an ende of his life Euen so also he sayth of Seth and Enos with other As for the beginning of the generation of Melchizedech and the ende of his life he ouerpasseth it in silence Wherefore if the historie bee looked on he hath neither beginning of dayes nor end of life So in deede the sonne of God neither hath beginning of his being neither shall haue ending Therefore in these most great and verie diuine things was Melchizedech a figure of Christ our lord And in his priesthood which agreeth rather to man then to God our Lord Christ was an high Priest after the order of Melchizedech For Melchizedech was an high Priest of the Gentiles And our Lord Christ offered a holy and healthfull sacrifice for all men If I sayde neuer a word as I neede not to say many yet the indifferent reader would see that here is no comparison of Melchizedechs bread and wine with the sacrament of the Lordes supper Yea he would easily see that he speaketh of the sacrifice of his death which our sauiour offered for all men both Iewes and Gentiles And much more plainly by that place which M. Heskins addeth out of the first dialogue If therefore it appertaineth to Priestes to offer giftes and Christ concerning his humanitie is called a Priest he offered none other sacrifice but his owne bodie This speaketh Theodoret expressely of the true sacrifice of his death and not of the fained sacrifice of his supper nor yet of any sacrament or figure of his onely true sacrifice which the olde writers as I shewed before do often call a sacrifice oblation burnt offring c But that M. Heskins cannot gaine by the doctours wordes he will winne by reason First if wee denye that Melchizedech was a figure of Christe his Priesthood saying he was a figure onely of his eternitie then wee ioyne with Eutyches who graunted the diuinitie of Christe and denyed his humanitie vnto which his priesthood properly perteyned But who tolde M. Heskins that wee denye Melchizedech to be a figure of Christs Priesthood when wee most constantly affirme that he was a figure of his eternall Priesthood vnlesse Maister Heskins thinke the humanitie of Christe hauing once conquered death is not nowe euerlasting It is not our exposition that mainteineth the heresie of Eutyches that the nature of Christes bodie is absorpt into the diuinitie but it is your heresie of vbiquitie and carnall presence Maister Heskins that mayntaineth it most manifestly in verie deede though in wordes you will say the contrarie But Maister Heskins followeth his reason and vrgeth vs that it is the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice wherefore if Christe resemble Melchizedech in Priesthood he must resemble him in sacrifice and that is the sacrifice of breade and wine for other sacrifice wee reade none that Melchizedech offered I aunswere as wee reade of none other so wee read not in the Scripture one worde of that sacrifice of breade and wine as hath beene often declared at large And seeing the scripture expresseth not what sacrifice Melchizedech offered wee are content to be ignorant of it satisfying our selues with so much as the scripture affirmeth that Christ offering him selfe once for all on the Crosse was in the same called a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech as wee haue shewed at large before out of Hebr. 5. 7.9.10 But it is a sport to see how M Heskins skippeth to fro as it were one whipped at a stake when hee woulde reconcile his transubstantiation with this counterfet sacrifice of breade and wine Christe sacrificed in breade and wine In breade and wine I say a kinde of foode more excellent then the breade and wine that did figure it I meane with Theodoret and Hierome the true bread and wine that is the bodie and bloud of Christ that is to say no bread nor wine But if you giue him a lash on the other side and saye if Christ sacrificed not naturall bread wine then he answered not your figure he wil leap to the other side say with Cyprian Isychius that Christe offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech did and in one place he sayeth he occupyed bread and wine in his sacrifice so did he a table and a cuppe and other things but was any thing his sacrifice that he occupyed therein sauing onely that which he offered he will say no. Did he offer bread and wine hee dare not aunswer directly and so the poore man to vpholde two lyes the one contrarie to the other is miserably tormented The one and thirtieth Chapter concludeth this matter of Melchizedech by S. Augustine and Damascene S. Augustine is alledged vppon the 33 Psalme whose wordes are these The sacrifices of the Iewes were before time after the order of Aaron in offrings of beastes and that in a mysterie The sacrifice of the bodie and bloud of our Lord which the faithfull and they that haue read the Gospell do knowe was not yet which sacrifice is nowe diffused throughout all the worlde Set before your eyes therefore two sacrifices both that after the order of Aaron and this after the order of Melchizedech For it is writen the Lord hath sworne and it shall not repent him Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech Of whom is it saide thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech of our Lord Iesus christ For who was Melâ—hizedech The King of Salem And Salem was that Citie which afterward as the learned haue declared was called HierusaleÌ„ Therefore before the Iewes reigned there this Melchizedech was Priest there which is written of in Genesis the Priest of the high god He it was that mett Abraham when he deliuered Loth from the hande of his persecutors and ouerthrewe them of whom he was helde and deliuered his brother And after the deliuerie of his brother Melchizedech mett him so great was Melchizedech of whom Abraham was blessed he brought forth breade and wine and blessed Abraham And Abraham gaue him rythes See ye what he brought forth and whome he blessed And it is sayed afterwarde Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech Dauid sayed this in the spirite long after Abraham Nowe Melchizedech was in the time of Abraham Of whome sayeth he in anâ—â—her place â–ª Thou arâ— a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech 〈◊〉 of him whose sacrifice you knowe Here saith Maister Heskins is sacrifice auouched and the sacrifice of the body and bloud of our Lorde who saith nay But this is not the sacrifice of the masse but the sacrifice of CHRISTES death whereof the holy sacrament is a memoriall But Augustine saith farther The sacrifice of Aaron is taken away and them beganne the order of Melchizedech Very well but once againe this sacrifice is the sacrifice of Christes death the remembraunce whereof is celebrated in the Lordes Supper where let the Reader obserue that he doeth yet againe denie the
sacrifice of Christes passion to be a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech contrarie to the expresse worde of God affirmeth that it was after the order of Aaron saying that The sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech was onely as the Supper Here note that he maketh the sacrament more excellent then the sacrifice of Christes death by so muche as the Priesthoode and sacrifice of Melchisedech is more excellent then the sacrifice and priesthoode of Aaron But Augustine hath more yet if it will helpe vpon the same Psalme Con. 3. Before the kingdome of his father he chaunged his 〈◊〉 and left him and went his way because there was the sacrifice according to the order of Aaron And afterwarde he himselfe by his body and bloud instituted a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech Therefore he chaunged his countenance in the priesthoode and left the nation of the Iewes and came to the Gentiles By this we must needes vnderstand that Christe did institute a sacrifice of his body and bloud after the order of Melchizedech Yea verily But howe doe wee vnderstand that this was in the sacrament Therefore for any thing that is here shewed it is no slaunder that the Pope hath turned the holy sacrament into a sacrifice to obscure the glorie of Christe and his onely sacrifice once offered on the crosse For although the Fathers did sometimes call the sacrament a sacrifice yet they meant nothing but a memoriall or sacrifice of thankesgiuing for that one sacrifice offered once on the crosse for the redemption of the whole worlde Whereof none other shal be a better witnesse then Augustine himselfe and in his exposition of this selfe same Psalme Saginantur ergo illo Angeli sed semel ipsum exinaninit vt manducaret panem angelorum home formam serui accipiens in similitudinem hominum factus habitu inuentus vt homo The Angels therefore are fead with that bread meaning the diuinitie of Christe But he emptied himselfe that man might eate the bread of Angels taking the shape of a seruant beeing made like vnto men and in his habite was found as a man Humilianit se factus obediens vsque ad mortem mortem autem crucis vt iam de cruce commendarâ—tur nobis carâ— sanguis Domini 〈◊〉 sacrificium quia mutauit vultum suum coram Abimelech id est eoram regno patris He humbled himselfe and was made obedient to the death euen the death of the crosse that now the body and bloud of our Lorde might be commended to vs from the Crosse beeing the new sacrifice because he chaunged his countenaunce before Abimelech that is before the kingdome of his Father By this it is manifest that Augustine referred the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech vnto the crosse of Christ whereof we are made partakers in the holy mysteries of his blessed supper So that as well the body and bloud of our Lorde as the newe sacrifice in those mysteries are commended to vs to be participated from the crosse where they were truely and essentially offered vnto God by the eternall spirite of our sauiour Christ wherby he procured euerlasting redemption The same Augustine in his Ep. 23. to Bonifacius Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso tamen in suet 〈◊〉 non sobèrâ— per omnes paschÄ™ solennitates sed omni die populiâ— immolatur nec vbique mentitur qui interrogatus eum respondarit immolari Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem â—arum rerum quaruÌ„ sacramenta suÌ„t non habereÌ„t omnino sacramenta non essent Ex haec autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est Was not Christe once onely offered vppe by himselfe And yet in a sacrament â–ª not onely at euery solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people neither doeth he lye which being asked the question answereth that he is offered For if sacraments had not a certeine similitude of those thinges whereof they are sacramentes they should not be sacramentes at all And of this similitude oftentimes they take the names euen of the very thinges themselues Therfore as after a certeine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith What can be vttered more plainely either against the Popishe sacrifice or against their carnal presence This one place may expound whatsoeuer in Augustine or any other olde writer is spoken of the sacrifice of the Lordes supper and of the presence of Christes body and bloud therein After Augustine M. Heskins citeth Chrysostome in Mat. 26. to proue that the sacrament is now of the same force that it was when it was first ordeined by Christe at his last supper These workes are not of mans power what thinges he did then in that supper he himselfe doth nowe worke he himselfe doeth make perfect We holde the order of Ministers but it is he himselfe that doeth sanctifie and chaunge these thinges With my disciples saith he doe I keepe my Passeouer For this is the same table and none other This is in nothing lesser then that For Christ maketh not that table and some other man this but he himselfe maketh both Hieronyme followeth a vaine discourse against I wote not what Petrobrusians and Henricians that denied the body of CHRISTE to be consecrated and giuen by the priestes as it was by Christe him selfe Whome peraduenture Petrus Cluniacensis Maister Heskins Author doeth slaunder when they saide none otherwise then Chrysostome saide before and that which Maister Heskins himselfe affirmeth That Christ and not man doth consecrate But by this place also are confuted the Oecolampadians and Caluinistes if we will beleeue Maister Heskins who first rauing against Cranmer vrgeth the worde of sanctification of the bread and wine that Chrysostome vseth charging Cranmer to haue saide that the creatures of bread and wine cannot be sanctified Which no doubt that holy Martyr spake of the substance and not of the vse in the sacrament Then he snatcheth vppe Chrysostomes wordes Transmutat he doeth transmute and change them This is easily aunswered He chaungeth the vse but not the substance But for more confirmation Origen is called to witnesse Lib. 8. Cont. Celsum We obeying the creator of all thingâ—s after we haue giuen thankes for his benefites which he hath bestowed vpon vs doe eate the bread which is offered which by prayer and supplication is made into a certeine holier bodie which truly maketh them more holie which with a more sound minde do vse the same Here by Origens playne wordes the vse doth sanctifie the worthie receiuers And though you adde to Ambrose his phrase De pane fit corpus Christi of the bread is
Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud you shall haue no life in you They thought this impossible but he shewed that it was altogether possible and not that only but also necessarie which also he did vnto Nicodemus He addeth also of his bloud signifying the cup which as is saide already he would giue to his disciples in the last supper Here Euthymius a late writer and out of the compasse of the challenge vnderstandeth this text of the sacrament yet speaketh hee nothing of the carnall manner of eating As for the other place he braggeth of in Matth. 26. which he cyteth in the 58. Chapter of this booke how little it maketh for him I wish the reader before he go any further to turne to the Chapter and consider The sixteenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text in hand by the Ephesine Counsell The woordes of the Epistle of the Ephesine Counsell vnto Nestorius be these Necessario hoc c. This also we do adde necessarily for shewing foorth the death of the onely begotten sonne of God after the flesh that is of Iesus Christe and confessing together his resurrection and ascention into heauen we celebrate it in our Churches the vnbloudie seruice of his sacrifice so also doe we come to the mysticall blessings and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy body and precious bloud of Christ the redeemer of vs all Not taking it as common flesh which God forbid nor at the flesh of a sanctified man and ioyned to the word according to the vnitie of dignitie or as possessing a diuine habitation but truely quickening and made proper vnto the word it selfe For he being naturally life as God bicause he was vnited to his owne flesh professed the sonne to haue power to giue life And therefore although he say vnto vs Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you yet we ought not to esteeme it as of a man that is one of vs For howe can the flesh of a man after his owne nature be a quickening flesh But as verily made his owne flesh which for vs was both made and called the sonne of man. The Fathers of this Counsell do not as M. Heskins saith expound this text of the sacrament or declare what they receiue in the sacrament but rather shew what they iudged of that flesh whereof they receiued the sacrament namely that it was not the flesh of a pure man as Nestorius affirmed but the flesh of the son of God therfore had power to giue life being eateÌ„ by faith either in the participation of the sacrament or without it And whereas he noteth a plaine place for M. Iewel when they say They were made partakers of the body and bloud of Christ there is no more plainenesse then M. Iewell will confesse But where he addeth Receiuing it not as coÌ„mon flesh but as the flesh truely giuing life he corrupteth the sense of the Counsel referring that to the receiuing of the sacrament which they vnderstand of their iudgement of the flesh whereof they receiued the sacrament Finally where he would helpe the matter with the opinion of Cyril of our corporall coniunction with Christ howe little it auayleth we shewed before in aunswere to that place Cap. 14. But least he shuld lacke sufficient proofe of this matter he confirmeth his exposition by the erronious practise of the Church of Aphrica from Saint Cyprians time vnto Saint Augustines time at the least which imagined such a necessitie of thaâ— sacrament by this place Except ye eate c that they ministred the Communion to infants he might haue added that some did minister it to dead folkes But this absurditie which followeth of the exposition will rather driue al wisemen from that exposition then moue them to receiue it And although the Bohemians vsed this text to proue the communion in both kindes yet doth it not followe that it is properly to be expounded of the sacrament The seuenteenth Chapter expoundeth the next following by S. Augustine and Cyrill The text he will expound is He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life in him That this text is not to be expounded of the sacrament it is manifest by this reason that many doe eate the sacrament that haue not life in them as Augustine whom he alledgeth most plainly affirmeth But let vs see his profes for his exposition First Augustine Tr. 26. in IoaÌ„ Hanc non habet c. He hath not this life that eateth not this bread nor drinketh this bloud For without is men may haue temporall life but eternall they can not He therefore which eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud hath no life in him and he that eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath life eternall He hath answered to both in that he saith life euerlasting It is not so in this meate which we take to sustaine the life of this body For he that shall not take it shall not liue Nor yet he that shall take it shall liue For it may be that by age or sicknesse or any other cause many which haue taken it may dye but in this meat and drinke that is the body and bloud of our Lord it is not so For both he that taketh it not hath not life he that taketh it hath life and that eternall Although there be not one word spoken here of the sacrament and M. Heskins him selfe alledgeth the words following in which he confesseth that Augustine expoundeth this meate and drinke of the societie of Christ and his members which is his Church yet either so blinde or obstinate he is that with vaine gloses he will go about to drawe Augustine to his side First he saith though this meate signifie the mysticall body of Christe yet it signifieth not that alone but his naturall body in the sacrament whereof he hath neuer a worde in this treatise of S. Augustine secondly Augustine did not go about to instruct the people what they should receiue but how wel they shuld receiue it Which is vtterly false for hee doth both and there is no better way to instruct men howe well they should receiue the sacrament then to teach them to consider what they do receiue And therfore the conclusion of this treatise which he cyteth is altogether against him Hoc ergo totum c. Let all this therfore auayle to this end most welbeloued that we eaâ—e not the flesh and bloud of Christ onely in a sacrament which many euill men doe but that we eate and drinke euen to the participation of the spirit that we may remaine in the body of our Lorde as his mâ—mbers that we may be quickened by his spirite and not be offended although many do nowe with vs eate and drinke the sacraments temporally which in the end shal haue eternal torments Oâ—t of these wordes M. Hes doth
alledged out of Irenaeus but for prolixitie and the same places shall afterwardes be cited for other purposes The fiue thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the exposition of the same Prophet by S. Augustine Eusebius Out of S. Augustine is alledged a long saying lib. Aduersus Iudaeos but not so long in wordes as short of his purpose Dominus omnipotens dicit c. The Lorde almightie sayeth I haue no pleasure in you neither will I receiue sacrifice of your hands Certainly this you cannot denie ô ye Iewes that not oâ—ly he doth not take sacrifice as your handes for there is but one place appointed by the lawe of the Lord where he hath commaunded sacrifices to be offered by your handes beside which place he hath altogether forbidden them Therefore seeing you haue lost this place according to your deserts the sacrifice also which was lawfull to be offered there onely in other placeâ— ye dare not offer And it is altogether fulfilled which the Prophet saith And sacrifice will I not receiue at your handes For if the Temple and the Altar remained to you in the earthly Hierusalem you might say this were fulfilled in them whose sacrifices being wicked men abiding among you the Lorde doth not accept but that he accepteth the sacrifice of other that be of you and among you which keepe the commaundements of god But this cannot be saide for asmuch as there is not one of you all which according to the lawe which proceeded from mount Sinay may offer sacrifice with his handes Neither is this so forespoken fulfilled that the sentence of the Prophes will suffer you to aâ—nswere because wee offer not flesh with our hands with our heart and mouth we offer praise according to that in the Psalme Sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise From this place also he speaketh against you which sayth I haue no pleasure in you c. Moreouer that you shuld not thinke that seeing you offer not and that he taketh no sacrifice at your hands therefore no sacrifice is offered to God whereof truely hee hath no neede who needeth not the goods of any of vs yet because he is not without a sacrifice which is not profitable for him but for vs be adioyneth and sayeth For from the rising of the Sunne vntil the going downe of the same my name is made honourable among all the Gentiles and in euery place a sacrifice is offered to my name euen a pure sacrifice because my name is greate among the Gentiles saith the Lorde Almightie What aunswere yee to these things open your eyes at the length see from the sunne rising to the going downe thereof that not in one place as it was appointed among you but in euery place the sacrifice of the Christians is offered not to euery God but to him that spake these things afore hand euen to the God of Israel Wherfore in another place he sayth to his Church and he that hath deliuered thee the same God of Israel shal be called the God of the whole earth Search ye the Scriptures in which you thinke to haue eternall life and truely you should haue if in them you could vnderstand Christ and hold him But search them through and euen they beare witnesse of this pure sacrifice which is offered to the God of Israel not of your nation alone of whose hands he saide he would receiue none but of all nations which say come let vs go vp into the hill of the Lord neither in one place as it was commaunded in the earthly Hierusalem bâ—t in euery place euen in Hierusalem it selfe â–ª neither after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchizedech First we must see how M. Heskins note booke deceiued him for where the words of Augustin in the beginning of this sentence are these Locus enim vnâ—to est lege domini constitutus c. that is â–ª there is but one place appointed by the lawe of the lord M. Hesk. hath falsified and set downe locus enim vnus est loco domini constitutus which he translateth For there is one place in the place of God appointed But this is not the first corruption that we haue bewrayed by a great many Nowe to the matter Maister Heskins still harpeth vpon one string that the sacrifice in this saying spoken of cannot be the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing because that is not peculiar to the Christians but was offered of the Iewes before Christe and may be yet if they be conuerted But I haue more than once or twise declared that here is no such peculiaritie in the matter of the offering but in the maner of the oblation And Augustine speaketh not halfe a worde by which we might deeme that he refuseth the spirituall sacrifice of the Christians to be the pure sacrifice prophesied in Malachie If you vrge that he sayeth it is offered after the order of Melchisedech and so hath relation to the offering of breade and wine in the Sacrament although it be no necessarie conclusion yet Augustin him selfe will tell vs that it is a spiritual sacrifice of laude and thanksgiuing And M. Heskins him selfe directeth vs to the booke saying As notable a saying as this hath S. Augustine in an other place also and quoteth lib. 1. Cont aduersariuÌ„ legis Prophetarum who so listeth to reade shall finde that that shall not repent him of the reading What place M. Heskins meaneth I knowe not but in the same booke I read in the 18. Chapter that he calleth the death of Christ 〈◊〉 singuler and onely was sacrifice If that sacrifice be but one singuler and the onely true sacrifice what manner of sacrifice is the sacrifice of the Masse which setteth vp a newe altar to ouerthrowe the crosse of Christ And that you may knowe what sacrifice S. Augustine meaneth when he nameth the sacrifice of the Church or the sacrifice of breade and wine or any such like phrase he speaketh this in the twentieth Chapter of certeine apocryphall writings falsly intituled to the Apostles Andrew Iohn Qua fillorum essent receptae essent ab ecclesia quae illorum temperibus per EpiscoporuÌ„ succesâ—iones certissimas vsque ad nostra deincapâ— tempora perseueraâ— immolat Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium â—â—â—dis Which if they had bene theirs they should haue bene receiued of the Church which from their times by most certeine successions of Bishope continueth vnto our times and after and sacrificeth to God in the bodie of Christ the sacrifice of lawde and prayse And let this suffice to discharge Augustine from M. Heskins and the Papistes blasphemous cauelling Now must we come to Eusebius which lib. â— Euang. Demonst. cap. 10. writeth thus The Mosaical sacrifices being reiected he doth by diuine reuelation declare our ordinaâ—ies that was to 〈◊〉 saying For from the rising of the 〈…〉 the going down of the sâ—â—e my name is glorified among the nations in euery place 〈◊〉
were of weight or the corruption of the time in which he liued vnknowen there is nothing in this saying which might not easily and without any wresting be referred to the spirituall sacrifices to the spirituall manner of sacrificing the body and bloud of Christ which we haue learned out of the elder fathers The seuen and thirtieth Chapter maketh a brieefe recapitulation of thinges before written with the application of them to the proclamation of the aduersarie and so concludeth the first booke It were but vaine labour especially for me that professe such breuitie to repeate the answers and declarations made before that not one of these Lordes of the higher house whom he nameth fauoureth his bill of the carnall presence or the sacrifice of the masse in such sense as he and his fellowes take it But whereas he is so loftie once againe to ioyne issue with the proclaymer that as he hath done alwayes hitherto vpon the negatiue I will not refuse him And yet by the way I must admonish the Reader how vnreasonably he dealeth that ioyneth all his issues vpon the negatiue whiche sometime is harde sometime is vnpossible to be proued whereas the Bishop whom he calleth the proclaimer ioyneth issue with them vpon the affirmatiue which if euer it was holden is more probable to finde proofe in antiquitie Whereas if I might haue libertie to ioyne vpon the negatiue I would bring in fiue hundreth propositions that are false and yet neuer a one expressely denied of the olde writers because there neuer happened any controuersie aboute suche matters in their times But to his issue If he can bring any one sufficient authoritie that shall directly say that the Church may not offer the body of Christ in such sorte as it doeth I will giue him the victorie First here he reiecteth the authoritie of the Apostle to the Hebrues saying it is but wrested which is as direct as nothing in the worlde can be more direct that Christ offered himselfe and that but once and by that one oblation hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified But he shal heare Chrysostome vpon the same scripture Hebr. 10. Aufer◠primum vt sequens statuat c. He taketh away the former that he might establish that whiche followeth Beholde againe the aboundance This sacrifice sayeth he is but one but those sacrifices are many for therefore they were not strong because they were many But tell me what need is there of many when one is sufficient Therefore whereas they were many and alwayes offered he sheweth that they were neuer purged For as a medicine when it is strong and effectuall to giue health and able to driue away all sicknesse being but once laide to worketh the whole at once If therfore being but once laide to it hath wrought the whole it sheweth the vertue thereof in that it is not laid to any more this is the effect of it that it is laid on no more but once But if it be always laid to it is a manifest token that it preuailed nothing For this is the vertue of that medicine that it is but once laid on and not oftentimes euen so in this case By what meanes were they always healed by the same sacrifices For if they had ben deliuered from al their sins there should not haue bene offered sacrifice throughout euery day For they were appointed that they should be always offred for al the people both at euening in the day Therfore that was an accusation of sinns not a discharge for ther was made an accusatiō of weaknes not a shewing of strength For bicause the first sacrifice was of no force the second was likewise offered bicause that also profited nothing an other was offered also wherefore this is but a conuiction of sinnes For in that they were offered there is a conuiction of sinnes but in that they were always offred there is a conuiction of infirmitie But contrariwise in Christ the sacrifice was but once offered For what neede was there of medicines when there is no more wounds remaining For this cause you wil say he cōmanded that it should always be offered bicause of infirmitie that there might be also a remēbrance of sinnes What then do we◠Doe we not offer euery day we offer truely but for a remembraunce which we make of his death and this is but one sacrifice not many Howe is it one and not many Bicause it was offered but once and it was offered in the holy of holies but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that we offer the same alwayes For we do not nowe offer one lamb to morrowe an other but the same thing alwayes Therfore this sacrifice is but one For else by this reason bicause it is offred in many places are ther many Christs No but one Christ is euery where both here being perfect and there being perfect euen one body For as he which is euery where is one bodie and not many bodies so also it is one sacrifice And hee is our highe Priest which offered the sacrifice which purged vs the same do we also offer nowe which then truely being offered can not be consumed Howbeit that which we doe nowe is done truely in the remembraunce of that which was done then For this do ye saith he in remembraunce of me We make not an other sacrifice as the high Priest but alwayes the same but rather we worke the remembrance of the same This place of Chrysostome sheweth both that the Church neither doth nor may offer the body of Christ in such sort as the Papistes say that is really and carnally and for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead and also howe the Church is saide to offer the sacrifice of Christes body namely when she celebrateth the remembrance thereof After this holy issue ioyned M. Heskins rayleth vpon Cranmer which in his first booke hath not one Doctour or Counsel to alledge but only a litle false descant vpon a scripture or two as the proclamer in his Sermon What reading Cranmer and Iewell were able to shewe in the Doctours and Counsels is so well testified by their owne learned workes vnto the world that it can not by such an obscure doctour as M. Hesk. is be blemished or darkned But M. Heskins hath such store of testimonies for the sacrifice of the Masse to proue that Christ is offred therin that beside those which he hath alredy cited he wil ad three or foure to this recapitulation First he nameth Iustinus Martyr in his dialogue against the Iewes Where he alledgeth his wordes truncatly leauing out the beginning ▪ which declareth that Iustine maketh all Christians Priestes and offerers of the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the celebration of the Lordes supper His wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euen so we which by the name of Iesusas al shal be one man in God the maker of al things hauing put off our
fiftieth Chapter sheweth the minde of Iunencus Euseb. Emissen vpon the wordes of Christ. Iuuencus a Christian Poet is cited Lib. 4. Euang. Histor. Haec vbi dicta dedit palmis sibi frangere panem c. When he had thus said he tooke bread in his handes and when he had giuen thankes he diuided it to his disciples and taught them that he deliuered vnto them his owne bodie And after that our Lorde tooke the cuppe filled with wine he sanctified it with thankesgiuing and giueth it to them to drinke and teacheth them that he hath diuided to them his bloud and saith this bloud shall remitte the sinnes of the people Drinke you this my bloud Because this Poet doeth but onely rehearse the historie in verse without any exposition and interpretation and saith no more then the Euangelistes say I will not stand vpon him onely I will note the vanitie of Maister Heskins which like a young child that findeth miracles in euerie thing he seeth still noteth a plain place for Maister Iewel a plaine place for the proclaymer when either there is in it nothing for his purpose or as it falleth out oftentimes much against him Euseb. Emissen is cited Hom. 5. Pasc. Recedat omne c. Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie depart For truely he which is the auctour of the gifte is also the witnes of the trueth For the inuisible priest by secrete power doth with his worde conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie bloud saying thus This is my bodie And the sanctification repeated take and drinke saith he this is my bloud This place hath beene often answered to be ment of a spirituall and not a carnall conuersion as diuerse other places out of the same homilie alledged by M. Hesk. himself doe proue First it foloweth immediately Ergo vt c. Therfore as at the will of our Lord sodenly commanding of nothing the height of the heauens the depths of the waters the wide places of the earth were in substantiall beeing euen so by like power in the spirituall sacramentes vertue is giuen to the word and effect to the thing Therefore how great and notable thinges the power of the Diuine blessing doeth worke and how 〈◊〉 ought not seeme to the too strange and impossible that earthly and mortall thinges are chaunged into the substance of Christ aske of thy selfe which now art borne againe into Christe Here saith M. Heskins he proueth the chaunge possible I graunt and with all sheweth what manner a chaunge it is euen such a one as is in regeneration namely spirituall The same is shewed in the other places following Non dubites quispiâ—â— c Neither let any man dout that by the wil of the Diuine power by the presence of his high maiestie the former creatures may passe into the nature of the Lordes bodie when he may see man himselfe by the workmanship of the heauenly mercie made the bodie of christ And as any man comming to the faith of Christ before the wordes of baptisme is yet in the band of the olde debt but when they are rehearsed he is forthwith deliuered from all dregges of sinnes So when the creatures are set vpon the holie altars to be blessed with heauenly wordes before they be consecrated by inuocation of the highest name there is the substance of bread and wine but after the wordes of Christe the bodie and bloud of christ And what maruell is it if those things which he could create with his word beeing created he can conuerte by his worde Yea rather it seemeth to be a lesse miracle if that which he is knowne to haue made of nothing he can now when it is made chaunge into a better thing Vpon these sayings Maister Heskins vrgeth the chaunge I acknowledge the chaunge and vrge the kinde or manner of chaunge to be spirituall according to the examples of baptisme regeneration Vnto these authorities hee annexeth a large discourse of transubstantiation and citeth for it diuers testimonies olde and newe what the olde are we will take paynes to viewe as for the younger sorte we will not sticke to leaue vnto him First Gregorie Nicene is cited Serm. Catech. de Diuin Sacram. Sicut antem qui panem videt quodammodo corpus videt humanum c. And as he that seeth bread after a certeine manner seeth a mans bodie because bread beeing in the bodie becommeth a bodie so that diuine bodie receiuing the nourishment of bread was after a certeine manner the same thing with that meate as we haue said beeing turned into the nature of it For thâ—t which is proper to all flesh we confesse to haue apperteined to him For euen that bodie was susteined with bread but that bodie because God the WORDE dwelled in it obteined Diuine dignitie Wherefore we doe nowe also rightly belieue that the bread sanctified by the worde of God is chaunged into the bodie of God the WORDE Maister Heskins after his vsuall manner translateth Quodammodo in a manner if not falsely at the least obscurely But that worde Quodammodo that is after a certeine manner looseth all the knotte of this doubt For euen as the bodie of CHRISTE was bread after a certeine manner because it was nourished with bread and bread was after a certeine manner the bodie of Christ euen so we beleeue that the sacramentall bread is after a certeine manner chaunged into the bodie of Christ that it may be the spirituall foode of our soules Ambrose is cited De his qui initian Cap. 9. Where Maister Heskins beheadeth the sentence for it is thus Prior enim â—ux quà m vmbra veritas quà m figura corpus authoris quà m manna de coelo For light is before the shadowe the trueth before the figure the bodie of the authour before manna from heauen Which wordes we may vnderstand howe he taketh the bodie of Christe that sayeth it was before manna namely for the effecte of his death and sacrifice perfourmed by his bodie But M. Heskins beginneth at these wordes Forte dicat c. Peraduenture thou mayst say I see another thing How doest thou assure me that I take the bodie of Christ And this remaineth for vs to proue Howe many examples therefore doe we vse that we may proue this not to be that which nature hath formed it but which the blessing hath consecrated and that there is greater force of blessing then of nature for by blessing nature it selfe is chaunged Moses helde a rodde hee cast it doâ—ne and it was made a serpent Againe he tooke the serpent by the tayle and it reâ—â—rueth into the nature of the rodde Thou seest therefore by the prophets grace the nature of the serpent and of the rodde to 〈◊〉 beene twise changed And after many exaÌ„ples Quod si c. If then the benediction of man was of so great power that is chaunged nature what say we of the very diuine consecration where the very wordes of our Lorde
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
to doe that which Christ commanded to be done and to receiue that which he deliuered vs to be receiued if the particular explication of our faith will not satisfie M. Hes. at least let him after his owne Popish Diuinitie holde vs excused for our implicite faith or if his own principles can hold him no longer then he listeth let him giue vs leaue to esteeme none otherwise of them then he giueth vs example to do The seuen and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the oblation and sacrifice of the Masse as it was vsed of the Apostles and Fathers When not one of the Apostles or Euangelistes make one word mention either of Masse or sacrifice therein M. Heskins taketh vpon him much more then al the Papistes in the world can proue Concerning the Fathers as they vse the terme of sacrifice so I haue often shewed that they meane a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of propitiation or else they vse the name of sacrifice vnproperly for a memorial of the onely sacrifice of Christ which he once offered neuer to be repeated Neither do any of these Liturgies which M. Heskins calleth Masses though they be falsly ascribed to Saint Iames Saint Clement Saint Basil Saint Chrysostome c. shewe any other thing but manifestly the same that I haue saide First that which is falsly ascribed to Saint Iames in these wordes Memores c. Therefore we sinners being mindfull of his quickening passions of his healthfull crosse and death his buriall and resurrection from death the third day of his ascension into heauen and sitting at the right hand of thee ô God the father and of his second glorious and fearefull comming when he shall come with glory to iudge the quicke and the dead when he shall render to euery one according to his workes we offer vnto thee ô Lord this reuerend vnbloudie sacrifice praying that thou wilt not deale with vs according to our sinnes No reasonable man can vnderstand here any other but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing or prayer or a memoriall of the sacrifice of christ For he saith not we offer the body and bloud of Christe but being mindfull of his sufferings c. we offer this reuerend and vnbloudy sacrifice for such is the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing The like and more plaine is that which is ascribed to Clemens by Nicholas Methon Memores igitur Therefore being mindfull of his passion death and resurrection returning into heauen and his second comming in which he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead and to render to euery man according to his workes we offer vnto thee our king and God according to his institution this bread and this cup giuing thankes vnto thee by him that thou hast vouchsafed vs to stand before thee and to sacrifice vnto thee This is so plaine against M. Heskins for the oblation of Christes body and bloud c. that he is enforced to flee to shamefull petitions of principles the end of which is that this bread is no bread this cup is no cup but as Christe called bread in the 6. of Iohn and S. Paule in the 1. Cor. 10. 11. in exposition whereof lyeth all the controuersie That Liturgie which is intituled to S. Basil is yet more plaine for a spirituall oblation of thankesgiuing Memores ergo c. Therefore being mindfull ô Lord of his healthsome passions of his quickening crosse three dayes buriall resurrection from death ascension into heauen sitting at thy right hand ô God the father and of his glorious and terrible second presence we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures M. Heskins saith he abhorreth not from the name of sacrifice as we do but he falsly belyeth vs for if he will looke in our Liturgie or communion booke he shall finde that we also offer a sacrifice of thankesgiuing euen our selues our soules and bodies as the Apostle exhorteth vs to be a holy liuely and acceptable sacrifice to god But he will not remember that the sacrifice he speaketh of is not the body and bloud of Christe but tua ex tuis thy creatures of thy giftes or thy gifts of thy creatures namely the bread and wine which also after consecration he prayeth to be sanctified by Gods holy spirite but the body of Christe hath no neede of such sanctification Secondly he noteth not that his Basil maketh but two presences of Christe in the worlde the first when hee liued in humilitie in the the world the second which shall be terrible and glorious by which he doth manifestly exclude the third imagined presence of Christ in the sacrament To the same effect prayeth the Priest in the other Liturgie ascribed to Chrysostome Memores c. Therefore being mindfull of this wholesome commaundement and of all those things which are done for vs of his crosse buriall resurrection ascension into heauen sitting at the right hand of his second and glorious comming againe we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures Maister Heskins saith he will not seeke the deapth of this matter but only declare that al these fathers did offer sacrifice In which words he mocketh his readers egregiously whereas he should proue that they offered the body and bloud of Christe to be a propitiatorie sacrifice and that he proueth neuer a whit Nowe that the meaning of that Liturgie was not to offer Christ in sacrifice this prayer therein vsed before the words of coÌ„secration as they terme it doth sufficieÌ„tly declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Lord receiue this sacrifice vnto thine heauenly altar So that it is manifest they called the bread wine a sacrifice not the body bloud of christ The like is that of Ambrose The Priest saith Therefore being mindfull of his most glorious passion resurrection from death and ascension into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudy sacrifice this holy bread and cup of eternall life This vndefiled sacrifice saith M. Heskins must needes be the body and bloud of Christe for else there is nothing vndefiled that a man can offer But why may it not be as Ambrose calleth it here the holy bread and cup of the communion or as he calleth it a little before in the same place the figure of the body bloud of Christ For the bread and the wine which vnproperly he calleth a sacrifice in steede of a memoriall of a sacrifice in that they be the holy sacraments of Christes body and bloud are holy vndefiled and the foode of eternal life The same Ambrose called the soule of his brother an innocent sacrifice and offered the same to God in his prayer De obiâ—â— fratris c. To conclude not one of all these Liturgies no not the Canon of the Masse it selfe saith that the body of Christe is the sacrifice that they do offer or that they offer a propitiatorie sacrifice or that they offer any other but a
sacrifice of thankesgiuing or a memoriall of the sacrifice of Christ by which it is easie to iudge howe the doctrine that the Papistes do nowe holde of the propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse doth agree with the auncient Liturgies ascribed to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church The eight and twentieth Chapter treateth of the prayer for acceptation of the oblation or sacrifice made in the Masse and vsed as well by the Apostles as the Fathers That the Apostles and Fathers commended to God by prayers the sacrifice which thei offered it is a manifest argument that they offered not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe for that needeth no commendation of our prayers They prayed therefore that their sacrifice of thankes giuing and duetifull seruice celebrated in the memorie of Christes death might be acceptable to God as you shal see by al their prayers First the Liturgie vntruly ascribed to Iames praieth thus Pro oblatis c. For these offred and sanctified precious heauenly vnspeakable immaculate glorious feareful horrible diuine gifts let vs pray to our Lord God that our Lord God accepting them into his holy heauenly mentall and spirituall altar for a sauour of spiritual sweet smell may giue vs againe and send vnto vs the diuine grace and gift of the most holy spirite These sanctified giftes can not be the body and bloud of Christe which are holy of them selue but the bread and wine sanctified to be a memoriall of the death of Christe in a spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing Saint Clement if wee beleeue Nicholas Methon prayed thus Rogamus c. We pray thee that with mercifull and cheerefull countenaunce thou wilt looke vpon these giftes set before thee thou God which hast no neede of any thing and that thou mayest be pleased with them to the honour of thy Christ. These wordes are plaine that he offered not Christe but the breade and wine to bee sanctified to the honour of Christe namely that they might be made the body and bloud of Christe to as many as receiue them worthily In the Liturgie imputed to Basil the Priest prayeth thus Dominum postulemus c. Let vs desire the Lorde for these offered and sanctified the most honourable giftes of our Lorde God and for the profite of the goods of our soules that the most mercifull God which hath receiued them in his holy heauenly intelligible altar for a sauour of sweete smelling would send vnto vs the grace and communion of his holy spirite The same wordes in a manner be in the Liturgie fathered vppon Saint Chrysostome though it be manifest that it was written seuen hundreth yeares after his death as is shewed before Pro oblatis c. For the offered and sanctified precious giftes let vs pray the Lorde that our mercifull God who hath receiued theÌ„ in his holy heauenly intelligible altar may send vs therfore grace the gift of the holy Ghost Maister Heskins would haue vs note that these Fathers seeme to pray for their sacrifice which we note very willingly for thereby is proued that their sacrifice was not the very body of Christ for that nedeth no commendation of our prayers Wel S. Ambrose followeth Lib. de Sacr. 4. Cap. 6. Petimus c. We pray and desire that thou wilt receiue this oblation in thy high altar by the handes of the Angels as thou hast vouchsafed to receiue the gifts of thy seruant righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that which thy high Priest Melchisedech offered to thee The very name of gods heauenly mental intelligible holy high altar do argue a spirituall sacrifice and not a reall oblation of the naturall body and bloud of christ Next to these Liturgies Maister Heskins adioyneth the wordes of the Canon of the Popish Masse agreeing in effect with these of Ambrose but nothing at all in vnderstanding For that the Papistes esteeme their sacrifice to be very Christ God and Man which none of the auncient fathers did For which cause the Bishop of Sarum iustly reproued those three blasphemies in their Canon not in respect of the words but in respect of their vnderstanding of them The first that they seeme to make Christ in his fathers displeasure that he needeth a mortall man to be his spokesman The second that the body of Christe should in no better wise bee receiued of his father then a Lambe at the handes of Abel The third that they desire an Angel may come and carie away Christes body into heauen These three blasphemies M. Heskins taketh vpon him to auoyde or excuse To the first after many lowd outcries and beastly raylings against that godly learned father of blessed mâ—mory he answereth defending it first by example of these auncient Liturgies that they prayed for their sacrifice but this helpeth him not for they neither thought nor saide that their sacrifice was very Christe God and Man but a sacrament and memoriall of him Afterward hee saith the meaning of their Church is not to pray for Christe but by Christ to obtaine fauour bicause they say in the end of euery prayer per Christum Dominum nostrum by our Lord Christ. But this hole is too narrowe for him to creepe out at For he confesseth that he prayeth for his sacrifice and he affirmeth that his sacrifice is Christ therfore he praieth for Christ. To auoyde the second blasphemie hee saith that the meaning of their Church is not to pray that God will accept the sacrifice which is acceptable of it selfe but their deuotion and seruice and them selues the offerers as hee did accept Abell and his sacrifice c. and so flyeth to the example of the olde Liturgies but that will not serue him For their sacrifice was not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ but a seruice and duetie of thankesgiuing in remembrance of Christe And therefore they might well pray that their sacrifice might be accepted as Abell and his sacrifice as Noe and his burnt offering and so of the rest but this meaning will not stande with the wordes of their Canon which are that God will accept the sacrifices that is the body and bloud of Christ as hee accepted the giftes of his iust seruaunt Abell c. Therefore they must either chaunge the wordes of the Canon or his aunswere to the second accusation by the meaning of their Church can not stande howe so euer Hugo Heskins would seeme to salue or rather to daub vp the matter To the third and last hee aunswereth denying that the meaning of their Church is that the body of Christe should be caried by an Angel but that their prayers should bee offered by an Angel or Angels in the sight of GOD making a long and needlesse discourse of the ministerie of Angels and howe they offer our prayers to GOD which is nothing to the purpose For the Maister of the sentences affirmeth that an Angel must be sent to
it therefore followe that all or the moste priestes doe vnderstand them whereof a great number can neither conster the Latine of their masse nor of those bookes And generally it may be said that they all vnderstand them not because these writers themselues doe not agree in the interpretation of them The thirde he saith is A plaine lie that in the Masse they make no mention of Christes death whereas the Masse setteth forth the death of Christe more liuely then the new communion For with great outcries he saith that there is mention of his death where it is saide The day before he suffred and The bloud of the new Testament that it shed for you and beeing mindfull of his passion resurrection c. and do this in remembrance of me Here is all the preaching of Christes death that he can finde in the Masse But seeing he grateth vpon the wordes No mention of his death Which was not the Bishops meaning but no profitable mention to the institution of the people who vnderstand nothing although there were neuer so long a sermon of Christes death in Latine yet I say he hath not shewed the death of Christe once mentioned in the Masse I say not by implication but in fourme of wordes whereof he taketh aduauntage to charge the Bishop of a lie But how open plaine lowd impudent a lie it is that The Masse setteth foorth the death of Christ more liuely then the new communion as he termeth it I will not in one worde goe about to confute least I should acknowledge any neuer so small shew of trueth to be in it The fortieth Chapter treateth of priuate Masses as the proclaymer termeth them and solueth his arguments Maister Heskins first rehearsing the Bishoppes Arguments against the priuate Masse first maketh this generall aunswere to them al that they proue it is lawfull for the people to receiue with the Priest but not that it is necessarie And first he chargeth him with falsifying of Hierome In 1. Cor. 11. That the supper of the Lorde must be common to all the people for Christ gaue his sacraments to all his disciples that were present Where saith Maister Heskins he hath left out this worde equally by whiche is meant that poore men haue as good right to the sacrament as riche men but not that it is necessarie that all men present at Masse should receiue with the priest In deed the words of Hierome are these Conuenientibus c. Iam non est Dominica sed humana quando vnâ—s quis quae tanquam caenam propriam solus inuadis alij qui non obtulerit non impereit Ita vt magis propter saturitatem quà m propter mysterium videamini conuenire Caeterùm coena Dominica omniâ—us debes esse communis quia ille omnibus discipulis suis qui aderant Ä™qualiter tradidit sacramenta Coena auteÌ„ ideo dicitur quia Dominuâ— in coena tradidit sacramentum Item hoc ideo dicit quia in ecclesia conuenientes oblationes suas separatim offerabant post communionem quae cunque eis de sacrificijs supersuissent illic in Ecclesia communem coenam coÌ„medentes pariter consumebant Et alius quidem esurit c. Quicumque non obtulisset non communicabat quira omnia soli qui obtulerunt insumebant When you come together c. Nowe is it not the LORDES supper but a mannes supper when euerie one falleth to it alone as it were his owne supper and giueth no parte to another which hath offered nothing so that you seeme to come together rather to fill your bellies then for the mysteries sake But the Lordes supper ought to be common to al men because he deliuered his sacramentes to all his disciples that were present equally And it is therefore called a supper because the Lorde at supper deliuered the sacramente Also he saith this therfore for that when they came together in the Church they offered their oblations seuerally and after the communion whatsoeuer was left to them of the sacrifice euen there in the Church eating a common supper they consumed it together And one truely is a hungred whosoeuer had not offred did not communicate because they that had offred consumed all alone By this let the Reader iudge what falsifying the proclaymer vsed and whether Hierome that condemned seuerall communions of riche men would allowe a singular partaking of the priest alone An other reason he hath of baptisme whiche though it be common to all men and that two speciall times in the yeare were appointed for the ministration thereof yet it may be ministred alone But the example is nothing like for it was alwayes lawfull and often vsed to baptise singuler persons at all times so was it neuer of the Lordes supper because the mysterie that S. Paul speaketh of 1. Cor. 10. Many partaking of one bread cannot bee expressed when one priest receiueth alone The third reason he bringeth is a counterfet decree ascribed to Fabianus of Rome 242. yeres after Christe that people should receiue thryse in the yere which had beene needlesse if they receiued so often as the priest saide Masse In deede the impudent forgerie of this decree is manifest when two hundred yeares after Fabianus the people of Rome as both Saint Augustine and Saint Hierome do write and Maister Heskins cannot denye receiued the communion euery day As for the decree of once a yere receiuing I knowe not when it was made but wicked it was whensoeuer it was made But Chrysostome I wene doth make much for priuate Masses for he writeth but Maister Heskins dare not tell where for shame Nonne per singulos dies offerimus offerimus quidem sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius Do wee not euery day sayth hee make oblation we offer in deede but doing it to the remembrance of his death This question of Chrysos is but an obiection of the vsual phrase of offering which he expoundeth to be nothing else but a celebration of the remembraunce of Christs death and therfore in the end of that discourse for a full resolution he setteth down Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex sed id ipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur Wee offer not another sacrifice as the holie priest but the same alwayes but rather wee make the remembraunce of that sacrifice This correction sheweth what he meaneth by the name of sacrifice And whereas Maister Heskins vrgeth that they ministred dayly none were bound but priests to communicate aboue thrise in the yere he concludeth the priest receiued oftentimes alone But he playeth the papist notably in taking rather then begging two principles one that the people were not bounde which hee is not able to proue another that there was but one Priest in a church whereas at that time commonly there was but one church in a citie in which were many priestes which by his owne confession were bound to receiue as often as
of Cyril in 15. Ioan. Non poterat aliter c. agreeth in effect with Irenaeus and is set downe and aunswered in the second Booke and foureteenth Chapter whither I remit the reader The places of Hilarius are also aunswered in the 20. and 24. Chapters of the second Booke yet bicause hee applyeth them to an other text I will set them downe here also They are in the eight Booke De trinitate though Maister Heskins quote not the place Eos qui inter patrem filium c. I aske them that bring in the vnitie of will betweene the Father and the Sonne whether Christe be nowe in vs by veritie of nature or by agreement of will For if the worde was verily made flesh and if we doe verily receiue the worde made flesh in the Lords meate howe is he not to be thought to abide in vs naturally who being borne man did both take our nature nowe inseparable vpon him and also hath admixed the nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder the sacrament of his flesh to be communicated vnto vs For so we be all one bicause the Father is in Christe and Christ is in vs Whosoeuer therfore shall deny the Father to be naturally in Christ let him first deny that he himself is not naturally in Christ as Christ in him bicause the Father being in Christe and Christe in vs make vs to be one in them Therefore if Christe haue truely taken vpon him the flesh of our body and that man which was borne of Marie was truely Christe and we doe truely vnder a mysterie receiue the flesh of his body and by this we shall be one bicause the Father is in him and he in vs. Here Maister Heskins cutteth off the conclusion which is this Quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit vnitatis Howe is the veritie of Will maintained when the naturall propertie by the sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie Hilarie reasoneth against the Arrians that saide God was not naturally or essentially in Christe but by vnitie of wil as God is in vs but he proueth that Christe is naturally ioyned to vs by his incarnation and doth also communicate his flesh vnto vs by the holy sacrament which as hee expoundeth him selfe in the last sentence that M. Hes. hath cut off is a sacramēt or mysterie of our perfect vnitie with christ Therefore he doth not simply say that we do naturally eat the flesh of Christ but vnder a mysterie vnder a sacrament by which he meaneth that we doe not eate the flesh of Christ carnally but spiritually not after a corporall manner but after a spirituall maner Finally he saith that Christe is so naturally in vs as we are naturally in Christ but we are onely spiritually in Christ therefore Christ is onely spiritually in vs For naturally as he vseth it for essentially is not contrarie to spiritually But he alledgeth another place of Hilarie where he affirmeth that Christ is in vs both carnally and corporally Haec idcirco a nobis commemorata sunt c. These thinges are for this cause spoken of vs bicause the heretiques falsely affirming an vnitie of Will onely to be betweene the Father and the Sonne did vse the example of our vnitie with GOD as though we being vnited to the Sonne and by the same to the Father onely by obedience and will of religion no propertie of naturall communion should be giuen by the sacrament of his naturall flesh and bloud seing that both by the honor of the sonne of God giuen to vs and by the sonne of God carnally abiding in vs and we being corporally and inseparably vnited in him the mysterie of the true and naturall vnitie is to be declared By the words of corporally and carnally he meaneth essentially as he did before by the word naturally both bicause Christe tooke our nature verily vpon him and also doth communicat vnto vs by the same his eternitie And that he meaneth not carnally and corporally as the Papistes doe it is manifest by that he saith we are not onely corporally but also inseparably vnited in him For there corporall coniunction maketh not an inseparable vnion bicause they say that Christ is as naturally carnally and corporally vnited to the wicked from whome he is separated as to the godly wherefore it is left of necessitie that this naturall carnall corporall or essentiall dwelling of Christe in vs is not after a naturall manner but after a wonderfull manner not after a fleshly but after a spirituall manner not after a bodily but after a diuine and heauenly manner To conclude howe plaine these places be for the proclamer and plaine against Maister Heskins the exclamer let the readers iudge The proclamer doth admit these sayings according to the minde of the writers and not according to Maister Heskins falsifications and gloses The Sixtieth Chapter treateth vpon this text of S. Paule to the Hebruer We haue an altar c. The text is written Heb. 13. We haue an altar of which is it not lawful for them to eat which serue in the tabernacle By which he meaneth that none can be partakers of the sacrifice of Christe that remaine in the ceremoniall obseruation of the Leuiticall lawe But Maister Heskins vnderstandeth it that we haue the body of Christe in the sacrament of which it is not lawfull for any Iewe abiding in Moses lawe to eate And this he wil proue by Isichius and Theophylact Isichius he citeth in Leuit. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Omnem sanguinem c. He commaunded all the rest of the bloud of the calfe to be powred out about the foote of the altar of the burnt offering which is in the tabernacle of witnesse Let vs againe vnderstand the altar of the burned sacrifice to be the body of christ For as he is the Priest and the sacrifice so he is the altar And knowe that S. Paule doth vnderstand the intelligible altar to be the body of Christ for he saith we haue an altar of which they haue no power to eate which doe serue in the tabernacle that is to say the body of christ For of that it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate M. Heskins would haue it plaine that he meaneth the reall presence of Christes body in the sacrament when neither the Apostle nor Isichius speake one worde of the sacrament but of the spirituall participation of the sacrifice of Christes death for he saith Christ is the Priest the sacrifice and the altar Therefore hee speaketh of that sacrifice that Christe him selfe did offer not of that sacrifice which the Papistes do imagine their blasphemous Priestes do offer And whereas M. Heskins trifleth of M. Hoopers glose of edere and credere that to eate is to beleeue although to eat the flesh of Christe be the effect of faith bicause that by faith we eate Christ yet may we more aptly say to eate is to beleeue then
of God which forbiddeth worshipping of any image or similitude of any thing 4 When the faith and intent of him that worshippeth the image is good as to worship one God and his Saintes what so euer is done with this mind so that sacrifice be not made to images it can be no idolatrie What faith is that which is contrarie to Gods commaundement And what call you sacrifice if prayers thanksgiuing and prayses bee none which are offered by the people to images namely to our Ladie of Walsingham of Ipswich c. which can bee none other but those idols that bee set vp in those places wee haue also shewed before that the Councel of Nice 2. wil haue sacrifice offered to the image of Christ. 5 Christians must not be considered as weake fraile like the Iewes and Paynims but strong and full of knowledge according to the prophesies and promises They shall all knowe me c. Iere. 31. and he doth them wrong that iudgeth Gods people proue to idolatrie for images were forbidden the Iewes but as the libell of diuorcement was winked at in them O monstruous impudencie that maketh one of the tenne commandements that hath such a seuere threatening annexed vnto it that the Lorde will punish the transgressours of it vnto the thirde and fourth gâ—â—eration like a permission of that whereof there was no commaundement But what so euer was promised of the knowledge and faith of Christe perteyneth not to all that vnworthily beare the name of Christe but onely to perfect and well instructed Christians 6 If the people be weake and apt to idolatrie yet it is the best way to keep them from it to suffer them to haue and honour conueniently the images of honourable persons as God permitted the Iewes to offer â–ª Oxen Calues c. because they would needes offer some external sacrifice As though God learned of them to make his lawes of sacrifices or if that had ben the best way he would not rather haue permitted images then forbidden them 7 Because the people haue not so many sacrifices as the Iewes therfore it is good they haue the remembrances of the martyrs in images whiche sacrificed their owne bodies It is great maruell the Apostles coulde not finde suche a profitable supplie of the Iewish sacrifices by images but onely the sacrifice of Christes death and the spirituall sacrifices of our selues which if we offer diligently we shall finde matter inough to keepe vs exercised that we neede not spend our time in gaping vpon idols 8 Images are not so much permitted to Christians for their weaknesse as for their strength that they may now haue them worship them without committing spiritual fornication as in times past for to haue none is pusil lanimity In deed it is a Popish magnanimity to contemn the coÌ„mandement of God and it were belike no daunger of fornicatioÌ„ to haue a whore to kisse her to lie with her for Popish Christians are strong ynough 9 The text of Iohn 4. that the true worshippers must worship God in spirite and veritie must not be applyed against worshipping of God by images but against idols and bondage of praying after one corporall fashion for godly images leade vs to spirituall deuotion The Diuel they doe But if they did yet not more then the ceremonies of the olde law the abolishing of which our Sauiour Christe in that sentence doeth promise not to set vppoÌ„ a spirituall worship in spirite and trueth but as Maister Sander would beare vs in hand to chaunge the shadowes and ceremonies from such as were instituted by God to as many other ordeined by men and moreouer to worshipping by images which before was altogether forbidden Note also that he calleth them godly images which terme he reproued in Maister Iewell As for the Votaries he carpeth which can abide to see their concubynes after their vowe of chastetie and yet cannot abide to see popish images let them aunswere for themselues if any such keep harlots as for them that are married they shal better defend their marrying out of the scriptures then the Popish Votaries their filthie abhominable liues vnder the hypocriticall title of chastitie Now followeth 12. commodities that come by images 1 We learne something by them that we knewe not before The Prophet Abacuc faith an image can teach nothing but lies Cap. 2. vers 18. 2 They bring vs in remembrance of the thinges that we know Theodotus of Ancira saith such cogitation is vaine and the deceitfull inuention of the deuil 3 They bring vs in remembrance not as by reading and repeating but by the most speedie twinckling of an eye But faith without the which it is impossible to please God commeth by hearing of Gods word Rom. 8. 4 By seeing and knowing we are prouoked to become like them whose images we worship Nay rather we are made like them whom we worship that is without sense and vnderstanding Psal. 115. 5 We are confirmed in our faith perceiuing those things that are painted be so true that they are euerie where set forth and honored Pictoribus atque poetis quidlibet audendi semper fuit aequa potestas Because Painters and Poets haue alwaies had libertie to setforth what they list Let this be a confirmation of Popish faith it shal be none of mine 6 We are kept wel occupied and deliuered from occasion to imagine idle things of our owne fantasie which might cause idolatrie If they be wel occupied that worship God contrarie to his commandement according to their owne idle fantasie 7 We tarie more willingly in the house of God which is so adorned with godly histories The same reason Durande alleadgeth for hanging of Oistriches egges in the churches Dauid desired to dwel in the house of the Lord al the daies of his life wheÌ„ there was neuer an image in it 8 We consider the companie of heauen how maruelous it is for as the holy of holies which did signifie heauen was decked with the images of Angels he meaneth the Cherubims so must our Churches be decked with images of Angels Saintes to be a figure of euerlasting glorie By the same reason I wil proue that the people must neuer come into the Church for the people neuer came into the holy of holies but the Priest only and that but once a yere And seeing Christ is entred into heauen indeede there must be no more figures of heauen whereof actuall possession is all ready taken 9 We pray to Christ and the Saints at the sight of their images You cal vpon them in whom you do not beleeue and therefore you are Infidels and idolaters or if you beleeue in men you are accursed of god Cursed be he that putteth his trust in man Ier. 17. vers 5. 10 We honour God in his saintes and in the signes and monumentes of them You worship you knowe not what but as you list which is will worship condemned by god Col. 3. vers 23. 11 We glorifie God in
insensible Idoll which by the iust iudgement of God is made like vnto those Images whiche he worshippeth and in whome hee putteth his trust SECTIO 12. in the 58. leafe The bishoppe alledgeth S. Augustine which saieth that in our praiers wee must not chirpe like birdes but sing like men To this he maketh none answere but that we must learne to vnderstand the English which we read or els we are chirpers as though Englishe men could vnderstand no more of English then of Latine SECTIO 13. From the first face of the 56. leafe to the 2. face of 59. leafe The bishoppe citeth a lawe of Iustinian that the priest shoulde speake with an audible voice that the people might say Amen therefore the people shoulde vnderstande what the minister saith M. Rastel aunswereth to this nothinge but that the people do and may saye Amen though they vnderstand him not so long as there is no mistrust in the persons faith honesty So that belike if the priest be a knaue no man shoulde saye Amen to his masse Good stuffe I warrant you But in that the people said Amen to the priests wordes of consecration he will prooue like a luftie logician whiche findeth no reason but much rethorike in that bishops sermon that they did exclude al figuration and significatioÌ„ of his body We wil reason no longer M.R. hath gotteÌ„ the day and that with maine logike And as for the second abuse of not receiuing in both kindes if it were any abuse it is the fault he saith of the bishops priests and not of the masse which consecrateth in both kinds But seeing receiuing is made one of the parts of the masse receiuing in one kind onely is an abuse of the masse it self I know he wil answer the priest receiueth in both kindes In deede if the sacrament had bene instituted for priests onely the aunswere had bene somewhat but if the blood of Christ pertaine to more then priestes surely the sacrament of his blood shoulde not be denyed to anye for whome he shedde his blood SECTIO 14. From the second face of the 59. leafe to the second face of 61. leafe The bishop saide the Canon of the masse for manie causes is a verie vaine thinge and so vncertaine that no man can redily tell on whom to father it Notwithstanding the bishoppe saith for many causes yet Master Rastell taketh exceptions to his argument as though for the vncertaintie of the author onely it shoulde be refused comparing it most leudely with certaine bookes of holy scripture the indighters of which although they be not knowne yet the onely author is both knowen and acknowledged to be the holy Ghost But Pope Innocent the third saith it came from the Apostles other say from Gregory the first other from Gregory the thirde But that it came neither from the Apostles nor froÌ„ Gregory the first euen that place which M.Ra. citeth out of Greg. lib. 7. ep 63. doth proue sufficiently For there Greg. reproueth the order of the liturgie or canon vsed in his time because the Lords praier by that order was not said ouer the sacrameÌ„t as wel as the praier of Scholasticus But M.R. will haue Scholasticus to signifie a scholer or disciple of Christ and not to be a proper name which is altogether vntrue vnlikely for if Greg. had thought any Apostle or disciple of Christ to haue bin the auctor of it he would neuer haue takeÌ„ vpoÌ„ him to reproue it seing he thoght it expedieÌ„t that the lords praier should be said ouer the sacrament which is not vsed in the popish canon it followeth also that Gregorie the first was not the author of the popish canon And so it is not prooued to haue bene made within the compasse of sixe hundreth yeres after Christ. SECTIO 15. From the second face of the 61. leafe to the first face of the 63. leaf Here he chargeth the bishop with a shamefull lye for saying that the priest in the canon desireth God to blesse Christ his body denying any such thing to be in the Latin canon but confesseth that the Graecians vse such words and excuseth theÌ„ by vehemency of desire wheras those words do proue that the authors of those liturgies beleeued not the bread to be turned into the body of Christ which they would neuer haue praied that God shuld blesse vpoÌ„ any vehemency of desire to confesse the body of Christ to haue need of sanctification But to returne to the Latine canon I pray you M.R. what be these Dona sancta sacrificia those gifts holy sacrifices which he desireth God to blesse the bread wine what holines is in theÌ„ before they be consecrated So for al your loud lying clamors the canon is not constant with it self or your heresie of transsubstantiation agreeth not with the canon Also that M. of the sentence lib. 4. dist 13. plainly affirmeth that your masse is called Missa because the Angell the is praied for is sent to consecrate the body of Christ which praier is saide after the priests consecration SECTIO 16. From the first face of the 63. leafe to the second face of the 64. leaf in the which he speaketh of the sacrifice of the masse He would know what blasphemie it is for the priest to offer Christ to his father in a propitiatorie sacrifice Verily so great blasphemie as none can lightly be greater First because it taketh away the eternall and vnsuccessible priesthood of christ Secondly because it maketh the priest more excellent then christ For euery sacrifice is excepted for the dignitie of him which offereth it so the sacrifice of Christ which by his eternall spirite offered vp himselfe was acceptable vnto god Heb. 9. But M.R. being forsaken of the scripture flyeth to the sayings of the doctors that not onely the priest but all the Church offereth Christe neuertheles the olde fathers euen by saying so declare that they meane not to set vp a propitiatory sacrifice but onely to celebrate a remembraunce of the only singular sacrifice of Christ. Chrysost. ad Heb. cap. 10. Hom. 17. Hoc autem quod facimus c. But this that we do is done in remembrance of that which was done For do this saith he in remembrance of me We make not another sacrifice as the high priest but the same alwayes but rather we worke the remembraunce of that sacrifice And August Contra Faust. man lib. 20. cap. 18. Vnde iam Christiani c. Whereupon now the Christians do celebrate the memorie of the same sacrifice once finished by holy oblation and participation of the bodie blood of christ Contra aduersariâ—â— lag proph cap. 18. He calleth the death of Christ Vnum singulare solum verum sacrificium the one singular and onely true sacrifice These places with manye other are sufficient to expounde what they meane when in any other place figuratiuely and vnproperly they call the
vs in those holy mysteries after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner not carnally nor corporally but spiritually and diuinelye And where as Maister Rastell citeth a longe saying of Cyrillus against an Arrian whiche denyed that wee haue any corporall coniunction with Christe and proueth the same by the strength and power of the misticall benediction which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in vs it is nothing in the worlde to his corporall and carnall manner of presence For we also do graunt that the power of the mistical benediction is such as maketh Christ to dwel corporally in the faithfull which is nothing else as he doth immediately expounde himselfe but that they are made members of Christes bodie and members one of another which is not after any carnall or naturall manner but after an heauēly diuine manner of vnion For the same Cyril doth affirme that Christ giuing the sacrament to his disciples gaue thē fragmēta panis peeces of bread By which is the plaine hee meant not to teach any transubstantiation of the bread into the natural body of Christ. This place of Cyrill is set downe at large in mine aunswere to Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 14. And where as hee saith we do weaken the hope of the resurrection of our flesh by denying the carnall manner of presence of Christs body in the sacrament I say it is vtterly false and the contrarie is true that the Popish heretikes do weaken the hope of resurrection in all them that haue not receiued the sacrament when they faine such a presence of Christes body in the sacrament as cannot bee receiued without the sacrament SECTIO 42. From the 144. leafe to the ende of the 145. leafe To the Bishops challenge that the body of Christ cannot be in a thousande places or more at one time hee aunswereth it needed not to be proued because reason must giue place to faith and one principle proued of Christes presence draweth all the rest after it and thirdly because Christs body is not locally present in the sacrament but in one place onely Finally hee citeth a long saying of Chrisostome in Ep. ad Heb. Hom. 17. reasoning how Christ is offered euery day but the whole discourse is cleane contrary to Maister Rastels purpose and especially the first sentence and the last expoundeth howe Christ was offered not really but as in a remembrance Doe wee not offer euerye day Wee offer in deede but as men which make a remembrance of his death these wordes shewe what kinde of oblation it was that they did make namelye a celebration of the memoriall of his death and not a propitiatorie sacrifice of Christes bodye carnally present The last wordes are these Wee offer not another sacrifice as the bishops did but alwayes that same or rather wee make the remembrance of that sacrifice This correction sheweth that it was not properly a sacrifice whiche they offered Finally there is not one worde in that discourse but it is directly against the sacrifice of the Masse SECTIO 43. From the 145. leafe to the 149. leafe To nine parts of the bishoppes chalenge hee aunswereth nothing but refuseth for their particularitie to answere to them First that the Priest did not holde the sacrament ouer his heade Secondlye that the people did not worship it with Godly honour Thirdly that it was not then hanged vnder a Canopye Fourthly that after consecration there remaineth nothing but accidences of breade and wine Fiftly that the priest deuided not the sacramēt in three parts receiued them all himselfe alone Sixtly that whosoeuer had said the sacrament is a figure a pledge a token or a remembrance of Christes bodye had not therefore ben iudged for an heretike Seuenthly that it was not lawefull to say 30. or twentie c. Masses in one Church in one day Eightly that images were not set vp to be worshiped Ninthly that the lay people were not forbidden to reade the worde of God in their owne tongue Maister Rastell saith this is an vnlearned and pelting kinde of reasoning but he proueth it by vnlearned and pelting examples as it is not read that Christe did crye from his mothers breast or did weare a peticoate hose or shooes or went on his mothers errande c. As though any of these thinges were articles of our beleefe as some of those are among the Papistes or as though it perteined any thing to knowe such matters as the Papistes pretende their matters necessarye not onely to be knowen but also practised Finally he woulde perswade his popish friends that these thinges neede not to bee proued to bee of such antiquitie because the Church hath receiued them Then let him and his fellowes bee a shamed and crie creake whiche were wont to boaste of fifteene hundreth yeares antiquitie for all their doctrine and ceremonyes the consent of all ages the traditions of the Apostles and such like where nowe they are cutte shorte of the first sixe hundreth yeares and being vrged to shewe their antiquitie can say nothing but that it is not needefull SECTIO 44. in the 149. leafe To the Bishoppes challenge that the wordes of consecration by no authoritie of councelles or Doctours ought to bee pronounced closelye Hee confesseth the matter but hee can proue or else hee lyeth that there must be an heade in the Churche whiche as well in this matter as in all other must bee obeyed Howe well hee can proue it is tryed in the fourtie Section The rest of the challenges hee giueth ouer being desirous to bee at an ende with them as I cannot blame him SECTIO 45. From the end of the 149. leafe to the 152. leafe in whiche he woulde proue that priests haue auctoritie to offer Christ. He taketh vppon him to shewe that the priest hath authoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his father But good lorde whether more blasphemously then ignorantly and vnlearnedly For first he citeth the saying of the Apostel Heb. 5. Euery high Priest taken of men is appointed for men in those things that perteine to God to offer vp gifts and sacrifices for sinnes which the Apostle speaketh expreslye of the priests of the old lawe and proueth the excellency of Christ aboue them Secondly admitting hee shoulde speake of Pristes of the newe Testament which is false he saith their sacrifice must be after the order of Melchisedech as it is written thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech of which order Christ is a priest in respect of Popish priestes that be nowe a dayes or else Gods oth should be broken Surely I merueile at the great clemency of god which stoppeth not such blasphemous mouthes with thunderbolts that make the eternall priesthoode of Christ which hee hath without succession to depende vppon their greasie order which hath not beene but of late erected neither shall continue for euer where as our sauiour Christe worlde without ende shal bee both a king and a priest which
105. After all these iollie questions he confesseth he should do vs wrong to require the probation of these articles bicause many of them containe indifferent ceremonies in many he sticketh vpoÌ„ such termes as he thinketh are not found in the auncient Fathers in some he presseth vs with particular wordes leauing the generall principle and in some with priuate mens opinions he might haue added in some with his own impudent lyes and forgeries which none of vs do holde and such he would make the Bishopâ— challenge to be but the world hath sufficiently seene the contrarie proued that most of the matters contained in that challenge be of the greatest mysteries of Poperie whereas these of M.Ra. witlesse and shamelesse deuising for the most part are not maintained at all in manner and forme as he propoundeth them and such as be materiall are sufficiently proued But nowe that he hath played the foole as he confesseth all this while he promiseth to play the wise man in propounding matters of weight substance in which you shall see that euen as before he chargeth vs to proue many things which we do not hold and therefore he playeth not the wise man but the craftie marchant to make the ignorant beleeue that wee maintaine that we are not able to iustifie He diuideth his challenge into foure partes the first hath three Articles To the first that it is vnlawful to make a vowe to God of chastitie obedience or pouertie I answere it is vnlawfull to make a vowe of that which is not in a mans power to performe as is the vowe of Virginitie which is a gift not giuen to all as our sauiour Christ testifieth Matt. 19. Also ConciliuÌ„ ArasicanuÌ„ 2. decreed ca. 11. De obligatione votoruÌ„ Nemo quicquam Domino rectè vouerit nisi ab ipso acceperit sicut legitur Quae de manu tua accepimus damus tibi Of the bonde of vowes No man shall rightly vowe any thing to the Lord except he haue receiued it of him as it is read Such things as we haue receiued of thy hand we giue to thee That breakers of such vowes were esteemed aboue others as singular witnesses of the libertie of the Gospell is no part of our assertion But that their meaning is honest is proued by Leo B. of Rome Ep. 90. speaking of a Monke Vnde qui relicta singularitatis professione ad militiam vel ad nuptial dâ—uolutus est publicae paenitentiae satisfactione purgandus est quia etsi innocens militia honestum potest esse coniâ—gium electionem tamen meliorem deseruisse transgressio est Wherefore he which hath forsaken the profession of sole life and fallen to warfare or marriage must be purged by satisfaction of open repentance bicause that although his warfare may be harmelesse and his marriage honest yet it is a transgression to haue forsaken his better choyse To the second that it was abhominable to make any sacrifice to God beside the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in words the figures for his benefites with remembrance of his passion c. I proue by the authoritie of Iustinus which affirmeth that these were the only sacrifices deliuered vnto the Christians therefore it was abhominable to vse any other His wordes are in his Dialogue with Tryphon against the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I my selfe doe affirme that prayers and thankesgiuings made by worthie persons are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to god For these are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make to be put in mind by their drie and moyst nourishment of the passion which God the sonne of God is recorded to haue suffered for them Here note that he calleth the sacrament drie and moyst nourishment To the third that there was no Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech but onely the Priesthoode of our Sauiour Christ it is manifest by the 110. Psalme that the Priesthood pertaineth to him that sitteth at the right hand of God euen to the Lord Iesus Christe also by the Apostle to the Hebrues 5. 7. Chapter in which it is saide that he hath that Priesthoode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is so peculiar to him as it passeth not by succession Neither was there euer any greater blasphemie then that euery Popish Priest should bee a Priest after the order of Melchisedech to offer Christe to his Father And that Priestes haue not a singular sacrifice to offer for the sinnes of the people is proued by S. Augustine â— Contra aduersar leg prophe who calleth the death of Christ Vâ—um singulare solum verum sacrificium that one singular and onely true sacrifice in which the bloud of Christe was shed for vs But the Papistes call their blasphemous sacrifice an vnbloudie sacrifice therefore they haue not any singular sacrifice for the sinnes of the people The second part containeth 12. Articles in which he falsly chargeth Caluine in his institutions with diuers Articles which neither he nor any of vs doe holde The first that the sacrament of baptisme instituted by Christ is no better then the circumcision of the old lawe is proued by Saint Augustine which saith in Ioan. Tr. 26. speaking of the sacraments of the old law that they were in fignis diuersa in re quae significatur paria diuers in signes equall in the thing signified The second that baptisme is a signe onely of our profession and that our sinnes are not truly forgiuen in it is no doctrine of ours but of the Anabaptistes mightily confuted by Caluine whome he slaundereth to hold it The 3. that confirmation ought to be a sacrament is an inuention of man plaine for that it is not taught in the scriptures to be an institution of christ IrenÄ™us testifieth that the annointing with sweete oyle came first of the Valentinian heretiques Lib. 1. cap. 18. Also in S. Hieromes time the Priestes made the oyle of Chrisme and laide on their handes and not the Bishop only In Sophon cap. 3 â–ª For a Bishop did nothing more then a Priest but only in ordeining of ministers Hier. Euagrio Wherevpon it followeth that the Popish confirmation was not then a sacrament which they hold can be ministred of none but of a Bishop The fourth that Christ deliuered in his last supper a figure only of his body to be eaten of his Apostles is none of our assertions for we affirme that he deliuered breade and wine not as a figure onely but as his very body and bloud spiritually to be eaten and dronken The 5. that the power of forgiuing and reteyning sinnes which Christ gaue to his Apostles is nothing else but a comforting or fearing of mens consciences by the promises or menaces of the scripture c. is not affirmed of vs but that Christ hath giuen power to his ministers to assure the penitent of forgiuenesse in his name to pronounce his iudgment to the vnrepentant so that man followeth the sentence of God and not God of man.