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
examine these falsifications pretended First he chargeth the bishop with false Latining and worse Englishing of this greeke following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bishopps latine is Hoc mirum est veteres Ethnicos beneficio affectos a seruatore nostro ista fecisse his english this It is no meruaile that the Heathens receiuing such benifites of our Sauiour did these thinges Here saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Olim in times past is left out in the latine which is false for it is included in the word veteres In deede in the english by the printers fault it is omitted M. Sander woulde iustifie the bolde and false translation of Ruffinus which turneth these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui ex Gentilibus crediderant Such of the Gentiles as had beleeued Where he manifestly addeth the worde crediderant which is not in Eusebius Wherein you may see the equitie of Maister Sanders which findeth faulte with Maister Iewell for leauing out that which he doth not omitte and iustifieth Ruffinus which doth openly adde to the text But for all his trifling about wordes hee sheweth him selfe ignorant of the phrase for when hee hath wrangled as much as hee can the Latine of the Greeke worde for worde is this Nec mirum est eos ex Gentibus qui olim beneficio affecti sunt a seruatore nostro ista fecisse And it is no marueile that those of the Gentiles which of olde time were benefited by our Sauiour Christe haue done these thinges Now Maister Sander like a falsifier rendeth these wordes asunder and will haue all that matter to stande in these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee sayeth must needes signifie those which in times past had beene Gentiles but after had beleeued which wordes if he wring vntill the bloud come foorth yet can hee not make such a signification of them For if Eusebius had meant so hee woulde haue added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some wordes of like effecte Secondly hee would rather haue sayde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that sometime were Gentiles then those that of olde time were Gentiles but that in the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of olde time he had relation vnto the time of Christe Thirdly as maister Sander himselfe afterwarde striuing for the Aduerbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnchaungeablye to be ioyned with the Participle sheweth himselfe a good Grammarian So here diuiding the Aduerbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ioyning it with nothing sheweth himselfe to be a malicious wrangler and a shamelesse falsifier Nowe where hee sayeth it is not like to bee true that Christe bestowed anye greate cure vppon those who shoulde haue tarryed still Heathens because hee more willingly cured the soule then the bodie I aunswere the chiefe ende of his cures was not for the priuate benefite of them that were cured but to shewe himselfe to all men to be the sonne of God the true phisition of body and soule But M. Sander replieth though some were vnkind as the 9. Lepers Luke 17. yea some were carelesse of him as the man that had lyen 38. yeares in the porche and the blinde man vntill he instucted them by his worde Iohn 5. 9. yet those which did set vp images in his honour were not vnkind I aunswere they thought to satisfye them selues with a vaine superstitious and heathenishe kinde of remuneration Thirdly hee sayeth with Theophylact a late writer that this woman which was faithfull did set vp this image but that I haue proued before to bee neither true nor like to be true But this is not all Master Iewels falshod sayeth hee for hee sayeth moreouer Nam Apostolorum Pauli Petri ipsius Christi imagines coloribus ductas seruatas vidimus For wee haue seene the images of Paule and Peter and of Christe drawen in coulours and preserued Here first beside the lacke of eius his which he confesseth to be of no importance he misseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et which he wil needes haue to signifie also What quarrelling merchant is this here is et thrise yet none of them wil serue his turne because the firste is not translated also that it might be thought that Eusebius had seene the former image of brasse But seeing et is twise put once before Apostolorum and then before ipsius Christi by iudgement of all English Grammarians it may truely be translated thus For wee haue seene the images drawen in colours and preserued both of his Apostles Paule and Peter and also of Christ him selfe Againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be translated euen of his Apostles Paule and Peter What Empyre hath Master Sander in Grammer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifye nothing but also when it hath three significations beside and both euen But it pleaseth Master Sander that Eusebius which liued about three hundreth yeares after Christe sawe painted images of Christ himselfe of his Apostles yea but in the hands of Heathen men or men of Heathenish superstition or else perhaps among the Gnostikes Carpocratites heretikes For what one worde of commendation doth he bestowe vpon them He sawe them in deede but if they had bene profitable for Christianitie why did he not make the like or cause them to be made in his church of Caesarea What cause haue you hitherto M. Sander to cry out O the deceit of M. Iewell seeing for any thing you haue shewed it is true which he saith The Phaeniciens being Heathens made these images in the honour of Christe and of his Apostles onely of their heathenish and vaine superstition But you will shewe a further falshoode in M. Iewell and that still in one storie for he proceedeth Et credibile est priscos illos homines nondum relicta auita superstition◠▪ adhunc modum consueuisse colere illos ethnica consuetudine tanquam seruatores And it may well be thought that men in olde times being not yet remoued from the superstitiō of their fathers vsed after this sort to worship them by an heathenish custome as their sauiours That M. Iewell meant no fraud in this translation it is manifest by that which M. Sander confesseth that he set the Greeke wordes by the side of his booke which are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as it is like that those auncient men vnchangably after this maner were accustomed to honour them as Sauiours by an heathenish custome vsed among them This I haue translated worde for worde and what difference is there in sense from M. Iewels translatiō but that nothing of his can please M. San. for first he maketh one quarell that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth vnchangably or without change which M. Iewel hath turned not yet being remoued from the superstition of their fathers But Ruffinus also translateth it ex gentili consuetudine indifferenter of an heathenish custome indifferently and M.
D. HESKINS D. SANDERS AND M. Rastel accounted among their faction three pillers and Archpatriarches of the Popish Synagogue vtter enemies to the truth of Christes Gospell and all that syncerely professe the same ouerthrowne and detected of their seuerall blasphemous heresies By D. Fulke Maister of Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge Done and directed to the Church of England and all those which loue the trueth AT LONDON Printed by Henrie Middleton for George Bishop ANNO. 1579. The contentes of the seuerall treatises conteined in this Booke 1 The Parleament of Christ auouching the inacted trueth of his presence in the sacrament restored to his veritie and deliuered from the impudent and outragious corruptions of Tho. Heskins 2 That it is lawfull to breake superstitious Images and vtterly vnlawful to honour them with a confirmation of suche true doctrine as Maister Iewel hath vttered in his reply concerning that matter against a blasphemous treatise made by Nicholas Sander 3 The challenge and sound doctrine conteined in M. Iewels sermon mainteined and deliuered from the lewde and slaunderous dealing of Rastel with an answere to his challenge ¶ A CATALOGVE of all such Popish Bookes either aunswered or to be aunswered which haue bene written in the English tongue from beyond the seas or secretly dispersed here in England haue come to our hands since the beginning of the Queenes Maiesties reigne 1 HArding against the Apology of the English church answered by M. Iewel Bishop of Sarum 2 Harding against M. Iewels challenge answered by M. Iewel 3 Hardings reioynder to M. Iewell aunswered by M. Edwarde Deering 4 Coles quarrels against M. Iewell answered by M. Iewell 5 Rastels returne of vntruthes answered by M. Iewel â–ª 6 Rastell against M. Iewels challenge answered by William Fulke 7 Dorman against M. Iewel answered by M. Nowel 8 Dormans disproofe of M. Nowels reproofe aunswered by M. Nowell 9 The man of Chester aunswered by M. Pilkington Bishop of Duresme 10 Sanders on the sacrament in part aunswered by M. Nowell 11 Fecknams Scruples aunswered by M. Horne B. of Winchester 12 Fecknams Apologie aunswered by W. Fulk 13 Fecknams obiections against M. Goughes sermon aunswered by maister Gough and maister Lawrence Tomson 14 Stapletons counterblast answered by M. Bridges 15 Marshall his defence of the crosse answered by M. Caulfehill 16 Fowlers Psalter aunswered by M. Sampson 17 An infamous libell or letter 〈…〉 against the teachers of Gods diuine prouidence and predestination aunswered by Robert Crowley 18 Allens defeÌ„ce of Purgatorie answered by W. Fulk 19 Heskins parleament repealed by W. Fulk 20 Ristons challenge answered by W. Fulk Oliuer Carter 21 Hosius of Gods expresse word translated into English aunswered by W. Fulk 22 Sanders rock of the church vndermined by W. Fulk 23 Sanders defence of images answered by W. Fulk 24 Marshals reply to Caulfhil answered by W. Fulk 25 Shaclockes Pearle answered by M. Hartwell 26 The hatchet of heresies answered by M. Bartlet 27 Maister Euans answered by himselfe 28 A defence of the priuate Masse answered by conâ—ecture by M. Cooper Bishop of Lincolne 29 Certein assertions tending to mainteine the church of Rome to be the true and catholique church confuted by Iohn Knewstub These Popish treatises ensuing for the most part are in answering and those which are not by God assistance as 〈◊〉 will serue shall receiue their seueral replies If the Papistes know any not here reckoned let them be brought to light and they shall be examined 1 Sanders vpon the Lords supper partly vnanswered 2 Allens defence of Priests authoritie to remiâ— sinnes and of the churches meaning concerning indulgences 3 Stapletons fortresse of the faith 4 Stapletons returne of vntruthes 5 Rastels replye 6 Bristowes Motiues and Demaunds collected out of the same 7 Vaux his Catechisme 8 Canisius his Catechisme translated 9 Frarins oration translated ¶ THE AVTHOVR to the Reader ALTHOVGH there is nothing in these bookes which haue beene so long vnanswered but either it is vnworthy any answere or else hath ben satisfied sufficiently before in many treatises extant in the English toung already yet because the aduersaries should not altogether please themselues in their fantasie that they be vnanswerable nor the simpler sort suspect that there is any thing in them that we need to be afraid of I thought good to take in hand this short manner of confutation In which I trust the diligent indifferent reader wil confesse that I haue omitted much matter whereof I might haue taken aduantage rather then that I haue left any argument of importance vnsatisfied Considering therfore what breuitte I haue vsed as was necessarie for me being but one against so many I trust the reasonable Readers will looke for no other vertue of writing at my handes but onely the simple shewing of the trueth and the plaine confutation of the false reasons of the aduersarie Which that they may the better see with more profit perceiue I exhort all such as haue the Popishe Bookes here confuted to conferre their argumentes with mine answers And for them that haue not the bookes at hand I haue so set downe the titles of their Chapters and the cheefe pointes of their treatises collected by themselues in their owâ—â— tables that the perusers may vnderstand I haue left no matter of any moment vntouched In rehearsing of their arguments I haue rather added weight vnto them then taken any force from them in my repetitioÌ„ or abridgement of them so neere as I could by any wit I haue conceiue their order and resolue their Methode What I haue perfourmed in answering let the godly and learned Iudge In the meane time I desire God to graunt that this my labour may be to the glorie of his name and the profite of his Church by Iesus Christe our Lord. THE FIRST BOOKE OF HESKINS PARLEAMENT REpealed by W. Fulke THE first Chapter vpon occasion that this aduersarie this proclamer and challenger he meaneth the B. of Sarum of holy and learned memorie would haue the Scriptures read of all men presupposing the same to be easie to be vnderstanded entereth as by preamble to treate of the difficultie of the Scriptures and to proue that they ought not of all men to be read without an able interpreter or teacher THIS Burgesse for the citie of Rome hauing in purpose to make a speake in the Popish Parleament for the matter of the sacrament of the Masse and douting least his tale should not be long ynough if he vttered nothing but that might seeme directly to appertaine to his cause beginneth with a pretie preamble of eight Chapters long of the difficultie of the Scriptures and the vnderstanding of the same And bicause he hath not aduauntage sufficient of any wordes or writing of the B. of Sarum to inlarge his speach by confuting thereof he feigneth vnto him selfe a monster to fight withall out of Luthers booke De seruo arbitrio who teacheth as he saith That the Scriptures of them selues be
daughter saith â–ª Adhuc tenera lingua Psalmis dulcibus imbuatur let her tong when it iâ— yet but tender be seasoned with sweete Psalmes when she groweth to yeares of discretion Quaerant eam c. let them seeke her in the iourney of the worlde among the flockes and companies of her kinsfolkes but let them finde her no where else but in the closet of the scriptures asking counsell of the Prophets and Apostles of her spirituall marriage But more agreeing with the title of this Chap. you alledge the 49. Chap. of Gene. one speciall place of that Chapter namely the blessing of Iuda What if this Chapter be harde and this place especially in the Chapter is it therefore hard which Moses writeth in the beginning of this booke In the beginning God created Heauen and Earth And shal all the profitable and necessarie doctrine of this booke be vnread for the difficultie of one Chapter In Exodus and Leuiticus although many things require a ripe iudgement yet are many thinges also very easie and plaine and the same scripture also teacheth vs that all figures were referred to the patterne shewed in the mount which is christ Exod. 25. Acts 7. Heb. 8. But these sayings offendeth M. Heskins and seemeth to him to haue almost no reason in them where God forbiddeth them to suffer their cattel to gender with a contrarie kinde or sowe their fielde with mingled seede or to weare a garment of linsiwoolsie Which positiue lawes me thinkes do plainly teach that God loueth purenesse and abhorreth all vnholy mixtures As likewise those wordes Deut. 23 of sowing the vineyard with diuers seeds and plowing with an oxe an asse The law Deut. 22. of leauing the old bird when a man taketh her yong out of the nest was a good rudiment to teach them to abhor either couetousnes or crueltie or both Which law when the heathen men had by the light of nature as appeareth in Phocylides I maruell why it seemeth so straunge to M. Heskins which would be taken both for a Christian and a Diuine As for the moosling of the oxe that treadeth the corne is yet more plaine when the Apostle doth gather a strong argument out of that place from the lesse to the more that God which would haue men to consider bruite beastes with humanitie would not haue the Ministers of his word neglected at their handes But ô noble Diuine Doth the high prouidence of God occupie it selfe in making ordinances for birds nestes Yea M. Doctour and in teaching birdes to make their nestes and in feeding their young birds that cal on him although these ordinances coÌ„cerning birdes nestes were not made for birds but for men Or doth the wisedome of God ioyne such rewardes of prosperitie and long life to such trifles O M. Doctour obedience before God is better then sacrifice though it be in neuer so small matters But Salomon in his Ecclesiastes pleaseth not M. Heskins where he saith that Where much wisedome is there is also much trauell and disquietnesse c herevpon the vnlearned he saith might take occasion to contemne wisedome and much more by that which followeth cap. 2. If it happen to the foole as to the wiseman what needeth me to labour any more for wisedome And herevpon he sweareth that he heard a man of worship grauitie wisedome godly life competent learning able to vnderstand and exercised in the scriptures earnestly say to him that it was a naughtie booke When Salomon doth so exceedingly not onely in his other bookes but also in that same booke and place set foorth the commendation of wisedome it was a very spiderlike iuyce that your wise Gentleman M. Doctour gathered out of that booke and such as no Bee would sucke out of so-sweete and wholesome flowers As for The title Inciâ—ament vnto vertue that you suppose to appeare in the ballattes of Salomon yea rather how vngodly and wanton they seeme to be rather in the outward face teaching and prouoking wantonnesse then godlinesse of life Declareth how reuerently you iudge of the holie scripture And that offence you dreame off belike not most chastly affected is most easily auoyded for what vnlearned man indued with common sense reading in so many other places of the scriptures all wantonnesse of life expressely forbidden will not immediately conceiue that this is some spirituall and mysticall loue which is set forth in these ballats rather then lewd or wanton songes prouoking to wickednesse But then followeth the sonne of Syrach With his vnseemely wordes describing the wickednesse of an harlot Cap. 62. Which an honest man would be ashamed to speake and you ashamed to write if they were not scripture Like as one that goeth by the way and is thirstie so shall she open her mouth and drinke of euery next water that she may get By euery hedge shal she fit her downe open her quiner to euery arrowe Then what trifling resting and pastime you haue seene and heard vpon the reading and rehersall of this text and what vnchast wordes haue fallen out vpon the same It appeareth you haue beene in good company where you haue often heard such wholsome talke But once againe you sweare that This text being spoken in the presence of a good vertuous gentlewomaÌ„ the book turned the place read she exclamed said that if the scripture had such bawdie wordes she would no more beleeue the scripture for it was naught with mo such like wordes To passe ouer the blasphemous nicenes of this your Gentlewoman and your iudgement of their goodnes and vertue with their honestie that troubled her with this place I pray you maister Heskins was it the darkenes of the place that did so much offend her or else because she thought it to be too plaine a description of suche a matter You see therefore or if you do not all the worlde beside doeth that while you seeke to bring the reading of scriptures into contempt and hatred you forget your selfe so much that you bring examples of one contrarie for another Although if I may speake of mine experience as well as you I do very well remember that I hearde a sober and chaste matron of her owne accorde not prouoked thereto by any meanes but the only hearing the same place read affirme that it was a modest description of so vile manners as an harlot vseth To conclude this Chapter you bring in a long testimonie of Origen 10. lib. Strom. Who to defend his wicked allegorizing vpon the scriptures goeth about to proue by some examples and sentences that the litteral sense is not profitable but rather hurtfull As the incest of Iuda the polygamie of the Patriarks the dronkennesse of Noe and such like which are not commended in histories but reproued The sacrifices of Leuiticus he imagineth should prouoke men to idolatrie but without all colour of reason He addeth the iudgement of God against Babylon and her children in the Psalme 136. and the
proofe of that which is not at all in controuersie that it yrketh me to abridge it but for orders sake The Apostles learned of Christ in three yeares study prayer is required to the vnderstanding of the scripture by Origens iudgement The Fathers of the Church learned of their Elders as Clemens Marke Linus Cletus of Peter Titus Timotheus Luke Dionise of Paule and so one of an other Basil and Gregorie Nazianzen studied thirteene yeres in a monasterie Hieronyme learned of the Hebrues trusted not his own iudgement wherefore all rashe readers and arrogant teachers may be abashed which take vpon them to teach before they be learned whereas no man may be his owne teacher in the scriptures All this and much more shall be graunted to M. Heskins without any strife at all But that which he also granteth though it be not very liberally yet it must not be refused That in S. Hieronymies time many did study the scriptures which if the people coulde nowe reuerently and meekely vse might be tollerated Well then the allowance of antiquitie is of our side and the conditional tolleration of M. Heskins for I may not say of the Popish Church knowing what horrible persecution they practise against thē which haue but a book of the scriptures in their mother tonge found in their hand or house although it cannot be proued that they read it Wherefore it is most absurd that hee chargeth the proclamer with slaundering their Churche to bring hir in hatred with the lay people as though she had nowe forbidden them to read the Scriptures in their owne tongue whereas he knoweth no suche prohibition giuen to the lay people vniuersally But the reason is most monsterous For if there had bene any such prohibition there should not haue bene so many lay men which haue both read and written of the scriptures in their natiue tongues c. As thoughe learned lay men coulde not haue readd the scriptures but in their mother tongue But the church fearing the abuses of the scriptures by the vnlearned lay men forbad them But such lay men as vnderstād the scriptures in Hebrue Greeke the Church wil allow them to read thē in english O wise prouident Church Nay meruell not at this For the learned if they be rashe fall into heresies much more the vnlearned And the learned also yea and phisitians themselues sometimes take surfeites therefore it were a sure way for the people neuer to eate meate Noble men and wisemen somtime haue their houses burned therefore it is much more dangerous for poore and simple men to haue fire in their houses The knowledge of Mysteries muste not bee made common to all men for the Iewes would not suffer Genesis and Cantica to be redde of young men before 30. yeares of age The heathen men also as the Romanes Philosophers kept close their secrets the one Sibyllaes bookes the other Morall philosophie especially Metaphysike If I had time I might make sporte with this Metaphysical argument that Christian men must folow the practise of Infidels But I must passe ouer to the rest Chrysostom in the Greeke Church as wel as Hieronyme in the Latine wold haue the people to learne by hearing their teachers and not onely by reading them selues because the scriptures are darke and are a storehouse not common for all men but out of which the stewardes must deliuer to euerie man his portion Remember all this notwithstanding that M. Heskins confessed before that Chrysostome doth often earnestly exhort the lay and vnlearned people to the diligent reading of the scriptures Then followe similitudes of young children and vnthriftes the one if they feede thēselues the meate runneth about their mouth bosome and clothes the other spende their fathers goods in suites and quarels and contention with their brethren So men without witte grace abuse the scriptures to the hurt of others no profite of themselues Except all laye men want witt and grace these similitudes proue nothing For many priestes also want wit grace whō you admit to read the scriptures After similitudes come examples Valdo an vnlearned man caused Bookes of scripture to be translated and so beganne the sect of Valdenses or Pauperes de Lugduno Out of the same founteine of ignorance sprang the heretikes called Begradi Turrelupini Valdo was a godly man seeing the ignorance and vngodlines of the Priests did very wel to procure the translatiō of the scripture and vppon good groundes departed from the Church of Rome vnto the Church of Christ what the other were as stories are vncertein so I leaue them in doubt But Luther and Zwinglius are charged to affirme The scriptures to be easie and make it free for all men to read and expound them and teach that not onely men but also women may openly preache the worde of God and that as well a childe and a woman absolueth as a Bishop If these were not meere slaunders he would haue set downe their owne wordes the circumstance of which no doubt would discharge them of such absurdities as he collecteth For they would neuer affirme euery place of the scripture to be easie nor women but in case where al men or the most faile of knowledge to teach as the prophetesses of the olde lawe did nor women and children to absolue as well as a godly bishop by the doctrine of the Gospell but perhaps better then an ignorant Popish Prelate Likewise where he chargeth Luther To boast that he was ignorant in no part of the scripture and yet bringeth in his owne wordes wherein he confesseth that he knew not whether he had the right vnderstanding of the Psalmes and saith also that it was most impudent rashnesse for any man to professe that he vnderstoode any one booke of scripture in all partes I say the conference of these places doeth declare that no man except he were blinde madde or dronke with malice would beleeue the slaunder of boasting to be true in manner and forme as Maister Heskins setteth it downe Hauing vomited his malice against Luther Zwinglius he inueyeth with mayn sayle of open rayling against the people of our time for the rashnesse and disorder of some As though there were no talke but rash babbling of predestination free wil iustification yea God to be the author of sinne of the number of the sacraments especially the sacrament of the altar and no where but in Tauernes Innes Alehouses and Barbarshops in streetes highwayes and fieldes and in the mouthes of women boyes and girles God be thanked this slaunder is false Although there be great rashnesse in some and vnreligiousnesse in more yet the true members of Christ profite much by reading of his word We confesse with Gregorie Nazianzene that it is not for euery man rashly to dispute of God nor yet of diuine matters but with humilitie and sobrietie which they shal learne no where so well as in the holy scriptures of god The
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
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
offering bread and wine as he before saide most blasphemously that the execution of that Priesthoode lay onely therein But now let vs looke to his collectioÌ„s out of this place First that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ. That shall easily â–ª he graunted Secondly that Melchisâ—dech was a figure of Chrisâ— in three pointeâ— and theâ— the Authour doth applie them all to Christ namely a Priest of the highest GOD in offering sacrifice to his father and that he offered the very same that Melchisedech did which was bread and wine But these two Master Heskins â–ª you would make all one when you expound the sacrifice that he offered to his father to bee the bread and wine that he offered in the supper and so there shall not be three pointes Besides that you are enforced to confesse that Christ offered bread and wine to his father the very same that Melchisedech did offer which I am sure was no accidents and so you doe flatly ouerthrowe your owne dearling transubstantiation Your next cauil is of obiâ—â—lie protulie whereas both the text and Cyprian haue protiliâ— he broughâ— foorth although he seemeth to thinke that he brought it out eo offer And therefore to the impudencie that you charge your aduersaries withall will sit still in your owne brasen forehead For although he thinketh that Melchisedech offered the bread and wine which he brought foorth yet he cyteth the scripture truly And Melchisedech brought foorth bread and wine and he was a priest of the highest GOD which you haue most impudently falsified as I shewed before saying for he was a Priest. Your third glose you bring to proue that the sacrifice which Christ offered was but on the crosse but at the supper is that the image of the sacrifice went before which the Lord perfected and fulfilled offering bread and the cup mixed with wine Anâ— though that sacrifice may not be referred to his sacrifice on the crosse bicause the image thereof was ordeined in bread and wine and yet he fulfilled the trueth of the prefigured image when hee offered bread and wine in the supper as a sacrament of that sacrifice which he offered on the crosse as Cyprian in the first senteÌ„ce of this place doth cal it And for most cleare demonstratioÌ„ that Cyprian by sacrifice meaneth a sacrament signe and memorial of the passion of Christ not a sacrifice properly consider his owne wordes in the same Epistle Et quia passionis eius mentioneÌ„ in sacrifioijs omnibus facinous pastio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus And because wee make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices for the sacrifice which wee offer is the Lordes passion wee ought to doe nothing but that he did him selfe This one place will aunswere all that can bee brought out of Cyprian or any olde doctour for the sacrifice of the Lords supper The sacrifice which wee offer is the Lordes passion sayth Cyprian what was Christe crucified in their sacrifices or were their sacrifices nothing els but a sacrameÌ„t of thankes giuing for the passion of Christe You see by this place howe vnproperly they spake but yet so as of reasonable men they might well inough bee vnderstoode and they them selues do often expounde them selues Wherfore thou seest reader what iniurie the papistes doe vnto the doctors when they faine such monsters to be begotten by them while they interprete literally which the doctors did write figuratiuely But to the testimonie of Isychius which is a curious allegorie of sacrifices wherin no merueyle if he vse the name of sacrifice figuratiuely or vnproperly his wordes are these And what is this sacrifice Two tenth deales of fine flower sprinkeled with oyle For wâ—e must knowe to contemper the perfect manhoode and the perfecte Godhood that it to come together into one in oyle that is by that comparison which hee hath towarde vs For so the sacrifice is founde a sweete sauour to our lord when wee vnderstande of him thinges that bee worthie In what thinges the sacrifice whiche is the oblation of the intelligible lambe is and by whome it is done howe it is celebrated that whiche followeth declareth For neither by vnreasonable beastes doth God receiue sacrifice of vs as the wordes that followe-doe plainely shewe â—or hee saith and the drinke offering of it shall bee of wine the fourth part of an Hiâ— bread Polentant M. Heskins calleth it parched corne Because peraduenture it might haue been doubtfull by whome the mysterie of the sacrifice whiche is by Christs that wee spake of before is celebrated behold thou hast the oblation of intelligible Melchisedech which is perfourmed in breade and wine in which the fourth parte of an Him is offered in drinke offeringes of wine that by the fourth part hee might signifie the tradition or deliuerie of the Gospell which is in foure bookes â–ª by the drinke offering the Lordes worde when hee saith This is my bloude which shall bee shedde for you for it seemed good to the lawe giuer without diminishing to signifie the mysterie of Christe And then againe hee saith The oblation of these present giftes which we haue shewed to bee the mysterie of the onely begotten sonne hath reconciled vs to God and giuen vs the meate of the newe parched corne Nowe to M. Heskins collections Wee must learne here that Melchisedech did not only bring forth but also offer bread and wine In deed wee learne that Isychius thought so And that Christ the intelligible Melchisedech did sacrifice in breade and wine Yea but this sacrifice was a mysterie of that sacrifice whiche hath reconciled vs to God for so saith Isychius also and that no man offered this sacrifice but hee himselfe for that hee saith also Reade ouer the place if you doubte of my collection By which it is plaine it was not the sacrifice of the masse that euerie hedge priest may offer But that wee shoulde not say that it was bare breade that hee sacrificed he sheweth what breade it was saying by the drinke offering hee woulde signifie that of which hee saide this is my bloude See this impudent falsarie the writer saith hee woulde signifie Dominician sermonem the Lordes worde and hee saith that of which he saide c. Where is then the breade that the mysterie might bee fullie signified Is it not that which he calleth the tradition of the Gospell which is in foure bookes I dispute not howe well he applyeth these thinges but it is more then manifest that he speaketh so figuratiuely that no argument can be fastened of his wordes for the carnal presence And whereas M. Heskins shrinketh in his hornes about the oblation of bread and wine saying it was not bare breade but he sheweth what bread it was Let him aunswere me plainly if he dare for his eares Was it verie bread and wine which Christ did sacrifice or no If he say it was verie bread and wine then
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
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
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
him take among his innoceÌ„t disciples that which the faithful know our price But when Augustine him selfe saith the sacraments beare the name of those thinges whereof they are sacraments it is no maruell if the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ be called our price whereof it is a figure or sacrament especially seeing Augustine flatly denyeth that Iudas did receiue the bread which was the Lorde but only the Lords bread This conference therefore maketh against him not for him As for Theophylactes authoritie which he calleth a plaine place for the proclamer wee refuse although it is not so plaine as he pretendeth for we also affirme that the sacrament is not a bare figuration of the flesh of Christ but his flesh in deede spiritually receiued Finally Tertullians place De resur Car. is nothing at all for him Caâ—o corpore c. The flesh eateth the body and bloud of Christ that the soule may be fed with God. For by the body and bloud of Christe he meaneth the sacrament of them which is called by the name of that is figured or signified by it As for the last shift that No Catholique Doctour saith that the sacrament is only a figure is too childish for a Doctour to vse for in these words of Tertullian Corpus meum id est â–ª figura corporis met my body that is to say a figure of my body there needeth not to be added the exclusiue onely for the latter part is a description of the former which must containe all that is in the thing described or else it is nothing worth as for example If I say M. Heskins is a man that is to say a soule it were fond and ridiculous but when I say he is a man that is to say a reasonable â—ight I neede not say he is onely so for I haue said before as much as he is and so hath Tertullian Meaning that the sacrament is a figure but not a common or bare figure but a diuine and mysticall token not only to signifie but also to assure vs of the spirituall feeding of vs with the body and bloud of Christ. The fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by S. Cyprian and Athanasius First he alledgeth Cyprian de cÄ™na Domini in these words Significata olim a tempore Melchisedech c. For vnderstaÌ„ding of which place seeing he referreth his reader to the first booke and 29. Chapter where he handleth it more at large thither also will I referre him for answer where the place is at large rehearsed and discussed But out of the same sermon of S. Cyprian he hath a plaine place for M. Iewel Which is this Nonâ— est â—uius sacramenti doctrina c The doctrine of this sacrament is newe and the Euangelicall schooles first brought foorth this manner of teaching and Christ beeing the teacher This learning was first made knowen to the worlde that Christian men should drinke bloud the eating whereof the authoritie of the olde lawe doeth most straitly forbidde For the lawe forbiddeth the eating of bloud the Gospell commandeth that it should be dronke In which commandemâ—â—tâ— this moste cheefely ought the Christian religion to discerne that the bloud of beastes differing in all thinges from the bloud of Christe hath onely the effect of temporall releefe and the life of them haâ—h an end appointed without reuocation Hereupon he noteth that the Christians drinke the bloud of Christ which I graunt but spiritually for so Cyprian expoundeth himselfe in the same sermon vt sciremus quòd mansio nostra in ipsâ— fit manducatio potus quasi quaedam incorporatio That we should knowe that our eating is our dwelling in him and ouâ— drinking it as it were a certeine incorporatioâ— in him And againe Esus igitur carnis huius quaedam auiditas est quoddem desiderium manendi in eo c. Therefore the eating of his flesh is a certeine desire to abide in him c. These and such like places doe proue a spirituall eating and drinking of his bloud and none other He noteth further that this is called of Cyprian a new doctrine and therefore it can not be the drinking of the figure of the bloud of Christ for that was olde I answere briefly it was so new as the gospel is the new Testament whiche yet was preached to Adam and Eue but not so clearely and distinctly as since the time of Christ and so was the eating of the bodie and bloud of Christe all one with that it is now differing but in manner of reuelatioÌ„ and not in substance of spirituall foode Athanasius is alledged as he is cited in Theodoret Dial. 2. in confus Corpus est c. It is therfore a bodie to whom he saith for them on my right hand Whereof the diuel was enimie with the euill powers and the Iewes and the Greekes By which bodie he was in deede and so was called an high priest and Apostle by that mysteria which he dâ—liuered to vs saying â–ª This is my bodie whiche is broken for you And the bloud of the new Testament not of the old which is shedd for you The Godhead hath neither bodie nor bloud but man which he did take of the virgine Marie He meaneth nothing lesse than that the sacrament was his natural body and bloud but that he could not haue instituted a mysterie of hiâ— bodie and bloud except he had ben a very man which hath bodie and bloud for the godhead hath none And therfore the rule that M. Heskins giueth that scriptures must be alledged in their literal sense in matters of faith is to litle purpose although it may stand well in this place For the mysterie of his bodie proueth his humanitie without any allegorie or other figure as I haue shewed before Athanasius is likewise alledged in the second Nicen counsell Serm. de 〈◊〉 Iesu in Berito How truly I will not say but thus he is reported to say of the bloud of Christ which was said to be in many places which he denietâ— to haue come froÌ„ Christ but from an image that was crucified Nec esse aliter 〈◊〉 a vere Catholicis praeâ—â—r id quod 〈◊〉 à nobis quasi ex carne sanguine Christi aliqâ—id pasâ—â— i◠〈◊〉 inuâ—â—iri nisi 〈◊〉 quod in aera altarit per manus sacerdanuâ— quotiâ—ie spiritualiter officitur Neither is it otherwise to be thought of true Catholiques then is written of vs as though any part of the flesh bloud of Christ may be found in the world but that which on the altar is euerie day made spiritually by the handes of the priestes I do not cite this as the vndoubted authoritie of Athanasius but thinke rather it was forged in his name as many other thinges were in that wicked idolatrous counsel yet it appeared that the maker of that sermon so the Church in such time as he liued had not receiued the Popish corporall presence The one and
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
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
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
which terme he giueth to the waters in baptisme Maister Heskins chattereth I wot not what about it nor to what purpose Certaine it is that he vseth not the terme as the Papistes doe for they apply it only to the sacrament of the altar as they call it Leo is cited Serm. 7. de pass dom Iesus confisij sui certus c. Iesus being at a point with him selfe and ready to doe his fathers disposition without feare finished the olde Testament and made the newe Passeouer For his disciples sitting with him to eate the mysticall supper while they in the house of Caiphas were treating howe Christ might be slaine he ordaining the sacrament of his body and bloud did teach what manner of sacrifice should be offered to God and from this mysterie remoued not the traytour This place being against Maister Heskins where hee calleth it the sacrament of his body and bloud c. hee would aunswere the matter by this principle that olde writers did so call the very naturall body of Christ in the sacrament which is all the matter in question But hee will proue it by an other saying in the same place Vt vmbrae c. That shaddowes might giue place to the body and images might ceasse vnder the presence of the trueth the olde obseruance is taken away with a newe sacrament the sacrifice passeth into the sacrifice bloud excludeth bloud and the festiuitie of the lawe while it is chaunged is fulfilled These wordes must needes bee referred to the passion of Christe whereof the sacrifice is a memoriall for the sacrifice of Christe and his bloud shedding on the crosse was the very fulfilling of the shaddowe and image of the Paschall Lambe in the olde lawe and not the institution of the sacrament whiche is a figure or sacrament thereof And so the groundwork of al M. Hes. building is quite ouerthrown The seuen and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same wordes by S. Cyrill and S. Gregorie Cyrillus is cited as he is often ad Colosyrium Non dubites an c. Doubt thou not whether this be true when hee saith manifestly This is my body but rather receiue the worde of our Sauiour in faith For seeing hee is the trueth hee doth not lye Maister Heskins inferreth that the wordes of Christe are manifest and so to be taken in the literall sense without figure bicause he vseth these wordes Christ saide manifestly this is my body but this is a childish mockerie Christe saide manifestly I am the doore Doeth it therefore followe that it is no figuratiue speach and that the woordes of Christe are manifest and therefore to bee taken in the literall sense And yet I beleeue bicause Christ saide manifestly I am the doore that he is in deede the doore though not literally but figuratiuely taken It greueth M. Hes. that the proclamer should play with Duns his indiuidâ—um vagum saying that by the like meanes hee might disgrace the faith of the trinitie to open the quiddities of distinctions and relations of persons that bee spoken thereof And I thinke the same if hee shoulde teach that holy mysterie after the schoole manner not after the word of god But he returneth to an other place of Cyrill Ne horreremus carnem sanguinem Bicause this place is already rehearsed more at large and answered in the 51. Chap. of this booke I will send the reader backe to consider it in that place Gregorie is cited Lib. 4. dialog cap. â—8 Debemus itaque praesens sÄ™culum c. We ought therfore seing we see this present world to be passed away with al our mind to contemne it to offer to god the daily sacrifices of teares the daily sacrifices of his body and bloud For this sacrifice doth singularly saue the soul from eternal destruction which repayreth to vs the death of the only begotten by a mysterie Who although since he arose from death he doth not now dy and death shal haue no more dominion of him yet liuing in him self immortally incorruptibly is sacrificed againe for vs in this mysterie of the holy oblation For his body is there receiued his flesh is diuided for the health of the people his bloud is shed not nowe vpon the hands of the Infidels but into the mouthes of the faithfull Hereof therefore let vs consider what sacrifice this is for vs which for our deliuerance doeth followe the passion of the onely begotten Sonne For which of the faithfull ought to haue any doubt that in the same houre of the immolation the heauens are opened at the Priestes voyce that the companies of Angels are present in the mysterie of Iesus Christ That the lowest things are coupled to the highest earthly things are ioyned to heauenly thinges and that one thing is made of thinges visible and inuisible Of these last wordes of ioyning high and lowe heauenly and earthly thinges he maketh a greate matter which is saith hee that Christe is ioyned to the earthly formes of breade and wine Where note I praye you that he nameth the accidents of things for the thinges them selues which is a toy to mocke an ape And yet he pleaseth him selfe so well therein that he would drawe Irenaeus which is cleane contrarie to transubstantiation to bee a great patrone thereof Irenaeus saith as wee haue shewed before more at large that Eucharistie consisteth of two thinges earthly and heauenly Nowe hee inquireth of vs what is the heauenly part of the sacrament And he reasoneth that it is neither the grace of God nor thanksgiuing nor the worde of God nor sanctification Well what is it then Gregorie saith it is the bodye of Christ and so say we spiritually receiued But if I shuld aske M. Hes. what is the earthly part of the sacrament hee wil say the accidents of bread wine but sauing his wisdome accidents be neither earthly not heauenly but the earthly thing must needs be a substantiall thing what other earthly substance can there be but the substance of bread and wine He saith that corporall receiuing is here auouched by Gregory Then must he tel me how in these words the sacrifice of teares is matched with the sacrifice of his flesh and bloud and how the death of Christe is repaired by a mysterie howe the fleshe of Christ is diuided or parted if this can not bee done but spiritually then Christes body can not be eaten but spiritually The iudgement of Barnard which followeth we leaue to be weighed according to the corruption of the age in which he liued The eigth and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition among the eldest Fathers by Euthymius and Isidorus Although neither of these writers are within the compasse of the challenge yet bicause Euthymius vseth much to followe auncient Doctours and Isidorus was neere the time of the challenge I will set downe their places and examine their wordes Euthymius is cyted In 26. Math. Sicut vetus testamentum c.
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
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
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
tarie one for an other 1. Cor. 11. for the Communion By which it is euident that it is not lawfull for euery man to haue his priuate Masse as M. Heskins would most absurdly proue As for the sacrifice propitiatorie of their Masse hath all those scriptures against it that set foorth the only propitiatorie sacrifice of Christ and namely Heb. 9. 10. Furthermore M. Heskins findeth the name of Masse vsed of Saint Ambrose Ep. 33. Ego mansi in munere missam facere coepi orare in oblatione Deum vt subueniret I did abide in mine office I beganne to say masse to pray to God in the sacrifice that he would helpe Howe faithfull a reporter of antiquitie Maister Heskins is to be coūted this place among a great number doth sufficiently declare and that he receiued not this text out of Ambrose him selfe but out of some other mans collection or relation Ambrose in that Epistle writing to his sister Marcellina about deliuering of a church to the heretiques which he refused to do at the Emperour Valentinianes request writeth thus Sequenti die erat autem Dominica post lectiones atque tractatum dimissis Catechumenis Symbolum aliquibus competentibus in baptisterijs tradebam Basilicae Illic nunciatum est mihi comperto quòd ad Portianam Basilicam de palatio decanos misissent vela suspenderēt populi partem eò pergere Ego tamen mansi in munere missam facere coepi Dum offero raptum cognoui a populo Castulum quendam quem Presbyterum dicerent Arriani Hunc autem in platea ostenderant transeuntes Amarissimè flere orare in ipsa oblatione Deum coepi vt subueniret ne cuius sanguis in causa Ecclesiae fieret certè vt meus sanguis pro salute non solùm populi sed etiam pro ipsis impijs effunderetur Quid multa Missis Presbyteris Diaconis eripui iniuria virum The day following which was Sunday when the learners of Catechisme were dismissed after the Lessons that were read and the treatise made vpon them I was instructing in the Creede certaine that desired Baptisme in the baptizing place of the Church There it was tolde me after it was knowne that they had sent officers from the Palace vnto the church called Portiana hanged vp clothes for the Emperor that part of the people were going thither I for all that abid in mine office I beganne to let it goe While I offered I vnderstoode by the people that one Castulus was taken by force whome the Arrians saide to be a priest Him had they found as they passed by in the streate I beganne to weepe most bitterly and to pray to God in the very oblation that hee would helpe that no mans bloud might bee shed in the cause of the Church and truely that my bloud might be shed not onely for the sauegard of the people but also for the vngodly them selues What neede many wordes I sent Priestes and Deacons and deliuered the man from iniurie I knowe M. Heskins will not allowe me to translate missam facere to let goe the Church seeing they had entered vpon it the rather bicause offero and oblatione doth followe But notwithstanding seing Masse is neuer named in S. Augustin Hierome nor any other place of Ambrose in his or their authenticall writings I can not of the onely colour and coniecture of oblation folowing be resolued that S. Ambrose vseth missam facere to say Masse For although I confesse that the name of Missa for the Communion began neare about that time to be in vse yet did they neuer vse that phrase missam facere but missum or missarum solennia celibrare to celebrate the Masse or the solemnities of Masses for so they called the administration of the Communion Whereas missam facere can not be translated to say Masse but rather to make Masse Againe if the only cōiecture of offero and oblatione following were sufficient to proue missa to signifie Masse M. Heskins might by the like colour of Priestes and Deacons following translate Missis Presbyterie Diaconibus c. with Masses Priests and Deacons I deliuered the man from iniurie But to take it at the worst that the name of missa is here vsed for Masse yet was this within the time of the Bishops limitation no Popish Masse but a Christian communion although some abuses perhaps were in it And for the decrees of Thelesphorus Sixtus Alexander and such like Bishoppes of Rome bycause they bee meere mockeries and counterfeted long after their times to get credite by the antiquitie of their names I will loose no time in confuting them And whereas M. Heskins saith the proclamer reiecteth them without proofe although it be not to be required that in a sermon such matters should be debated at large as in publique writings are throughly knowne to be debated and determined among the best learned yet will I adde this one disproofe or two of those Epistles to be forged First Eusebius which was a most diligēt gatherer of such writings found none such in his time Secondly if there were nothing else the very barbarous phrase of them all and the false Latine that is in many is sufficient to conuince them for counterfets seing there was no vnlearned womā in Rome in those times but spake better Latin thē these men feigne those learned Bishops to haue writen in those decretall Epistles But M. Hesk. will proue Alexander to be the Authour of that Epistle which is ascribed to him and therein will vse neither bare wordes nor faint likelyhoods In deed for likelihoods he vseth none either faint or strong but in steede of authoritie whereof he bosteth he vseth none at all but very bare wordes He onely quoteth in the margent The 6. Counsel of Constantinople not naming so much as in what part or action thereof this matter is intreated of the actes of that counsel being contained in a great booke as large as M. Hesk. third book at the least And surely although I haue vsed some diligence in search yet I can finde no such matter nor this Alexander once named in that Counsell In deede I found long since Dionysius authoritie cited by the name of Dionyscus Areopagisa Bishop of Athens which is the matter that perhaps deceiued M. Hes. or him that ministred notes of authorities vnto him But to be short the assurance remaineth still vnshaken which the proclamer made in his sermon that the name of Masse is not found in ancient writers vntil 400. yeres after christ As for the Masse it selfe if hee meane that forme of seruice vsed in the Church of Rome and of them commonly called Masse he knoweth it was not throughly peeced together 600. yeares after christ For Gregorie had no small share in it and he confesseth in this Chapter that Telesphorus Sixtus Alexander Felix added somewhat vnto it As for the preparatorie prayers of Ambrose hee doth well not to auouch them to be his bicause
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
the sacrament was ministred therefore one Priest did not eat vp all alone in Chrysostomes time To the saying of Ambrose which the Bishop alledgeth in 1 Cor. 11. Inuicem expectaâ—â— c. Ad inuicem expectandum dicit vt multorum oblatio simul celebratur vt omnibus ministretur He sayeth they ought to tarie one for another that the oblation of many might bee celebrated together and that it might be ministred vnto them all M. Heskins aunswereth that this doctour doth onely reproue their want of deuotion which is false for he doth also shewe that all ought to communicate together or else it is not to eat the Lordes supper vppon which wordes of the Apostle he sayeth also Murius enim oblatum tosius populi sit quia in vno paene omnes significantur per id quod enim vnum sumus de vno paene omnes nâ—c sumere oportet For the gift which is offered belongeth to all the people because they are all signified in one bread for in that wee are one we ought to receiue all of one bread If al must then one ought not alone As for that balde shift hee flyeth vnto that all priestes in seuerall places communicate together is too bad for a begger to vse for so might the Corinthians whome the Apostle reproueth for not tarying one for another say they communicated with them whome they left out and with al Christians in the worlde But now M. Heskins with full sayle in rayling seas inueigheth against the proclaimer for falsifying wrong translating of Leo when hee doth not translate him at all but onely doth gather the summe of his saying in fewe wordes and that truely though hee name neither Masse nor sacrifice which are in the saying of Leo which how little it maketh either for the popish Masse or for the sacrifice propitiatorie or finally for the priuate Masse I desire the reader to returne to the 32. Chapter of this booke where he shall finde the place at large set downe and vrged which therefore I thought it in vaine to repeat in this Chapter After this hee defendeth that by the Masse booke they are not bounde to haue a communion but one priest may receiue alone And whereas the Bishop rehearseth diuerse exhortations to prayer vsed in the Masse as Oremus let vs praye Orate pro me fratres sorores pray for me brethren and sisters c. And after the Agnus Dei haec sacro sancta c. This holie commixtion and consecration of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ be vnto mee to all that receiue it health of mind bodie All which sayings import a number present the last a number receiuing whereas in the priuate Masse there is neuer a brother or sister present many times but one sorie boy that helpeth the priest to Masse though they be present yet vnderstaÌ„d they not that they are bidden to pray for the priest when he turneth about Maister Hesk. trifleth vpon the former prayers separating them from the last and affirming that they may pray together though they do not receiue together For he saith there be two communions in the Masse beside the receiuing and therfore-belike that is not needefull the one of prayer the other of sacrifice and as for the last prayer for them that receiue is not ment onely of them that receiue in the church at that time but for all receiuers of all places and times when and wheresoeuer But what reason hath he to persuade vs that those brethren sisterne whome the priest firste exhorteth to pray for him that their sacrifice might be acceptable to God are not the same which ought to receiue with him neuerthelesse in the ende supposing the priestes prayeth with limitation of time and place he sayth it is no reason that if the people will not receiue the priest should not ye as verily because Christe instituted a communion of many participantes in one time and place and not one priests breakefast in a corner by him selfe Againe the wordes of the Masse Omnibus sumentibus to all which do receiue and quae sumpsimus which wee haue receiued doe proue a number of receiuers and which haue receiued at thaâ— time and in that place or else the Priest should saye to mee which receiue it and which I haue receiued And whereas Maister Heskins chargeth the proclaimer for adding the worde Consecration which is not in their Masse booke I confesse I knowe not whether it be in all coppies omitted but I am persuaded the bishop had some ground of his saying or else it might be the faulte of the Printer But whereas the proclaimer alledgeth the Canons of the Apostles and decrees of the bishops of Rome Maister Heskins sayth as odious as the Popes be to him faine he is to praye ayde of them But he is altogether deceiued God be thanked the holy scriptures are sufficient for vs both to proue al trueth and to disproue all errours But if either counsels or Popes decrees be alledged it is to beat downe the Papistes with their owne weapons and to cast their owne doung in their owne faces as the Prophet sayeth But let vs heare the Canon of the Apostles Can. 9. Fideles c. The faithfull which come to the Church and heare the Scriptures and receiue not the holye communion let them be excommunicated as men that disquiet the church Here he doth most impudently charge the proclaimer with falsification which he himself committeth alledging it not out of the booke of Canons but out of the Popes dirtie decrees Omnes fideles c. All Christian men that in the solemne seruice come together to the church let them heare the scriptures of the Apostles the Gospell And such as continue not in prayer vntill masse be all done nor do receiue the holie communion it is meete they be excommunicated as such as moue disquietnesse to the church but that the learned reader may see how syncerely the bishop hath dealt how falsly Hesk. belyeth him I wil set down the Canon in Greek as it was firste written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the faithfull or Christians which enter into the church and heare the Scriptures but tarrie not out the prayer the holie coÌ„munion or participation ought to be separated as causers of disorder in the Church Here you see no mention of Masse at all And if any ignorant papist dare not trust my translation out of Greeke let him vnderstand that in the book of councels he shal find two translations of this the rest of those Canons called the Canons of the Apostles of which the bishop hath followed the one but Hesk. neither of both for as I said before there is no mention of the Masse in any of them Therfore what is the falsification committed in the Popes lawe out of which he citeth it how honestly in so doing reprouing the bishop for following the trueth let the readers iudge But
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
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
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
Iustinian which was almost 660. yeares after christ Cod. de summa trini◠lege 4. writing to Pope Ioannes Sanctitas vestra capu◠est omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum Your holines is heade of all holy churches I will not quarrell with him that he citeth the words otherwise then they are read in that Epist. by which it seemed he saw not the book himself but I answere that this epistle is a meere counterfet and forged euidence being not founde in the auncient coppies and therefore hath no glose of age vppon it as it is testified by Gregorius Haloander in a marginall note vppon the same Epistle No maruaile if a false title be defended with a forged euidence For if no men had admonished vs of that forgery yet the verie style vnlike Iustinians writing in other places argueth a later inuenter then either that Ioannes or Iustinian Likewise he citeth the saying of Eugenius not long before bishop of Carthage which called the Churche of Rome the head of all Churches and yet he reposed not all his confidence in the bishoppe of Romes aucthoritie but saide he woulde write to his brethren the other bishoppes that they might come to demonstrate the true faith against the Arrians especially to the bishop of the Church of Rome which is the head of all the Churches meaning the principall Churche Vict. lib. 2. 70 Thirdly hee citeth the words of the bishop of Patara intreatinge the Emperour Iustinian for Syluerius bishoppe of Rome whom he had banished There is not one king as Syluerius is Pope ouer the church of that whol world This bishoppe being 550. yeares after Christ and a suter also is not sufficient to make the Bishop of Rome so great a king And whereas Maister Sander sayeth that the Emperor yeelded to his saying repented willed him to be restored and therfore chargeth M. Iewel with impudency for alledging the example of Iustinian banishing Syluerius and Vigilius to proue that he had somewhat to doe in the churche of Rome affirming that hee might as well alledge the homicide and adultery of Dauid to prooue that hee had somewhat to doe with an other mans wife the trueth is M. Sanders forgeth a matter contrary to al histories which affirme that Syluerius dyed in banishment And how vnlike it is that Iustinianus repented of the banishinge of Syluerius vppon the words of the bishop of Patara in respect that he was Pope ouer the church of the whole worlde appeareth by this that he afterward banished Vigilius his next successor in the same sea The wordes of Liberatus whom M.S. citeth cap. 22. bee these Quem audiens imperator reuocari Roman◠Syluerium iussit c. Whom when the Emperour heard he commaunded that Syluerius shoulde be called againe to Rome and that iudgement should be made of these letters so that if it were prooued that they were written by him the bishop might remaine in any citie and if they were prooued to bee false he shoulde bee restored to his owne See. These wordes doe manifestly shew that Iustinian repented him not of banishing the Pope as a thing vnlawfull for him to doe but onely that whereas it was alledged in the Popes behalfe that the letters of treason were forged which he was charged to haue written to the Emperours enemies Iustinian was content that his cause might come to a newe iudgement and if he were found cleare to bee restored if not to continue in banishment To conclude the sayinges of Gregory bishop of Rome in defence of his owne dignitie are of small credit And yet they are a great deale more modest then the proude decrees of his successours For he challengeth the hearing of such controuersies only as arise in those dioces which haue no Metropolitane or Patriarche of their owne to resort vnto to determine them And againe I cannot tell what bishop is not subiect to the Apostolike See if any fault be found in them otherwise all the bishoppes are equall lib. 11. Ep. 58. lib. 7. Ep. 64. 70 The fame glorie and authoritie of the auncient church of Rome is a shame and dishonour to the present popish church of Rome Because it keepeth not nowe but hath altogether reiected the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles that Irenęus commended in his time libr. 3. Cap. 3. nor holdeth that rule or beleefe of the Apostles vndefyled which Ambrose praised in his time Ep. 81. 71 This land of Britaine receiued the faith of Christ as Gildas a Britaine a more auncient and certeine writer then Ado M. Sanders author in the time of the reigne of Tiberius 160. before Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome by the preaching of the Apostles and Euangelists as some write of Saint Paule some of Saint Simon of Cana some of Saint Philip some of Ioseph of Aramathia Neither did Eleutherius sende Fugatius and Damianus by him selfe or as of authoritie but being required by Lucius or Leuer Maure one of the little Kinges of some shiere of Britaine as Ninnius a Britaine doeth testifie For that Lucius was King of all Britaine it is proued false by all the Romaine histories which testifie that the Emperour was then soueraigne of Britaine vnder whome ruled certeine petie Kinges in some partes not throughly conquered 72 Beda an English Saxon more like to knowe matters of this lande then Prosper a forreyne writer affirmeth that the Britaine 's against the Pellagians heretiks desired ayde of the Bishops of Fraunce who by a Synod there gathered sent Germanus and Lupus two Bishops to confute the Pelagians without any sending to Rome or from Coelestinus Bishop of Rome lib. 1. Cap. 17. Likewise the seconde time at the request of the Clergie of Britaine Germanus returneth with Seuerus to roote out the heresie of the Pellagians 73 The zeale of Gregorie the first is to be commended that he sent Augustine to conuert the Saxons to the faith of Christe although the superstitions which hee brought in with the Christian faith cannot be defended The diligence of Augustin in teaching according to his knowledge deserueth praise yet can it not make him an Apostle because an Apostle hath his calling immediatly of God Gal. 1. If we report his pride and crueltie as wee finde in our histories written by Papistes let the worlde iudge whether we or they do him iniurie 74 From Vitellianus the Pope was Theodorus a Grecian sent to be Archebishop of Caunterburie rather to reteine the countrie vnder the vsurped authoritie of the Romish bishop then to instruct them in matters perteining to the faith For the Pope him selfe was afraide of him that beeing a Gręcian hee shoulde teache any thing contrarie to the Romishe religion Beda lib. 4. Cap. 1. 75 King Henrie the eight found his dominions subiect to the tyrannie of the Pope of Rome which vppon good ground and authoritie of the scriptures hee banished out of his realme what cause soeuer papistes do surmise or to speake plainly notwithstanding the iniurious and contumelious dealing of the Pope about
images whiche Eusebius sawe and where should he see them but in the Churche in Constantine his time I haue shewed before where he might see them among the Heathens and Heretikes And that he sawe none in the Church appeareth in the Panaegynt ad Paulin. Tyr. Epū Lib. 10. Cap. 4. where a godly Church is described in euerie small parte and ornament of it yet no image at all spoken of which should not haue beene omitted if it had beene seene there especially beeing such necessarie ornamentes of Churches as the Papistes account them But Iulianus the runnagate saith he out of the tripertite historie Lib. 6. Cap. 41. brake that Image and the Christians afterwarde gathered vp the peeces and laide them in a Churche If this be not giuing of honour to Christes images he cannot tell what is honouring of Images Yes M. Sander to set candels before them to kneele to them to pray to them to kisse them to offer to them to make vowes to them to ascribe health to them c. These are honouring of images vsed of Papistes other maner of honouring then those Christians are saide to haue vsed For if it be credible that the peeces of brasse lay in the streete vntill Iulianus was dead that they might be gathered vp of the Christians and were not molten to none other vse by the Paganes yet why did not the Christians rather melt them make them a new image then lay them vp in the Church But M. Iewell is charged to speake if he dare what he would do if he chaunced to come into the same Church where the image of Christ were kept whether he would follow Iulianus in breaking it rather then the Christians in reseruing it He is now at rest with God hauing fought a good fight fulfilled his course and kept the faith wayting for the crowne of righteousnes which shal be giuen him by God the righteous iudge in that day so that he can make M. Sander none answer but thus I thinke he would haue resolued his question when he liued in this world He wold neither followe the spightfull malice of Iulian nor the superstitious emulation of those Christians but do with it as it became a Christian man according to Gods commandement and his calling And for my parte M. Sander I dare speake vnto you what I thinke I am one which esteeme monuments as much as any one poore man of my degree In so muche that a wise man perhaps might say vnto me Insanis veteres statuas Damasippus emendè And therfore if I had in my priuate possessiō such images of Christ Peter and Paul as Eusebius did see and that I were assured they were the true counterfets of their bodies or countenances as those which he did see were supposed to be I would so esteeme them as I do the Images of Caesar Pompeius Tulla and such like and peraduenture for the rarenesse much more but not a pinne the more in respect of religion For I do so honour auncient images that I make as great account of a peece of Nero or Heliogabalus as I do of Constantius and Theodosius But if I had authority of a Church in which were an image of pure gold representing the whole stature countenance apparell of Christ as he walked vpon the earth which were abused to idolatrie as your Popish images haue beene and are in some places vnto this day I would rather breake it in peeces by the example of Ezechias cast it into the deepe sea then either I would suffer idolatrie to be committed vnto it or preserue it to be a snare to them that liued after me to runne a whoring after it But as for your euill fauoured blockes and stones which haue none other shape or name but such as the idol of the workemans brayne hath giuen them and being set vp to be worshipped I would no more esteeme them then the myre in the streete or that whiche is more vile although you crie vntill you be hoarse they are the holy images of Christe of the blessed Trinitie of Saint Peter and S. Paule For to a Christian man they are abhomination THE XI or X. CHAP. That by the lawe of nature honour is due to the images and monuments of honourable personages And by what meanes that may be knowen Also that the law of nature standeth always immutable how the law of nature may be known Seuen causes of honoring artificial images God preferred images before only sounds of words The art of making images is good All nations honored Images that were worthie of honour The image breakers are ashamed to confesse that they breake Christes images The doctrine of the Catholikes concerning Images Maister Iewels contrarie doctrine to the same The holie Ghoste by Saint Paule hath well giuen vs warning saying Take heede that no man spoyle you through philosophie and vaine deceipt according to the tradition of men and not according to Iesus Christ. Col. 2. ver 8. and by the same sentence he hath also taught vs how we should esteeme all that doctrine that is commended vnto vs without the worde of God vnder what glorious and plausible title so euer namely for vaine deceitfulnesse By which rule when we examine this Chapter of Maister Sanders booke swelling with suche a proude title of the Lawe of nature we doe plainely perceiue that it is nothing else but a deceiptful vanitie with vaine sounde of wordes and friuolous reasons to goe about to make vs thinke that God hath written one law in nature and a cleane contrarie to that in his worde and holie scriptures The honouring of images in case of religion beeing expressely forbidden by the lawe of God written and the same an hundreth times repeated by the Prophetes and Apostles is the eternall wil of God and hath nothing in nature vncorrupted which is the ordinaunce of God contrarie vnto it And therefore I maruell what nature is in Maister Sanders iudgement whose lawe he defendeth to be neuer changed although God hath ruled his people in diuers manners sometime by inspiration somtime by outward voice custome and tradition sometime by written letter of the Lawe last of all by writing his own lawe of grace and spirite in their hearts I passe ouer that he calleth the last Gods owne lawe as though the rest were but borrowed but what is that vnchaungeable law of nature but Gods eternall lawe if that be not changed by the lawe written in letters then surely the lawe of nature abhorreth worshipping of images in religion which the lawe written forbiddeth Thus his first exposition ouerthroweth all the purpose of his Chapter Now to the second He hath two speciall grounds to helpe vs to finde out what the lawe of nature is in any case The one is the iudgement of right and sound reason the other is the practise of all nations But where shall we finde sound reason in any natural man When the light shineth in darknesse and the darkenesse
it might be no supersticious abuse Next to this he citeth Chrisostome Or. 1. De adorat cruâ—is that not onely the Crosse it selfe whereon Christe dyed but also the signe and shape of it ought to be worshiped and adored And againe he citeth afterward in this Chapter either the same or such an other Hom. de adoratione crucis But in all Chrisostomes workes there is no book oration homily sermon or treatise of any such title There be in the second tome two homilies de cruce latrone and a third de cruce dominica but in none of them is any such words as he citeth eius figuram effigiem coledam adorandamque or any thing to such purpose Wherefore I can not otherwise thinke but this is some blinde forgerie vnder the name of Chrisostome which is not extant in all his authenticall writings But Chrisostome in deede calleth the crosse whereon Christ dyed which was so much esteemed and whereof euery man desired to haue a peece inclosed it in golde hanged it about their neckes c. lignum condemnationis the woode of condemnation and the signe thereof so much vsed and esteemed Simbolum mortis the signe of death in demost ad gent. quod Chr. sit Deus But M. Sander will proue the worshipping of the signe of the crosse by lawe if it will not stande with diuinitie hee citeth Cod. Iust. tit 11. tom l. Vnica but it is Cod. Iust. lib. 1. tit 8. le nemini licere c. The Emperours Theodosius and Valentinianus made a law in these words Cum sit nobis cura diligens per omnia superni numinda religionem tueri signum Saluatoris Christi nemini licere vel in solo vel in silice vel in marmoribus humi positis insculpere vel pingere sed quocunque reperitur tolli granissima paena mulctandis â–ª si qui contrarium statutis nostris tentauerint specialiter imperamus Where as we haue diligent care to defend the religion of the highest God in all thinges wee specially commaunde that it shal be lawfull for no man to graue or paint the signe of our sauiour Christ either in the ground or in flint or marble stones lying on the ground but whersouer it is found to be taken away vnder a most greuous forfet to be paid of theÌ„ that attempt that which is contrary to our statuts Cod. Iust. Ti. 11. vnica This was a kinde of honoring the signe of the Crosse saith he when it was forbidden to be grauen on the ground least it should be dishonored if it were troden on euen as Helena S. Ambrose witnessing feared to tread vpon the crosse of Christ which he calleth the sacrament of saluation Of Helena we heard before that shee worshipped not the crosse howe much soeuer she made thereof And if this lawe were to be vnderstood as M. San. would haue it yet here is no worshipping of the crosse spoken of But touching the vnderstanding of this lawe M. Iewel is reproued first in citing it out of Petrus Crinitus who leaueth out these wordes humi positis lying on the ground which Iustinians Code addeth then in false translation wherof he wil speake afterward But concerning the first for as much as Petrus Crinitus was a learned man about that time when bookes beganne to be printed before this coÌ„trouersie of images was moued his report is more to bee credited then the Printers presse for the auncient reading of this lawe how so euer M. Sander fondly compareth him with Iustinian corrupted Moreouer to proue this corruption probable those wordes humi positis are altogether superfluous for when he had saide before in solo on the ground â–ª what neede he add afterward lying on the ground Also the disiunctiue vel or set before these words in solo which M. Sander hath cleane left out in his translation doth sufficiently declare that the Emperours meaning was to prohibite all grauing and painting of the signe of Christe whether it were of the crosse or of the image of Christ either on the ground or else where bicause it is against the religion of the high God to make any images or signes of him to any purpose As for the daunger of treading vpon the signe of the crosse is not in any one word of this lawe touched Neither was it a thing regarded in the deepest dungeon of Poperie for crosses images of Christ and of the Trinitie are yet to be seene of their making vpon a great number of graue stones in England to this day which argue that either the Papistes did against this lawe or else that this lawe had no such meaning as M. Sander feigneth it to haue But M. Iewell confesseth that the signe of the crosse was had in great regard among the Christians for that most worthie price that was offered vpon it and yet hee confesseth not that either they worshipped the signe of the crosse or that their regard was no greater theÌ„ it ought to haue bene For if any such regard had bene due to the signe of the crosse by Gods ordinaunce the Apostles that deliuered to vs all the counsell of God would not haue omited it in their writings Eph. 20. vers 20. 27. And M. Sander him selfe after he hath iangled a while confusely of regarding and worshipping at length confesseth that euery regard is not commonly taken for a worshipping but some is as the couetous mans regarding of money So that his argument and his conclusion is nothing else but a sophisticall conuersion of particulars which nothing toucheth the matter in controuersie Some worshipping is a regarding therefore some regarding is worshipping Both these are true and yet the regarding of the signe of the crosse is not thereby proued a worshipping thereof And yet he is not ashamed to proceede as though he had proued all regarding to be worshipping For hee saith If M. Iewell had a piece of that crosse that Christe dyed on he would preferre it before golde and siluer c. and this regard should be a worshipping or honouring of it I beleeue if M. Iewell had a piece that had bene worshipped hee would haue burned it and so would I. And yet if I had but a pibble stone that came out of the land of promise I would keepe it and make much of it so would I doe of the crosse if it were free from idolatrie but I would worshippe the one no more then the other How long will this sophisticall Doctour walke vnder a cloud of ambiguitie of words Let him either proue such honoring worshipping as the Papistes vse vnto the crosse or signe therof which is the thing we impugne to haue bene vsed in the eldest Primitiue Church or else let him striue about termes and words among sophisters children But if M. Iewel should take the crosse for no better then a common piece of wood hee should saith hee be blasphemous against the death of Christ. O grieuous accusation Ezechias tooke the brasen Serpent for no
Whether the same degree of honour be due to the Images of Christ or of his Saintes which is due to Christ and to the Saintes themselues Three things are to be considered in an artificial image M. Iewels forging is detected Doulia onely cōmeth to Christ by his image M. Iewell alledgeth wordes out of a booke which is forged The Churche honoureth not the image for his owne sake M.S. confesseth this pointe to be in controuersie betweene the Catholikes themselues But yet he saith it is a question of phylosophie rather then of diuinitie which the church hath not determined As though the churche had any thing to do to determine questions of phylosophie or as though a question about the true worship of God were not a question of diuinitie His sophisticall reasons on both sides are superfluous to repeat seeinge we take neither of both parts but denie that any kinde of religious honour is to be giuen to images yet briefely I will runne ouer the contentes of the chapter Three things he saith are to be considered in an artificial image the matter the forme and the representation The two former deserue no honour in religion but the representation onely The image as a representation is considered either as a part from the trueth and then it hath a lesse honour thē the trueth or els together with the trueth and then it must haue all one honour with the trueth And then he maketh the question this whether as his minde is in one instant mooued and caried by the meane of the image to the remembrance of the trueth so the honor of both be all one or no But if he were in the schooles at Cambridge the boyes would tell him that there can bee no mouinge in one instant because in euerie moouinge there must bee the marke from whence and the marke whereunto the moouinge is Neuerthelesse hee aunswereth this question with a doughtie distinction that the honour giuen to the image and to Christe is either the same in number or the same in kinde or degree And his opinion is that it is the same in number but not in degree And of this aunswere he maketh the seuenth generall councell auctor Actione 4. Where Iohannes vicegerent of the East saith Non sunt duae adorationes sed vna adoratio imaginis primi exēplaris cuius est imago There are not two adorations but one adoration of the image and of the first examplar whereof it is an image And here he raileth against M. Iewel for falsifying and forging in translating duae adorationes two sortes of worshipping and exemplifyinge his doctrine by Latria and Doulia whereof Iohannes meant not but the contrarie is taught before in the same Action How impudent and shamelesse the cauill of Master Sander is I haue shewed before when I rehearsed howe Constantius bishoppe of Constantia in Cypres affirmeth that he woulde giue the same honour to images that he did to the holy trinitie that giueth life vnto whome al the rest did assent So that M. Sanders opinion is contrary to the determination of the councel For he holdeth that not Latria but Doulia only commeth to Christ by his images By which opinion you see how greatly Christ is promoted that in steed of Latria a Diuine honour which they confesse to be due to him he must be content with the lower degree of honor by his image because the image can receiue nor cary no greater But if the image be neither a receiuer nor a carier Christ must lose all his honour as he doth indeed which is that way offered Yet saith Master Sander doth not his image any more hinder his honour then Sainte Paule doth For when I honour S. Paule for Christs sake no greater honour then Doulia commeth to Christ Verely Master Sander how it is when you honour S. Paule I knowe not but when I honour him for Christes sake I honour not him but Christ with Diuine honour as the onely author of those giftes of his spirite by whiche he is preferred before other men And where you say M. Iewel alledgeth wordes out of a book of Carolus Magnus written against that Idolatrous synode of Nice which is forged you speake not more peremtorily then falsly and perniciously For what reason haue you to prooue that booke to be forged forsooth you aske howe could Carolus Magnus write such a book which built so many churches and monasteries As though Churches and monasteries could not bee builded but by an idolater Yea which so diligently obeyed the B. of Rome which crowned him As though the bishop of Rome crowned him Emperour to be his slaue and an Idolater who left so many reliques at Aquisgraine and a little image of our Ladie with other Iewels Paraduenture as truely as the image of Diana came to the Ephesians from Iupiter Who caused the French men to conforme themselues in their Church song to the Romanes But where finde you that hee caused them to conforme themselues in image worshipping to the Grecians Finally a booke of such smal credit that neither the librarie whence it was taken nor towne where it is printed nor the man who printed it is named These be weightie reasons to discredit the booke as though it were necessarie that euery booke must come out of a librarie some haue ben preserued in priuate studies some haue beene closed vp in walles The place and name of the printer is not expressed for that it is like to haue bee printed where it might not be suffered to be solde But the very stile argueth it is not forged in our time and I haue before it a testimony of Mattheus West-monasteriensis which was writen about 200. yeares agoe that such a booke was written against that councell by Albinus or Alcuinus and presented to the French King Carolus whose name it beareth not perhappes written by him but by his commaundement and authority published After this he discourseth vpon Thomas of Aquines opinion which holdeth that diuine honour which they cal datria is due to the image of Christ which if it be an errour saith maister Sander it is an errour in Phisophie which to affirme is a most shamelesse absurditie Last of all he concludeth against S. Thomas that a lesse degree of honour is dewe to images then to the paterne affirming that the church honoreth not the image for his own sake for no man is taught to beleeue in images or to cal them his gods or to do sacrifice to them What say you M. Sander who teacheth pilgrimage to images doth not your churche And how can they pray to thē if they do not beleeue in them Who teacheth them to cal an image Christ that is their lord and God but euen you which defend images to be honoured by the names that they haue of the things whereof they be images Therefore when you call an ymage Christ you call it God and Lord sauiour and redeemer The image of the Trinitie