nource the nource brought her so left vnto the Magistrates They before an Idole where the people were gathered because for her age she could yet eate no flesh gaue vnto her bread mixed with wine which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish Afterwarde the mother receiued her daughter But the litle mayde could no more speake and declare the offence that was committed then vnderstand it before and forbidde it Through ignorance therfore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her whyle we were sacrificing But truely the girle beeing among the Saintes not abiding our prayer and supplication sometime was constrained to crie out sometime with vehement greefe of minde was tossed here and there euen as though a tormentor compelled her the ignorant soule by such tokens as she could acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those yong and tender yeres But after the solemnities beeing accomplished the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present and when the rest had receiued and her place was next the little one by the instinct of Gods Maiestie turned away her face pressed her mouth with her lippes stopped refused the cuppe Yet the Deacon persisted and though it were against her will powred in somewhat of the sacrament of the cuppe Then followed belking and vomite In a bodie and a mouth that was defiled the Eucharistie
eateth Christe but he that eateth him spiritually and hath life by him Then no wicked man eateth him which hath not life consequently no man eateth him corporally But heare what the same Cyril writeth in the same Booke Chapter Haec igitur de caussa Dominus quomodo id fieri possit non enodauit sed fide id quaerendum hortatur sic credentibus discipulis fragmenta panis dedit dicens accipite manducate hoc est corpus meum calicem etiam similiter circuntulit dicens Bibite ex hoc omnes hic est calix sanguinis mei qui pro multis effunditur in remissioneÌ„ peccatorum Perspicis quia sine fide quÄ™rentibus mysterij modum nequaquam explanauit credentibus autem etiam non quÄ™rentibus exposuit For this cause thefore the Lorde did not expound how that might be done but exhorteth that it be sought by faith so to his disciples which beleeued he gaue peeces of bread saying take ye eate ye this is my bodie likewise he gaue the cuppe about and saide drinke ye all of this this is the cuppe of my bloud which shal be shed for many for remission of sinnes Thou seest that to them which inquire without faith he hath not explaned the manner of the mysterie but to them which beleeued although they inquired not he hath set it foorth In this saying of Cyril beside that he teacheth that Christe his flesh bloud are receiued in a mysterie it is good to obserue that he calleth the sacrament which Christ gaue to his Disciples fragmentes or peeces of bread which vtterly ouerthroweth Popish transubstantiation The eight Chapter proceedeth in declaration of the same by S. Augustine and Oecumenius The first place of Augustine he citeth but nameth not where it is written is this Cathechumeni iam credunt c. The learners of Christian faith doe nowe beleeue in the name of Christ but Iesus committeth not him selfe to them that is he giueth not vnto them his bodie and his bloud Let them be ashamed therefore because they knowe not let them goe through the red sea let them eate Manna that as they haue beleeued in the name of Iesus so Iesus may commit himselfe vnto them M. Heskins himselfe vpon this place saith It is common by the name of the figure to vnderstand the thing figured Therfore as Manna is called the bodie of Christ so is the sacramentall bread and wine called his bodie and bloud What is here for a Papist But Augustine in his Booke De vtilitate poenitentiae as he weeneth maketh much for him I am ergo lumine illato c. Now therefore the light being brought in let vs seeke what the rest signifie What meaned the sea the clowde Manna For those he hath not expounded But he hath shewed what the rocke is The passage through the sea is baptisme but because baptisme that is the water of health is not of health but beeing consecrated in the name of Christ which shed his bloud for vs the water is signed with his crosse and that it might signifie this the redde sea was that baptisme Manna from heauen is openly expounded by our Lord himselfe Your fathers saith he haue eaten Manna in the wildernesse and are dead For when should they liue For the figure might pronounce life it could not be life They haue eaten manna saith he are dead That is Manna which they haue eaten could not deliuer them from death not because Manna was death vnto them but because it deliuered not from death For he should deliuer theÌ„ froÌ„ death which was figured by Manna Surely Manna came from heauen consider whome is figured I am saith he the bread of life that came downe from heauen M. Heskins ioyneth another place of Augustine Lib. Nou. vet Test. Quast 65. Manna cypus est c. Manna is a figure of that spirituall meate which by the resurrection of our Lorde is made trueth in the mysterie of the Eucharistie By this he will proue that Manna in the former place was meant to be a figure of the body of Christ in the sacrament But in spite of his beard he must vnderstande it of the spiritual maner of receiuing therof by faith with the benefites of his death which are made perfect in his resurrection or else how saith he that the figure was made trueth by the resurrection of Christe For the trueth of Christes bodie did not depende vppon his resurrection and the sacrament was instituted before his death but it tooke and taketh force of his death and resurrection And concerning the former sentence I can but marueile at his impudencie that woulde alledge that treatise which is directly against him as partly you may see by the places cited by mee out of the same and followeth immediatly this place in the second Chapter of this booke partly by these places following taken out of the same booke Patres nostri inquis â—undem cibum spiritualem manducauerunt eundem potum spiritualeÌ„ biberunt Erant enim ibi qui quod manducabant intelligebant Erant ibi quibus plus Christus in corde quà m Manna in ore sapiebat Our fathers sayeth he did eat the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke For there were there which did vnderstande what they did eate There were there to whom Christe sauoured better in their heart then Manna in their mouth And again Breuiter dixerim Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt eundem quem nos cibum spiritualem manducauerunt Quicunque autem de Manna solam saturitatem quae fierunt patres infidelium maâ—ducauerunâ— moriui sunt Sic tui am eundem potum Petra enim Christus Eudem ergo potum quem noâ— sed spiritualem id est qui fide capiebatur non qui corporâ— hauriebatur I will saye briefely whosoeuer vnderstoode Christe in Manna did eate the same spirituall meate that wee doe But whosoeuer sought onely to fill their bellyes of Manna which were the fathers of the vnfaithfull they haue eaten and are deade So also the same drinke For the rocke was Christe They drinke therefore the same drinke that wee doe but spirituall drinke that is which was receiued by faith nor which was drawen in with the bodie And againe Eundem ergo cibum eundem potum sed intelligentibus credentibâ—s Non intelligentibus autem illud solum Manna illa fola aqua ille cibus osurienti potus iste suienti nec ille nec iste credenti Credenti autem idem qui nunc Tunc enim Christus venturus modò Christus venit Venturus venit diuersa verba sims sed idem Christus The same meate therefore and the same drinke be to them that vnderstoode and beleeued But to them which vnderstoode it not it was onely Manna that was onely water that meate to the hungrie this drinke to the thirstie neither that nor this to the beleeuer But to the beleeuer the same which is nowe for then Christ
in thy holie hil He that is innocent of hands of a cleane hart These things we say most deare brethrē that you may al learn out of the new Testament not to cleane to earthly things but to obteine heauenly thinges The precepts therefore beeing discussed are found to be all the same or else scarse any in the Gospel which haue ben said of the prophets The precepts are the same the sacraments are not the same the premises are not the same Let vs see wherfore the praecepts are the same because that according to them we ought to serue god The sacramentes are not the same because they be other sacraments giuing saluation other promising the sauiour The sacramentes of the new Testament do giue saluation the sacramēts of the old Testament promised the sauiour Therefore now that thou holdest the thinges promised what seekest thou things promising the sauiour now hauing him I say holdest the things promised not that we haue already receiued eternall life but because Christe is already come which was foreshewed by the prophets The sacraments are changed they are made easier fewer holsomer Notwithstanding the vain exclamation of M. Hesk. vpon this place except we wil make S. August contrarie to him selfe in the places before alledged we may plainly see how he expoundeth himself in the latter end of this long passage whereof the greatest part might altogether haue ben spared Namely that there is no difference in the substance of our sacramēts frō theirs but the Christ is already come And our sacraments do not giue saluation as though we had eternal life deliuered by them in possession but because Christ the authour of eternal life that in the other was promised is now come Not that grace in them was only promised not giuen for them M. Hesk. own definition of a sacrament should be false wherin he wil not allow any thing that is superfluous much lesse vntrue But M.H. is not content with this interpretation saying that S. Augustine compareth the sacraments of the olde lawe to childrens trifles in the same place Numquid quiniam puero c. Because there are giuen to a childe certein childish playing trifles by which the childish minde is called away are they not therefore plucked out of his hands when he waxeth a great one No more therfore God because he hath plucked away those things as childrens trifles out of the handes of his sonnes by the new Testament that he might giue thē something more proprofitable they beeing now waxed greater is to be thought not to haue giuen those former things Gentle Reader I wish thee to turne ouer to this place in S. Augustine and except thou be too much blinded in affection toward M. Hesk. thou wilt confesse that he hath aduouched a manifest vntruth when thou shalt see that Augustine vttereth not these words of the sacraments of the olde Testament but of the promises of earthly benefites made vnto the Fathers of those times I can say no more conferre and iudge The sixteenth Chapter proceedeth to the next text of S. Paule which is Calix cui Benedi This text which he pretendeth to expound is written in 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which we breake is it not the cōmunion or partaking of the bodie of Christ This text he saith proueth the reall presence and sacrifice And first he will haue no trope or figure to be vnderstoode in this place but the very things themselues with how grosse absurditie it is I referre it to the iudgment of al reasonable Papists that know what a trope meaneth Secondly he saith it is an euil manner of disputation to go about to proue like effectes of vnlike causes Wherein I will agree with him But what vpon this Forsooth then it followeth that as the Iewes of whom S. Paule taketh example were partakers of the altar because they did eate the sacrifices so we are partakers of the bodie bloud of Christ because we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ corporally and not because we eate a peece of bread and drink a litle wine Againe as the Corinthians by eating meate offred to idols were made partakers of idols so the Christians because they did eate the bodie of Christ are made partakers thereof But to discusse this vaine cloude of sophistrie I wil reason vpon his own Maxime like causes haue not vnlike effectes S. Paule saith he would not haue the Corinthians partakers of Diuels by eating meate offered to idols which in effect was offred to diuels As they that were made partakers of Diuels bycause they did eate meat offred to diuels were not partakers of the substance and nature of diuels neither did they eate the substance of diuels no more doth it follow that we eating drinking the bread of thanksgiuing cup of thanksgiuing which are a cōmunication of the bodie and bloud of Christ do corporally eate and drink the bodie bloud of Christ or be made partakers corporally of the nature substance of the bodie bloud of christ The like I say of the altar Now concerning the sacrifice M. Hesk. saith that if S. Paule did not as well take the cup table of the Lord to be a sacrifice as the cup and table of diuels to be a sacrifice as the sacrifices of the Israelites he would not haue vsed like termes but shewed a difference I answer if the sacrament had ben a sacrifice he would haue so called it especially in this place or at least in some other place therefore it is no sacrifice he shewed a sufficient difference when he called the one a sacrifice and not the other Although if I shold grant it to be a sacrifice of thanksgiuing M. Hes. were neuer the neere of his propitiatorie sacrifice But the fathers of Christes Parleament house must be heard to establish this interpretation of M. Hes. and first Chrysost. In 1. Cor. 10. Maximè c. With these wordes he doeth get greatly to him selfe both credite and feare And the meaning of them is this That which is in the cup is the same which flowed one of his side and thereof we are partakers And he called it the cup of blessing because that when we haue it in our handes with admiration and a certeine horror of that vnspeakable gift we prayse him giuing thankes because he hath shed his bloud that we should not remaine in errour Neither hath he onely shed it but made vs all partakers of it Therefore saith he if thou desirest bloud do not sprinkle the altar of idols with the slaughter of bruite beasts but my altar with my bloud What is more maruelous then this Tell me I pray thee wha◠is more amiable This also louers when they see those whom they loue allured with desire of other mens things giue their owne vnto them and counsel them to absteine from these
more for we do not communicate only in participation and receiuing but in vnitie for as that bodie is vnited to Christ so are we by this bread ioyned together in an vnion But why doth he adde Which we breake This may we see in the Eucharisty but in the crosse not so but altogether contrariwise There shall no bone of his be broken saith he but that he suffred not in the crosse he suffereth in the oblation and permitteth for thee to be broken Here first he misliketh the translation of the English Bible that calleth it participation A simple quarrel I would see the Bible perfectly translated into English by the Papists And yet the vulgar Popish Latine hath Participatio M. Heskins himselfe translateth it the partaking But beside the communion whiche hee passeth ouer M. Heskins gathereth his reall presence and sacrifice I will adde none other place of Chrysostome to explane his meaning this is so manifest of it selfe against both First whereas M. Heskins reasoneth for the reall presence of the communion which is such with vs Christ as is with Christ and his bodie and that is substantially and not spiritually I answer he vtterly falsifieth Chrysostoms meaning for he speaketh of our coniunction one with another which is spiritually not of Christe with vs we communicate saith he in vnitie that we might be ioyned one with an other in an vnion Therefore M. Heskins argument holdeth not Secondly that he speaketh of breaking of Christ in the sacrifice is so manifest to be vnderstood spiritually that it ouerthroweth both the presence and the sacrifice for Christ is not broken but spiritually therefore he is not present but spiritually M. Heskins â—ombleth out the matter with a foolish caueat that though Christ suffer be broken in the sacrament yet he suffreth no violence nor paine But let him speake plainely if he dare for his eares that Christe is really and substantially broken though without pain for that breaking of his body which Christ speaketh of in the institution of the sacrameÌ„t was perfourmed really and substantially vpon the crosse Wherefore vpon Chrysost. authoritie I will conclude against all the Papistes in the world Christ is so present in the sacrament that he is broken therin but he is not broken corporally but spiritually therefore he is not present corporally but spiritually Beside this it is to be noted in that saying of Chrysost. that he compareth that bodie with this bread As that bodie is vnited to Christ so are we by this bread ioyned together in an vnitie or vnion Hoc ilâ—ud be spoken of diuers things else he wold haue said so by the same body we are ioyned in an vnion but he saith by this bread therfore the body is one thing this bread another thing in corporal substance S. Hierom is cited 1. Cor. 10. Calix benedictionis c. The cup of blessing c. Therefore he named the cup first that he might dispute more at large of the bread Is it not the coÌ„munication of the bloud of Christ as our sauiour himselfe saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in me I in him Here is nothing but that we do all confesse sauing that M. Hes. will denie the bread that S. Hierome speaketh of to al men the cup to all lay men The other place of Hierome that he interlaceth after his maner In Psal. 110. is answered before Lib. 1. Ca. 30. The third place followeth in Hierome immediatly after the first Et panis quem frangimus noÌ„ne participatio corporis Domini est Ita panis idolatrie daemonuÌ„ participatio esse monstratur And is not the bread which we breake a participation of the bodie of our Lord Euen so also the bread of idolatrie is a participation of diuels Here M.H. to mainteine his fond quarrel against the translation of the English Bible hath falsified S. Hier. in steede of Participatio set downe CoÌ„municatio corporis c. a coÌ„munication of the body c. The place it self is directly against M. Hesk. bil because the participation of the Lords bodie is coÌ„pared with the participation of diuels which cannot be a corporal maner of partaking And it foloweth Omnes quideÌ„ de vno pane de vno Calice participamus Ita si cuÌ„ idololatris de vno pane comedimus vnuÌ„ cuÌ„illis corpus efficimur videte Israel secunduÌ„ carneÌ„ Carnalis Israel carnales hostias offerebat sicut spiritualis sacrificia spiritualia offert Christo We al truly are partakers of one bread of one cup so if we eat of one bread with idolaters we are made one body with them Behold Israel according to the fleshe The carnal Israel did offer carnal sacrifices euen as the spiritual Israel doth offer spirituall sacrifices to Christe In these wordes obserue that we are so made one bodie by partaking of one bread and cup as by eating one bread with idolaters which can not be after a corporall manner Secondly that we offer not Christ in sacrifice but offer spiritual sacrifice to Christ. Finally he saith vpon the same Chapter Non potestis calicem Domini bibere calicem Daemoniorum Non potestis Dei Daemonum esse participâ—s You can not drinke of the cup of our Lorde and the cup of diuels you can not be partakers of God and of Diuels See nowe by S. Hieromes iudgement that to be partaker of the cup of the Lord is to be partaker of God not of the bloud of Christ after a corporal but after a spiritual maner For if the bloud of Christ were conteined locally substantially in the cup that wicked men might drink the bloud of Christ as Papistes holde then a man might be partaker both of the cup of the Lord of the cup of diuels yea of the bodie of the Lord of the table of diuels which Saint Paul doth so expresly denie As touching his bald reason of the sacrifice it is answered before and out of Hierome euen now and his real presence being taken away it passeth away with it The eighteenth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Augustine and Damascen He citeth S. Augustine Contra Inimic Leg. prophet naming neither what booke nor Chapter to cloake his shamefull corruption and falsification For in the very middes he leaueth out a sentence or two beside that he cutteth off the later parte which doth clearely open Saint Augustines mind thus he citeth it Nolâ— vos socies Daemorum c. I will not that ye be made fellowes of Diuels He did truely forbid them from idolatrie For the which thing he would declare to them that they should euen so be made fellowes of diuels if they did eate Idolathytes of the sacrifice as the carnall Israel whiche did eate of the sacrifices in the Temple â–ª was fellow of the altar By occasion of that he began that he would say this wherefore my most
beloued flye from the honouring of Idols Afterward following he sheweth to what sacrifice they ought to appertein saying I speak as vnto wise men iudge what I say is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communication of the bloud of Christ and is not the bread which we breake a communication of the bodie of our Lord In this saying after the worde altar he hath gelded out thus much Ideo quippe addidit carnaliter vel secundùm carnem quia est Israel spiritualiter vel secundùm spiritum qui veteres vmbras iam non sequitur sed eam consequentem quae his vmbris praecedentibus significata est veritatem For therfore he added carnally or after the flesh because there is a Israel spiritually or according to the spirite which doth not now followe the olde shadowes but the trueth following which was signified by those shadowes All this is left out of the very middest From the end he cutteth of these wordes following Quia vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus omnes enim de vno pane participamus Et propter hoc subiunxit videte Israel secundùm carnem nonne qui de sacrificijs manducant socij sunt altaris vt intelligerent ita se iam socios esse corporis Christi quemadmodum illi socij sunt altaris Because there is one bread and we beeing many are one bodie for we are all partakers of one bread And for this cause he added Behold Israel according to the flesh are not they which eate of the sacrifices fellowes or partakers of the altar That they might vnderstand that they are now so fellowes or partakers of the bodie of Christe as those are partakers of the altar What can be saide more playne for the spirituall manner of participation of the bodie of Christe Except M. Heskins will say that the Iewes were really corporally and substantially partakers of the altar And this is conteined in the first booke Cap. 19. And wheras M. Hesk. iangleth of the sacrifice mentioned in this place heare what sacrifice it may be by Augustines owne wordes in the 18. Chapter of the same booke Sed nec laudibus nostris eget c. But neither hath he need of our prayses but as it is profitable for vs and not for him that we offer sacrifice to God and because the bloud of Christe is shed for vs in that singular and onely true sacrifice therefore in those first times God commanded the sacrifices of immaculate beastes to be offered vnto him to prophecie this sacrifice by such significations that as they were imaculate from faults of their bodies so he should be hoped to be offered for vs who alone was immaculate frō sins Here the sacrifice of death is the singular sacrifice the only true sacrifice propitiatorie of the Church otherwise for the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing or for the sacrament to be called vnproperly a sacrifice of the auncient fathers I haue often confessed before As for Damascenes authoritie li. 4. Ca. 14. it is not worth the aunswering being a late writer more then 100. yeares out of the compasse and full of grosse absurdities and in the place by M. Hesk. alledged denyeth that Basill calleth breade wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exemplaria exemplaries of the bodie and bloud of Christ after the consecration which is an impudent lye for before the consecration they are no sacraments and so no exemplars of the bodie and bloud of Christe therefore if he called them exemplars it must needs be when they are sacraments that is after consecration but such lippes such lettyce he is a sufficient author for M. Heskins and yet hee is directly against transubstantiation For he saith cum sit mos hominum edere panem bibere vinum ijs rebus adiunxit suam diuinitatem whereas it is the manner of men to eate beead and drinke wine hee hath ioyned his diuinitie to these things In these words he acknowledgeth the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament the diuinitie of Christ to bee ioyned to them The nynteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Isidore Oecumenius M. Hesk. hath many friends in the lower house as hee hath neuer a one in the vpper house that fauoureth his bil Yet Isidorus saith litle for him but rather against him He citeth him lib. 1. offic Cap. 18. Panis c. The bread which we breake is the bodie of Christ which sayth I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen and the wine is his bloud and this is it that is written I am the true vine M. Hesk. saith truely that Isidore is the rather to be credited because he alledgeth the scripture and therefore according to these two textes of scripture he must be vnderstoode but neither of both these texts is to be vnderstood litterally but figuratiuely therefore his saying the breade is the bodie and the wine is his bloud must be vnderstood figuratiuely not litterally which M. Heskins perceiuing would help him out by foysting in a place of Cyrillus in Ioan. Annon conuenienter c May it not be conueniently sayde that his humanitie is the vine we the branches because wee be all of the same nature For the vine the branches be of the same nature So both spiritually corporally wee are the braunches and Christ is the vine In these wordes Cyrill reasoneth against an Arrian as is more at large declared in the sixth Chapter of this third booke that would interpret this place only of the diuinitie of Christe to make him lesse then his father as the vine is subiect to the husbandman But Cyrill contendeth that it may well be vnderstoode also of his humanitie because we are not onely ioyned to the diuinitie of Christ but also to his flesh which is testifyed vnto vs by the sacrament wherin we are spiritually fedd with the verie bodie bloud of Christe and so Christe is the vine both spiritually corporally that is both after his godhead after his manhod But Cyrillus would neuer denie that this saying I am the true vine is a figuratiue speach which is the matter in controuersie betweene M. Hesk. and vs. Oecumenius is alledged to as litle purpose as Isidorus in 1. Cor. 10. Poculum vocat c. He calleth the cupp of the bloud of Christ the cupp of blessing which we blesse which hauing in our hands we blesse him which hath giuen vs his bloude Here is neuer a worde but I will willingly subscribe vnto it yet M. Hesk. sayth it is a common manner of speache that the vessel is named by the thing that it conteineth hee dare not say it is a figuratiue speach lest while he would haue the bloud of Christ locally conteined in the cupp he might be pressed with the figure in the worde bloud which he cannot denye though he dissemble in the word cupp In the end he braggeth of an euident
and stronger sentence of these writers which when it commeth wee shal examine it in the meane time they haue no voyce in the vpper house and therefore we feare not greatly what they say The twelfth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Haime Theophylact. It were losse of time to quarrell about the testimonies of these two burgesses of the lower house Maister Heskins sayeth that there wanteth nothing in Theophylact that is necessarie for a credible witnesse At least he should haue excepted that he defended an heresie of the proceeding of the holie Ghost against the churche of Rome in 3. Ioan. As for his antiquitie which hee maketh to be before the controuersie was moued by Berengarius although it were so yet it were none argument of his trueth But it seemeth hee was much about the time of Berengarius Anno. 1049. Neither doth Peter Martyr whome Maister Heskins rayleth vppon so much esteeme his authoritie that he would wrest it to his side more then the verie words of Theophylact would beare as the learned that read his workes can testifie The one and twentieth Chapter proceedeth yet vppon the same text by Anselmus Bruno Let M. Hesk. make the moste of those burgesses the bill will passe neuer the sooner though all the lower house allowed it so long as it cannot be receiued into the higher house The latter ende conteineth a vaine repetition of Cyprian and Prospers sayings so often aunswered before with a foolishe insultation against the proclaimer as though he sawe not these doctors as well as M. Heskins who I beleeue neuer opened halfe the bookes of them whose sayings he hath alledged he hath cited the most of them so corruptly not onely falsifying them to serue his turne but also when there was no aduantage for him in his corruption The two and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Dionyse Gagneius Two worshipfull burgesses vnto whome hee addeth Bishop Fisher for the thirde after he hath made a shorte rehearsall of all those writers whose authoritie he hath vsed abused to mainteine this his exposition The three and twentieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Quoniam vnus panis c. The text is this Because there is one bread and wee being many are one bodie for we are all partakers of the same bread of the same cupp First M. Hesk. sayeth that the Apostle speaking of our Communion with Christ and with our selues declareth that bread and the cuppe bee not taken for bare figures of the bodie bloud of Christ in which argument he fighteth with his owne shadowe for we detest bare figures as much as grosse transubstantiation Secondly he sayeth our communion with Christ is both spirituall and corporall spirituall in baptisme and corporall in this sacrament or else this sacrament was instituted in vaine if we haue none other communion with Christ thereby then spirituall which is in baptisme I answere his argument is nought for the diuerse dispensations of the same grace is testified and confirmed to vs by diuerse sacraments our regeneration by baptisme and our preseruation as by spirituall foode by the Lordes supper As for the superstitious bread that was giuen in Saint Augustines time to those that were Catechumeni in steede of the sacrament hee doeth well to compare to their popish holie bread sauing that there is greate difference for that was giuen onely to them that were not baptised this altogether to them that are baptized many that haue receiued the other sacrament at their hands But where he hath tossed his corporall communion to fro at last he addeth a condition of receiuing worthily so that he denyeth in effect that he saide before that by receipt of Christes bodie men are incorporate to Christ forceth the wordes of the Apostle to be many and not all which is false for he sayeth all that eate of this bread though we be many yet are made one bodie Finally in that the Apostle sayeth we all eate of one bread drink of one cupp M. Hesk â–ª saith that he tooke it not for bare material bread for then it were not true as for his bare bread let him keepe to crome his pottage But howe prooueth he that Saint Paule spake not of materiall bread as the earthly parte of the sacrament Forsooth all do not eat one bread for the Greekes eat leuened bread the Latines fine vnleuened bread In the Popish church is giuen to euery communicant a sundrie bread in the scismaticall church euery conuenticle hath a sundrie bread and sometimes diuerse breades therfore it is no materiall bread that S. Paule speaketh of but the heauenly bodie of christ If I were as froward a reasoner as M. Hesk. I would aske him whether the body of Christ be not a materiall body because he maketh materiall heauenly diuerse differences as though he were an Eutychian But admitt that by materiall bread hee meaneth bread properly so called and the heauenly bodie figuratiuely called bread which he is loth to come to what mad man woulde vnderstand that one breade which S. Paul sayeth to be distributed in euery communion to all that are present and whereof euery one taketh parte in token of the communion or fellowship of many in one bodie for all the kindes fashions of bread that are vsed in all communions in the worlde For the Apostles argument is grounded of the similitude of bread which of many graines is made one bread so wee being many are made one bodie And therefore in vaine doeth he racke these wordes of S. Paul to the meaning of Barnarde whose authoritie we receiue not or to the words of Chrysostome which he falsly alledgeth to be in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 17. whereas they be in ad Hebraeos 10. Hom. 7. which is nothing but an obiection of his the place is wholy cited in the first booke 37. Chapter where you shall see how much it maketh for M. Hesk. The 24. Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Chrysostom and S. Augustine Chrysostome vpon this place is cited thus Quoniam vnus panis vnum corpus c. For there is one bread wee being many are one bodie For what do I call saith he a commemoration wee are the selfe same bodie What is the breade the bodie of CHRIST and what are they made which receiue it the body of Christ not many bodies but one body For as the breade is made one of many cornes so that the cornes do not appeare and yet there are cornes but ioyned together so that they can not be discerned so are we ioyned one with an other and with christ For thou art not nourished of one body and he of an other â–ª but all of the same therefore he added all we which doe partake of the same bread Of these wordes Maister Heskins wil haue vs to learne three things First that communication is to
verbi sanctificatur ad benedictionem mysticaâ— adeâ— actiuum fit vt possit sanctificationem nobis fuam imâ—â—ttere Therefore saith he none euill can happen vnto you though I shall be absent in flesh seeing the power of my Godhead which hath saued you hitherto shall also preserue you hereafter We speake not these thinges therefore bicause we doe not greatly esteeme the Lordes bodie but bicause wee thinke that these maruellous effectes are to be attributed to the glorie of his Godhead For euen the same body of our Lorde is sanctified by the vertue of the Worde that is ioyned with it and made so effectuall vnto the mysticall blessing that it can send in to vs the sanctification thereof Note here gentle reader that the flesh of Christ though it be absent yet by the diuine power is able to make vs partakers of his sanctification Absent I say as concerning locall presence after which it is in heauen and not vpon earth yet hath it these maruellous effectes by the glory of his Godhead as Cyrill saith that ioyning vs vnto it by faith in the participation of the holy mysteries it feedeth vs vnto eternall life The place of Cyrill in 15. Ioan. Cap. is contained and aunswered in the 6. Chapter of this third booke where you shall see that the proclamer denyeth nothing that Cyrill in that place affirmeth As for the saying of Thomas of Aquine one of the scholasticall sophisters in Diuinitie I passe ouer hee is cocke sure of M. Heskins side The seuen and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Euthym. and Hugo Concerning the antiquitie of Euthymius I haue often testified before that he is no Lorde of the higher house Notwithstanding bicause he borroweth most of his matter of the elder writers I will set downe his wordes which make nothing for M. Heskins purpose In Math. 6. Quemadmodâ—m c. As breade doâ—h comfort so the body of Christ doth the same and more also it sanctifieth both the body and the soule And as wine doth make glad so the bloud of Christe doth the same and moreouer is made a defence And if all we that are faithfull doe partake of one body and bloud we are all one by the participation of these mysteries both all in Christe and Christe in us all He that eateth saith he my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him For the wordâ— truely by assumption is vnited to the flesh and this flesh again is vnited to vs by participation This place seemeth to M. Heskins to be very plaine and so thinke I for there is nothing in it but I graunt to bee true being rightly vnderstoode M. Heskins saith he expoundeth the breade and the cuppe to be the body and bloud of Christ or else the text were cleerer then the exposition in which fantasie he pleaseth him selfe exceedingly We graunt that the breade and cup in S. Paule signifie the body and bloud of Christe which we receiue in the sacrament after a spirituall and diuine manner Thirdly he noteth that we are vnited by participation into the flesh of Christe which he saith we deny but hee lieth impudently for we constantly affirme that except we be partakers of the flesh and bloud of Christe we can not be partakers of eternall life But that this partaking is after a corporall manner or only in the sacrament that we deny And that also doth Euthymius deny in effect where he teacheth that whereas we are vnited to Christe Christe to vs so are we vnited together but this is after a spiritual ineffable manner so is the other We graunt that Cyril saith we could not be partakers of eternal life except we were ioyned to the body of natural or true life that is to the body of Christ in Ioan. 6. li. 15. but we are ioyned otherwise then by the Lords supper or els no infants shuld be partakers of eternall life Finally where M. Hes. affirmeth that the words of Euthymius by no engin â–ª can be wrested from his carnal maner of preseÌ„ce bicause he speaketh before of the transmutation of the bread wine into the body bloud of Christ I answere he speaketh of no such transmutation but that we do graunt the same namely a sacramental change such as is of the water in baptisme of which also he taketh a similitude Siquidem in baptismo sensibilis quidem est aqua sed donum intelligibile est regeneratio QuoniaÌ„ enim in nobis anima coÌ„serta est corpori in sensibilibus intelligibilia tradidit nobis Deus For in baptisme also the water truely is a sensible thing but regeneratioÌ„ is an intelligible gift For bicause our soule is inclosed in our body God hath deliuered vnto vs intelligible things in sensible things The water in baptisme is not chaunged into regeneration nor regeneration included in the water and speaking of the same transmutation hee saith the breade and wine are transmuted into the body and bloud of Christe and into the grace of them But the substance of the bread wine is not turned into the grace of the body and bloud therfore neither into the body and bloud And this is the great helpe he hath out of Euthymius As for Cardinall Hugh I will not trouble the reader with his saying whose authoritie I vtterly refuse In the latter end of this Chap. as he vseth to deale when he hath such single witnesses in hand he patcheth in a piece or two of his old stuffe serued before as that of Dionyse falsly called the Areopagite Eccle. Hierach 1. part cap. 3 answered before Li. 1. Ca. 35. That of Ambrose de mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9. lib. 2. cap. 10. ser. 2. and else where oftentimes He nameth also Irenaeus Lib. 5. aduers. haer but he setteth not downe his wordes The eight and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Oecumenius and Anselmus In the beginning of this Chapter he glorieth vainly of the multitude of writers of his side but then they must be such as he nameth in the title that is late writers although Oecumenius hath nothing that maketh strongly for him the place that is here alledged in 1. Cor. 10. is in a maner the very words of Chry. which we had euen now in the cap. 24. Vnus panis c. We are one bread one body For we are al partakers of one breade He addeth a reason howe we are made the body of Christe For what is the bread saith he forsooth the body of Christe And what are they made which partake it Surely the body of Christe For that maketh vs also partakers of the body of Christe For one breade is Christe For of many graines as for example we may speake one breade is made and we being many partaking of that one are made one body of Christe For bicause our olde flesh is corrupted vnder sinne we had neede of a newe flesh I had not thought to
haue noted Maister Heskins falsification in this place translating Corpus nempe Christi Verily the body of Christe but that hee would delude the ignoraunt reader afterwarde and say if it bee verily the body of Christe it is not figuratiuely his body as though nempe were the same that verè or propriè But herein I will leaue him to children in the Grammer schoole to be derided and boyes that neuer read three leaues of Aristotles Logike in the Vniuersities The like follie hee sheweth in preuenting our aunswere that Oecumenius speaketh of the mysticall body of Christe bycause hee speaketh first of the breade that wee receiue and after of vs that receiue it But doeth hee not say wee are made the same body that wee receiue Wherefore I will thus inferre wee are made the same body that wee receiue but wee are not made the same naturall body corporally therefore we receiue not the same natural body corporally Nowe let Maister Heskins make as much as hee can of Oecumenius authoritie and rayâ—e as long as hee list against the disagreement of Luther Zuinglius and Oecolampadius they shall bee found to agree better where they most disagree then the Pope and al his cleargie agree with Christ and the trueth when they all agree to persecute and oppresse And as concerning these properties of a true Prieste that hee gathereth out of Malachie the lawe of trueth in their mouth peace and equitie in their wayes and conuersion of men from iniquitie notwithstanding Maister Heskins slanderous pen shal be found in them and in al the true preachers of our church in the iudgment of Christ when the Pope and his Popish shauelings shal be condemned of false doctrine crueltie abhominable life in them selues and teaching the doctrine of licentiousnesse vnto others I meane the doctrine of merites satisfactions purgatorie pardoning and such like The authoritie of Anselme a professed enimie of Berengarius I resigne to M. Hes. with ten thousand such as he is not comparable in credite with one of the higher house who only are meâ—te to determine this controuersie of the manner of Christes presence in the sacrament The nine and twentieth Chapter treateth of the same text by Theophylact and Dionyse and endeth with Remigius The last couple saith M. Heskins make vp a ful Iewrie to passe for life and death but we may lawfully chalenge the aray being enpanelled by M. Heskins a partial shirif and also we haue excepted against many of the Iewrors and now do except against both these namely Theophylact of Bulgarie as a late writer and an heretique and Dionyse of the Charterhouse as one of the feeid and fed seruants of the Pope Although Theophylact being reasonably expounded according to his owne sayings in other places saith nothing directly against vs But in default of these here is a third man taken belike de circunstantibus that is Remigius whome M. Heskins to make him a lawfull Iewrie man affirmeth to haue liued Anno Dom. 511. and so within the compasse of the challenge But if he deale so wee must haue a writ against him de identitate nominis For as we finde that there was in deede one Remigius bishop of Remes about that time so likewise we finde that the authour of this commentarie in 1. Cor. 10. was bishop Antisiodocensis almost 400. yeres after namely about the yere of Christ. 894. Notwithstanding bicause his words are almost the same which are before ascribed to Hierom Cap. 17. I will not spare to set them downe Calix benedictionis c. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christe Therefore he named the cup first because he would afterward treate more at large of the bread It is called the cup of blessing which is blessed of the priestes in the altar the cuppe it selfe is called a communication as it were a participation because all do communicate of it and receiue parte of the Lordes bloud which it conteineth in it And the bread whiche we breake in the altar is it not the participation of the Lordes body Surely it is first consecrated and blessed of the priests and of the holie Ghost and afterward is broken when as now although bread be seene in trueth it is the bodie of Christ â–ª Of which bread whosoeuer do communicate they doe eate the bodie of christ Because we being many which eate that bread are one bread vnderstand of Christ and one bodie of Christ. Maister Heskins noteth that the cup conteyneth the bloud of Christ which speech may be allowed because the cup conteineth the wine which is the bloud of Christ after a certeine manner as S. Augustine saith Secondly that though it seem bread yet indeed is the body of Christ he saith Lices panis videatur Though bread be seene yet Christ his bodie is present after a spirituall and incomprehensible manner But M. Heskins wil note that all men did drinke the bloud of Christe out of the cup. And that he saith the bread is broken when it is the bodie of Christe by which wordes he denyeth transubstantiation as in the former the communion vnder one kinde Finally in affirming vs that eate that bread to be the same bodie of Christ which we do eate he doth clearly ouerthrowe the carnall manner of eating Christes body in the sacrament as he doeth establish the spirituall manner of coniunction that we haue with the bodie and bloud of Christ. The thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Ye cannot drinke of the cup of our Lorde and of the cup of diuels by S. Cyprian and Chrysostome This text saith M. Heskins is a conclusion therefore it must include sacrifice that was in the premisses But I denie that sacrifice was any of the termes in the premisses of that argument wherof this is the conclusion although it were named in the sacrifices of the Iewes and of the Gentiles euen as Israel Gentiles altar temple were likewise named and yet not to be found in this conclusion because that although they were spoken of in the discourse yet they were not in the premisses of this argument for this it is Who so euer is made one bodie with CHRISTE can not drinke of the Lordes cuppe and of the cuppe of Diuels but you are made one bodie with Christe therefore you cannot drinke the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels Now therefore to Saint Cyprian Ser. 5. de Lapsis Contra Euangelij vigorem c. Against the force of the Gospel against the law of our Lord and of God by the rashnesse of some communication is set as libertie to them that are vnprouided Which is a vaine and a false peace perillous to the giuers and nothing profitable to the receiuers They seeke not the patience of health nor the true medicine by satisfaction Repentance is shut vp from sinners The remembrance of a moste greeuous and extreeme offence is taken away The woundes of
them that are in dying are couered and the deadly strype in the deepe and inward bowels is hidde with dissembled sorrowe Retourning from the altar of the diuell with handes filthye and defiled with the greasie sauour they come to the holie of the LORDE Almoste yet belching out the deadly meates of Idols with their lawes yet breathing out their wickednesse and sauouring of their deadly infections they set vpon the Lords body whereas the Scripture commeth againste them and cryeth and sayeth Euerie cleane person shall eate the fleshe But if any eate of the fleshe of the wholesome sacrifice whiche is the Lordes hauing his vncleanenesse vpon him the same soule shall perishe from among his people The Apostle also witnesseth and sayeth ye can not drinke the cuppe of the Lorde and the cuppe of Diuels Ye can not communicate of the table of the Lorde and the table of diuels In this sermon Cyprian reproued those men whiche had admitted to the communion such persons as had sacrificed to idols before they were throughly penitent and had made satisfaction to the Church which was offended by them contrarie to the order of good discipline Now saith Maister Heskins he would not so sharply haue reproued them if the thing they receiued had beene but a peece of bread A wise reason What if a man at that time had come vnreuerently to baptisme had it not ben an horrible offence although the outward element of baptisme be nothing but a litle water Although when we say â–ª that bread is a parte of the sacrament we neuer teache that it is but a peece of bread neither doe we say that baptisme is nothing but water They that vnreuerently rush vnto the Lords sacraments are punished for their presuÌ„ption not in respect of that they receiue whether it be bread wine or water but for that they receiue it vnworthily Another thing he noteth out of Cyprian is that Christes bodie is a sacrifice because he alledgeth the scripture of Leuiticus which is spoken of a sacrifice as though the scripture could not be rightly applyed that spake of holie meate vnreuerenely receiued vnto the vnreuerent receiuing of the sacrament except the sacrament were a sacrifice this is out of all compasse of reason He might as well say the sacrament is a burnt offring because it is compared to a sacrifice which is a burnt offring and an hundreth other absurdities may likewise be inferred which for reuerence of the blessed mysteries I spare to name But it followeth in Cyprian immediately where Maister Heskins leaueth Idem conuâ—â—nacibus pertinacibus comminatur detrâ—â—iciat dicens quicunque ederis panem aut biberit calicem Domini indignè reus eriâ— corporis sanguinis Domini Spretis his omnibus atque contempâ—is vis infertur corpori cius sanguini eiut Plus modò in Dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt quà m cum Dominum negâ—uerunt The same Paule threateneth and denounceth to the obstinate and froward saying whosoeuer shal eate of the bread drink of the cup of the Lord vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the lord All these sayings being despised and contemned violence is done vnto his bodie his bloud They do more offend against the Lord now with their hands their mouth then when they denied the Lord. These wordes declare that Cyprian calleth not the bread cup the bodie bloud of Christ â–ª as M. Hesk. would haue it properly but figuratiuely for no force or violence can be done to the bodie and bloud of Christe but to the sacrament thereof there may and Christ is iniured in the contempt of his mysteries as the Prince in contumelious breaking abusing of the broad seale by rebellious subiectes though he suffer no violence in his owne person Chrysostome is cited Ho. 11. ad Populum Antiochen Quomodo sacruÌ„ videbimus pascha c. How shal we see the holie passeouer How shall we receiue the holy sacrifice How shall we coÌ„municate in these maruelous mysteries with that tongue with which we haue contemned the lawe of God With that â—ong with which we haue defiled our soule For if no man durst take the Kings purple robe with foule hands how shall we receiue the Lordes body with a defiled tonge For swearing is of the wicked sacrifice is of the lord Therefore what communication is there betweene light and darknesse what agreement between Christ and Beliall Here saith M. Hesk. by the excellent titles he giueth the sacrament is proued the reall presence The holie sacrifice wonderful mysteries the bodie of our Lord light Christ himself But one of these titles is manifestly vnproper and figuratiue namely that of light and why may not the rest be so likewise Baptisme hath honourable titles yet is there no transubstantiatioÌ„ therin The second note to proue the reall presence is that saying how shall we with defiled tong receiue the Lordes body Here the body is receiued with the mouth and tong therefore corporally But if I should say that Chrysostome by this interogation denyeth that it can be receiued with a defiled tong where were the strength of this place but I will graunt that he vseth so to speake but vnproperly that the hand the tong receiue the bodie and bloud of Christ and yet meaneth no carnall maner of presence as Ho. 21. ad Pop. Antioch Cogita quid manu capias ipsam ab omni auaritia rapina liberam conserua Consider what thou receiuest with thy hand and keepe it free from all couetousnesse extortion This peraduenture pleaseth M. Heskins But it followeth soone after Etenim perniciosum est tam tremendis ministraâ—â—em mysterijs linguam sanguine tal purpuratam factam aureum gladium ad cornicia contumelias scurrilitates transferre For it is a pernicious thing to transferre that tonge which ministreth vnto so reuerend mysteries is died purple with such bloud and made a golden sworde vnto rayling reuiling and scoffing Here the tong doth not only receiue the bloud of Christ but also is made red or purple with it is made by it a golden sword If these be not figuratiue speeches they be monstruous absurdities And yet againe in the same place Sed rursum aduertens quod post manus liâ—guam cor suscipit horrendum illud mysteriâ—en ne vnquam in proximuÌ„ sumas dolum sed menseÌ„ tuam ab omni malitia mundâ—m conserua fic oculos aures munire poteris But againe considering that after thy handes thy tong thy heart receiueth that fearefull mysterie neuer deuise any craft against thy neighbour but keepe thy minde cleane from all malice so maist thou defende thine eyes and thine eares And the like speeches he hath of the eyes and the eares By which it is euident that although he speak figuratiuely in the way of exhortation yet he meaned not to teache any other but a spirituall manner of receiuing the bodie of Christ
in alcari Dei c. This that you see on the altare of God you sawe the night last past But what it was what i◠mean◠of howe great a thing it conteined the sacrament you haue not yet heard therefore that which you sawe is bread and a cuppe which thing also your eyes doe tell you ▪ But that your faith requireth to be instructed The breade is the bodie of Christe the cuppe is his bloud Our Lorde Iesus Christe wee knowe whence he receiued fleshe 〈◊〉 of the virgine Marie Hee was suckled being an infant he was norished he grewe he came to the age of a young man he suffered persecution of the Iewes hee was hanged on the tree he was killed on the tree he was buryed he rose againe the thirde day That day he woulde ascende into heauen thither he lifted vp his bodie from whence he shall come to iudge both the quicke and the dead There he is nowe sitting at the right hand of the father Howe is the breade his bodie and the cuppe or that which the cupp containeth how is it his bloud Brethren these things are therefore called sacraments because one thing in them it seene another thing is vnderstoode that which is seene hath a corporall shewe that which is vnderstoode hath a spirituall fruite I doubt not but euery Christian man that readeth this saying vnderstandeth it to be verie cleere against both transubstantiation and the carnall presence as is shewed before lib. 2. Cap. 37. which that Maister Heskins might obscure he maketh a smoke to bleare mens eyes that they might not see any thing therin but the altar Wherefore he rayleth like him selfe against the proclaimer charging him bothe to haue falsified S. Augustine and also truncately to haue alledged him because saith he he citeth him thus Quod videtis in mensa panis est that ye see in the table is bread whereas Augustine sayeth in the altar and not on the table which he durst not name for shame But with what shame Heskins can so reuile and slaunder that godly learned father you shall see by that which followeth immediately where he leaueth in Augustine and iudge whether Master Heskins left out the wordes for shame or else because his note booke serued him no further Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelligere audi Apostolum dicentem fidelibus vos estis corpus Christi membra Si ergo vot estis corpus Christi membra mysterium vestrum in MENSA positum est Mysteria Domini accipitis ad quod estis Amen respondetis respondendo subscribitis Audis ergo corpus Christi respondes Amen Esto membrum corporis Christi vt verum sit Amen tuum quare ergo in pane nihil hic de nostro affiramus Ipsum Apostolum item audiamus Cum ergo de isto sacramento loqueretur ait vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus Intelligite gaudete Therefore if thou wilt vnderstande the bodie of Christ heare the Apostle saying to the faithfull you are the bodie of Christ and his members If you therefore be the bodie of Christ and his members your mysterie is set on the TABLE you receiue the Lords mysterie wherunto you are you aunswere Amen and in aunswering you subscribe Thou hearest therfore the bodie of Christ and thou aunswerest Amen bee thou a member of the bodie of Christe that thy Amen may bee true Why then in bread let vs here bring nothing of our owne Let vs likewise heare the Apostle Therefore when hee spake of this sacrament he sayeth There is one bread wee being many are one bodie vnderstand ye reioyce ye I trust you see by this that the altar he spake of was a table as you see also how the sacrament is the bodie of Christ. But lest hee might replye that the table was an altar I must further alledge Saint Augustines authoritie that it was a table for it was made of boordes and was remouable For speaking of the Deacons of Rome in Quaest. vet non test q. 101 he sayth Vt antem non omnia ministeria obsequiorum per ordinem agant multitudo fecit clericorum nam vtique altare portarem vasa euis aquam in manus sunderent sacerdoti ficut videmus per omnes ecclesias But that they doe not perfourme all the ministeries of their seruice in order the multitude of Clerkes hath caused for surely they shoulde both carrie the altar and the vessels thereof and powre water on the Priestes handes as wee see it in all churches That they were of boordes and tymber and not of stone lest the Papistes should dreame of their Altare portatiue that their hedge priestes carrie in their sleeues to say Masse in corners the same Augustine writing to Bonifacius Ep. 50. sheweth in these wordes speaking of the insurrection of the Donatistes against Maximianus a catholike bishop of Sagium Stantem ad altare irruente◠horrendo impetu furore crudeli fustibus huiusmodi telis lignis denique eiusdem altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt Rushing in with an horrible violence and cruell furie they stroke him moste outragiously standing at the altare with staues and such like weapons yea euen with the boordes of the same altare which they brake in peeces The like complaint maketh Optatus in his booke against the Donatistes sauing that he nameth not wood or bordes yet it is plaine by the circumstance that hee spake of none other The place as Maister Heskins citeth it is this Quid est tam sacrilegum c. What is so great sacriledge as to breake scrape or shaue and remoue the altares of God in which you also sometimes haue offered on which the prayers of the people and the members of Christ haue been borne at which God almightie hath beene called vppon where the holie Ghost being desired hath come downe from which the pledge of aeternall life and the sauegarde of faith and the hope of resurrection hath beene receiued of many the altares I say vpon which our Sauiour hath commaunded the giftes of the fraternitie not to be layde but such as are made of peace Lay downe saith hee thy gifte before the altare and returne and firste agree with thy brother that the Priest may offer for thee For what is the altar but the seat of the bodie and bloud of Christe All these your furie hath either scraped or broken or remoued What hath God done to you which was wont to be called vpon there What had Christe offended you whose bodie and bloud dwelleth there at certeine momentes And what doe you offende your selues to breake the altars on which long time before vs as you thinke you haue offered holily Thus haue you followed the Iewes They layde handes vppon Christe on the crosse of you he was striken in the altar of whome the Prophet Helias complaineth to the Lorde speaking in the same wordes with which you among other haue deserued to bee accused Lorde sayeth he they haue
no. And why then may not the bodie of Christ be present and yet not corporally nor locally conteyned in pixe corporax cupp hand or mouth but after a spirituall manner as the holy Ghost is in the cuppe by his owne Iames his saying The last quarrell he picketh is to our ministers who sayeth he haue none authoritie to consecrate because they receiue it not from the catholike succession As for that authoritie which we haue receiued of God by the outwarde calling of the church wee minde not to exchange with the Popes triple crowne and much lesse with Maister Hesk. shauen crowne But to shape him an answere according to his lewde obiection seeing many are suffered to minister in our church which were made priestes after the Popish order of antichrist why should he denye any of them them at the least to haue power to consecrate according to the Popish diuinitie though the wordes be spoken in English so long as he hath intentionē consecrandi before he be of them disgraded and hath his indebeble character scraped out of his handes and fingers endes I aunswere he is not able to defend his opinion that thei cannot consecrate neither in Sorbona of Paris nor in the schoole of Louain To shutt vp this Chapter he flappeth vs in the mouth with S. Mathewes Masse testified by Abdias in the diuels name a disciple of the Apostles as hee saith but one that sawe Christ him selfe as M. Harding sayeth in verie deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more then Caunterburie tales And thinketh he that such fables will nowe bee credited except it bee of such as wilfully will be deceiued The fiue and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the manner of consecration vsed and practised by the disciples of the Apostles and the fathers of the primitiue and auncient church His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian but a late writer who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgie which Peter Paule and the Apostles vsed Although that which he rehearseth of Clemens his Liturgie be to small purpose litle or nothing differing from that hee had before of Iames yet Nicolaus Methon is too yong a witnesse to bee credited in this case For he was not of yeres of discretion to discerne that for the authenticall writing of Clemens which the more auncient church by a thousand yeres could not haue perfect knowledge to be his Neither doth the testimonie of Proclus help him any whit For as it is not to be doubted but S. Iames the other Apostles Clemens also appointed some forme of Liturgie for the churches by them planted instructed which is all that Proclus saith yet how proueth M. Hesk. that those which we haue were the same which were written by Iames Clemens or any other of lawful antiquitie when wee bring manifest demonstrations for the contrarie Againe where he saith that Peter vsed the Liturgie of Clemens he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which sayth that Peter vsed a Liturgie of his own cōsisting of three praiers only The next witnesse should be Dionysius falsly surnamed Areopagita but that he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstantiation carnal presēce priuate Masse or sole cōmunion therefore vnder pretence of his obscuritie he dare cite neuer a sentence out of him Then follow the Liturgies vnder the names of Basil Chrysost. verie litle in words nothing at al in matter differing from that former Liturgie ascribed to S. Iames which because M. Hesk. knoweth we cannot receiue as the lawful writings of Basil Chrysost. he would vnderprop them by the authoritie of Proclus B. of Constantinople as he did S. Clem. S. Iames masse euen now The reason alledged by Proclus will cleane ouerturne his ground worke proue that none of these Liturgies were writen by thē to whom they be ascribed For Proclus sayeth that Basil and Chrysostom made the auncient Liturgies receiued from the Apostles shorter cutting many things away frō them because they were too long for the peoples colde deuotion to abide First this is a colde reason to alter the tradition of the Apostles so many yeres continued in the church for want of the peoples deuotion But be it that they followed this reason then doth it followe moste manifestly that this Liturgie which is ascribed to S. Iames is none of his because it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But if M. Hesk. will defende that of S. Iames then hee must needes refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it therfore none abridgements of it After these Liturgies hee addeth the testimonie of the sixt counsell of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretike wherein it is reported the S. Iames Basil Chrysostome ministred in their Liturgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water But this proueth not that these Liturgies which we haue are the same that were set forth by those fathers as for the water they striue not for it but for wine to be vsed not water onely Finally where the fathers of that counsell call the celebration of the communion an oblation and an vnbloudie sacrifice they speake in the same sence that the elder fathers vse the same termes otherwise that counsell being an hundreth yeres without the compasse of the challenge hath no place but in the lower house among the Burgesses whose speaches may be hearde but they haue none authoritie to determine in this cause by M. Heskins order according to the challenge Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latine church as though Clemens if he were bishop of Rome and wrote a Liturgie as he affirmeth before that of his making might not serue the Latine church But Ambrose is cited lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca. 5. Vis scire c. Wouldest thou knowe that the sacrament is consecrated with heauenly wordes Marke what the wordes be The Priest sayth Make vnto vs faith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ which the day before he suffred tooke bread in his holie hands looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thanks blessed it brake it being broken gaue it to his Apostles and disciples saying Take ye eat ye all of this for this is my bodie which shal be broken for many Likewise also he tooke the cupp after he had supped the day before he suffered looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thankes he blessed it deliuered it to his Apostles disciples saying Take ye and drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud M. Hesk. passeth ouer that the oblation of the church is the figure of the body bloud of Christ for feare he should be espied taken with such an assertion he flyeth in all the haste to other words of
Ambrose following Vide c. See all those be the Euangelists words vnto these words Take either the bodie or the bloud from thence they be the wordes of christ Note euery thing Who saith he the day before he suffered tooke breade in his holie hands Before it be consecrated it is bread but after the wordes of Christe be come vnto it it is the bodie of christ Finally heare him saying Take ye eat ye all of it this is my bodie And before the wordes of Christ the cuppe is full of wine water after the wordes of Christ haue wrought there is made the bloud which redeemed the people To the like effect be the words taken out of his treatise de oration Dom. Memini c. I remember my saying when I entreated of the sacraments â–ª I told you that before the wordes of Christ that which is offered is called bread when the wordes of Christ are brought forth nowe it is not called bread but it is called his bodie Here M. Hesk. triumpheth in his consecration of the vertue therof But he must remember what Ambrose saith De ijs qui myster initiant Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus c. Our Lord Iesus him selfe doth speake alowde This is my bodie before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is named another kinde but after the consecration the bodie of Christ is signified And lib. de Sac. 4. Cap. 2. Ergo didicisti c. Then hast thou learned that of the bread is made the bodie of Christ that the wine water is put into the cup but by consecration of the heauenly word it is made his bloud But peraduenture thou sayest I see not the shew of bloud But it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud that there may bee no horror of bloud yet it may worke the price of redemption Here M. Hesk. for all his swelling brags hath not gained one patch of his popish Masse out of the auncient writers for none of them vnderstoode consecration to cause a transsubstantiation of the elements into the naturall bodie of Christe but only a separation of them from the common vse to become the sacraments of the bodie bloud of christ As for the foolish cauil he vseth against protestants refusing to follow the primitiue church for loue liking of innouation is not worthie of any reputation for in al things which thei followed Christ most willingly we folow theÌ„ but where the steps of Christs doctrin are not seene there dare we not follow them although otherwise we like neuer so well of them The sixe thirtieth Chapter declareth what was the intention of the Apostles fathers in about the consecratioÌ„ in the Mass. M. Hesk. will proue that their intention was to transsubstantiate the bread wine into the bodie bloud of christ And first the idol of S. Iames is brought forth on procession in his Liturgie which M. Hesk. had rather call his Masse Miserere c. Haue mercie vpon vs God almightie haue mercie vpoÌ„ vs God our Sauiour haue mercie vpon vs ô God according to thy great mercie send down vpon vs vpoÌ„ these gifts set forth thy most holy spirit the Lord of life which sitteth together with thee god the father the only begotteÌ„ sonne raigning together being consubstantiall coeternall which spake in the law the prophets in thy newe testament which discended in the likenesse of a doue vpon our lord Iesus Christ in the riuer of Iordan abode vpon him which descended vpon thy Apostles in the likenesse of fierie tongue in the parler of the holy glorious Sion in the day of Pentecost send down that thy most holy spirite now also ô lord vpon vs vpon these holie giftes set forth that comming vpoÌ„ theÌ„ with his holie good glorious presence he may saÌ„ctifie make this bread the holy body of thy Christe and this cup the precious bloud of thy Christ that it may be to all that receiue of it vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes and life euerlasting M. Heskins saith he would not haue prayed so earnestly that the holy Ghost might haue sanctified the bread and wine to be onely figures and tokens which they might be without the speciall sanctification of Gods spirite as many things were in the lawe As for only figures and tokens it is a slaunder confuted and denyed a hundreth times alreadie But what a shamelesse beast is he to affirme that the sacraments of the olde lawe which were figures of Christe had no speciall sanctification of the holy Ghost or that baptisme which is a figure of the bloud of Christ washing our souls may be a sacrament without the speciall sanctification of Gods spirite you see howe impudently he wresteth and wringeth the wordes of this Liturgie which if it were graunted vnto them to be authenticall yet hitherto maketh it nothing in the world for him But let vs heare how S. Clement came to the altar Rogamus vt mittere digneris c. We pray thee that thou wouldest vouchsafe to send thy holy spirite vpon this sacrifice a witnesse of the passions of our Lord Iesus Christ that he may make this breade the body of thy Christ and this cup the bloud of thy Christ. Here saith M. Heskins his intent was that the bread and wine should be made the body bloude of christ And so they be to them that receiue worthily But M. Heskins will not see that he calleth the bread and wine a sacrifice before it is made the body and bloud of Christ by which it is plaine that this Clemens intended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice as the Papistes pretend to do S. Basil in his Liturgie hath the same intention in consecration Te postulamus c. We pray and besech thee ô most holy of al holies that by thy wel pleasing goodness thy holy spirit may come vpon vs and vpon these proposed gifts to blesse and sanctifie them to shew this bread to be the very honourable body of our Lorde God Sauiour Iesus Christ and that which is in the cup to be the very bloud of our Lord god sauiour Iesus Christ which was shed for the life of the world Of this praier M. Hes. inferreth that Basil by the sanctification of the holy ghost beleeued the bread and wine to be made Christes body bloud he meaneth corporally traÌ„substantially But that is most false for this praier is vsed in that liturgie after the words of consecration when by the Popish doctrine the body and bloud of Christe must needes be present imediatly after the last sillable vm in hoc est corpuâ— meâ—um pronounced Wherefore seeing the Author of this Liturgie after the words of coÌ„secration pronounced praieth that God will sanctifie the breade and wine by his spirite and make it the body and bloud of
to doe that which Christ commanded to be done and to receiue that which he deliuered vs to be receiued if the particular explication of our faith will not satisfie M. Hes. at least let him after his owne Popish Diuinitie holde vs excused for our implicite faith or if his own principles can hold him no longer then he listeth let him giue vs leaue to esteeme none otherwise of them then he giueth vs example to do The seuen and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the oblation and sacrifice of the Masse as it was vsed of the Apostles and Fathers When not one of the Apostles or Euangelistes make one word mention either of Masse or sacrifice therein M. Heskins taketh vpon him much more then al the Papistes in the world can proue Concerning the Fathers as they vse the terme of sacrifice so I haue often shewed that they meane a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of propitiation or else they vse the name of sacrifice vnproperly for a memorial of the onely sacrifice of Christ which he once offered neuer to be repeated Neither do any of these Liturgies which M. Heskins calleth Masses though they be falsly ascribed to Saint Iames Saint Clement Saint Basil Saint Chrysostome c. shewe any other thing but manifestly the same that I haue saide First that which is falsly ascribed to Saint Iames in these wordes Memores c. Therefore we sinners being mindfull of his quickening passions of his healthfull crosse and death his buriall and resurrection from death the third day of his ascension into heauen and sitting at the right hand of thee ô God the father and of his second glorious and fearefull comming when he shall come with glory to iudge the quicke and the dead when he shall render to euery one according to his workes we offer vnto thee ô Lord this reuerend vnbloudie sacrifice praying that thou wilt not deale with vs according to our sinnes No reasonable man can vnderstand here any other but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing or prayer or a memoriall of the sacrifice of christ For he saith not we offer the body and bloud of Christe but being mindfull of his sufferings c. we offer this reuerend and vnbloudy sacrifice for such is the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing The like and more plaine is that which is ascribed to Clemens by Nicholas Methon Memores igitur Therefore being mindfull of his passion death and resurrection returning into heauen and his second comming in which he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead and to render to euery man according to his workes we offer vnto thee our king and God according to his institution this bread and this cup giuing thankes vnto thee by him that thou hast vouchsafed vs to stand before thee and to sacrifice vnto thee This is so plaine against M. Heskins for the oblation of Christes body and bloud c. that he is enforced to flee to shamefull petitions of principles the end of which is that this bread is no bread this cup is no cup but as Christe called bread in the 6. of Iohn and S. Paule in the 1. Cor. 10. 11. in exposition whereof lyeth all the controuersie That Liturgie which is intituled to S. Basil is yet more plaine for a spirituall oblation of thankesgiuing Memores ergo c. Therefore being mindfull ô Lord of his healthsome passions of his quickening crosse three dayes buriall resurrection from death ascension into heauen sitting at thy right hand ô God the father and of his glorious and terrible second presence we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures M. Heskins saith he abhorreth not from the name of sacrifice as we do but he falsly belyeth vs for if he will looke in our Liturgie or communion booke he shall finde that we also offer a sacrifice of thankesgiuing euen our selues our soules and bodies as the Apostle exhorteth vs to be a holy liuely and acceptable sacrifice to god But he will not remember that the sacrifice he speaketh of is not the body and bloud of Christe but tua ex tuis thy creatures of thy giftes or thy gifts of thy creatures namely the bread and wine which also after consecration he prayeth to be sanctified by Gods holy spirite but the body of Christe hath no neede of such sanctification Secondly he noteth not that his Basil maketh but two presences of Christe in the worlde the first when hee liued in humilitie in the the world the second which shall be terrible and glorious by which he doth manifestly exclude the third imagined presence of Christ in the sacrament To the same effect prayeth the Priest in the other Liturgie ascribed to Chrysostome Memores c. Therefore being mindfull of this wholesome commaundement and of all those things which are done for vs of his crosse buriall resurrection ascension into heauen sitting at the right hand of his second and glorious comming againe we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures Maister Heskins saith he will not seeke the deapth of this matter but only declare that al these fathers did offer sacrifice In which words he mocketh his readers egregiously whereas he should proue that they offered the body and bloud of Christe to be a propitiatorie sacrifice and that he proueth neuer a whit Nowe that the meaning of that Liturgie was not to offer Christ in sacrifice this prayer therein vsed before the words of coÌ„secration as they terme it doth sufficieÌ„tly declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Lord receiue this sacrifice vnto thine heauenly altar So that it is manifest they called the bread wine a sacrifice not the body bloud of christ The like is that of Ambrose The Priest saith Therefore being mindfull of his most glorious passion resurrection from death and ascension into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudy sacrifice this holy bread and cup of eternall life This vndefiled sacrifice saith M. Heskins must needes be the body and bloud of Christe for else there is nothing vndefiled that a man can offer But why may it not be as Ambrose calleth it here the holy bread and cup of the communion or as he calleth it a little before in the same place the figure of the body bloud of Christ For the bread and the wine which vnproperly he calleth a sacrifice in steede of a memoriall of a sacrifice in that they be the holy sacraments of Christes body and bloud are holy vndefiled and the foode of eternal life The same Ambrose called the soule of his brother an innocent sacrifice and offered the same to God in his prayer De obiâ—â— fratris c. To conclude not one of all these Liturgies no not the Canon of the Masse it selfe saith that the body of Christe is the sacrifice that they do offer or that they offer a propitiatorie sacrifice or that they offer any other but a
or of any mans meanly learned and therfore I will not vouchsafe such a grosse counterfet of any answere The rest of the Chapter beeing spent in rayling I will answere with silence concluding that as here is little for sole receiuing conteined in this Chapter so for priuate Masse here is nothing at all The two and fortieth Chapter proueth the trueth of those matters of the sacrament by that it hath pleased God to confirme the same with miracles First M. Hesk. compareth himselfe with Helias which challenged the Priests of Baal to shewe a miracle so he challengeth the Lutherans and sacramentaries to bring forth first some miracle But he could neuer heare of any sauing one and that was of Luther which he reporteth of himselfe as he saith in his Booke of the priuate Masse and as Prateolus sayeth in his Booke De Missa Angulari but where it is written I could neuer yet finde though I haue made some searche for it Luther reporteth that the Diuell awaked him out of his sleepe at midnight and disputed with him that the priuate Masse is horrible idolatrie c. For any thing that I can perceiue by the wordes cited by Maister Heskins there is no miracle at al spoken of by Luther but only he confesseth what inward temptations of Sathan he susteined for saying priuate Masse by the space of 15. yeares together Which the Papistes after their accustomed synceritie doe interprete as though he boasted of a miracle as though he were persuaded by the diuell to forsake the priuate Masse as a thing abominable But Luther in deede in this booke written against the priuate Masse vtterly reiecteth all miracles that are alledged to mainteine false doctrine contrarie to the worde of God and namely those miracles that are reported to haue beene done to confirme the credite of the priuate Masse which either were feigned as a great number were or else wrought by the sleight of Sathan to establish idolatrie as in all Heathen nations the diuell hath thus wrought miracles to confirme the people in their errours Thus therefore we are to iudge of miracles that they are euen as the doctrine for which they are alledged so that if Maister Heskins can not proue his priuate Masse and other heresies by scripture they will be made neuerthelesse by miracles But let vs heare in order what worshipful miracles he alledgeth First a feigned fable out of a counterfet writer called Amphilochius that a Iewe sawe in Saint Basils hand a childe diuided Then a tale out of Vituspatium of as good authoritie as Legenda Aurea that the sacramente was turned into bloudie fleshe to a doubting olde man Next out of Optatus Libro 2. Contra Donat. That dogges after they had eaten the sacrament caste vnto them by the Donatistes ranne madde and werried their Maisters Which last might be a true iust punishment of God against the Donatistes for their heresie yet proueth it not that the dogges did eate the body of Christe which God forbid that any Christian man should thinke Another miracle is reported by S. Augustine Lib. 22. De ciuitate Dei Cap. 8. That one of his priestes saying Masse in a house that was molested with the power of the diuell deliuered the house from such disquietnesse This belike is alledged for the priuate Masse But that proueth nothing For Augustine in that place nameth no Masse he saith he offered there the sacrifice of the bodie of Christe praying that the house might be deliuered from that molestatioÌ„ and so it came to passe Now it is nothing credible that he offerâ—d that sacrifice alone but that the owner of the house and all his familie did there communicate with him and therefore here is nothing to helpe the priuate Masse in this miracle Next vnto this interlacing certeine sentences of Bernarde of the vertue of the sacrament he returneth to miracles and then telleth a tale out of Paule the Deacon of a noble woman of Rome for whom S. Gregorie by prayer turned the sacramental bread into the fourme of A very bloudie fleshly litle finger A faire miracle I promise you but if it had beene true Gregorie that was so light of credite to beleeue and report so many miracles would haue written it him selfe But Gregorie though otherwise full of superstition was not yet come to the carnall manner of presence Two miracles are rehearsed of his reporte one of a prisoner that was deliuered out of his chaynes when Masse was saide for him by his wiues procurement supposing he had ben dead Gregorie in deede speaketh of sacrifices whiche perhaps were prayers and not the Masse But if he speake of that prophanation of the sacrament that in his time tooke some strength to offer it for the dead yet he speaketh of another maner of offring then the Papistes vse For thereof he saith in the same place as Maister Heskins confesseth Hinc ergo c. Of this decree brethren gather you certeinely how great a band of conscience in vs the holie sacrifice offered by our owne selues is able to loose if beeing offered for another it could in another loose the bandes of the body These wordes declare the sacrifice was such as euerie one might offer for himselfe which coulde not be the sacrifice of the Masse which only the priest offereth The last miracle is of Agapetus that by giuing the sacrament to a dumb man restored him to his speech Admitting this to be true it maketh nothing for the carnal manner of presence which the Church of Rome at that time had not receiued And although such miracles might now be wrought by Papistes we would giue no more credite vnto them then they could winne by Gods worde for so we are taught by God him sefe Irenaeus a moste auncient writer of great credite testifieth Lib. Cap. 9. that Marcus the heretike by his sorcerie caused the wine in the cup at his ministration to appeare purple and redde like bloud that the people might thinke that Christ dropped his bloud into his cup through his prayer likewise he wrought so cunningly that he multiplied the wine so that out of a litle cruse he filled a great pot so ful that it ranne ouer But the Church of God was not moued by these lying miracles to giue credite to his false doctrine or to think that he had the bloud of Christ in his challice for all that counterfet shewe of bloud which he made no more wil we beleue the Papistes pretending miracles coÌ„trarie to the word of god And as for diuers of these miracles which he alledgeth to confirme the dignitie of the Masse they were done or at least said to be done before the Masse was throughly shapen and therfore if they be true yet they confirme not the doctrin of the Masse which was afterward inuented Finally wheras he vrgeth the proclaymer to bring one miracle for the confirmation of his religioÌ„ although it were an easie matter to bring foorth many signes of
death vntil he come How is he that is to come distinct from him that is present for Saint Paule maketh an exposition of this breade this cuppe which are present to shewe the Lordes death that is to come But let vs heare what Saint Ieronyme sayeth that may helpe him in 1. Cor. 11. Ideo hoc c. Therefore our Sauiour hath deliuered this sacrament that by it we might alwayes remember that he dyed for vs For therefore also when we receiue it wee are warned of the priestes that it is the bodie and bloud of Christ that we might not be thought vnthankefull for his benefites I like this saying verie well which teacheth that the sacramēt is therefore called the bodie bloud of Christ that thereby we might be put in minde of the benefite of Christes death to be thankfull for it And that his meaning is none otherwise his owne wordes shal declare going both before and after Vpon these wordes Gratias egit c. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus vltimam nobis commemorationem sine memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat vt quotiescunque illud viderit possit eius beneficia amicitias memorare quod ille si perfectè dilexit sine ingenti desiderio non potest videre vel fletu That is blessing or giuing thankes euen when hee was to suffer he left to vs his last commemoration or remembrance Euen as a man going into a farre countrey doth leaue some pledge to him whome he loueth that so often as he seeth it he may remember his benefites and frendship which pledge he if he loued perfectly cannot beholde without great desire or weeping In these words you see S. Hierom compareth the sacrament to a pledge which is left in remembrance of loue benefites receiued of him that in person is absent The same writer vpō the same words of our text donec venerit vntill he come thus writeth Tam diu memoria opus est donec ipse venire dignetur So long we haue neede of a remembraunce vntill he him selfe vouchesafe for to come Nothing can bee more plaine to shewe his meaning not to be of a carnall or bodilie presence although as Christ hath giuen vs the president he call the bread and cuppe by the name of the bodie and bloud of Christe The testimonie of Theophylact being a Greeke Gentleman of the lower house I haue hetherto refused to admitt and therefore in this place also will not trouble the reader with him The challenge was made of writers within sixe hundreth yeares after Christe this man liued about a thousande yeres after Christ yet if I would wrangle about his wordes he hath nothing that may not bee reasonably construed on our side without any wresting The fiue and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by S. Basil Rupert S. Basil is alledged de baptismo Oportet accedentem c. It behoueth him that commeth to the bodie and bloud of our Lord to the remembrance of him that was dead for vs and rose againe not onely to be pure from all vncleannesse of bodie and soule lest he eate and drinke to his owne condemnation but also to shewe euidently and to expresse the memorie of him that hath dyed for vs and risen againe And what sayeth Basil in these words that we do not graunt vnderstanding purenesse by faith and repentance Maister Hesk. sayeth in steede of that S. Paule sayde this bread and this cupp he sayeth the bodie and bloud of Christe although I might stande with him that this is no interpretation of Sainct Paules wordes but an exhortation which Basil maketh to the worthie receiuing of the sacrament what inconuenience is it to graunt that it is both bread and wine and also after a spirituall manner his verie bodie and bloud which is receiued of the faithfull But either Maister Heskins note booke serued him not or els his malice against the trueth would not suffer him to see what the same Basil writeth not many lines before these wordes which he citeth vpō the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ of the institution of this blessed sacrament and immediatly after the verie text of the Apostle now in hande As often as you eate of this bread and drinke of this cuppe you shewe the Lordes death vntill he come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then do these words profit vs that eating drinking we might always remember him which dyed for vs and is risen againe and so wee might bee instructed of necessitie to obserue before God and his Christe that lesson which is deliuered by the Apostle where hee sayeth for the loue of Christe doeth constreine vs iudging this that if one hath dyed for all then all are dead M. Heskins denyeth the sacrament to be a remembrance of Christe for feare he shoulde confesse Christ to be absent affirming it is a remembrance only of the death of christ But Basil saith that in eating and drinking we must remember Christe that is dead risen againe for vs and so be transformed into his image by mortification and newnesse of life This is all the profite that Basil gathereth of the institution of the supper of the Lorde Where is then the carnall presence the sacrifice propitiatorie the application of it according to the priestes intention and such like monsters of the Masse The testimonie of Rupertus a burgesse of the lower house I will not stand vpon notwithstanding it little helpeth Maister Heskins cause For he doth not say that the sacrament is so a remembrance of Christes death that it is not a remembrance of Christ him selfe But Maister Heskins sayeth all the rable of sacramentaries cannot bring one couple of catholike authors that saye Saint Paule spake here of materiall bread neither can Maister Heskins bring one single auncient writer within the compasse of the challenge which is 600. yeres after Christ that denyeth that S. Paule spake of materiall breade as the earthly part of the sacrament He hath named Hierome Basil but neither of them denie it as for Theophylact Rupertus although neyther of them also denye it in the places by him cited yet I knowe not why we might not as well produce Berengarius and Bertrame as auncient as they which affirme that Saint Paule spake here of bread But that there is materiall bread in the sacrament as the earthly part thereof we haue already cited Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Origen in 15. Matthaei Cyrill in Ioan. Lib. 4. Cap. 24. and many other Toward the end of this Chapter Maister Heskins taketh vpon him to aunswere an obiection of Oecolampadius who iustly chargeth the Papistes of wilfull ignorance in that they make the body of Christ both the exemplar and the thing exemplified the figure and the thing figured the signe and the thing signified whereas relation must be betwixt two thinges distincted and not of
one thing to it selfe bycause euery relatiue must haue a correlatiue For aunswere to this obiection hee saith hee will not vse the quiddities of the schooles but plaine examples but hee pretendeth quiddities where the matter is plaine his examples be mere sophistications The first is That in the diuine presence be sundrie relations grounded vpon the one nature of God. Therefore relation must not be of necessitie betwixt two things distinct A wise example as though the persons betweene which there is relation be not two distinct thinges though they be one vndiuided GOD There is relation betweene the person of the Father and the person of the Sonne therefore the Father is not the Sonne nor the Sonne is the Father yet are they both with the holy Ghost one God. The second example Christ being transfigured in the mount shewing him self in a glorious maner was an exemplar or figure of him selfe nowe in glory and of his glorious comming It is well that he fleeth out of the schooles before he vttereth these absurdities for surely euery boy in Cambridge that hath but once kept sophisme would hisse at him for this assertion wherein he confoundeth the substaunce with the accidents But to leaue the schoole termes which M. Heskins can not nowe abide bicause they bewray his follie I deny that Christes body then was a figure or exemplar of his body now but the glory of his body then was a figure of his glory now and wherewith he shall come and I am sure hee will confesse that they be two distinct thinges for his glory nowe is greater then the brightnesse of the Sunne wherevnto it was then compared Likewise to his third example I answere denying That his immortall body which he shewed to Thomas with the signes and tokens of his woundes was an exemplare of the same body both mortall and passible I say that his immortall body was no exemplar of his mortall body but euen the very same chaunged in qualitie not in substance and the signes of his woundes were signes of his passion and they were two distinct things It is all one that hee citeth out of Chrysostome that Christe shall come to iudgement with the signes of his passion wherevpon he gathereth That Christes body shall then be a signe memoriall or exemplar of it selfe The scripture saith they shall see him whome they haue perced but whether with signes of woundes I dare not say sauing Chrysostomes authoritie but admit he shall come with the same print of woundes yet I deny that his body shall be a figure exemplar or memoriall of it selfe but those signes should be an argument of their crueltie and vngodlinesse that crucified him You see the plainnesse of these examples howe they are plainely against him and that it still remaineth vnremouable that a signe and the thing signified be distinct things Therefore the sacrament being a signe figure exemplar and memoriall of the body and bloud of Christ is not the same after a corporall manner The sixe fourtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Whosoeuer therefore shall eate of this bread drinke of the cupp c. The text is this Whosoeuer shall eat of this bread drink of this cupp of the Lord vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde M. Heskins requireth to the worthie receiuing two things faith and charitie and therefore he concludeth that neither heretikes nor scismatikes can receiue worthily which we confesse to be true Afterward he chargeth vs with abusing this text in two points The one that we affirme material bread to remaine after consecration the other that we deny that wicked men can receiue the body and bloud of Christ and both these errors he promiseth to confute but in the end you shal see they be so assured truthes that all the smoake and mist of his confutation can not darken the light of their veritie The first witnesse he citeth for interpretation of the text is S. Cyprian Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra Euangelij legem c. They against the lawe of the Gospell and your honourable petition before repentance shewed before open confession made of a most grieuous and extreme offence before hands laid on by the Bishop and the cleargie vnto repentance are so bolde as to offer for them and giue them the Eucharistie that is to prophane the holy body of our Lord seeing it is written Whosoeuer shall eate of the bread and drinke of the cup of the Lord vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lord. Of these wordes M. Heskins gathereth that the body of Christe is deliuered and not materiall bread for if materiall bread and not the body is deliuered then the bread is prophaned and not the body A proper collection If the Kings seale for a benefite be deliuered to the Kings enimie or a traitour that receiueth it vnreuerently and vnthankfully is not the King iniuried and his fauour abused I thinke al wise men wil graunt and not say the waxe and parchment only is iniuried and abused bicause the Kings body is not deliuered but waxe and parchment Moreouer I maruell howe M. Heskins can auoyd blasphemie when he saith in the literall sense the body of Christe is prophaned or vnhallowed for to speake properly the body of Christe can not be prophaned or vnhallowed but the sacrament of his body which beareth the name thereof may and the abuse of the sacrament is iustly counted an iniurie vnto his body and bloud whereof it is a sacrament although his body in deed can suffer no iniurie or hurt But the Cyprian acknowledged bread and wine to remain in the sacrament many places of his writings do clearly shew namely lib. 1. ep 6. ad Magnum Denique vnanimitatē Christianam firma sibi atque insuperabili charitate connexam etiā ipsa domini sacrificia declarant Nam quando Dominus corpus suū panē vocat de multorū granorū adunatione congestū populū nostrū quem portabat indicat adunatū Et quando sanguinem suum vinum appelat de botris atque acinis plurimis expression atque in vnum coactum gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum Finally euen our Lords sacrifices doe declare the Christian vnanimitie which is knitted vnto him with an insuperable vnitie For when the Lorde calleth bread which is made one by the gathering together of many cornes his body hee declareth our people which he did beare to be vnited together And when he calleth wine which is pressed out of many clusters and grapes and so gathered into one his bloud hee doth likewise signifie our flocke coupled together by cōiunction of the multitude that is brought into one Here you see the bread which is now the sacrament and is called the body of Christe to be made of many graines likewise the wine to be pressed out of many grapes by which nothing can be vnderstoode but materiall
bread and wine The same Cyprian Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium thus writeth Sic verò calix Domini non est aqua sola aut vinum solum nisi vtrumque sibi misceatur quomodo nec corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi vtrumque adunatum fueris copulatum panis vnius compage sclidatum quo ipsâ— sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus So water onely or wine onely is not the Lordes cup vnlesse both be mingled together euen as onely meale or onely water can not be the body of Christe except both be ioyned and coupled and compacted together in one breade by which very sacrament our people is shewed to be vnited Here bread made of meale and water is called the body of Christ therefore material bread The next authoritie M. Hesk. citeth is Chrysostome Hom. 83. in 26. Matth. Non permittam c. I will not suffer these things to be done I will first deliuer vp my life before I wil deliuer the lords body to any person vnworthily and I will suffer my bloud to be shed rather then I will giue that most holy bloud to any other then to a worthie receiuer Out of this saying he gathereth that the body of Christ may be receiued of an vnworthie wicked person How be it no such thing followeth of these words for though Chrysostome deliuer the body of Christ it followeth not that they receiue it which receiue the sacrament vnworthily which is as much as to refuse it Chrysostome in the same Homely saith this sacrament to be a symbole and signe of Christ crucified and speaking of the cup he saith Sed cuius gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit Perniciosam quandam hÄ™resim radicitus euellere voluit eorum qui aqua in mysterijs vtuntur ita vt ostenderet quia quando hoc mysterium traderet vinuÌ„ tradidit iam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensa vino vsus est Ex germine autem ait vitis quae certè vinum non aquam producit But wherefore did hee not drinke water but wine after his resurrection Hee would plucke vppe by the rootes a certaine most pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the mysteries so that he would shew that both when he deliuered this mysterie he deliuered wine nowe after his resurrection in the bare table of the mysterie he vsed wine And he saith of the fruit of the vine which truly bringeth foorth wine not water Now compare these two sayings of Chrysost. in one sermon Christ deliuered wine Chrysost. would not deliuer the body bloud of Christ see whether the later proue any transubstantiation or carnall manner of presence Besides this it is good to note that Chrysostome saith that Christ vsed wine in the sacrament after his resurrection contrarie to all the Papistes which holde that he ministred to the two disciples at Emaus in bread only And bicause M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of Christes body to the wicked and thereby will gather that the wicâ—ed receiue the very body of Christe let him heare also what Chrysostome saith in the same place speaking of the vnworthy comming to the sacrament Illud enim pessimum est ficus Paulus ait Christum conculcare testamenti sanguinem ducere communem spiritus gratian contemnere For this is the worst thing that can be as Paule saith to tread Christe vnder feete and to esteeme the bloud of the couenaunt as vncleane and to contemne the grace of the spirite Will he say that very body of Christe is troden vnder the feete of the vnworthie receiuer And bicause he standeth so much of the word body and bloud Chrysostome saith further Nullus communicet nisi ex discipulis sit nullus impuro animo sicut Iudas panem assumat ne similia patiatur Corpus Christi etiam hÄ™c multitudo est quare cauendum tibi est qui hÄ™c mysteria ministras ne Dominum irrites corpus hoc non purgando ne acutum gladium pro cibo praebeas Let none communicate except he be of the disciples Let no man with an vnpure minde as Iudas receiue the bread least he suffer the like punishment Euen this multitude also is the body of Christe wherefore thou that doest minister these mysteries must take heede that thou prouoke not the Lorde by not purging this body least thou deliuer a sharpe sword in steed of meat In this saying let the indifferent reader obserue that Iudas receiued bread and wicked men receiue bread that the multitude of Christians is the body of Christe as the sacrament is finally that the minister to a wicked man deliuereth a sharpe sword in steede of spirituall meate and let him iudge howe honestly M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of the body and bloud of Christ to the wicked to exclude bread and to proue that they receiue the very body of Christ. His third witnesse is Origen Hom. 5. in diuorsos Quando sanctum cibum illudque incorruptum epulum accipis c. When thou receiuest that holy meat and the vncorrupt banquet when thou inioyest the bread and cup of life thou eatest and drinkest the body and bloud of the Lord then the Lord entreth vnder thy roofe and do thou then humbling thy selfe followe this Centurion and say Lorde I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe For where he entreth vnworthily there he entereth to the condemnation of the receiuer Here M. Heskins first noteth the presence of Christe secondly that the sacrament it not bare bread both which are graunted thirdly that the body of Christe may be receiued of euill men But all men will confesse that this is an Alegoricall and figuratiue maner of speaking that Origen vseth and may be wel vnderstoode according to the rule of sacraments which beare the names of those things whereof they be sacramentes And seeing Origen doth else where expresly affirme that euill men do not neither can eate the body of Christe in Matth. Cap. 15. it is great vnshamefastnesse to wrest his figuratiue saying in these wordes contrarie to his plaine meaning vttered in plaine wordes Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth this may be obiected and referreth vs to the thirtieth Chapter of this booke for the answere whither I also referre the reader both for the place it self and for the replie to M. Heskins answere The seuen and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstanding of the same by S. Basil and S. Hierome Saint Basil is alledged de baptism Li. 2. QuÄ™st 93. Quoniam Deus in lege c. For so much as God in the lawe hath ordained so great a paine against him that in his vncleannesse dare touch the holy things for it is written to them figuratiuely but for our aduertisement And the Lord saide vnto Moses say to Aaron and his sonnes that they take heede to the holy things of the children of Israel and they shall not
defile my name what so euer they sanctifie to me I am the Lorde Say to them and to their families Euery man that is of your seede and commeth to the holy things what so euer the children of Israel shall sanctifie vnto the Lord and his vncleannesse be vpon him that soule shall be rooted out of my presence I am the lord Such threatnings are set foorth against them that only come to those thinges that are sanctified by men But what shall a man say against him which dare be bolde against so greate and such a mysterie For looke howe much greater a thing then the temple is here according to the Lords saying by so much the more greeuous and fearefull it is in the filthinesse of his soule to touch the body of Christ then to touch Rammes or Bulles for so the Apostle hath saide wherefore he that eateth the bread and drinketh the cup of the Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lorde But more vehemently and also more horribly he doth set foorth and declare the condemnation by repetition when hee saith Let euery man examine him selfe and so let him eat of this bread and drinke of this cup. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his condemnation not discerning the Lordes body If then he that is onely in vncleannesse and the propertie of vncleannesse we learne figured in the lawe hath so horrible a iudgement howe much more he that is in sinne and presumeth against the body of Christ shall draw vnto him selfe horrible iudgement First I will note M. Heskins falsifications which are two the one as it seemeth partly of ignoraunce of the Greeke tong partly of greedinesse to drawe Basils wordes to his vnderstanding for where the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heere is a thing or one greater then the temple he turneth it looke howe much greater this is then the temple as though hic which is an Aduerbe were a Pronoune The other is altogether of malitious corruption for he translateth his Latine Contra corpus Christi audet which is He dareth presume against the body of Christe hee translateth it Hee dareth to presume vpon the body of Christ as though he receiued the body of Christe Nowe he noteth two differences in these wordes of Basil the one of the sacrifices of the olde lawe which were Bulles and Rammes the other of the newe lawe which is the body of Christ. But in the wordes of Basil there is no mention of any sacrifice of the newe lawe onely he compareth the ceremonies of the olde lawe with the heauenly part of the sacrament of the newe Testament which we confesse to be the body and bloud of Christ. The second difference is the vncleannesse of the lawe made vnworthie partakers of the sacrifices but deadly sin maketh men vnworthie receiuers of the body of Christe Yet hath Basil no such wordes of receiuing the body of Christ by wicked men Onely he denounceth their grieuous punishment that presume against the body of Christ when with vnreuerence and vnrepentance they presume against such and so high a mysterie as the blessed sacrament is and this is the plaine sense of his wordes without any cauilling If M. Heskins will vrge their touching of the body of Christ it is a very nice point and must either be referred to a figuratiue speach or else it will breede infinite absurdities Basils mind is plaine the wicked ought not to presume to touch the blessed sacrament which after a certaine manner of speaking is the body of Christe But he annexeth an other place of Basil Dominê° dicens c. The Lorde saying Here is one greater then the temple teacheth vs that he is so much more vngodly that dare handle the body of our Lorde which hath giuen him selfe for vs to be an oblation and offering of sweete sauour by howe much the body of the onely begotten sonne of God exceedeth Rammes and Bulles not in reason of comparison for the excellencie is incomparable This place saith Maister Heskins proueth well that the receiuer of the sacrament receiueth the body of the onely begotten sonne of God and not a bare figure for else howe should hee sinne incomparably by receiuing vnworthily I aunswere hee sinneth incomparably not bicause he receiueth the body of Christe vnworthily but bicause the body of Christe being offered vnto him to be receiued he doth contemne it refuse it most vnthankfully and iniuriously Againe Basil doth here compare the outward signes or elements of the old sacrifices with the thing represented and offered by our sacrament the like speaches he hath of Baptisme But that you may heare him saith Maister Heskins by most plaine wordes teach that the body of Christe is receiued of euill men hearken what he saith de baptism lib 1. cap. 3. Si verò is qui c. If he that for meate offendeth his brother falleth from charitie without the which both the workes of great giftes and iustification do nothing auayle What shall a man say of him which idly and vnprofitably dare eate the body and drinke the bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ But M. Heskins to make it seeme more plaine on his side hath cut off those wordes which doe plainly declare that Basil speaketh not of wicked men that are voyde of the spirite of God but of such as be not zealous and earnest ynough to practise mortification reuocation therefore it followeth immediatly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thereby much more greeuing the holy spirite which wordes being added to the former doe plainely testifie that Basill speaketh not of wicked and vngodly persons but of the faithful in whom the spirite of God was and yet they had not so great care of profiting in newnesse of life as they ought to haue For against the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idly and vnprofitably he opposeth afterwarde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 earnestly and effectually so that those Aduerbes idly and vnprofitably are spoken in comparison and not simply as if he saide they take nothing such paines in mortification as they should they profite nothing in comparison that they might by the Lordes body which labour not to be renewed according to his spirite and as he saith they grieue the spirit of God whereby they are sealed to eternall life when they doe not with more earnestnesse and profite come to the Lordes table The second Authour Hierome is cited in Psal. 77. Haec de his c. These wordes are spoken of them which forsooke GOD after they had receiued Manna For nowe in the Church if any man be fed with the flesh and bloud of Christ and doth decline to vices let him knowe that the iudgement of God doth hang ouer him as Paule the Apostle saith He that shall take the body and bloud of our Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde I maruell what Maister Heskins meaneth to alter the wordes of Hierome for he
citeth them thus Qui acceperit corpus sanguinem Domini indigne reus erit corporis sanguinis Domini Wheras the words of Hierome be Qui acceperit corpus sanguinem Christi indignè iudicium sibi sumis bibit Hee that shall receiue the body and bloud of Christe vnworthily receiueth and drinketh iudgement to him selfe To aunswere to the iudgement of GOD which hee saide did hang ouer him that after hee is fed with the body and bloud of Christe declineth to vices not meaning wicked reprobates but Gods elect children whiche are sometimes ingratefull to GOD for his mercies and fall into grieuous sinnes but yet by Gods grace rise againe as the wordes immediatly following do most plainly declare Et electos Israel impediuit Impedumtur nunc electo Ecclesiae si ne ipsi quoque sacerdotes innocenter haec sacramenta percipiunt And hee hindered the elect of Israel The elect of the Church are nowe also hindered if the Priestes them selues doe not receiue these sacraments innocently In which wordes he sheweth the cause that many of the elect do decline to vices after the sacrament receiued euen by the euill example of the Priestes and therefore worthily are to be awaked out of the sleepe of sinne and securitie by this sentence of Paul. Nowe whereas M. Hes. excuseth S. Hierome for altering the words of Paule and in steede of the bread and the cup placing the body and bloud of Christe it is nothing so needfull as that he should render a reason why hee doth him selfe alter the words of Hierome except hee thinke he may be as bold to chaunge the wordes of Hierome as Hierome was to chaunge the words of Paule Although M. Hes. is lesse to blame in this place where he chaungeth the words without any great alteration of the sense then in almost an hundreth places beside where hee falsifieth the wordes and peruerteth the meaning also The eight and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by Chrysostome and S. Augustine Chrysostome is cited Hom. 45. in Ioan. Qui enim manducat c. For he that eateth and drinketh the bloud of our Lord vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to him selfe For if they which defile the kings purple are none otherwise punished then they which rent it what maruell if they which receiue the body of Christ in an vncleane conscience suffer the same punishment that they did which fastened him with nailes to the crosse Two things M. Hes. noteth out of these words one that the body of Christ is receiued in the sacrament the other that euill men receiue the sacrament Concerning the first there is no doubt but that the bodie of Christ is receiued in the sacrament after a spirituall manner of faith and touching the latter this place proueth not that wicked men receiue the body of Christ with their mouthes wherin is the controuersie for neither doth Chrysost. here speake of reprobates but of the faithfull that were sinners which receiued Christes bodie in an vncleane conscience not carnally with their mouthes But admitte he did speake of reprobates and wicked persons yet he speaketh of the sacramentes that are called the bodie and bloud of Christ and not of the natural bodie and bloud of Christ and therefore he vseth the similitude of the Kinges purple whereunto he compareth the sacrament For euen as he that abuseth by rending or defyling the Kings purple robe though he touch not his person yet is he punished as a traitour so he that abuseth the sacrament either as an open contemner or as a prophane receiuer is guiltie of the bodie and bloud of christ And to put the matter out of question he faith not three lines before speaking of the bloud of Christ Qui huius sanguinis sunt participes cum Angelis Archangelis supernis virtutibus commorantur ipsam regiam Christi stolam induti spiritualibus armis muniti sed nihil dixi immo ipsum induti sunt regem They that are partakers of this bloud do dwell with Angels Archangels and the high powers hauing put on the very royall robe of Christ being armed with spiritual armour but I haue said nothing yea they haue put on the King himselfe By these words it is plaine that euerie one that is partaker of the sacrament is not partaker of the bloud of Christ. But Maister Heskins will bring forth other places of Chrysostome wherein he doeth plainely affirme that Iudas the traitour did receiue the bodie of Christ with the other Apostles But suspend thy iudgement gentle Reader vntill thou haue read his places The first is Hom. â—0 de proditione Iuda Cum manducarent biberent c. When they did eate and drinke Iesus tooke bread and brake it and saide This is my bodie They that be consecrated to the diuine mysteries knowe what I speake And againe he tooke the cup and saide This is my bloud and Iudas was present when Christ spake these wordes This is my bloud Say Iudas whom hast thou solde for thirty pence Is this the bloud for which thou hast made a bargaine before with the Pharisees O the mercie of Christ O the madnesse of Iudas He bargained that he might sell him for thirtie pence and Christ offered him the bloud which he hath solde that he might haue forgiuenesse of sinnes if he would not haue bene vngodly For Iudas was present and was partaker of that sacrifice Here we see plainely that Christ offered his bloud to Iudas that he might haue remission of sinnes but no worde that Iudas receiued the bloud of christ It is saide that Iudas was partaker of that sacrifice that is of the outwarde sacrament for so Chrysostome often calleth it but not of the bodie and bloud of christ And whereas Maister Heskins noteth that because Christ offred the same bloud that Iudas solde therfore the sacrament is the naturall bloud of Christ it is a most friuolous reason For euerie childe vnderstandeth the selling of Christes bloud is a figure of betraying Christ euen as the bloud whiche he offered is a figure of that which was betrayed and so the reason maketh altogether against him But Chrysostome hath other wordes in the same sermon Nullus igitur fictus accedat c. Therefore let no feigned person come Let none be so bolde with a counterfet mind to come neere so great mysteries least he be condemned deserue sentence and suffer that which Iudas suffered For after the partaking of the table the diuell entred into him not because he despised the Lordes bodie but because the impudencie of Iudas and the maliciousnesse of his minde caused that the aduersarie dwelled in him By these words M.H. would proue that the Lords body had entred into Iudas before the diuel but the contrarie may more probably be gathered for Chrysost. answereth a secret obiection that might be made vpon the appellation of the sacrament to be the bodie of christ It might seeme the
diuel contemned the body of Christ that he entred immediatly after the bodie of Christ receiued but he saith he contemned not the body of Christ for Iudas was so full of wickednes that the bodie of Christ entred not into him but the diuel before had possessed him And that this is more agreable to the mind of Chryso his wordes in the Hom. 45. In Ioan. doe declare Daemones cum Dominicum sanguinem in nobis vident in fugam vertuntur When the diuels doe see the bloud of our Lorde in vs they are put to flight This proueth that Iudas receiued not the bloud of Christ seeing immediately after the receipt of the sacrament as he sayeth the Diuel entred into him Therefore the other place which Maister Heskins alledgeth out of Chrysost. Ho. 83. In Mat. is likewise answered Caenantibus c. When they were a◠Supper Iesus tooke bread blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples O the blindnesse of that traitor which when he had bene partaker of the vnspeakable mysteries he remained the same man and being admitted to Gods table would not be changed into better which Luke signified saying that after this Satan entred into him not because he despised the Lordes bodie but because he laughed to scorne the folly of the traytor These vnspeakeable mysteries M. Hesk. saith can not be a bare piece of bread and a cup of wine but must needes be the bodie and bloud of Christ. But sauing his authoritie is not the baptisme wherewith wicked men are baptised an vnspekable mysterie and yet no wicked man in baptisme receiueth the spirite of regeneration But Chrysostome proceedeth in the sentence before alledged Maius enim peccatum vtraque ratione fiebat quia tali animo mysterijs susceptis nec timore nec beneficio nec honore melior factus est For his offence was made greater both wayes because that hauing receiued the mysteries with such a minde neither with feare nor with the benefite nor with the honour he was made better Chrysostome saith he receiued the mysteries he doth not say he receiued the bodie of christ Now iudge whether Chrysostome doth plainely affirme that Iudas receiued the bodie of Christ with the other Apostles or whether M. Heskins doth lye that so affirmeth of Chrysostome and can no better proue it then you haue heard Now followeth S. Aug. In Ep. contra Donatist post Collat. Quisquis autem c. Who so euer shall liue wel in this church other mens sinnes do nothing hinder him for in it euerie one shall beare his owne burthen as the Apostle saith and whosoeuer shall eate the bodie of Christ vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe for the Apostle him selfe hath written this In these wordes Augustine calleth the sacrament of the bodie of Christe the bodie of Christ as it followeth immediately after Cum autem dicit iudicium sibi manducat satis oftendit quia non alteri iudicium manducat sed sibi Hoc nos egimus ostendimus obtinuimus quia communio malorum non maculat aliquem participatione sacramentorum sed consensione factorum And when he saith he eateth iudgement to himselfe he sheweth sufficiently that he eateth not iudgement to another but to himselfe This haue we treated shewed and proued that the fellowship of euill men doth not defile any man by participation of the sacramentes with them but by consent of their deedes Likewise he tearmeth the sacrament by the name of the bodie of Christ. Cont. Donat. Lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sicut enim c. As Iudas to whom our Lord gaue the morsel gaue place himselfe to the diuell not by receiuing an euill thing but by receiuing is amisse so any man receiuing vnworthily the Lordes sacrament causeth not because he himselfe is euill that it should be euil or because he receiueth it not to saluation that he receiueth nothing For it was neuerthelesse the bodie and bloud of our Lord euen to them whom the Apostle saide He that eateth drinketh vnworthily eateth drinketh iudgement to himselfe In these wordes he reasoneth against the Donatistes that saide that baptisme ministred by heretikes was no sacrament which he confuteth by example of the other sacrament of Christes bodie bloud which Iudas and other wicked men receiued So that in these wordes the bodie and bloud of the Lorde are to be taken for the sacrament of the bodie bloud of christ Which sacrament as Augu. saith Tract 26. in Ioan. is receyued of some to destruction Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit But the thing it selfe whereof it is sacrament is vnto life to euerie man to destruction to no man whosoeuer shall be partaker therof But M. Heskins flyeth to his distinction of receiuing spiritually and corporally as though Augustine euer saide that the bodie of Christe was receiued corporally of any man. But let vs heare his owne wordes whiche M. Heskins hath cited in the same treatise Quantum pertinet ad illam mortem c. As touching that death of which the Lorde saide that their fathers be dead Moses also did eate Manna Aaron did eate Manna Phinees did eate Manna many did eate which pleased the Lord died not Wherfore Because they vnderstoode the visible meate spiritually they hūgred spiritually they tasted spiritually that they might be filled spiritually For we also at this day haue receiued a visible meate But the sacrament is one thing the vertue of the sacrament another thing which many do receiue of the altar doe die in receiuing doe die Wherefore the Apostle saith he eateth drinketh his owne iudgement In these words Augustine teacheth that the visible meate which is the sacrament may be eaten to condēnation which is the thing we affirme as for eating the body of Christe otherwise then spiritually he speaketh not one worde But M. Heskins would learne of the aduersarie what Augustine meaneth by this word Vertue which many do dye in receiuing it and therefore it cannot be the vertue of his passion so it must needs be his very bodie So that by this conclusion Christs bodie may be receiued without the vertue of his passion But if it please him to learne what Aug. meaneth by this word Vertue in that place I answere he meaneth force or efficacie which is either to life or to death as the receiuer is affected that taketh the sacrament for immediatly after he saith Nam bucella Dominica venenum suit Iudae tamen accepit For the Lords morsel was poyson to Iudas yet he receiued it You see therefore a double vertue in the sacramēt one to saluation another to condemnation no bodily presence necessarie for either of them Another place he citeth In Ioan. Tr. 6. Recordamini vnde sit scriptū Remember frō whence it is written Whoso euer shal eat the bread and drinke the cup of
our Lord vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde For when the Apostle saide this he spake it of them which receiued the bodie of our Lord vndiscreetly and negligently as they wold do any other meat Whersoeuer he borowed these words they are not to be found in that treatise of Aug. which he citeth But if they be August in any place they haue none other sense then before is expressed that such men are said to eate the bodie of Christ which eate the sacrament therof whiche in some manner of speache is called the body of christ The words that I find in Augustine sounding any thing like are these Et sancta possunt obesse in bonis enim sancta ad salutem insunt in malis ad iudicium Certè enim fratres nouimus quid accipiamus vtique sanctum est quod accipimus nemo dicit non esse sanctum Et quid ait Apostolus Qui autem manducat bibit indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit Non ait quia illa res mala est sed quod ille malus malè accipiendo ad iudicium accipit bonum quod accipit Non enim mala buccella erat quae tradita est Iudae à Domino Absit medicus non daret venenum Salutem medicus dedit sed indignè accipiendo ad perniciem accepit Euen holy things may hurte For in good men holy things are vnto saluation in euill men vnto condemnation For surely brethren we know what we receiue and no man sayeth that it is not holy And what sayeth the Apostle He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne condemnation He sayeth it not because that thing is euill but because that euill man by euill receiuing receiueth vnto condemnation that good thing which he receiueth For the morsell was not euill which was deliuered by our Lorde to Iudas God forbidde the Phisition woulde not giue poyson the Phisition gaue health but hee by receiuing vnwoorthily receiued to his destruction To this iudgement of Augustine wee doe subscribe that wicked men receiue a holye thing namely the sacrament for prophaning whereof they heape vp damnation to them selues besides their other sinnes But that the naturall bodie of Christe voyde of his quickening spirite entreth into the mouth of any man wee doe vtterly denye and of the same iudgement is Augustine as we haue shewed in this Chapter in many other places The nine and fourtieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by Isychius and Sedulius In the beginning of this Chapter by a saying of Augustine hee exhorteth vs to heare the doctoures of the Catholike church affirming that he hath alreadie brought sixe plainely expounding this texte of the bodie of Christ and more will bring hereafter whereas the proclaimer required but onely one But what trueth is in his affirmation the reader I doubt not will be able to discerne that is not blinded with affection Isichyus is cited in Leuit. Cap. 26. Propter quod c. Wherefore let vs feare his holie place that we neither defile our bodie nor rashly come to the bodie of Christe in the which is all sanctification For in him abydeth the fullnesse of the godhead without diligent examination of our selues but rather let vs examine our selues remembring him that sayde Whosoeuer shall eate the breade or drinke the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde Because Maister Heskins knoweth not what to gather out of these wordes with any shewe of likelyhood to mainteine his cause he runneth into another matter altogether impertinent and needelesse to shewe out of Theophylact how the fullnesse of the Godhead doth dwell in Christe At length he commeth to ridiculous questions why should he dehort wicked men from eating the bodie of Christ if they cannot eat it at all As though their presumption may not bee condemned which cannot attaine their purpose Why shoulde wicked men bee dehorted from seeking the ouerthrowe of Christe and his church seeing it is impossible for them to preuayle either against the one or the other yet Maister Heskins thinketh him selfe wittie when he sayeth It were strange to persuade a man not to pull downe heauen or to eat the starres because it is vaine to moue men not to doe that which is impossible to be done But because Maister Heskins is so angrie with a peece of breade in the sacrament let him heare what the same Hesychius or as he calleth him Isichius writeth in Leuitic lib. 2. Cap. ◠Propterea carnes cum panibus comedi praecipient vt nos intelligeremus illud ab eo mysterium dici quod simul panis est caro Therefore commaunding the flesh to bee eaten with the breade that wee might vnderstande that he spake of that mysterie which is both bread and fleshe together You see that Hesychius acknowledged breade to bee in the mysterie naturallye as the fleshe of Christe is spiritually Nowe let vs heare Sedulius Accipite c. Take ye this is my body As though Paule had sayed take heede ye eate not that bodie vnworthily seeing it is the bodie of Christe You shall eate this vnworthily if you shame the poore and if you eate any meate before the spirituall meate and the supper of the Lorde Here againe he noteth that the bodie of Christ may be receiued of vnworthie persons hee meaneth wicked persons for otherwise all men are vnworthie of it but no such thing can followe of the wordes of Sedulius both because hee speaketh of receiuing the sacrament which after a certeine manner is the bodie of Christe also because he speaketh not of wicked persons and reprobates but of faithfull persones offenders and that not in greate matters namely in shaming the poore with their plentifull feastes and eating bodily meate before they receiue the Lordes supper This place is cited before lib. 2. Cap. 55. The argument that wee bring of the inseparable coniunction of Christe with his spirite he sayeth is vaine for though Christe bee neuer disioyned from his spirite yet his spirite is not alwayes effectuall which is as absurde as the other to saye that the quickening spirite of Christe together with his bodye is in the wicked and worketh not life But hee weeneth Cyprian shall stande with him whose wordes he citeth In Sermone de Coena Sacramenta quidem quantum in se est c. The sacraments truely as concerning them selues cannot be without their proper vertue Neither doeth the Diuine maiestie by any meanes absent it selfe from the mysteries But although the sacraments doe suffer them selues to bee taken or touched by vnworthie persons yet cannot those be partakers of the spirite whose infidelitie or vnworthinesse gaynsayeth so great holinesse And therefore those giftes are to some the sauour of life vnto life vnto some the sauour of death vnto death For it is altogether meete that the contemners of grace should be depriued of so great a benefite
and that the puritie of so greate grace shoulde not make a dwelling for it selfe in vnworthie persons I am verie wel content that this place shal determine the controuersie betweene vs Cyprian sayeth the maiestie of GOD doth neuer absent it selfe from the sacramentes but either hee worketh saluation or damnation by them as well in baptisme as in the Lords supper for hee speaketh of both in the plurall number And seeing infidels and wicked persons cannot bee partakers of the spirite of Christe it followeth they cannot bee partakers of the bodie of Christe for Christ his bodie is neuer separate from his spirite But Augustine contra Crescen is alledged the place is not quoted but it is lib. 1. Cap. 25. Quid de ipso corpore c. What shall wee saye euen of the bodie and bloude of our Lorde the onely sacrifice for our health Although the Lorde him selfe doeth saye Except a man doe eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud he shall haue no life in him doeth not the Apostle teache that the same is made hurtfull to them that vse it amisse For he sayeth whosoeuer shall eate the breade and drinke the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shal bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde But it followeth imediately Ecce quemadmodum obsint diuina sancta malè vtentibus Cur non eodem modo baptismus Behold how diuine and holy things do hurte them that vse them amisse why not baptisme after the same manner By which woordes it appeareth that Augustine speaketh of the sacrament and not of the thing signifyed by the sacrament For he compareth baptisme ministred by heretikes with the Lordes supper vnworthily receiued which comparison cannot stande except you vnderstande the outwarde parte of the sacrament in bothe Baptisme is ministred by heretikes that is to say the outwarde sacrament of baptisme the bodie of Christe is receiued vnworthily to destruction that is the outwarde sacrament of the bodie of Christe for as wee heard in the last Chapter Res ipsa sacramenti the thing it selfe of the sacrament is receiued of euery man to life of no man to destruction whosoeuer doth receiue it The fiftieth Chapter sheweth the vnderstanding of the same â—ext by Effrem Primasius Effrem is cited in tract de die Iudicij Si procul a nobis est Siloe c. If Siloe whither the blinde man was sent be farre from vs yet the precious cuppe of thy bloude full of light and life is neere vs beeing so much neerer as hee is purer that commeth vnto it This then remayneth vnto vs O mercifull Christ that being full of grace and the illumination of thy knowledge with faith and holinesse wee come to thy cuppe that it may profite vs vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes not to confusion in the day of iudgement For whosoeuer being vnworthie shall come to thy mysteries hee condemneth his owne soule not cleansing himselfe that hee might receiue the heauenly king and the immortall brydegrome into the moste pure chamber of his brest For our soule is the spouse of the immortall bridegrome and the heauenly sacramentes are the couple of the marriage For when wee eate his bodie and drinke his bloude both hee is in vs and wee in him Therefore take heede to thy selfe brother make speede to garnish continually the chamber of thine heart with vertues that hee may make his dwelling with thee with his blessed father And then thou shalt haue praise glorie and boasting before the Angels and Archangels with great ioy and gladnesse thou shalt enter into Paradise This saying being directly contrarie both to the corporall manner of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christe and also to that absurde opinion that the wicked receiue the body of Christe Maister Heskins is not ashamed not onely to alledge it as making for him but also tryfleth off the nearnesse of the bloud of Christe which hee sayeth wee denye when wee affirme Christe to bee alwayes in heauen As though the bloude of Christe cannot purge and clense vs except it come downe from heauen and bee powred in at our mouthes As though faith cannot make Christ him selfe to dwell in vs. But where Effrem sayeth his bloud is so much the neerer as hee is purer that commeth vnto it why cannot M. Hesk. vnderstand that the more vnpurer the receiuer of the cup is the further off the bloud of Christ is and so farthest of all from them that be most vnpure that is the wicked and the reprobate But hee woulde haue the bloud of Christ to be as neere the wicked as the godly Againe when Ephrem saith when wee eate and drinke his body and bloude hee is in vs and wee in him with what face can Maister Heskins or any papist in the worlde saye that the wicked receiue the bodye and bloud of Christe in whom Christe is not nor they in him The like syncerity hee vseth in racking the wordes of Primasius Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in mee and I in him As though he should saye they that so eaâ—â— as it is to bee eaten and so drinke as my bloud is to be dronken For many when they seeme to receiue this thing abide not in God nor God in them because thei are affirmed to eate their own damnation M. Hesk. hath so corrupted this place in translation that you may see hee ment nothing but falshood trechery The latine text he citeth thus Qui edit meane carneus bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo pro eo ac si diceret qui sic edent vs edenda est sic bibent vs bibendus est sanguis meus Multi enim cùm hoc videantur acciperâ— in Deo non manent nec Deus in ipsis quia sibi iudicium manducare perhibentur He translateth in English thus He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in mee and I in him As if he should say they that so shal eate my flesh as it is to be eaten and shall so drinke my bloud as it is to be dronken For many when they are seene to receiue this sacrament neither dwell they in God nor God in them because they are witnessed to eate and drinke their owne damnation Now let the reader though hee bee but a meane Latinist iudge whether he haue not corrupted Primasius in translation especially where hee sayeth Multi cùm hoc videantur accipere whiche is manye when they seeme to receiue this thing namely the body and bloud of Christe of whiche hee spake Maister Heskins turneth it into manye when they are seene to receiue this sacrament Many seeme to bee Christians that are not many seeme to bee baptized with the holy Ghoste which are not so many seeme to eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe which doe not because God dwelleth not in them nor they in god Therefore take awaye Maister Heskins false translation and this saying of Primasius
beatam noctem c. Hee calleth againe to memorie that holye and by all meanes blessed night in which hee both made an ende of the figuratiue passeouer and shewed the true paterne of the figure and also opened the gates of the wholesome sacrament and gaue not onely to the eleuen Apostles but also to Iudas the traytour his moste precious bodie and bloud To this I aunswere as before that hee calleth the sacrament which hee gaue the precious bodie and bloude of Christe not that hee meant that the bread and wine in the sacrament are turned into the bodie and bloude of Christe and so giuen to good and badd but that the signes beare the names of the thinges signifyed as shall moste plainly appeare by the woordes of Theodoret him selfe in his firste dialogue called Incommutabilis Orthodoxus Scis quòd Deus suum corpus appellauit panem Eranistes Scio. Orthodoxus Porro etiam alibi carnem tritieum nominauit Eran. Hoc etiam scio Audiui enim eum dicentem venit hora vt glorificetur filiut hominis Et nisi granum tritici quod cecidit in terram mortuum fuerit solum manet sin autem mortuums fuerit fert multum fructum Orth. In mysteriorum autem traditione corpus panem appellauit id quod in calito infusum commixtum est sanguinem Eran. Itae nominauit Orth. Atqui quod est secundùm naturam corpus corpus iure vocabitur itidem sanguis Eran. In confesio est Orth. Seruator ceriè noster nomina commutauit corpori quidem id quod erat symboli signi nomen imposuit symbolo autem quod erat corpuris Ita cùm se vitem nominasset sanguinem id quod erat symbolum appellauit Eran. Hoc quidem verè dixist◠Vellem autem scire causam mutationis-nominum Orth. Manifestum est institutum ijs qui sunt diuinis mysterijs initiati Volebat enim eot qui sunt Diuinorum mysteriorum participes non attendere naturam eorum quae videntur sed propter nominum permutationem mutationi quę fit ex gratia credere Qui enim quod natura est corpus triticum panem appellauit vitem se rursus nominauit is symbola quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens Eran. Et mysticè mystica dicta sunt apertè declarata quae non sunt nota omnibus Orth. Quoniam ergo in confesso est Patriarcham corpus Domini vestem indumentum nominasse ad dicendum autem de Diuinis mysterijs ingressi sumus dic per veritatem cuius symbolum figuram esse existimas alimentum sanstissimum Diuinitatis ne Domini Christi an corporis sanguinis Eran. Clarum quod illorum quorum appellationem susceperunt Orth. Corporis sanguinis dicis Eran. Ita dico Orth. Vi decet amicum veritatis dixisti Etenim Dominus cum accepisset symbolum aut signum non dixit Hoc est Deitas mea sed hoc est corpus meum Et rursus hic est sanguis meus Et alibi Panis autem quem ego dabo caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita Eran. Vera sunt haec Sunt enim diuina eloquia Orth. Si ergo vera corpus vtique habuit Dominus In English thus Orthodoxus Knowest thou that God called his body breade Eranistes I knowe it Orth. Moreouer in in one place he called his flesh wheate Eran. This also I knowe For I haue heard him saying The houre is come that the sonne of man shall be glorified And except the graine of wheate which is fallen into the earth do dye it remaineth alone but if it dye it bringeth forth much fruit Ortho. And in the deliuerie of the mysteries he called breade his body and that which is powred in the cup and mingled his bloud Eranistes He called it so in deede Orthodoxus Why then that which is a naturall body shall of right be called a body and likewise bloud Eranistes That is confessed Orthodoxus Certainely our Sauiour chaunged the names and gaue that name to his body which was the name of the token or signe and to the token that which was the name of his body So when he called him selfe a vine hee called his body that which was the token thereof Eranistes This thou hast saide truely But I would knowe the cause of the chaunge of the names Orthodoxus The purpose is manifest to them that are made partakers of the Diuine mysteries For hee would haue them which are partakers of the Diuine mysteries not to regard the nature of those things that are seene but in respect of the chaunging of the names to giue credite to that chaunge which is by grace For hee which called his naturall body wheate and breade and named him selfe againe a vine euen hee hath honoured the tokens that are seene with the name of his body and bloud not chaunging their nature but adding grace vnto the nature Eranistes Those mysticall things are both vttered mystically and those things are openly declared which are not knowen to all men Orthodoxus Therefore seeing it is confessed that the Patriarch called the Lordes body a vesture and a garment and we are entred to speake of the Diuine mysteries tell truely whereof doest thou thanke this most holy foode to be a token and figure of the Godhead of our Lorde Christe or of his body and bloud Eranistes It is cleare to be of them whose names they haue receiued Orthodoxus Thou saiest of his body and bloud Eranistes So I say Orthodoxus Thou hast saide as becommeth a louer of the trueth For when our Lord had taken the token or signe he saide not This is my Godhead but this is my body And againe This is my bloud and in an other place The breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Eranistes Those things are true For they are the word of god Orthodoxus Then if they be true our Lord had a body This discourse of Theodoret is so plaine as I neede to adde no exposition thereof to declare what his iudgement was As for the authoritie of Anselmus which hee adioyneth there is no more reason why we should admit it then why Maister Heskins will not receiue the authoritie of Cranmer which was Archbishop of Canterburie as well as Anselmus Hee anueth also a saying of Oecumenius but both bicause he is a late writer and his wordes in a manner are the same that he alledged out of Theodoret of whom it seemeth that Oecumenius borrowed them I omit them as already aunswered in aunswere to Theodoret. The three and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text of S. Paule which is Let euery man examine him selfe and so let him eate In this Chapter Maister Heskins promiseth to teach men howe to examine them selues that they may receiue worthily And two things he requireth
in due examination vprightnesse of faith and puritie of life And this faith hee determineth to be the Apostolique and Catholique faith which must be learned of hearing as Saint Paule saith Faith commeth of hearing and as he saith it must bee learned of the Elders and so bee continued by tradition But Saint Paule saith Hearing must be of the worde of God for Elders may erre as well as youngers but the worde of GOD can not erre neither can he erre that followeth the doctrine of the worde of GOD in any thing Vnto purenesse of life he requireth confession alledging the confession of Augspurge for the confirmation thereof as though Christian confession and the Popish shrift were all one As fond it is that he saith the Apostles were instructed by Christe in the faith of the sacrament before the institution thereof by the miracle of the fiue loaues and in purenesse of life by washing of his disciples feete Where yet was neither contrition confession nor satisfaction After this he rayleth vpon Luther for saying that onely faith maketh men pure and worthie to receiue as though by so saying he did exclude the fruites of repentance and reformation of manners which necessarily do followe of a true and liuely faith which onely maketh vs righteous in the sight of God and worthie receiuers by reputation or acceptation which in the conclusion Maister Heskins himselfe confesseth to be all the worthines that any man hath or can haue to be partaker of the body and bloud of Christ. The foure and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the Fathers vpon the same text with Saint Hierome and Saint Chrysostome S. Hierome is alledged in 1. Cor. 11. Si in linteum vel vat sordidum non illud mittere audeat c. If a man dare not put that thing into a soule cloth or vessell howe much more in a defiled hart which vncleannesse God aboue all things detesteth and which is the only iniurie that can be done to his body For euen therefore did Ioseph that righteous man burie the Lordes body wrapped in a cleane linnen cloth in a newe tombe prefiguring that they which should receiue the Lords body should haue both a cleane minde and a new M. Heskins saith these wordes make plaine for the presence of Christ in that Hierome saith we receiue the body of Christe And who denyeth either the presence of Christ or that we receiue the body of Christ in the sacrament Only we differ whether Christ be present bodily and whether we receiue his body after a corporall manner or after a spirituall or heauenly manner It is pitie he can not see in Hieromes wordes that Christes body must be receiued in a cleane sort as in a cleane vessell And whereas Maister Heskins translateth mittere illud to put that body into a foule cloth or vessell it is maruell he considered not that which aunswereth in similitude to a foule vessell namely a foule heart He thought by that translation or rather falsification to make it seeme that wicked men receiue the body of Christe with the mouth but his authour saith with a filthie heart which is the only iniurie that can be done to the body of Christe therefore he speaketh of the wicked presuming to receiue the sacrament of his body and bloud not affirming that they do it in deede For vpon these wordes He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation he saith Dupliciter reus effectus presumptionis scilicet peccati Being made twise guiltie namely of presumption and sinne and vpon those words He shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde hee saith Quia tanti mysterij sacramentum pro vili despexerit bicause he hath despised the sacrament of so great a mysterie as nothing worth But Maister Heskins citeth another place of Saint Hierome against the licentious doctrine of Luther as he saith that would haue none other preparation but onely faith also to maintaine his carnall presence Lib. 1. Apoll. contra Iouinian Probet se vnusquisque c. Let euery man examine him self and so let him come to the Lords body He would not saith he call it the body of Christe if it were but bread Howe often shall I tell him that it is one thing to say it is breade an other thing to say it is but breade The former we say and also that it is Christes body the latter we vtterly deny But Saint Hierome more at large is cited in 1. Cor. 11. vpon these wordes of Saint Paule Who so euer shall eate of this breade and drinke of this cup of the Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde Sicut scriptum est Omnis mundus manducabit c. As it is written Euery cleane person shall eate it and againe The vncleane soule that shall eate it shall be rooted out from his people And our Lorde him selfe saith If before the altar thou shalt remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee leaue thy gifâ— before the altar and goe and be reconciled to thy brother Therefore the conscience must first be searched if it doe in nothing reprehend vs and so we ought either to offer or to communicate There be some that say he doth not here forbid an vnworthie person from the holy thing but him that receiueth vnworthily If therefore the worthie person comming vnworthily he drawne backe howe much more the vnworthy person which can not receiue worthily Wherfore it behoueth the idle person to cease from vices that he may holily receiue the holy body of our Lord. In these wordes Maister Heskins noteth the preparation required against Luthers onely faith and the thing receiued to be the holy body of our Lorde I haue aunswered before that Luthers onely faith doth not exclude but of necessitie drawe with it all things requisite to a due preparation And that the holy body of our Lorde is receiued of the faithfull wee doe willingly confesse but not of the vnfaithfull and wicked persons For the same Hierome in the Chapter before cited vpon this saying of the Apostle This is my body writeth thus Qui manducat corpus meum bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo Vnde agnoscere se debet quisquis Christi corpus edit aut sanguinem bibit ne quid indignum ei faciat cuius corpus effectus est Hee that eateth my body and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Wherefore hee ought to knowe him selfe who so euer either eateth the body of Christe or drinketh his bloud that hee doe nothing vnworthily to him whose body hee is made This sentence plainely declareth both howe the body and bloud of Christe are eaten and dronken and of whome namely they are so receiued as hee that receiued them is made the body of Christe that is of necessitie spiritually and they are receiued of them in whome Christe dwelleth and they in him therefore of
prelates in their lyfe yet in this accompt of Master Heskins they are burgesses of the lower house and liued much about a time To fill vp the chapter he citeth certaine miracles reported by Sainte Cyprian Sermone 5. De lapsis to shewe howe God punisheth the vnworthie receiuing of the sacrament although they doe not all shewe it for the first example is of an infante that coulde not brooke the sacramentall wyne after it had tasted of breade and wine offred to Idolles where the negligence of the parentes was rather punished then the vnworthinesse of the child The whole story is at large set downe in the last chapiter of the second booke The seconde example is of a woman who receiuinge vnworthily was striken with sodaine death The third of a woman who kept the sacrament in her coffer and when she woulde with vnworthie handes open the coffer in which was the holy thing of the Lorde there sprange out a fire by which she was so terryfied that she durst not touche it A iust punishment for her reseruing of that which should haue bene receiued The fourth miracle is of a man who presuming to receiue the sacrament vnworthily coulde neuer eate the holy thing of God nor handle it For when he had opened his hand he sawe nothing in it but ashes This is a marueilous thing saith Master Heskins Whereby is declared that God is not willing that his holy sacrament shoulde be receiued of a filthie sinner for so muche as sodeinly it pleaseth him to chaunge it into ashes he himselfe departinge from it In deede this is a straunge and miraculous transubstantiation But if I might be so bolde to aske M. Heskins what is that which is chaunged if there be no bread in the sacrament God he saieth is departed from it there remaineth the aceidentes onely of breade and wine and so belike the accidentes are chaunged into ashes O monstrous mutation But why doeth not M. Hes. gather by this miracle that if the sacrament could not be receiued of a wicked man much lesse the body of Christ and so doeth Cyprian gather of it Documento vnius ostensum est Dominum recedere cum negatur nec immerentibus prodesse ad salutem quod sumitur cum gratia salutaris in cinerem sanctitate fugiente mutetur By example of this one it is shewed that the Lorde doeth depart when he is denyed neither doeth that which is receiued profit to saluation the vnworthie persons seeinge the wholsome giftes the holinesse departing from it is chaunged into ashes Cyprian gathereth by the chaunge of the outwarde sacramente before it was receyued that Christ departeth from them that denye him and is not receyued at all But M. Hes. would learne forsoth what one thing is in the sacrament receiued that profiteth hurteth he aunswereth it cānot be the bread wine for they profit alike to al men therfore it must needes be the body of Christ a wholsome conlusion by whiche the bodye of Christe is made a hurtefull thing but if it please him to vnderstand our aunswere we deny that there is any thing included in the bread or wine that either profiteth or hurteth to saluation It is the grace and spirite of God which worketh as well by this sacrament our spirituall nourishing as by baptisme our spirituall regeneration And that which hurteth the wicked man is in him selfe and not in the sacrament euen his owne wickednesse and detestable presumption to defile the holy sacraments of god Wherefore it is diuelish and blasphemous that M. Heskins affirmeth the body of Christ to be hurtful to any bicause the vnworthy receiuing of the sacrament hurteth him that receiueth by his owne acte and not by any thing that is receiued The nine and fiftieth Chapter treateth of these wordes of Saint Paul. We are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones by Irenaeus and Hilarius Irenaeus is cited Lib. 5. Quomodo carnem negant esse capacem c. Howe doe they deny that the flesh is able to receiue the gift of God that is eternall life which is nourished with the bloud and body of Christ and is made a member of him euen as the Apostle saith in that Epistle which is to the Ephesians Bicause we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones speaking this not of any spirituall and inuisible man for a spirite hath neither flesh nor bones but of that disposition which is after the nature of man which consisteth of flesh and sinewes and bones which is nourished of the cup which is his bloud and is increased of the bread which is his body That both our bodies and soules are nourished vnto eternall life by eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christe we doe most willingly confesse and acknowledge But withall we affirme that as our bodyes are not naturally nourished and increased with the body of Christ but spiritually after a diuine manner so onely spiritually and after a diuine manner we doe eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ and not after a carnall naturall or papisticall manner And this is the plaine sense and meaning of Irenaeus his wordes As our bodyes are naturally nourished and increased with the bread and wine of the sacrament so are our bodyes and soules spiritually nourished and increased vnto eternall life For M. Heskins him selfe denyeth that our bodyes are naturally nourished and increased with the body and bloud of Christ when he saith The flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh which must needes be if we vnderstand that Irenaeus saith our flesh is nourished and increased of the body of Christ but he saith of the bread which is his body and of the cup which is his bloud our flesh is nourished and increased Therefore there is naturall and very bread in the sacrament for our flesh can not be nourished and increased by accidentes euen as certainely as there is the body and bloud of Christe after a spirituall manner dispensed vnto the faithfull which are the members of Christ flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Therefore also the wicked receiue not the body and bloud of Christe bicause they are no members of his body That I haue not in this interpretation varied from the mynde of Irenaeus his plaine words shall testifie Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Quemadmodum enim qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam iam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Euen as that bread which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God is not now comon bread but the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing consisting of two thinges an earthly thing and an heauenly thing so also our bodyes receiuing the Eucharistie are not nowe corruptible hauing the hope of resurrection The place that Maister Heskins citeth out
in spite of your heart for I will be at masse as soone as you and then will I receiue at my Masse when you receiue at your Masse and so by our owne principle whereby wee defend our priuate Masses to be communions I will communicate with you whether you will or no yea I can not choose but communicate with you if I say Masse when you doe And if you will say to me that I ought not to say Masse being excommunicate I tell you you can not excommunicate me so long as I can say Masse For though you count me excōmunicate yet you knowe by our owne diuinitie that if I doe say Masse notwithstanding your censure I doe consecrate as well as the proudest of you and after I haue consecrated I will receiue and then I communicate and so your excommunication is no excommunication at all SECTIO 48. in the 155. leafe Whereas the Bishop said that the Masse had nether her name nor her partes vntill foure hundreth yeares after Christe he aunswereth that she had the essentiall and necessarie partes but not the garnishing and decking parts So that by his owne confession it was a namelesse and naked Masse which they had in the church for foure hundreth yeares after Christes So that the later times with him were alwayes more wise and more religious then the former newe deuises better then olde customes And where then is there the proud challenge of antiquitie vniuersalitie consent Apostolike tradition And if the Church might be without the Popish Masse so long after Christe why should they teach that nowe it is so necessarie as there ought to be none other forme of communion vsed in the Church of God but it SECTIO 49. M. Rastel protesting once or twise that he was wearie will now conclude with onely confuting these conclusions of M. Iewels comparison S. Iames Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well neere nothing else but mans inuention To disproue this he saith the epistle and Gospell the collets of the Sunday the Hymne of the Angell the confession of faith the saying of Agnus Dei c. are translated out of their Masse into our communion therefore we take them for parte of Christes institution I answere we take them as Christes institution and not as commended by the Masse and yet are they no parte of the communion though they be vsed in our liturgie some before and some after the communion Secondly he would seeme to confute the Bishops saying that Saint Iames Masse had Christes institution because if we had thought so in deede we would haue translated it into English and so haue vsed it in steede of the Popish Masse and then it would haue seemed more superstitious and full of ceremonies then the Popish Masse And so he rehearseth a number of superstitious ceremonies gestures and prayers that are in it I answere the Bishop said truely as he thought that the liturgie falsely ascribed to Saint Iames hath Christes institution concerning the Lorde Supper notwithstanding it be ful fraught with idle ceremonies and some superstitious and erronious prayers whereas the Popish Masse hath cleane ouerturned the institution of Christ touching the ende of the Lordes supper reteyning well neere nothing of Christes institution except you will say it hath bread and wine which it most horribly abuseth to the prophanation of Christes death and most filthie idolatrie Finally the saluation of the virgine Marie whiche was then aliue although it were more meere to be vsed to her person beeing aliue then after she was departed out of this worlde the prayer made for them that liued in monasteries the tearme of consubstantiall not heard of in the Church before the Nicene councell and many other argumentes doe sufficiently proue that the saide liturgie was not written by Saint Iames the Apostle nor by any that liued many hundreth yeares after him to the iudgements of al men that haue either knowledge to discerne trueth from falshoode or conscience to acknowledge that which they can not choose but know And euen Bartholomew Garanza a Papist that gathered the abridgement of councels affirmeth that the liturgie which Saint Iames vsed is not extant at this day O Lord bring into the way of trueth all such as erre of simplicitie and be not mercifull to those that sinne of malicious wickednesse After this clearkly confutation followeth a counterfet challenge as he pretendeth to shew the Bishops follie but in deede to shewe his owne follie and the weaknesse of his cause which he learned not as he saith of Salomon to answere a foole according to his follie but of Menalcas one of Virgils sheepheardes in his thirde Eglogue which when he could not answer the ridle propounded vnto him by his aduersarie he putteth for than other as harde as he thinketh Dic quibus in terris c. His first section conteineth 21. articles whereof the greatest parte are not helde at all by any of vs therefore there is no cause why we should proue them the rest be matters of meere indifferencie which may be vsed or left vndon without any hurt of our religion some perhaps may be proued which he litle thinketh of to his shame Of the first sort are these 1. that there was no drie communion and we say there ought to be none although the Papistes make a drie communion when they robbe the people of the cuppe of the Lordes bloud The thirde that Bishops did not sweare by their honour we affirme they ought not to sweare nor yet by God as I heard Boner sweare being conuented before the Bishop of Winchester his Chauncelour and a great number of persons beeing present The 4. that bagpipers horscoursers gailers alebasters were not admitted into the Cleargie without sufficient triall We affirme they ought not nor yet any of the scullerie or blacke garde as some yet liuing were made Priestes in Queene Maries time The 6. that no Bishoppe not content with prisoning his aduersaries call vppon Princes to put them to cruell death We holde that no Bishop should imprison his aduersary much lesse procure his death but if the challenge had beene of Gods aduersaries I would haue aunswered otherwise For if in 600. yeares none of Gods aduersaries was or ought to haue beene put to death by procurement of Bishops by what ground of antiquitie doe Popish Bishops procure so many to be put to death yea murther them selues in their prisons and inquisitions vnder pretence that they be Gods aduersaries The 17. that no Bishoppe did gather beneuolence of his Cleargie to marrie his daughter c. We aunswere this no way concerneth religion no more then putting of the ring on the womans left hande which is the 18. or calling the people by ringing of a bell whiche is the 21. Now concerning the rest as the seconde that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper except there be a good number to communicate three or foure at the least
could not remaine The drinke sanctified in the bloud of our Lord brake out of her polluted bowels c. Out of this Historie Maister Heskins gathereth two thinges First that the sacrament in that time was ministred to infantes which was in deede a great abuse contrarie to the worde of god Secondly that this childe receiued onely the cup which is false for though she was not so troubled at the receipt of the bread yet it followeth not that she receiued no bread but contrariwise Cyprian saith the Eucharistie by whiche wordes the fathers alwayes vnderstand the whole sacrament could not remaine in her bodie And whereas he reasoneth foolishly that if she had receiued the bread she should like wise haue beene troubled he must vnderstand that when God worketh a miracle he taketh times and occasions at his pleasure And it is like he would not discouer her pollution that come by bread and wine before she had receiued both bread and wine as the sacrament If I should vrge vpon this place as the scoole men doe whether this that was vomited was the bloud of Christ and what should be done with it or what was done with it in this storie I should trouble him more then he could easily answere Another tale he telleth out of Sozomenus Eccl. hist. lib. 8. Cap. 5. Ioanne Constantinopolitanum c. When Iohn Chrysostome did very well gouerne the Church of Constantinople a certeine man of the Macedonian heresie had a wife of the same opinion When this man had heard Iohn teaching what was to bee thought of God he praysed his doctrine and exhorted his wife to be of the same minde with him But when she did more obey the words of noble women then his conuersation and after many admonitions her husband had profited nothing Except quod he thou be a cōpaniō with me in Diuine matters thou shalt not be hereafter a partaker of liuing with me When the woman heard this promised her consent dissemblingly she cōmunicated the matter with a certeyne maide seruant which shee iudged to be trustie vnto her and vseth her seruice to deceiue her husband And about the time of the mysteries they that be receiued to them know what I say she keping that she had receiued fell downe as though she would pray Her maide standing by giueth her priuily that which she brought in her hand with her which thing when it was put to her teeth it congeled into a stone The woman beeing astonnied fearing least any euil should happen to her for that thing whiche came to passe from God made hast to the Bishop and bewraying her selfe sheweth the stone hauing yet vpon it the markes of her bit and shewing an vnknowen matter and a wonderful colour and also desiring pardon with teares promised that she would agree with her husband And if this matter seeme to any man to be incredible this stone is a witnesse which is kept to this day among the Iewels of the Churche of Constantinople If this storie be true as it is no article of our beleefe yet proueth it not that the communion was ministred in bread only to all the rest that would receiue the cuppe although I wote not what was turned into a stone before the time came she should receiue the cuppe If M. Heskins will vrge she could not haue any thing to conuey into her mouth in steede of the wine I answere she might easily counterfet the drinking by kissing the cuppe and so letting it passe from her without tasting thereof Wherefore this is but a blind and vnreasonable coniecture of Maister Heskins that the sacrament was ministred in one kinde because she that had dissembled in the receipt of one kinde was punished with depriuation from both kindes The last reason he vseth Is that it is testified by learned men that the manner of receiuing vnder one kinde which is vsed in all the Latine Church vpon good Friday on which day the priest receiueth the hoste consecrated vpon maundie Thursday hath been so vsed from the primitiue Church But what learned men they be except such as him selfe and what proofes they haue of this vsage he sayeth not so much as halfe a word The whole matter standeth vpon his owne credite But if he and all the learned of that side should fast from good Friday vntill they haue shewed proofe of such an vse in the primitiue church not as they vse to fast in Lent but from all manner of nourishment there would not one learned Papist be left aliue on gang Monday to shew what proofes they haue found Thou hast seene Reader what his reasons and authorities are iudge of the answers according to thy discretion ¶ The end of the second Booke THE THIRD BOOKE OF MAISTER HESKINS PARLEAment repealed by W. Fulke The first Chapter entereth by Preface into the first text of S. Paule that toucheth the sacrament and expoundeth it according to the letter TThe Preface is out of Didymus that diuine matters are to be handled with reuerence and considering the difficultie of the scriptures by Hierome that in matters of doubt recourse must be had by Irenęus his aduise vnto the most auncient Churches in which the Apostles were conuersant In so much that Irenaeus saith Libro 3. Cap. 4. Quid autem c. And what if the Apostles had left vs no writinges ought we not to haue followed the order of tradition which they deliuered to them to whome they had committed the Churches Wherevpon Maister Heskins gathereth that not onely for matters conteined in scripture but also for traditions vnwritten in the holie scriptures the fathers are to be credited But he goeth farre from Irenaeus minde who confuted the heretiques both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the moste auncient Churches whose traditions must haue beene all our institution if there had ben no scriptures But seeing that scriptures inspired of God by his gratious prouidence are left vnto vs al traditions are to be examined by them that is twise proued after Irenaeus minde whiche is proued both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the Churches Otherwise the scriptures are sufficient of them selues 2. Tim. 3. And no tradition or authoritie is to be receiued which is repugnant or contrarie vnto them The text of Saint Paule that he speaketh is written 1. Cor. 10. Brethren I would not haue you ignorant that all our fathers were vnder the cloude and all passed through the sea and were all baptised by Moses in the cloude and in the sea and did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the same spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christe Where it is to be noted that Maister Heskins in steede of the same spirituall meate and the same spirituall drinke translateth one spiritual meate and one spirituall drinke as though the sense were that the Fathers did all eate drinke of one spiritual kind