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
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
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
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
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
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
might not be ioyned really But M. Heskins a spirite is not contrarie to a thing except you will say it is nothing but to a body and therefore spiritually and bodily are opposite not spiritually and really For we are ioyned to Christe spiritually and yet really so that Christ dwelleth in vs by his spirite through faith but not bodily so in the sacrament we eate the body of Christ really that is in deede vnfeignedly but yet in a spirituall kinde of eating and not carnally or corporally But M. Heskins proceeding affirmeth that We are spiritually ioyned to Christ by charitie and faith and therefore incorporated into his mysticall body but really or substantially we are ioyned to him when by eating his very substantiall flesh in the sacrament THE SVBSTANCE OF OVR FLESH IS TVRNED INTO THE SVBSTAVNCE OF HIS FLESH and thereby so ioyned to him as we are made one flesh with him c. Note here good reader for thy learning that these wordes printed by M. Heskins in another letter that they might be seene as a speciall paradoxe ▪ teach thee a newe kinde of transubstantiation For he is not content to haue the breade turned into the body of Christe without all type or figure really substantially corporally c. but as really corporally and substantially he affirmeth that the substance of our flesh is turned into the substance of the flesh of Christ. O monstruous paradox as euer any was heard since the beginning of the world After this he noteth that Christes flesh is not digested in vs as other meates are which is needlesse to note if our fleshe be digested or turned into his adding this reason that As it is a celestiall meate beeing now a glorified bodie so it draweth vs vp to it conuerting and turning vs into it according to the nature of a celestiall thing Howe vayne this reason is by whiche hee would auoyde the digestion and proue his new transubstantiation and conuersion appeareth by this that the body of Christe in the Sacrament was as effectuall while hee liued in his passible bodie on earth in which he instituted this sacrament as it is nowe beeing a glorified bodie in heauen And whereas hee chargeth I knowe not what Stercoranites of our time to affirme that the fleshe of Christ passeth through the bodie as other meates I thinke verilie he lyeth most impudently For I neuer heard or read of any that so affirmed Although I woulde wishe men to speake reuerently of so high mysteries yet the importunitie of the Papistes with their matter of transubstantiation enforceth them not to affirme of them selues but to report what they reade in the fathers concerning the breade beeing the terrestriall or outwarde parte of the Sacrament that it is digested passeth through as all other naturall meates do whereof Origen writeth in Math. Chap. 15. Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os in ventrem abit in sesession eijcitur ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Deipérque obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale abit in sesessū eijcitur If what soeuer entereth into the mouth goeth into the bellie and is cast foorth into the draught euen that meate also which is sanctified by the worde of God and by prayer after that which it hath materiall goeth and is cast foorth into the draught This douteth not Origen to speake of the materiall parte of the Sacrament by which it is manifest that he knew no transubstantiation The cheefe thing that M. Heskins vrgeth vs to marke is that Whereas the Sacramentes woulde haue onely a spirituall receiuing this holy father teacheth that we are framed to Christ not onely spiritually by loue which may bee without receiuing of meate but re ipsa in deede by receyuing of meate But I praye you M. Heskins where saith Chrisostom that our coniunction vnto Christ is not onely spirituall In deede he saide not onely by loue but in deede but he opposeth not spiritually and really as you doe And where you vrge that this coniunction is by meate and this meate is his bodie and therevppon conclude that it is a corporall coniunction and Christ is ioyned corporally I aunswere that if Chrysostom may expound himselfe this meate and this body is a spirituall meate therefore a spirituall coniunction and Christ is eaten spiritually De prod Iud. Nemo sit Iudas in mensa hoc sacrificium cibus spiritualis est Nam sicut corporalis cibus c. Let no man be Iudas in this table this sacrifice is a spirituall meate For as corporall meat when it findeth a bellie possessed with humors contrarie to it it hurteth and offendeth more and helpeth nothing at all euen so this spirituall meate if it finde any man polluted with wickednes it destroyeth him the more not of it owne nature ▪ but through the fault of him that receiueth it Thus far Chrysostome for the meate to bee spirituall Finally the last obseruation that Christ doth giue vs in the sacrament is the same fleshe by which he was ioyned vnto vs therefore his verie substantiall body and bloude auayleth him nothing For wee contende not of the substance of the thing that is giuen but of the manner of the giuing the thing is the verie body and bloude of Christ but not after a corporall or naturall manner but after a spirituall and diuine maner or as the olde writers haue saide Modo ineffabili after an vnspeakeable manner as so many figuratiue speaches that are spoken therof do declare whiche to expound literally or grāmatically were little better then extreme madnesse The other place which you adde out of Ho. 24. in 10.1 Cor. helpe them nothing at all that Christ hath giuen vs his flesh c. That this body the wisemen did reuerence in the māger You might haue added out of the same place Quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit that which is in the cuppe is the same that flowed out of his side and thereof we are partakers But that all these are figuratiue speaches it is manifest by this interrogation that followeth in the same homilie Quid enim appello inquit communicationem id ipsum corpus sumus Quid significat panis corpus Christi Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christs non multa sed vnum corpus For what do I cal it saith he a participation We are the selfe same bodie What signifieth the bread The bodie of christ And what are they made which receiue the bodie of Christ Not many bodies but one body And in the same homilie Sed quare Addit quem frangimus hoc in Eucharistia videre licet in cruce autem minimè sed omnino contra Os enim eius non conteretur Sed quod in cruce passus nō est id in oblatione patitur propter te frangi permittit But why doth he adde speaking of the breade which wee breake that you may see in the sacrament of thankesgiuing but not on the
crosse but altogether the contrarie For there shall no bone of him be broken But that which he suffered not on the crosse he suffereth in the oblation for so they called the ministring of the communion because it was a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and for thee suffereth himself to be broken In these places Chrysostome affirmeth the Church to be the same bodie which the breade doth signifie and which the faithfull doe receiue and in the latter place he sheweth manifest difference betweene the naturall body of Christ that suffered on the crosse and the spirituall receiuing of him in the supper in whiche his bones are broken which he saith was not on the crosse which must needes bee figuratiue I passe ouer the large allegorie he continueth in the same homilie affirming that we must be Eagles to flye vp into heauen and feed of Chrstes bodie where it is for where the bodie is thether the Eagles will be gathered The fifteenth Chapter declareth by scriptures that the figure of the pascall lambe was a figure of the eating of Christ our pascall lambe There is no doubt but the killing of the pascall lamb was a figure of the killing of Christ and of the eating of the lambe was a sacrament of the eating of Christe our pascal lamb but not properly a figure of the Lords supper For Christe is eaten not onely in the sacrament but also by faith which the vse of the sacrament is to confirme as he himselfe teacheth Ioan. 6. It is true also that this sacrament is succeeded in the place of that But that the eating of the Lambe was a figure of our eating of the Sacrament no scripture teacheth For first your comparisons will not serue M. Heskins The lambe was verily eaten therefore Christ is verily eaten the lambe was substantially and really eaten therefore Christ was really and substantially eaten For I may reason as well the lambe was a naturall lambe therefore Christ was a naturall lambe or as you doe of the age of the lamb the lamb was but one yere old therfore Christe was but one yeare olde or rather and more properly thus if you will algates haue it a figure of the sacrament the lambe was called the passouer and yet it did but signifie the passouer so the breade is called the body of Christe and yet it doth but signifie the body of Christe or thus the eating of the lambe was a figure of the eating of Christ so the eating of the bread is a figure of the eating of christ As for the desire that Christe had to eate the passouer proueth not that he called his supper so but the olde passouer which he so desired to eate bicause it was the last should be fulfilled and then was in fulfilling in the suffering an oblation of his body The other text alleadged out of S. Paule 1. Cor. 5. Christ our passouer is slaine therefore let vs feaste not in the olde leauen nor in the leauen of malice and wickednesse but in the vnleauened bread of sinceritie and truth is manifestly wrested vnto the eating of Christ in the supper wherof the Apostle speaketh not but of the whole course of our life wherein we must holde the feast in the vnleauened breade of sinceritie and trueth The rule borowed out of Augustine in Psalmâ—â—ts 77. will doe you little pleasure for graunte that the thing figured in good thinges is better then the figure and in euill thinges worse what haue you gained Yes forsooth verie muche For then the passouer figured must needes bee better then the passouer the figure If the passouer which is nowe eaten be but a peece of bread a bare signe a figure as the sacramentaries affirme then the pascall Lambe is a figure of a peece of bread which is not better then it Of this argument no small accompt is made for it is continued in sixe long tedious chapters following But howe soone will all this smoke be blowen away yea euen with one breath For admitte that the Pascall lambe was a signe of the Lordes Supper which is not yet prooued by Scripture yet shall the thing figured be better then the figure For the supper of the Lorde consisteth of the bodie and bloud of Christe and not of a peece of breade a bare signe or figure although bread and wine are elements which do liuely represent that which Christe in his supper doeth feede vs withall And he doeth more then beastly belye them whome he calleth Sacramentaries to affirme that it is but a peece of breade a bare signe or figure They affirme that it is bread but they affirme not that it is nothing but a peece of bread they saye it is a signe and a figure but they saye not it is a bare signe and nothing but a figure except baptisme be a bare signe and nothing but a figure because it is a signe and a figure Therefore when you come to your conclusion M. Heskins you may well conclude that the Sacrament is not a bare figure but you falsly cogge in that by Christes institution it is consecrated to be offered for Christ was offered vp but once and that by him selfe only Likewise verie vnlike a diuine you say the Pascall Lambe was but a bare figure which is vntrue for it should not haue beene called the Passouer except it had truely assured the worthie receiuers of their spirituall deliuerance But where you make it such an absurditie that one figure shoulde be figure of another there is no such inconuenience as you immagine but that one thing may be the signe of another thing which shall be a figure of the third thing As in this very example if you will call your wittes together I am sure you will confesse that the Pascall Lambe was a figure of the deliuerance of the Israelites from the destruction of Aegypt and the same deliuerance of their bodies was a figure of the spirituall deliuerance of our soules Because Dionysius whom you cal the Areopagite sayth nothing to the matter in controuersie I will passe him ouer vntil some other time The sixteenth Chapter teacheth this matter by Tertullian Isychius This Chapter neither prooueth substantially that it promiseth nor gaineth any thing if it proued it For if the Pascall Lambe were a figure of Christes supper yet that proueth not as was shewed before that the bodie of Christ is there eaten corporally and after a corporal maner Tertullian a noble man in Christes Parleament Cont. Marcion lib. 4. writeth thus Professus igitur se concupiscentia concupiscere edere pasca vt suâ—â—m indignuÌ„ enim vt quid alienum concupiscat Deus acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Therefore when he had professed that with desire he desired to eate the Passouer as a thing of his owne for it was an vnworthie thing that God should desire that pertained to another that bread which he tooke and distributed to his disciples he made
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
then he should haue suffered oftentimes since the beginning of the world And Heb. 10. He offered but one sacrifice for sinnes and is set downe at the right hand of God for euer c. For by one only oblation he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified And in the same Chapter where there is forgiuenesse of sinnes there is no more sacrifice for sinne Whervpon it followeth that if Christes sacrifice at his supper tooke away sinnes he offered no sacrifice vpon the crosse Secondly he affirmeth that Christe was a priest after the order of Aaron which he denied before and is in plaine wordes denied by the holy Ghost Heb. 7. which place M. Heskins himselfe setteth downe in this Chapter if perfection had beene by the Priesthoode of the Leuites for vnder it the law was established to the people what needed it further that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedech c not to be called after the order of Aaron Thirdly he affirmeth that the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse was after the order of Aaron Wherevpon it wil follow that it was not an eternall redemption purchased by it but transitorie as the priesthoode of Aaron was Whereas the holy Ghost saith that by his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place and found eternall redemption which could neuer be obteined by any sacrifice after the order of Aaron Fourthly he affirmeth that Christ altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God except he did offer sacrifice in his supper of bread and wine By which he denieth that the once offring vp of himselfe by his eternall spirite on the crosse was any parte of his priesthoode appointed him by God then the which there can be no more diuelish blasphemie And yet the beast is not ashamed to challenge and write If not then ◠let the aduersary shewe when and where Christ did sacrifice after the order of Mechizedech Euen then and there thou enimie of the crosse of Christ when and where he was made obedient to the death of the crosse and hauing learned obedience by the thinges he suffered he was consecrated and made the authour of eternall saluation vnto all them that obey him and is called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedech Heb. 5. Hauing an euerlasting priesthod by which he is able perfectly to saue them that come vnto God by him seeing he euer liueth to make intercession for them For such an high priest it became vs to haue which is holy harmelesse vndefiled separated frō sinners and made higher then the heauens which needed not daily as these high Priestes to offer vp sacrifice first for his owne sinnes and then for the peoples for that he did once when he offred vp himself Heb. 7. But beside his detestable blasphemies see his ridiculous vanitie If the priesthoode of Melchizedech standeth in his offering of bread and wine then Christ also offered bread and wine as he saide before Christ offered in bread and wine as Aaron did in bloud If bread wine be Christes offring or any part of it then there is bread and wine in the sacrament what is becomme of transubstantiation If there was no bread wine in the sacrifice of Christe then where is Melchisedeches priesthoode by his owne diuinitie Againe if he say there be the shewes or accidents of bread wine then Melchizedeches bread and wine was a figure of the accidents of bread and Wine then the figure was better then the thing figured contrarie to his worshipfull rule giuen in the 15. Chapter If he say that Melchizedeches bread wine figured not the Accidents but the bread wine before it be consecrated then he breaketh his rule once againe for Melchizedeches bread if it were not hallowed was as good if it were hallowed as it was if it were offred it was better then the vncōsecrated bread wine Finally if he say it figured neither the vncōsecrated bread wine nor the accidents of the same consecrated but the body and bloud of Christ vnder these accidēts beside that he makes it a figure of a figure or signe which he said could not be he denieth that Christ did that wherein he affirmed the priesthoode of Melchizedech to stand namely that he offred bread and wine And so thou seest M. Heskins hanged in his owne halter The nine and twentieth Chapter proceedeth to prooue the same by S. Cyprian and Isychius I confessed before that diuers of the olde fathers were of opinion that the bread and wine which Melchisedech brought forth was sacrificed by him and that it was a figure of the sacramēt which they vnproperly called a sacrifice meaning nothing else but that it was a holy signe and a thankesgiuing offered to God for the passion of Christe as it is manifest by diuers places in their writings But they were farre from those blasphemies which M. Heskins hath vttered in the Chapter before as to make Christes passion a sacrifice after the order of Aaron to make Christ offer two sacrifices and the better sacrifice that was after the order of Melchizedech in the sacrament c. But now let vs consider the places of Cyprian whether such poyson may be drawen out of them as M. Heskins hath sucked out of his own poysoned brayne The words of the first place are these The sacraments signified of old since the time that Melchisedech came forth to the sonnes of Abraham that do his workes the high priest bringeth foorth bread and wine This sayth he is my body They had eaten and dronken of the same bread according to the visible fourme but before those wordes that common meate was profitable only to nourish the body But after it was saide by the Lorde do this in remembrance This is my flesh this is my bloud As oftē as it is done with these wordes and with this faith that substantiall bread and cuppe consecrated with a solemne blessing profiteth vnto the life and health of the whole man being both a medicine Et Holocaustum and a burnt offering to heale infirmities and purge iniquities There is also declared the difference betweene spirituall meate and corporall meate namely that it was one thing that was first set before them another thing which was giuē distributed by their Maister First it is graunted that Cyprian thought the bread wine brought foorth by Melchizedech to be a figure of the sacrament and that herein also he resembled the priesthoode of Christ which we are neither afraide nor abashed to denie because the Apostle an older doctor then Cyprian such an one as in his writings could not erre could finde no such resemblance betweene Melchizedech and christ Concerning the sacrifice of bread and wine I wil speake hereafter in answere to the other places of Cyprian But now let vs examine M. Heskins two notes for the reall presence as he calleth it The first is that this
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
filthy garments that is our sinnes by the name of his first begotten sonne and being set on fire by the word of his calling are a right kinde of high priests of God as God himself doth witnes That in al places among the Gentiles acceptable pure sacrifices are offred to him But God receiueth no sacrifice of any but of his Priestes Wherefore God before hand doth testifie that he doth accept all them that offer by this name the sacrifices which Iesus Christe hath deliuered to be made that is in the Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of the bread and the cuppe which are done in euery place of the Christians By these words it appeareth not that Christ was offered but thankesgiuing in the sacrament not of the priest alone but by all Christians And yet more plainely in the wordes of his that are in the same Dialogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as concerning those sacrifices which are offered to him of vs Gentiles in euery place that is of the breade of thankesgiuing and the cup likewise of thankesgiuing hee foresheweth saying that we do glorifie his name and that you do prophane it In which saying what can we see but the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the bread and cup And to proue that the Church hath none other sacrifice but of prayers and thankesgiuing he saith within few lines after the place cited by M. Heskins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I my selfe do affirme that prayers and thankesgiuing made by worthie persons are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to god For these are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make to be put in minde by their drie and moyst nourishment of the passion which God the son of God is recorded to haue suffered for them This place doth not onely shewe what the only sacrifice of Christians was in his time but also teacheth that in the sacrament is drie and moyst nourishment that is bread and drinke not bare accidents as the transubstantiators affirme How little Iustinus maketh for the sacrifice of the Masse these places doe sufficiently declare The second place hee citeth is out of Hierom in his booke of Hebrue questions Quod autem â—it c. whereas he saâ—th thou art a Priest for â—uer after the order of Melchisedech in the word order our mysterie is signified not in offering vnreasonable sacrifices by Aaron but in offering bread and wine that is the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ. We haue shewed sufficiently before howe the olde writers vsed the worde of sacrifice licentiously when there was no such heresie as fined is sprung vp of the sacrifice of the Masse for the memoriall of the sacrifice of Christes body and bloud in which was offered the spirituall sacrifice of prayers and thanksgiuing which reasonable men might wel ynough vnderstand though heretiques do nowe drawe it to their meaning As when Hierom calleth this offering of bread and wine a mysterie euery indifferent reader may vnderstand that he speaketh not properly in calling it the body and bloud of Christe and a sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe But as to a sicke man of the ague all drinkes seeme bitter so to a popish heretique all sayings of the Doctours seeme popish and hereticall The third place he alledgeth it is out of Ambrose his preparatiue prayer to Masse I will not vouchsafe to rehearse it bicause it is a meere bastard and counterfet writing out of which it is cyted hauing as much of S. Ambrose in it as M. Heskins hath witt and honestie in alledging it If any man will obiect that then I must bring arguments to disproue it or else I may likewise denye any authenticall writer I answere it were too long to do in this shortnesse that I must vse and not necessarie when they are notorious and well knowne already to euery man of meane reading in the Doctors and Erasmus in his censure doth plainly reiect it The fourth is Isydorus li. 1. ca 18. de off which althogh he be somwhat without the coÌ„passe of 600. yeares after Christ yet because he is an auncient writer nere that time I will consider his speach which is cited by M. Heskins in these wordes The sacrifice that is offered to God by the Christians our Lorde and maister Christ did first institute when hee commended to his Apostles his bodie and bloude before hee was betraied as it is redd in the Gospell Iesus tooke the bread and the cup and blessing them gaue the same vnto them Here beside the vsuall phrase of sacrifice which we haue often declared what it did signifie and whence it came is nothing to quarrell at For Isydore ment no doubt the spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing which is offered in the celebration of the Lords supper not the propitiatorie sacrifice of the popish masse of which scarce the foundations were begonne to be laide in his time of certaine odde stones of vnproper speach and licentious phrases of sacrifices and oblations As for Haymo and Cabasila I will neuer trouble my self to examine their speaches they are but late writers therefore of small credite in these causes And whereas M. Heskins glorieth that he hath aunswered foure members of the proclamation in this booke the scriptures in the vulgar tongue the reseruation of the sacrament the offering of Christe to his father and the presence of his bodie and bloude in the sacrament let the iudgement reste with the indifferent readers whether although hee hath some of the lower house to fauour his billes more might haue if hee woulde aske their voyces yet I haue proued by this short aunswere that of the higher house he hath not one that hath giuen a voyce with theÌ„ but many that haue spoken directly against them God be praysed THE SECOND BOOKE OF HESKINS PARLEAMENT repealed by W. Fulke The first Chapter declareth the offices of the olde lawe and the benefites of the newe lawe with an exhortation to submit our vnderstanding to the knowledge of faith and therewith to the beleefe of the sacrament HOW vnsauerly he discourseth vpon the two offices of the lawe it were too long to examine in euerie pointe Onely this let the reader obserue that when he hath made the first office of the lawe to giue them knowledge of sinne and to restrayne them from it The other office hee saith was by lineamentes of figures and shadowes to leade the people to Christe as S. Paule sayth the lawe was our scholemaister to Christ c. As though the lawe was not a Schoolemaister to bring vs to Christe by shewing vs our sinnes and condemnation but onely by shadowes and figures After this hee maketh him selfe a ioly hunter That with great trauell and some pleasure hath passed through the bushes and thickets of the lawe and nowe being come into the faire land of the Gospell forgetting his former trauels with freshe delight will followe on his game So that hee is nowe belike
the 58. verse he concludeth and sayeth plainly that it is the same breade that came downe from heauen and that who so eateth of this breade shall liue eternally Secondly that the promise of giuing his flesh is not to be restrayned to the giuing of the sacrament his wordes are plaine that he will giue his fleshe for the life of the worlde which all true Christians will acknowledge to haue beene perfourmed in the sacrifice of his death and not at his last supper Finally that his flesh must not bee separated from his spirit nor his spirit from his flesh he doth as plainly teach vs when he affirmeth that it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing that except we eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud we haue no life in vs For neither the flesh profiteth but as it is made quickening by the spirite neither do we participate the life of his spirite but as it is communicated vnto vs by his fleshe by which we are made fleshe of his fleshe and bone of his bone which holie mysterie is liuely represented vnto vs in the blessed sacrament And this your aduersaries confesse Maister Heskins not denying as you charge them that any one worde of that Chapter perteineth to the sacrament but affirming the sacrament to bee a seale of the doctrine which is deliuered in that Chapter and not otherwise The iudgement of the olde writers consonant to this vnderstanding shall followe afterwarde in confutation of M. Heskins vngodly and hereticall distinction not of the two natures in Christ but of participation of the one without the other which hee maketh by his two last breades The thirde Chapter proueth by the doctours that the sixt of S. Iohn speaketh as well of the bread Christes fleshe in the sacrament as of the bread his godhead Chrysostom is alledged in Ioan 6. Hom. 44. Iam in mysteriorum c. Nowe will he come to the setting forth of the mysteryes and first of his godhead he sayeth thus I am the breade of life this was not spoken of his bodie of which about the ende he sayeth The breade which I will giue is my flesh but as yet of his godhead for that is bread because of God the worde euen as this bread because of the spirite comming to it is made heauenly breade Maister Heskins asketh if we do not here plainely see a distinction of breades I answere no forsooth but a distinction of two natures in one breade Againe he asketh Doth not nowe the sixt of S. Iohn speake of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament I aunswere that no such thing appeareth by these wordes of Chrysostome otherwise then as the sacrament is a liuely representation of that his bodie which he gaue for the life of the world And that Chrysostome meaneth not to diuide Christe into two breades as M. Heskins doth he teacheth speaking of the same mysterie of his coniunction with vs by his fleshe Hom. 45. Vester ego frater esse volui communicaui carnem propter vos sanguinem per quae vobis coniunctus sum ea rursus vobis exhibui I would be your brother and so I tooke parte of fleshe and bloud for you and the same things I haue giuen you againe by which I was ioyned vnto you So that not the godhead of Christ alone nor his flesh alone is giuen vs as two breades but Christ by his flesh is ioyned vnto vs as one bread of life Let vs nowe see what S. Augustine sayeth who expounding the same text writeth thus Our Lorde determineth consequently howe he calleth him selfe bread not onely after his godhead which feedeth all things but also after his humaine nature which is assumpted of the worde of God when he sayeth afterwarde And the bread which I will giue is my flesh c. Once againe M. Heskins asketh whether Augustine teach not a plaine difference of the bread of the Godhead of Christe and the bread of his manhood And once againe I aunswer not so but he teacheth directly the contratie namely Christe God and man to be one breade and not two breades And that the doctrine of this Chapter is not to be restrained vnto the sacrament the same Augustine in the same place teacheth abundantly while hee maketh no mention of the Lordes supper vntill he come to the ende and then sheweth that the mysterie of this fleshe and bloud is represented in the supper when it is celebrated of the Church in remembrance of his death passiō Huius rei sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis sanguinis Christi alicubi quotidie alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Dominica mensa praeparatur de mensa Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit The sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ in some places euery day in other some at certeine space of dayes betweene is prepared in the Lordes table and is taken at the Lordes table of some vnto life of some vnto to destruction But the thing it selfe whose sacrament it is to all men is to life and to no man for destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker thereof Note here also the distinction betweene the sacrament and the thing wherof it is a sacrament and that the sacrament may be receiued to destruction but not the thing or matter of the sacrament which is the bodie and bloud of Christ. To these Barones he wil ioyne two Burgesses and the first shal be Theophylact one of them which he sayeth is well towarde a thousand yeare olde Hee woulde fayne get him credite by his antiquitie but he ouer reacheth too farre to make him so auncient which cometh nerer to fiue hundred then to a thousande yeares But let vs consider his speache in 6 Ioan. he writeth thus Manifestè c. He speaketh manifestly in this place of the communion of his bodie For the bread sayeth he which I will giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world And shewing his power that not as a seruant nor as one lesse them his father he should be crucified but voluntarily he sayeth I will giue my flesh for the life of the world Note sayth M. Hesk. that Christ spake manifestly of the communion of his bodie Who doubteth or denyeth that but that he spake not of the communion of his bodie which we receiue in the sacramēt Note saye I that Theophylact speaketh manifestly of his crucifying and nor of the communion in the sacrament After this he interlaceth a fond excourse of the authoritie of the later writers whome he affirmeth and wee confesse to haue written plainly of his side whereas hee sayeth the olde writers did write obscurely and then he taxeth Bullinger for alledging Zwinglius whome he slaundereth to haue
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
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
And of Caluine yet not as Heskins like a lewde lyer slaundereth him to say This is the verie substance of my bodie but it is not my bodily substance but agreeing in effect with all the rest that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued but not after a carnall or bodily manner but after a spirituall vnspeakable manner As for the fiue sectes numbred among the Lutherans which dissent from vs in this point we make none accompt of them Thus where M. Hesk hath gathered as he reckoneth sixteene seueral sectes foure of them being condemned of vs for hereticall with the authors of them fiue agreeing with the papistes in the carnall presence and Luthers owne secte if he dissent from them as Heskins maketh him to doe the sixt tenne are of vs generally refused The other sixe that remaine in Maister Heskins number are falsely forged to disagree when they holde all one thing in effect although they expresse the same thing in diuerse formes of wordes as it is not possible for diuerse interpreters though they agree in sense and interpretation to iump all in one forme of words for then all commentaries should be one But as God giueth his giftes diuersely some expound the scriptures briefely some more at large some more plainly some more obscurely so all these and fiue hundred more God be thanked learned men either in writing or in preaching haue shewed the vnderstanding of Christes wordes hardly fiue of them agreeing in all termes and phrases yet all moste sweetely consenting in one sense and meaning which consent and agreement is more notable when it is vttered in so many diuerse formes of wordes And yet to take away all cauels and flaunders all the churches for the moste parte in Fraunce Scotland Sauoy Heluetia Germanie Hungarie Piemont Polonia c. beside the persecuted Churches of Italians Spanyards and others haue subscribed to one forme of confession concerning not onely the sacrament but all other principall poyntes of religion which wee do likewise receiue in this Church of England And if disagreing of men among themselues were a matter of such importance it were no harde thing to shewe the battels of the schoole doctours among the Papists not onely about other matters but euen about the manner of the presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament transsubstantiation If you say all these whome you reiecte as the Lutherans in this poynt the Swinkefeldians Anabaptistes Libertines Henrinicolaites and such other do all disagree with you from the Catholike church of Rome therefore you are all together naught By this reason all Christianitie might bee condemned of the Iewes and Gentiles because so many sectes and heresies as be vnder the name of Christianitie together with the true Church of Christe be all against Iudaisme Gentilisme But agreeing or disagreeing of men among themselues is a weake argument to proue or disproue any thing onely agreeing with the trueth is a sure reason to allowe and disagreeing from the trueth is a certeine argument to refuse either men or matter propounded by them The two and fourtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the wordes of Christe after the Catholike manner with certein proues of the same First he setteth downe the sayings of the three Euangelistes Mathew Marke and Luke and of the Apostle Paule in which they describe the institution of the sacrament of which he sayeth not one maketh any mention of tropes figures or significations wherein hee vseth a shamelesse kinde of Sophistrie for although they name no tropes or figures or signification yet by the Papistes owne confession Saint Luke S. Paule vse manifest tropes figures and significations namely where they say This cupp is the newe testament in my bloud First it is a trope or figure to saye the cupp for that which is conteined in the cup vnlesse they will say that the cupp of what metall or matter so euer it was was likewise transubstantiated into the bloud of Christe Likewise where he sayeth this cuppe is the newe testament or couenant he must either acknowledge a signification this cuppe signifieth the newe testament or else he must make the newe testament to be nothing else but a cuppe Finally where he sayeth this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud except hee acknowledge a trope or figure he will vtterly denye that which is in the cup to be the bloud of Christe And out of all controuersie this manner of speache vsed by Saint Luke and Saint Paule is a manifest interpretation of the wordes vsed by S. Mathewe and Saint Marke this is my bloud which are all one in sence and meaning and teache vs howe the wordes spoken of the breade are to be interpreted this is my bodie this is the newe testament in my bloude which is as much to saye this is a seale and confirmation of the newe couenaunt which is remission of sinnes purchased by the breaking of my bodie and the shedding of my bloud for you This breade and this cuppe receiued of you shall assure you that you are truely incorporated into my bodie so made partakers of eternall life This interpretation hath in it nothing farre fetched or strange from the words of Christ the vsuall maner of speaking in the scripture But nowe M. Heskins will proue that the wordes of Christ are to be vnderstanded without trope or figure by the slaunders of the Infidels which defamed the Christians in the primitiue Church for eating the fleshe of men and of children as appeareth in Euseb. lib. 5 Cap. 2. 3. in the storie of Blandina and Attalus martyrs when they did eate the flesh of Christ. But none of them neither in Eusebius nor yet Iustine Origen Tertullian or any other that haue written Apollogies defended the Christians by the commaundement of Christ to eat his bodie but vtterly denyed and derided the slaunder that they were sayde to eat the fleshe of men or children as they did other slaunders which had no ground nor similitude of trueth as that they worshipped an Asses head that they companyed together in the dark like brute beastes and such like whereas if they had eaten the naturall fleshe of Christ as the Papists teache they woulde neither haue simply denyed the eating of a mans flesh nor yet haue spared to shewe how it was eaten vnder the formes of bread wine to auoide all crueltie and lothsomnes As for the legend of S. Andrewes passion which M. Heskins sayeth was written per Presbyteros diaconos Achaie is of as good credit as the booke of Beuis of Hampton the like I say of the fable of Amphilochius a newe found olde writer concerning the Iewe that sawe a childe diuided when the sacrament was broken The Legend and festiuall haue many such miracles But why did he not see a man diuided seeing Christe is not nowe a childe but a man Belike the authours of those miracles thought that if they feigned him to be a little child like Tom
Thumb their miracles should be more credited that such a one should be conteined in their cake rather then a tall man of perfect stature O impudent asses But it proueth wel the reall presence saith M. Hes. that Auerrois a Philosopher saith I haue walked ouer the world I haue found diuers sectes and yet haue I found none so foolish a sect is is the sect of the Christians For they deuour with their teeth their God whome they worship Hereof it is easie to perceiue saith he that the fame was that they did receiue and eate Christ whom they honoured But herein M. Hes. bewrayeth either his falshood or his ignoraunce For hee speaketh as though Auerrois were an ancient Philosopher that liued in the dayes of the primitiue Church whereas he was a Spanish Mahometist or rather Athist not past three or foure hundreth yeres ago when Poperie was in the greatest pride and Idolatrie couered the face of the earth His saying therfore proueth nothing but how great an offeÌ„ce the popish Idolatrie did giue to the Heathen Turkes and Iewes And whereas Iustinus in his Apollogie to the Emperour declareth whatsoeuer was done in the assemblies of the Christians he well dischargeth them of all slaunders that were raised against them but defendeth not the corporall eating of mans flesh by the commaundement of Christ although he confesse that they receiued that breade not as common bread nor as common drinke but as their flesh and bloud was nourirished by that foode so they were persuaded that it was the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ for the spiritual foode of their soules As for the curse that Rupertus threatneth to them that adde vnto the word of God â–ª pertaineth not to them that giue the true sense of the word of God whether it be in more wordes or fewer And whereas Rupertus saith these words of Christ I am a vine and this is my body be no like speaches I confesse they are not in euery respect bicause in the one he did institute a sacrameÌ„t in the other he taught as by a similitude the true end vse and signification of the sacrament Yet are they not altogether vnlike bicause they are both figuratiue and so iudged and compared together by the auncient Fathers But Rupertus will proue by two reasons that the latter is no figure First bicause in the former there is a continuation of the Allegorie which proueth it to be a figure in the other there is none such This is a fond reason for both we haue shewed a continuation of the trope where he saide this cup is the newe Testament and although there were none yet that can not exclude a figure no more then when baptisme is called regeneration when the lamb is called the Passeouer which be sacramentall speaches and such like where no continuation of the figure followeth The other reason of Rupertus M. Heskins diuideth into two parts The first is to note the enunciation of both scriptures for he doth not take a braunch of a vine and say I am this vine or this vine is my body but he saith of the bread this is my body A strong reason he saith as signanter by a certaine demonstration of substaunce and speaking of the same sacrament That rocke was Christe and in the time when it was a sacrament it was and might be truely said pointing to the rocke this is Christ and to the water issuing out of it this is the bloud of Christ and so no doubt Christ spake by his spiriâ—e in the consciences of the faithfull The second part of Rupertus reason is that the wordes which followe which is giuen for you c. can not be applied to the figure therefore the sense of that place is proper and not figuratiue But contrariwise these wordes can not be applied to the sacrament therefore the speach is not proper but figuratiue and shewe howe the breade and the cup are the body and bloud of Christe namely as his body is broken and his bloud shed for vs for the vertue of the sacrament standeth in his passion by which his body and bloud offered in sacrifice for our sinnes are made a spirituall foode of our soules The conference that Rupertus maketh betweene the words of Christ and the wordes of the serpent I passe ouer as containing no argument in them for the proofe of M. Heskins bill but onely shewing the corrupt iudgement of the authour whose reasons I am content to weigh but I esteeme not his authoritie as being a late prop of the Popish church The three and fortieth Chapter beginneth to proue the vnderstanding of Christes foresaid wordes not to be figuratiue by the authoritie of the Fathers And first by Alexander and Iustinus Iustine is alledged in this second Apologie in a corrupt Latine translation which he maketh worsse by falsifying the same in his English translation The place hath bene already considered in the first booke Chap. 27. according to the originall Greeke copie I will nowe rehearse the same after his Latine translation and afterward shewe M. Heskins falsification Cum autem c. When he that is ouerseer hath giuen thankes and all the people haue assented they which are called Deacons with vs do distribute to euery one that is present that they may take part in the breade in which thankes is giuen and of the wine and water and carie it to those which are not present And this foode which is called thankes giuing Of which it is not lawfull for any other to take part but he that beleeueth those things to be true which are taught by vs and which is washed in the lauer vnto remission of sinnes and regeneration and so liueth as Christ hath taught Neither do we take these thinges as common bread and a common cup but euen as by the word of God Iesus Christ our sauiour being incarnate had both flesh and bloud so we are taught that the foode through the prayer of his word being consecrated by thankesgiuing of which our flesh bloud by transmutation are nourished is the flesh bloud of Iesus Christ which was incarnate For the Apostles in their coÌ„mentaries which are called Gospels haue taught that he did so coÌ„maund them That when he had taken bread giuen thanks he said Do this in remembrance of me this is my body And likewise when he had taken the cup and giuen thankes that he said This is my bloud and gaue first to them alone M. Heskins hath falsified this author in his translation First where he turneth is qui prÄ™est the prieste as though there were Masse priestes in that time Secondly quae docentur a nobis that be taught of vs as though none should receiue the sacrament but they which beleue the real presence which he surmiseth to be taught to theÌ„ But more notably where he translateth these wordes Sie verbi sui oratione consecratum gratiarum actione alimentum ex quo caro nostra sanguis per
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
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
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
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
therefore no figure nor spiritual receit only which are not wonderfull This argument is false for sacramentall figures and spirituall things are great wonders thought not sensible myracles As for eating the Lamb the Sheepe and such other are so plaine figures that impudencie her selfe would not deny them to be figures Finally he noteth that sinners receiue the bodye of Christe in the sacrament which hee saith the Protestantes denye which is as grossely for except sinners should receiue Christe in the sacrament no men should receiue him But the Protestantes say that wicked men or reprobate men vngodly men vnpenitent sinners receiue not the body of Christe which though it haue bene sufficiently proued before yet I will adde one more testimony out of Saint Augustine De ciuitate Dei. Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Denique ipse dicens Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus sed reuera corpus Christi manducare eius sanguinem bibere Neyther is it to be saide that these men meaning heretiques other wicked men doe eate the bodie of Christ bicause they are not to bee accounted among the members of christ Finally he himself saying He that eateth my flesh drinketh my blud abideth in me I in him sheweth what it is not touching the sacramēt only but indeed to eat the body of Christ drink his bloud But now let vs returne to Chrys. who Hom. 83. in 26. Math. hath these words Praecipuā He dissolueth their chiefe solemnitie and calleth thē to another table ful of horror saying Take ye and eat ye this is my body How then wer they not troubled hearing this bicause they had heard many great things of these before Here M. Hes. troubleth him self very much his readers more to proue that by the doctrin which they heard before vttered in the sixt of Iohn they were so instructed as they were not troubled which we confes to be true although that doctrine doth none otherwise pertaine vnto the sacrament then as the sacrament is a seale of the doctrine But Chrysostome saith further in the same Homely Hac de causa c. For this cause with desire I haue desired to eate this passeouer with you that I might make you spirituall He him self also dranke thereof least when they had heard his wordes they should say what then do we drinke bloud and eate flesh and so should haue bene troubled For when he spake before of those things many were offended only for his wordes Therefore least the same thing should happen nowe also he him selfe did it first that he might induce them with quiet minde to the communication of the mysteries Here M. Heskins falleth into a sound sleepe and then dreameth a long dreame of the reall presence and the trouble of the Apostles and lothsomnesse of bloud the contradiction of Chrysostomes wordes and I wote not what beside ▪ But to a man that is awake Chrysostom speaketh plaine ynough He saith this was the cause why Christ desired to eate the Passeouer with them which he taketh to be that hee did first drinke before them c. that hee might make thē spirituall that is that they might not haue carnall imaginations of eating his body and his bloud as the Capernaites had but vnderstande those thinges spiritually the rather when they sawe him eate and drinke of them which if he had eaten his owne naturall body and drunk his owne natural bloud would haue troubled them more then if he had not tasted of them And how so euer M. Heskins drumbleth and dreameth of this matter Cranmer saith truely that if Christ had turned the breade into his body as the Papistes affirme so great and woonderfull a chaunge should haue bene more plainely setfoorth in the scripture by some of the Euangelistes Sedulius for varietie of names is cyted In 11. pri ad Cor. Accipite hoc est corpus meum c. Take ye this my body as though Paule had saide take heede ye eate not the body vnworthily seeing it is the body of Christ. What is there here that the proclamer will not confesse and yet is there nothing to binde him to subscribe for the proclamer would neuer denye that the sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ though after an other sort then it is affirmed by the Papistes The sixe and fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Theophylus and Leo. Theophylus Alexandrinus is brought on the stage in this shewe cyted Lib. 2. Pasch. Consequens est c. It is consequent that he that receiueth the former things should also receiue those things that follow And he that shall say that Christ was crucified for diuels must allowe also that it is to be saide vnto them This is my body and take ye this is my bloud For if he be crucified for diuels as the author of new doctrine doth affirme what priuiledge shall there be or what reason that onely men should communicate with his body and bloud and not diuels also for whome he shed his bloud in his passion Hee saith here is no mention of tropes and figures A substantiall reason therefore none are vsed It is a good reason that Theophylus vseth that Christ died not for the diuels bicause he giueth them no participation of his body and bloud but it hangeth on a rush that M. Hes. concludeth Such as are partakers of his reall body may be made partakers of his spirituall body but diuels can not of his reall body therefore not of his spirituall body be partakers See how this peruerse man maketh the sacrament to be the reall body of Christ and that which was crucified his spirituall body By which he doth not only make Christe haue two bodies but also ouerthroweth the truth of the one to establish the falshod of the other But the same writer in the first booke doth more certainly auouch the real presence deny the figures in these wordes Dicit spiritum sanctum c. Origen saith that the holy Ghost doth not worke vpon those things which are without life nor commeth to vnreasonable things Which when he saith he thinketh not that the mysticall waters in baptisme by the comming of the holy Ghost to them are consecrated and that the Lords bread by which our sauiours body is shewed and which we breake for sanctification of vs and the holy cup which are set on the table and be things without life are sanctified by inuocation and comming of the holy Ghost to them M. Hes. translateth quo saluaioris corpus ostenditur in which the body of our Sauiour is shewed but it is plaine ynough Theophylus meaneth that by the breade the body of Christe is shewed that is signified or figured or represented As for consecration
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
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
bread which he giueth to all which he giueth daily which hee giueth alwayes it is in thy selfe that thou maiest receiue this bread Come vnto this bread and thou shalt receiue it Of this bread it is said all they that estrange them selues from thee shall perish If thou estrange thy self frō him thou shalt perish If thou come neere vnto him thou shalt liue He is the bread of life He that eateth life can not die For howe doth he die ▪ whose meate is life How shall he fayle which hath that vitall substance Come ye vnto him and be satisfied for he is breade Come ye vnto him and drinke for he is a wel Come ye vnto him and be lightened for he is light Come ye vnto him and be deliuered for where the spirite of the Lord is there is libertie Come ye vnto him and be absolued for he is remission of sinnes You aske who this may be Heare ye him selfe saying I am the breade of life he that commeth to me shall not hunger and hee that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst You haue heard him and you haue seene him and you haue not beleeued him therefore you are dead The latter part of this long discourse sufficiently expoundeth the former That Christe and the flesh and bloud of God which M. Heskins noteth to be a plaine place for the proclamer is so our true meate and drinke as he is breade as he is a well as he is light as he is libertie as he is remission of sinnes that is after a spiritual maner And where he saith Manna was a figure or shaddowe and not the trueth of that which was to come he meaneth of Manna as it was corporall meate and eaten of the vnfaithfull that are dead and not as it was spiritual meat and eaten of the faithfull which are aliue as S. Augustine saith Moreouer it is to be noted that S. Ambrose saith that he which eateth this bread which is life can not dye Therefore no wicked man eateth this bread this meate this flesh of God which with S. Ambrose are all one As for the difference of our sacramentes what it is we haue shewed before and this place sheweth none For Ambrose speaketh of Manna as a corporall meat and not as it was a spirituall meate and sacrament The sixt Chapter declareth that Manna was a figure by the testimonie of S. Cyprian and Chrysostome It hath bene often confessed that Manna of the olde fathers is called a figure of the body of Christ but that it was only a bare figure and not the body of Christe vnto the faithful that is it we deny Cyprian is cited to litle or no purpose in ser. de Coen Dom. Huius panis c. Of this bread Māna was a figure which rayned in the desert So whē we are come to the true bread in the land of promise that meat fayled M. Heskins saith it is more manifest then that it can be denyed that this bread he speaketh of is the holy bread of the sacrament in which he acknowledgeth to be no breade at all Then as manifest as he maketh it it was a figure of Christ which is the spiritual matter of the sacrament and not of any holy breade thereof But this he saith will be proued by the last wordes of that sermon which in deede proue the cleane contrarie to his purpose Sed nos ipsi c. But we also being made his body both by the sacrament and by the thing of the sacrament are knit and vnited vnto our heade euery one being members one of an other shewing the ministerie of loue mutually do communicate in charitie are partakers of one cup eating the same meate and drinking the same drinke which floweth and runneth out of the spirituall rocke which meate and drinke is our Lord Iesus Christ. Here is a plaine place for the proclamer the meate and drinke is our Lorde Iesus Christe But what proclamer denyeth that our meat and drinke in the sacrament is the body and bloud of Christe This we deny that the same is present after a bodily maner or after a bodily manner receiued but spiritually onely or by faith euen as the same writer faith immediatly before Haec quoties agimus c. As often as we doe these things we sharpen not our teeth to eate but with sincere faith wee breake and diuide that holy bread But how can M. Heskins auoyde this that we are made the body of Christe as we are partakers of his body in the sacrament whiche must needes be spiritually Howe liketh he the distinction of the sacrament and the thing or matter of the sacrament when with Papistes either there is no difference made betweene the sacrament of his body and his body it selfe or else the sacrament is nothing else but the accidents of breade and wine by which we are neither made the body of Christ nor vnited to him But to auoyde our glose of spiritualitie he fleeth backe to the saying of Cyrillus in 15. Ioan. which he hath so often repeated and yet mangled and gelded least the true sense might be gathered out of it Non tamen negamus c. Yet do we not denye but that we are spiritually ioyned to Christ by right faith and sincere loue but that we haue no manner of coniunction with him after his flesh that truely we doe vtterly deny and say it to be altogether repugnant to the holy scriptures For who hath doubted that Christe is also a vine and we the branches which from thence receiue life into vs Heare what Paule saith that we are all one body in christ For although we be many yet are we one in him For we all take part of one breade Or doeth he thinke perhaps that the vertue of the mystical benediction is vnknown to vs Which when it is done in vs doth is not make Christ to dwell in vs corporally by communication of the flesh of Christ. For why are the members of the faithfull the members of Christ c. In these wordes Cyrillus reasoneth against an Arrian which abusing this text I am a Vine and my father is the husband man saide it was spoken of the deitie of Christ and could not be expounded of his manhoode which Cyrill denyeth shewing that we are not onely spiritually ioyned to Christe as to God but also corporally that is to his body as to man yet after a spirituall manner as the textes by him alledged doe proue sufficiently and namely the argument taken of the vertue of the mysticall blessing which by communication of his fleshe maketh vs his members of his body which all men confesse to bee so after a diuine manner that euen they which neuer receiued that sacrament are yet members of Christe hauing put him on and beeing ingrafted to him in baptisme But Maister Heskins will tell vs the difference of the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament out of August in deede out of the sentences of
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
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
thing that he saith or all the Papistes in the world it is not necessarie that Christs body should be eaten with our mouth after a corporall manner that we may haue coniunction with his body For then infants which eate not the sacrament should want a necessarie manner of the coniunction of their bodies with the body of Christe and so be out of hope of resurrection The places of Cyrill that hee citeth in 6. Ioan. Cap. 14. be cited before the one Lib. 2. Cap. 17. the other Lib. 2. Cap. 34. where they are answered Then followeth a discourse to proue that communion or fellowship ought not to be had with heretiques which is very true and therefore not to bee had with Papistes the greatest heretiques that are After the saying of Haimo rehearsed hee is angrie with vs that we will reiect his authoritie being as he saith neare a thousand yeares of age but surely in some Chronicles that I haue read he is an English man generall or prouinciall of Friers preachers and I am sure there was neuer a Dominike Frier in the world one thousand yeares after Christe and they that make him oldest make him to be 840. yeares since christ The parcell of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. wherevnto he would compare his Haimo is rehearsed more at large Lib. 1. Cap. 18. and that of Cyrill Cap. 15. in 6. Ioan. The sixe and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by S. Cyrill and S. Thomas Cyrill whom vnfitly he matcheth with Thomas of Aquine is cited in 17. Ioan. Cum trinitas vnum natura sit c. For as much as the Trinitie in nature is one let vs consider how we our selues also among our selues corporally and with God spiritually are one The only begotten sonne comming out of the substance of God his father and possessing in his nature the whole father was made flesh according to the scriptures and hath vnspeakably ioyned and vnited himselfe to our nature For he that is God by nature is made man in deede not Theophorus that is hauing God in him by grace as they that are ignorant of the mysterie do contend but he is both very God and very man So he hath ioyned together in him selfe that is one those things which according to nature differ very much among them selues and hath made vs partakers of the diuine nature For the communication of the spirite and as I may say the dwelling was first in Christ and from him hath perced into vs when being made man he him selfe annoynted and sanctified his temple with his owne spirite The beginning therefore and the way by which we are made partakers of the holy spirite and are vnited to God is the mysterie of christ For we are all sanctified in him Therfore that he might vnite euery one beetwene our selues God although we be asunder both in body and soul yet he hath found out ae meane agreeable to the counsel of his father his own wisdom For blessing the beleuers by the mystical communion by his body he hath made vs one body both with himself and also among our selues For who shall thinke them straunge from this naturall vnion which by the vnion of one holy body are vnited in one Christe For if we all eate one bread we are all made one body For Christe suffereth vs not to be diuided and disioyned Therefore all the Church is made the body of Christ and euery one of vs the members of Christe after S. Paule for being conioyned to one Christ by his body bicause wee haue receiued him in vs which is indiuisible our members be rather appropriated to him then to vs. Concerning the vnitie of God the father with the sonne of the two natures of God and man in Christ and of the vnitie of the members of Christ with their head which M. Hesk. noteth out of this place of Cyril it shall be no neede to speake seeing there is no controuersie betweene vs but that these three vnities be there Only of the maner how we be vnited is the difference We are vnited to the body of Christ but whether by eating the same with our mouthes or by faith through the vnspeakable working of Gods spirite is all the question All the holde he catcheth of this place is that Cyrill calleth it a naturall vnion as he doth also in the same place a corporall vnion by which he meaneth not that we are vnited after a naturall manner or after a bodily manner but that we are vnited vnto the very humane nature and body of Christ but after an heauenly and diuine manner For thus it followeth in the same place I meane in Lib. 11. Cap. 26. of Cyrill vpon the 17. of Iohn which M. Hesk. note booke belike did not serue him to set downe Quod autem corporalis haec vnio ad Christum participatione carnis eius acquiritur ipse rursus Paulus de mysterio pietatis differens testatur quod alijs inquit generationibus non est agnitum filijs hominum sicut nunc reuelatum est sanctis apostolis eius prophetis in spiritu esse gentes cohaeredes concorpores comparticipes promissionis in Christo. Si autem omnes inter nos in Christo vnum sumus corpus nec inter nos solùm verùum etiam cum eo qui per carnem suam ad nos transiuit quomodo vniuersi inter nos in Christ vnum non erimus And that this corporall vnion vnto Christ is obtained by participation of his flesh Paule him selfe againe doth testifie disputing of the mysterie of godlinesse which in other ages saith he was not knowen to the sonnes of men as it is nowe reuealed to his holy Apostles and Prophetes in the spirite that the Gentiles should be coheires and of the same body and compartners of the promise in Christe If then we be all one body among our selues in Christe and not among our selues only but also with him which by his flesh is come vnto vs howe shall we not be all one both among our selues and in Christe This place of Paule by which the faithfull of the Gentiles are saide to be made one body with the faithfull of the Iewes speaketh nothing of eating of the body of Christe in the sacrament but of the spirituall incorporation by faith in the promises of the Gospell nowe made common vnto the Gentiles with the Iewes whereof the sacrament is not a bare signe but a liuely and effectuall seale and confirmation Moreouer the same Cyrill in the same booke Cap. 22. in 17. IoaÌ„ writeth thus Nihil ergo mali accidere vobis potest aiâ— si carne alfueâ—o cum deitatis incae potestas quÄ™e vos huc vsque seruauit in posterum etiam seruatura fit HÄ™c non ideo dicimus quia Domini corpuâ— non magni aestimemus sed quia mirabiles hos effectus gloriae denoâ—is attribuendos pat amus Nam ipsum etiam Domini corpus coniuâ—cti virtue
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
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
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
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
he vseth this reason All things forbidden vs to do as the aduersarie sayth be conteyned in the scripture priuate Masse sole receiuing are not forbidden in scripture therefore they may be done His Maior is grounded vpon the authoritie of his aduersaries But which of his aduersaries sayeth that all things forbidden are forbidden by name In deede we say that all things that are contrarie to Gods commaundment are forbidden so are priuate Masse sole receiuing therefore they are forbiddeÌ„ That priuate Masse sole receiuing are contrary to Gods commaundement it is manifest by the institution of Christ which is of a communion not of a priuate Masse or sole receiuing Vnus panis c. One bread we being many are one bodie c. After this fond argument which is returned vpon his own neck he cauilleth at the proclaimers words because he saith he knoweth they haue such replyes that as there be many things spoken in the old doctors of that communion so as many things or mo are spoken by them of the priuate Masse but this latter part saith M. Hesk. he passeth ouer will not rehearse one I cannot blame M. Hesk. if he would faine haue the Bishop find something for him in the doctors that soundeth for the priuate Masse because hee can finde nothing him self But when the bishop sayeth hee knoweth they haue such replyes he doth not graunt that their reply is true but denyeth it as false and if it were so that any thing were in the old Doctours that might seeme to fauour the priuat Masse yet what obligation hath M. Hes. of the bishop wherein he is bound to shewe it forth in a sermon I vse more words about this cauil then the matter needeth â–ª only to shew the foolish frowardnes peruerse foolishnes of this man that wil seek a knot in a rush to take occasion to rayle and slander But to the purpose M. Hes. confessing that in the Primitiue Church the people did often coÌ„municat addresseth him self to proue that the sacrament may lawfully be receiued of one alone and that by Iustinus whom both Cranmer the proclamer he saith doth pitifully abuse and truncatly alledge but he him selfe doth falsifie and truncatly alledge as we haue shewed before But first I wish the reader to consider that he hath forsaken his priuat Masse for which is no shew in the Doctours and fleeth to sole receiuing in cases of necessitie or in superstitious abuse which proue not that any priuat Masse was said Iustinê° he citeth thus Diaconi distribuunt c. The Deacons deliuer of the consecrated bread and wine and water to euerie one that is present and if there be any away they carie it home to them In this translation he leaueth out ad participandum to be receiued which is in his Latine text and only maketh mention of the deliuerie omitting for what vse it was deliuered In deede the Greek is otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The distribution and participation of those thinges for which thanks hath ben giuen is made to euery one to them that are not present by the Deacons there is sent First I say as there is a communion confessed of them that are present so it was not cleare that that which was caried to theÌ„ that were absent was caried as the sacrament but as almes but admit it were caried as the sacrament yet it foloweth not that it was receiued of euery man alone but of euery family which vpon necessarie cause was absent from the whole congregation or of diuers families meting in one which could not meete in the common assembly so that here is no priuat Masse said but a communion ministred neither is there so much as any sole receiuing proued which if it were yet proueth it not the priuat Masse And therefore all M. Heskins babbling of the sacrament to be one that is ministred or receiued in diuers places and at diuers times is vaine and to no purpose and most fond it is that he compareth it to the sacrament of baptisme which is but one to all men For of that I may thus reason though euery mans baptisme is not a diuers baptisme but all is one baptisme as there is one faith and one God yet as no man is baptized by other mens baptisme but by his owne so no man communicateth with other communions but onely in that action wherein he is a communicant him selfe Therfore M. Heskins fantasie of one Priest communicating with all Priestes in all places is ouerthrowne by his owne argument and similitude But he wil proue sole receiuing by Tertullian S. Cyprian Basil and Hierome by whom he saith it may be gathered that the godly brought with them a fine linnen cloth or a pretie boxe to carie it home I finde the sacramentall breade in some old writers of credite caried in a cloth or a wicker basket but I remember not any pretie boxe For they had not such pretie cakes sixe hundreth yeres after Christ as M. Heskins imagineth the pretie boxe serued to carie them in In the superstitious Dialogues of Pope Gregorie Lib. 4. Cap. 56. we reade of two cakes called Coronae which should haue bene giuen to a poore man in almes for his seruice done in the Bathe but this supposed poore man being a ghost desiered that the same might be offered in Masse to redeeme him out of that his purgatorie Out of this fable which Gregorie rehearseth this truth is proued that the breade they saide Masse withall at that time was so great the two of these cakes wold giue a poore man his dinner at the least for two of the Popish singing cakes would haue done him small pleasure for his bodily reliefe for which at the first it was meant to be bestowed But let vs heare Tertullian who writing to his wife and dissuading her from marrying with an Infidel after his death saith thus Non sciet maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustes Et si sciuerit panem non illum credet esse qui dicitur Shall not thy husband knowe what thou doest secretely eate before all meate And if he knowe it to bee breade hee will not beleeue it to bee that breade which it is saide to bee I passe ouer howe M. Heskins hath corrupted Tertullian by false pointing howe be it he can gather nothing of this place but the superstitious receiuing of women in corners and that in time of persecution But their superstition proueth neither sole receiuing to be good much lesse priuate Masse to be lawfull That this custome was superstitious and naught M. Heskins can not deny for it was abolished by ancient councels and the Papistes them selues do not obserue it nor suffer it to be vsed else why send they not ouer their consecrated cakes to their frends as they doe their Agnus Dei their graines of the Trinitie and such other gaudes and bables But Saint Basil hee weeneth giueth a notable testimonie who writing to
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
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
whereas their is no dout but such strong wine as groweth in those countries will be preserued as long from sauoring as the bread froÌ„ moulding Like is the example of Serapion being at the point of death to whom the priest being sicke also sent by a boye the sacrament Vppon which example he vrgeth reseruation which though it be not necessarie yet is it not the matter in controuersie secondly the coÌ„munion in one kind which is false for he sent both and willed him to dippe the bread in the wine which he sent and not in any thing else as M. Rastell saith which were an absurditie that the bodie of Christe should be dipped in prophane licour or sent by a boy either if the Priest had ben so persuaded of it as Rastel would beare vs in hand that all olde fathers were That he receiued alone proueth no priuate Masse nor alloweth sole receiuing as ordinarie which was done in a case of extreame necessitie in one which was excommunicated and could not departe this life before he had receiued the sacrament The last example is the superstitious fact of Satyrus the brother of Ambrose which beeing not baptised obteined the sacrament of the Christians that were in a ship with him in daunger of shipwracke which because he might not receiue he caused it to be wrapped in Orario a linnen garment which Maister Rastell calleth a stole wrapped that linnen garment about his necke and without other helpe escaped by swimming Here M. Rastel thinketh he hath great aduauntage First that the Christians had the sacrament out of the Church As though the ship might not be their Church for that time to minister the communion in the time of that great daunger Secondly that it was in one kind except we can deuise how to wrap wine in a stole No M. Rastel this proueth not that the Christians receiued in one kinde though they had wrapped one kinde in the stole as you call it for Satyrus as yet no Christian. But why might they not either soake the bread in wine as some did in those days or else dippe a corner of that linnen cloth as some also vsed to doe and wrappe it vp in that great linnen garment And the words of Ambrose Fusum in viscera powred into his bowels wold not agree to drie bread Last of all whereas you say it was no fantastical figuratiue memorie which saued him from daunger I agree with you but it was not the sacrament that he carried whatsoeuer you will call it but his faith as S. Ambrose saith that preserued him And how soeuer it was the example of an vnbaptised mans weake and superstitious doing doeth ye but small honestie to confirme your common priuate Masse sole receiuing opinion of carnal presence or what so euer beside you can gather out of it SECTIO 39. From the 132. leafe to the second face of the 135. leafe of seruice in a straunge tongue To the Bishoppes challenge that common prayer was not in a straunge tongue within the compasse of 600. yeares after Christ he hath nothing in the worlde But onely affirmeth that Augustine the Monke brought Latine seruice into Englande whiche the people vnderstoode not whiche both is somewhat without the compasse and also onely said of him without proofe or likelyhoode He saith he made not a newe Englishe seruice or Kentish rather but vsed the Romane fashion and language Be it graunted that he brought in the Latine seruice yet how proueth he that the people did not at that time for the moste parte vnderstand the Latine tongue Seeing he could preach to them onely in Latine beeing a Romane and they also tâ—at came with him vnderstoode no parte of the English tongue as our stories doe testifie And that he planted not the Romane seruice it may appeare by the aunswere of Gregorie to his thirde demaunde of the diuersitie of the Romane Churche and the French Church in which answere he bindeth him not to the Romane Church but willeth him to choose out of all Churches what he thinketh most conuenient and profitable for the Englishe Churche And seeing the Scriptures and diuerse Homelyes and Prayers remaine still in the Saxon or old English tongue I do not see but he might haue made a newe English seruice although by reason of so many mutations troubles as happened in this land by meanes of ciuil and externe warres in the meane time Antichrist daily more and more incroching the same might growe out of vse and latine onely be reteined which perhaps at the first was but vsuall vnto monasteries or clarkes But how soeuer it was this is an inuincible argument that Augustine planted not the Romane seruice in this land bicause there were so many diuersities of customes as there were diuerse Bishops sees and al they differing from the vse of the Romane church But hauing none authoritie he hath reasons perhaps to defend latine seruice First latine seruice is as meete for Englishmen as English seruice is for WelshmeÌ„ wherwith he saith we finde no faulte wherin he lieth For the Welshmen that vnderstand not english haue their common praier in their Welshe tongue The second reason he vseth that Sainct Paule did write in greeke to the Romanes ergo the seruice must be in latine to Englishmen He saith himselfe there be many differences betweene an epistle a common forme of praiers which is verie true But will he proue therby that the Romanes had their common praiers in greeke The cause why the Apostle did write in greeke was bicause he wrote not only to the Romanes but to the whole churche vnto which the greeke tongue was more familiar then the latine and was of many vnderstoode in Rome And also because the holy Ghoste â—ad consecrated the Greekâ— tongue beeing the principall tongue of the gentiles vnto the writinges of the newe Testament auoyding to vse the Latine tongue euen to the Romanes for the mysterie of the name of Antichriste Latinos conteined in the nomber of the beastes name 666. as Irenaeus doeth testifie His thirde reason is that there be many thinges to be saide in publique praier which ought to be saide in secrete therefore an vnknowne tongue is best to vtter them His antecedent he proueth not out of scripture or any auncient authenticall writer but out of the liturgies falsely ascribed to Saint Basil and Saint Chrysostome and yet the argument hath no consequence in the world for then those prayers in the Latine seruice to the Romanes shoulde bee in an vnknowen tongue and all the rest in a knowne tongue to euerie nation Finally where he saith there needeth no diuersitie of seruice according to the diuersitie of languages he speaketh directly contrarye to the decree of the councell of Laterane cap. 9. which commanded the bishoppes to prouide that the sacraments and other diuine seruice should be ministred to all people in their diocesse according to the diuersitie of their languages and customes By which it is
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
And your Authour saith he dranke none other bloud but that he powred vpon them Here is also alledged Chrysostomes name for Christes drinking of his bloud but his wordes are referred to another place Then followeth a conclusion If Christ drank his owne bloud he drank it spiritually or corporally spiritually he could not wherfore he dranke it corporally This is very round dealing M. Heskins But if he could drinke his bloud I pray you why could he not drinke it spiritually as well rather then corporally For if he dranke his owne bloud he also did eate his owne body which if it sound not grossely in your eares it is because you haue a grosse vnderstanding In this Chapter two Lordes of the Parleament beeing required of their iudgment haue giuen their voices both directly against his bill for the carnall presence The seuenteenth Chapter proceedeth in the same matter by S. Cyprian and Euthymius Maister Heskins in his Epistles and prefaces promiseth great sinceritie and euery where obiecteth impudencie and insinceritie against the proclaymer and his complices But see what sinceritie he vseth that matcheth Euthymius scarse worthy to be a burgesse of the lower house â—ith Cyprian one of the most auncient Barons of the vpper house And yet afterward he him selfe placeth him in the lower house that is among the writers within the compasse of nine hundreth yeres Wheras the higher house consisteth of them that writ within 600. yeares after Christ as the Bishop whom he tearmeth the proclaymer maketh his challenge And certeinely Euthymius was neuer accounted for a Lord of the parleament before he was called thereto by Maister Heskins writte which of what force it is to make a Baron let the readers iudge For he liued about the yeare of our Lord 1170. Notwithstanding we will examine his voyce as it commeth in order But we must first consider the voyce of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage Which is this The supper therefore being ordered among the sacramentall meates there mette together the newe ordinances and the olde And when the lambe was consumed or eatâ—n which the olde tradition did set foorth the maister did set before his disciples the inconsumptible meatâ— Neither are the people now bidden to feastes painefully wrought with expenses and cunning but the foode of immortalitie is giuen differing from common meates reteyning the kind of appearance of corporall substaÌ„ce but prouing by inuisible efficiencie the presence of Gods power or the diuine vertue to be there In this saying First there is neuer a worde to proue that the Pascall Lambe was a figure of the Lordes supper which is the purpose of the Chapter but onely that the newe institution succeeded the olde which is manifest by the history of the Gospell Euen as Baptisme succeded circumcision and yet was not circumcision a figure of Baptisme Secondly note that he doeth not affirme the reall presence of Christes naturall bodie but the inuisible working of his diuine power And so his voyce is flatly againg Maister Heskins bill Nowe let vs consider his fonde collections First that Christ gaue inconsumptible meate the sacramentaries giue consumptible meate For they giue but bread This is a false slaunder a thousand times repeated for they giue not bread only but euen the same inconsumptible meate by the inuisible working of his diuine power which Cyprian affirmeth that Christe gaue his Disciples But he vrgeth That it was put before them taken by hande laid in sight which the merite and grace of his passion could not be See I pray you how this man agreeth with Cyprian Cyprian saith it was by inuisible working of Gods fauour he saith it was put before them for so he translateth apponit taken by hand and laide in sight His second collection is That it differeth from common meates reteining the fourme of corporall substaunce whiche can neither be the breade which differeth not from common meates nor the spirituall meate which they call the merite of his passion because that reteineth not the fourme of corporall substance A wise reason disioyning and seuering thinges that should bee taken together The water in baptisme differeth from common water and conteyning the fourme of corporall substance by inuisible working proueth the presence of Gods power to be there So doeth the bread and wine in the Lordes Supper Which although of them selues they be no more holy then other creatures yet when they are consecrated for the vse of the sacrament they differ as muche from common meates as the bodie and the soule doe as temporall life and eternall life as heauen and earth doe differ so doeth the water consecrated for baptisme differ from common water His third collection that it is called The foode of immortalitie which cannot be bare materiall bread A true collection for the sacrament is not bare material bread but the body and bloud of Christ represented by materiall bread as a materiall lauer is the water of regeneration but not bare materiall water For confirmation is brought in Ignatius ex Ep. ad Ephe. Be ye taught of the comforter obedience to the Bishop and the priest with vnswaruing or stable minde breaking the bread which is the medicine of immortalitie the preseruatiue of not dying but of liuing by Iesus Christ. Although no learned man that is not more wilfull then wise will graunt this Epistle to be written by that auncient father Ignatius whose name it beareth yet doth this saying coÌ„tein nothing but very sound doctrine of the sacrament which he calleth bread that iâ— broken to be the medicine of immortalitie M. Heskins vrgeth as before that it can non be bare bread which hath such effects Which I graunt willingly but I reply vpon him that it cannot be the naturall body of Christ which he exhorteth them to breake For Christes body is not broken but the sacramentall bread to signifie the breaking and participation of his body But he proceedeth to another speech of Cyprian which is in deede a more apparant speeche for his purpose the wordes are these Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effâ—gie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro Et fiout in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebaâ— diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter se diuina infudie essentia This bread which our Lorde did reache vnto his disciples beeing chaunged not in shape but in nature by omnipotencie of the worde is made fleshe And as in the person of CHRISTE the humanitie was seene the diuinitie was hidden euen so the diuine essence hath powred it selfe vnspeakably into the visible sacrament The Papistes esteeme this place to be an inuincible bulwarke of their transubstantiation but alas it is soone ouerthrowne when the meaning of Cyprian is boulted out not onely by sentences going before and after this saying but also by the very wordes of this same sentence For he maketh a manifest difference betweene the visible sacrament and the diuine essence which
is inuisible Whereas the Papistes by their transubstantiation haue no visible sacrament but onely accidents of breade and wine which they nor none other can call a visible sacrament Moreouer the word diuine essence answering to the word flesh in the former sentence plainely expoundeth what he meaneth thereby namely the diuine power which the flesh of Christ hath to giue life and not the diuine nature or substance as M. Heskins translateth it and much lesse Christ God and Man as he expoundeth it For if we take the diuine essence for the diuine substaunce of Christes Godhead it will bee a grosse absurditie and a blasphemous heresie to make any infusion or powring of that into the visible sacrament which filleth all places Wherefore of necessitie it signifieth the propertie or efficacie euen as the worde nature in the former clause doth signifie For the former shape of the breade is not chaunged but the nature or propertie is altered namely to feede the soule and not the body only as before it was made a sacrament it serued to do But M. Hesk. liketh not this glose but wil haue nature to signifie substance and not propertie as it doth very often as when we say the nature of hearbs of stones of beastes we meane the properties But whether he will or no it must be so taken seing it may be so taken or else Cyprian should be contrarie to him selfe who distinguisheth the visible sacrament from the diuine essence who calleth that diuine essence a word more vsuall for substance which is but diuine efficacie or propertie who if he had meant that the bread had bene turned into the naturall body of Christe wold neither haue coÌ„pared it with the diuinitie of Christ hid vnder his humanitie nor haue said euen so the diuine essens infundeth it selfe in the sacrament but euen so the bodie of Christ is hid vnder the formes of bread wine But that there should be no doubt of his meaning thus he writeth in the same sermon a litle after Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syncera panem sanctum franginus partimur As often as we do these thinges we doe not sharpen our teeth to byte but with a sincere faith we breake and diuide this holy breade What can be more plaine to expresse the meaning of this doctour then that wee receiue not the body of Christe with our mouth but with our heart not with the instrument of our teeth but with the instrument of our faith In the same Sermon hee writeth Panis est esca sanguis vita caro substantia corpus Ecclesia Corpus propter membrorum in vnum conuenientium panis propter nutrimenti congruentiam sanguis propter vinificationis efficientiam caro propter assumptae humanitatis proprietatem The breade is foode bloud life flesh substaunce his body the Church his body for the agreement of the members in one bread for the aptnes of nourishment bloud for the efficiencie of quickening flesh for the propertie of his humanitie that he tooke on him These places do sufficiently expound the meaning of Cyprian howe the breade is chaunged into flesh not after any change of substance but of qualitie and propertie as in so many figuratiue termes is more theÌ„ manifest Let vs nowe come to Euthymius aduaunced by Maister Heskins into the higher house And he in deede seemeth to affirme the purpose of this Chapter that the Paschall lambe was a figure of the sacrament and yet not very plainely but rather it was a figure of the true Passeouer which the sacrament doth represent but that is no materiall point of our controuersie whether one sacrament did figure an other his wordes are Christe in the same table described the figuratiue and shadowing Passeouer and set before them the true and perfect Passeouer Herevpon hee inferreth that Christe was not truely and perfectly giuen to the Iewes in the Paschall Lambe as we teach but onely a figure and signe of him but in the sacrament he is giuen to vs truely and perfectly that is by a true and reall presence But it is pitie that hee seeth not that his authour compareth the thing signified by our sacrament with the outward signe of the Iewish sacrament as also the scripture doth oftentimes against them that depended vpon the outward ceremonies Not that a false or vnperfect Christ was figured and receiued of the faithfull by them but to shewe a difference betweene the shadowe and the trueth the figure and the thing figured when the Iewes so sticked in the figure that they considered not the thing signified The other place which was alledged out of Euthymius bicause hee referreth the handling of it vnto the second booke thether also will I referre the aunswere In the meane time it is a childish insultation that hee makes against the proclamer noting that hee hath found a plaine place for Maister Iewell when neither the place is so plaine nor the Authour within the compasse of his challenge The eighteenth Chapter treateth of the same matters by S. Hieronyme and Chrysostome In this Chapter Hieronyme is first brought foorth In Matth. 26. in these wordes After the figuratiue Passeouer was fulfilled and he had eaten the flesh of the Lambe with his Apostles hee taketh breade which comforteth the heart of man and passeth to the true sacrament of the Passeouer that as in prefiguration of him Melchisedech the Priest of the highest GOD had done offering breade and wine hee also might represent the trueth of his body and bloud Here Hieronyme doeth not affirme the Passeouer to bee a figure of the sacrament but of Christe the true Passeouer Calling the supper a true sacrament of that true and prefigured Passeouer Which wordes would bee noted that hee calleth the breade a true sacrament that is a liuely signe of the verie Passeouer Christ and a representation of the trueth of his body and bloud But here Maister Heskins fareth as hee were halfe madde sending vs to the Vocabularies Calepines and Dictionaries for the signification of this worde repreâ—ento That among learned men it is not so streighted as onely to signifie to shewe a thing by a figure or signe And therevpon we will not striue but that it is often taken to shewe by a figure or signe hee him selfe can not denie and that it must be so taken here in this place appeareth by this reason The comparison will not else stand betweene Melchisedech and Christe which all though it bee not grounded on scripture Hierome often maketh except Christe offered breade and wine in a figure or representation as Melchisedech did in a prefiguration M. Heskins enforceth the word Truth that he should not meane a figure for then he would haue saide as he imagineth that he also must represent his body and bloud and not that he also might represent the truth of his body But if you marke the force of this word quoque also you shall see that Melchisedech did
prefigurate the truth of his body likewise For it importeth an equalitie of both their doings Melchisedech by breade and wine did represent or prefigurate the truth of his body and Christ also by breade and wine did represent the truth of his body For Christ could not doe also that which an other had not done Therefore very foolish are M. Heskins oppositions of typicall passeouer and true passeouer and figure and truth where the argument is a consentaneis and not a dissentaneis The other friuolous interpretation that he maketh of the bread comforting mans heart being both out of the minde of Hieronyme and out of his purpose I omit At length hee commeth to an other place of Hieronyme ad Heliodorum Ep. 1. Absit vt de ijs quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt God forbid that I shuld speake any euil of thē which succeeding the apostolike degree doe make the body of Christ with their holy mouth M. Heskins translateth it which do consecrate bicause in the word make which Hieronyme vseth hee should be enforced to acknowledge a figuratiue speach But let him turne ouer all his vocabularies Calepines and dictionaries vnto which he sent vs ere while and he shall not finde this Verbe conficio signifying to consecrate but to make to dispatch or to kill Likewise he leaueth out these wordes which folowe immediatly Per quos nos Christiani sumus by whome wee also are Christians It is euident that Hieronyme speaketh hyperbolically of the dignitie of priestes for as to speake properly we are not made Christians by them no more is the bodie of Christ made by them But where he speaketh properly he vseth proper tearmes as Contra Iouin lib. 2. In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum In the figure of his bloud he offered not water but wine Here he calleth the sacrament the type of his bloude and saith it is wine And in the same booke he saith of Christ that although it be written of him that he hungred and thristed and went often to diner yet excepto mysterio quod in typum suae passionis expressit probandi corporis veritate nec gulae scribitur seruisse nec ventri Excepting the mysterie whiche he expressed in figure of his passion and in prouing the trueth of his bodie it is not written that he did serue his throte or bellie Meaning that it is not saide expressedly what he did eate and drinke but onely a◠his last supper and after his resurrection to proue the trueth of his body The other collection that hee maketh that because priestes doe consecrate with their mouthe therefore the faith of the receiuer maketh not the presence of Christ in the sacrament beside that it is not Hieronymes word yet it proueth nothing because as there be causes that worke altogether alone so there be causes which be helping and concurre with other of which sorte is the faith of the receiuer necessarilie to conceyue with the ministerie of the Minister that Christ may bee present That Christian Priestes should not be contemned if they be good it is easily graunted if they be naught the ministerie is to bee honoured but not the person Out of Chrysostom are alledged two long testimonies the one out of his homilies de prodit Iudae But by that also an other greater benefit was shewed that that lamb was a signe of the lambe to come and that bloude shewed the comming of the Lordes bloude and that sheepe was an example of the spirituall sheepe That lambe was a shadowe this lambe the trueth But after the sunne of righteousnesse shined the shadowe was put away by the light And therefore on the same table both the passeouers were celebrated both that of the figure and that of the trueth For as painters are wont to shadowe the table that is to be painted with certayne lineamentes and so with varietie of colours to make it perfecte Euen so Christ did in the table Hee did both describe the figure of the Passeouer and shewed the passeouer of trueth Where wilt thou that wee prepare for thee to eate the passouer That was the Iewish passouer but let the passouer giue place to the light and the image be ouercome of the trueth If this place be well considered it maketh altogether against the Bill of transubstantiation For the similitude of the Painters Table hauing in it shadowes and colors applyed vnto the pascal lambe and the sacrament declareth that they both together make a perfect image to shew and represent the true lambe Christ which was offered for vs the olde pascall being the shadowing the new sacramēt which he calleth also a passouer being the varietie of colors by which the passouer of trueth is discribed and plainely shewed Therfore M. Heskins collections are vaine and from the authors meaning For his purpose is not to make the pascall lamb a figure of the sacramēt but of christ and both the lamb the sacrament figures of Christ but yet the lambe a shadowing figure like the first draught of a painter the sacrament a cleare demonstration like an image in colors It is therfore verie babish that he groūdeth vpon the word of the Passeouer shewed in the table that the bodie of Christ was really present on the table in the sacrament wheras it is plain that Chrysostom speaketh of shewing by signes as by colours an image is set forth in a painted table As childish it is that he will oppresse the proclamer to tell him why Hierome and Chrisostom call not the Iewish pascal light trueth veritie as they doe our pascall seeing by it they receiued Christ◠as well as wee in our sacramente A sore matter The Iewishe pascall represented if I may vse that tearme vnder correction of M. Heskins dictionarie the true pascal Christ as our sacrament doeth who is the light trueth and veritie the sacramente they call not the pascall lambe light nor trueth but by a figure as they call it manye other thinges But when they speake properlie they vse other tearmes so doth Chrysostome Homi. Ex. Psal. 22. 116. Sapientia ędificauit sibi Domum supposuit columnas septem parauit mensam suam misit seruos suos conuocans omnes dicens venite edite de panibus meis bibite vinum quod miscui vobis quia istam mensam preparauit seruis ancillis in conspectu eorum vt quotidie in similitudinem corporis sanguinis Christi panem vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sacramento ideo dicit parasti in conspectu meo mensam aduersus eos qui tribulant me Wisedome hath builded hir an house shee hath set vnder seauen pillers shee hath prepared hir table shee hath sent foorth her seruantes calling all men to hir and saying come and eate of my breade and drinke of the wine that I haue powred foorth for you and because
she hath prepared this table for hir seruauntes and maides in the sight of them that she might dayly shew vs in the sacrament after the order of Melchisedech breade and wine in similitude of the bodie and bloude of Christe therefore she saith thou hast prepared a table in my sight againste them that trouble mee What Papistes holding transubstantiation would thus write that breade and wine is shewed in the Sacrament in the similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ The seconde testimonie that M. Heskins alleageth out of Chrisostome is vpon the 1. Cor. 10. This table is the strength of our soule the sinewes of our minde the bonde of our trust our foundation hope healpe light our life if we depart hence defended with this sacrifice with most greate confidence wee shall ascende into the holy entrie as couered with certaine golden garmentes But what speake I of thinges to come For while wee be in this life this mysterie maketh earth to be heauen vnto vs Ascende vnto the gates of heauen marke diligently or rather not of heaueÌ„ but of heauen of heauens theÌ„ thou shalt behold that we say For that which is worthy of highest honor I will shew thee in earth For as in kings houses not the walles not the golden roofe but the kinges body sitting in the throne is most excellent so also in heauen the kinges body which nowe is set foorth to be seene of thee in earthe I shewe thee neither Angels nor Archangels nor the heauens nor the heauens of heauens but the Lorde himselfe of all these thinges Thou perceiuest how that which is greatest and cheifest of all things thou doest not onely see it on earth but also touche it and not onely touch it but eate also and when thou haste receiued it returnest home wherefore wipe thy soule from all filthinesse prepare thy minde to the receyuing of these mysteries For if the Kinges childe being decked with purple and diademe were deliuered to thee to bee carried wouldest thou not cast all downe to the grounde and receiue him But nowe when thou receiuest not the childe of a kinge beeing a man but the onely begotten sonne of God tell mee I praye thee doest thou not tremble and caste awaye the loue of all seculer thinges This testimonie so necessarily muste bee vnderstood of a figuratiue and spirituall receyuing of Christe by faith that nothing in the worlde can bee more plaine For euen as earth is made heauen vnto vs so is Christe made present And euen as wee see the Lorde vppon earth so we handle and eate him and that is onely with the eye hand and mouth of faith But let vs see M. Heskins collections First hee is enforced to confesse that the sentence beginneth with a figure The table for the meate therevppon Secondely hauing such honourable tearmes it can not bee a peece of breade but Christe himselfe This shall bee graunted also Thirdly that Christe is verily on the table which he calleth Altars As verilie as earth is made heauen Fourthly that it is Christ whiche is worthie of highest honour verily present in the Sacramente As verily present as hee is seene but hee is seene onely by faith therefore present onely to faith But this obiection hee taketh vppon him to aunswere If we saye the bodie of Christ can not be sene in the sacrament No more saith he can the substance of man be seene but his garmentes or outward formes accidentes This is such a boyish sophisme as I am ashamed to aunswere it By which I maye as well proue that Christes body was neuer seene and therefore not seene in the sacrament contrarie to that whiche Chrysostome saith FroÌ„ this obiection he falleth into an other that if christ in the Sacrament be worthie all honour then of sacrifice also and the sacrifice being Christ Christ shal be offered to him selfe This he calleth an ignorant obiection But there is more knowledge in it then he hath witt to answere He alledgeth the words of Augustine lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 14. Christ abideth one with him to whome he offereth and maketh him selfe one with them for whom he offereth himself and is one with them that offer one with that which is offered Here are diuerse kindes of vnitie and yet not Christ offered vnto him selfe vnlesse M. Heskins will be a Sabellian and a Patripassian to confound the persons of the Godhead and say that God the father yea the whole Trinitie is likewise transubstantiated in the Sacrament Though Christe be one with his father yet did he not offer him selfe to him selfe but himselfe to his father As for the other saying of Augustine that he bringeth it is altogether against him De ciuitate Dei. lib. 10. c. 20. He is the Priest him selfe he is the offerer he is the oblation whereof he would haue the daily sacrifice of the Church to be a sacrament seeing that of her bodie he is the head and of his head shee is the bodie as well shee by him as he by her being accustomed to be offered First Christ is the offerer and the oblation but not he to whome it is made Secondly that which he calleth the sacrifice of the Church is a sacrament that is a holie memoriall of that propitiatorie saâ—â—â—fice which he offered Thirdly this sacrifice of the Church is of the Churche her selfe offered by Christ and of Christe offered by the Church which must needes be spirituall as the coniunction of Christ and his Church is spirituall therefore it is not the natural bodie of Christ offered by the priest but his mystical bodie offered by the Church by himselfe and so a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation After these obiections he returneth to his collections out of the authoritie of Chrysostome There neede no such preparation nor trembling if the Sacrament were but a peece of bread He hath neuer done with this slaunder as though any Christian man did saye it was but a peece of bread which Christe vouchsafed to call his bodie Wee saye truely it is bread but wee say not it is but a peece of bread The ninteenth Chapter continueth the proofe of the same matter by S. Augustine S. Cyrill M. Heskins promiseth in his Epistle and gloryeth often in his worke that he doth not alledge the doctors wordes truncately by peece meale as heretikes do But you shal see how well he handleth him selfe He would haue S. Augustine speake for his bil and alledgeth his words out of his worke contrae literas Petiliani quoting neither what booke nor what Chapter of the same by which it seemeth that either he red not the place him self out of Augustine but receiued it of some gatherer or else hee would cloake his vnhonest dealing Hee citeth it thus Aliud est Pascha quod adhuc Iudaei celebrant de Oue Aliud auteÌ„ quod nos in corpore sanguine domini celebranus It is another Passouer that the Iewes do yet
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
in the sacrament In Psal. 98. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quo fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendani spiritualiter intellectum vinâ—ficabit vor You shal not eate this body whiche you see nor drinke the bloude whiche they shall shedde that shall crucifie me I haue commended to you a certeine sacrament which beeing spiritually vnderstoode shall quicken you What can be saide more plainely The seconde witnesse shall be Chrysostome In Matth. Homil. 11. Si enim vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus transferre peccatum est periculum sicut docet nos Balthasar qui bibens in calicibus sacratis de regno depositus est de vita Si ergo haec vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus transferre sic periculosum est in quibus non est verum Corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur quanto magis vasa corporis nostri quae sibi deus ad habitaculum preparauit non debemus locum dare diabolo agendi in eis quod vult For if it be an offence to translate the sanctified vessels into priuate vses and a daunger as Balthasar doth teach vs who drinking in the hallowed cups was put out both of his kingdome and his life therfore if it be so daungerous to transferre vnto priuate vses those sanctified vessels in which not the very body of Christ but the mysterie of the body of Christ is conteyned howe much more the vessels of our body which God hath prepared to be a dwelling place for him selfe ought we not to yeld to the diuil to do in them what hee will. The third shall bee out of the Popes owne Cannon lawe which M. Heskins may not refuse for good euidence and it is gathered out of Augustine De con dist 2. Cap. Hoc est Sicut caelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile quod mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio sic sacramentum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As that heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a certaine maner of it is called the body of Christ wheras in very deed it is but the sacrament of the body of Christ namely of that body which is visible which is palpable which when it was mortall was fastned to the crosse and the same offering of the flesh of Christe which is done by the Priestes handes is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstoode to bee baptisme is faith Nowe let this issue bee tryed according to this euidence by any lawful and indifrent men of the countrie and I doubt not but they will finde Maister Heskins charged by his bond to yeelde and recant But to conclude this Chapter Maister Heskins will needes haue two manner of presences as well as the sacramentaries spirituall and corporall the spirituall he graunteth to the worthy receiuer and the corporal also the corporall only is left to the wicked Wherevpon I would desire the Christian reader to consider what hard holde the Papistes keepe for the corporall presence which is no benefite to the faithfull but according to their doctrine common to the wicked and howe proudly they deride and contemne the spirituall presence wherein yet consisteth all the comfort of the godly which they them selues can not denie Vndoubtedly this quarrell for the corporall presence hath a corporall respect to abuse the superstitious minds of carnall men to their carnall commoditie and not to seeke spirituall recreation of the inward man which is throughly satisfied with the spirituall presence by faith The two and twentieth Chapter beginneth the application of the shewe breade to the sacrament as of the figure to the veritie by S. Hierome and Damascen The figures of Manna and the waters he reiecteth into the third booke and nowe will treate of the figure of the shewe breade And this bread he will haue to be a figure of the body of Christ in the sacrament Wherein the matter is not worth the strife so we remember that the sacraments of the old law were not bare figures but the same in substaunce and vertue that ours are as we shewed before out of Augustine and that they were not bare figures of our sacraments but of the things wherof our sacraments are effectuall signes Although ours more cleare as of thinges already exhibited and theirs were of thinges to come And therefore the olde writers Origen Ambrose and Oecumenius also affirme that the Fathers in the sacraments had the shadowe we the image and both of vs shall haue the truth in one countrie Orig. in Ps. 38. Amb. 4. Offi. Chap. 48. Oec in 10. Heb. The like comparison we had before of the shadowe and image out of Chrysostome and Euthymius that borrowed it of him But how friuolous the comparisons be that M. Heskins maketh betweene the shewe breade and the sacrament to proue the one to be a figure of the other bicause it was set on the table neuer fayled was a bread of remembrance was our offering might not be eaten of any defiled person I will declare by as many differences The shewe bread was 12. cakes in number so is not the sacrament had frankincenses set vpon it and burned so hath not the sacrament was remoued euery Sabbath so is not the sacrament must of necessitie remaine a whole weeke so must not the sacrament might not be eaten of any but only the Priestes the sacrament must be eaten of al men might not be eaten of the Priestes vntill it was a seuen nights olde so is not the sacrament Where note I pray you the synceritie of M. Heskins that rehearsing the text out of 24. of Leuit. leaueth out the putting of incence vppon the two rowes bicause he could not applie it to his Masse cakes But to the place of Hieronyme In cap. 1. ad Tit. If Lay men be commaunded to abstaine from the companie of their wiues for prayer what is to be thought of a Bishop which daily must offer undefiled sacrifices for his owne and the peoples sinnes Let vs read the booke of Kings and we shall finde that Abimelech the Prieste would not giue Dauid and his seruants of the shewe bread before he asked whether the seruants were cleane from a woman not from a straunge woman but from their wiues and except he had heard that yesterday and the day before they had abstained from the worke of marriage he had not graunted them the bread which before he had denyed There is as great difference betweene the shewe breade and the bodye of
is Clemens Ep. 2. The sacraments of Gods secretes are committed to three degrees to the priest the Deacon and the minister which with feare and trembling ought to keepe the leauings of the peeces of the Lordes bodie that no rottennes be found in the holie place lest when the thing is done negligently great iniurie be done to the portion of the Lordes bodie By this place M. Heskins will needes proue reseruation and the carnall presence but neither of both will fall out of his side although the authoritie of the Epistle is not worth a strawe beeing a counterfet decretall ascribed to Clemens neither in true latine nor good sense And first for the carnall presence note how he sayeth the remnantes of the peeces and portions of the Lords bodie and so he doth often in this Epistle meaning the crommes of the sacramentall bread which was consecrated to bee the bodie of christ For Christes naturall bodie cannot be broken into leauings fragments and portions which be the termes he vseth Nowe touching the reseruation he meaneth no keeping but of these crommes which hee calleth leauings fragments and portions and no keeping of them but from mouldinesse or rottennesse that is that they should be spent while they are good and not kepte while they stinke as the Papistes doe not the fragments but their whole Masse cakes sometimes For touching the sacrament it selfe he writeth by and by after Tanta in altario holocausta offerantur quanta populo sufficere debens Quod si remanserint in Crastinum non reseruentur sed cum timore tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur Let so great sacrifices bee offered on the altar as may suffice all the people But if any be left let them not be kept vntill the next day but with feare and trembling let them bee spent by the diligence of the Clerkes This beeing most manifest against reseruation Master Heskins is not ashamed to racke it to stande with reseruation And first he asketh the aduersarie whether hee thinketh that Saint Clement was a foole to denye that hee sayed before No verily but I think him to be no wise man that either taketh this Epistle to bee written by Clement the first bishop of Rome or so vnderstandeth it that he woulde make him contrarie to him selfe And I thinke he that did forge this Epistle vnder Saint Clements name was not onely a doltish foole but also an impudent falsarie to make that auncient Clemens to write to the Apostle Saint Iames of such bables as those be and that followe in the Epistle which if they were of weight yet the Apostle was not to learne them of Clemens but Clemens of him But concerning the keeping that he speaketh of he writeth yet more plainlye Non eijcientes foras è sacrario velamina not shaking abroad out of the holy place or vestrie the couering of the Lords table lest peraduenture the dust of the Lordes bodie shoulde fall a misse from the linnen cloth beeing washed abroade and this should be sinne to him that doth it Lo sir before wee had reliques fragments and portions nowe wee haue the dust of the Lords body What dust is this but small crommes But he goeth on and that Saint Iames might the better looke to those matters he sayeth Iterum atque iterum de fragmentis dominicâ— corporis demandamus Againe and againe wee giue charge concerning the fragments of the Lordes bodie And finally he concludeth in fine Latine and cleanly termes A principio Epistolae vsque ad hunc locum de sacramentis delegaui bene intuendis vbi non murium stercora inter fragmenta dominicae portionis appareant neque putrida per negligentiam remaneant clericorum From the beginning of the Epistle vnto this place I haue giuen charge concerning the sacraments to be well looked vpon where no Mise tordes may be seene among the fragments of the Lordeâ— portion nor they remaine rotten through the negligence of the Clerkes You see this man would haue the sacrament spent taketh thought that the crommes both small and great be not cast away nor kept vntill they be rotten nor suffered to be eaten of Mise nor defyled with their doung but he is vtterly against popish reseruation The next is Irenaeus who in his Epistle in which he doth sharply rebuke Victor bishop of Rome for excommunicating the Bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter sayth That they were neuer for that matter driuen from the fellowship of the Church or comming from those partes were not receiued but rather all the elders or Bishops that were before them did alwayes solemnely send the sacrament of Eucharistie to all the bishops or elders of those Churches that did not so obserue it M. Heskins imagineth that the Bishops of Rome did sende the sacrament into all partes of the worlde to all bishops elders of euerie Church which if he did hee had neede of many messengers But the matter is plaine ynough If any of those bishops or elders came to Rome they were louingly receiued of Victors predecessours and at the time of the Communion the bishop would send the sacrament to them by the deacons as well as to any of the citizens that were of his owne Church Here is no shadowe of reseruation but M. Heskins absurde imagination Tertullian followeth Irenaeus writing to his wife lib. 2. An arbitrare ô vxor ita gesturam te vt clam viro sint qua facis Non sciet ille quid secreto ante omne cibum gustes si sciuerie non partem illum credit esse qui dicitur Doest thou thinke ô wife so to handle thy selfe that these things that thou doest shal be vnknowen to thy husbande shall not he knowe what before all meates thou doest secretely receiue and if hee shall knowe it he beleeueth it not to be that bread that it is saide to be Thus M. Heskins hath set downe the wordes both in Latine and Englishe But wheresoeuer he had the former question â–ª An arâ—itrare ô vxor ita gesturam te vt clam viro sint quae facto He had it not of Tertullian for hee hath no such wordes in that booke but onely Non sciet maritus c. shall not thy husbande knowe c. By which it is playne that he neuer read this place in Tertullian himself but only borrowed it out of some other papist that alledged it for this purpose belike gathered the former question not as Tertullians wordes but out of his meaning which Maister Heskins not vnderstanding very ridiculously hath set down as the words of Tertullian These be the Popishe doctours that boast of their great reading when they reade but patches out of other mens notes and collections But to the matter Although it may seeme this corruption to haue entred into the African Churches that the people carried home the sacramentall bread and did eate it daily before all other meates yet this is nothing like vnto the Popish reseruation in the
any part vntill the next moâ—ning therefore he saith in Leuit. 7. Ho. 5. Nam Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat dicebat eis accipite manducate non distulit nec seruari iussit in erastiâ—um For that bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples and said vnto them take ye eate ye he deferred not neither commanded it to be reserued vntill the next day By which wordes it is manifest that as he disallowed the reseruation so was it not in vse in the East Church in his time And that M. Heskins may be snarled in his owne coarde he must call to minde what paines he tooke to proue the Pascall Lambe to be a figure of this sacrament and how earnestly he vrgeth that the trueth must answere the figure in all things iustly inso much that he alledgeth this text that not a iote or apricke of the law shall passe vntill all be fulfilled Nowe of the Pascal lambe there was an expresse coÌ„mandement that no part of it should be reserued vntill the next day therfore by his owne figures textes manner of reasoning I conclude that the sacrament may not be reserued at all The fiue and twentith Chapter proueth the same by Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time For Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time then sixe hundreth yeares after Christ we doe not admit their authoritie But M. Heskins promising Counsells beginneth with the institution of Iustinian That Monasteries of Virgines should haue libertie to choose a Priest which should bring vnto them the holy Communion Herevpon he will build reseruation for they did not celebrate to them saith he but they brought it As though he that bringeth the worde of God to theÌ„ doth not preach before them but bringeth a Sermon in his bosome But for as much as that decree speaketh not onely of a Priest but also of a Deacon I can be content to thinke that he brought the sacrament with him and did not consecrate there but what maketh this for reseruation to the vse of adoration which is the matter in question â–ª Or else for an ordinarie custome of reseruation if the sacrament were brought from the next Church where and when it was celebrated to the Monasterie not to be hanged vp in a cannopie but to be receiued presently But it is a proper reason that M. Heskins vseth for may be reserued for a short time why not for a long time For answere of this I will referre him to his owne Popish decrees that forbid such reseruation for feare of putrifaction and rottennesse At last commeth the Counsels of Wormes and Remes in which times it is certaine that great corruptions preuailed in the church then followeth the Counsell of Laterane commended for generall held Anno. 1215. speaking of the diligent reseruation of the sacrament with much adoe about the authoritie of Counsels But all not worth a rush The generall Counsell of Laterane falsified the text of scripture tract to both in wordes and sense alledging it thus in their second Canon or Chapter against Ioachim Abbas Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus that which the father hath giuen me is greater then all Whereas the trueth of the text is the father which hath giueÌ„ them to me is greter then all A wise and worshipfull Counsel that can not confute an errour but by falsifying of the scripture And this is the Counsell that first decreed transubstantiation Last of all commeth the Counsel of Trent in our days and that not so vainely alledgeth of The age of the Nicen Counsell to haue acknowledged reseruation as M. Heskins impudently affirmeth therevpon that The Nicen Counsell did agâ—â—se reseruation Next he iangleth of the authoritie of the Church as though what so euer the synagogue of Antichrist doth affirme were the difinition of the Church of christ And in the end he ioyneth an other issue with the proclamer That if he can bring any plaine scripture catholique doctour or counsel that by expresse wordes forbiddeth reseruation he will subscribe For scripture the institution do ye this in remembrance of me proueth the sacrament to be an action and not a name of a thing that may be reserued for euery action is in mouing Secondly all Catholique doctours in a manner and all Counsels generall and prouinciall that speake of this sacrament call it Eucharistia whiche is a giuing of thankes which name can not be rightly applyed to the bread and wine only but to the whole vse of them according to Christes institution Thirdly the expresse decree of Clemens his owne Doctour is against reseruation alledged in the Chapter next before Fourthly Origen in Leuit. Chap. 7. Hom. 6. the place also cyted in the latter end of the 24. Chapter The sixe and twentith Chapter answereth the cheefe obiection of the aduerâ—aries Our cheefe argument hee saith against the reseruation and our very Achilles against all other rites vsed in the sacraments is that in the institution thereof there is no mention made of reseruation But there he belyeth vs For we say it is directly against the commaundement of the institution take and eate and do this in remembrance of me I would aske this question of him Was it lawfull for the Apostles to haue reserued it when Christ coÌ„manded it to be eaten If he say no let him shewe me why it is more lawfull nowe to reserue it then it was then seeing we haue the same commaundement continued doe this in remembrance of me that is take and eate it Moreouer we say it is cleane contrarie to the end and forme of the sacrament that it should be reserued and caried about to be worshipped For it is spirituall meate whose end vse and fruit is in eating not in keeping and carying about or worshipping But nowe let vs see Maister Heskins profound Diuinitie in solution of our argument There be three manner of doings as concerning the scripture One is to do so much as the scripture biddeth An other to do against that the scripture biddeth The third to do something besides that the scripture biddeth Concerning the first hee saith that As Christ tooke breade and wine made it his body and bloud commaunded it to be eaten and dronken in remembrance of him so he that taketh bread and wine and doth consecrate it eat it and drinke it in remembraunce of his death c. doth as much as the scripture biddeth him and is blamelesse in this respect This is true and all this doe we in our Church therefore are we blamelesse by his owne conclusion But they that being commaunded to eate and minister to bee eaten doe not eate it nor giue it to be eaten but keepe it and hang it vp doe manifestly breake this commaundement and so doe the Papisteâ— For they doe against that the scripture biddeth And whereas he alledgeth the sixt Counsell of Constantinople reprouing the Armenians for ministring with wine without water it seemeth that both
twentieth Chapter beginneth to speake of the Prophesies and first of the prophesie of the priesthood of Christe after the order of Melchizedech The one halfe of this Chapter is consumed in citing of textes to proue that Christe is a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and at length hee deuideth the Priestes office into two partes teaching and sacrificing Then he affirmeth that Christ was not a Priest after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchizedech Yet in the ende of the Chapter like a blasphemous dogge hee sayeth that Christ executed his priesthood after the order of Aaron vppon the Crosse. Where beside his blasphemie note how hee agreeth with him selfe But Christ he sayeth it called a Priest after the order of Melchizedech for the manner of his sacrifice which maketh the difference betweene the order of Aaron and the order of Melchizedech For Aaron offered in bloud the other in bread and wine The Apostle to the Hebrues obseruing many differences could not finde this But M. Heskins aunswereth that the cause why the Apostle did leaue out this manner of sacrifice was for that his principall purpose was to shewe the excellencie of Christ and his priesthood aboue Aaron and his priesthood which could not bee by shewing that he sacrificed breade and wine for the Iewes sacrifices were more glorious then bread and wine By this wise reason he giueth vs to deeme that the Apostle of subtiltie suppressed this comparison because they were weake as though they knewe not what the sacramentes of the Church were But if Christe sacrificed his bodie and bloud twise he could not better haue shewed his excellencie aboue Aaron then in declaring that Christe did not onely offer him self in bloud on the Crosse but also in bread wine after the example of Melchizedech For if offering of sacrifice were one of the chiefe partes of a Priestes office and breade and wine had beene the sacrifice of Melchizedech the Apostle neither would nor coulde haue dissembled the comparison of his sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christe which would infinitely haue aduaunced his priesthood aboue Aaron For else the Hebrues whom M. Heskins imagineth would haue obiected their sacrifices to be more glorious then bread and wine might more probably haue replyed that the Apostles compared Melchizedech with Christe in small matters and omitted the chiefest parte of his office which was this sacrifice so that if he were inferiour in the chiefe it was little to excell in the small matters But M. Heskins taketh vppon him to aunswere our obiection that we make against this sacrifice of breade and wine which is this as the Apostle to the Hebrues speaketh nothing of it no more doeth Moses in Genesis For it is sayed there that Melchizedech brought foorth breade and wine but neuer a worde that he did sacrifice breade and wine This obiection he wil aunswer both by scripture and by the eldest learned men of Christes parleament Concerning the parleament men as it is true that many of them did thinke Melchizedech to be a figure of Christ in bringing foorth bread and wine so when we come to consider their voyces it shall appeare that they make little for transubstantiation or the carnall presence But now let vs heare the scripture The scripture to proue that Melchisedech did sacrifice this bread and wine saith that he was a Priest of the most high God to whome is belongeth not to bring foorth but to offer bread and wine so that the verie connexion of the Scripture and dependants of the same enforceth vs to take this sense and none other can be admitted This is a verie peremptorie sentence plumped downe of you M. Heskins not as from your doctours chaire but euen as from Apolloes three footed stoole But if it may please you to heare is it not also scripture that he was King of Salem and wil not the verie connexion and dependance of the Scripture leade vs to thinke that as an example of his royall liberalitie he brought foorth bread wine to refresh the hungrie and wearie souldiers of Abraham which being such a multitude could not easily be prouided for by a priuate man And where Moses sayeth he was a priest of the highest God hee addeth also an example of his priestly holynesse that he blessed Abraham praysed God and that Abraham gaue him tythes of al. And lest you should exclame as your manner is that this is a newe exposition Iosephus in the firste booke tenth Chapter of his Iewishe antiquities doth so expounde it Hic Melchisedechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit nihil eis ad victum deesse passus c. This Melchisedech gaue verie liberall intertainment to the souldiours of Abraham suffered them to want nothing vnto their liuing But if M. Heskins wil obiect that Iosephus was a Iewe then let him heare the author of Scholastica historia a Christian and a Catholike as M. Heskins will confesse allowing of the same exposition Chap. 46. in these wordes At verò Melchizedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem vinum quod quasi exponen◠Iosephus ait ministrauit exercitui Xenia multam abundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit et super epulas benedixit deum qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi But Melchizedech King of Salem offered vnto him bread and wine which Iosephus as it were expounding of it sayeth he ministred to his armie the dueties of hospitalitie and gaue him great plentie of things necessary beside the feast or at the feast he blessed God which had subdued vnto Abraham his enimies For he was a priest of the high◠so god Thus farre he 〈◊〉 M. Heskins for his connexion perchaunce will vrge the Coniunction enim erat enim saterdos c. in the vulgar Latine text to make it to be referred to the former clause but neither the Hebrue nor the Greeke text hath that Coniunction To be short if the bringing foorth of bread and wine perteined to his priestly office there is nothing in the text to expresse his Kingly office but Moses as he calleth him both a King and a priest so doth he distinctly shewe what he did as a King and what he did as a priest Yet Maister Heskins goeth on and will proue That if Christ were a Priest after the order of Melchizedech he offred a sacrifice after that order but he neuer made any mo oblations then two the one on the crosse after the order of Aaron the other in his last Supper after the order of Melchisedech except we will say that Christe altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God. Marke here Christian Reader how many horrible blasphemies this impudent dogge barketh out against our Sauiour Christ directly contrarie to his expresse worde First he affirmeth that Christ made two offerings of himselfe whereas the holy Ghost saith Heb. 9. not that he should oftentimes offer himselfe as the high priest c. For
cōmon meate being consecrated is profitable for the whole man as a medicine to heale infirmities and a sacrifice to purge sinnes but neither our faith in Christ crucified nor the merites of his passion are the sacrifice but his very body therefore this meate is his very body The Maior of this argument is ambiguous and therefore it must be distinguished for this worde sacrifice is either taken properly or vnproperly and figuratiuely if it be taken figuratiuely for a sacrament or a memoriall of a sacrifice as Cyprian meaneth the proposition is true but if it be taken for a sacrifice in the proper sense it is false For Christe offered but one sacrifice and that but once neuer to be repeated which was on the crosse Nowe to proue that Cyprian vsed the word sacrifice vnproperly for this time I will shewe no more but his owne word Holocaustum which signifieth a whole burned sacrifice for M. Heskins will graunt that the sacrifice of Christ is vnproperly called a burned offering The second note that he gathereth is of the Propertie of this word Aliud in the Neuter gender it signifieth an other substance forsooth as we may say Alius pater alius filius but not aliud pater aliud filius And then the rule is extended to vnum for Christ saith ego pater vnum sumus hij tres vnum sunt This he would beare men in hand to be the determination of learned men and so the bread before consecration was aliud that is one substance but after consecration it is aliud that is an other substance and so the body of Christe This is an high point in a lowe house but the young pettites in the Grammer schoole can teach him that aliud in the Neuter gender put absolutely must bee resolued into alia res an other thing and so doth Maister Heskins him selfe translate it And Cyprian sheweth what other thing it is after consecration when he saith here is declared the difference betweene the spirituall meate and the corporall meate namely that it was one thing when it was first set before them that is corporall meate and an other thing which was giuen by their maister namely spirituall meate The same substance remaining it is spirituall meate that before was corporall meate as in baptisme the same substaunce of water remayning it is a spirituall lauer that before was a corporall lauer This is the greate diuinitie of aliud and aliud But I maruell that Maister Heskins which seeth such high mysteries in aliud can not see that Cyprian saith they did eate of the same breade before after the visible forme which they did afterward eate being conuerted into spirituall meate so that it was the same breade before and after although it had nowe a newe vertue giuen it by the wordes of Christ to nourish the whole man which before nourished only the body The next place which he alledgeth out of Saint Cyprian is Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecitium Where he leaueth out the beginning of the matter bicause it expoundeth all the rest of the place against him but I will be so bold as to add it for the better vnderstanding of S. Cyprian and the discharging him of M. Heskins blasphemies Item in sacerdote Melchisedech sacrificij dominici sacramentum praefiguratum videmus secundùm quod scriptura diuina testatur dicit Melchisedech c. Also in the Priest Melchisedech we see that the sacrament of our Lordes sacrifice was prefigured according to that the scripture testifieth and saith And Melchisedech king of Salem brought foorth bread and wine and he was a Priest of the highest God and blessed Abraham And that Melchisedech did beare the figure of Christ the holy Ghost declareth in the Psalmes saying in the person of the father vnto the sonne Before the day starre I haue begotten thee The Lorde hath sworne and it shall not repent him thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech which order verily is this comming of that sacrifice and from thence descending that Melchisedech was a priest of the most high God that he offered bread and wine that he blessed Abraham For who is more the priest of the highest God then our Lord Iesus Christ which offered vp a sacrifice to God his father ▪ And offered the selfe some thing that Melchisedech offered that is bread and wine euen his body and bloud And concerning Abraham that blessing going before perteined to our people For if Abraham beleued God and it was imputed to him for rightuousnesse so likewise who so euer beleueth God liueth also by faith is found righteous and long agoe shewed to be blessed and iustified in faithfull Abraham a◠S. Paule the Apostle proueth saying Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse Ye knowe therefore that they which are of faith euen they are the sonnes of Abraham Wherefore the scripture foreseeing that God iustifieth the Gentiles by faith foreshewed to Abraham that all nations should be blessed in him Therefore they that are of faith shall be blessed with faithfull Abraham Wherevpon in the Gospell we find that many are raised vp of stones that is that the sonnes of Abraham are gathered of the Gentiles And when the Lord praised Zacheus he answered and saide This day is saluation happened to this house bicause this man is also made the sonne of Abraham Therefore that in Genesis the blessing about Abraham might duely be celebrated by Melchisedech the priest the image of the sacrifice goeth before ordeined in bread and wine Which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling offered bread and the cup mixed with wine and he that was the fulnesse fulfilled the truth of the image that was prefigured Thus much Cyprian In cyting this place note what falshood M. Heskins vseth first of all he leaueth out the beginning where Cyprian calleth the supper the sacrament of the Lordes sacrifice by which it is plaine what he meaneth when he calleth it afterward an oblation or sacrifice Secondly he falsifieth his wordes where Cyprian saith Fuit autem sacerdos that is and he was a Priest Maister Heskins chaungeth it into Fuit enim sacerdos for hee was a priest Thirdly where Cyprian compareth Christ to Melchisedech in three thinges distinctly in that he was the Priest of the highest GOD in that he offered breade and wine and in that hee blessed Abraham shewing that Christe was the Prieste of the highest GOD when hee offered his sacrifice to his father meaning in his passion ▪ that hee offered breade and wine as he did meaning in his supper and last of all that he blessed his people as Melchisedech did Abraham Maister Heskins confoundeth the first with the second by putting out the interrogatiue point that is after obtulit and ioyning the next sentence to it and the last he omitteth by cutting off the dicourse that Cyprian maketh thereof As though Cyprian had spoken of no resemblance of Melchisedech vnto Christe but in
he denyeth transubstantiatioÌ„ If he say it was not verie bread wine which Christ did sacrifice then he denyeth the resemblance vnto Melchisedechs sacrifice and hath Cyprian against him who as we heard before saith Obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat id est panem vinum suum scilicet corpus sanguineÌ„ He offered that selfe same thing that Melchisedech had offered that is to say bread wine euen his body bloud Note here that Melchisedech and Christ offering both the verie selfe same thing they both offered bread and wine and likewise they both offered the body and bloud of Christ. Whereby not onely transubstantiation but also the carnal presence is vtterly ouerthrowne And to presse him harder by his owne weightes euen to death If aliud signifie an other substance as he taught vs before then hoc idem signifieth the same substance and much rather Therefore whâ—n Cyprian saith that Christ offered hoc idem quod Melchisedech it followeth that Melchisedech offered the same substance which he expoundeth bread and wine his body and bloude And this two forked reason will hold down all the papistes noses to the grindstone that they shall not be able to auoide it for their liues The thirtieth Chapter treateth of the same matter by S. Hieronyme and Theodoret. The place of Hieronyme which M. Heskins doth so triumph vpon is vpon the 110. Psalme but those coÌ„mentaries both by Erasmus and by Bruno Amerbachius are vtterly denyed to be Hieronymes doing But seeing they be falsly intituled to him we are coÌ„tent to take this place as thogh it were Hieronymes writing in deed The words vpon the fourth verse are these It is superfluous for vs to goe about to make an exposition of this verse seeing the holy Apostle to the Hebrues hath most fully treated thereof For hee saith this is Mechisedech without father without mother without generation And of all ecclesiastical men it is said that he is without father as concerning the flesh and without mother as concerning his godhead This only therefore let vs interpret thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech let vs only see wherfore he said after the order After the order that is thou shalt not be a priest according to the sacrifices of the Iewes but thou shalt be a prieste after the order of Melchisedech For as Melchisedech kinge of Salem offered breade and wine so shalt thou offer thy bodie and thy bloud true bread and true wine This Melchisedech hath giuen vs these mysteries which we haue He it is that hath saide he that shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloude Hee hath deliuered to vs his sacrament according to the order of Melchisedech What can be saide more plainely in exposition of this writer then that hee him selfe saith that hee hath giuen vs these mysteries that he hath deliuered to vs his sacrament after the order of Melchisedech by which he expresseth what his meaning was by offering his bodie and bloud verie bread and verie wine or true bread and true wine not in the proper sence of a sacrifice but in a mysterie in a sacrameÌ„t But nowe let vs see howe M. Heskins insulteth vppon vs for this counterfete Hieronyme First that he taketh vpon him to expound that which was left vnexpounded by the Apostle to the Hebrues namely that Christ was a prieste which is altogether false for the Apostle doth not onely speake of his eternall priesthood but also of his one oblation by which hee purchased eternall redemption And although this writer doth refer his order to the similitude of his sacrifice in bread and wine yet both the prophet in the psalme and the Apostle to the Hebrues doe sufficiently declare that the excellencie of Melchisedechs order doth consiste in this that he was both a Kinge and a Priest and so a liuely figure of the reall priesthoode of our sauiour Christ. But whereas M. Heskins will controle not only vs but euen his owne vulgare interpretation of the bible which saith not obtuliâ— hee offred but protulit hee brought forth by authoritie of this Hieronyme who hee saith both knewe the olde testament and vnderstoode the Hebrue tongue he bewrayeth his owne weaknesse and sheweth how good a reader he hath been of Hieroms works when he knoweth not what the true Hieronyme himselfe writeth of this matter in his Epistle to Enagrius in which setting downe the verie Hebrue text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth thus expound it Et Melchizedech rex Salem protulit panem vinum Erat autem sacerdos Dei exelsi And Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine and he was a priest of the high god The same word protulit hath Ambrose de mysterijs initiandis and Augustine vppon the title of the 33. Psalme and Cyprian as we heard in the last Chapter lib. 2. Epi 3. ad Caecilium Besides this Hierome in the same Epistle sheweth that the best learned of the Hebrues iudgement was that Melchizedech victori Abraham obuiam processerit in refectionem tam ipsius quà m pugnatorum ipsius panes vinumque protulerit Melchizedech came forth to meete Abraham the conquerour and for refection as well of him as of his warriours brought forth breade and wine And concerning the order of Melchizedech he saith that the Greeke writers interpret it many wayes As for example that he alone was both a King and a Priest and that he was a Priest before circumcision that he was not annoynted with the oyle of the Priestes but with the oyle of gladnesse that hee offered not sacrifices of flesh and bloud and tooke not the bloud of beastes and their bowels and what soeuer is in them more then meate Sed pane vino simplici puroque sacrificio Christi dedicauerit sacramentum but with breade wine being a simple and pure sacrifice he dedicated the sacrament of christ This the true Hierome writt and yet in the ende will determine nothing of his owne iudgement But M. Heskins repeting againe a parcell of Cyprians saying vttered in the Chapter before Who is more properly the Priest of the high God then our Lord Iesus Christe which offered a sacrifice to God his father and offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech had offered that is bread and wine euen his bodie and bloud compareth it with this saying of Hierome As Melchizedech offered bread and wine so shalt thou offer thy bodie and thy bloud the true breade and the true wine And not content with this hee noteth in the margent a plaine place for M. Iuel Howe plaine it is to confute M. Heskins I haue shewed abundantly in the last partâ— of the Chapter next before this whether I remit the reader and passe to Theodoret who in his second dialogue writeth thus Godly Moses writing the olde genealogie hath taught vs that Adam when hee was thus many yeres old begat Seâ—h and when he had liued so many yeres he made
an ende of his life Euen so also he sayth of Seth and Enos with other As for the beginning of the generation of Melchizedech and the ende of his life he ouerpasseth it in silence Wherefore if the historie bee looked on he hath neither beginning of dayes nor end of life So in deede the sonne of God neither hath beginning of his being neither shall haue ending Therefore in these most great and verie diuine things was Melchizedech a figure of Christ our lord And in his priesthood which agreeth rather to man then to God our Lord Christ was an high Priest after the order of Melchizedech For Melchizedech was an high Priest of the Gentiles And our Lord Christ offered a holy and healthfull sacrifice for all men If I sayde neuer a word as I neede not to say many yet the indifferent reader would see that here is no comparison of Melchizedechs bread and wine with the sacrament of the Lordes supper Yea he would easily see that he speaketh of the sacrifice of his death which our sauiour offered for all men both Iewes and Gentiles And much more plainly by that place which M. Heskins addeth out of the first dialogue If therefore it appertaineth to Priestes to offer giftes and Christ concerning his humanitie is called a Priest he offered none other sacrifice but his owne bodie This speaketh Theodoret expressely of the true sacrifice of his death and not of the fained sacrifice of his supper nor yet of any sacrament or figure of his onely true sacrifice which the olde writers as I shewed before do often call a sacrifice oblation burnt offring c But that M. Heskins cannot gaine by the doctours wordes he will winne by reason First if wee denye that Melchizedech was a figure of Christe his Priesthood saying he was a figure onely of his eternitie then wee ioyne with Eutyches who graunted the diuinitie of Christe and denyed his humanitie vnto which his priesthood properly perteyned But who tolde M. Heskins that wee denye Melchizedech to be a figure of Christs Priesthood when wee most constantly affirme that he was a figure of his eternall Priesthood vnlesse Maister Heskins thinke the humanitie of Christe hauing once conquered death is not nowe euerlasting It is not our exposition that mainteineth the heresie of Eutyches that the nature of Christes bodie is absorpt into the diuinitie but it is your heresie of vbiquitie and carnall presence Maister Heskins that mayntaineth it most manifestly in verie deede though in wordes you will say the contrarie But Maister Heskins followeth his reason and vrgeth vs that it is the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice wherefore if Christe resemble Melchizedech in Priesthood he must resemble him in sacrifice and that is the sacrifice of breade and wine for other sacrifice wee reade none that Melchizedech offered I aunswere as wee reade of none other so wee read not in the Scripture one worde of that sacrifice of breade and wine as hath beene often declared at large And seeing the scripture expresseth not what sacrifice Melchizedech offered wee are content to be ignorant of it satisfying our selues with so much as the scripture affirmeth that Christ offering him selfe once for all on the Crosse was in the same called a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech as wee haue shewed at large before out of Hebr. 5. 7.9.10 But it is a sport to see how M Heskins skippeth to fro as it were one whipped at a stake when hee woulde reconcile his transubstantiation with this counterfet sacrifice of breade and wine Christe sacrificed in breade and wine In breade and wine I say a kinde of foode more excellent then the breade and wine that did figure it I meane with Theodoret and Hierome the true bread and wine that is the bodie and bloud of Christ that is to say no bread nor wine But if you giue him a lash on the other side and saye if Christ sacrificed not naturall bread wine then he answered not your figure he wil leap to the other side say with Cyprian Isychius that Christe offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech did and in one place he sayeth he occupyed bread and wine in his sacrifice so did he a table and a cuppe and other things but was any thing his sacrifice that he occupyed therein sauing onely that which he offered he will say no. Did he offer bread and wine hee dare not aunswer directly and so the poore man to vpholde two lyes the one contrarie to the other is miserably tormented The one and thirtieth Chapter concludeth this matter of Melchizedech by S. Augustine and Damascene S. Augustine is alledged vppon the 33 Psalme whose wordes are these The sacrifices of the Iewes were before time after the order of Aaron in offrings of beastes and that in a mysterie The sacrifice of the bodie and bloud of our Lord which the faithfull and they that haue read the Gospell do knowe was not yet which sacrifice is nowe diffused throughout all the worlde Set before your eyes therefore two sacrifices both that after the order of Aaron and this after the order of Melchizedech For it is writen the Lord hath sworne and it shall not repent him Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech Of whom is it saide thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech of our Lord Iesus christ For who was Melâ—hizedech The King of Salem And Salem was that Citie which afterward as the learned haue declared was called HierusaleÌ„ Therefore before the Iewes reigned there this Melchizedech was Priest there which is written of in Genesis the Priest of the high god He it was that mett Abraham when he deliuered Loth from the hande of his persecutors and ouerthrewe them of whom he was helde and deliuered his brother And after the deliuerie of his brother Melchizedech mett him so great was Melchizedech of whom Abraham was blessed he brought forth breade and wine and blessed Abraham And Abraham gaue him rythes See ye what he brought forth and whome he blessed And it is sayed afterwarde Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech Dauid sayed this in the spirite long after Abraham Nowe Melchizedech was in the time of Abraham Of whome sayeth he in anâ—â—her place â–ª Thou arâ— a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech 〈◊〉 of him whose sacrifice you knowe Here saith Maister Heskins is sacrifice auouched and the sacrifice of the body and bloud of our Lorde who saith nay But this is not the sacrifice of the masse but the sacrifice of CHRISTES death whereof the holy sacrament is a memoriall But Augustine saith farther The sacrifice of Aaron is taken away and them beganne the order of Melchizedech Very well but once againe this sacrifice is the sacrifice of Christes death the remembraunce whereof is celebrated in the Lordes Supper where let the Reader obserue that he doeth yet againe denie the
sacrifice of Christes passion to be a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech contrarie to the expresse worde of God affirmeth that it was after the order of Aaron saying that The sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech was onely as the Supper Here note that he maketh the sacrament more excellent then the sacrifice of Christes death by so muche as the Priesthoode and sacrifice of Melchisedech is more excellent then the sacrifice and priesthoode of Aaron But Augustine hath more yet if it will helpe vpon the same Psalme Con. 3. Before the kingdome of his father he chaunged his 〈◊〉 and left him and went his way because there was the sacrifice according to the order of Aaron And afterwarde he himselfe by his body and bloud instituted a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech Therefore he chaunged his countenance in the priesthoode and left the nation of the Iewes and came to the Gentiles By this we must needes vnderstand that Christe did institute a sacrifice of his body and bloud after the order of Melchizedech Yea verily But howe doe wee vnderstand that this was in the sacrament Therefore for any thing that is here shewed it is no slaunder that the Pope hath turned the holy sacrament into a sacrifice to obscure the glorie of Christe and his onely sacrifice once offered on the crosse For although the Fathers did sometimes call the sacrament a sacrifice yet they meant nothing but a memoriall or sacrifice of thankesgiuing for that one sacrifice offered once on the crosse for the redemption of the whole worlde Whereof none other shal be a better witnesse then Augustine himselfe and in his exposition of this selfe same Psalme Saginantur ergo illo Angeli sed semel ipsum exinaninit vt manducaret panem angelorum home formam serui accipiens in similitudinem hominum factus habitu inuentus vt homo The Angels therefore are fead with that bread meaning the diuinitie of Christe But he emptied himselfe that man might eate the bread of Angels taking the shape of a seruant beeing made like vnto men and in his habite was found as a man Humilianit se factus obediens vsque ad mortem mortem autem crucis vt iam de cruce commendarâ—tur nobis carâ— sanguis Domini 〈◊〉 sacrificium quia mutauit vultum suum coram Abimelech id est eoram regno patris He humbled himselfe and was made obedient to the death euen the death of the crosse that now the body and bloud of our Lorde might be commended to vs from the Crosse beeing the new sacrifice because he chaunged his countenaunce before Abimelech that is before the kingdome of his Father By this it is manifest that Augustine referred the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech vnto the crosse of Christ whereof we are made partakers in the holy mysteries of his blessed supper So that as well the body and bloud of our Lorde as the newe sacrifice in those mysteries are commended to vs to be participated from the crosse where they were truely and essentially offered vnto God by the eternall spirite of our sauiour Christ wherby he procured euerlasting redemption The same Augustine in his Ep. 23. to Bonifacius Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso tamen in suet 〈◊〉 non sobèrâ— per omnes paschÄ™ solennitates sed omni die populiâ— immolatur nec vbique mentitur qui interrogatus eum respondarit immolari Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem â—arum rerum quaruÌ„ sacramenta suÌ„t non habereÌ„t omnino sacramenta non essent Ex haec autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est Was not Christe once onely offered vppe by himselfe And yet in a sacrament â–ª not onely at euery solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people neither doeth he lye which being asked the question answereth that he is offered For if sacraments had not a certeine similitude of those thinges whereof they are sacramentes they should not be sacramentes at all And of this similitude oftentimes they take the names euen of the very thinges themselues Therfore as after a certeine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith What can be vttered more plainely either against the Popishe sacrifice or against their carnal presence This one place may expound whatsoeuer in Augustine or any other olde writer is spoken of the sacrifice of the Lordes supper and of the presence of Christes body and bloud therein After Augustine M. Heskins citeth Chrysostome in Mat. 26. to proue that the sacrament is now of the same force that it was when it was first ordeined by Christe at his last supper These workes are not of mans power what thinges he did then in that supper he himselfe doth nowe worke he himselfe doeth make perfect We holde the order of Ministers but it is he himselfe that doeth sanctifie and chaunge these thinges With my disciples saith he doe I keepe my Passeouer For this is the same table and none other This is in nothing lesser then that For Christ maketh not that table and some other man this but he himselfe maketh both Hieronyme followeth a vaine discourse against I wote not what Petrobrusians and Henricians that denied the body of CHRISTE to be consecrated and giuen by the priestes as it was by Christe him selfe Whome peraduenture Petrus Cluniacensis Maister Heskins Author doeth slaunder when they saide none otherwise then Chrysostome saide before and that which Maister Heskins himselfe affirmeth That Christ and not man doth consecrate But by this place also are confuted the Oecolampadians and Caluinistes if we will beleeue Maister Heskins who first rauing against Cranmer vrgeth the worde of sanctification of the bread and wine that Chrysostome vseth charging Cranmer to haue saide that the creatures of bread and wine cannot be sanctified Which no doubt that holy Martyr spake of the substance and not of the vse in the sacrament Then he snatcheth vppe Chrysostomes wordes Transmutat he doeth transmute and change them This is easily aunswered He chaungeth the vse but not the substance But for more confirmation Origen is called to witnesse Lib. 8. Cont. Celsum We obeying the creator of all thingâ—s after we haue giuen thankes for his benefites which he hath bestowed vpon vs doe eate the bread which is offered which by prayer and supplication is made into a certeine holier bodie which truly maketh them more holie which with a more sound minde do vse the same Here by Origens playne wordes the vse doth sanctifie the worthie receiuers And though you adde to Ambrose his phrase De pane fit corpus Christi of the bread is
is offred to my name a pure sacrifice Wherefore our sacrifice to the most high God is the sacrifice of praise Wee sacrifice to God a full 〈◊〉 holie sacrifice We sacrifice after a newe maner according to the new testament a pure sacrifice c. M. Heskins asketh vs if we do not see that Eusebius expoundeth the Prophet of the sacrifice of Christes bodie but wee may well bid him shore vp his eyes see if he do not in plain words expound him of the sacrifice of praise But because he calleth this sacrifice horrorem adferens bringing horror meaning not a slauish but a reuerent feare as is meant to be in all matters of religion which ought to be handled with feare and reuerence of Gods Maiestie vnto whom they apperteine he will needes haue it the body of Christ and first he alledgeth a saying of Dionysius whom he falsely calleth the disciple of Saint Paule although he be a writer of good antiquitie Eccle. Hier. part 1. cap. 3. Neither is it almost lawfull for any mysterie of the priestly office to be done except that his diuine and most noble sacrament of thankesgiuing doe fulfil is What he picketh out of this saying as he noteth not so I am not of his counsell to knowe neither why after his accustomed boldenesse he translateth Sacramentum Eucharistiae the sacrament of Christe From Dionyse he flitteth to the hyperbolicall amplifications of Chrysostom which Lib. 6. De Sacerdotio calleth the sacrament That sacrifice most full of horror and reuerence where the vniuersall Lorde of all thinges is daily felt with handes And de prod Iud. Hom. 30. The holy and terrible sacrifice where Christ that was slaine is set foorth He that will not acknowledge these and such like to be figuratiue speeches must enter action against Chrysostom for many heresies or rather Chrysostome may enter action against him of slaunder and defamation In the same treatise De Sacerdotio Lib. 3. speaking of the same sacrifice he sayeth You may see the whole multitude of people died and made redde with the precious bloud of Christ. But to shewe that all this is spirituall he demaundeth if you thinke your selfe to stand vpon the earth when you see these thinges and not rather that you are translated into heauen and casting away all cogitations of the flesh with a naked soule and pure minde you beholde those thinges that are in heauen Therefore to conclude neither Augustine nor Eusebius haue spoken any thing to the furtherance of Maister Heskins bill of the carnal presence The sixe and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of Malachie by Saint Hierome and Damascen S. Hierome vpon the Prophet Malachie writeth thus Ergo propriè nuÌ„c ad sacerdotes IndeoruÌ„ sermo sit domini qui offeruÌ„t caecuÌ„ clanduÌ„ languiduÌ„ ad immolanduÌ„ vt sciant carnalibê° victimis spirituales victimas successuras Et necquaquam tantorum hircerùmque sanguinem sed thymiana hoc est sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea nec in vna iudaea vrbe Hierusalem sed in omni loco offerri oblationem nequaquam immundam vt a populo Israel sed mundum vt in ceremonijs Christianorum Now therefore the word of the Lorde is properly spoken to the Priestes of the Iewes which offer the blinde and lamue and feeble to be sacrificed that they might knowe that spirituall sacrifices should succeede those carnall sacrifices And not the bloud of bulles and goates but an incense that is to say the prayers of the Sainctes should be offered to the Lord and that not in one prouince of the world Iewry neither in Ierusalem one citie of Iewry but in euery place an oblation is offered was vncleane as of the people of Israel but cleane as in the ceremonies of the Christians Doest thou not maruell Gentle Reader that Maister Heskins alledgeth this place which in euerie point is so directly contrarie to his purpose He saith that among the ceremonies of the Christians none can be properly called the cleane sacrifice but the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ. O shamelesse begger that craueth no lesse then the whole controuersie to be giuen him And that contrarie to Hierome whose name he abuseth which expoundeth this place of spirituall sacrifices and more expressely of the prayers of the saintes whiche are not vsed in one but in all the ceremonies of the Christians But to set some colour vpon the matter he bringeth in an other saying of Hierome which is written before this in exposition of another place perteining nothing to this prophecy of the pure sacrifice but wher by analogie or like reason as the prophet rebuketh the priestes of the Iewes he doeth reprehend also the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the Church for their negligence Offertis inquit c. You offer saith he vpon mine altar bread polluted We pollute the bread that is to say the body of Christ when we come vnworthily to the altar and we beeing filthie doe drinke cleane bloud and say the Lordes table is contemptible c. Here forsooth we vnderstand that the body of Christ is the sacrifice of the Christians yea but according to the former sentence so offered that it is a spirituall sacrifice But what else Here we are taught that we doe not take one thing videlicet bread and do iniurie to another thing that is the body and bloud of Christ as the sacramentaries say but receiuing the very body and bloud of Christ we do iniury to the same But vouchsafe to heare the same teacher speaking of the same matter and in the same place in fewe wordes to satisfie the reasonable and to stoppe the mouthes of quarrellers Dum enim sacramenta violantur ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur For while iniurie is done to the sacramentes iniurie is done to him whose sacraments they are He sheweth a reason against them that demaunded proudly wherein they had polluted God when they had but polluted his sacraments Leauing therefore Hierome at open warre with M. Heskins I will passe to Damascen who for lacke of a Greeke auncient Baron beeing an auncient burgesse of the lower house Maister Heskins is bolde to matche with Hironyme though farre inferiour to him in antiquitie and credite whose wordes are these This is that pure and vnbloudy sacrifice which our Lord speaketh by the Prophet to be offred to him from the rising of the sunne to the going downe of the same namely the body and bloud of Christ vnto the vnconsumed and vncorrupted establishment of our body and soule not going into secesse God forbid that any such imagination should be but it is a purgation of al manner filth and a reparation of all manner of hurt vnto our sustentation and conseruation This place saith Maister Heskins is so plaine that a childe may perceiue it for it is sufficient for him if he heare once body and bloud named Howbeit if either Damascens authoritie
gone out of the parleament house where matters are grauely intreated of and hath betaken him selfe to the wilde forest where hee may disporte himselfe in his games with Robin hoode and his merie mates And verilie if he had not tolde vs him selfe of his lustie hunting wee might well haue thought he had not beene at home but wandering in the woodes so wilde when in his exhortation vnto faith in the sacrament hee will persuade vs that none can vnderstande the scriptures except they haue founde faith in the veritie of the Sacramente Which happeneth to all those that wil not be with Christ in the breaking of the breade as the two disciples were that went to Emans to whome Christe was a straunger vntill he came to the breaking of the breade But leaste this vaine allegorie shoulde seeme to bee founde out only in M. Heskins chase hee trauelleth to finde it in S. Augustin Theophylact but al in vaine For first to giue vs a tast what synceritie and trueth he will vse in the rest of this booke the verie first sentence he alleadgeth out of any Doctor is corruptly and vntruly rehearsed For thus hee maketh Augustine to speake in his treatise De consensu Euangelistarum not naming in what booke or Chapter whereas that which he writeth of this matter is Lib. 3. Cap. 25. Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum a Satana fuisse ne agnosceretur Iesus sed tantùm a Christo propter eorum fidem ambiguam facta est permissio vsque ad sacramentum panis vt vnitate corporis eius participata remoueri intelligatur impedimentum inimici vt Christus possit agnosci We doe not take it incongruently that this impediment in their eies was of Sathā that Iesus shold not be knowen but only it was permitted of Christ for their doubtfull faithes sake vntill they came to the sacrament of bread that the vnitie of Christs body being participated it might be perceiued that the impediment of the enimie was remoued that Christ might be knowen In this place beside that he turneth autem into enim and leaueth out factum after fuisse he addeth of his owne propter eorum fidem ambiguam for their doubtfull faiths sake Which words are not Augustins Wherby it appeareth that hee redde not this place out of Augustine himselfe but followed some other mans collection as he doth almost euerie where But Augustine in that place comparing the wordes of Marke and Luke together sheweth that there was no alteration in the shape of Christes bodie but onely that the two disciples eyes were helde that they could not knowe him but in breaking of the bread which signified the vnity of the Church For this he writeth Neque quisquam se Christum agnouisse arbitretur si eius corporis particeps non est id est ecclesię cuius vnitatem in sacramento panis commendat Apostolus dicens vnus pà nis vnum corpus multi sumus vt cum eis benedictum panem porrigeret apperirentur oculi eorum agnoscerent cum Neither let any man thinke that he hath knowen Christ if he bee not partaker of his body that is of the Church whose vnitie the Apostle cōmendeth in the sacrament of the bread saying One bread we being many are one bodie that when he reached vnto them the blessed bread their eyes were opened and they knew him This is Augustines collection of this matter nothing agreable with M. Heskins allegorie of the soūd faith in the veritie of the sacrament but much against it teaching the true participation of the body of Christ in the sacrament which is the mystical coniunction of him vnto his Church Moreouer euen in the place by him alledged I meruell M. Heskins cannot see that Augustine calleth it the sacramēt of bread which agreeth not with his transsubstantiation and if he think the participation of the vnitie of Christes bodie doth helpe him Augustine in the same place sheweth the contrarie vnderstanding the bodie of Christ to be his Church as is before shewed But what saith Theophylact of the same Another thing also is here insumated namely that that their eyes which take this blessed bread are opened that they may knowe him For the fleshe of our Lorde hath a great and vnspeakable strength What is there here in these authorities either for M. Heskins bil of the reall presence or for his fond allegorie It pleaseth him excedingly that Theophylact saith the flesh of Christ is of vnspeakeable power which we doe most willingly admitte euen in receiuing of the sacrament it worketh mightily but hee will not see at all that Theophylact with Augustine calleth the sacrament blessed bread by which they both do shew that the substance of bread remaineth although it be blessed consecrated vnto an other vse then for bodily food The second Cha. expoundeth the sixt of S. Ioh according to the letter The summe of this literal exposition is this that three sundry breades are mentioned by Christe in this sixte of Iohn that is the bread Manna the bread the sonne of God and the bread the flesh of Christ and that these three breads are distincted both in nature and in time in whiche they were giuen For Manna was a corporall food giuen of old time in the wildernes The second bread the godhead of Christ being an eternall and spirituall substance Christ saith his father doth giue in the present tence and that he is the bread of life and requireth beleefe in him which is proper to God onely The third breade is the fleshe of Christ which he will giue for the life of the world speaking in the future tence and is meant of the sacrament And this he dare auouch to be the natiue true vnderstanding of this scripture But sauing his authoritie there are but two breades spoken of in this Chapter namely Manna and the bread of life which is not the diuinitie of Christ separated from his flesh nor his flesh separated or distincted from his godhead but euen his quickening spiritual flesh which being vnited to his eternal spirit was by the same giuen for the life of the world not in the sacrament but in the sacrifice of his bodie bloud on the crosse and is daily sealed and testified vnto vs by the sacrament of his bodie and bloud ministred according to his holie institutiō And this I dare auouch to be the true natiue sense of this scripture both by the plain circumstances of the same and by the iudgement of the best approued ancient writers And first to take away as wel the vain supposed distinction of time in which the two later breads are said to be giuen as also to proue that they are but one bread our sauior Christ him selfe after he hath promised to giue the bread which is his flesh for the life of the world and declared what fruite commeth to them that eate his fleshe and drinke his bloude c. in
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
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
is my fleshe which I will giue for the life of the worlde Thou seest howe by little and little he more and more openeth him selfe and doeth set foorth this wonderfull mysterie Hee saide hee was the liuing and quickening breade which shoulde make the partakers of it without corruption and giue them immortalitie Nowe he saith his fleshe is that breade which hee will giue for the life of the worlde and by which hee will quicken vs that are partakers of the same for truely the quickening nature of the WORD beeing ioyned to it by that vnspeakeable manner of vnion maketh it quickening and therefore this flesh doth quicken them that are partakers of it For it casteth foorth death from them and vtterly expelleth destruction Maister Heskins alledgeth two reasons to proue that Cyrillus speaketh of the sacrament and neither of both worth a strawe First bicause he calleth it a woonderfull mysterie as though the incarnation of Christ whereof he speaketh expresly were not a woonderfull mysterie Secondly By that he saith the flesh of Christe giueth life to the partakers For the proper partaking of Christes flesh is in the receiuing of this holy sacrament As though we are not partakers of Christes flesh by faith according to that saying of Augustine vpon the same place Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie Beleeue and thou hast eaten c. you see it is a poore helpe that he hath out of Cyrillus when hee speaketh neuer a woorde for his cause nor of his cause The seuenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact and Lyra. A short aunswere shall serue this Chapter these two Burgesses of the lower house being late writers speake fauourably for Maister Heskins bill But their authoritie is so small that wee make none account of their speach seeing not onely many in the lower house haue spoken against it but all the whole vpper house is manifestly contrarie vnto it And whereas hee chargeth Oecolampadius for adding this worde tantùm onely in his translation of Theophylact I doubt not but Oecolampadius followed either a truer copie or a better reason then Maister Heskins in so many additions detractions and falsifications of Doctors which hee hath vsed in this worke Finally where he chargeth the aduersaries with cauilling and slaundering when they say that Popish Priestes make God he himselfe slaundereth his aduersaries for we haue learned of their owne writers namely of S. Bonauentura that a Priest is creator sui creatori◠the creator of his creator and that Christ is his prisoner on the altar The eyght Chapter declareth by whose authoritie and power the sacrament is consecrated Christes bodie made present As though such blasphemous speaches as I haue touched imediatly before had neuer ben vttered by Papists M. Heskins stomaketh the matter rayleth throughout this Chapter against his aduersarie for charging the priests with such arrogancie as though they tooke vpon them to make god Nowe concerning the purpose of the Chapter we agree that God no man Christ and not the minister doth consecrate the sacrament and make Christes bodie and bloud to be present I might therefore passe ouer his authorities but that out of some of them he gathereth also his corporall presence transubstantiation The first is Damascen De Orth. Fid. Lib. 4. Ca. 14. If thou aske now how the bread is made the bodie of Christ and the wine and water the bloud of Christ I also answere thee The holy Ghost euer shadoweth and worketh these things aboue speech and vnderstanding The bread and wine are transsumed This place Maister Heskins noteth for a plaine place both for the presence and for transubstantiation If it were as plain as he would haue it yet is Damascen but a Burgesse of the lower house out of the compasse of the challenge But whatsoeuer his opinion was of the presence certaine it is that he knew not transubstantiation which the Greekes long after did not acknowledge And though we take the word of transuming for changing turning transmuting or transelementing which wordes the olde writers doe sometimes vse yet meane they not chaunge of one substance into another but of the nature and propertie of the foode to be chaunged from corporall to spirituall and not otherwise Next followeth Chrysostome in 2 Tim. Ho. 2. Volo quiddam c. I will adde a certeine thing plainely wonderfull and maruell ye not neither be you troubled And what is this The holy oblation whether Peter or Paul or a Priest of any maner of life do offer it is euen the same which Christ gaue vnto his disciples and which the priestes do now make This hath nothing lesse then that Why so because men do not sanctifie it but Christ which had hallowed it before For as the wordes which Christ spake are the same which the priests do now pronoūce so also is the oblation Here M. Hesk. cutteth of the taile of this sentence for Chrysostoms wordes are Ita oblatio eadem est eademque baptismi ratio est adoe omnia in fide consistunt So the oblation is the same and the same reason is of baptisme so all thinges consist in faith Marke here that M. Heskins conceleth that the change and consecration is the same that is in baptisme and the thing is receiued onely by faith as in baptisme And nothing else meaneth Chrysostome in the seconde place by M. Heskins cited Hom. 30. de prod The same Christ is nowe present which did beutifie that table hee doth also consecrate this For it is not man which by consecration doeth make the thinges set foorth on the table the bodie and bloude of our Lorde but euen Christ which was crucified for vs The wordes are spoken by the mouth of the Prieste but by the power grace of God they are consecrated This is saith hee my bodye with this worde the thinges set foorth are consecrated Here we must note that Christ maketh the bread and wine his bodie and bloude Wee acknowledge he doth so for the faith of the worthy receiuer as in the former sentence it is manifest Nowe commeth S. Ambrose De benedict Patr. c. 9. Who is then rische but he in whome is the depth of wisdome and knowledge This rich man then is the treasure of this fatte breade which who shall eate he cannot hunger This breade he gaue to his Apostles that they should deuide it to the beleeuing people And now hee giueth the same to vs which hee beeing the Priest doeth consecrate with his owne wordes This bread then is made the meate of the Sainctes Here againe M. Heskins cutteth off that which liketh him not for it followeth Possumus ipsium Dominum accipere qui suā carnem nobis dedit Sicut ipse ait ego sunt panis vitae Ille enim accipit qui scipsum probat qui autem accipit non moritur peccatoris morte quia
panis hic remissio peccatorum est Wee may receiue euen the Lorde himselfe which hath giuen vs his fleshe euen as he himselfe saith I am the bread of life For he receiueth him that examineth himselfe he which receiueth him dyeth not the death of a sinner for this bread is the remission of sinnes This place doth first ouerthrowe M. Heskins dreame of two breades Secondly the Papistes assertion that wicked men receiue the bodie of christ And thirdly teacheth that to eate Christ his fleshe is to receiue forgiuenesse of sinnes which M. Heskins and the Papistes denye Another place of Ambrose is alledged li. 4. de sacra Ca. 4. Let vs then teach this How can that which is bread be the bodie of Christ By consecration By what and whose wordes then is the consecration Of our Lorde Iesus For all the other things that be sayed praise is giuen to God petition is made in prayer for the people for Kings and for the rest but when it is come to that the honourable sacrament is made now the Priest vseth not his owne wordes but he vseth the wordes of Christe Therefore the worde of Christ maketh this sacrament This is noted to be a plaine place for M. Iuell but for what purpose I cannot tell except it be to proue that he will not denye that the sacrament is consecrated and made the bodie of Christ to the worthie receiuer by the wordes of Christe as before Eusebius Emissenus hath the next place in Hom. Pasc. The inuisible Priest with his worde by a secreat power turneth the visible cratures into the substance of his body bloud This place being more apparant for his transubstantiation then any that he hath alledged he vrgeth not nor gathereth of it but onely that Christ is the author of the consecration and conuersion As for the conuersion I thinke his conscience did tell him that it was not of the substance but of the vse of things a spirituall and not a corporall change as both Eusebius and other writers do sufficiently expound what maner of mutation it is The last man is Cyprian De Caen Dom. It were better for them a milstone to be tyed to their neckes and to be drowned in the Sea then with an vnwashed conscience to take the morsell at the hande of our Lorde who vntil this day doeth create and sanctifie and blesse and to the godly receiuers diuide this his most true and most holy bodie Here M. Heskins vrgeth that he createth not an imaginatiue bodie but his moste true bodie But the blinde man seeth not that either this creation is figuratiue or else it ouerthroweth transsubstantiation For to create is not to change one substance into another but to make a substance of nothing Secondly that Christ diuideth his bodie but to the godly receiuers Finally in the same Sermon he saith that all this mysterie is wrought by faith Haec quotie◠agimus c. So often as we do these things wee do not sharpen our teeth to byte but with a syncere faith we breake and deuide this holy breade To conclude this Chapter seeing M. Heskins hath laboured so well to proue that Christ onely not the priest doth consecrate and so often chargeth vs with slaundering them to make God the bodie of Christ I would demaunde wherefore the Bishop when he giueth them the order of Priesthood giueth them power to consecrate saying Accip◠potestatem consecrandi offerend◠pro vinit defunctis Take authoritie to consecrate to offer for the quick and the dead If the Priest cannot consecrat whereto serueth this power If the Priest take vpon him to consecrat Christ God and man howe are we charged with slaundering of them The ninth Chapter expoundeth the next text that followeth in Saint Iohn The text which he taketh vpon him to expound in this Chapter is this The Iewes stroue among them selues saying How can this fellowe giue vs his flesh to eat And first he sayth that they being carnall could not vnderstande the spirituall talke of Christe wherein as he saith truely so hee speaketh contrarie to him selfe For he will haue those words to be spokē carnally They could not vnderstand sayth he because they did not beleeue therefore they questioned how it might be euen as the Pseudochristians do How can the bodie of Christ be in the sacrament vnder so litle a peece of bread c. But the aunswere to all their questions is that they be don by the power of god And if you proceede to enquire of his will he hath declared it in these wordes the breade which I will giue is my fleshe not a fantasticall nor a mathematicall or figuratiue flesh but that same flesh◠that I will giue for the life of the worlde But if wee proceede to demaund further how he proueth that he will giue that flesh to be eaten with our mouth carnally in the sacrament then is he at a staye he can go no further Wee doubt not of the power of God we will extend his will no further then his worde For to eat the fleshe of Christe is not to eat it with our mouthes but with our hearts by faith as Augustine vppon the same text teacheth vs. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere ponum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit cius sanguinē licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christie sed magis tantę rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat bibit This is therefore to eate that meate to drinke that drinke to abide in Christe and to haue him abyding in them And by this he that abydeth not in Christ and in whome Christe abydeth not out of doubt doth neither spiritually eat his flesh nor drinke his bloud although carnally visibly he presse with his teeth the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his owne condemnation Thus Augustine teacheth how the flesh of Christe is eaten and by whome and what difference betweene the flesh bloud of Christ and the sacrament thereof in all those points directly contrarie to the Papistes which affirme that the flesh of Christ is eaten with the mouth and that it is eaten of the wicked and last of all that the sacrament of the flesh of Christ his flesh is all one The tenth Chapter prouing against the aduersaries that the bodie of Christ may be is in moe places then one as once M. Heskins taketh occasion of the doubtful how of the Iewes to answer the proclaimers how that is how Christs body may be in a thousand places moe at once first he trifleth of the number
beginning of this Chapter â–ª he saith there was neuer heretiques but had some shew of argumentes to auouche his heresie and bringeth in diuerse examples only the proclaymer made no argument in his 〈◊〉 for that he would haue the people receiue his bare proclamation What arguments he vsed let the world iudge the Papistes if they can study to answer him But Oecolampadius he saith hath heaped vp scriptures to proue the ascention of Christ which the Papistes doe graunt yet acknowledge his presence on the earth in the sacrament as though his departing out of the world and presence in the world concerning his bodily presence could stand together Then he flyeth to his diuine power by which he is able to be present in diuerse places as well as do such and such miracles as he rehearseth and wisheth that we should not be so streight and cruell to the body of Christ as to giue it no greater prerogatiue then vnto any other body Verily we do acknowledge as great prerogatiue thereof as he himselfe hath giuen it whereof we haue vnderstanding by his holy worde and otherwise it were madnesse in vs to take vpon vs to be liberall to him which giueth all thinges And if we found as good authoritie for the vbiquitie or pluralitie of placing of his body as we finde for the feeding vs thereby into eternall life we would as easily confesse the one as we doe the other But we finde not in deede as M. Heskins saith that he himselfe hath giuen or would giue his body that prerogatiue to be euery where or in more places then one at once As for the possibilitie we extend it no further then his will. We know he can do what soeuer he will. And many thinges we know he cannot do because he wil not But M. Heskins to assure vs of his will hath nothing to bring but that which is al the controuersie which most impudently he affirmeth that he hath proued both by scriptures and doctours that Christ hath caused his bodie to be in diuers places at one time which neither scripture nor any Doctour of antiquitie euer did affirme in proper manner of speaking otherwise in figuratiue speech we may truly say we eate in the sacrament the body of Christe which is in heauen when to speake properly and without figure we eate but the bread which to the faithfull receiuer is a sacrament and seale of our spirituall nourishment whiche we receiue of his flesh and bloud after a diuine and vnspeakable manner vnto eternall life saith rather lifting vs vp into heauen then bringing Christes body into the earth Maister Heskins saith the scriptures that say Christ is in heauen speake without exclusiues or exceptiues and therefore there is no denial imployed but that he may be beleeued to be also on the earth in the sacrament When Peter in the Actes 3. affirmeth that Christ must be conteined in heauen which is meant of his humanitie vntill the time of restoring of all thinges is not this an exclusion of all other places or beeings of his humanitie When Paule to the Colossians Colo. 3. willeth them to seeke those thinges that are aboue and where Christ is at the right hand of God to set their mindes on thinges aboue and not on things vpon the earth is not the reâ—son because Christ concerning his humanitie is aboue not vpon earth Is not this an exclusiue and exception When Christe sayeth not only I goe to my father but also I leaue the worlde Ioan. 16. Whiche saying the Apostles confessed to be plaine and without all parable Is not this a manifest exclusion of his bodily presence from the worlde So that it is manifest that this ascention and abiding in heauen concerning his humane nature in which he ascended is an excluding and shutting out and denying of all other places or presences of his bodie then to be in heauen only But now that he hath thus tombled vp the authorities of the scripture he wil take in hand to answer the obiections brought out of the Doctours And first shal be the saying of Augustine Ad Dardanum ep 57. Which place contrarie to his bragg in the beginning he alledgeth truncatly by halfe beginning at the middest thereof But this place is in Augustine Et sic venturus est illa angelica voce testante quemadmodum ire visus est in Coelum id est in eadem carnis forma atque substantia cui profectò immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstulis Secundùm hanc formam non est putandus vbique diffusus And he shall come euen so as that voyce of the Angel doth testifie euen as he was seene to go into heauen that is in the same fourme and substance of his fleshe to which truly he hath giuen immortalitie but he hath not taken the nature from it According to this fourme he is not thought to be diffused in all places All this hath Heskins left out and beginneth thus Cauendum est enim no ita veritatem astruâ—muâ— hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus Non est enim consequens vt quod no Deo est ita sit vbique vt Deus For we must beware that we doe not so affirme the Deitie of the man that we take away the trueth of his body For it is no consequent that that which is in God should so be euerie where as God is Note here that Saint Augustine doeth not onely flatly denie the vbiquitie of Christes body but also affirmeth that it reteineth still the nature of a bodie which is to be conteined in one onely place Againe he sayeth in the same Epistle Iesus vbique per id quod Deus est in coelo autem per id quod homo est Iesus by that he is God is euerie where by that he is man he is in heauen Nowe let vs heare howe wisely Maister Heskins will auoide this authoritie First he sayeth that Augustine in this epistle speaketh not of the sacrament and therefore these sentences make not against that matter But when Augustine speaketh generally of the bodie of Christ that it reteineth the nature of a body that it is not euerie where c. he doeth not except the sacrament Although it is false that Heskins saith for in the latter end of that Epistle he hath these wordes Huius corporis caput est Christus huius corporis vnitas nostro sacrificio commendatur The head of this bodie is Christ the vnitie of this bodie is commended in our sacrifice By sacrifice as Maister Heskins will confesse he meaneth the celebration of the sacrament Wherefore he forgate not the sacrament in that Epistle but that he might haue made exception thereof if he had thought good The seconde aunswere of Maister Heskins is a balde distinction that a thing may be at one time in many places two wayes the one is by nature the other by gifte By nature he confesseth that the body of Christe can not be in two places
non aspernanter sed sapienter audiamur Euen as we knowe though against these mens will two in one fleshe Christe and his Church without any filthinesse euen as with faithfull heart and mouth wee receiue the Mediatour of God and man Iesus Christe giuing vs his fleshe to bee eaten and his bloud to be drunken although it seemeth a more horrible thing to eate the fleshe of man then to kill him and to drinke the bloud of man then to shed it And in all the holie scriptures if any thing figuratiuely spoken or done be expounded according to the rule of sounde faith of any things or wordes which are conteyned in the holie scriptures let not the exposition be taken contemptuously but let vs heare wisely Where is nowe that should pinche the proclaimer by the conscience of receiuing the bodie of Christ with the mouth Where is that lewd insultation against Maister Horne whome he sayeth he heard in Cambridge abuse the figuratiue speach and place it there where it should not be placed c. When S. Augustine maketh this whole text a figuratiue speache And if Maister Horne as he sayeth did not place the figuratiue speach as Augustine doeth why did not such a doubtie doctour as Maister Heskins is either in another sermon openly confute him or in priuate conference admonishe him of it But such hedgecreapers as he is that dare not ioyne with a much weaker aduersarie then that reuerend father is in any conference or open disputation can shoote out their slaunderous boltes against them when they are a farre of and prate of placing and displacing of Augustine when he himselfe as I haue shewed most impudently peruerted and displaced the wordes and sense of Augustine euen in this verie sentence whereuppon he thus taketh occasion to iangle Out of Cyrill are alledged two places neither of both any thing to his purpose but directly against him the former In 1â— Ioan. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the bodie could not otherwise be brought to vncorruptiblenesse and life except the bodie of naturall life were ioyned to it Doest thou not beleeue mee saying these thinges I pray thee beleeue Christ saying Verily verily I saye vnto you except you shall eaâ—e the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you Thou hearest him openly saying that wee shall not haue life except wee drinke his bloude and eate his fleshe He sayeth in your selues that is in your bodie The same fleshe of life by right may be vnderstanded life What is there here for the sacrament or that euery Christian man of our side will not graunt But belike the second place maketh all playne Non negamus c. Wee do not denye that with right faith and syncere loue wee are spiritually ioyned to Christe but that wee haue no manner of coniunction with him after the fleshe that truely wee do vtterly denye and that wee saye to be altogether contrarie to the holye Scriptures For who hath doubted that Christe is euen so the vine and wee the braunches that wee receiue life from thence into vs Heare Saynt Paule saying that we all are one bodye in Christ For although wee be many yet we are one in him for wee all take parte of one breade Or peraduenture doth hee thinke that the power of the mysticall blessing is vnknowen to vs which when it is done in vs doeth it not make Christe to dwell in vs corporally by the participation of the fleshe of Christe For why are the members of the faithfull the members of Christ Knowe ye not sayeth he that the members of the faithfull are the members of Christe Shall I then make the members of Christ the members of an harlott In this place Cyrill sayeth that Christe doth dwell corporally in vs but howe by participation of the fleshe of Christe which as he tooke of our nature so hath he againe giuen the same vnto vs to bee in deede our nourishment vnto eternall life which thing is testified vnto vs by the sacrament euen as the vnitie wee haue one with another and all of vs with Christe is testified in that we all take part of one breade Otherwise I see nothing in this place that may help Maister Heskins For such as our vnitie is such is our participation of his flesh and as we are members of his body so doe we eate his body This M. Heskins must graunt if he will allowe Cyrills authoritie but our vnitie participation and coniunction of members though it be in his body of his flesh and vnto him as our head yet is not after a carnall manner no more is the eating of his flesh nor the corporall dwelling of him in vs after a carnall or corporall manner but after a diuine and spirituall manner The place of Chrysostome hee cyteth hath bene once or twice considered already The fifteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Leo and Euthymius The place of Leo is cyted out of Serm. 6. de Ieiu sep mens Hanc confessionem c. This confession most welbeloued vttering foorth with all your heart forsake ye the vngodly deuises of heretiques that your fastings and almes may be defiled with the infection of no errour For then the offering of sacrifice is cleane and the giuing of almes is holy when they which performe these things vnderstand what they worke For as our Lord saith except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you you ought so to be partakers of the holy table that you doubt nothing of the trueth of the body of Christe and of his bloud For that is taken with the mouth which is beleeued by faith and in vaine doe they answere Amen which dispute against that which is receiued Leo in these words as Maister Heskins is enforced to confesse speaketh against the Eutychian heresie which denyed the trueth of Christes body after the adunation therof to the Diuinitie as the papistes do indeed though not in words by their vbiquitie traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ saith thei cannot be partakers rightly of the sacrameÌ„t of his body bloud which do not acknowlege that he had a very body bloud Therfore it is intollerable impudencie in M. Hes. to note a place for M. Iewel wheÌ„ he him selfe after confesseth that he spake not of the trueth of his body in the sacrament And whereas he saith the mouth receiueth that which is by faith beleeued it helpeth him nothing for he meaneth nothing else but that those men cannot receiue with their mouth the sacrament of his flesh and bloud which deny him to haue true flesh bloud for the sacrament is a seale and confirmation of faith Nowe how far Leo was from transubstantiation or vbiquitie we haue shewed before in the 11. Chapter of this booke where his saying may be read The testimonie of Euthymius is cyted In 6. Ioan. Nisi comederitis
the body of Christe by Origens owne wordes and therefore the proclamer sayde truely that wee receiue Christe none otherwise in the sacrament then the Iewes did in Manna concerning the substaunce of the spirituall meat And Maister Heskins saith falsely That we excell the Iewes for our incorporation in Christ and therefore receiue him corporally as though the Iewes also were not incorporated into Christe and were not liuely members of his body in as great excellencie as we yea and with a prerogatiue of the first begotten and of the naturall oliue wherein wee are inferiour The place of Ambrose hee cyteth Lib. 9. cap. 1. De sacramentis Sicus verus est Deifilius Dominus noster Iesus Christus c. As our Lorde Iesus Christe is the true sonne of God not as men by grace but as a sonne of the substance of his father euen so it is true flesh which we receiue as he him selfe saith and very drinke This is noted for an other plaine place for the proclamer as though the proclamer did not graunt that we receiue the true flesh and bloud of Christe in the sacrament but spiritually and by faith not carnally nor transubstantiated But Ambrose is the best expounder of him selfe who in the 6. booke and Chap. 1. De sacramentis hath these wordes Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis sacramentum sed verae naturae gratiam virtutémque consequeris Therefore least more should say this as though there were a certaine horrour of bloud but that the grace of redemption might remaine therefore thou receiuest the sacrament truely for a similitude but thou obtainest the grace and vertue of his true nature By which Ambrose expresseth the whole substaunce of the sacrament that it is a similitude of the body and bloud of Christe but not a similitude onely but such a one as by which we receiue the grace and power of that true nature which is resembled by it This place would satisfie a sober minde but a froward heart will admit no wisedome The nineteenth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Eusebius Emiss and S. Augustine Eusebius is cyted out of Hom. 5. pasch Quia corpus assumptum c. Bicause hee would take his assumpted body from our eyes and bring it into heauen it was necessarie that in the day of his supper he should consecraâ—â— vnto vs a sacrament of his body and bloud that it might be celebrated continually by a mysterie which was offered for our price that bicause the daily and vnwearied redemption did runne for the health of all men the oblation of the redemption might be perpetuall and that eternall sacrifice should liue in memorie and that true onely and perfect sacrifice should be present in grace to be esteemed by faith not by shewe neither to be iudged by outward sight but by inward affection Wherevpon the heauenly authoritie confirmeth that my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede This sentence being directly against him as euery man that readeth it may easily perceiue he is neither ashamed to alledge it hauing nothing to gather out of it for his purpose nor yet that is worse most breastly to corrupt it by false translation and wrong distinction or pointing committing that childish sophisticatioÌ„ which is called ab accentu For where the Latine is Et perennis victima illa viueret in memoria semper prÄ™sens esset in gratia vera vnica perfecta hostia fide aestimanda non specie c. hee hath dismembred it by this translation And that perpetuall sacrifice should liue in memorie and alway be present in grace A TRVE ONE ONLY AND PERFECT SACRIFICE to be esteemed by faith and not by outward forme c. And al bicause he would not acknowledge the presence of Christ that onely true sacrifice by grace which is absent in the bodie as the purpose of Eusebius is to shewe And therfore those words that follow are to be vnderstoode by them that goe before Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie therefore departe seeing hee that is the Authour of the gift is also witnesse of the trueth For the inuisible priest with his worde by secrete power conuerteth the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie and bloud The former sentence sufficiently declareth that he speaketh of a spiritual and not a carnall conuersion because his body which is absent from vs and carried into heauen is present with vs by grace and not otherwise Saint Augustine is cyted Tr. 26. in Ioan Cum enim cibo potu c. For as much as men by meate and drinke do this desire â–ª that they should neither hunger nor thirst nothing perfourmeth this truely but this meate and drinke which maketh them of whom it is receiued immortall and incoâ—â—uptible that is the fellowship of the Saints where peace shal be full and perfect vnitie For therefore truely as the men of God haue vnderstoode it before vs our Lord Iesus Christ commended his bodie and bloud in those thinges which of many are brought to one certein thing For the one is made into one of many graynes so consisteth the other coÌ„meth into one of many grapes Because this sentence is clean contrarie to the carnal presence transubstantiation you must cal to remeÌ„brance the glose of a certeine blind Authour that there be three things in the sacrament to be considered The first the sacrament only which is a signe of an holy thing and that is the forme of bread The second the thing signified conteined that is the very bodie of christ The third is signified but not conteined that is the mysticall bodie of christ But this balde distinction is so farre of Augustines minde that he cleane ouerthroweth two partes of it First the carnall presence of Christes bodie conteined when he affirmeth that this meate maketh them of whome it is receiued immortall and incorruptible whiche are onely them that receiue it by faith for if it were conteined wicked men should also receiue it but they receiue it not therefore it is not conteined Secondly he ouerthroweth transubstantiation when he saith that Christe commended his bodie in such thinges as are made one of many as one bread of many graines and one wine of many grapes For the fourme by which Heskins meaneth the accidents of bread is made neither of graynes nor of grapes Therfore the fourme of Bread is none of those things in which Christ commended his body and bloud But when nothing is in Augustine then the collections of Prosper must helpe on this manner Hoc est quod dicimus c. This it is which we say which by al meanes we labour to approue that the sacrifice of the Church is made by two meanes and consisteth of two thinges the visible kinde of the elementes and the inuisible fleshe and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe
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
in the beginning of the sentence that it is a meate to nourish the soule and not for the bodie to receiue neither receiued but where it nourisheth the soule And that ouerthroweth the corporall manner of eating The one and twentieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by Chrysostome and Lyra. Chrysostome is cited Hom. 46. in Ioan. The same wordes almoste that were before ascribed to Euthymius who borrowed them of Chrysostome Quid autem c. But what meaneth this saying my fleshe is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede Either that he is the true meate whiche saueth the soule or that he might confirme them in that he said before least they should thinke he spake darkely in parables If this be spoken of the fleshe of Christe in the sacrament then none receiue the flesh of Christ in the sacrament but they whose soules are saued but many receiue the sacrament whose soules are not saued therefore this is not spoken of the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament Ye but are ye aduised that this is a plaine place for M Iewel that these words My fleshe is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in is no figuratiue speeche Let it be as plaine as you will it must be meate in deede and drinke in deede to feede our soules and that must needes be spiritually for our soules cannot eate carnally As for Lyra a late Popishe writer I haue often protested that I will not stay vpon his authoritie let him be on M. Heskins side The two and twentieth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by S. Cyrill and Dionyse S. Cyrill is alledged Lib. 4. Cap. 16. in Ioan. Vmbram figuram nosti c. Knowest thou the shadowe and the figure Learne the very truth of the thing For my flesh saith he is meate indeed and my bloud is drinke in deede Againe he maketh a distinction betweene the mystical benediction and manna the streames of water out of the rocke and the communication of the holie cuppe that they should not more esteeme the miracle of manna but rather receiue him which is the giuer of the heauenly bread and of eternall life For the nourishment of Manna brought not eternall life but a short remedie of hunger Therefore it was not the true meate But the holie bodie of Christ is a meate nourishing vnto immortalitie eternall life Also that water out of the rocke easied bodily thirst for a short time neither brought it any thing beside Therfore it was not that true drinke but the bloud of Christ by which death is vtterly ouerthrowen and destroyed is the true drinke For it is not the bloud of a man simply but of him which being ioyned vnto a natural life is become life Because M. Heskins cannot tell what to gather out of this place for his purpose he taketh vp yesterdayes colde ashes of the authorities cited before by light of them to wrest this place to his purpose but all remaineth still darke and dyme for his intent Of the excellencie of the fleshe and bloud of Christe aboue Manna the water as they were corporal foode there is neither doubt nor question nor yet that the same is eaten in the sacrament of the faithfull but whether it be eaten corporally or spiritually is all the question And Dionyse the Charterhouse Monke whome he matcheth vndiscretely with Cyrill denieth also that the body of Christ is receiued corporally in the sacrament Verè est cibus animae non corporis quia non visibiliter nec corporaliter sumitur quamuis verum corpus sumatur It is meate in deede but of the soule not of the bodie because it is not receiued visibly nor corporally although the very body be receiued So that the Papistes them selues do not al agree of the maner of receiuing In this Chapter beside these two expositors are also cited Augustine Chrysostome Augustine in Saint Prosper to auouch the phrase of formes of bread and wine Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in sacramento accipimus sanguis eius est quem sub vini specie sapore potamus It is his flesh which we receiue in the sacrament couered with the fourme of bread and it is his bloud which we drinke vnder the kinde and taste of wine Beside that this collection of Prosper is not to be found in any of Augustines owne workes I denie the names of Forma and Species to be taken for accidentes in that sense the Papistes doe but for a figure or signification as by the wordes immediately following it is most manifest which M. Heskins hath moste lewdly suppressed Caro videlicèt carnis sanguis sacramentum est sanguinis carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili spirituali intelligibili signatur spirituale Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile plenum gratia omnium virtutū diuina Maiestate That is the flesh is a sacrament of the flesh and the bloud is a sacrament of the bloud by both of them beeing inuisible spirituall intelligible is signified the spirituall bodie of our Lord Iesus Christe which is palpable ful of the grace of all vertues and diuine Maiestie In these wordes he calleth the elementes of bread wine flesh and bloud which are sacramentes of his true glorious palpable bodie which is in heauen as it is yet more plaine by that whiche followeth Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui caro Christi est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile quod mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus sit Christi passiō mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significāte mysterio sic sacramentum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As that heauēly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a certeine manner is called the body of Christ when in very deede it is the sacrament of the bodie of Christ which beeing visible which beeing palpable which beeing mortall was put on the crosse the very offring of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstood to be baptisme is faith In these words he affirmeth the elements to be the bodie bloud of Christ as the action of the Priest is his passion death crucifying as baptisme is faith not in trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Chrysostome is alledged to proue that the whole bodie of Christe is in the sacrament Hom. 24. in 10. ad Cor. 1. Et quando c. And when thou seest that thing set foorth say with thy selfe for this bodie I am no more earth and ashes this bodie being crucified and beaten was not ouercome by death This same bodie being
bloudied and wounded with a speare hath sent foorth founteines of bloude and water wholesome to all the world Here is much a doe the same bodie is in the sacrament which was crucified Wee knowe Christ hath no more bodies but euen that one that was crucifyed the same is eaten in the sacrament as in a mysterie significatiuely as the same Chrysostome in the same place doth testifie Quid enim appello inquit communicationem id ipsium corpus sumus Quid significat panis Corpus Christi Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christi non multa sed vnum corpus For what do I call it saith he a participation We are the verie same bodie What doth the bread signifie the bodie of Christ. What are they made that receiue the bodie of Christ not many bodies but one bodie Lo here the breade signifyeth the bodie of Christe which was crucified And the faithfull that receiue it are made the same bodie of Christ that was crucified but all this in a mysterie not carnally or corporally What reader of Cambridge he girdeth at that alledged obiectiōs of Duns against the carnall presence I knowe not Duns might frame or reherse more arguments against it then with al his subtilties he could aunswere but my thinke M. Hesk. should not enuie this practise when he himselfe hath neuer an argument nor authoritie almost out of the doctors but such as he hath of other mens gathering and not of his own reading as his manifold mistakins do declare beside wilfull corruptions and falsifications The three and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact Beda Of these two being both of the lower house the testimonie of Theophylactus maketh nothing for him the saying of Beda maketh much against him Concerning Theophylact let them that list read his sentence for I compt it superfluous to rehearse their testimony whose authoritie in this matter I will not stand to But because the opinion of carnall presence was not receiued in this church of England in the age of Beda nor long after I thinke it not amisse to consider his authoritie He writeth therefore in Ioan. Dixerat superiùs c. He had sayde before he that eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloud hath life eternall And that he might shewe howe great a difference is betweene corporall meate and the spirituall mysterie of his bodie bloud he added my fleshe is meate in deede my bloud is drink in deede Here Beda calleth the sacrament a spiritual mysterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ which although it be playne against the carnall presence yet M. Heskins would cloke it with a fonde definition of a mysterie to be that I wot not what which conteyneth couertly a thing not to be perceiued by sences or common knowledge and so the sacrament is a mysterie conteyning the verie bodie of christ Besides that he remembreth not that Beda calleth it not onely a mysterie but a spirituall mysterie I would wit of him what it is that Beda calleth a spirituall mysterie if he say the sacrament I would further knowe what he calleth the sacrament he will aunswere the formes of breade wine for so they determine forsooth Well then Christ would not shewe the difference of the spirituall foode of his flesh bloud which is the thing conteined but of the accidents of bread and wine from the corporall foode O foolishe conclusion of Beda or rather O false definition counterfet exposition of Hesk For Beda sheweth the excellencie of the spirituall mysterie of Christes bodie and bloud which is our spirituall foode aboue the corporall foode and neuer dreamed of M. Heskins mysterie The foure and twentieth Chapter beginneth the ex-position of the next text in the sixt of S. Iohn by S. Hillarie S. Augustine The text is He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee and I in him For vnderstanding of this text he premiseth a destinction of two manners of abyding in Christ that is spiritually and naturally spiritually by right faith and sincere charitie as S. Cyrill doth teache and naturally by receiuing of Christes fleshe as S. Hillarie teacheth This distinction not being made by any doctour but deuised vpon occasion of termes vsed by the doctours to ouerthrowe the meaning of the doctours he pleaseth him verie much therein I haue shewed before that Hillarie by the worde naturally meaneth truelye that as Christ is truely ioyned vnto vs by taking on him our fleshe and we are truely ioyned to him by eating drinking his flesh vnder a sacrament and vnder a mysterie for both these termes of restreint he hath to shewe the manner of our eating to be sacramentall and mysticall not as M. Heskins would carnall and naturall so Christ is truely one with God not in vnitie of will only but in vnitie of Godhead in substance of diuinitie in essence of eternitie But let vs heare his owne wordes lib. 8. de Trinit Quod autem in eo c. But that we be in him by the sacrament or mysterie of his fleshe and bloud which is communicated vnto vs he testifieth him selfe saying And this world doth not nowe see mee but you shall see mee for I liue and ye also shall liue because I am in my father and you in mee and I in you c. But that this vnitie in vs is naturall he hath witnessed saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in mee I in him For there shall no man be in him but in whome he shal be hauing onely his assumpted flesh in him who hath taken his By this place out of which he would buyld his destinction of naturall and spirituall abyding the same is manifestly ouerthrowne For the drift of that distinction as he confesseth is to shewe that Christe may abyde naturally where he doth not abyde spiritually as in the wicked But the place of Hillarie is plain that where this naturall vnitie is Christe abydeth eternally therefore this naturall vnitie is not in the wicked Thus while Maister Heskins harpeth greedily vppon the terme naturally for the naturall presence of Christes bodie he looseth his distinction and with all his naturall presence also For if his bodie be not naturally receiued of the wicked it is not naturally present in the sacrament as all Papistes do confesse And further that this natural vnitie is after a spirituall manner it appeareth by the last wordes of the sentence That he in whome Christ dwelleth hath onely the assumpted flesh of Christ in him But this must needes be after a spirituall manner as the holie and innocent fleshe of Christe is made oures therefore this naturall vnitie he speaketh of is not in that sense naturall that Maister Heskins immagineth but after a diuine and vnspeakable manner For otherwise Godly men haue fleshe of their owne yea and sinfull fleshe which is not of the singular substance of the fleshe of Christe though
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
is cyted thus Non enim prudenter c. Those things which suffice for a short time shal not wisely be called by that name neither was that bread good which the Elders of the Iewes did eate and are dead For if it had bene from heauen and of God it had deliuered the partakers of it from death Contrariwise that body of Christe is bread from heauen bicause it giueth the eaters of it eternall life Cyrill saith the body of Christe is the bread that came downe from heauen and which giueth eternall life being eaten euen in the sacrament all this we confesse alwayes But as the body of Christe did not naturally descend from heauen which he receiued here on earth no more speaketh he of a carnall presence or corporall manner of eating but yet of his very flesh and bloud eaten spiritually by faith The two and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by S. Augustine and Theophylact. Saint Augustine is cyted Tract 26. iâ— Ioan. Hic est panis c. This is the bread which came downe from heauen that by eating thereof we might liue bicause we can not haue eternall life of our selues Not saith he as your Fathers did eate Manna and are deade He that eateth this bread â–ª shall liue for euer Therefore that they are dead he would haue it so to be vnderstoode that they should not liue for euer For truely they also die temporally that eaâ— Christ but they liue eternally bicause Christ is eternall life Maister Heskins wondereth what gloses the aduersaries inuent vpon this saying but I maruell what hee can picke out of it for his purpose except it bee this that who so euer eate Christ shall liue for euer but that I am sure hee will none of The saying of Theophylact but that I stand not on his authoritie being a late writer seemeth to be directly against him For hee saith that The Lorde by his flesh which he tooke of the Virgine Marie shall preserue our spirituall nature Which as it is very true so must it needes inforce a spirituall receiuing For our spirituall nature can not receiue carnally or corporally but onely spiritually And yet the wise man noteth in his margent a plaine place for the proclamer which is plaine against his owne purpose The three and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the next text in the sixt of S. Iohn The text is that when our Sauiour had taught this doctrine in the synagogue in Capernaum diuers of his disciples were offended and saide This is an hard saying who can abide it Hee aunswereth out of Saint Augustine In Psal. 98. They were hard and not the saying The like out of Theophylact. In Ioan. 6. Who beeing carnall can eate spirituall meate and the bread which came downe from heauen and the flesh which is eaten c. For bicause they had flesh they thought he would compell them to be deuourers of flesh and bloud But bicause we vnderstand him spiritually we neither are deuourers of flesh but rather we are sanctified by such a meate This place for any thing that I can see therein is directly against the carnall eating of the Papistes sauing that Theophylact lyuing in a corrupt time writeth in other places suspiciously of the carnall presence and transubstantiation Nowe where Maister Heskins chargeth vs to be Caparnaites whome he calleth Sacramentaries and derideth our carnall vnderstanding bycause wee can not conceiue howe Christes very body should bee in the sacrament except it should occupie a place and bee felt with our senses let the world iudge whether our vnderstanding or theirs bee more spirituall or else more grosse and like the Capernaites The foure and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Si videritis c. by Saint Augustine and Saint Cyrill The text is this What if you see the sonne of man ascend where he was before Ere he enter into his exposition hee moueth this doubt howe Christe doth say the sonne of man shall ascend where he was before seeing concerning his humanitie hee was neuer in heauen before he spake these wordes For answere he bringeth a long sentence of Saint Augustine which containeth this in effect that Christ concerning his humanitie would ascend thither where he was before concerning his diuinitie For by reason of the vnion of two natures in one person of Christe that is often spoken of the whole person which is proper either to the diuine nature onely or to the humane nature onely For exposition hee cyteth Augustine Tr. 27. in Ioan. Quid est hoc Hinc soluit c. What is this by this he resolueth them whome he knewe by this he hath opened whereby they were offended by this plainely if they would vnderstand For they thought that he would giue foorth his body but he saide that he would ascend into heauen whole When you shall see the sonne of man ascending where he was before certainly euen then at least you shall see that he giueth not foorth his body after that manner that you thinke certainly euen then at least you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bytinges Although this place is so directly against him that nothing can bee more plaine yet hee is not ashamed to cyte it for his purpose Affirming that Augustine by these wordes denyeth not the giuing of Christes bodye but the manner of the giuing of his bodye This wee confesse but what manner of giuing doth hee denye Maister Heskins saith onely the giuing of it by lumpes and peeces as the Capernaites did imagine But that is false for he denieth not onely the giuing of Christes bodie by lumpes but also al corporall and carnall manner of giuing thereof as both these wordes aboue cited and the whole discourse of that treatise doth shew most euidently First he saith that Christ by telling them of his ascention doth clearely resolue them and open plainely where at they were offended Which is very true For when they should see that he carried his naturall bodie whole into heauen they might well perceiue that he would not giue that bodie to be eaten after a corporall manner either in peeces much lesse in the whole For the giuing thereof in whole is much more monstruous then the giuing therof in peeces And if there remained a corporall receipt of his whole bodie notwithstanding his absenting thereof from the earth the doubt by his ascention is nothing at all resolued but by an hundreth times more increased Againe where he saith after his ascention Then you shall see that he giueth not his bodie after the manner that you thinke then you shal vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitings By these wordes he doeth plainely determine of the manner of giuing that the Iewes thought which was corporall whether it were in whole or in peeces and after what manner Christes bodie is giuen namely by grace But Maister Heskins citeth another place out of Augustine In
and life He sheweth that his whole bodie is full of quickening vertue of the spirite For here he called his very fleshe spirite not because it lost the nature of flesh is changed into the spirite but because beeing perfectly ioyned with it it hath receiued the whole power to quicken Neither let any man think this to be spoken vndecently for he that is surely ioyned to the Lorde is one spirite with him How then shal not his flesh be called one with him It is after this manner therefore which is saide you thinke I said this earthly and mortall bodie of his owne nature to be quickening or giuing life but I spake of the spirit life For the nature of the flesh of it self caÌ„not quicken but the power of the spirite hath made the fleshe quickening Therefore the words which I haue spokeÌ„ that is those things which I spoke vnto you are spirite and life by which my fleshe also liueth and is quickening Cyrill hauing his minde still bent against the Nestorians earnestly auoucheth the trueth of Christes flesh vnited to his Diuinitie but for M. Hesk. purpose he saith nothing at all I meane for the carnal maner of receiuing Christes fleshe in the sacrament The name of Capernaites M. Hesk. so much misliketh that he would turne it ouer to vs if he could inuent any balde reason to proue it agreeing to our doctrine The sacramentaries he saith are carnal and grosse because they say that Papistes receiue nothing but bare flesh and not the flesh of Christe which is vnited to the Deitie and giueth life But indeed the Papistes say as much when they say that the flesh of Christ is receiued where it giueth no life As for those whome he calleth sacramentaries they wil not graunt that the Papistes although they prate so grossely of flesh bloud yet receiue any thing but a wafer cake a draught of wine The fortieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text and so of the processe of the sixt of S. Iohn by Euthymius and Lyra. Euthymius to end this long and tedious processe is cited as before In. 6. Ioan. Verba quae c. The wordes which I speake vnto you are spirite and life they are spirituall and quickening For we must not looke vpon them simply that is vnderstand them carnally But imagine a certeine other thing and to beholde them with inward eyes as mysteries for this is spiritually to vnderstand Euthymius affirmeth the same that Chrysostome doeth Hom. 46. In Ioan. and almoste in the same wordes neither can M. Hesk. drawe any thing out of theÌ„ to serue his humor but that the sacramentes are mysteries and therefore some other thing must be present then is seene with the outward eye which is true so it be such a thing as may be seene onely with the eyes of the mind of which the authour speaketh But the bodie of Christ as Aug. saith euen immortall and glorified is stil visible Ep. 85. Consentio To wrangle about the sentence of Lyra it were losse of time who although he wil haue a real presence yet he wil haue The flesh of Christ to be eaten in the sacrament after a spirituall maner because the spirite by the power of God vnited to the flesh is refreshed Wherevpon M. Hesk. reiecting the true spirituall manner of eating Christes fleshe in the sacrament by faith as hereticall which he hath so often before allowed as onely profitable setteth vp three other spirituall manners of Christes presence in the sacrament for three causes First because it is wrought by the spirite of god Secondly because although it be verily present it is not knowen by corporall sence but by spirituall knowledge of faith Thirdly because our spirite by the power of God is vnited to the fleshe of these deuises he maketh Lyra the author and he may bee well ynough For such blinde teachers while they wrangled about words they became altogether vaine in their imaginations and lost the true sence and meaning both of the worde of God and of the sacraments The rayling stuffe wherewith he concludeth this Chapter and this worthie expositioÌ„ continued in 36. Chapters I passe ouer as vnworthie of any answere The one and fortieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of these wordes of Christ this is my bodie after the minde of the aduersaries The first part of this Chapter conteyneth a fonde and lewde comparison of the doctrine of the Sacramentaries with the temptation of the diuell vsed to our firste parents â–ª which because it sheweth nothing but M. Hesk. witt and stomake I omitt It hath more colour of reason that he bringeth in afterward namely that there are two things which ought to moue men to resist the temtation of the sacramentaries their contrarietie to the worde of God and their contrarietie among them selues Their contrarietie to the worde of God he sayeth to bee where Christ sayde This is my bodie Sathan sayth it is not his bodie In verie deede if after Christe hath sayde the bread and wine are his bodie bloude any man shuld rise vp saye they are not his bodie bloud at al we might well iudge that he spake by the spirite of Sathan as when Christe sayeth drinke ye all of this the Pope sayth to the people there shall none of you all drink of this we may easely acknowlege the spirit of Antichrist But we whome he calleth sacramentaries doe with all reuerence humilitie confesse that the bread the wine ministred according to Christes institution are the body bloud of Christ in such sence as he saide they were And we say with S. Augustine Per similitudinem Christus multa est quae per proprietatem non est Per similitudinem petrae est Christus ostium est Christus lapis angularis est Christus c. By similitude Christ is manie things which he is not by propertie By similitude the rocke is Christ the dore is Christ the corner stone is Christ c. Wherfore we affirme nothing contrarie to the words of Christ but altogether agreeable to his meaning For contrarietie of Sacramentaries among them selues he citeth a saying of Luther written in his frowardnesse that there shoulde be eyght seuerall disagreeing spirites among the Sacramentaries from which if you take away Carolostadius Swenkfeldius Campanus and the eight without name which is belike H. N. opinion that euery man may think of it what he list whose opinions the godly whome hee calleth sacramentaries did euer more detest as wicked vngodly there remaineth the interpretation of Zwinglius of the wordes of Christ This signifieth my bodie of Oecolampadius This is a token of my bodâ—e two other Receiue the benefits of my passion and Take this as a monument or remembrance of my bodie crucified for you which differ in forme of wordes and are all one in deede and meaning So is the iudgement of Melancthon this is the participation of my bodie
transmutationem aluntur ipsius incarnati Iesu Christi carnem sanguinem esse educti sumus Into this English with foysting in a parenthesis and chaunging his letter EVEN SO WE BE TAVGHT THAT THE FOODE wherewith our flesh and bloud be nourished by alteration WHEN IT IS CONSECRATED BY THE PRAYER OF HIS WORD TO BE THE FLESH AND BLOVD OF THE SAME IESVS INCARNATED In this beastly racking peruerting he hath left out thankâ—giuing not knowing wher to place it The cause of this falsification is for that he can not abide that the food after it is consecrated shuld nourish our bodies which Iustinê° doth most expresly affirme But before I proceede to his collections I will gather my selfe out of this place that which the Papistes wil not wel like of and yet although they would burst for anger thei can not auoyde but that they be necessarie collections First that there was no priuate Masse in his dayes for all that were present did communicate Secondly that the people as well as the ministers receiued in both kindes Thirdly that the things wherof they were partakers were bread wine and water which after they were consecrated were the nourishment of their bodies Now let vs heare M. Hes. collection for the reall presence First he saith not these things were signes figures tokens therefore they were none A tried argument of the authoritie of a man negatiuely Secondly he saith they were taught that by consecration they were made by the power of Gods worde the flesh and bloud of Christ that was incarnated We beleue the same likewise Thirdly M. Hes saith the real presence was as certaine to the primitiue Church as the incarnation So saith not Iustinus neither that the sacrament was the same substance of naturall flesh and bloud of Iesus that was incarnat by that diuine wonderful means by which he was incarnate and this do we most constantly beleeue And therefore here is no plaine place for the proclamer to proue the reall presence whereof Iustine speaketh none otherwise then the proclamer did speak beleeue while he liued But M. Heskins although there was neuer seene a more impudent falsifier of the Doctours sayings and meanings and euen in this place as I haue plainely discouered most lewdly corrupted the authours wordes by false translation yet he shameth not to slaunder holy and learned Cranmer of the same crime But what should an harlot do but after she hath plaied the strumpet call euery honest woman shee meeteth whore first Cranmer saith he reporteth as though Iustine should say the sacrament is but called the body of Christe This is first an intollerable lye For Cranmer saith it is called the body of Christ he saith not it is but called so that is only called so Secondly Cranmer saide out of Iustinus that these creatures after they be consecrated do nourish the bodies and are chaunged into them And therein he saith most truely and as the wordes of Iustine are and as the Latine translation is and Maister Heskins most falsely hath corrupted them as I shewed before Of which falsification being guiltie in his owne conscience he fleeth from his former Latine translation which is true in this point to the translation of Petrus Nannius a Papist which yet helpeth him not but by false pointing and displacing of the wordes Ita quoque per preces verbi illius cibum ex quo caro nostra sanguis per immutationem aluntur cum benedictus fuerit Iesu ipsius incarnati carnem sanguinem didicimus esse But the Greeke Article is so placed as it can abide no such patcherie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euen so we are taught that that foode after thankes are giuen for it by prayer of his word of which our flesh and bloud by permutation are nourished is the flesh and bloud of that Iesus which was incarnated So are the very wordes of Iustine But to helpe out the matter Ambrose is alledged Lib. 4. de sacra Cap. 5. Before it be consecrated it is bread but when the wordes of Christ are come to it it is the body of Christ. But the same Ambrose in the same booke and Chapter saith of the sacrament in the prayer of the Church Fac nobis inquit hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabileÌ„ quod est figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi Make vnto vs saith the priest this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus christ By these wordes it is manifest how Ambrose and the Church in his time tooke the breade to be the body of Christ. The like may be said of Augustine whose wordes M. Heskins cyteth De verbis Domini ser. 8. Before the wordes of Christ that which is offered is called breade when the words of Christ are spoken now it is not called breade but is called his body Who seeth not that these words are vttered by comparison it is not caled bread but his body that is it is rather called his body then bread as S. Paule saith Christe sent me not to baptise but to preach that is rather to preach then to baptise But nowe commeth in the authoritie of Alexander somtime Byshop of Rome to which I will not vouchsafe to make any answere bicause it is a meere forgerie and counterfet Epistle as all the pack of these decretall Epistles are that are feined in the name of those auncient holy Martyrs sometimes Bishops of the citie of Rome by some lewde Losel that could not write true Latine as is easie to see of all men that will take paines to read such beastly baggage I will giue you a taste of this counterfet Alexander speaking of holy water If the ashes being sprinkled with the bloud of a heifer did sanctifie the people much more shall water sprinkled with salt and hallowed with godly prayers See howe the brutish blasphemous Asse transferreth the argument of the Apostle Heb. 9. from the precious bloud of Christ to his beggerly holy water I wil therfore leaue M. Heskins rooting with his groyne in this draffe sacke and passe to the next Chapter The foure and fortieth Chapter by occasion of the wordes of Alexander treateth of the adoration and honouring of Christes body in the sacrament It is a worshipfull Alexander that gaue you the occasion of this discourse by his wordes But let the occasion goe we will looke to the matter First he rehearseth halfe a side of M. Iewels wordes against the adoration of the sacrament out of which he gathereth two arguments the one thus Christ neuer gaue coÌ„mandement to worship the sacrament ergo it is not to be done This argument he answereth is negatiue and therfore concludeth nothing But vnder correction of his great Logike when God chargeth vs to do that onely which he commaundeth an argument of negatiues of Gods commaundement concludeth al things to be vnlawfull which God hath not commaunded Hee bringeth examples
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
they 〈◊〉 hitherto that they would neither learne by hearing nor acknowledge by reading that which in the Church of God in the mouth of all men is so agreeably spoken That not as much as of the tongues of infantes the veritie of the bodie and bloud of Christ is vnspoken of among the sacraments of the common faith for in that mystical distribution of that spirituall foode this thing is giuen foorth this thing is receiued that receiuing the vertue of that heauenly meate we may goe into his fleshe which was made our fleshe First M. Heskins as his fashion is to make the matter more cleare on his side falsely translateth Hoc impertitur hoc sumitur this bodie is giuen forth this bodie is receiued Where as Hoc is either taken absolutely for this thing or else at the least must haue relation to Sacramentum which is the next substantiue of the neuter gender in any reasonable construction Secondly it is manifest that Leo speaking against the heretiques Eutycheâ— and Dioscorus setteth forth the truth of Christs bodie bloud as one of the common knowen sacraments or mysteries of Christian faith saith neuer a word of his carnall presence in the mysterie of his supper but contrariwise teacheth that it is a mystical distributioÌ„ a spiritual food an heaueÌ„ly meat which words import not a carnal maner but a spiritual maner of preseÌ„ce eating Thus real presence as he termeth it being not yet proued the adoration cannot follow as he pretendeth The seuen and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the proofe of the adoration of the Sacrament by doctors The first doctor named is Dionysius Areopagita disciple of S. Paule as he sayeth Eccles. Hierarch 3. parte Cap. 3. who maketh this prayer to the sacrament O verie godly holie mysterie opening fauourably the couerings of signifying signes wherewith thou art couered shine openly and apertly vnto vs fill our spiritual eyes with the singuler open brightnesse of thy light That this Dionyse although of some antiquitie yet is not that Dionyse that was conuerted by S. Paule nor any that liued 600. yeres after at the least it is plaine by this reason that neither Eusebius nor Hieronyme nor Gennadius which wrote the Catologs of all ecclesiasticall writers that were before them or were famous in the church in their time nor yet any other writer within the compasse of 600. yeres after Christe maketh any mention of any such Dionyse to be a writer of those bookes which are saide to be written by him Now touching his supposed prayer it is but an exclamatioÌ„ rethoricall named apostrophe not vnto the bread wine but to him that in that mysterie is represented which is Christ that he would vouchsafe to open him self shine in the hearts of the faithfull as the outward signes are seene with the outwarde eyes And that he allowed no transubstantiation it is manifest by that he saith in the same place that the Bishop doth after consecration cut in peeces the vndiuided bread speaking of the sacrament doth often affirme that by those symboles or signes wee are changed into God Christ meaning we are renewed by his spirite but neuer affirmeth the bread wine to bee turned into the bodie bloud of christ Howbeit what I iudge of his authorite antiquitie I haue declared before The next is Gregorie Nazianzen in Epitaph Gorgoniae sororis Quid igitur c. What then did the soule both great worthie of greatest things and what remedie had shee against her infirmitie For nowe the secreat is disclosed when shee had dispaired of all other shee flyeth to the Phisition of all men and taking the solitarinesse of the night when the disease had giuen her a little respite shee fell downe with faith before the altare and with a lowde voice and all her might shee called vppon him which is worshipped at is and vnto him shee rehearsed all the myracles that he had done of olde time M. Heskins immagineth that it was such an altare as they haue in the popish Churches which is vntrue for it was a table men stoode round about it as is to be proued by many testimonies of antiquitie Secondly he immagineth that the sacrament was hanged ouer the altare to be worshipped as it is among them but that is vtterly false for it was receiued at such time as it was consecrated except some remanents that were kept to be eaten Therfore though shee made her prayer at the altare shee made no prayer to any thing vppon the altare but to God whome shee did worship and reuerence and whose mysteries shee vsed to receiue at the same altare Therefore M. Heskins falsifieth Gregories words which are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but thus they are turned by him into latine ante altare cum fide procubuit illum quem super altare venerabatur c. Shee prostrated her selfe with faith before the altar and called vpon him whome shee worshipped vpon the altare But Gregorie sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it or at it meaning the altare where shee prayed And to put all out of doubt that shee worshipped not the sacrament vppon the altare it followeth afterwarde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if her hand had layde vp any where any parte of the figures of the precious bodie or of the bloud that shee mingled with teares O marueilous thing and immediatly departed feeling health By these wordes it appeareth that shee brought this remanent of the sacrament with her which Gregorie calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the signes or tokens or figures of the bodie and bloud of Christ and not the verie naturall bodie of Christe and those shee worshipped not but wett them with teares whether superstitiously let the Papistes iudge for they them selues will allowe no such fashions nor yet reseruation for such purposes but as for adoration of the sacrament which is the matter intended here is none spoken of in this place After this he toucheth the facte of Satyrus the brother of S. Ambrose which is aunswered before lib. 1. Cap. 24. whose hope was in God and not in the sacrament Although Satyrus as a young nouice not throughly instructed in Christian religion cannot simply be defended though he may be excused howsoeuer by his brother Ambrose he is highly commended Then followed Eusebius Emisserâ—us Hom. Pascal Because he woulde take away his assumpted bodie from our eyes and carrie it into heauen it was needefull that this day he should consecrate vnto vs the sacrament of his bodie and bloud vs coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in precium that it might be continually worshipped or exercised by a mysterie for colere signifieth both whiche was once offered for our price M. Heskins gathereth hereof that the same bodie should be honoured by mysterie whose visible presence not his bodie was taken away from the earth But Eusebius sayeth not onely that he would take his bodie
from our sight but also place it in heauen and in steede therof he leaueth the sacrament of his bodie and bloude which no man doubteth but it ought to be honoured as so high a mysterie deserueth but not as God or Christe The other saying of Eusebius which hee addeth doeth shewe howe it is to be honoured When thou commest to the reuerende altare to be satisfied with heauenly meates beholde with faith the holy bodie and bloud of thy God honour it wonder at is touch it with thy minde take it with the hande of thy heart and cheefely receiue it with the inwarde draught What can be layed more plainely for the spirituall receiuing and the like reuerence to be giuen to so holie a sacrament But because M. Heskins thinketh this saying to make more against him then for him therefore he sayeth to auoyde cauilling Eusebius proceedeth sone after in these words Sicut autem c. As any man comming to the faith of Christe before the wordes of baptisme is yet in the bands of the olde deis but when the words are spoken is foorthwith deliuered from all dregâ— of sinne So when the creatures are set vppon the holie altares to be blessed with heauenly words before they be consecrated by inuocation of the most highest name there is the substance of bread wine but after the wordes of Christ the bodie bloud of Christ. This is a plaine place for M. Iuell what else But if it be rightly vnderstood it is a plaine place against M. Hesk. for he sheweth the change or transubstantiation that is in the Lordes supper to be the same that it is in baptisme which is spirituall and not carnall and so doth verie fitly compare them together or else his similitude were to no purpose if it were not to shewe by that which is don in baptisme what is likewise done in the other sacrament M. Heskins still blattereth of a bare figure which is of vs always denyed Consequently he citeth Bernarde whose authoritie I leaue vnto him being a burgesse of the lower house in which he hath many voices as he hath neuer a one in the vpper house though he wrest their speaches most iniuriously To confirme some phrase of Bernard he rehearseth certein phrases of the old writers like to them in words but not in sense which haue bene aunswered alreadie as Hierom. ad Hed. qu. 2. Our Lord Iesus is the feaster the feast he that eateth and which is eaten Ambrose in praepara ad miss which is none of his but falsly intituled to him Thou art the Priest and the sacrifice wonderfully and vnspeakably appointed And Augustine in Psal. 33. He was borne in his owne hands But he leaueth out a worde which expoundeth both Augustine and all the rest that speake so quodam modo after a certeine manner Christ was borne in his owne hands is the feast that which is eaten the sacrifice I say quodam modo therefore not simpliciter Last of all he wil ioyne issue to subscribe on this point that the proclaimer can bring but one auncient doctor that saith the sacrament is not to be adored To whome I answer that forasmuch as in the primitiue church the opinion of transubstantiation was not knowen there neuer grew any question of the adoration of the sacrament as that Papistes nowe do vse it and commaund it The eyght and fortieth Chapter confuteth the rest of the proclaymers wordes before rehearsed against the honouring of Christ in the sacrament The words which he taketh vpon him to confute are these It is a newe deuise to worship the sacrament About three hundreth yere past Pope Honorius commaunded it to be lifted vp and the people reuerently to bowe vnto it How doth he confute these words First he saith it is no newe deuise but the contrarie that is the denying of the adoration is not past fourtie yeres old and yet he confesseth before that some infected with the heresie of Berengarius Wickliffe might whisper it in corners yet Berengarius and Wickliffe preached openly beâ—ore them Bertrame wrote a booke to Charles the great wherein he confuteth the reall presence which began in that time to be receiued of some as it seemeth vpward euen to Christ al the auncient fathers are against that carnall presence consequently against adoration But to proceede Admitting that Honorius was the first that commaunded it to be worshipped which was 300 yeres agoe yet is he elder then Oecolampadius not defamed of heresie as Oecolampadius was yes M. Hesk he is defamed of more then heresie and proued to bee an antichrist As for the continuance of 300. yeres in an errour can make no prescription against the trueth But he saith it is a fond argument of the proclaimer Because Honorius commaunded the adoration of the sacrament therefore it was neuer in vse before But if it were generally beleeued vsed in all ages before as M Hesk. would beare vs in hande what neede had Pope Honorius to commaund it He saith in like manner the fleshly sort of them dispute to mainteine their shamelesse abode with their women it is a newe deuise that priests should not marrie inuented by Vrban and Gregorie Whether M. Heskins were marryed or else had a shamelesse abode with a woman I leaue to be tryed by God the countrie in the countie of Cambridge But to the purpose I haue not heard any affirme these late Popes to be the first forbidders of marriage and therefore it is to no purpose that he citeth Syluester before them and Calixtus before him and the counterfet Canons of the Apostles before them all And yet by the prohibition of the latest Popes it is certeine that Priestes were married vntill their time And for as much as the scripture alloweth their marriage and condemneth the forbidders thereof and the eldest fathers in the primiâ—iue church confesse no lesse it is not to bee regarded although a whole hundreth Popes in a rowe did euery one forbid it The like example he bringeth of fasting in Lent decreede in the eight Toletane counsell neere 700. yeres after Christe but yet affirmed of Hierome to be a tradition of the Apostles For so they vsed to father such ceremonies and vsages as they knewe not the beginning of them vpon tradition of the Apostles neuerthelesse he cannot shewe any Pope or any councell before Honorius that did commaund adoration of the sacrament wherefore the wordes are vnconfuted vntill the contrarie can be shewed After this the Proclaimer sayth he falleth to mocking the Scholasticall doctours as S. Thomas Duns Durand Holcos and such like to make it seeme a dangerous thing to honour the sacrament for that the people cannot discerne the accidents from the bodie of Christ and so may committ idolatrie in honouring the outwarde formes in steede of Christ or if the priest do â—mitt consecration This M. Heskins calleth a mocking but he is not able to auoide it in good earnest
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
and Sauiour doe worke For this sacrament which thou reciuest is made with the worde of Christ. And againe Thou hast read of all the workes of the worlde that he saide they were made be commanded and they were created Therefore the worde of Christ which could of nothing make that which was not can it not change those thinges that are into that they are not For it is no lesse thing to giue newe natures to thinges then to chaunge natures Hitherto you haue heard Ambrose speaking earnestly for a change of nature in the sacrament now heare him expound it in the same place for a spirituall change Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus moâ—m ante benedictionem verborum coelestium aliâ— species nominatur post consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aâ—ud dicitur post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur It was the verie fleshe of Christ which was crucified which was buried therefore this is truely a sacrament of that flesh our Lord Iesus crieth out saying This is my bodie Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after the consecration the bodie of Christ is signified He himselfe saith it is his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud And in the same place againe In illo sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritualiâ— est In that sacrament Christ is because the bodie of Christe is Therefore it is not corporall meate but spirituall meate Wel then the bread is chaunged from the nature of coÌ„mon bread to be a true sacrament of the bodie of Christ wherby Christ his bodie is signified and to be spiritual meate and this is the change and conuersion he speaketh of and nor the Popish transubstantiatioÌ„ Next is alledged Chrysostome Hom. 83. in Matth. Non sunt c. These are not the works of mans power he that then in that supper made these things he also now worketh he performeth them We holde the order of ministers but it is he which doth sanctifie and change these things Here is a change or transmutatioÌ„ but no word of the maner of the chaunge therfore it maketh nothing for Popish transubstantiation and this place hath beene more then once answered before by Chrysost. authoritie After him he citeth Cyrillus ad Colosirium in these words Vâ—uificatiâ—â—em c. The quickening WORDE of God vniting himselfe to his own flesh made that also quickning How when the life of God is in vs the WORD of God being in vs shall our bodie also be able to giue life But it is an other thing for vs to haue the sonne of God in vs after the manner of participation and an other thing the same to haue beene made flesh that is to haue made the bodie which he tooke of the blessed virgin his owne bodie Therefore it was meete that he should be after a certeine manner vnited to our bodies by his holie flesh precious bloud which we receiue in the quickening blessing in bread and wine For least we should abhorre fleshe and bloud set vpon the holie altars God condescending to our fragilities inspireth to the thinges offered the powre of life turning them into the trueth of his owne flesh that the bodie of life may be found in vs all certeine seede giuing life Here Maister Heskins in his translation cleane leaueth out Quodammodo after a certeine manner Christe is vnited to our bodies by the sacrament and so is this chaunge made after a spirituall manner for otherwise this place is directly against transubstantiation where he saith we receiue the flesh and bloud of Christ in bread and wine Euthymius is the next In Matth 26. Quemadmodum c. As he did supernaturally Deifie as I may so say his assumpted flesh so he doeth also vnspeakably chaunge these thinges into his quickening bodie and his precious bloud and into the grace of them When he saith the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of his bodie and bloud it is easie to vnderstand that he meaneth a spirituall chaunge and the last clause is an exposition of the former they are chaunged into the bodie and bloud of CHRISTE that is into the grace of them Remugius followeth 1. Cor. Cap. 10. The fleshe whiche the worde of God the father tooke vpon him in the wombe of the virgin in vnitie of his person and the breade which is consecrated in the Church are one bodie of Christe for as that flesh is the body of Christ so this bread passeth into the bodie of Christe neither are they two bodies but one bodie He meaneth that the bread is a sacrament of the very and onely true bodie of Christ otherwise his antiquitie is not so great to purchase him authoritie but as a Burgesse of the lower house what so euer he speake The rest that remaine although I might well expound their sayings so as they should not make for Popish transubstantiation which the Greeke Church did not receiue yet beeing late writers out of the compasse as Damascen Theophylact Paschasius I omit them But of all these doctors M. Heskins gathereth that it is a maruelous and wonderfull worke that is wrought in this chaunge of the sacramentall bread and wine therefore he would proue it caÌ„ not be into a bare token or figure but it may well be into a spirituall meate to feede vs into eternall life which is a wonderful and great work of God as likewise that the washing of the bodie in baptisme should be the washing of the soule from sinne And therfore be saith very lewdly that the institution of sacramental signes as the Pascall lambe and such like is no wonderfull worke of God and as fondly compareth he the institution of sacramentes with bare signes and tokens of remembrance as the twelue stones in Iordane c. And yet more lewdly with the superstitious bread vsed to be giuen to the Cathechumeni in Saint Augustines time that had no institution of god Finally touching the determination and authoritie of the late Laterane counsell for transubstantiation as we doe not esteeme it beeing contrarie to the worde of God so I haue in the first booke shewed what a grosse errour it committed in falsification of a text of scripture out of Saint Iohns Gospell The two and fiftieth Chapter openeth the minds of S. Basil S. Ambrose vpon the wordes of Christ. Basil is cited Quaest. comp explic qu. 17â— In aunswere to this question with what feate what faith or assured certeintie and with what affection the bodie and bloud of of Christ should be receiued Timorem docet c. The Apostle teacheth vs the feare saying He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his own damnation but the credite
ignorance which knoweth not the vertue and dignitie thereof which knoweth not that this bodie and bloud is according to the trueth but receiueth the mysteries and knoweth not the vertue of the mysteries Vnto whome Salomon sayth or rather the spirite which is in him When thou sittest to eat with a Prince attende diligently what things are set before thee He also compelling openly and constraining him that is ignorant to adde a fifth parte For this fifth parte being added maketh vs to vnderstande the diuine mysteries intelligibly Nowe what the fifth parte is the wordes of the Law giuer may teache thee For he sayth he shall add a fifth parte with that he hath eaten And howe can a man adde a fifth parte of that which he hath alreadie eaten and consumed For he biddeth not another thing or from any other where But a fifth parte to be added of it or with it or as the 70. interprete vpon it Then the fifth parte of it vpon it is the worde which was vttered by Christ him selfe vpon the Lordes mysterie For that being added deliuereth and remoueth vs from ignorance as to thinke any thing carnall or earthly of those holie things but decreeth that those thinges shoulde bee taken diuinely spiritually which is properly called the fifth part for the diuine spirite which is in vs and the worde which he deliuered doth sett in order the senses that are in vs and doth not onely bring foorth our taste vnto mysterie but also our hearing sight and touching smelling so that of these things which are verie high we do suspect nothing that is neare to lesse reason or weake vnderstanding This place M. Hesk. noteth that the mysteries are called a most holy thing and a sacrifice We confesse it is a most holy thing a sacrifice of thanksgiuing for so the fathers meant and not a propitiatorie sacrifice Moreouer he noteth that it is called the verie bodie and bloud in verie deede Although the wordes of the author sounde not so roundly yet let that be graunted also what is then the conclusion Marie then haue ye a plaine place for the proclaimer issue ioyned thereupon that no one writer of like auncientie sayth it is not the verie bodie For thè plainesse of the place I wish always that the author may be his own expositor First where he sayth that the fifth part added maketh vs to vnderstand the mysteries intelligibly that is as he vseth the terme spiritually mystically although M. Hesk. translate intelligibiliter easily Secondly where he sayth wee must thinke nothing carnally or earthly of the holy things and that the worde of God decreeth that they should be taken diuinely and spiritually As for the issue it was ioyned tryed in the one and twentieth Chapter of the first booke But wee must heare what Hesychius sayth further Quicunque ergo sanctificata c. Whosoeuer therfore shal eat of the things sanctified by ignorance not knowing their vertue at we haue saide shall adde a fifth parte of it vpon it and giue it to the Priest into the sanctuarie For it behoueth the sanctification of the mysticall sacrifice and the translation or commutation from thinges sensible to things intelligible to be giuen to Christ which is the true Priest that is to graunt and impute to him the miracle of them because that by his power and the worde vttered by him those things that are seene are as surely sanctified as they exceede all sense of the flesh Out of these words M. Hesk. would proue transubstantiation because he saith there is a translation or cōmutation from things sensible to intelligible that is from bread which is perceiued by the senses to the body of Christ which in this manner is not perceiued by senses But M. Hesk. must proue the bodie of Christe to bee no sensible thing but a thing which may be perceiued by vnderstanding only or else his exposition wil not stand for here is a diuision exposition of things sensible intelligible which is a plaine ouerthrow of popish transubstantiatiō carnall presence for that wherunto the things sensible are changed is not a sensible thing as the naturall bodie of Christ is but they are changed into things intelligible ▪ that is which may only by vnderstanding be conceiued so is the spiritual feeding of our soules by faith with the verie body bloud of christ Next Augustin is cited in Ps. 33 a place which hath ben cited answered more then once alreadie Et ferebatur c. And he was carried in his own bāds Brethren how could this be true in a man c. I will remit the reader to the 10. Chap. of this second book where it is answered by Aug. him self in the same exposition Christ caried himself saith Aug. in his hands quodam modo after a certaine manner but not simply Maister Hesk. iangling of an onely figure hath bene often reproued wee make not the sacrament such an onely figure as Dauid might carrie in his handes of him selfe for Dauid could make no sacrament of him selfe but such a figure as is a diuine and heauenly worke to giue in deede that it representeth in signe An other place of Augustine is cyted De Trin. lib. 3. cap. 4. but truncately as he termeth it for he neither alledgeth the heade nor the feete by which the scope of Augustines wordes might be perceiued But the whole sentence is this Si ergo Apostolus Paulus c. If therefore the Apostle Paule although hee did yet carrie the burthen of his body which is corrupted and presseth downe the soule although he did as yet see but in part and in a darke speach desiring to be dissolued and to bee with Christ groning in himself for the adoption wayting for the redēption of his body Could neuerthelesse preach our Lord Iesus Christ by signifying otherwise by his tong otherwise by his Epistle otherwise by the sacrament of his body bloud for neither his tong nor the parchments nor the ynke nor the signifying sounds vttered with his tong nor the signes of the letters written in skinnes do we call the body and bloud of Christ but only that which being taken of the fruits of the earth being consecrated with mysticall prayer we do rightly receiue vnto spiritual health in remembrance of our Lords suffring for vs which when it is brought by the hands of mē to that visible forme it is not sanctified that it shuld be so great a sacramēt but by the spirit of god working inuisibly whē God worketh al these things which in that work are done by corporall motions mouing first the inuisible parts of his ministers either the soules of men or of secret spirits that are subiectes seruing him what maruel is it if also in the creature of heauen earth the sea al the ayre God maketh what he wil both sensible and inuisible things to set forth him selfe in them as he him selfe knoweth it shuld
saintes in heauen what the rest be he doth not determine he meaneth Siluester Isodore Innocentius Betram Durand Holcot Dunce c. Which if they haue written any thing that is ridiculous in defence of Poperie it were better men should laugh at their follie then be still deceiued with their errours But whereas M. Hesk. will set a player on a stage and a boy in the Paâ—â—is to answere the Bishop I weene it be more then the reuerend M. Doctor Heskins reuested in Doctoralibus and inthronized in his Doctours chayer dare well take vpon him to doe That whiche followeth in this Chapter is consumed in cyting and vrging of the forenamed wryters whose authoritie we doe not admitte appealing alwayes from the lower house of punys Burgesses to the higher house of auncient Barons The sixtieth Chapter proceedeth in exposition of the same text by Theophylacte and Paschasius Although we might demurre vpon the vnderstanding of those wordes of Theophylact In 14. Matth. That the bread wine are transelementated into the vertue of his flesh bloud yet considering the corrupt time in which he liued his authoritie is not worth the striuing for And whereas Maister Heskins would make him so say no more then the olde fathers Hilar. Iren. Cyril Chrysost. c. Seeing we haue already considered their testimonies it were superfluous to repeate them againe in this place and as often as it pleaseth Maister Heskins to abuse their names The one and sixtieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of the same wordes by Oecumenius and Anselmus Oecumenius saith litle to the purpose too or fro But Anselmus goeth more roundly to the matter as one that was the scholler of LanfraÌ„cus which wrote against Berengarius Neuerthelesse vpon these wordes of his riseth some other matter Neque eminet For we do neither altogether exclude a figure froÌ„ this sacrament nor admit an only figure This place M. Hesk. would haue to expound Tertullians figure but we haue shewed before it will not serue Vnto this he addeth Augustine cited in the Popes decrees but not to be found in his workes in these wordes The bodie of Christ is both the trueth and a figure The trueth whyle the bodie and bloud of Christ in the vertue of the holie Ghost is made of the substance of bread and wine but that is the figure which is outwardly perceiued De cons. Dist. 2. Cap vtrum When these wordes are found in any worke of S. Augustines we will make aunswere to them otherwise we may not receiue them of the onely credit of the Popes law Vnlesse they haue such meaning as the saying of Hilarius B. of Rome which followeth Corpus Christi c. The bodie of Christ which is takeÌ„ at the altar is a figure whyle the bread wine are seene outwardly and a truth while the bodie and bloud of Christ inwardly are beleeued It seemeth to me this saying to be playne ynough that the sacrament is an outward figure of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is inwardly receiued spiritually by faith As Gratian also reporteth the wordes of the same Hilarie De Cons. Dist. 2. Vbi pars est Non enim est quantitas visibilis in hoc aestimanda mysterio sed virtus sacramenti spiritualis The visible quantitie is not to be regarded in this mysterie but the spirituall vertue of the sacrament But M. Heskins proceedeth and by Anselmus authoritie he will auoide the trifling sophysticall argument made by Maister Pilkinton in the open disputation holden in Cambridge By like Maister Heskins had not learned the solution at that time and therefore nowe he sendeth it ouer the sea to him The argument was this Christe tooke bread he blessed bread he brake bread wherfore he gaue bread to his disciples if he gaue bread then not his bodie M. Heskins saith he so vseth the words as though by the actes which the verbes expresse nothing had beene done Yes M. Heskins he chaunged the vse but not the substance But by the like sophisme saith Maister Heskins he might proue that he gaue no sacrament of his bodie For that he deliuered which he tooke but he tooke bread no sacrament therfore he deliuered bread no sacrament But by his patience this sophisme of his is nothing like Maister Pilkintons argument For in one proposition he speaketh of the substance in the other of another qualitie or affection beside the substance as in this example that which you bought in the shambles you haue eaten but you bought cowe fleshe therefore you haue eaten caulfes fleshe Euerie childe seeth this followeth not But if I speake of the substance in both alike it followeth as thus That which you bought in the market you haue eaten but you bought mutton therfore you haue eaten mutton Vpon the premises graunted this argument followeth of necessitie and such is the argument of Maister Pilkinton which all the Papistes in Louayne can not answere The tâ—o and sixtieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Rupertus and Nicholaus Methonen In this whole Chapter is nothing worth the reading and much lesse the aunswering for he doeth nothing but cite and vrge the sayings of these two late writers of whose authoritie he knoweth we make none account as there is no reason why we should they being members of the Popish Church For the auncient writers whome he nameth their sayinges haue beene already weyghed and aunswered The three and sixtieth Chapter taryeth in the exposition of the same wordes by Innocentius Germanus The authoritie of Pope Innocent the third which called the Laterane Counsell in which transubstantiation was first decreede must needes be of great credite with vs But Germanus bishop of Constantinople the Popes sworne enimie I marueile why hee is ioyned with the Pope For that he saith is small to M. Heskins purpose and therefore he helpeth him out with Damascen yet he confesseth his saying subiect to cauilling For where he writeth that in the sacrament Dominus conspicitur c. Our Lorde is both seene and suffereth him selfe to be touched by the feâ—â—full and holy mysteries c. and so sayeth Chrysostome thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him c. Maister Heskins sayeth we reason and so wee maye in deede that we eat him as we see him which is onely by faith But M. Heskins with profound Logike wil aunswere this argument that a thing is sayde to bee seene when the outwarde formes are seene and so Christe is seene when the formes of bread and wine are seene But by his fauour a thing is seene when the proper formes accidents thereof are seene but the forme or accidents of bread and wine are not the proper formes of Christes bodie therefore Christes bodie is not seene by them no more then I see a man when I see the house wherein he is or then I see a knife when I see the close case or sheath wherein it is And
the words of Germanus can abyde no such boyish sophisme for hee sayeth Christ is seene by the fearefull and holie mysteries but neyther bread nor wine by M. Heskins confession much lesse the accideÌ„ts of them are fearfull holie mysteries therfore the whole sacrament is so called by which Christ is seene touched and eaten but with the eye hand and mouth of faith The foure and sixtieth Chapter sheweth the exposition of Petrue Çluniacensis Bessarion vpon the same In this Chapter beside the sayings of this Dan Peter of Clunye Bessarion which for a Cardinals hatt in the counsell of Florence forsooke the vnitie of the Greeke church he maketh a short repetition of all the authors names sayings whom he hath cited vpoÌ„ this text This is my bodie which because I haue aunswered at large it were needelesse to recapitulate in this place I trust the indifferent reader will confesse that not one of the highher house hath giuen a cleare voyce on his syde but all are most cleare against him The fiue and sixtieth Chapter treateth of the bread blessed and giuen by Christ to the two disciples in Emaus and proueth by Theophylâ—st Bedâ— that it was the sacrament It shal be easily graunted him that not only these two whome he nameth of late time but also diuerse of the auncient doctours are of opinion that Christ did giue the sacrament at Emaus but yet it followeth not that it was so For no certeine circumstance of Scripture can leade vs or them so to thinke Beda in 24. Luke writeth thus â—erti mysterij causae c. It came to passe for the cause of a certein mysterie that another shape shoulde bee shewed to them in him and so they should not know him but in the breaking of bred â–ª left any man should say that he hath knowen Christ if he bee noâ— partaker of his bodie that is to say of his Church whose vnitie the Apostle commendeth at the sacrament of the bread saying one bread we many are one bodie that when he reached to them the blessed bread their eyes were opened that they might know him This place indeed sheweth that Beda his opinion was that the sacrament was there giuen but either for transubstantiation or the real presence or for the communion in one kinde he sayth nothing For the English church in his time knewe none of all these monsters The sixe sixtieth Chapter proueth the same by S. Augustine and Chrysostome I sayd before we confesse that not Augustine onely but other also of the fathers were of this opinion The place of Augustine hath ben alreadie cited considered I would also omit the place of Chrysostome but that he gathereth further matter out of it then the pretence of this Chapter He is cited in Hom. 17. in Math. Quia de sanctis c. Because we haue begon to speake of holy things it is not to be left vnspoken but that sanctification is one thing and the thing sanctified another For that is a sanctification that sanctifieth another thing but that which is sanctifyed cannot sanctifie another thing although it selfe be sanctified As for example thou â—ignest the bread which thou eatest as Paule saith it is sanctifyed by the worde of God by prayer Thou hast sanctified it thou hast not made it sanctification But that which the priest giueth from his hand is not onely sanctified but also it is sanctification because that onely is not giuen which is seene but also that which is vnderstoode Of the sanctified breade therefore it is lawfull to cast to beastes and giue it to infidels because it doth not sanctifie the receiuer But if that which is taken of the hande of the priest were such as that which is eaten at the table all men would eate of the table and no man receiue it of the priestes hands Wherefore our Lord also did not onely blesse the bread in the waye but gaue it with his hand to Cleophas his fellowe And Paul fasting did not onely blesse the bread but also reached it with his hande to Luke and the rest of his disciples Three things M. Heskins noteth First that Chrysostome calleth the sacrament not only a sanctified thing but also sanctification it selfe And here he would haue the aduersarie to answere him where this sanctification resteth in the bread or in the priest I answere in neither of both but in Christ which is the heauenly matter of the sacrament receiued by faith for if sanctification rested in the bread then all they that receiue the bread should bee sanctified but all they that receiue the bread receiue not sanctification neither be they sanctified therefore sanctification resteth not in the breade and so consequently the bodie of Christ is not in the bread And whereas M. Hesk. reasoneth that the priest giueth sanctification I answere that is said because he giueth the outward sacrament as Iohn baptised yet speaking properly of the ministerie of man he restraineth it to the washing of water The seconde thing he would haue noted is that Christe deliuered the sacrament to Cleophas and his fellow wherof as Chrysostome hath no ground in the scripture so that which he affirmeth that Paule in the ship should minister the sacrament which is the third thing M. Hesk. obserueth is vtterly false and confuted by the text For his exhortation was to the whole multitude whereof the greatest parte and almost all were infidels And the text sayeth that they did all receiue foode being satisfyed cast the rest ouer borde to lighten the shippe But the place Actes 2. that they continued in the doctrine of the Apostles communication breaking of bread prayers I confesse may well and aptly be vnderstood of the participation of the Lords table yet nothing lesse may be gathered out of it then that horrible sacriledge of robbing the church of the Lords cupp because bread is onely named as in the next Chapter shal be shewed The seuen and sixtieth Chapter proueth by the scriptureâ— and practises in the last Chapter handled that the Communion vnder one kinde is lawfull and good It aunswereth to one parte of the challenge he saith to proue that the communion was ministred within 600 yeres after Christe in one kinde onely And this he will do verie easily For he beginneth with Christ himselfe whome moste impudently and blasphemously he affirmeth to haue ministred the Communion in one kinde onely to the disciples at Emaus First although diuerse of the olde writers are of opinion and yet wthout asseueration that Christe there gaue the sacrament yet none of them is so bolde to gather any such diuision of the sacrament out of that place Secondly notwithstanding their opinion it is most probable that hee neuer ministred the sacrament after his first institution thereof not onely because there is no mention thereof but because he gaue that as the last pledge of his presence with them immediatly
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
manducauerunt Eundem inquit eundem non inuenio quomodo intelligam nisi eum quem manducamus nos Quid ergò ait aliquis◠Hoc erat manna illud quod ego nunc accipio Ergo nihil modò venit si antè iam fuit Ergo euacuatum est scandalum Crucis Quomodo ergo eundem nisi quod addidit spiritualem They did eate saith he the same spirituall meate It had suffised that he had said they did eate a spirituall meate he saith the same I can not finde how I should vnderstande the same but the same whiche we doe eate What then sayeth one Was that Manna the same thing that I doe nowe receiue Then is there nothing come nowe if it were then before Then is the slaunder of the crosse made voide Therefore how should it be the same but that he added spirituall I coulde cite other places out of Augustine but that I will not cloie the Reader with two many at once The last parte of the Chapter would proue that the baptisme of Iohn was not the baptisme of CHRIST wherevppon I will not stande because it is an other controuersie out of the purpose of the booke onely I will note these grosse absurdities that hee denyeth the baptisme of Iohn to be the very baptisme and then it followeth that CHRISTE was not baptised with the very baptisme who was baptised of Iohn Secondly he denieth that sinnes were remitted in the Baptisme of Iohn whiche is directly contrarie to the Scripture Luke 3. verse 3. He alledgeth Chrysostome for his proofe but the blinde buzzarde can not see the difference betweene the ministerie of Iohn in his baptisme and the worke of CHRISTE in the same whiche maketh him with his fellowes to imagine a difference of baptismes by as good reason as they might make a difference betweene the Supper whiche was celebrated by CHRISTE him selfe and that whiche was ministered by his Apostles Finally where the Apostle sayeth expressely that the Fathers were baptised hee is so bolde as to say they were not baptised in deede but onely receyued a bare figure of baptisme whiche is as muche for the Apostles purpose as if hee hadde saide nothing at all The thirde Chapter expoundeth the residue of the texte Et omnes candem escam spiritualem c. First he declareth that this one meate whiche the Fathers did eate was Manna and that hee proueth by the authoritie of Saint Chrysostome and Saint Augustine as his manner is to heape vppe testimonies of the Fathers where no neede is of any proofe Secondly he determineth wherefore it is called spirituall meate and the water that flowed out of the rocke spirituall drinke Namely because it was giuen vnto them miraculously and not naturally and for none other cause whiche is altogether vntrue for as it hath beene prooued before both out of the text and confirmed by the iudgement of Saint Augustine manna was called spirituall meate because it fedde the faithfull not onely bodily but also spiritually with the bodie of CHRISTE and the water with his bloud But Maister Heskins seemeth to builde vpon Chrysostomes authoritie who in 1. Cor. 10. writeth thus Quanuis c. Although those thinges that were giuen were perceiued by sense yet they were giuen spiritually not according to the nature of consequences but according to the grace of the gifte By these wordes Chrysostome meaneth that although Manna and the water were sensible things yet had they a spirituall signification and vertue giuen with them for as they were not giuen by the ordinarie course of nature but by speciall Diuine power so they had more then a naturall propertie of nourishment and were to be esteemed according to the speciall grace by whiche they were giuen But Maister Heskins will acknowledge nothing in this miracle of manna but the feeding of their bodies nor in the water of the rocke but the quenching of their thirst and seruing their bodily necessitie In whiche grosse madnesse hee maketh no difference betweene the faithfull and their brute beastes whose thirst and bodily necessitie that water did satisfie as muche as their Maisters So that if the water bee called spirituall drinke only because it was miraculously giuen this horrible absurditie will followe that the cattell whiche dranke thereof did also drinke of the spirituall rocke whiche followed them which rocke was Christ which euerie Christian man detesteth to heare But contrariwise seeing that water was a sacrament of the bloud of Christe we may see no lesse then three heresies of the Papistes about the sacrament ouerthrowen thereby First because all the people did drinke of the sacrament of Christes bloud and not the Priestes onely Secondly that the elementes are no longer sacramentes then they be in vse of ministration For the water which was a sacrament of Christes bloud vnto the Israelites so often as they dranke of it was no sacrament when they occupied it to other necessarie vses Thirdly that bruite beastes as Dogges Apes and myse eating and drinking the bread and wine that hath beene consecrated to the vse of the sacrament doe not eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of CHRISTE For the bruite beastes did drinke of this water which to the faithfull was consecrated in the right vse thereof to be the bloud of CHRISTE Yet did not the bruite beastes touche the sacrament of his bloud But Maister Heskins will haue vs to note That Saint Paule saith not they dranke of that materiall rocke but they dranke of a spirituall rocke which followed them whiche spiritual rocke was Christe And herevpon he condemneth Oecolampadius for abusing Saint Paules wordes The rocke was CHRISTE to make it a figuratiue speache whereas the saide proposition is to be vnderstoode grammatically or literally and not tropically or figuratiuely And so is nothing like to this proposition This is my bodie Peraduenture the Reader looketh for a newe transubstantiation when hee heareth Maister Heskins exclude all tropes and figures from this saying The rocke was Christe But vouchsafe to heare his reason and you shall more maruell at his monstruous impudencie Because it is called a spirituall rocke therefore there is no trope or figure in the speache But admitte that Saint Paule had no relation to the materiall rocke out of which the waters did flowe is this a proper and essentiall praedication to say Christe is a spirituall rocke will not all the Grammarians Logicians and Rhetoricians in the worlde throwe stones at him that will so affirme But all men endewed with reason will confesse that Manna and the rocke are in one sense of Saint Paule called spirituall but the materiall manna was the spirituall meate by Maister Heskins owne interpretation therefore the materiall rocke was the spirituall rocke out of whiche flowed the spirituall drinke But Maister Heskins hath another reason to proue that the material rock was not called the spiritual rocke because the materiall rocke stoode still in the Wildernesse but the spirituall rocke followed them Although Saint Paule
meane of the streames and riuers of water which flowing out of the rocke followed them all along their iourneys in the wildernesse Yet if wee vnderstande it as he doeth of Christe who rather went before them then followed them it proueth not that the materiall rocke was not called the spirituall rocke For in sacraments that is spoken of the signe often times which is proper to the thing signified wrought by them as baptisme is called regeneration the Pascall Lambe the passing ouer so the spirituall rocke followed them and was Christe But he woulde faine father his monstrous absurditie vppon Chrysostome 1. Cor. 10. Cum dixisset c. When he had sayed that they dranke spirituall drinke he added For they dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them and ioyned to it and that rocke was christ For not of the nature of the rocke sayeth he flowed out the water for then it would haue flowed out before that time but a certeine other spirituall rocke wrought all things that is Christ which being present euery where did all the miracles therefore he sayde following them In these wordes Chrysostome putteth a difference betweene the signe and the thing signified that is the materiall rocke and Christe whome because it represented it was called a spirituall rocke as Manna being a corporall foode was called spirituall meate because it represented Christes flesh which is the spirituall meat of our mindes Otherwise that the materiall rocke was not called the spirituall rocke Chrysostome sayeth not But Saint Augustine as wee haue shewed before affirmeth plainly that which Maister Heskins denyeth impudently Proceeding in his confutation of Oecolampadius his principle that figures bear the names of things of which they be figures as the fierie tongues the Doue and the breathing of Christe vppon his Apostles of the holie Ghoste and Iohn Baptist of Helias he denyeth that any of these examples doe proue it for that neither any of these is called the holie Ghoste nor Iohn called Helias But he is fouly beguiled for although hee quarrell at the aduerbe veluti as it were fyerie alledging Chrysostome to proue that it was not naturall fyre or winde but the holie Ghoste yet was that visible forme called the holie Ghoste as both in the seconde of the Actes and in the eleuenth it is plaine Hee sat vppon euery one of them If Maister Heskins were posed as boyes bee in the schoole who or what sat hee may not saye the fierie tongues which is the plurall number but the holie Ghoste which was represented by them And Actes 11. Peter sayeth The holie Ghoste fell vppon them euen as vppon vs at the beginning that is those visible signes of his inuisible and incomprehensible presence And whereas hee cauelleth that the Doue is not called the holie Ghoste I aske him howe could Iohn saye he sawe the holie Ghoste which is inuisible but that he sawe the bodily shape of a Doue which was a sacrament of him And as for the breathing of Christe to signifie the holie Ghoste and to bee so called howe coulde the Apostles vnderstande it otherwise at that time when giuing them his breath he sayde receiue the holie Ghost then when he gaue them bread and sayed receiue this it is my bodie for in both by an outwarde and visible sacrament hee testified what he did giue them in deede no more turning the breade into his naturall bodie then his breath into the substaunce of the holie Ghoste But of all the rest it is moste intolerable impudence that he denyeth Iohn Baptist to bee Helias that was prophesied by Malachie affirming that the prophesie speaketh of the comming of Helias before the seconde comming of Christ which shall be to iudgement saying that Christe doeth not assertiuely saye that Iohn was Helias but if ye will so take it this is hee But to knocke his blockishe ignorance or rather serpentine mallice in the head the Angel in Luk. 1. doth assertiuely applye that Prophesie to Iohn Baptiste saying Hee shall goe before him in the spirite and power of Helias to turne the heartes of the fathers vnto the children which be the verie wordes of the Prophet And our sauiour Christe him selfe Math. 17. and Marke the 9. doth assertiuely saye that Helias was alreadie come according to the Prophesie and his disciples vnderstoode that he spake to them of Iohn the Baptist. What a shamelesse beast is this Heskins to reason against so manifest a trueth to mainteine so false an errour But wee must aunswere his reasons although no argumentes are to bee heard against the expresse authoritie of the scriptures First he sayeth that Prophesie cannot be expounded of the first comming of Christ because he sayth Helias shall come before the greate and fearfull daye of the Lorde whereas the first comming of Christe was not fearfull but peaceable not to iudge but to saue But he will not vnderstand that Christes comming as it was moste comfortable to the penitent sinners so moste terrible to the hypocrites and obstinate wicked men witnesse Iohn Baptist him selfe Math. 3. from the seuenth verse to the ende of the twelfth What shoulde I spende time in so cleare a matter His seconde reason is of the authoritie of Euthymius and Chrysostome which if they go against the plaine authoritie of Christe who will receiue them Although neither of them both in the places by him cited affirme that hee sayeth For Euthymius in 11. Math. Si vultis recipere quod suturum esse dictum est de hoc tempore siue suscipere id est rebus animuni aduertere ipse est Helias qui venturus erat vtpote ipsum illius ministerium perficiens If you will receiue that which is sayed shal bee of this time or if you will giue your myndes to marke the thinges he is Helias which was to come as one perfourming his ministerie which Maister Heskins hath falsified by translating thus If ye will receiue that that is spoken to be done hereafter to be of this present time And although Euthymius do hold that Helias shall come before the seconde comming of Christe yet doth he affirme that Iohn is called Helias for similitude of office Sicut primus Helias secundus praecursor dicitur ita sanè primus praecursor secundus Helias appellatur propter simile ministerium As the firste Helias is called the second forerunner so the seconde forerunner is called the first Helias by reason of like ministerie The place of Chrysostome although either the wordes going immediately before or comming after doe plainly expresse his minde which Maister Heskins hath fraudulently concealed yet as it is cited by him it maketh nothing for him but against him I wil only rehearse the place and leaue the iudgement to the readers Rectè apposuit c. He hath well added if you will receiue it I came not to compell any man that hee might seeme to require a thankefull minde of all men And he signified that Iohn is Helias and Helias is Iohn
For both they haue taken vppon them one administration and both are appointed forerunners wherefore he sayde not this truely it Helias but if ye will receiue it this is hee That is if with diligent studie and with a gentle not a contentious mynde you will consider the dooings of them both Thus Chrysostome And yet I am not ignorant that else where he supposeth that Helias the Thesbite shall come before the day of iudgement which sauoureth of a Iewish fable more then of a Christian trueth as is plainly proued before The fourth Chapter beginneth to declare by the holy fathers of what things Manna and the waters be figures He beginneth this Chapter with a shamelesse lye for he sayeth that wee affirme Manna to be a figure only of the worde of God which is vtterly false for wee affirme that it was a sacramentall figure of the bodye of Christe and so a figure that it was in deede the bodie of Christ after a spirituall manner to them whiche receiued it worthelie But Maister Heskins will haue it a figure not onely of the worde of God but also of the bodie of Christe in the sacrament and so a figure that is was nothing else but a bare figure and not a sacrament And this hee hopeth to prooue out of Sainct Ambrose ad Iren. Ep. 62. Quaeria◠me c. Thou askest mee why the Lorde God did rayne Manna to the people of the fathers and doeth not nowe rayne it If thou knowest he rayneth and daily rayneth from heauen Manna to them that serue him And that bodily Manna truely is founde at this day in many places But nowe it is not a thing of so greate miracle becaus◠that which is perfect is come And that perfecte is the breade from heauen the bodie of the virgine of which the Gospell doeth sufficiently teache thee Howe much better are these things then the former For they which did eate that Manna that is that breade are deade But whosoeuer shall eate this breade shall liue for euer But it is a spirituall Manna that is a rayne of spirituall wisedome which is powred into them that be wittie and searching is from heauen and deweth the myndes of the Godly sweeteneth their iawes Because there is nothing in this saying of Saint Ambrose for his purpose hee falleth into a greate rage against Oecolampadius for leauing out of this sentence Quanto praestantiora sunt haec superioribus Howe much more excellent are these then the other aboue rehearsed Which howesoeuer it was as I am sure it was not of a falsifying mynde so no man in the worlde might worse exclaime against falsifying of the doctours then Maister Heskins as I haue often shewed and doubt not but I shall shewe hereafter But to the purpose it is euident that Saint Ambrose in the former sentence speaketh of Manna as a corporall foode not as a sacrament in which respect there is no comparison between it the body of christ And he is so farre from saying that Manna as it was a sacrament was but a figure of the bodie of Christ as M. Heskins belyeth him that he saith not at all that it was a figure But hee chargeth vs with two other wicked opinions namely That the sacramentes of the newe lawe giue no grace and that they are of no more excellencie then the sacraments of the olde lawe To the first we aunswere and say that the sacramentes giue not grace of the worke wrought as they teach but that GOD giueth grace by his sacramentes in all his elect wee affirme And to the second wee aunswere that as in substaunce the sacramentes of the olde time were not inferiour to oures so in cleerenesse of reuelation and vnderstanding oures are farre more excellent then theirs and that the place of Saint Ambrose which Maister Heskins doeth next alledge doeth very well shewe Oriente autem c. The sonne of righteousnesse arising and more bright sacramentes of Christes body and bloud shining foorth those inferiour thinges or sacramentes should cease and those perfect should be receiued of the people Maister Heskins noteth that if the sacrament were but a bare signe it should not be so magnified by Saint Ambrose But so often as hee chargeth vs with a bare signe so often must we charge him againe with an impudently For wee doe as much detest a bare signe or figure as hee doth a signe or figure As for the three kindes of Manna that Maister Heskins gathereth is altogether out of Saint Ambrose his compasse For hee hath no more but the bodily Manna and the spirituall Manna as the signe and the thing signified And the rayne of spirituall wisedome is the spirite of GOD which sealeth inwardly in the heart that whiche is expressed outwardly by the externall signes I maruell Maister Heskins alledgeth not Saint Ambrose vpon this text 1. Cor. 10. whose woordes might seeme to haue more colour of his bare figure although they be flat against it in deede Manna aquaquae fluxit de Petra haec dicit spiritualia quia non mundi lege parata sunt sed Dei virtute sine elementorum commixtione ad tempus creata habentia in se figuram futuri mysterij quod nunc nos summus in commemorationem Christi Domini Manna and the water which flowed out of the rocke these he calleth spirituall bicause they were not prepared by the order of the world but by the power of God with out commixtiō of the elements created for a time hauing in them a figure of the mysterie to come which nowe we receiue in remembraunce of Christe our Lorde By these wordes it is euident that our sacraments do so differ from theirs as a figure of that which is to come and a remembrance of that which is past do differ For all sacramentes haue their strength of the death of christ Secondly we see that this father calleth our sacrament a mysterie in remembrance of Christ which speach is farre from a corporall manner of presence that M. Heskins would maintaine by his authoritie The other places cited out of Euthymius a late writer as we haue often saide affirme that Manna was the figuratiue bread and a figure but not Christe which was the trueth Howbeit he meaneth nothing else but that Christ was not in flesh present to the fathers in Manna before he was incarnate and so vseth the terme figure as a prefiguration and shadowing not of the sacrament but of Christ him selfe which is the matter of the sacrament euen as Christ him selfe in the 6. of S. Iohn opposing Manna against the true bread that came downe from heauen speaketh not of that spirituall meat which Manna was to the faithfull but of the outward creature which was onely considered of the wicked to fill their bellies and not to feede their soule But M. Heskins remitteth his reader for al matters concerning the 6. of Iohn to the second booke 36. chapter c. and so do I to the same
places for answere Neuerthelesse he will touch a word of Oecolampadius where he saith that the inward man is fed by faith which is so straunge to him that he neuer read the like phrase in any authentike authour By which woondring he sheweth him selfe to be a great stranger in S. Augustine who saith In Ioan. Tr. 25. c. Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede maÌ„ducasti Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly Beleeue thou hast eaten Here faith feedeth the soule for it feedeth not the belly The last text he citeth out of Chrysostom is alledged more at large in the 30. Chapter of the second booke where it is also answered The fift Chapter teaching that Manna and the water of the stone be figures of the body and bloud of Christ by Origen and Saint Ambrose That the olde writers called Manna and the water figures of the body and bloud of Christ it shal be no controuersie betweene vs and M. Heskins but whether they denied them to be sacraments of the body and bloud of Christe or affirmed them to bee nothing but prefigurations of the sacrament is nowe the question betwixt vs And therefore these long sentences out of Origen and Ambrose make nothing for him but much against him But let vs viewe them Origen is cited In Num. Hom. 7. Modo enim c. Nowe when Moses came vnto vs and is ioyned to our Aethiopesse the lawe of God is not nowe knowne in figures and images as before but in the very apparence of the truth And those things which were first set foorth in darke speaches are nowe fulfilled in plaine shewe and trueth And therefore he which declared the plaine forme of figures and darke speaches saith we knowe that all our fathers were vnder the cloude and all passed through the sea c. Thou seest howe Paule assoyleth the darke riddles of the lawe and teacheth the plaine shewe of those darke speaches And a little after Then in a darke manner Manna was the meate but nowe in plaine shewe the flesh of the sonne of God is the true meat as he himselfe saith â–ª my flesh is meat in deed and my bloud is drink in deede M. Heskins thinketh this is as plaine as neede to be for his onely figure and the bodily presence and me thinke it is as plaine for the contrarie For he affirmeth that Manna was the same spirituall meate that the flesh of the sonne of God is nowe and layeth the difference in the obscure manner of deliuering the one and the plaine manner of deliuering the other which can not be vnderstoode of the outwarde signes which are in both of like plainenesse or obscuritie but of the doctrine or worde annexed to the signes which to them was very darke and to vs is very cleere that Christes fleshe and bloud are our meate and drinke For it is well knowne that Origen knewe neither the Popishe transubstantiation nor the bodily presence For writing vpon the fifteenth of Saint Matthewe after hee hath shewed that the materiall part of the sacrament goeth into the bellie and is cast foorth hee addeth Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest non indignè comedenti illum Et haeâ— quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore Multa porro de ipso verbo dici possent quod factum est caro verÃssque cibus quem qui comederie omnino viuet in aeternum quem nullus malus edere potest Neyther that matter of the breade but the woorde which is spoken of it is that which doth profite to him which eateth it not vnwoorthily And these thinges are of the typicall or symbolicall bodye Many thinges also might bee sayde of the Worde it selfe which was made flesh and the true meate which hee that shall eate shall vndoubtedly liue for euer which no euill man can eate Doest thou not here see Christian reader what Origens minde was of transubstantiation when hee speaketh of the matter of the breade whiche is eaten And what his iudgement was of the bodily presence when hee calleth it the typicall and symbolicall or figuratiue bodye distinguishing it from the woorde made fleshe and the meate in deede Finally whether hee thought that any euill man could eate of the bodye of Christ which is the spirituall part of the sacrament To Origen he ioyneth Ambrose or rather disioyneth him for hee diuideth his saying into two partes pretending to inueigh against Oecolampadius for leauing out the former parte but in deede that hee might raise a dust with his stamping and staring least the latter part might be seene to be as it is a cleare interpretation of the former and an application of the writers minde concerning the corporall manner of presence I will rehearse them both together Ille ego ante despectus c. Euen I before despised speaking in the person of the Gentiles conuerted am nowe preferred am nowe set before the chosen Euen I before a despised people of sinners haue nowe the reuerend companies of the heauenly sacramentes nowe I am receiued to the honour of the heauenly table The rayne is not powred downe on my meate the spring of the earth laboureth not nor the fruite of the trees For my drinke no riuers are to be sought nor welles Christe is meate to me Christe is drinke to me The fleshe of GOD is meate to me the bloud of GOD is my drinke I doe not nowe looke for yearely increase to satisfie me Christe is ministred to mee daily I will not bee afrayde least any distemperature of the ayre or barrennesse of the countrie shoulde hang ouer mee if the dilligence of godly tillage doe continue I doe not nowe wishe the rayne of Quayles to come downe for me which before I did maruell at Not Manna which earst they preferred before all meates bicause those Fathers which did eate Manna haue hungered My meate is that which doeth not fatten the bodye but confirmeth the heart of man Before that breade which came downe from heauen was woonderfull to mee For it is written hee gaue them bread from heauen to eate but that was not the true breade but a shaddowe of that was to come The father hath reserued for me that true breade from heauen That breade of GOD descended from heauen to mee which giueth life to this worlde It hath not descended to the Iewes nor to the Synagogue but to the Church to the younger people For howe did that breade which giueth life descend to the Iewes when all they that did eate that breade that is Manna which the Iewes thought to bee the true breade are deade in the wildernesse Howe did it descend to the Synagogue when all the Synagogue perished and fainted beeing pyned with euerlasting hunger of fayth Finally if they had receiued the true breade they had not sayde Lorde giue vs alwayes this breade What doest thou require O Iewe that hee shoulde giue vnto thee The
downe from heauen to giue eternall life to all them that did receiue him in all ages past and to come The seuenth Chapter proceedeth to declare the same by Saint Hierome and Saint Cyrill In the beginning of this Chapter Maister Heskins maruelleth that we whom he counteth the aduersaries of the truth would leaue a doctrine so vniuersally taught and receiued as though he had prooued their doctrine of the sacrament to be such comparing the protestantes to Esopes dogge that snatching for a shadowe lost the bone out of his mouth neuerthelesse he will proceede on his matter if there be any hope to reclayme vs And first he will choke vs with the authoritie of Saint Hieronyme In 1. Cor. 10. expounding that saying They did eate the same spirituall meate c. Manna figura corporis Christi suit Manna was a figure of the bodie of Christe It is very true we neuer saide the contrarie But the same Hierome in the same place vpon that saying The rocke was Christe Saith that the rocke was a figure of Christe which Maister Heskins vtterly denyeth Quia Christus erat postmoduÌ„ sequnturus cuius figuram tunc Petra gerebat idco pulchrè dixit consequente eos Petra Because Christe was afterward to followe of whom the rocke was a figure therfore he saide very fitly of the rocke that followed them By which wordes it is most manifest that by his iudgement they dranke of Christes bloud who was to come and consequently did eate his bodie whereof Manna was a figure But it followeth after in Hieronyme which Maister Heskins rehearseth at large and to no purpose Omnia enim quae in populo c. For all thinges which at that time were done in the people of Israell in a figure now among vs are celebrated in truth for euen as they by Moses were deliuered out of Egypt so are we by euerie priest or teacher deliuered out of the worlde And then beeing made Christians we are ledde through the wildernesse that by exercise of contempt of the worlde and abstinence we may forget the pleasures of Egypt so that we knowe not to go backe againe into the worlde But when we passe the sea of Baptisme the diuell is drowned for our sake with all his armie euen as Pharao was Then wee are fedde with Manna and receiue drinke out of the side of christ Also the clearenesse of knowledge as a piller of fire is shewed in the night of the worlde and in the heate of tribulation we are couered with the clowde of Diuine consolation In these wordes Maister Heskins noteth two thinges the applications of the truthes to the figures and the drinke flowing out of the side of Christe concerning the first it is cleare that he maketh their temporall benefites figures of our spirituall benefites and in that sense he vseth the tearmes of figures and trueth for otherwise hee confesseth that those thinges were truely done among them and in a figure were the same that ours are immediately before these wordes before rehearsed by Maister Heskins Ipsis verè facta sunt quae in figura erant nostra vt â—imeamus talia agere ne talia incurramus Those thinges were truely done vnto them whiche in figure were ours that we might feare to doe suche thinges least we incurre such thinges As for the drinke flowing out of his side we confesse to be the bloud of Christe as I haue shewed a hundreth times receiued after a spirituall manner But Maister Heskins reasoneth wittily as he thinketh when he sayeth as the Iewes did verily eate Manna so we doe verily eate the bodie of Christ. But he marketh not howe Hieronyme saith We are fedde with Manna and we receiue drinke flowing out of the side of Christ. Wherevpon I will inferre as we are fedde with Manna so we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe but are not fedde with Manna corporally but spiritually so we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ not corporally but spiritually After this least we should doubt of this authoritie as falsly ascribed to Hierome he returneth to Hierome Ad Hedibiam qu. 2. which we cannot refuse to be S. Hierome But seeing that place is sufficiently answered in the 53. Chapter of the second booke I wil not trouble the Reader with the repetition Likewise the place of Cyprian De Coena Dom. in the 17. Chapter of the first Booke Likewise the other parcels of Chrysostome he citeth In Matth. 25. Hom. 83. In the 55. Chapter of the second Booke The other named and not rehearsed be oftentimes answered throughout the Booke and none of them all haue any thing in them for his purpose Now commeth Cyrill In 6. Ioan. Cap. 19. Non enim prudenter c. Those thinges that suffice but for a shorte time shall not wisely be called by this name neither was that bread of God which the elders of the Iewes did eate are dead for if it had bene from heauen and of God it had deliuered the partakers of it from death But contrariwise the bodie of Christe is bread from heauen because it giueth eternall life to them that receued it Here saith M. Heskins is a breefe and plaine testimonie that manna was a figure and the bodie of Christ is the thing figured This is graunted but that Cyrill meant to make it only a figure or a bare figure it is vtterly false as appeareth in his commentarie vpon the same Chapter Lib. 3. Cap. 34. Manna verò figura quaedam vniuersalis Dei liberalicatis loco arrhae hominibus concessa Manna truely was a certeine figure of the vniuersall liberalitie of God granted to men in place of a pledge or earnest By these words you see that Manna was not a bare figure but an earnest or assurance of all the bountifulnes of god And in the same place he saith Sic enim planè videbitur quod verum Manna Christus erat qui per figuram Mannâ— priscis illis a Deo dabatur For so it shall plainely be seene that Christ was the true Manna which was giuen of God to those auncient fathers by the figure of Manna Thus it is moste euident that Manna was not a figure onely of Christe but that Christe in deede was giuen by that figure as hee is by our sacrament and so no corporall presence by his iudgement Neuerthelesse M. Heskins harpeth on his old string really and substantially and that by this authoritie of Cyrillus Cap. 14. in 6. Ioan. Quoniam c. Because the flesh of our sauiour is ioyned in the WORDE of God which is naturally life it is made able to giue life when we eate it then haue we life in vs beeing ioyned to him which is made life These wordes indeede doe declare that whosoeuer eateth the fleshe of Christ is partaker of eternall life which M. Heskins will not graunt but with his distinction spiritually therefore this place maketh nothing for him for Cyril speaketh generally So that no man
was to come nowe Christe is come To come and is come are diuerse wordes but the same Christe Let M. Heskins nowe go and saye that Manna was a figure onely of Christe and not Christ him selfe to the beleeuers let him saye that our sacraments in substance are not all one with theirs Finally that we eate Christ corporally which eate him none otherwise then they did before he had a bodie For in all these Augustine is directly contrarie to him though he be not ashamed to abuse his name as though he were of his opinion Nowe followeth Oecumenius a writer farre out of the compasse of the challenge But what sayeth he in 1. Cor. 10. Comederunt nempe Manna c. They haue eaten Manna as wee the bodie of christ They haue dronke the spirituall water flowing out of the rocke or stone as wee the bloud of Christ. Maister Heskins inferreth that the fathers did eate Manna and drinke the water corporally therefore wee eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe corporally By the same Logike he may conclude the fathers did eate manna visibly and sensibly therefore wee eate the bodie of Christ visibly and sensibly Or else as the wordes of Oecumenius sounde wee eate the bodie of Christe inuisibly so the fathers did eate Manna inuisibly But euery man that hath but halfe an eye seeth these grosse inconsequences and yet they are as good as Maister Heskins argument and illation Oecumenius therefore meaneth that as Manna and the water were their sacraments so we haue ours whose spirituall substance is the bodie and bloude of Christ the earthly substance is bread and wine and Manna and the water were to them sacramentes of the same Christ whome wee receiue And whereas M. Heskins sayeth that no catholike doctour teacheth the sacrament to be only a figure we agree with him for we hold him accursed that compteth it to be onely a figure or a bare figure as he doeth often most iniuriously charge vs The rest of the Chapter is spent in vaine repetitions of sentences collections before set downe and aunswered The ninth Chapter proceedeth in the declaration of the same by Haimo Theophylact. Although neither Haimo nor Theophylact speake more for M. Hesk. then the former auctors yet because they are but burgesses of the lower house which whether they giue their voyces with the bill or against it it shall passe neuer the sooner I will spende no time in aunswering their authorities They are both but late writers The patches of Chrysostome Ambrose Cyprian are often aunswered at large in their proper places But whereas he challengeth the spirit of vnitie vnto the Papistes and chargeth the Protestants with the spirite of diuision it is well knowen that in the cheefest articles of religion we agree God be thanked better then the Papistes do who haue not yet agreed whether the Pope or the counsell bee to bee followed in matters of faith so that they disagree in the verie foundation of their religion Finally where he chargeth vs with the heresies of the Anabaptistes we may be bolde to charge him with the spirite of Sathan who was a lyer a slaunderer of Gods Saintes from the beginning The tenth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Ruperâ—us Rich. Holkot and endeth with Gagnegus If a man should vouchesafe to admitt such authorities as these there should be no end of quarrelling I am content to yelde them to Maister Heskins and fiue hundreth more such as they be as for the sayings of Ambrose and Cyrill which he enterlaâ—eth they are answered in other places although that of Ambrose be flat against him the other of Cyrill nothing for him The eleuenth Chapter declareth the prophesies of the sacrament vnder the names of Manna the water of the rocke These Prophesies hee imagineth to be conteined in 77. Psalme 104. Psalme which as the whole Psalmes declare to them that read them be praises and thankesgiuings for Gods benefites past and not prophesies of things to come The first sentence is this Hee commaunded the clowdes aboue and opened the gates of heauen And he rayned to them Manna to eate and gaue them the bread of heauen So man did eate the bread of Angels Vppon this text he citeth Hierome Sed fantem c. But the same stone also sheweth out the founteine of baptisme For out of his side when he was striken came foorth water and bloud which figured baptisme and martirdome Here he maketh the water a figure of baptisme and martirdom not of the bloud of Christe in the sacrament and much lesse a prophesie except Maister Heskins be so madde as to make a figure and a prophesie all one But Hierom sayeth more Panem Câ—â—â—i dedit c. He gaue them the bread of heauen man did eate the breade of Angels Hee him selfe gaue meate vnto man which saide I am the breade of life which came downe from heauen he that shall eate of this bread shall liue for euer This is so farre from a prophesie of the time to come that hee declareth that God did feede the Israelites with the fleshe of Christe which is the breade of life that came downe from heauen figured in Manna being the foode of all the Saintes of God from the beginning of the worlde as is moste manifest by the verie next wordes following in Hierome which Maister Heskins hath craftily left out Ex hoc enim pane coeli Sancti reficiuntur Angeli For of this breade of heauen both the Saintes are fedd and the Angels Where note also that hee sayth the Angels to be refreshed with this breade of life euen aâ— the Saintes are but the Angels eate not the fleshe of Christe corporally therefore neither do the Saintes Finally Hierome in that place is so farre from a corporall manner of eating and drinking that he writeth thus Praestita sunt haec Haebries sed modò in ecclesia Prophetis Apostolis praecipitur vt nobis verbum praedicationis quo anima spiritualiter pascatur annuncient These things were perfourmed to the Hebrues but nowe also in the churche it is commaunded to the Prophets and Apostles that they declare to vs the worde of preaching wherewith our soule is spiritually fedd In these wordes hee maketh Manna and the water figures of the preaching of Gods worde which is a spirituall foode of our soules Nowe vppon the other texte Psalm 104. Hee satisfied them with the breade of heauen Saint Hierome sayeth For as they were refreshed by Manna rayning from heauen so wee at this day are refreshed receiuing the bodie of the Lambe He brake the rocke and the waters flowed For that precious corner stone was striken and brought foorth vnto vs vnmeasurable fountaines which washe away our errours and water our drynesse Here is as before a comparison of Gods benefites towarde them and towarde vs which he seemeth to make equall as they were in deede in substance and
all matters perteining to aeternall life but here is no prophesie spoken of neither doeth Maister Heskins gather one worde out of it for that intent The like is to be sayde of Saint Augustine vppon the 77. Psalme Quid enim c. For he which commanded the clowdes aboue and opened the gates of heauen and rayned to them Manna to eate and gaue them the bread of heauen so that man did eate the breade of Angels Hee which sent vnto them meate in aboundaunce that he might fill the vnbeleeuers is not vnable to geeue to the beleeuers the verie true breade from heauen which Manna did signifie which is in deede the meate of Angels which WORDE of God feedeth them that are corruptible incorruptibly which that man might eate was made flesh and dwelled among vs. Here is no worde of Prophesie neither can Maister Heskins himselfe finde any and the wordes which doe immediately followe do plainly shewe that Augustine spake neither of corporall presence nor corporall maner of eating Ipse enim panis per nubes Euangelicas vniuerso orbi pluitur apertis praedicatorum cordibus tanquam coelestibâ—â—â— ianuis non murmur anti tentanti synagogae sed credenti in illo spem ponenti ecclesiae praedicatur For this bread thorough the cloudes of the Gospell is rayned vnto all the worlde and the hearts of the preachers as it were the heauenly gates being opened is preached not to the murmuring and tempting synagogue but to the church beleeuing and putting her trust in him Here Augustine sayth that the VVORDE which became fleshe is rayned from heauen by the preaching of the Gospell and eaten by faith Vnto Augustine he ioyneth Cassiodorus as he sayeth and truely nothing dissenting from the former writers but altogether from M. Hesk. purpose he is cited in Psalm 77. Et pluit illis c. And he rayned to them Manna to eate he sayeth he rayned that he might shewe the great plentie of the meat which like vnto rayne came down from heauen And lest thou shouldest doubt what rayne that was it followeth To eate Manna Manna is interpreted what is this which we verie fuly applye to the holie Communion for while this meat is sought by wandring the giftes of the Lordes bodie are declared He hath added He gaue them the breade of heauen What other breade of heauen is there but Christe our Lorde of whome the heauenly things receiue spirituall foode and doe enioy inestimable delight Finally thus it followeth Man hath eaten the breade of Angels Therefore Christ is saide to be the breade of Angels because they are fedde with his eternall praise For the Angels are not to be thought to eate corporall breade but with that contemplation of our Lorde with the which that high crâ—ature is fedd they are fedd but this breade filleth the Angels in heauen and feedeth vs on earth In this exposition it is worthie to be noted that Cassiodorus affirmeth that Christe our Lorde was the breade from heauen which God gaue to the fathers in the sacrament of Manna Also that the Angels in heauen and we vppon earth are fedde with the same bread which must needes be a spirituall foode For as he saith the Angels eate no corporall bread so doe they not eate any corporall thing or after any corporall manner The last authoritie hee citeth out of fryer Titelman I will not trouble the reader withall although if he neuer had spoken worse then in this sentence he were not greatly to be reprehended But to M. Heskins all is fishe that commeth to the nett The twelfth Chapter proueth by occasion of that that is sayde with further authoritie that the sacraments of the newe lawe are more excellent then the sacraments of the olde lawe The first reason is taken out of S. Augustines rule cited in the firste booke That all good things figured are more excellent then the figures which wee graunt for Christ figured by Manna was more excellent then Manna as he is more excellent then the breade wine by which he is likewise represented The second reason he vseth is this that if the bodie of Christe were not so present in the sacrament as they imagine Manna shoulde be better then the sacrament for Manna hath twelue wonders declared by Roffens lib. 1. Chap. 12. The firste that he that gathered moste had but his measure The seconde that he that gathered least had his measure full also The thirde that which was kepte vntill the next day putrified except on the Saboth day The fourth it was kept many yeres in the Arke vnprutrified The fift it would melt in the Sonne and be harde in the fire The sixth it fell all dayes sauing vppon the Sabboth day The seuenth that on the daye before the Saboth day they had two gomers full and all other days but one The eyght that whether they gathered more or lesse they had that day two gomers full The ninth that measure sufficed all stomackes and appetites The tenth that to them that were good it tasted to euery one according to his desire The eleuenth although to the godly it was a most pleasant taste yet to the vngodly it waâ— lothsome The twelfth the children of Israel were fedd with it fortie yeres in the Wildernesse Of some of these speaketh Chrysostom in dict Apost Nolo vos which because it is long and conteineth nothing more then is collected by Fisher I will not set downe Augustine also witnesseth for one miracle that Manna tasted to euery man as hee woulde Hereuppon he concludeth that Manna farre excelleth the sacramentaries sacramentall bread which shal be graunted and so it doeth the Papists consecrated host which is subiect to putrifaction and in none of the twelue miracles comparable to Manna But Manna for all this doth not excell the bodie and bloud of Christe which is giuen vs that are faithfull with our sacramentall bread and wine He sayeth the Iewes receiuing Manna receiued Christe spiritually Nowe at the length he sayth trueth And we also receiuing the sacramentall bread and wine receiue Christ spiritually Neither are our sacraments as I haue sayde concerning the spirituall or heauenly substance more excellent then theirs as our saluation is the same with theirs but in clearnesse of signification more excellent as the doctrine of our saluation is more plainly reuealed vnto vs But M. Hesk. replyeth that if our sacrameÌ„ts excel not theirs then their sacraments and figures farre excell ours and that in three things The first In excellencie of the thing signified The second in the fulnesse liuelinesse of the signification The third in the worke of God about the same figures But I aunswer concerning the first they are aequall concerning the second ours are superior more excellent and concerning the thirde I distinguish of outward working of God inwarde Concerning the outward work of God about their sacraments figures it was meete it should be more notable because the doctrine was more obscure
nothing of the institution of the sacrament bicause hee spake of it most plentifully in this Chapter by Augustines iudgement Ioannes c. Iohn saide nothing in this place of the body and bloud of our Lord but plainely in an other place he testifieth that our Lord spake of them most plentifully Here he will haue vs note that Augustine calleth it not a signe or figure but plainly the body and bloud of Christ therefore it is not a figure or signe By the same reason he may say Augustine calleth it not a sacrament therefore it is no sacrament But Christ him selfe saith Not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer In which wordes M. Heskins noteth two thinges The first that Manna is a figure of Christe in the sacrament for proofe of which he sendeth vs backe to the 4.5.6.7.8.9 10. Chapters of this booke The second is the excellencie of the body of Christ in the sacrament aboue Manna the eaters whereof are dead but the eaters of the body of Christe in the sacrament shall liue for euer M. Heskins saith he wot not what for if you aske him whether all they that eat the body of Christ in the sacrament shall liue eternally he will say no. For wicked men as he saith eate it which shall not liue eternally Againe if you aske him whether al they that did eat Manna are dead he will say no. For though they be dead in body yet bicause many did eate Christ spiritually by faith they shall liue for euer You see what pith is in his reason and substance in his doctrine But in very deede Christe compareth his flesh with Manna as it was a corporall foode only and so all that did eate it are dead but all they that eat the flesh of Christe which is eternall life shall liue eternally for though they dye corporally yet will be raise them vp in the last day And whereas Maister Heskins voucheth S. Augustine to warrant De vtilita poenit Manna de coelo c. I must send the reader to the eight Chapter of this booke where that authoritie is cited and answered to be flat contrarie to M. Heskins Likewise the sentence of Cyprian de Coen Dom. Coena disposita c. is handled in the first booke Chapter 17. and the other beginning Significata in Lib. 1. Cap. 39. The saying of Ambrose Lib. 4. de sacra Cap. 5. is also against Maister Heskins as we shall plainely see Ipse Dominus c. The Lorde Iesus him selfe testifieth vnto vs that wee receiue his body and bloud ought we to doubt of his fidelitie and testification Nowe returne with me to my proposition It was truely a great and a venerable thing that he rayned Manna to the Iewes from heauen But vnderstand which is the greater Manna from heauen or the body of Christe The body of Christe truely who is the maker of heauen Further he that hath eaten Manna hath dyed but he that shall eate this body it shall be made to him remission of sinnes and he shall not dye for euer By the effectes of the sacrament which are remissioÌ„ of sinnes eternal life M. Hes. saith the excellencie thereof is proued aboue Manna I answere Ambrose folowing our sauiour Christ doth not compare Manna the sacrament with our sacrament but Manna the corporall foode with the body of Christ the heauenly substance of our sacrament so it is more excellent without comparison But Maister Heskins skippeth ouer with a drye foote that Ambrose saith Whosoeuer shall eate of this body it shall be made to him remission of sinnes and he shall not not die for euer by which words it is euident that no wicked man eateth this body but they only which eat it spiritually by faith An other place of Ambrose hee citeth De myster initiand Cap. 9. Considera nunc c. Consider nowe whether is better the bread of Angels or the flesh of Christ which truly is the body of life That Manna was from heauen this aboue heauen that of heauen this of the Lorde of heauens that subiect to corruption if it were kept vntill the next day this farre from all corruption which who so euer shall taste religiously he can feele no corruption The water did satisfie them for an houre the bloud doth wash thee for euer The Iewe drank and thirsteth when thou hast drâ—nke thou canst not thirst And that was in a shaddowe this in the trueth And after a fewe wordes he saith Thou hast knowne better thinges for light is better then a shaddowe the trueth then a figure the body of the Authour then Manna from heauen This place of Ambrose vtterly denieth the body of Christ to be receiued of the wicked which perish and so consequently denyeth it to be corporally present But least we should obiect that Ambrose speaketh not of the sacrament he addeth a long discourse following immediatly Forte dicaâ— c. which bicause it is contained in the 51. Chapter of the second booke I will send the reader thither where he shall see it aunswered by Ambrose him selfe and in the same place and in the tenth Chapter of the second booke where some part of it is touched For it were in vaine to trouble the reader with one thing so often as M. Heskins listeth to repeat it The fifteenth Chapter prouing all our sacraments generally to be more excellent then the sacraments of Moses First baptisme in respect of The noble presence of God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost must bring with it some more noble gift then a bare signe or token See howe this impudent beast would make Popish fooles beleeue that we teach baptisme to be nothing else but a bare signe or token We thinke and speake of it as honourably as the scripture teacheth vs Let the forme of baptisme vsed in the Church of England testifie whether we make it nothing but a bare signe or token Let our catechismies of al sorts beare witnesse of the same But nothing will stop a slanderous mouth Yet to aunswere the title of that Chapter S. Augustine is cited contra Faust. lib. 19. cap. 13. Prima sacrameÌ„ta c. The first sacraments which were obserued celebrated by the lawe were the foreshewing of Christ that was to come which when he had fulfilled by his coÌ„ming they were taken away therfore they were taken away bicause they were fulfilled For he came not to breake the law but to fulfill it And other are instituted greater in power better in profite easier to be done fewer in number Maister Heskins asketh wherein bee they greater in power but in this that the sacramenets of the olde lawe had no power but to signifie onely oures not onely to signifie but also to giue that they signifie And I will aske him seeing he maketh the sacraments instruments of Gods grace by what instrument did they receiue the grace of
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
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
be all of one body which is true so wee vnderstand a spirituall kinde of coniunction by which wee are not only ioyned to Christ as Chrysostome saith but also one to an other in one body Secondly that it is the body of Christ by the eating whereof we are made one body and this also is true for we contend not for the eating of Christes body but for the manner of eating The third note I thinke hee maketh that by Chrysostomes iudgement Saint Paule meant not materiall breade but the body of Christe which is proued to bee false and absurde by these two reasons First if Saint Chrysostome by breade meant not the sacramentall breade but the body of Christe then his question is nothing else in effect but what is the body of Christe And then he answereth the body of Christe which is very absurde and ridiculous Secondly that he meaneth materiall breade vsed in the sacrament it is manifest in that hee saith it is made of many graines but the body of Christe it not made of graines therefore hee can not meane the body of Christe but the sacramentall breade which signifieth the body of Christe But here Maister Heskins as though hee were the first that espied the matter insulteth vpon him that translateth this part of Chrysostome which was Franciscus Aretinus whom either of ignoraÌ„ce or of malice he chargeth to haue falsified Chrysostome and in steede of his wordes which according to the Greeke are What is the bread to haue turned it What doth the bread signifie For my part although the Greeke copies coÌ„monly extant in print are not as he hath translated it yet I suppose that he followed either some other copy that I haue not seene peraduenture printed peraduenturâ— written For vndoutedly although he were ignorantly or willfully deceiued yet the sense of Chrysostomes words must needes be what doth the bread signifie which M. Heskins can not altogether dissemble but then he will haue it not materiall bread but the word bread But how friuolous that is I haue shewed before for this worde Breade is not made of cornes but the materiall bread giuen in the sacrament Neither doth the other worde hee citeth any thing helpe him Non enim simpliciter c. For hee hath not simplie giuen his body but when the former nature of the flesh formed out of the earth by sinne being made mortall was forsaken of life he brought in an other as I might so say lumpe or leauen that is his flesh in nature truely the same but free from sinne and ful of life which he giueth to all that they might be made partakers of it that being nourished with it and the first that was dead being cast away we might be ioyned together by this liuing immortall table Loe saith M. Heskins this is not a peece of dead breade but a liuing and immortall meate hee dare not say table as Chrysostome doth for feare of a figure But is he so blinde that he seeth not the partaking and nourishing of the newe flesh to be such as the casting away of the olde is which no man doubteth to be spirituall But seeing he braggeth so much of Chrysostome and is such an enimie to signes and figures let him heare what he writeth in Math. Hom. 83. Sed ficut in veteri eodem hâ—c modo in beneficio reliquit memoriam mysteriorum colligendo hinc haereticorum ora frenando Nam quando dicunt vnde patet immolatum Christum fuisse alia multa mysteriae Haec enim adferentes eorum ora consuimus Si enim mortuus Iesus non est cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est Vides quancum ei studium fuerit vt semper memoria tentamus pro nobis ipsum mortuum fuisse But as in the olde Paschal â–ª euen likewise here in this benefite hee hath left the memorie of the mysteries by gathering and hereof bridling the mouthes of heretikes For when they say howe is it knowne that Christ was sacrificed and many other mysteries For when we bring foorth those things we soe vp their mouthes For if Iesus be not dead of whom is this sacrifice a token and signe Thou seest howe great care he had that we might alwayes keepe in remembrance that he dyed for vs. There can nothing be spoken more plainly to declare either what the sacrament is or for what end it was ordained or finally what manner of sacrifice it is accounted of Chrysostome and the auncient Fathers But nowe followeth S. Augustine Ser. 2. Pasc. Quia Christus passus est c. Bicause Christ hath suffered for vs he hath commended vnto vs his body and his bloud in this sacrament which also he hath made our owne selues For we also are made his body and by his mercy we are that which we receiue I like this saying very well it maketh altogether for the truth on our side Yet M. Heskins noteth that he saith not he hath commended a figure or memoriall but his body and his bloud I agree well but hee saith that hee hath commended his body and bloud in a sacrament hee doth not say the sacrament is his naturall body present vnder the formes of bread and wine corporally that I may followe M. Heskins negatiue argument But especially let vs note what he saith and not what hee saith not He saith we are the same that we receiue but we are not his naturall body after a corporall manner therfore wee receiue not his naturall body after a corporall manner The rest that followeth to moue vs to abide in this body of Christ confirmeth the same Dic mihi quid est c. Tell me what is it whereof thou liuest Doth thy spirite liue by thy body or thy body by thy spirite Euery one that liueth aunswereth I liue by my spirite And he that can not answere this I knowe not whether he liueth What answereth euery one that liueth My body truely liueth by my spirite Wilt thou therefore liue by the spirite of Christ Be thou in the body of christ For whether doth my body liue of thy spirite Mine liueth of my spirit and thine liueth of thy spirit The bodie of Christ can not liue but by the spirit of christ Hereof it is that the Apostle Paul expounding this bread One bread saith he we are one body All men see that this writer speaketh of our mysticall and spirituall coniunction with Christe neither can M. Heskins him selfe make any other thing of it The fiue and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Damascene and Haimo Maister Heskins store is farre spent and therefore he maketh much of the remnants Damascene and Haimo we haue before diuers times excepted against as vnlawful witnesses and therefore we will spend no time in examining their sayings But whereas Maister Heskins maketh great ado in this Chapter of our coniunction with Christ both in soule and body we knowe it and doe reioyce in it but for any
no man of learning will acknowledge them to be his And seeing the Greeke Liturgies are very vnlike the Latine Masse hee doth but mocke the ignorant readers to say they be all one Finally hee doth most absurdly conclude that his Masse should be within the compasse of Saint Augustines rule ad Ian. Ep. 118. That those thinges which the vniuersall Church obserueth throughout the worlde we may vnderstand that they are retayned as ordained either of the Apostles them selues or of the generall Counsels whose authoritie in the Church is most profitable Illa que per orbem vniuersa obseruat Ecclesia datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel a plenarijs concilijs quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrim a authoritas statuta retineri Thus hath M. Hes. cited Augustine to haue a starting hole vnder the name of the church but Saint Augustines wordes are somewhat otherwise Illae autem quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus quÄ™ quidem toto terrarum orbe obseruantur datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel plenarijs concilijs quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas commendata atque statuta retineri sicuti quod Domini passio resurrectio ascensio in Coelum aduentus de Coelo Spiritus sancti anniuersaria solennitate celebrantur si quid eliud â—ale occurrerit quod seruatur ab vniuersis quacunque se diffundat Ecclesia Those things which we obserue being not written but deliuered which truely are obserued throughout all the world it is giuen to be vnderstoode that they are retained as commended and decreed either by the Apostles or by generall Counsels whose authoritie in the Church is most wholsome as that the Passion resurrectioÌ„ of our Lord and his Ascention into heauen and the comming of the holy Ghost from heauen are celebrated with yerely soleÌ„nitie or if there be any such like matter which is obserued of all men wheresoeuer the Church spreadeth her self But seing the Popish Masse was vnknowne to the world in Augustines time neuer vsed throughout the worlde of all men for the orientall Churches neuer receiued it to this day if it haue no better holde then it getteth by this place of Augustine it must needes fall to the ground And thus much concerning the name fourme of the Masse In the next Chapter we shall heare of the matter or substance of the Masse it selfe The three and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the Masse it selfe Maister Heskins first with rayling tearmes taketh exception to the proclaymers diuision of the Masse into foure partes Prayers consecration receiuing doctrine except he adde oblation as the fifte or comprehend it vnder the name of consecration Moreouer he saith this is but a description of Masse in the large signification But the Masse it selfe properly is the holie consecration of the bodie and bloud of Christ the holy oblation and offring of the same in the memoriall and remembrance of his passion and death with humble and lowly thankes lawdes and prayses for the same and holy receiuing of that body and bloud so consecrated Here is the Lions skinne couering the asse but yet not so closely but the long eares may be seene hanging out For as the forme of these wordes for the most parte may be applyed to the holy communion so almost by euerie word he vnderstandeth another thing then either the scriptures or the auncient fathers do teache as we shall best see in the examination of the partes which followe First where he sayeth the proclaymer cannot abide consecration he sayeth falsely for both he graunteth consecration and the presence of Christes bodie and bloud but not the Popish charming nor their carnall manner of presence whiche how they be proued by M. Heskins let the readers iudge Oblation the second part he sayeth is proued in the first book and declaration of the prophesies of Melchisedech Damascen Malachie and in the 37. Chapter In the same places let the reader consider the answere In receiuing which is the thirde part two things saith Maister Heskins offend the proclaymer that is receiuing vnder one kinde and receiuing of the Priest alone The former is defended by him Lib. 2. from the 64. Chap. to the end of 67. Chap. there it is in this booke confuted The priuate receiuing he saith shall be defended afterward In doctrine the 4. part he knoweth not what faulte the proclaymer can finde wherein is greatest fault of all but M. Heskins will haue nothing to be the doctrine of the Masse but the Gospell and Pistle and other scriptures that are read in it In prayer the fift and last parte he findeth two faultes namely prayer to Saintes and for the dead for triall of these he will haue recourse to the primitiue Church It is well he can haue no recourse to the holie scriptures nor to the most ancient Church which is properly called the primitiue Church although these two errors be of great antiquitie But before M. Heskins vndertake these trials he girdeth at the communion ministred in copes and the proclaymer wearing Aarons garment for a bishoprick If the Popish priestes had no more pleasure to say masse in their vestments then the proclaymer to minister in copes I thinke the common sort of Papistes would haue lesse deuotion to the Masses then Gods people haue to the communion when it is ministred without any ceremoniall attyre But Maister Heskins will proue that neuer yet was heard off that Christ himselfe saide Masse For he instituted the Masse in his last supper and that he will proue by Cyprian but why doth he not rather proue it by the Euangelistes Forsooth because the scriptures haue no such vnproper speech to make any shewe of the Masse as Cyprian and the rest of the fathers haue Well let vs heare how Cyprian affirmeth that Christ saide Masse Maister Heskins saith First for the consecration Lib. 2. Ep. 3. He writeth thus Vt in Genesi c. That the blessing in Genesis by Melchisedech the priest might be duely celebrated about Abraham the image of the sacrifice appointed in bread and wine goeth before which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling offered bread the cup mixed with wine and he that is that fulnesse hath fulfilled the veritiâ— of the prefigured image In these wordes M. Heskins forgetting that Christ offred bread wine gloseth vpon the veritie of the image fulfilled by Christ and expressed by Cyprian in other wordes Obtulit c. He offred the same thing which Melchisedech had offered that is bread and wine euen his bodie and bloud Here againe is bread and wine offered by Christe which is his bodie and bloud after a spiritual manner as it was offered by Melchisedech Hitherto no worde of consecration nor of the carnall manner of presence but directly against it Nowe let vs heare howe he proueth oblation Quaerendum est c. It must be asked whom they haue folowed For if in the sacrifice which is
Christ none but Christ is to be followed we must then obey and doe that whiche Christ did and which he commanded to be done Here Maister Heskins noteth that Christ is the sacrifice I answere euen as the bread is his bodie the wine his bloud But that Christ commaunded the Church to offer this sacrifice in remembrance of him he teacheth plainely saith M. Heskins Yea sir but where doth he teach either plainely or obscurely that the Masse is a sacrifice propitiatorie for the quicke and the dead which is the matter in question And not the name of sacrifice vsed by Cyprian vnproperly figuratiuely meaning a remembrance and thankesgiuing for the onely once offered sacrifice of Christe But let vs heare his words Quod si nec minimia c. If it be not lawful to breake the least of the Lordes commaundements how much more is it not lawful to infringe or breake things so greate so weightie so apperteining to the very sacrament of the Lords passion and our redemption or by mans tradition to chaunge it into any other thing then is ordeined of God For if Iesus Christ our Lord and God be himselfe the high Priest of God the father and he himselfe first did offer sacrifice and commanded this to be done in his remembrance that Priest supplyeth the roome of Christ truly which followeth that which Christ did And then he offereth a true full sacrifice in the Church to God the father if he so begin to offer as he hath seene Christ him selfe to haue offered Here M. Hesk. reproueth our ministration in two points First for that we minister with wine alone contrarie to Christes institution But when he can proue that Christ added water to his cup of wine we will grant it to be a breach of his institution and not before Secondly he reasoneth if it be so greate a matter to take away wine or water from the ministratioÌ„ it is much greater to take away Christes body there fro but it is as false that we take away his bodie as it is true that they take away his bloud Now concerning the tearme sacrifice vsed by S. Cyprian his wordes in the same Epistle declare plainely that he vsed it as I said before vnproperly Et quia passionis eius mentionem insacrificijs omnibus facimus passio est enim Domini sacrificiumâ— quod offerimus nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus And because we make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices for the sacrifice which we offer is the passion of our Lord we ought to do nothing but that he hath done By this you see that the sacrifice is Christe euen as it is the passion of Christe that is to say a sacramentall memoriall of Christes body and of his passion not otherwise But Maister Heskins taking occasion of the former saying of Cyprian by him cited rayleth at his pleasure vpon the author of the apologie for saying the contention betweene Luther and Zwinglius was about a small matter And so it was in deede in comparison of these cheefe and necessarie pointes of religion in whiche they did agree And if you make the moste of it yet was it no greater then the matter of rebaptising wherein Cyprian his authour dissented from Cornelius Bishop of Rome Neuerthelesse Maister Heskins returning to vrge the image of the sacrifice set foorth in Melchisedeches feast of bread and wine bringeth in Tertullian Contra Marcion Ita nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecrauit qui sunc viâ—â—um in sanguine figurauit So now he hath consecrated his bloud in wine which then figured wine in bloud He quoteth not the place least his falsification might appeare For first he applyeth this figure to Melchisedech which Tertullian doth to Iuda and translateth Vinum in sanguine figurauit He figured wine in his bloud whereas Tertullian speaking of the blessing that Iacob gaue to Iuda that he should wash his garment in the bloud of the grape sayeth he figured wine by bloud that is by the name of bloud of the grape he meant figuratiuely wine As for the name of consecration in the true sense thereof we neither abhorre nor refuse to vse But he hath neuer done with Melchisedeches bread wine when all commeth to all Christ offred neither bread nor wine as they say Yet M. Heskins affirmeth if he wold abide by it that Christ offred bread wine in verity But if you aske him whether he mean bread and wine in truth and veritie he will say no verily so M. Hesk. veritie is contradictorie to truth To draw to an end he citeth Ambrose In praefatione Missae in coena Do. Christus formam sacrificij perennis instituens hostiam se primus obtulit primus docuit offerri c. Christ instituting a fourme of perpetuall sacrifice first offered himselfe for a sacrifice and first taught it to be offered But where Maister Heskins founde this authority I leaue to all learned men to consider when there is not such a title in all the workes of Saint Ambrose that are printed new or olde Therefore whether he fayned it him selfe or followed some other forger he sheweth his honest and faithfull dealing But if we should admitte this testimonie as lawfull whereas it is but a counterfete yet vnderstanding howe the auncient wryters abused the name of sacrifice for a memoriall of a sacrifice and not for a propitiatorie sacrifice it helpeth Maister Heskins nothing at all Saint Ambrose himselfe very improperly vseth the name of Hostia or sacrifice as De Virgine Lib. 1. Virgo matris hostia est cuius quotidiano sacrificio vis diuina placatur A Virgine is the hoste or sacrifice of her mother by whose daily sacrifice the wrath of God is pacified If Maister Heskins coulde finde thus muche in Saint Ambrose for the sacrifice of the Masse he would triumph out of measure that he had found it a propitiatorie sacrifice euen for the quicke and the dead and that those wordes of Christe doe this in rememembraunce of me were expounded of the Fathers for offer a sacrifice propitiatorie But who so listeth to heare the trueth neede not to bee deceiued in the word of sacrifice and phrase of offring vsed by the olde writers which was not properly but figuratiuely c sometimes abusiuely For further instruction of consecration and oblation he sendeth his Reader backe to the 2. book 41. Chapter to the end of the book For the rest vnto the 1. booke 33. Chapter to the end of that booke And euen in the same places shall the Reader finde mine answere The foure and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the vse of the Masse vsed and practised by the Apostles It is maruell the Apostles were such great sayers of Masse and yet neuer make one worde mention of it in all their writinges But we must see what Maister Heskins can picke out of them And first he maketh another diuision of his Masse into inward
sacrifice of thankesgiuing or a memoriall of the sacrifice of Christ by which it is easie to iudge howe the doctrine that the Papistes do nowe holde of the propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse doth agree with the auncient Liturgies ascribed to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church The eight and twentieth Chapter treateth of the prayer for acceptation of the oblation or sacrifice made in the Masse and vsed as well by the Apostles as the Fathers That the Apostles and Fathers commended to God by prayers the sacrifice which thei offered it is a manifest argument that they offered not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe for that needeth no commendation of our prayers They prayed therefore that their sacrifice of thankes giuing and duetifull seruice celebrated in the memorie of Christes death might be acceptable to God as you shal see by al their prayers First the Liturgie vntruly ascribed to Iames praieth thus Pro oblatis c. For these offred and sanctified precious heauenly vnspeakable immaculate glorious feareful horrible diuine gifts let vs pray to our Lord God that our Lord God accepting them into his holy heauenly mentall and spirituall altar for a sauour of spiritual sweet smell may giue vs againe and send vnto vs the diuine grace and gift of the most holy spirite These sanctified giftes can not be the body and bloud of Christe which are holy of them selue but the bread and wine sanctified to be a memoriall of the death of Christe in a spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing Saint Clement if wee beleeue Nicholas Methon prayed thus Rogamus c. We pray thee that with mercifull and cheerefull countenaunce thou wilt looke vpon these giftes set before thee thou God which hast no neede of any thing and that thou mayest be pleased with them to the honour of thy Christ. These wordes are plaine that he offered not Christe but the breade and wine to bee sanctified to the honour of Christe namely that they might be made the body and bloud of Christe to as many as receiue them worthily In the Liturgie imputed to Basil the Priest prayeth thus Dominum postulemus c. Let vs desire the Lorde for these offered and sanctified the most honourable giftes of our Lorde God and for the profite of the goods of our soules that the most mercifull God which hath receiued them in his holy heauenly intelligible altar for a sauour of sweete smelling would send vnto vs the grace and communion of his holy spirite The same wordes in a manner be in the Liturgie fathered vppon Saint Chrysostome though it be manifest that it was written seuen hundreth yeares after his death as is shewed before Pro oblatis c. For the offered and sanctified precious giftes let vs pray the Lorde that our mercifull God who hath receiued theÌ„ in his holy heauenly intelligible altar may send vs therfore grace the gift of the holy Ghost Maister Heskins would haue vs note that these Fathers seeme to pray for their sacrifice which we note very willingly for thereby is proued that their sacrifice was not the very body of Christ for that nedeth no commendation of our prayers Wel S. Ambrose followeth Lib. de Sacr. 4. Cap. 6. Petimus c. We pray and desire that thou wilt receiue this oblation in thy high altar by the handes of the Angels as thou hast vouchsafed to receiue the gifts of thy seruant righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that which thy high Priest Melchisedech offered to thee The very name of gods heauenly mental intelligible holy high altar do argue a spirituall sacrifice and not a reall oblation of the naturall body and bloud of christ Next to these Liturgies Maister Heskins adioyneth the wordes of the Canon of the Popish Masse agreeing in effect with these of Ambrose but nothing at all in vnderstanding For that the Papistes esteeme their sacrifice to be very Christ God and Man which none of the auncient fathers did For which cause the Bishop of Sarum iustly reproued those three blasphemies in their Canon not in respect of the words but in respect of their vnderstanding of them The first that they seeme to make Christ in his fathers displeasure that he needeth a mortall man to be his spokesman The second that the body of Christe should in no better wise bee receiued of his father then a Lambe at the handes of Abel The third that they desire an Angel may come and carie away Christes body into heauen These three blasphemies M. Heskins taketh vpon him to auoyde or excuse To the first after many lowd outcries and beastly raylings against that godly learned father of blessed mâ—mory he answereth defending it first by example of these auncient Liturgies that they prayed for their sacrifice but this helpeth him not for they neither thought nor saide that their sacrifice was very Christe God and Man but a sacrament and memoriall of him Afterward hee saith the meaning of their Church is not to pray for Christe but by Christ to obtaine fauour bicause they say in the end of euery prayer per Christum Dominum nostrum by our Lord Christ. But this hole is too narrowe for him to creepe out at For he confesseth that he prayeth for his sacrifice and he affirmeth that his sacrifice is Christ therfore he praieth for Christ. To auoyde the second blasphemie hee saith that the meaning of their Church is not to pray that God will accept the sacrifice which is acceptable of it selfe but their deuotion and seruice and them selues the offerers as hee did accept Abell and his sacrifice c. and so flyeth to the example of the olde Liturgies but that will not serue him For their sacrifice was not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ but a seruice and duetie of thankesgiuing in remembrance of Christe And therefore they might well pray that their sacrifice might be accepted as Abell and his sacrifice as Noe and his burnt offering and so of the rest but this meaning will not stande with the wordes of their Canon which are that God will accept the sacrifices that is the body and bloud of Christ as hee accepted the giftes of his iust seruaunt Abell c. Therefore they must either chaunge the wordes of the Canon or his aunswere to the second accusation by the meaning of their Church can not stande howe so euer Hugo Heskins would seeme to salue or rather to daub vp the matter To the third and last hee aunswereth denying that the meaning of their Church is that the body of Christe should be caried by an Angel but that their prayers should bee offered by an Angel or Angels in the sight of GOD making a long and needlesse discourse of the ministerie of Angels and howe they offer our prayers to GOD which is nothing to the purpose For the Maister of the sentences affirmeth that an Angel must be sent to
close Maister Heskins aunswereth this is a small fault and from the Masse of S. Iames flyeth to S. Basils Masse Where it is said the Bishop prayeth secretly yet he spake the wordes as they call them of consecration openly The thirde comparison S. Iames in his Masse ministred the communion to the people The Papists in their Masse receiue them selues alone To this he aunswereth denying that S. Iames did always minister the communion to the people which is an impudent shift except he will denie the fourme of that liturgie which prescribeth the ministration to the people after the consecration His reason is because in Chrysostomes liturgie which was written more then a thousand yeares after S. Iames and falsely beareth the name of Chrysostome there is a rule what the priest shall doe when there are no communicants The fourth comparison S. Iames ministred the communion to the people vnder both kindes The Papists in their Masse in one kinde onely Here hath he none other refuge but to say that S. Iames did not alwayes minister vnder both kindes Then let him denie the credite of the liturgie which prescribeth the cōmunion to be ministred in both kindes The fift comparison Saint Iames preached and set foorth the death of Christ They in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe gestures and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstand not and make no manner of mention of Christes death M. Hes. complayneth of the Bishops repetitions imputing them to want of stuffe when he himselfe moste absurdly repeateth his three vntruthes surmised to be in this assertion which he set downe before in the 39. Chapter whither I referre the Reader for the answere Only this I wil note that he can finde no other preaching to the people but the Aulbe to signifie the white garment that Christe was sent in from Herode the vestiment the garment that he was mocked in in the house of Pilate the Crosse vpon the vestiment signifieth the crosse of Christe which he did beare as the priest doth on his backe the eleuation signifieth the lifting vp of Christe on the crosse he might say by as good reason the Priests hands signified the two theeues the Priest himselfe the tormentors that did lift him vp to the crosse Beholde this is the preaching of Christes death in the Masse whether it be an impudent vntruth as Maister Heskins tearmeth it to call these dumbe gestures and ceremonies or M. Heskins an impudent beast to defend these dombe signes for preaching of Christes death let the reader in Gods name consider and iudge The sixth comparison S. Iames Masse was full of knowledge their Masse is full of ignorance M. Heskins aunswereth that there is as much knowledge in their Masse as in S. Iames Masse because in substance it is all one which if it were true as it is most false yet what knowledge can be when al is done in a strange language and no preaching but by dombe signes as we heard before The seuenth S. Iames Masse was full of consolation their Masse is full of superstition To this he aunswereth they haue as much consolation which cannot be when they haue no preaching of the Gospel how can he say that they haue no superstition when they haue an hundred idle ceremonies and gestures which Christ neuer instituted and therfore are meere will worship and superstition The eyghth comparison he saith is all one with the third that the people resorted to receiue the communion when S. Iames sayed Masse Although it followe of the thirde yet is it not all one with it for as S. Iames was readie to minister so the people ordinarily were readie to receiue which is not looked for of the popish priestes because they reach them that it is needelesse so to doe The last comparison Saint Iames in his Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well more nothing else but mans inuention To this he aunswereth that they haue Christes institution for their Masse which is an impudent falshood either for their carnall maner of presence or for their sacrifice or for their priuate receiuing or for their depriuing the people of all doctrine but such as is by dombe signes which he is not afrayde to ascribe to the inuention of the holy Ghost as though the spirite of God in ceremonies would be contrary to him selfe in the scriptures After this he reporteth the substantiall differences betweene the Masse and the newe communion as he calleth it which because they be all set foorth and aunswered before in the 34.35.36 Chapters of this booke I will leefe no time about his vaine recapitulation or repetition of them contayning nothing but rayling and slaundering The foure and fortieth Chapter returning to the exposition of S. Paul expoundeth this text As often as ye shal eat of this bread c. by S. Hierom Theophylact. M Heskins hauing wandred abroad to seek the Masse in auncient writers nowe is come home againe to his text and that is this As often as you shall eat of this bread drinke of this cupp ▪ you shall shewe forth the Lordes death vntill be come Vpon this text saith he the ministers of Sathan for so it pleaseth him to call vs haue grounded two arguments against the reall presence One that the sacrament is a memoriall of Christe and therefore Christ is absent because a memoriall is of a thing absent the other that it is bread for so the Apostles called it not the bodie of christ The solution of the first argument is that the receipt of the sacrament is not a memoriall of Christes bodie but of his death and passion This is a noble distinction but when Christ sayeth do this in remēbrance of mee whether is the remembrance of Christe the remembrance of his bodie or onely of the temporall act of his dying and suffering which is past I think all Christian men will confesse that the communion is a memoriall of Christ that was crucified and not of his crucifying onely But when Saint Paul sayeth vntill he come how can he say that he is present in bodie which is yet to come in bodie To the seconde argument he aunswereth that Saint Paule calleth it breade as Christ calleth bread his flesh and therfore he calleth it this bread signifying a speciall bread No man sayeth the contrarie but that it is a speciall bread and as Saint Augustine sayeth after a certeine manner the bodie of Christe But if Maister Heskins in this place may denye breade to bee taken in the proper sence for breade why doth hee exclame against them that in these wordes This is my body denye the worde body to be taken in the proper signification thereof for a naturall bodie But let vs take Maister Heskins interpretation of bread to signifie the bodie of Christe then the sense of Saint Paules wordes shal be this As often as ye eat of the bodie of Christ and drinke his bloud you shall shewe the Lordes
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
is directly against him that wicked men receiue not the bodie and bloude of Christe And wheras hee noteth that the sixte of Iohn and Saint Paule in this texte speake of one thing it is cleane contrarye for Christe speaketh of that which is testifyed and giuen in the sacrament to the faithfull Paule of the sacrament receiued vnworthely And Primasius ioyneth them to shewe the diuersitie of these textes and not as though they signified one thing For by Saint Paule hee prooueth that not all eating and drinking is the eating and drinking of the bodie and bloude of Christe but the eating and drinking worthily The one and fiftieth Chapter abydeth in the exposition of the same texte by Cassiodorus and Damascene Cassiodorus is cited in Psalm 110. vppon this verse Tu es sacerdos c. Thou arte a priest after the order of Melchizedeche in these wordes Cui enim putest veracitet euidenter aptari nisi Domino saluatori qui corpus sanguinem sâ—um in paniâ— vini erogatione salutariter consecrauis Sicut ipse in Euangelio dicit nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis hiberitis eius sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis Sed in ista carne sanguine nil cruentum nihil corruptibile mens humana concipiat ne sicut dicit Apostolus Qui enim corpus Domini indignè manducat iudicium sibi mandueas sed viuificaâ—ricem substantiam atque salutarem ipsius verbi propriam factam per quam peccatorum remissio aeterno vitae donapraestuntur For vnto whome may it bee truely and euidently applyed but to our Lorde and Sauiour which hath healthsontly consecrated his body and bloude in the giuing foorth of breade and wine as he him selfe sayeth in the Gospell except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and dâ—inke his bloud you shall haue no life in you but in this fleshe and bloud let the minde of man conceiue nothing bloudie neither corruptible left as the Apostle sayeth For he that eateth the Lordes bodie vnworthily eateth his owne damnation but a substance giuing life and health and made proper to the WORDE himselfe by which remission of sinnes and the giftes of eternall life are perfourmed This saying being directly contrarie to all Maister Heskins three assertions namely transsubstantiation carnall maner of eating and the wicked receiuing Christes bodye hee hath cloked the two firste with a false translation the last with a needelesse excursion into the heresies of Marcion Manicheus c. For where it is firste manifest by Cassiodorus that when Christe gaue the sacrament to his disciples hee gaue foorth breade and wine Maister Heskins translateth Corpus sanguinem suum in panis vini erogatione salutariter consecrauit In the giuing foorth of breade and wine to our health hee consecrated his bodie and bloud whereas euery litle boye will teach him that the Aduerbe must be ioyned with the Verbe in construing to declare his signification Therefore his meaning must needs be as I haue translated it he did helthsomly or profitably consecrate his bodie and bloud in giuing forth of breade and wine therfore he gaue forth breade and wine Touching the seconde of the carnall manner of presence whereas Cassiodorus sayeth In ista carne sanguine nil cruentum nihil corruptibile mens humana contipiaâ— which is In this fleshe and bloude let the minde of man conceiue nothing bloudie nothing corruptible Maister Heskins translateth it Let not the minde of man conceiue any thing grosse any thing corruptible whereas the mynde of the author is seeing we must in this fleshe and bloud conceiue nothing bloudie we must not conceiue the flesh of Christ to be present carnally nor the bloud of Christ to be present bloudily but spiritually and as he addeth a quickening and healthfull substance giuing forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life to all that receiue it And therefore impertinent is al that discourse that Maister Heskins maketh afterwarde against the olde heretikes of which some denyed the humanitie some the diuinitie of Christe and ridiculous is that rayling of his by which hee woulde charge vs with their heresies for mainteining the trueth against their carnall manner of presence which in deede sauoureth of the heresie of the Marcionistes Mannyches and Eutychians Finally where Cassiodorus sayeth he that eateth the bodye of our Lorde vnworthily eateth his owne damnation it is manifest that hee calleth the sacrament by the name of that which it signifieth as many of the fathers doe But where he sayeth that forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life are giuen by the fleshe and bloud of Christe it followeth that the wicked which are not partakers of the one are not partakers of the other Concerning Damascene a corrupt writer farre out of the compasse of the challenge who writeth so monstrously of this sacrament that the Papistes them selues do not receiue him in all thinges as I haue alwayes refused his authoritie so nowe I will not trouble the reader with it The two and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this texte by Theodoret and Anselmus In the beginning of this Chapter he maketh much adoe that Damascenes authoritie might be receiued and so he shoulde haue twelue which make a quest to giue verdict in this matter But seeing Damascene cannot be taken hee presumeth him selfe to bee the foreman of the quest and to speake for all the rest But because he was neuer impannelled nor returned foreman of the quest wee will not take the verdicte or rather the falsedict at his mouth but as the manner of Lordes of the parleament is to let euery man giue his verdict for him selfe so I wish the reader to consider their seuerall sayinges and hee shall finde that not one of them being rightly vnderstoode speaketh on Maister Heskins syde But Theodoret hee sayeth though Cranmer would deceiue the people by his authoritie is altogether on their syde Hee citeth him in 1. Cor. 11. Hic eos quidem pungit c. Here truely he pricketh them that were sicke of ambition Also he pricketh him which had committed fornication and with them those that without any difference were partakers of those thinges that were offered to idols Besides them also vs which with an euill conscience dare receiue the diuine sacraments As for that hee sayeth He shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud signifyeth this that as Iudas betrayed him and the Iewes mocked and reuyled him euen so doe they dishonour and disworship him which receiue his moste holie bodie with filthie handes and put it into a filthie and defiled mouth Here Maister Heskins noteth that the bodie of our Lorde is receiued with hande and mouth cleane or vncleane In deede the sacramentes which are called by the name of that whereof they bee sacramentes are so receiued and of them doeth Theodoret speake by expresse wordes Another sentence hee alledgeth out of the same Chapter Sacram illam ex omni parte
nec festinantes nec accurrentes Tel me I pray thee If any King had commanded and said if any man haue done this or that let him not come to my table wouldest not thou haue done any thing for his sake God hath called vs into heauen vnto the table of the great and wonderfull King and doe we refuse and make delayes neither making haste nor comming to so great and excellent a matter This place of Chrysostome doth teach vs that Christes bodie commeth not downe corporally to vs but that we are called vp into heauen to receiue him there spiritually by faith This is in deede a great and wonderfull mysterie which Chrysostome doeth garnish with many figures as he was an eloquent preacher to make the people to haue due reuerence thereof Neither is Luthers doctrine one hayre breadth differing from Chrysostoms iudgement concerning the preparation necessarie for all them that shall receiue the sacrament worthily howsoeuer it pleaseth Maister Heskins neuer to haue done railing and reuiling him charging him with that which I thinke the holy man neuer thought certeine I am he neuer did teach but the contrarie And because this is the last testimonie he citeth out of Chrysostome I thought good to set downe one place also directly ouerthrowing his transubstantiation for which he striueth so egerly It is written Ad Caesa. monachum Et Deus homo est Christus Deus propter impassibilitatem homo propter passionem vnus filius vnus Dominus idem ipse procul dubio vnitarum naturarum vnam dominationem vnam potestatem possidens etiamsi non consubstantialiter existant vnaquaeque incommixta proprietatis conseruas agnitionem propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis panem nominamus Diuina autem illum sanctificante gratia mediante sacerdote liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in ipso remansit non duo corpora sed vnum filij corpus predicattâ—r sic haec Diuina inundante corporis natura vnum filium vnam personam vtraque haec secerunt Christe is both God and man God because of his impassibilitie man for his passion being one sonne and one Lord he himselfe doubtlesse possessing one domination one power of the two natures being vnited although they haue not their being consubstantially and either of them vnmingled doeth keepe the acknowledging of his propertie because they are two vnconfounded For euen as the bread before it be sanctified is called of vs bread but when the grace of God doth sanctifie it by meanes of the priest it is in deede deliuered from the name of bread and is compted worthie of the name of our Lordes bodie although the nature of the bread hath remained in it and it is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne so both these the diuine nature ouerflowing the body haue made one sonne one person I knowe Stephan Gardener when he can not aunswere this place denyeth it to bee written by Iohn Chrysostome ascribing it to an other Iohn of Constantinople but seeing it caÌ„ not be denied to be an ancient authoritie it is sufficient to proue the doctrine of transubstantiation to be newe and vnknowen to the Churche of God in the elder times The fiue and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same by Isichius and S. Augustine To garnishe his Booke with the name of Isichius he continueth his most vniust and slaunderous quarrell against Luther as though he denied all preparation requisite to the woorthie receiuing of this holie sacrament which is so impudent an vntruth that all the world doth see it And God in time will reuenge it Isichius is cited In 26. Leuit. Probet autem c. Let a man examine him selfe and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cuppe What manner of examination doeth he speake of It is this that in a cleane heart and conscience and to him that intendeth to repent those thinges wherein he hath offended men should participate of the holy things to the washing away of their sinnes M. Hesk. would make men beleeue that Luthers doctrine were contrarie to this saying and multiplieth his slaunders against him which seeing they be without al proofe yea and manifest proofe to the contrarie it shall suffice to denie them and so to consider what he will bring foorth of S. Augustine He citeth him Ad Iulianum Ep. 111. Whereas in deede ther is no such Epistle in any good edition of Augustine and the treatise he speaketh of may rather be called a Booke then an Epistle for the length of it But the stile of it is as like vnto the stile of Augustine as our Asse is to a Lyon. It hath no inscription to whom it should be directed and therefore some say to Iulianus some to Bonifacius It beginneth O mi frater c. and so continueth in such balde Latine that Erasmus hath not only reiected it out of the number of Augustines Epistles but also out of his authenticall workes such iudgement or honestie M. Heskins vseth in citing the fathers all is fishe that commeth to his nette I will set downe the wordes Ab ijs pietas c. From them let the pietie of our Lorde Iesus Christe deliuer vs and giue himselfe to be eaten who saide I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen he that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting life in him But let euerie man before he receiue the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ examine himself and so according to the commandement of the Apostle let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that vnworthily eateth the bodie and bloud of our Lord eateth and drinketh his owne condemnation making no difference of the bodie of our Lorde Therefore when we shall receiue we ought before to haue recourse to confession and repentance and curiously to searche out all our actions and if we finde in vs any punishable sinnes leâ— vs hasten quickely to washe them away by confession and true repentance least we with Iudas the traytor hyding the diuell within vs doe perish protracting and hyding our sinnes from day to day And if we haue thought any euill or naughtie thing let vs repent vs of it and let vs make hast to scrape that speedily out of our heart This is the saying of this counterfet and forged Augustine out of which Maister Heskins gathereth not only his manner of presence to be such as the wicked receiue the bodie bloud of Christ but also his auricular confession But what the iudgement of the true Augustine is you haue hearde before concerning the former as for the later question is neuer touched in all his owne workes De ciuit Dei Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Non dicendum eum manducare corpus Christi qui in corpore non est Christi It is not to
be saide that he doth eate the bodie of Christe which is not in the bodie of Christe Againe Vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus qui ergo est in eius corporis vnitate id est in Christianorum compage membrorum cuius corporis sacramentum fideles communicantes de altari sumere consueuerunt ipse verè dicendus est manducare corpus Christi bibere sanguinem Christi There is one bread we being many are one bodie he therfore that is in the vnitie of his bodie that is in the coniunction of Christian members the sacrament of which the faithfull communicating are accustomed to receiue from the altar he is truely to be saide to eate the bodie of Christ and to drinke the bloud of christ And againe Nec isti duo ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Vt enim alia taceam non possunt simul esse membra Christi membra meretricis Denique ipse dicent Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus sed reuera corpus Christi manducare eius sanguinem bibere Hoc est enim in Christo manere vt in illo maneat Christus Sic enim hoc dixit tanquam diceret qui non in me manet in quo ego non maneo non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum aut bibere sanguinem meum Neither are those two sortes of men to be saide to eate of the bodie of Christe because they are not to be accompted among the members of Christe For that I say nothing of other matters they can not be both the members of Christ and the members of an harlot Finally he himselfe saying he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him sheweth what it is not in the sacrament only but in very deede to eate the bodie of Christ to drinke his bloud For this it is to abide in Christ the Christ may abide in him For so he spake this as if he had saide he that abideth not in me and in whom I doe not abide let him not say or think that he eateth my body or drinketh my bloud Thus much for Saint Augustines iudgement As for the matter of Auricular confession which Maister Heskins without warrant of Gods worde is so bolde to call Gods ordinaunce vpon the authoritie of his forged Augustine I thinke it not worthie any answere if any man list to see the three properties of a Ghostly Father and two commodities of confession let him resorte to Maister Heskins booke for them Other reason or authoritie he bringeth none for them but this Iewde foolishe and barbarous counterfet whome he called moste falsely and iniuriously S. Augustine The sixe and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theodoret and Anselme Theodoret whom he greatly commendeth he citeth in 1. Cor. 11. vpon this text in hand Sic tui ipsius Index c. So thou being thine owne iudge exactly iudge thine owne life searche and examine thy conscience and then receiue the gifte As this saying is good and godly so it excludeth auricular confession as Chrysostome doth vpon the same place But that you might knowe what Theodoret meaneth by the gifte he citeth him in Dialog 2. Quid appellas donum quod offertur post sanctificationem Orthodoxus Corpus Christi sanguinem christ Eranistes Et credis te participem fieri Christi corporis sanguinis Orthodoxus Ita credo What doest thou call the gift which is offered after sanctification Orthodoxus The bodie of Christe and the bloud of christ Eranistes And doest thou beleeue that thou art made partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christe Orthodoxus So doe I beleeue Thus much Maister Heskins vouchsafeth to rehearse out of Theodoret and saith it is a plain place for the proclaymer both for reall presence and sacrifice But howe plaine it is and howe honestly Maister Heskins rendeth this peece from the rest to abuse Theodorets name you shall perceiue by the whole discourse which I will set downe Orthodoxus Dic ergo mystica symbola quae Deo à Dei Sacerdotibus offeruntur quorumnam symbola esse dicis Eranistes Corporis sanguinis Domini Orthodoxus Corporis eius quod verè est an eius quod verè non est Eranistes Quod verè est Orthodoxus Optimè Oportet enim imaginis esse exemplar Archerypum Etenim pictoret imitantur naturam eorum quae videntur pingunt imagines Eranistes Verum Orthodoxus Si ergo Diuina mysteria corpus quod verè est repraesentant ergo corpus etiam nunc Domini quoque corpus est non in Diuinam naturam mutatum sed impletum Diuina gloria Eranistes Opportunè accidit vt verba faceres de Dâ—uinis mysterijs Nam ex eo ipso tibi ostendam corpus Domini mutari in aliam naturam Responde ergo ad mea interrogata Orthodoxus Respondebo Eranistes Quid appellas donum quod offertur ante inuocationem sacerdotis Orthodoxus Non oportet apâ—rtè dicere est enim verisimile adesse aliquos mysterijs non initiatos Eranister Respondeatur aenigmaticè Orthodoxus Id quod fit ex huiusmodi seminibus nutrimentum Eranistes Aliud etiam signum quomodo nominamus Orthodoxus Commune etiam hoc nomen quod potus speciem significat Eranistes Post sanctificationem autem quomodo ea appellas Orthodoxus Corpus sanguinem Christi Eranistes Et credis te fieri participeni Christi corporis sanguinis Orthodoxus Ita credo Eranistes Sicut ergo symbola corporis sanguinis Domini alia quidem sunt ante inuocationem sacerdotis post inuocationem mutantur alia siunt ita etiam corpus Domini post assumptionem mutatur in Diuinam substantiam Orthodoxus Quae ipse texuisti retibus captus es Neque enim signa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à natura sut Manent enim in priori substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius Intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur vt quae illa sint quae creduntur Confer ergo imaginem cum exemplari videbis similitudinem Oportet enim figuram esse veritati similem Illud enim corpus priorem habet formam figuram circumscriptionem vt semel dicam corporis substantiam Immortale autem post resurrectionem factum est potentius quà m vt vlla in illud cadat corruptio interitus sessioneque ad dextram Dei dignatum est ab omni creatura adoratur vt quod appelletur corpuâ— naturae Domini Eran. Atqui symbolum mysticum priorem mutaâ— appellationem Neque enim amplius nominatur quod vocabatur prius sed corpus appellatur Oportet ergo etiam veritatem Deum non corpus vocari Ortho. Ignarus
mihi videris esse Non enim corpus solùm sed etiam panis vitae nominatur Ita enim Dominus ipse appellanit Porro autem ipsum corpus Diuinum corpus appellanus viuificum Dominicum docentes non esse commune alicuius hominis sed Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui est Deus homo Orthodoxus Say then the mysticall tokens which are offered to God by the Priestes of God of what thinges sayest thou they are tokens Eran. Of the body bloud of our Lorde Orth. Of that bodie which truely is Or of such a bodie as truely is not Eran. Which truly is Ortho. Very well For it behoueth the patterne to be example of the image For painters doe followe nature and do paint the images of those thinges which are seene Eran. It is true Orth. Then if the Diuine mysteries doe represent that bodie which is a bodie in deede therefore our Lordes bodie is euen nowe also a-bodie not beeing chaunged into his Diuine nature but filled with Diuine glorie Eran. It came well to passe that thou diddest speake of the Diuine mysteries For euen out of the fame will I shewe vnto thee that our Lordes bodie is chaunged into another nature Therefore aunswere vnto my questions Orth. I will answere Eran. What doest thou call the gifte which is offered before the inuocation of the Priest Orth. I may not speake it openly for it is like that some are present that are not admitted to the mysteries Eran. Then answere darkely Orth. That meate which is made of such kinde of seedes Eran. And how doe we cal the other signe Ortho. That is also a common name which signifieth a kinde of drinke Eran. But after sanctification how doest thou call them Ortho. The bodie and bloud of christ Eran. And doest thou beleeue that thou art made partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ Orth. So I beleeue Eran. Therefore euen as the tokens of the bodie and bloud of our Lord are other things before the inuocation of the priest and after the inuocation are changed and made other thinges euen so the Lordes bodie after the assumption is changed into his Diuine substance Orth. Thou art taken with thine owne nets which thou haste made For the mysticall signes after sanctification do not departe from their nature For they remain in their former substance figure and shape they may be both seene and handled euen as before But they are vnderstoode to be those thinges which they are made to be are beleeued reuerenced as those which are the same thinges that they are beleeued to be Compare therefore the image with the examples and thou shalt see the similitude For the figure ought to be like to the trueth For that same bodie hath the former shape and fashion circumscription and to speake at once the substance of a bodie But it is made immortall after his resurrection and more mightie then that any corruption or destruction can befall vnto it and it is made worthie to sit at the right hand of God and is worshipped of euerie creature as that which is called the naturall bodie of our Lorde Eran. But yet the mysticall token changeth the former name For it is no more called that it was called before but it is called the bodie Therefore the trueth also ought to be called God and not a bodie Orth. Thou seemest vnto me to be ignorant For it is not only called the body but also the bread of life For so our Lorde himselfe called it But his very bodie we call a Diuine bodie a quickening and our Lordes bodie teaching that it is not a common bodie of any man but of our Lord Iesus Christ which is both God and man By this discourse of Theodoretus you may see both howe syncerely Maister Heskins hath cited his authoritie and also what the writers minde was both concerning transubstantiation and the carnall manner of presence The authoritie of Anselmus Bishop of Canterburie I passe ouer as I haue done alwayes with Burgesses of the lower house But Maister Heskins affirmeth that the preparation we are commanded to make for the receipt of the sacrament the danger of vnworthie receiuing do argue the reall presence for such preparation and perill should not be for receiuing a peece of bread And if we aunswere that by faith we receiue Christs bodie bloud verily but yet spiritually he will confute vs by that wee affirme the fathers to haue receiued Christ as verily as we doe who yet had not like preparation nor like punishment for vnworthie receiuing For their preparation was onely in outwarde things their punishment onely bodily and temporall But who is so grosse of vnderstanding as M. Heskins that will not acknowledge that the fathers of the olde Testament by that purifying and preparation in bodily things were admonished that inward spiritually purenesse was more necessarie And wheras he sayeth the vnworthie receiuers of those auncient sacraments were punished only with temporal death how often doth those threatenings occurre in the lawe That soule shal be rooted out from my face that soule shall perish from his people he hath broken my couenant c Wil ye make vs beleeue that God threateneth onely a temporall and not an eternall death to the contemners of his ordinances Finally when the same punishment of condemnation remaineth to them that receiue baptisme vnworthily which abydeth them that receiue the Lordes supper vnworthily how will hee proue a reall presence more in the one sacrament then in the other The seuen and fiftieth Chapter expoundeth this text For this cause manie are weake and sicke c. by Origen Saint Ambrose Origen is cited in Psalm 37. Iudicium Dei parui pendis c. Settest thou little by the iudgement of God and despisest thou the church admonishing thee Thou are not afraide to communicate the bodie of Christ comming to the Eucharistie as cleane and pure as though nothing vnworthie were in thee and in all these thou thinkest that thou shalt escape the iudgement of god Thou doest not remember that which is written that for this cause many among you are weake sick many are fallen a sleepe Why are many sicke Because they iudge not them selues neither examine themselues neither do they vnderstand what it is to communicate with the church or what it is to come to so great and so excellent sacraments They suffer that which men that be sicke of agues are wont to suffer when they eat the meates of whole men and so cast away them selues Here Maister Heskins noteth firste that Origen calleth the sacrament in plaine wordes the bodye of Christe therefore it is no breade figure or signe of the bodie of christ Secondly he calleth it mysteries therefore it is two sacraments whole Christ bodie bloud is vnder eche kind Thirdly sicke men sometimes will eate whole mens meate therefore euil men receiue the bodie of christ These be all
as good reasons as that ▪ comon iest The staffe standeth in the corner therefore the good man is not at home As for the saying of Origen we receiue it willingly for hee speaketh of such receiuers as Saint Paule doth that is not wicked and reprobate persons but such as for their offences were chastened of the Lord that they might not be condemned with the worlde But he will presse vs with a more vehement place of Origen Hom. 13. in 25. Exod. Volo vos admonere c. I will admonish you with the examples of our own religion You that are wont to be present at the diuine mysteries doe knowe howe you receiue the Lords bodie you giue heede with all warinesse and reuerence that no little portion of it should fall downe that no parte of the consecrated gift should fall away for you beleeue your selues to be guiltie and you beleeue rightly if any of it should fall from you through negligence If then you vse so great warinesse about the conseruing of his bodie and worthily do vse it howe do you thinke it is lesse offence to haue neglected the worde of God then his bodie Maister Heskins noteth two things in this sentence First a playne saying for the proclaimer that without mention of figure signe or sacramentall bread hee sayeth the people receiued the bodie of Christe Secondly that he commendeth the reuerend vsage of the same Concerning the first there is expresse mention of the Diuine mysteries and not that onely but then in that he calleth the sacrament the bodie of Christe it appeareth both that there is bread and that it is not so his bodie as the Papistes do deeme For whereof be those litle portions that may fall away partes of the breade or of the bodie of Christe I thinke he is not so madde to say that peeces may fall off from Christes holy and naturall bodie Then it remaineth that they bee peeces or crommes of breade that may fall away And seeing that whereof peeces may fall away is called the bodye of Christe it is manifest that hee meaneth not the naturall bodie of Christe to be corporally present from which no peeces can fall away Finally seeing Origen maketh it as great a fault to neglect the worde of God as to neglect the sacrament it followeth that Christe is none otherwise present in the sacrament then in his worde that is spiritually and after an heauenly manner As for the other matter that Origen alloweth the reuerence of the people in handling the sacrament we also do allowe the same so farre as neither idolatrie nor superstition be mainteined And whereas he raileth against vs for our vsage of that breade and wine which remaineth after the ministration of the communion he sheweth his wisedome and charitie For that which remaineth on the table when the ministration is ended is no more the sacrament then it was before the ministration began and therefore may be vsed as all other bread whatsoeuer the Popes decrees are to the contrarie Now let vs heare what he can say out of S. Ambrose against vs He citeth him in 1. Cor. 11. Vt verum probaret c. That he might proue that there is a iudgement to come of them which receiue the Lords bodie he doth nowe shewe a certeine image of the iudgement vppon them which vnaduisedly had receiued the bodie of our Lord while they were punished with feuers and infirmities and many dyed that by them the rest might learne and being terrified by the example of a fewe they might be reformed knowing that to receiue the bodie of our Lorde negligently is not left vnpunished but if his punishment be here deferred that he shal be more grieuously handled hereafter because he hath contemned the example Here againe M. Heskins chargeth Ambrose to saye that the sacrament is the naturall bodie of Christe and that it hath bene receiued of euil men when hee sayeth neither of both for he speaketh of them that were faithfull and that might bee reformed whereas the wicked reprobates be vncurable And as for the carnal manner of presence howe farre he was from it let his owne wordes in the same place declare Vppon this texte You shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quę pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lord being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking we do signifie his fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs And in the same place a little after Testamentum ergo sanguine constitutum est quia beneficij Diuini sanguis testis est in cuius typum nos calicem mysticum sanguinis ad tuitionem corporis animae nostrę percipimus The testament therefore is established by bloud because his bloud is a witnesse of the diuine benefite in figure of whose bloude wee doe receiue the mysticall cuppe to the preseruation both of our bodie and of our soule These sentences are plaine to declare to any man that wil be satisfied with reason that this writer acknowledged not a carnall but a spirituall manner of presence But Maister Heskins will vrge vs with another place that followeth Deuoto animo cum timore accedendum ad communionem docet vt sciat mens reuerentiam se debere ei ad cuius corpus sumendum accedit He teacheth vs to come to the communion with a deuoute minde and with feare that the minde may knowe that it oweth reuerence to him whose bodie it commeth to receiue Maister Heskins sayeth here be plaine termes for the proclaimer in deede I woulde wish no playner for the spirituall manner of presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament because this author sayeth the minde must yeeld reuerence to him whose body it cōmeth to receiue If the minde receiue the body of Christ it must needs be spiritually for the minde can receiue nothing corporally And there followe as plaine termes in the next sentence immediatly Hoc enim apud se debet iudicare quia Dominus est cuius in mysterio sanguinem petat qui est testis beneficij Dei. For this it ought to consider with it selfe that it is the Lorde whose blood it drinketh in a mysterie which blood is a witnesse of the benefite of God. In the former sentence the minde receiued the body of Christ now in this it drinketh the blood of Christ in a mystery which is a witnesse or assuraunce of the benefite of God namely the redemption of the world by the blood of his onely sonne our Lorde Iesus Christ. The eight and fiftie chapter endeth the exposition of the same text by Theophylact and Anselme Theophylact saith nothing but of the temporall punishment that God layeth vppon the contemners of his mysterie Anselme borrowed his wordes of Ambrose cited in the last chapter And both Theophylact and Anselme though great
the Papistes say that men may eat Christ which doe not beleeue at all And it is a very childish sophisme out of which M. Heskins woulde gather that if to eate be to beleeue and it be not lawfull for the Iewes to eate Christe it is not lawfull for them to beleeue in christ For continuing in Iudaisme they can no more beleeue in Christ then they can eate the flesh of Christe But contrariwise by their doctrine if the sacrament be giuen to a Iewe that is no Christian yet he eateth the body of Christ as he that beleeueth in Christe The testimonie of Theophylact although it make little for M. Hesk. yet as alwayes before so nowe at the last I will refuse to examine bicause I will not yeeld to his authoritie he being a late writer But M. Hesk. noteth vpon the Apostles words We haue an altar that the Church hath but one altar which is the body of Christ and that is very true of the true Catholique Church but the hereticall and schismaticall Church of Rome hath many thousand altars which they can not say are all one altar although they cauill that their infinite multitudes of hostes are one sacrifice of Christes body Therefore the Church of Rome is not the Catholique Church of Christe by his owne reason And the saying of Hierome which he citeth Lib 2. in Hose Cap. 8. and wresteth against vs doth very aptly condemne him selfe and his felow Papistes for heretiques Vnum esse altare c. The Apostle teacheth that there is in the Church but one altar and one faith one baptisme which the heretiques forsaking haue set vp to themselues many altars not to appease God but to increase the multitude of sinnes therefore they are not worthie to receiue the lawes of God seeing they haue despised them which they haue receiued before And if they shall speake any thing out of the scriptures it is not to be compared to the words of God but to the senses of Ethnikes These men do offer many sacrifices and eate the flesh of them forsaking the only sacrifice of Christ nor eating his flesh â–ª whose flesh is the meat of the beleeuers whatsoeuer they do counterfeting the order and custom of the sacrifices whether they giue almes whether they promise chastitie whether they counterfet humilitie and with feigned flatterings deceiue simple persons the Lord will receiue nothing of such sacrifices We forsake not the only sacrifice of Christ once offred but our whole trust is in the merits of that sacrifice therefore we set vp no newe altars The Papistes set vp an other sacrifice and therefore other altars If our allegation interpretation of the scriptures may not be warranted by the spirite of God iudging in the same scriptures by other textes that are plaine and euident we desire not that any man shall receiue them as the Papistes doe whatsoeuer the Popish Church doth define though it be contrarie to the expresse word of god And although wee admitte not that grosse and carnall manner of Christes body in that sacrament that they doe hold yet do we eate the flesh of Christ verily after that maner which the Papistes themselues do confesse to be the only profitable eating thereof namely that which is spirituall What our workes be I referre them to the iudgement of God wee boast not of them And although fasting for merite bee iustly punishable by statute yet godly and Christian fasting is not cleane exiled out of our Church though not so often perhaps vsed as meere it were it should Our doctrine of fasting is sound and agreeable to the word of God and therefore we dare iustifie it our doing wee will not iustifie nor excuse our faultes but humbly submitte our selues to his iudgement who knoweth our hearts of whome we craue pardon for our offences and grace to keepe his commandements But now to conclude this matter I will produce one testimonie of Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome which I thinke shuld be of great weight with al Papists if they giue in deed such reuerence either to that See or to antiquitie as they pretend And thus he writeth Cont. Eusychet Certè sacrameÌ„ta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi diuina res est propter quod per eadeÌ„ diuinÄ™ efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia natura panis vini â–ª Et certè imago vel similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysterioruÌ„ celebratur Satis ergo nobis euidenter osteÌ„ditur hoc in ipso Domino Christo sentienduÌ„ quod in eius imagine ê“fitemur celebramus sumimê° vt sicut hÄ™c in diuinaÌ„ traÌ„ feuÌ„t spiritu sancto ê‘ficiente substantiaÌ„ ê‘manent tamen in suÄ™ ê“prietate naturae sic illud ipsuÌ„ mysteriuÌ„ principale cuius nobis officientiaÌ„ veritatemque veraciter reprÄ™sentat ex ijs quibus conflat propriè permanentibus vnuÌ„ ChristuÌ„ quoniam integruÌ„ veruÌ„que permanere demonstret Certainly the sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing therefore by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet the substance nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be And surely an image or similitude of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries Therfore it is shewed vnto vs euidently ynough that we must iudge the same thing euen in our Lord Christ him selfe which we professe celebrate receiue in that which is an image of him that as by the working of the holy Ghost they passe into a diuine substance yet abide stil in the propertie of their owne nature euen so the same principal mysterie doth shew that one Christ abideth whole and true whose efficiencie truth it doth truly represent vnto vs those thinges of which he consisteth properly still remaining Thou seest gentle reader that this auncient Bishop of Rome first doth vtterly ouerthrowe transubstantiation when he saith that the substance nature of the bread wine do remaine still in the sacraments although they be a diuine thing Secondly that he excludeth the carnall maner of presence when he saith we celebrate receiue an image and similitude of the body bloud of Christ in the sacraments lastly that he aduoucheth the spiritual diuine maner of presence of Christ when he saith that the sacrameÌ„ts are turned into a diuine substance which he meaneth not of the substance of the deitie but of the heauenly wonderful manner of presence by which Christ vouchsafeth to giue vnto his faithfull members his very body and bloud in a mysterie And that the Church of Rome in much later times did not acknowledge this carnall presence it shal appeare euen out of the Popes own Canon law euen in the decrees De Consecrat distinct 2. Cap. Hoc est Coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo nominatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentuÌ„
corporis Christi Vocaturque ipsa īmolario carnis que sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio nō rei veritate sed significāte mysterio The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a peculiar maner is called the body of Christe when as in very deed it is the sacramēt of the body of christ And euen the oblation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysteri Those words which are borrowed out of August into the decrees the glose doth thus vnderstand Coeleste sacraementū quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè Vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio◠Vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but vnproperly Therefore it is saide to be after a peculiar manner but not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the body of Christe that is it doth signifie the body of Christe If these testimonies that are taken out of the Romish Bishops owne writings decrees and gloses that are so plaine will not satisfie the Papistes that their doctrine of transubstantiation and carnall presence is neither true ancient nor Catholike it is in vaine to spend more wordes with them as with men that are obstinate and will not be satisfied with any truth contrarie to their presumed heresie The one and sixtieth Chapter maketh a recapitulation of that that is done in this worke Seeing this Chapter containeth no argument or authoritie to defend his cause but only rehearseth what he fantasieth that he hath brought in other places throughout all his booke for the maintenance of the same I referre it to the indifferent readers iudgement what I haue done in this breefe confutation of the same And here I conclude this acte of repeale that notwithstanding this bill offered to the Parleament by Tho. Hesk. in the lower house hath many friends so that the greater part of voyces if the house were diuided might seeme to ouercome the better yet for as much as in the higher house the greatest number haue spoken directly against his bill and no one lord of that house which liued within the compasse of 600. yeres of the challenge hath giuen his voyce to allowe it not only the pretensed acte of Parleament set forth by the said Tho. Hesk. is proued to be false forged counterfet but also the bill that he hath put in to be considered is vtterly reiected condemned spurned out of the house GOD BE PRAYSED A CONFVTATION OF AN IDOLATROVS TREATISE OF NICOLAS SANDER Doctor in Diuinitie which mainteyneth the making and honouring of Images by W.F. Doctour in Diuinitie ECCLESIASTIC 45. The memoriall of the beloued of God is blessed that is to say any thing that maketh vs to remember him that is beloued of God is worthie of praise and honour A Doctour like interpretation and a pithy argument whereupon I may conclude The idols that Salomon made are things that make vs remember Salomon who was the beloued of God and so called of God him selfe therefore the idols were worthie of prayse and honour The preface conteining a breefe declaration which is the true Churche Maister Sander taking in hand so absurde and wicked an argument as is the defence of idolatrie or honouring of Images thought good to present it in the best vessel that he had which is the painted boxe of the Churche which that he might the rather commend to his countrimen he hath taken vpon him to describe it both inside and outside as he saith by certeine knowen truethes in number no lesse then 112. which after they haue been all well vewed and sufficiently considered I doubt not but to the reasonable and indifferent Reader shall appeare nothing else but a faire coloured but yet an empty vessell I will followe his diuisions and where I finde any trueth I will confesse it without wrangling where in steede of trueth he offereth falshode I will breefely confute it 1 The first I graunt that Christe hath alwayes had and alwayes shall haue a Church on earth out of which there is no saluation This Churche consisteth of men whiche beleeue in him haue their faith sealed and confirmed by outward sacramentes 2 The Church is the kindome of Christe the Citie of God and the kingdome of heauen wherein Christ shall reigne for euer 3 The kingdome is spread more largely and gouerned more prudently then any earthly kingdome euer was euen to the endes of the worlde to continue world without end 4 Notwithstanding all this to say that the Churche or this kingdome of Christe was hidden any one houre from the eyes of the worlde is not to make it more obscure then any earthly kingdome euer was as Maister Sander doeth affirme for the glorie of this Kingdome whiche is spirituall neuer did nor shall appeare to the wicked of this worlde The Churche is an article of our faith and faith is of those thinges whiche are not seene Hebru 11. but with spirituall eyes Therfore the exaltation of the Lordes hill that Esaie 2. and Micheas 4. doe speake of is of a spirituall aduauncement and a citie built vpon an hill is euerie true minister of Gods worde Matthewe 5. and not the whole Churche Finally the glorie and ioye that Esaie 60. promiseth vnto the Church and her happie enlargement among the nations Cap. 61. proue no worldly pompe or greatnesse to be seene with carnall eyes but is ment of the ioyfull and comfortable addition of the Churche of the Gentiles vnto the Churche of the Iewes For otherwise these wordes could not be verified of all wicked men All that see them shall knowe them that they are the blessed seede which the Lorde hath blessed 5 The cheefe meane whereby the Church is so clearely seene and so glorious in the sight of men is that Christ being the true light hath cōmunicated his brightnesse to his Apostles sayng you are the light of the worlde A citie built vpon an hill can not be hidden Neither do men light a candel and put it vnder a bushel but vpon a candlestick that it may giue light to al them that are in the house But this brightnesse is heauenly and spirituall not worldly and carnall to be seene of the children of light not of the blind bussards of the worlde 6 The Churche dyed not when the Apostles dyed for Bishops and Pastours succeeded in their place as lightes set vpon the candlestickes which are the seuerall Churches Apoc. 1. 7 The light and glorie of Gods Churche commeth chiefely from the Bishops and Pastours thereof I meane from their heauenly doctrine not from their persons as Maister
their writinges verilye not hauing the images of their bodies but of their mindes For those thinges whiche are saide by them are the images of their mindes Likewise they cited the saying of Amphilochus sometime bishoppe of Iconium Non enim nobis sanctorum corporales vultus in tabulis coloribus effigiare curae est quoniam hijs opus non habemus sed politicè illorum virtutum memores esse debemus We haue no regarde to counterfet the corporall faces of the saintes in tables with coloures because we haue no need of them but we ought to be wisely mindfull of their vertues Moreouer they rehearsed the sayinge of Theodotus bishop of Ancyn Sanctorum formas species ex materialibus coloribus formari minimè decorum putamus horum cutem virtutes quae per scripta traditae sunt veluti viuas quasdam imagines reficere subinde oportet Ex hijs enim ad similem imitationem zelum peruenire possumus Dicant enim nobis qui illas erigunt quaenam vtilitas ex illis ad se redit an quòd qualiscunque recordatio eos habeat ex tali specie contemplatione sed manifestum est quòd vana sit eiuscemodi cogitatio diabolicae deceptionis inuentum We thinke it nothing at al seemely that the formes and shapes of the saintes shoulde be fashioned in materiall collours but their vertues whiche are deliuered by their writings as certain liuing images we ought often times to renue For by them we may come to the like imitation and zeale For let those which set vp images tell vs what profite commeth vnto them by them is it that a certaine remembrance come to them by such shape and sight But it is manifest that such cogitation is vaine and an inuention of diuelishe deceipte What shall here rehearse the testimony of Eusebius who whē the Empresse Constantia required to haue an image of Christ answered that no such images were to be made with many other sayings of Basil Gregorie Athanasius and other cited in that Councell which M.S. maketh so obscure as though they had mett by candle light and whispered in corners that they durst not be a knowne of But if it deserued not the credit of a councell what needed Irene to haue gathered this worshipfull councel of Nice against it And where M.S. for further allowance of it saith it was confirmed registred for a knowne lawful general councel throughout al christendom he speaketh out of al compasse of the trueth For the Emperour Charles the great would not receiue it but write or at the leastwise cōmanded Albinus or Alcuinus his teacher to write a booke against it in his name which booke is yet extant How it was receiued in Britaine Matheus Westm. testifieth in these words Eodem anno Carolus rex Francorum c. The same yeare Charles the king of Fraunce sent a synodall booke into Britane in whiche manye thinges were founde contrary to the true faith and especially this that it was defined by the consent of almost all the doctors of the East that images ought to be worshipped which doctrine the Catholike Church doeth altogether accurse Against which Albinus wrote an Epistle beinge marueilously well indighted by the authoritie of holy scriptures and the fame brought vnto the Frenche king with that synodall booke in the presence of the bishops and noble men These thinges considered the conference that he maketh betweene this councell and the first helde at the same place is chyldishe and ridiculous for though they were both helde in one place called by Emperours or Popes equall in number disputation in both 4. Patriarks in both custome obserued the decree put in execution c. yet they disagreed in that which is the onely authority of councels The first decreed according to the word of God the later cleane contrary to it The first confirmed the Catholike faith which alwayes was held the later a newe heresie of Idolatrie of which the Churche was cleare more then sixe hundreth yeares And therefore what soeuer hee talketh of the authoritie of general councels is vaine wicked for a general councel of Angels is not to be beleeued against the holy scriptures what is more plaine in the scriptures then the forbidding of Idolatrie and worshippinge of Images The great prerogatiue that Master Sander findeth in this councell that so many bishops recanted in it as in none other is a fonde matter to authorize it Rather it sheweth what turne coates they were which changed as euerie prince was affected Finally the nomber of names that he rehearseth of them that beleeued as this councell decreed maketh it not of sufficient credit beside that he is not able to proue it of many whom he nameth as Beda Theophylacte Euthymius c. It were an easie matter to proue as many mo of more antiquitie which beleeued the contrary As Clemens Alexandrinus Origines Irenaeus Iustinus Cyprianus Lactantius Epiphanius Arnobius Tertulianus Augustinus Chrysostomus Hieronymus Ambrosus Athanasius Basilius Gregorius Naza Eusebius Osius and 18. bishoppes with him in the councel of Eliberis Theodosus and 21. bishoppes with him in the councell of Laodicea Aurelius and 71. bishops with him in the councell of Carth. 5. Amphylochius Iconiensis Theodorus Ancyramus Serenus Massiliensis Claudius Taurinensis Albinus Carolus magnus yea Gregorie 1 of Rome and Ionas of Orleance against the worshipping of Images If I woulde descende to later times as Master Sander doth I might add a great number more as Waldo Masilus Henricus de Gandauo Iohn Wiclef Iohn Hus Hierome of Praga and many other So that there remaineth in recorde foure to one that M. Sander can name for the vse and worshippinge of images against either one or both And the greatest part more ancient then the second councell of Nice which he woulde maintaine by rehearsing so many names of men that allowed it the most part were since it was holden scarse two or three before it was helde THE XVI OR XV. CHAP. That M. Iewell himselfe bringeth such reasons for worshipping breade and wine in the sacrament of the Alter because he saith they are the image of Christs bodie and bloude as may right well serue for the worshipping of all holy images It is proued by maister Iewells owne words that the image of an holy thing may be worshipped with what intent an image it made Maister Iewell hath filthie and vnhonest images in his owne booke This Chapter conteineth nothing else but a shameles cauilling and quarrelling vppon maister Iewels words with little wit lesse learning and least of all of honestie The bishoppe writeth thus The olde fathers in their writings commonly cal the sacrament a representation a remembrance a memory an image a likenesse a samplar a token a signe a figure And in an other place he writeth thus Neither do we onely adore Christ as verye God but also worship and reuerence the sacrament holy mistery of Christes bodie Here vppon maister Sander reasoneth
the time of Tertullian and Cyprians time the people tooke the sacrament home with them This M. Rast. denieth to haue ben an abuse here he craketh of his equalitie with M. Iewel howe wisely let other iudge that his nay is as good as the Bishops yee The matter therfore resteth vpon proofe whereof we shall consider in the next section SECTIO 6. From the second face of the 40. leafe to the first face of the 42. leafe The Bishop alledged the example of a woman out of Cyprian which opening her chest with vnworthie handes in which was the holy thing of the Lord by fire breaking out she was terrified that she durst not touch it This miracle saith M. Ra. proueth none abuse in keeping the sacrament but her fault in presuming to touch it with vnworthie handes But why may it not serue to proue both seeing Christe gaue not his sacrament to be locked vp in Chestes but to be receiued Take eate saith he but neither the breach of Christes commandment nor of the end of his institution can persuade M. Ra. to acknowlege it to be an abuse bicause he imagineth that carying home of the sacrament may iustifie their reseruation therof for adoration yea and the communion vnder one kind wheras it neither iustifieth the one nor proueth the other For that they though abusiuely kept it in corners to receiue caâ—â—ot serue to iustifie the popish maner of hanging it ouer the altar or carying it abroad in procession to be worshipped And there is no colour in the world to make vs thinke that they caryed not as wel of the sanctified wine as of the sanctified bread home to their houses But it is a sport to see that he would proue it to be the body of Christ by the fire that came out of the chest The same Cyprian sheweth an other miracle of an vnworthie receiuer in whose hand the sacrament was turned into ashes will hee say the body of Christ was turned into ashes also But to be short he would knowe what Doctour or Councell we can shew to proue this carying home of the sacrament to be an abuse For Doctour he shal haue Origen in Leu. cap. 7. Hom. 5. Nam Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat dicebat eis accipite manducate noÌ„ distulit nec seruari iussit in crastinum For our Lord differred not that bread which he gaue to his disciples said vnto them take ye and eat ye neither bad he that it should be kept vntil the next day For councel he shal haue Caesar Augustanum Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in Ecclesia anathema sit in perpetuum If any man be proued not to haue spent in the church the gift of the Eucharistie which he hath taken let him be accursed for euer Finally if it bee no abuse why do not the Papistes suffer it to be done specially of their Popish brethren whome they take to liue in persecution vnder princes that professe the Gospell of Christ. An other abuse the Bishop rehearseth within Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustines time the Communion was giuen to young babes contrarie to the commaundement of the holy Ghoste Let a man examine him selfe and so let him eat c. whereas infantes are not able to examine them selues This will not Maister Rastell acknowledge to be an abuse neither that a reason of the abolishing thereof but onely the bare authoritie of the Church which belike hath abolished a good custome But hee faith infants might as well communicate as be baptized wherein hee playeth the Anabaptist requiring instruction before baptisme which the scripture doth not in the children of the faithfull as it doth examination iâ— the communicants Againe he saith they may as well communicate in the faith of the Church as they may be baptized in the faith of their Godfathers But I answere they are baptized in the faith which their Godfathers confesse not in that faith which they beleue for perhaps they may be hypocrites and so voyde of faith or heretiques and holde a false faith But seeing Christ said Drinke ye all of this he will knowe why infants may not also drinke and if they may not drinke then by all are meant none but al that were present that is all Priests But I answere drinke ye all of this is saide to all them to whome take ye eat ye c. is saide that is to all that are able to vnderstande the mysterie or else none might take and eate but all Priestes bicause onely Priestes as they say were present which yet they are not able to proue As for his comparing of the sacrament with spicebread and cakebread sauoureth of a mynde that inwardly derideth all religion though outwardly he pretend neuer so much Popish holinesse SECTIO 7. From the first face of the 42. leafe to the first face of the 43. leafe The Bishop rehearseth that Marcus an heretique and Necromanser as Irenaeus writeth made that by enchantment there should appeare very bloud in the chalice Hereof Rastel gathereth that the people beleeued bloud to be there and so he serued their faith and deuotion by his enchauntment but that is vtterly false for he would haue deceiued the people to make them thinke that hee had the bloud of Christe whereas the Ministers of the Catholike Church had but wine He counterfeted also a multiplying of the same wine by his sorcerie and all to get credite to his heresie and not to serue the faith as M. Rastel vntruely and vnlearnedly affirmeth but to ouerthrowe the faith of the people of God. SECTIO 8. From the first face of the 43. leafe to the first face of the 45. leafe The Bishop rehearseth other abuses of the sacrament as that some hang it before their brest for a protection some take the sacrament for a purgation against slander S. Benet ministred the communion to a woman that was dead M. Rastell confesseth the sacrament may be abused by Coniurers and other but he will not graunt that S. Benet did amisse because he was a Saint as though Saintes could not do amisse And he counteth it no reason against S. Benets fact that Christ gaue not the sacrament to dead folke for that he saith is no reason because Christ forbad no communion that three be not present neither badde the chalice to be filled when all is supped vp nor bad vs kneele and say we do not presume to come to this thy table nor carrie home the cantels of bread that are left But notwithstanding his fonde quarrelling whatsoeuer apperteineth to the decent and reuerent ministration of the communion Christ coÌ„manded though not euerie particular thing by name And Maister Rastell sheweth himselfe to be an ignoraunt Asse that compareth substances and accidentes the essential causes variable circumstances together whereas the one must haue the expresse worde of God or else it can haue no being the other for the
insensible Idoll which by the iust iudgement of God is made like vnto those Images whiche he worshippeth and in whome hee putteth his trust SECTIO 12. in the 58. leafe The bishoppe alledgeth S. Augustine which saieth that in our praiers wee must not chirpe like birdes but sing like men To this he maketh none answere but that we must learne to vnderstand the English which we read or els we are chirpers as though Englishe men could vnderstand no more of English then of Latine SECTIO 13. From the first face of the 56. leafe to the 2. face of 59. leafe The bishoppe citeth a lawe of Iustinian that the priest shoulde speake with an audible voice that the people might say Amen therefore the people shoulde vnderstande what the minister saith M. Rastel aunswereth to this nothinge but that the people do and may saye Amen though they vnderstand him not so long as there is no mistrust in the persons faith honesty So that belike if the priest be a knaue no man shoulde saye Amen to his masse Good stuffe I warrant you But in that the people said Amen to the priests wordes of consecration he will prooue like a luftie logician whiche findeth no reason but much rethorike in that bishops sermon that they did exclude al figuration and significatioÌ„ of his body We wil reason no longer M.R. hath gotteÌ„ the day and that with maine logike And as for the second abuse of not receiuing in both kindes if it were any abuse it is the fault he saith of the bishops priests and not of the masse which consecrateth in both kinds But seeing receiuing is made one of the parts of the masse receiuing in one kind onely is an abuse of the masse it self I know he wil answer the priest receiueth in both kindes In deede if the sacrament had bene instituted for priests onely the aunswere had bene somewhat but if the blood of Christ pertaine to more then priestes surely the sacrament of his blood shoulde not be denyed to anye for whome he shedde his blood SECTIO 14. From the second face of the 59. leafe to the second face of 61. leafe The bishop saide the Canon of the masse for manie causes is a verie vaine thinge and so vncertaine that no man can redily tell on whom to father it Notwithstanding the bishoppe saith for many causes yet Master Rastell taketh exceptions to his argument as though for the vncertaintie of the author onely it shoulde be refused comparing it most leudely with certaine bookes of holy scripture the indighters of which although they be not knowne yet the onely author is both knowen and acknowledged to be the holy Ghost But Pope Innocent the third saith it came from the Apostles other say from Gregory the first other from Gregory the thirde But that it came neither from the Apostles nor froÌ„ Gregory the first euen that place which M.Ra. citeth out of Greg. lib. 7. ep 63. doth proue sufficiently For there Greg. reproueth the order of the liturgie or canon vsed in his time because the Lords praier by that order was not said ouer the sacrameÌ„t as wel as the praier of Scholasticus But M.R. will haue Scholasticus to signifie a scholer or disciple of Christ and not to be a proper name which is altogether vntrue vnlikely for if Greg. had thought any Apostle or disciple of Christ to haue bin the auctor of it he would neuer haue takeÌ„ vpoÌ„ him to reproue it seing he thoght it expedieÌ„t that the lords praier should be said ouer the sacrament which is not vsed in the popish canon it followeth also that Gregorie the first was not the author of the popish canon And so it is not prooued to haue bene made within the compasse of sixe hundreth yeres after Christ. SECTIO 15. From the second face of the 61. leafe to the first face of the 63. leaf Here he chargeth the bishop with a shamefull lye for saying that the priest in the canon desireth God to blesse Christ his body denying any such thing to be in the Latin canon but confesseth that the Graecians vse such words and excuseth theÌ„ by vehemency of desire wheras those words do proue that the authors of those liturgies beleeued not the bread to be turned into the body of Christ which they would neuer haue praied that God shuld blesse vpoÌ„ any vehemency of desire to confesse the body of Christ to haue need of sanctification But to returne to the Latine canon I pray you M.R. what be these Dona sancta sacrificia those gifts holy sacrifices which he desireth God to blesse the bread wine what holines is in theÌ„ before they be consecrated So for al your loud lying clamors the canon is not constant with it self or your heresie of transsubstantiation agreeth not with the canon Also that M. of the sentence lib. 4. dist 13. plainly affirmeth that your masse is called Missa because the Angell the is praied for is sent to consecrate the body of Christ which praier is saide after the priests consecration SECTIO 16. From the first face of the 63. leafe to the second face of the 64. leaf in the which he speaketh of the sacrifice of the masse He would know what blasphemie it is for the priest to offer Christ to his father in a propitiatorie sacrifice Verily so great blasphemie as none can lightly be greater First because it taketh away the eternall and vnsuccessible priesthood of christ Secondly because it maketh the priest more excellent then christ For euery sacrifice is excepted for the dignitie of him which offereth it so the sacrifice of Christ which by his eternall spirite offered vp himselfe was acceptable vnto god Heb. 9. But M.R. being forsaken of the scripture flyeth to the sayings of the doctors that not onely the priest but all the Church offereth Christe neuertheles the olde fathers euen by saying so declare that they meane not to set vp a propitiatory sacrifice but onely to celebrate a remembraunce of the only singular sacrifice of Christ. Chrysost. ad Heb. cap. 10. Hom. 17. Hoc autem quod facimus c. But this that we do is done in remembrance of that which was done For do this saith he in remembrance of me We make not another sacrifice as the high priest but the same alwayes but rather we worke the remembraunce of that sacrifice And August Contra Faust. man lib. 20. cap. 18. Vnde iam Christiani c. Whereupon now the Christians do celebrate the memorie of the same sacrifice once finished by holy oblation and participation of the bodie blood of christ Contra aduersariâ—â— lag proph cap. 18. He calleth the death of Christ Vnum singulare solum verum sacrificium the one singular and onely true sacrifice These places with manye other are sufficient to expounde what they meane when in any other place figuratiuely and vnproperly they call the
celebration of the communion an oblation or sacrifice of the bodie and blood of christ It is great leudenesse and deceiptfulnes to vrge the termes vsed by the doctors and to refuse their meaning sufficiently expressed in diuers places of their writings SECTIO 17. in the 64. leafe Whereas the bishop saith it is Christ which presenteth â—s and maketh vs a sweet oblation in the sight of his father M. Rastell denyeth that it followeth not that the priest offereth not Christ because Saint Augustine saith de ciuit dei lib. 10. cap. 20. that as the church is offered by Christ so Christ is offered by the Church But that which Augustine maketh here common to al the Church maister Rastel restreineth to his popish priests And although Augustine in the same place expounde himselfe sufficiently when he saith the daily sacrifice of the church is a sacrament of the oblation of Christ yet in Cap. 5. of the same book he speaketh most plainely Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum id est sacrum signum est Therefore the visible sacrifice is a sacrament that is to say an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifie What can bee saide more plainly concerning his meaning by the terme of sacrifice SECTIO 18. From the first face of the 65. leafe to the ende of the 67. leafe The blasphemous prayers of the Popishe Canon which desireth God to accept the body of his sonne as he did accept the sacrifice of Abel and of Melchisedech he excuseth by vehemency of deuotion and by the vnworthines of the offerer as though either of both should be the cause why Christs body should not be acceptable of it selfe Last of all he flyeth to the example of the figuratiue speaches vsed by the holy ghost in the Psalmes and canticles as where God is saide to sleepe to awake as giant refreshed from his wine yea to the rethoricall figures vsed by men as he saith by Bernard Bonauentur Gregorie in the hymmes of the church which he matcheth vnfitly with the holy scriptures But how will he make this prayer a figuratiue speach that it may be excused by any such example For seeing he will admit no figure in the word body or oblation the other wordes are plaine without figure God to accept the sacrifice of Abel c. SECTIO 19. From the 68. leafe to the seconde face of the 69. leafe The foolish prayer of the Canon that an Angel should carie away the body of Christ he defendeth to be meant after a spirituall manner caueleth of the bishops translating of perferri to be caried away which signifieth to be caried vp which is a toy to mocke an Ape for neither doth the bishop talke of Angels backes such other bables as M. Rastel deliteth to prate of but of the fond absurditie of the Papistes which imagine the ministerie of Angels necessarie for the carying of Christs body or as he saith excusing the matter for the acceptacioÌ„ of their sacrifice But in very deede this prayer being taken out of the old liturgies wherein they desired not the sacrament but their sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing to be presented to God by the ministery of Angels is so absurde when it is applyed to the transubstantiated body that it can haue no reasonable sense as it had in the liturgie cited by S. Ambrose and other old liturgies where the like prayer is made for their sacrifice but they beleued not their sacrifice to be the very natural body of Christ as the Papists say they doe SECTIO 20. in the 69 leafe Where the bishop giueth ouer to speak further of the Canon maister Rastel saith it was because he had no mater against it but his owne misunderstanding But what matter he had howe well hee hath mainteined it his aunsweres to maister Harding sufficiently declare SECTIO 21. in the 70. leafe Against adoration of the sacrament he saith we haue no arguments at al but such as may serue for ouerthrow of all orders in the Church In deede these argumentes may well and worthily serue to ouerthrow all plantes not planted by christ For why may not one hatchet serue to cut downe an hundreth fruitlesse and hurtfull trees SECTIO 22. in the same leafe to the second face of the 71. leafe That Christ gaue no commaundement of adoration he saith it is no sufficient reason first because we must not condemne all voluntary seruice of God which is without his commaundement Then belike S. Paul was not well aduised when he condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is voluntarie worshippe of God without his commaundement Coll. 2. vers 23. And where as he cauilleth of them that worshipped our sauiour Christ in the fleshe I aunswere as many as acknowledged him to be the sonne of god knewe they had an expresse coÌ„mandemeÌ„t to worship him The rest reuerenced him as the prophet of god And whereas he saith like a protestant that an argument of authority negatiue is naught and protestant like I aunswere an argument of mans authoritie negatiue is naught but an argument of Gods authority negatiue I am content it be counted protestant like in as much as God hath expresly forbidden what so euer he hath not commaunded in his worship Deuter. 12. vers 32. Contrariwise to reason from the authoritie of men negatiuely is Papistlike and the best argument they haue for many things as if they be asked why say they not masse in englishe they will answere because the Church hath not commanded them Why doe you not giue the communion to Infants Maister Rastel saith in this booke because the Church doth not commaund it Why doth not the priest weare his chisible other vestments at euen song Because the church hath not commaunded it But maister Rastel saith Christ hauing said the sacrament to be his body needed not to commaunde the same to bee worshippid no more then the king when he speaketh to the Lords in the darke needeth to bid theÌ„ put of their caps A dark example for such an obscure argumeÌ„t But when will he proue that Christ is the same in the sacrament that the king is in the darke for remoue the darke the king is seene but take away the accidentes of breade and wine by your owne schoolâ— doctrine and where is the bodie of Christ SECTIO 23. From the seconde face of the 71. leafe to the 2. face of the 72. leafe He decideth the argument taken out of the authoritie of saint Paule negatiuely who declareth the whole institution of Christ and neuer willed adoration to be vsed to the sacrament And asketh whether S. Paul command vs to stand kneele lye or fit to tumble leane vpon brest or elbowes I aunswere whatsoeuer of these gestures is decent orderly he hath appointed the other he hath forbidden And yet the protestantes logike which hee doth so delicately contemne is not so simple
Bishop saide that for the space of twelue hundreth yeares after Christ this worshipping of the sacrament was neuer knowne nor practised in any place M. Rastel after his courteous manner saith he lyeth for he hath alledged S. Ambrose and S. Augustine before to proue that the sacrament is to be worshipped and now citeth Therdoret Euthymius Emissenus Iames Basil and Chrisostome in their Liturgies for the same purpose But the aunswere is easie to be made none of all these speake of that worshipping or adoration of the sacrament which Pope Honorius commaunded but of honouring reuerencing worshipping or adoring of the sacrament as diuine mysteries which honouring worshipping or adoring we all confesse to be due to the blessed sacramentes not onely to the Lordes supper but also to the sacrament of baptisme For none of all these writers beleeued the carnall presence of Christe in the sacrament which the Papistes hold Saint Augustine denyeth the sacrament to be that body which was crucified in Psal. 98. Saint Ambrose calleth the sacrament the figure of the body and bloud of Christe De sacra lib. 4. cap. 5. Theodorete whose saying hee citeth being flatly against transubstantiation as you may read more at large in mine aunswere to Heskins Lib. 3. cap. 56. calleth in the same Dialogue the sacrament the tokens or signes of the body of Christe And in his first Dialogue he saith The tokens which are seene hee hath honoured with the name of his body and bloud not chaunging their nature but adding grace to their nature His discourse at large is set downe in mine answer to Hes. li. 3. ca. 52. Euthymius in 6. Ioan. saith that the words of Christ must be vnderstod spiritually the sacrameÌ„ts must be considred with inward â—ye â—as mysteries The very wordes of Emissenus which M. Rastel citeth expresse his minde to be of a spirituall presence Beholde with thy faith saith he honour and wonder at the holie bodie and bloud of christ The very name of the gift which is vsed in the liturgie falsely ascribed to Saint Iames declareth that the Author of that liturgie did not beleue it to be the naturall bodie of Christe but a gifte or token in remembraunce thereof The prayer whiche is made in those liturgies falsely ascribed to Chrysostome and Basil at the lifting of the sacrament proueth that they did not beleeue the bread to be chaunged into the bodie of Christ after the wordes of consecration For then they would not haue prayed that God would giue to them the bodie and bloud of his sonne and by them to the people if they had them present before And whereas they all cried Sancta sanctis holy thinges belong to holie men it was not to call the people to worshippe the sacrament which they lifted a little but not ouer their heades to be seene but to charge them that were not baptised to departe and to prepare the rest to the worthie receiuing of the sacrament Maister Rastell so great a Chrysippus and Aristotle of Logike neuerthelesse vseth these argumentes to proue adoration But leauing these he asketh if any within that compasse of 1200. yeares beleeued the sacrament to be the very bodie of Christ and if that be graunted whether the very bodie and bloud of Christ be not to be worshipped and then bringeth in Damascen and Lanfrancus Of the former it may be doubted but very grossely he writeth the other was an enimie of Berengarius 200. yeares before Honorius the Author of this adoration I answere breefely although the carnall presence was receiued two or three hundreth yeares before Pope Honorius yet there can no adoration be proued for at this day the Lutheranes admitte the carnall presence yet they abhorre adoration saying the very bodie of Christe is present to be eaten but not to be worshipped SECTIO 29. From the first face of the 89. leafe to the 93. leafe The Bishop sayde that the schoolemen perceiuing the daunger of idolatrie that was vnto the ignorant people in worshipping the cake if it were not consecrated gaue warning to the people to worship it vnder this condition if it were consecrated M. Ra. like a Doctor determiner cutteth of al the reasons of the schoolemen and saith they were not the best learned that so decide the controuersie For there is no daunger at all vnto the people so long as their intent is to worship God and the bodie of christ Example also he bringeth that if a man honour him which is not his father in steede of his father because all the parishe saith he is his father he doeth not amisse In deede if that man doe the duetie of a father to his supposed sonne I thinke the errour is not greatly hurtefull to him that honoureth him as his Father Agayne sayeth Maister Rastell suppose that one were so like thine owne Father whiche is possible ynough that it could not be discerned whiche of the two were thy true father thou werest not to be blamed if thou honour the one in steede of the other I aunswere suppose it were so which is vnlikely ynough I would thinke he were an vnaduised child which would not inquire which of the two were his true father before he chose to honour either of them But Maister Rastel asketh if he should honour no father because he could not discerne the one from the other And I likewise aske him whether hee should honour two men for his father or two fathers in steede of one because he knoweth nor which is his right Father Finally I would aske suche a not profound learned Maister of Arte as Rastel is but such a simple fellowe as Maister Rastell talketh withall in this discourse whether an vnconsecrated cake bee as like the bodie of Christe as one man may be to an other I weene he would say no. But then M. Rastel would take the tale out of his mouth and reply that an vnconsecrated cake and a consecrated be as like as any two men can be But then I would aske him whether any thing wherein they may be counted like is either the thing or the cause or the signe and marke of the thing that is worshipped If not his two cases are as like to these of the sacrament as an aple is like to an oyster SECTIO 30. From the first face of the 93. leafe to the first face of the 98. leafe Three leaues and an halfe of this section are spent in a fonde quarrel of Maister Rastels picking that the Bishop should ascribe that opinion to Dunce and Durande which is not theirs but proper to Thomas of Aquine against which they reason But for al his impudent shamelesse rayling charging the Bishop with lying it is Rastel himselfe which is the lyer and the slaunderer for that whiche the Bishoppe speaketh generally of the schoolemen he draweth maliciously vnto Dunce and Durande Thomas holdeth that transubstantiation is necessarie or else the Churche should committe idolatrie in falling downe
before bread Dunce holdeth that if there were no transubstantiation graunted yet the presence might well stande and the adoration to as Maister Rastel saith but he taketh parte with Thomas But if the reason of Thomas be good for the presence of the bread because it is a creature why not also for the accidents of bread which are creatures also â–ª To the saying of Augustine In sermo ad Infantes That whiche you see on the table is breade Maister Rastel sayeth it is a reason of Tinkers Taylers and Coblers O learned Clearke and not of learned Schollers to say it is bread because it is called bread But learned Maister Rastel Saint Augustine doeth not say it is called breade but he saith it is bread and moreouer he maketh their senses Iudges thereof Quid-etiam oculi vestri renunciant Which also your eyes do tell you And that your learned penne hath set downe out of Prosper which is not to be found in Augustines workes yet maketh it nothing against the remayning of bread but only saith that vnder the visible kindes of breade and wine we honour the bodie and bloud of Christ. To the saying of Gelasius that the substance and nature of bread and wine doth not ceasse to be he aunswereth that Gelasius doth expound him selfe straight after where he saith But they remaine in the propertie of their nature as though nothing remained but whitensse thicknesse c. O impudent falsifier Is substance and properties of nature all one Againe I aske what are they that remaine in their propertie of nature but the breade and wine Finally the very argument whiche he vseth against Eutiches most plainely confuteth Rastell for a moste shamefull and shamelesse peruerter of this Doctours meaning for he concludeth that as the substance of bread wine remaine in the sacrament so the bodie in Christ after the assumption of the Diuine nature The like beastly racking he vseth of the wordes of Theodoret which vseth the same argument against the Eutichians But in the end he saith it must not be considered what one or two haue saide but what the whole consent of the Church is and if it were graunted that Gelasius and Theodoret denied transubstantiation yet they graunting the carnall presence it were a small matter and nothing at all against the Catholikes which hold of the generall councell of Laterane What say you learned M. Rastel is it not to be regarded nor maketh it any thing against you what Gelasius the Bishop of Rome hath written whiche you holde can not erre But where he sayeth that they bothe graunt the carnall presence I must sende the Reader to mine aunswere vnto the 60. Chapter of the 3. booke of Hesk. Parlea for Gelasius and to the 52. and 56. chapters of the same booke for Theodoret How vnlearnedly he affirmeth Cyprians errour of rebaptization to be no heresie because the church had not determined the contrarye I passe ouer when on the one side the bishoppe of Rome was against it on the other side a whole councell in Affrica was for it SECTIO 31. in the 98. leafe The bishop shewed out of the schoole men that if a man worship the accidents of breade Idolatrie may bee done to the sacrament M. Rastell saith not to the sacrament but to the accidents But do not you papists call the accidents the sacrament else what difference make you betweene sacramentum rem sacramenti in S. Augustine the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament Againe he saith the fault were not in the institution of Christ but in the silence of the priest and simplicitie of the people that were no better taught As though Christ did euer institute the sacrament to be worshipped after any maner of Latriâ— or Doulia of which he reasoneth brutishly with putting such cases if a man shoulde haue worshipped the only face of Christ as God which no man would euer haue done or his garment which had bene idolatry whosoeuer had done it SECTIO 32. From the 99. leafe to the 103. leafe Whereas the bishop lamenteth the miserable case of the people which are brought into idolatrie â–ª with these blinde distinctions M. Rast. deriding his needlesse and folish pitie lamenteth the state of the worlde when such things as are concluded in schooles should be opened in pulpets as though there were one doctrine of God for the schooles and another for the pulpets Yet he thinketh it not meete to teache the distinctions of the three persons in trinitie but onely to beleeue as the Churche doth beleeued as well in the trinitie as in al other articles and namely in this of the sacrament Which position of his if it may stand there needeth none other creed to be preached but onely this short curtall creed beleeue as the church beleeueth you cannot do amisse But in time of popishe tyrannye you woulde not haue bin satisfied if a man examined of his faith in the sacrament had answered I beleue as the church teacheth or I beleeue it to be the body of Christ as Christ said it and meant it to be his body but then you must grope him in fleshe blood and bones as he was borne of the virgine Mary c. Whether he beleeue the substance of breade to remaine after the wordes of consecration spoken by the priest c. Well howsoeuer it be all learning resteth in the brest of reuerende M. Rast. M of art student in diuinity who can with one breath condemne all the pedlers and pelting craftesmens arguments deuised in alehouses or shops and after recited in the protestants schooles as this Christ is ascended in body in to heauen and there sitteth vntill the end of the world therefore he is absent from the earth in bodie and consequently is not in the sacrament an vnlearned argument saith M. Ra. as this can a priest make God but learned sir who taught the people to call that which the priest maketh their maker or what or which of all the reuerend rabbins of poperie did reprooue the people for so speaking Againe can one bodie be in more places then one at one time An argumente of ignoraunte people O vnlearned Augustine whiche hath defined that the bodie of Christ can be but in one place at one time in Ioan. cap. 7. Tr. 30. If a mouse eat the hosâ— doth hee ease Christes bodie A peltinge craftesmans argument What M. Rast. are you so arrogant in opinion of your owne learning that you will condemne all the schoolemen for pedlers and tynkers that haue moued argued decided this question and a hundreth like vnto it came this question from protestants or from your owne popish schooles not from the schooles onely but euen the instructions that haue bene written for euery simple curate as Manupulus curatorum c. But if a lerned man expert in liberall sciences saith M. Rast. a great Master of liberal arts should vse this argument of the necessitie of Christs body
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
vs in those holy mysteries after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner not carnally nor corporally but spiritually and diuinelye And where as Maister Rastell citeth a longe saying of Cyrillus against an Arrian whiche denyed that wee haue any corporall coniunction with Christe and proueth the same by the strength and power of the misticall benediction which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in vs it is nothing in the worlde to his corporall and carnall manner of presence For we also do graunt that the power of the mistical benediction is such as maketh Christ to dwel corporally in the faithfull which is nothing else as he doth immediately expounde himselfe but that they are made members of Christes bodie and members one of another which is not after any carnall or naturall manner but after an heauēly diuine manner of vnion For the same Cyril doth affirme that Christ giuing the sacrament to his disciples gaue thē fragmēta panis peeces of bread By which is the plaine hee meant not to teach any transubstantiation of the bread into the natural body of Christ. This place of Cyrill is set downe at large in mine aunswere to Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 14. And where as hee saith we do weaken the hope of the resurrection of our flesh by denying the carnall manner of presence of Christs body in the sacrament I say it is vtterly false and the contrarie is true that the Popish heretikes do weaken the hope of resurrection in all them that haue not receiued the sacrament when they faine such a presence of Christes body in the sacrament as cannot bee receiued without the sacrament SECTIO 42. From the 144. leafe to the ende of the 145. leafe To the Bishops challenge that the body of Christ cannot be in a thousande places or more at one time hee aunswereth it needed not to be proued because reason must giue place to faith and one principle proued of Christes presence draweth all the rest after it and thirdly because Christs body is not locally present in the sacrament but in one place onely Finally hee citeth a long saying of Chrisostome in Ep. ad Heb. Hom. 17. reasoning how Christ is offered euery day but the whole discourse is cleane contrary to Maister Rastels purpose and especially the first sentence and the last expoundeth howe Christ was offered not really but as in a remembrance Doe wee not offer euerye day Wee offer in deede but as men which make a remembrance of his death these wordes shewe what kinde of oblation it was that they did make namelye a celebration of the memoriall of his death and not a propitiatorie sacrifice of Christes bodye carnally present The last wordes are these Wee offer not another sacrifice as the bishops did but alwayes that same or rather wee make the remembrance of that sacrifice This correction sheweth that it was not properly a sacrifice whiche they offered Finally there is not one worde in that discourse but it is directly against the sacrifice of the Masse SECTIO 43. From the 145. leafe to the 149. leafe To nine parts of the bishoppes chalenge hee aunswereth nothing but refuseth for their particularitie to answere to them First that the Priest did not holde the sacrament ouer his heade Secondlye that the people did not worship it with Godly honour Thirdly that it was not then hanged vnder a Canopye Fourthly that after consecration there remaineth nothing but accidences of breade and wine Fiftly that the priest deuided not the sacramēt in three parts receiued them all himselfe alone Sixtly that whosoeuer had said the sacrament is a figure a pledge a token or a remembrance of Christes bodye had not therefore ben iudged for an heretike Seuenthly that it was not lawefull to say 30. or twentie c. Masses in one Church in one day Eightly that images were not set vp to be worshiped Ninthly that the lay people were not forbidden to reade the worde of God in their owne tongue Maister Rastell saith this is an vnlearned and pelting kinde of reasoning but he proueth it by vnlearned and pelting examples as it is not read that Christe did crye from his mothers breast or did weare a peticoate hose or shooes or went on his mothers errande c. As though any of these thinges were articles of our beleefe as some of those are among the Papistes or as though it perteined any thing to knowe such matters as the Papistes pretende their matters necessarye not onely to be knowen but also practised Finally he woulde perswade his popish friends that these thinges neede not to bee proued to bee of such antiquitie because the Church hath receiued them Then let him and his fellowes bee a shamed and crie creake whiche were wont to boaste of fifteene hundreth yeares antiquitie for all their doctrine and ceremonyes the consent of all ages the traditions of the Apostles and such like where nowe they are cutte shorte of the first sixe hundreth yeares and being vrged to shewe their antiquitie can say nothing but that it is not needefull SECTIO 44. in the 149. leafe To the Bishoppes challenge that the wordes of consecration by no authoritie of councelles or Doctours ought to bee pronounced closelye Hee confesseth the matter but hee can proue or else hee lyeth that there must be an heade in the Churche whiche as well in this matter as in all other must bee obeyed Howe well hee can proue it is tryed in the fourtie Section The rest of the challenges hee giueth ouer being desirous to bee at an ende with them as I cannot blame him SECTIO 45. From the end of the 149. leafe to the 152. leafe in whiche he woulde proue that priests haue auctoritie to offer Christ. He taketh vppon him to shewe that the priest hath authoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his father But good lorde whether more blasphemously then ignorantly and vnlearnedly For first he citeth the saying of the Apostel Heb. 5. Euery high Priest taken of men is appointed for men in those things that perteine to God to offer vp gifts and sacrifices for sinnes which the Apostle speaketh expreslye of the priests of the old lawe and proueth the excellency of Christ aboue them Secondly admitting hee shoulde speake of Pristes of the newe Testament which is false he saith their sacrifice must be after the order of Melchisedech as it is written thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech of which order Christ is a priest in respect of Popish priestes that be nowe a dayes or else Gods oth should be broken Surely I merueile at the great clemency of god which stoppeth not such blasphemous mouthes with thunderbolts that make the eternall priesthoode of Christ which hee hath without succession to depende vppon their greasie order which hath not beene but of late erected neither shall continue for euer where as our sauiour Christe worlde without ende shal bee both a king and a priest which
c. is proued by the Canons of the Apostles that Excommunicate all Christians that be present and doe not communicate Can. 9. Also the first Epistle of Anacletus which is good authoritie against a Papist forbiddeth the priest or Bishop to sacrifice alone and commandeth all the ministers that are present to receiue with him in paine of excommunication And appointeth what number shall be present of deacons namely on solemne dayes seuen on other dayes fiue or three beside Subdeacons other ministers These decrees do proue that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper but when there be a good number to communicate Concerning the 5. of distinction of Bishops or Priestâ— in apparell froÌ„ the laitie which yet we hold to be a thing of his owne nature indifferent Celestinus Bish. of Rome saith in an Epistle to the Bishops of France Epi. 2. Discernâ—ndi a plebe vel cÄ™teris sumus doctrina non veste conuersatione non habitu mentis puritate non cultu We must be discerned from the common people or other men by doctrine not by garment by conuersation not by apparell by purenes of minde not by attyre To the 7. that the communion table was remoueable and carried too an fro it is proued by Augustine who In quest vet Non test ques 101. saith it was the office of the Deacons of Rome as well as of all other Churches to carrie the altar and the vessels thereof and although he call it an altar in this place and many other yet doeth he in as many places call it a table and in his Epistle to Bonifacius Ep. 50. it appeareth that it was made of boordes and not of stones To the 8. for saying communion on good Friday although perhaps it might be proued by those fathers of the primitiue Church that kept their feast of Easter after the manner of the Iewes whiche was the 14. day of the moneth whiche some tymes did fall vpon that Friday whiche is called good Friday yet beeing no matteâ— of religion there is no cause why we should be bound to proue it The like I say to the 9. of singing of Gloria in excelsis after the communion and to the 11. of saying the Creede of Athanasius vpon principall holie dayes Concerning the 10. that the sacrament was ministred in the loafe bread vsually to be eaten at the table it is proued by S. Cyprian In sermone de Caena Dom. whiche saith of that bread wherewith they did minister Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam incraementum corporâ—bus c. This common bread being chaunged into our flesh and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodies Also by S. Ambrose Li. 4. Cap. 2. de sacram Who rehearseth the obiection of the ignorant saying Tu forte dicis meus panis est vsitatus c. Thou perhaps wilt say my bread is coÌ„mon vsual bread Also by Gregorie which in his dialogues reporteth that two Coronae loaues of bread were giuen to one that was thought to be a poore man in rewarde of his seruice in a bathe but he being a guest willed that the same shoulde bee offered in sacrifice for him To the 12. for the ministers wearing of a Cope or surplesse which hold it to be no part of religion and that the communion hath bene ministred in common apparell we will go no further then our Sauiour Christ himselfe Ioh. 13. and there is no question but his Apostles and the primitiue Churche many hundreth yeares followed his example To the 13 that the words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. should be red at the ministration rather theÌ„ of S. Mathewe Marke or Luke it is a matter of meere indifferency yet better ordered then your popishe canon whiche rehearseth the wordes after none of all foure To the 14. that they vsed a common cup at the Communion is prooued also by scripture that our sauiour Christ ministred in the same cup which he and his company had vsed at supper To the 15. that the curses of Gods law should be redd vpon Ashwednesday we hold it not as a thing necessarie but an order of indifferencie vntill a better discipline be restored To the 16. concerning procession about the fields we vse none but a perambulation which is a matter of meere ciuill pollicie To the 19. whether Saint Peter were euer at Rome or no it is no article of our beliefe but we are able to proue by scripture that he neither was there as bishoppe nor so long as the common opinion is To the 20. that the minister in time of necessitie hath giuen the communion to one alone is proued by the example of Seraphion vsed of the Papistâ— but vnfitly to defende your priuate masse to whom being at the point of death the communion was sent by the prieste who at the same time also was so sicke that hee coulde not come himselfe Eusebius libros 6. capitulo 44. and yet that communicatinge which we alowe is but graunted to the infirmitie of suche as cannot bee perswaded to forbeare the sacramente not as a thing simplie allowed If anye one man aliue coulde prooue anye one of these articles by Scriptures doctours or councelles hee promiseth to subscribe what I haue prooued let the Reader iudge After this followe twentie nine articles more The 22. that the bishoppe of Rome was not called Antichriste the cause was that vntill after sixe hundreth yeare the bishoppe of Rome was not Antichriste But that Antichriste shoulde bee a Romaine it is prooued by Irenaeus Libro 5. and that Rome shoulde be the Sea of Antichriste Sainte Augustine testifieth De ciuitate Dei libro 16. capitulo 17. callinge Rome Westerne Babylon and libro 18. capitulo 2. callinge Rome seconde Babylon c. Also Hierome ad Marcellam iudgeth Rome to bee Babylon spoken of in the Apocalypse and in praefati in Didymum hee calleth Rome Babylon and the purple whore and Algasiae Quest. 11. and manye places else Gregorie also affirmeth that who so woulde bee called vniuersall bishoppe was the forerunner of Antichriste whiche was Iohn of Constantinople also he prophesieth that Antichristes reuelation was at hande and that an armye of priestes shoulde wayte vppon him whiche was fulfilled in his nexte successour saue one namely Bonifacius the thirde whiche was the first Pope of Rome that was called vniuersall bishoppe and was Antichriste him selfe as Iohn of Constantinople was his forerunner about the yeare of our Lorde â—10 To the 23. that no consecration was required to the sacramente but the vertue of the peoples fayth is not holden of vs and therefore wee are not to prooue it To the 24. that the residue of the sacramentall bread which was not receyued by any olde custome of the Church of Constantinople was giuen to young children that went to schoole is prooued by Euagrius libr. 4. cap. 36. whether to spredde their butter as hee requireth is to shewe or to eate it with cheese
105. After all these iollie questions he confesseth he should do vs wrong to require the probation of these articles bicause many of them containe indifferent ceremonies in many he sticketh vpoÌ„ such termes as he thinketh are not found in the auncient Fathers in some he presseth vs with particular wordes leauing the generall principle and in some with priuate mens opinions he might haue added in some with his own impudent lyes and forgeries which none of vs do holde and such he would make the Bishopâ— challenge to be but the world hath sufficiently seene the contrarie proued that most of the matters contained in that challenge be of the greatest mysteries of Poperie whereas these of M.Ra. witlesse and shamelesse deuising for the most part are not maintained at all in manner and forme as he propoundeth them and such as be materiall are sufficiently proued But nowe that he hath played the foole as he confesseth all this while he promiseth to play the wise man in propounding matters of weight substance in which you shall see that euen as before he chargeth vs to proue many things which we do not hold and therefore he playeth not the wise man but the craftie marchant to make the ignorant beleeue that wee maintaine that we are not able to iustifie He diuideth his challenge into foure partes the first hath three Articles To the first that it is vnlawful to make a vowe to God of chastitie obedience or pouertie I answere it is vnlawfull to make a vowe of that which is not in a mans power to performe as is the vowe of Virginitie which is a gift not giuen to all as our sauiour Christ testifieth Matt. 19. Also ConciliuÌ„ ArasicanuÌ„ 2. decreed ca. 11. De obligatione votoruÌ„ Nemo quicquam Domino rectè vouerit nisi ab ipso acceperit sicut legitur Quae de manu tua accepimus damus tibi Of the bonde of vowes No man shall rightly vowe any thing to the Lord except he haue receiued it of him as it is read Such things as we haue receiued of thy hand we giue to thee That breakers of such vowes were esteemed aboue others as singular witnesses of the libertie of the Gospell is no part of our assertion But that their meaning is honest is proued by Leo B. of Rome Ep. 90. speaking of a Monke Vnde qui relicta singularitatis professione ad militiam vel ad nuptial dâ—uolutus est publicae paenitentiae satisfactione purgandus est quia etsi innocens militia honestum potest esse coniâ—gium electionem tamen meliorem deseruisse transgressio est Wherefore he which hath forsaken the profession of sole life and fallen to warfare or marriage must be purged by satisfaction of open repentance bicause that although his warfare may be harmelesse and his marriage honest yet it is a transgression to haue forsaken his better choyse To the second that it was abhominable to make any sacrifice to God beside the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in words the figures for his benefites with remembrance of his passion c. I proue by the authoritie of Iustinus which affirmeth that these were the only sacrifices deliuered vnto the Christians therefore it was abhominable to vse any other His wordes are in his Dialogue with Tryphon against the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I my selfe doe affirme that prayers and thankesgiuings made by worthie persons are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to god For these are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make to be put in mind by their drie and moyst nourishment of the passion which God the sonne of God is recorded to haue suffered for them Here note that he calleth the sacrament drie and moyst nourishment To the third that there was no Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech but onely the Priesthoode of our Sauiour Christ it is manifest by the 110. Psalme that the Priesthood pertaineth to him that sitteth at the right hand of God euen to the Lord Iesus Christe also by the Apostle to the Hebrues 5. 7. Chapter in which it is saide that he hath that Priesthoode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is so peculiar to him as it passeth not by succession Neither was there euer any greater blasphemie then that euery Popish Priest should bee a Priest after the order of Melchisedech to offer Christe to his Father And that Priestes haue not a singular sacrifice to offer for the sinnes of the people is proued by S. Augustine â— Contra aduersar leg prophe who calleth the death of Christ Vâ—um singulare solum verum sacrificium that one singular and onely true sacrifice in which the bloud of Christe was shed for vs But the Papistes call their blasphemous sacrifice an vnbloudie sacrifice therefore they haue not any singular sacrifice for the sinnes of the people The second part containeth 12. Articles in which he falsly chargeth Caluine in his institutions with diuers Articles which neither he nor any of vs doe holde The first that the sacrament of baptisme instituted by Christ is no better then the circumcision of the old lawe is proued by Saint Augustine which saith in Ioan. Tr. 26. speaking of the sacraments of the old law that they were in fignis diuersa in re quae significatur paria diuers in signes equall in the thing signified The second that baptisme is a signe onely of our profession and that our sinnes are not truly forgiuen in it is no doctrine of ours but of the Anabaptistes mightily confuted by Caluine whome he slaundereth to hold it The 3. that confirmation ought to be a sacrament is an inuention of man plaine for that it is not taught in the scriptures to be an institution of christ IrenÄ™us testifieth that the annointing with sweete oyle came first of the Valentinian heretiques Lib. 1. cap. 18. Also in S. Hieromes time the Priestes made the oyle of Chrisme and laide on their handes and not the Bishop only In Sophon cap. 3 â–ª For a Bishop did nothing more then a Priest but only in ordeining of ministers Hier. Euagrio Wherevpon it followeth that the Popish confirmation was not then a sacrament which they hold can be ministred of none but of a Bishop The fourth that Christ deliuered in his last supper a figure only of his body to be eaten of his Apostles is none of our assertions for we affirme that he deliuered breade and wine not as a figure onely but as his very body and bloud spiritually to be eaten and dronken The 5. that the power of forgiuing and reteyning sinnes which Christ gaue to his Apostles is nothing else but a comforting or fearing of mens consciences by the promises or menaces of the scripture c. is not affirmed of vs but that Christ hath giuen power to his ministers to assure the penitent of forgiuenesse in his name to pronounce his iudgment to the vnrepentant so that man followeth the sentence of God and not God of man.
made the body of Christ yet the interpretation of spirituall receiuing which both Origen and Ambrose doe at large testifie as in due place hath and shall be more declared doeth take away your grosse imagination And that you doe not reiect the spirituall receiuing in the sacrament you doe well but you doe fondely when you oppose it against reall receyuing where you should say corporall or carnall for Spiritus Res be not opposite but Spiritus Car◠or Corpus are And here I would haue the Readers to note how Maister Heskins confesseth that The receiuing of Christe really whiche is all that he striueth for profiteth not without the receiuing of him spiritually But it is certeine by the scripture that the spirituall receiuing profiteth without that which he calleth the real receiuing For Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith And whereas he saith No man can receiue Christ spiritually which beleeueth not that he receiueth him really I demaund of him whether infants and such as dye without the participation of the sacrament may not receiue Christe spiritually without receiuing of him corporally He must needes answere yea or else by Christes word they haue no part of eternal life and then his assertion is false If I should obiect the fathers of the olde testament who did all eate Christ spiritually before he had a naturall body perhaps he would answere that he speaketh of men in these dayes But seing the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. saith they receiued the same spirituall meat and drinke that we do euen Christ it is manifest that Christ both now then is eaten spiritually only and not carnally To match with Augustine for default of a Lorde of the higher house he bringeth in Damascene a Burgesse of the lower house whose authoritie although I do little esteeme yet will I set downe his wordes that you may see how little helpe he hath out of them but by racking and wresting Melchisedech with bread wine did receiue Abraham returning frō the slaughter of the strāgers which was a priest of the highest god That table did prefigurate this mysticall table as that priest bare the figure and image of Christ the true priest Thou art saith he a priest after the order of Melchisedech First Damascene is plaine that Melchisedech did not offer bread and wine but he did entertain Abraham therwith at his table that Melchisedechs feast was a figure of Christes feast but not of his sacrifice which is the matter in controuersie But you shal see how M. Heskins setteth his words on the tenter to stretch them to a sacrifice I wold that the aduersarie did note that the table of Melchisedech which al men of learning do know is taken for the sacrifice Who shall be able to stand before M. Heskins which hath the iudgement of all men of learning on his side Yea and that which is more ▪ S. Paule taketh it so ye cannot be partakers of the table of God and the table of diuels also that is of that which was offered to God of that which was offred to diuels O learned expositiō But he must remember that S. Paul reproueth not the Corinthians for offring sacrifice to the idols but for sitting downe at the feastes in whiche that meate that had bene offered was eaten So that a table is still a table and for a feast not for a sacrifice The conclusion of this chap if he durst openly vtter it containeth a most detestable blasphemie namely that euery hedge Priest that saith Masse is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech As though Christs Priesthood could not be perpetual except it were cōtinued by succession of that greasie order of shauelings wheras it is expresly said Heb. 7. that his Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech resteth only in his owne person bicause he liueth for euer and that it can not passe by succession Vpon which place to cōclude this matter and the Papists own graunt I will reason thus Christs Priesthoode after the order of Melchisedech resteth in his owne person and passeth not by succession The Popish Priesthood consisting in the sacrifice of bread and wine is continued in the world by succession therfore the Popish Priesthood consisting in the sacrifice of breade wine is not the Priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedech The 32 Chapter to proue the sacrifice of our shewe bread to be a continuall sacrifice as the old shew bread was alledgeth the prophesie of Daniel and reiecteth the false expositions of the aduersaries The shew bread is here brought in for a meere shew for there is no matter at all in it for his purpose except it be this that he saith The reseruation of that bread was a figure of the reseruation of their blessed bread Which if it be true it is not lawful for the priest to eat his cōsecrated hostes vntill they be a seuen nights old For the shew bread was of necessitie to stand on that table frō Sabbath to Sabbath But of the cōtinuāce of their sacrifice not only Malachie but also Daniel hath prophesied who in the 9. 12. of his prophesie foresheweth the taking away of the daily sacrifice which he saith the holy Fathers do expound to be done by Antichrist As there be many prophesies in Daniel very hard to interpret so there is none more cleere either in him or in any other prophet for the time when it should be fulfilled then this of taking away the daily sacrifice placing the abhominatiō of desolation for asmuch as our sauiour Christ him self Mat. 24. doth refer it to the destructiō of Hierusalem the tēple For then the daily sacrifice not of the shew bread but of the morning euening oblatiō was vtterly taken away in act as it ceassed in effect when our sauiour Christe by his true sacrifice had taken away all figuratiue oblations For as Hierom saith very well whatsoeuer was afterward sacrificed by the vnbeleuing Iewes in the temple was not the sacrifice of God but the worship of the diuel But notwithstanding this M. Hesk. wil needs haue it meant of the daily sacrifice of the Christians for that purpose alledgeth the iudgement of Petrus the Monk I trow of Clunie that there be foure principal sectes in the world that is of the Iewes Sarazens Pagans and Christians of which the Iewes Sarazens Pagans offer no sacrifice but only the Christians But he is fowly beguyled for the Sarazens or Mahumetans offer sacrifice for the dead after the maner of the Gentiles And where this Peter acknowledged no Pagans but such as dwell farthest in the North it seemeth he hath not heard of so many nations as in all quarters be discouered to be Idolaters especially those of Calechut who beside the bloud of a cocke which they sacrifice to the Idole of the diuel do offer vnto it all meat that the king eateth Wherfore the conclusion of P. Cluniacensis is a very vain