bloud which is shed for you and that bloud which was shed for vs was separated from his bodie therefore this bloud in the cuppe is separated from his bodie And in verie deede the mysterie of the cuppe is sett forth in that he sayeth his bloud was shedd for vs and not as it remayned in the veynes of his bodie for not his bloud in his bodie but the shedding of his bloud hath washed our consciences from dead workes to serue the liuing god So the breaking of his bodie on the crosse hath made it a spirituall meat for vs to feede vppon and therefore he saith this is my bodie which is giuen for you And so sayeth Hesychius verie well of the crosse Quae etiam superimpositam Dominicam carnem esibilem hominibus reddit nisi enim superimposita fuisset cruci nos corpus Christi nequaquam mysticè perciperemus The crosse maketh our Lordes fleshe layde vpoÌ„ it eatable of men for except it had been layde vpoÌ„ the crosse we should not receiue mystically the bodie of Christ in Leu. lib. 2. Cap. 6. But M. Heskins by miserable detorting of a worde or two woulde make the auncient fathers patrones of his monstrous sacriledge as though they taught whole Christ to be vnder eche kinde of which opinion there is not one title to be found in all their workes First Cyprian de Cana Domini Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem Domini mutatus proâ—urat vitam This common bread being changed into the bodie and bloud of our Lorde procureth life But here Maister Heskins playeth his olde parte most impudently falsifying the wordes of Cyprian by adding Domini and leauing out that which followeth and maketh all out of doubt that Cyprian speaketh not here of the sacramentall bread but of common breade His wordes are these Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam incrementum corporibus ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae Ä™ternae effectum non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione nos Christo vnitos This common breade being chaunged into fleshe and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodies therefore the weakenesse of our faith being holpen by the accustomed effect of thinges is taught by a sensible argument that in the visible sacrament is the effect of eternall life and that wee are vnited to Christ not so much by a bodily as by a spirituall transition You see therefore howe shamefully hee abuseth Cyprian Who seeing hee was so vehement against them that vsed water onely in the cuppe would he think you allowe that neither wine nor water shoulde be giuen Especially when hee giueth a generall rule that the institution of Christe bee precisely obserued and that nothing else is to be done concerning the cuppe then that Christe him selfe did before vs lib. â— Ep. 3. Caecilio But are Papistes ashamed of forgerie to mainteine their false doctrine of transubstantiation After Cyprian hee depraueth the wordes of Irenaeus lib. 5. Calicem qui est creatura suum corpus confirmauit The cuppe which is a creature he confirmed to be his bodie but it followeth which he craftely omitteth Ex quo nostra auget corpora Quando ergo mixtus Calix factus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi c. Of which hee doeth increase our bodies When then the mixed cuppe and breade that is made receiueth the worde of God the Eucharistie or sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christe is made Whether there bee eclipsis or synechdoche in the former wordes thou mayst see plainly here that hee meant not to exclude the bread but that they both together make the sacrament But Maister Heskins alledgeth further out of Irenaeus Sanguis non est nisi a venis carnibus reliqua quae est secundùm hominem substantia Bloud is not but of vaines and fleshe and other substance of man. By these wordes which he vseth to proue that Christe had a true bodie because he had bloud M. Heskins like a wise man would proue that wheresoeuer bloud is there must be fleshe and vaines also wherein all the pudding wiues of Louayne will holde against him In deede bloude commeth from vaynes and fleshe as IrenÄ™us sayeth but it doth not followe that where bloud is there must be vaines and fleshe As for the saying of Bernarde wee are as little moued withall as M. Heskins with Melancthon to whome in his brauerie he sayeth vale and will cleaue to the substantiall doctrine of the fathers for the communion in one kinde of which he is not able to bring one But to conclude this Chapter If he be asked why Christe did institute the sacrament vnder both kindes if it bee sufficient to receiue one he aunswereth to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion But all Christian men ought to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion therefore he did institute it for all Christian men to receiue vnder both kindes And so S. Paule concludeth as often as you eate of this bread and drink of this cuppe you shewe the Lordes death vntil he come Wherefore the scripture is directly contrarie to the sacrilegious decree of the Papistes of receiuing the sacrament in one kinde onely The eyght and sixtieth Chapter proueth the same receipt vnder one kinde to be lawfull by the auncient practise of the Church Before these substantiall proues come in he taketh vpon him to aunswer the obiections of the aduersaries And first of the Bohemnians who vsed that place out of the sixt of S. Iohn Except you eat the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you These such like textes out of that Chapter must needes be inuincible argumentes against the Papistes which holde that those sayinges are to bee vnderstoode of the sacrament first and principally And otherwise for as much as the Lordes supper is a seale and sacrament of that doctrine and participation of the fleshe and bloude of our sauiour Christ which he there teacheth we may necessarily gather that seeing he ioyneth eating and drinking in the thing we may not omitt either of them in the signe And where as the Papistes would shift off that matter with their concomitans of bloud with the bodie it will not serue seeing he requireth drinking as necessarily as eating euen as he is a perfect foode and therefore is not meate without drinke but both meate and drinke Therefore diuerse counsels and specially Bracarense tertium Capitul 1. and it is in the decrees De Con. Dis. 2. cum omne as it reformed many corruptions that were crept into the Church about the ministration of the cup so this was one which they reproued that they vsed to dippe the breade in the cup and so deliuer it to the people Illud verò quod
Christ it is euident that he neither beleeued transubstantiation nor the carnall presence nor consecration nor intention after the manner of the Papistes as also by this that hee calleth the bread and wine after consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplaries or figures You see therefore howe with patches and peeces rent off here and there he goeth about to deceiue the simple readers which either haue no leasure or no boookes or no skill to trie out his falsifications and malicious corruptions The like sinceritie hee vseth in citing Chrysostomes Masse for so he calleth his Liturgie in which is a prayer for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius which was seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostomes death and therfore could not possibly be written by him Besides this there be diuers copies in the Greeke tong one that Erasmus translated which is very vnlike that copie which is printed in Greeke since that time as the learned sort doe knowe The wordes he citeth be in a manner the same that were in Basils Liturgie sauing that in the end he addeth Permutans ea sancto spiritu tuo changing them by the spirt This change may well be without transubstantiation as hath bene often shewed before The saying of Ambrose is more at large in the Chapter next before As for the praier of the Popish Masse that the oblation may be made the body and bloud of Christ as it is vnderstoode of them is nothing like the prayers of the elder Liturgies although in sound of some words it seeme to agree And as foolishly as vniustly he findeth fault with our praier in the communion that wee receiuing the creatures of breade and wine in remembrance of Christes death according to his institution may be made partakers of his most blessed body bloud S. Iames S. Clement and the rest saith he prayed not that they might receiue bread and wine No more doe we thou foolish sophister But that receiuing bread and wine we might be partakers of Christes body and bloud and this did all the Apostolike and Primitiue Church pray as we pray in baptisme not that we may receiue water but that receiuing water we may be borne a newe Neither did they euer pray that the breade and wine might be transubstantiated into the body bloud of Christ but that they might be made the body bloud of Christ to theÌ„ after a spirtual sacrameÌ„tal maner But I am much to blame to vouchsafe these childish sophismes of any answere Next to this he would knowe what authoritie the Protestants can shewe that the eating and drinking of bread wine is of Christes institution That it is a part of his institution the Euangelists S. Paul do shewe most euidently But though he tooke breade and wine in his hands saith M. Heskins he changed it before he gaue them so that it was no more bread and wine but his body and bloud and therefore we charge Christ with an vntrueth to say that receiuing of bread and wine is of Christes institution O Maister of impietie and follie Christ made no such change in his handes but that which was in the cup was still the fruit of the vine as he himself testified saying I wil no more drinke of this fruit of the vine vntill the day come when I shall drinke it a newe with you in the kingdome of my father Math. 26. As for the praier of those Liturgies of Iames and Basil That God would make them worthie to receiue the body and bloud of Christe without condemnation proueth not that they meant to receiue the body of Christ after a corporall maner nor that the very body of Christe may be receiued to damnation The thirde Liturgie of Chrysostome which Erasmus expoundeth hath it otherwise Dignos nos redde potenti manu â—ua vt participes simuâ— immaculati tui corporis preciosi tui sanguinis per nos omnis populus Make vs worthy by thy mightie hand that we may be partakers of thy vndefiled body and of thy precious bloud and so may al the people by vs This prayer is godly sound and so are the other being rightly vnderstoode namely that they which eate of that bread drinke of that cup of the Lord vnworthily as S. Paule saith do eat and drinke their owne damnation not considering the Lords body But M. Heskins vrgeth that the spiritual body of Christ or Christ spiritually cannot be deliuered by the Priestes to the people but the real body may Yes verily much rather then the body of Christ corporally euen as the holy Ghost may be deliuered in baptisme and as eternal life and forgiuesse of sinnes may be giuen in preaching the Gospell and none of these feinedly but truly yet otherwise are they giuen by God otherwise by this Ministers But in this distinction of M. Hes â–ª it is good to note that he maketh Christ to haue a reall body which is not spirituall a spirituall body which is not reall Christ hath in deede a mysticall body which is his Church and that is not his natural body but by spiritual coniunction vnited to his only true naturall body But of this mystical body M. Hes. speaketh not Further he taketh exceptions to our prayer affirmeth that It is not the institution of Christe to receiue the creatures of breade and wine in the remembrance of his death But notwithstanding all his childish blockish quarels our prayer is waranted by the Apostles words 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat of this bread drinke of this cup ye shewe the Lords death till he come In the last part of this Chap. he will determine of the intention of the ministers of the new Church And that is that Desiring to receiue the creatures of bread wine they exclude the body and bloud of Christ. Who euer heard a more shamelesse lye or a more inconsequent argument But seing there be two sorts of ministers in this new founded Church he wil speake of them both one sort were made Popish Priestes so haue authoritie to consecrate but they lacke intention now they be fallen to heresie there is a second sort which thought they could not haue intention to consecrate yet being none of the greasie and blasphemous order they lack authoritie But I wold there were not a third sort of whom I spake in the last chap. that wer made popish Priestes and so continue but in outward dissimulation ioyne with vs if these intend to consecrate when they minister the coÌ„munion how can M. Hes. dissuade the Papists from receiuing of them or count their sacrameÌ„t nothing but bare bread And wheras M. He. seemeth in the end to inueigh against such I will willingly confesse that they are worse then he is or such as professe what they are but not worse then hee hath beene in King Henries King Edwards dayes when he dissembled and swaâ—e as deepely as any of them all As for our intention seeing it is
close Maister Heskins aunswereth this is a small fault and from the Masse of S. Iames flyeth to S. Basils Masse Where it is said the Bishop prayeth secretly yet he spake the wordes as they call them of consecration openly The thirde comparison S. Iames in his Masse ministred the communion to the people The Papists in their Masse receiue them selues alone To this he aunswereth denying that S. Iames did always minister the communion to the people which is an impudent shift except he will denie the fourme of that liturgie which prescribeth the ministration to the people after the consecration His reason is because in Chrysostomes liturgie which was written more then a thousand yeares after S. Iames and falsely beareth the name of Chrysostome there is a rule what the priest shall doe when there are no communicants The fourth comparison S. Iames ministred the communion to the people vnder both kindes The Papists in their Masse in one kinde onely Here hath he none other refuge but to say that S. Iames did not alwayes minister vnder both kindes Then let him denie the credite of the liturgie which prescribeth the cōmunion to be ministred in both kindes The fift comparison Saint Iames preached and set foorth the death of Christ They in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe gestures and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstand not and make no manner of mention of Christes death M. Hes. complayneth of the Bishops repetitions imputing them to want of stuffe when he himselfe moste absurdly repeateth his three vntruthes surmised to be in this assertion which he set downe before in the 39. Chapter whither I referre the Reader for the answere Only this I wil note that he can finde no other preaching to the people but the Aulbe to signifie the white garment that Christe was sent in from Herode the vestiment the garment that he was mocked in in the house of Pilate the Crosse vpon the vestiment signifieth the crosse of Christe which he did beare as the priest doth on his backe the eleuation signifieth the lifting vp of Christe on the crosse he might say by as good reason the Priests hands signified the two theeues the Priest himselfe the tormentors that did lift him vp to the crosse Beholde this is the preaching of Christes death in the Masse whether it be an impudent vntruth as Maister Heskins tearmeth it to call these dumbe gestures and ceremonies or M. Heskins an impudent beast to defend these dombe signes for preaching of Christes death let the reader in Gods name consider and iudge The sixth comparison S. Iames Masse was full of knowledge their Masse is full of ignorance M. Heskins aunswereth that there is as much knowledge in their Masse as in S. Iames Masse because in substance it is all one which if it were true as it is most false yet what knowledge can be when al is done in a strange language and no preaching but by dombe signes as we heard before The seuenth S. Iames Masse was full of consolation their Masse is full of superstition To this he aunswereth they haue as much consolation which cannot be when they haue no preaching of the Gospel how can he say that they haue no superstition when they haue an hundred idle ceremonies and gestures which Christ neuer instituted and therfore are meere will worship and superstition The eyghth comparison he saith is all one with the third that the people resorted to receiue the communion when S. Iames sayed Masse Although it followe of the thirde yet is it not all one with it for as S. Iames was readie to minister so the people ordinarily were readie to receiue which is not looked for of the popish priestes because they reach them that it is needelesse so to doe The last comparison Saint Iames in his Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well more nothing else but mans inuention To this he aunswereth that they haue Christes institution for their Masse which is an impudent falshood either for their carnall maner of presence or for their sacrifice or for their priuate receiuing or for their depriuing the people of all doctrine but such as is by dombe signes which he is not afrayde to ascribe to the inuention of the holy Ghost as though the spirite of God in ceremonies would be contrary to him selfe in the scriptures After this he reporteth the substantiall differences betweene the Masse and the newe communion as he calleth it which because they be all set foorth and aunswered before in the 34.35.36 Chapters of this booke I will leefe no time about his vaine recapitulation or repetition of them contayning nothing but rayling and slaundering The foure and fortieth Chapter returning to the exposition of S. Paul expoundeth this text As often as ye shal eat of this bread c. by S. Hierom Theophylact. M Heskins hauing wandred abroad to seek the Masse in auncient writers nowe is come home againe to his text and that is this As often as you shall eat of this bread drinke of this cupp ▪ you shall shewe forth the Lordes death vntill be come Vpon this text saith he the ministers of Sathan for so it pleaseth him to call vs haue grounded two arguments against the reall presence One that the sacrament is a memoriall of Christe and therefore Christ is absent because a memoriall is of a thing absent the other that it is bread for so the Apostles called it not the bodie of christ The solution of the first argument is that the receipt of the sacrament is not a memoriall of Christes bodie but of his death and passion This is a noble distinction but when Christ sayeth do this in remēbrance of mee whether is the remembrance of Christe the remembrance of his bodie or onely of the temporall act of his dying and suffering which is past I think all Christian men will confesse that the communion is a memoriall of Christ that was crucified and not of his crucifying onely But when Saint Paul sayeth vntill he come how can he say that he is present in bodie which is yet to come in bodie To the seconde argument he aunswereth that Saint Paule calleth it breade as Christ calleth bread his flesh and therfore he calleth it this bread signifying a speciall bread No man sayeth the contrarie but that it is a speciall bread and as Saint Augustine sayeth after a certeine manner the bodie of Christe But if Maister Heskins in this place may denye breade to bee taken in the proper sence for breade why doth hee exclame against them that in these wordes This is my body denye the worde body to be taken in the proper signification thereof for a naturall bodie But let vs take Maister Heskins interpretation of bread to signifie the bodie of Christe then the sense of Saint Paules wordes shal be this As often as ye eat of the bodie of Christ and drinke his bloud you shall shewe the Lordes
death vntil he come How is he that is to come distinct from him that is present for Saint Paule maketh an exposition of this breade this cuppe which are present to shewe the Lordes death that is to come But let vs heare what Saint Ieronyme sayeth that may helpe him in 1. Cor. 11. Ideo hoc c. Therefore our Sauiour hath deliuered this sacrament that by it we might alwayes remember that he dyed for vs For therefore also when we receiue it wee are warned of the priestes that it is the bodie and bloud of Christ that we might not be thought vnthankefull for his benefites I like this saying verie well which teacheth that the sacramēt is therefore called the bodie bloud of Christ that thereby we might be put in minde of the benefite of Christes death to be thankfull for it And that his meaning is none otherwise his owne wordes shal declare going both before and after Vpon these wordes Gratias egit c. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus vltimam nobis commemorationem sine memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat vt quotiescunque illud viderit possit eius beneficia amicitias memorare quod ille si perfectè dilexit sine ingenti desiderio non potest videre vel fletu That is blessing or giuing thankes euen when hee was to suffer he left to vs his last commemoration or remembrance Euen as a man going into a farre countrey doth leaue some pledge to him whome he loueth that so often as he seeth it he may remember his benefites and frendship which pledge he if he loued perfectly cannot beholde without great desire or weeping In these words you see S. Hierom compareth the sacrament to a pledge which is left in remembrance of loue benefites receiued of him that in person is absent The same writer vpō the same words of our text donec venerit vntill he come thus writeth Tam diu memoria opus est donec ipse venire dignetur So long we haue neede of a remembraunce vntill he him selfe vouchesafe for to come Nothing can bee more plaine to shewe his meaning not to be of a carnall or bodilie presence although as Christ hath giuen vs the president he call the bread and cuppe by the name of the bodie and bloud of Christe The testimonie of Theophylact being a Greeke Gentleman of the lower house I haue hetherto refused to admitt and therefore in this place also will not trouble the reader with him The challenge was made of writers within sixe hundreth yeares after Christe this man liued about a thousande yeres after Christ yet if I would wrangle about his wordes he hath nothing that may not bee reasonably construed on our side without any wresting The fiue and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by S. Basil Rupert S. Basil is alledged de baptismo Oportet accedentem c. It behoueth him that commeth to the bodie and bloud of our Lord to the remembrance of him that was dead for vs and rose againe not onely to be pure from all vncleannesse of bodie and soule lest he eate and drinke to his owne condemnation but also to shewe euidently and to expresse the memorie of him that hath dyed for vs and risen againe And what sayeth Basil in these words that we do not graunt vnderstanding purenesse by faith and repentance Maister Hesk. sayeth in steede of that S. Paule sayde this bread and this cupp he sayeth the bodie and bloud of Christe although I might stande with him that this is no interpretation of Sainct Paules wordes but an exhortation which Basil maketh to the worthie receiuing of the sacrament what inconuenience is it to graunt that it is both bread and wine and also after a spirituall manner his verie bodie and bloud which is receiued of the faithfull But either Maister Heskins note booke serued him not or els his malice against the trueth would not suffer him to see what the same Basil writeth not many lines before these wordes which he citeth vpō the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ of the institution of this blessed sacrament and immediatly after the verie text of the Apostle now in hande As often as you eate of this bread and drinke of this cuppe you shewe the Lordes death vntill he come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then do these words profit vs that eating drinking we might always remember him which dyed for vs and is risen againe and so wee might bee instructed of necessitie to obserue before God and his Christe that lesson which is deliuered by the Apostle where hee sayeth for the loue of Christe doeth constreine vs iudging this that if one hath dyed for all then all are dead M. Heskins denyeth the sacrament to be a remembrance of Christe for feare he shoulde confesse Christ to be absent affirming it is a remembrance only of the death of christ But Basil saith that in eating and drinking we must remember Christe that is dead risen againe for vs and so be transformed into his image by mortification and newnesse of life This is all the profite that Basil gathereth of the institution of the supper of the Lorde Where is then the carnall presence the sacrifice propitiatorie the application of it according to the priestes intention and such like monsters of the Masse The testimonie of Rupertus a burgesse of the lower house I will not stand vpon notwithstanding it little helpeth Maister Heskins cause For he doth not say that the sacrament is so a remembrance of Christes death that it is not a remembrance of Christ him selfe But Maister Heskins sayeth all the rable of sacramentaries cannot bring one couple of catholike authors that saye Saint Paule spake here of materiall bread neither can Maister Heskins bring one single auncient writer within the compasse of the challenge which is 600. yeres after Christ that denyeth that S. Paule spake of materiall breade as the earthly part of the sacrament He hath named Hierome Basil but neither of them denie it as for Theophylact Rupertus although neyther of them also denye it in the places by him cited yet I knowe not why we might not as well produce Berengarius and Bertrame as auncient as they which affirme that Saint Paule spake here of bread But that there is materiall bread in the sacrament as the earthly part thereof we haue already cited Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Origen in 15. Matthaei Cyrill in Ioan. Lib. 4. Cap. 24. and many other Toward the end of this Chapter Maister Heskins taketh vpon him to aunswere an obiection of Oecolampadius who iustly chargeth the Papistes of wilfull ignorance in that they make the body of Christ both the exemplar and the thing exemplified the figure and the thing figured the signe and the thing signified whereas relation must be betwixt two thinges distincted and not of
any part vntill the next moâ—ning therefore he saith in Leuit. 7. Ho. 5. Nam Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat dicebat eis accipite manducate non distulit nec seruari iussit in erastiâ—um For that bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples and said vnto them take ye eate ye he deferred not neither commanded it to be reserued vntill the next day By which wordes it is manifest that as he disallowed the reseruation so was it not in vse in the East Church in his time And that M. Heskins may be snarled in his owne coarde he must call to minde what paines he tooke to proue the Pascall Lambe to be a figure of this sacrament and how earnestly he vrgeth that the trueth must answere the figure in all things iustly inso much that he alledgeth this text that not a iote or apricke of the law shall passe vntill all be fulfilled Nowe of the Pascal lambe there was an expresse coÌ„mandement that no part of it should be reserued vntill the next day therfore by his owne figures textes manner of reasoning I conclude that the sacrament may not be reserued at all The fiue and twentith Chapter proueth the same by Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time For Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time then sixe hundreth yeares after Christ we doe not admit their authoritie But M. Heskins promising Counsells beginneth with the institution of Iustinian That Monasteries of Virgines should haue libertie to choose a Priest which should bring vnto them the holy Communion Herevpon he will build reseruation for they did not celebrate to them saith he but they brought it As though he that bringeth the worde of God to theÌ„ doth not preach before them but bringeth a Sermon in his bosome But for as much as that decree speaketh not onely of a Priest but also of a Deacon I can be content to thinke that he brought the sacrament with him and did not consecrate there but what maketh this for reseruation to the vse of adoration which is the matter in question â–ª Or else for an ordinarie custome of reseruation if the sacrament were brought from the next Church where and when it was celebrated to the Monasterie not to be hanged vp in a cannopie but to be receiued presently But it is a proper reason that M. Heskins vseth for may be reserued for a short time why not for a long time For answere of this I will referre him to his owne Popish decrees that forbid such reseruation for feare of putrifaction and rottennesse At last commeth the Counsels of Wormes and Remes in which times it is certaine that great corruptions preuailed in the church then followeth the Counsell of Laterane commended for generall held Anno. 1215. speaking of the diligent reseruation of the sacrament with much adoe about the authoritie of Counsels But all not worth a rush The generall Counsell of Laterane falsified the text of scripture tract to both in wordes and sense alledging it thus in their second Canon or Chapter against Ioachim Abbas Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus that which the father hath giuen me is greater then all Whereas the trueth of the text is the father which hath giueÌ„ them to me is greter then all A wise and worshipfull Counsel that can not confute an errour but by falsifying of the scripture And this is the Counsell that first decreed transubstantiation Last of all commeth the Counsel of Trent in our days and that not so vainely alledgeth of The age of the Nicen Counsell to haue acknowledged reseruation as M. Heskins impudently affirmeth therevpon that The Nicen Counsell did agâ—â—se reseruation Next he iangleth of the authoritie of the Church as though what so euer the synagogue of Antichrist doth affirme were the difinition of the Church of christ And in the end he ioyneth an other issue with the proclamer That if he can bring any plaine scripture catholique doctour or counsel that by expresse wordes forbiddeth reseruation he will subscribe For scripture the institution do ye this in remembrance of me proueth the sacrament to be an action and not a name of a thing that may be reserued for euery action is in mouing Secondly all Catholique doctours in a manner and all Counsels generall and prouinciall that speake of this sacrament call it Eucharistia whiche is a giuing of thankes which name can not be rightly applyed to the bread and wine only but to the whole vse of them according to Christes institution Thirdly the expresse decree of Clemens his owne Doctour is against reseruation alledged in the Chapter next before Fourthly Origen in Leuit. Chap. 7. Hom. 6. the place also cyted in the latter end of the 24. Chapter The sixe and twentith Chapter answereth the cheefe obiection of the aduerâ—aries Our cheefe argument hee saith against the reseruation and our very Achilles against all other rites vsed in the sacraments is that in the institution thereof there is no mention made of reseruation But there he belyeth vs For we say it is directly against the commaundement of the institution take and eate and do this in remembrance of me I would aske this question of him Was it lawfull for the Apostles to haue reserued it when Christ coÌ„manded it to be eaten If he say no let him shewe me why it is more lawfull nowe to reserue it then it was then seeing we haue the same commaundement continued doe this in remembrance of me that is take and eate it Moreouer we say it is cleane contrarie to the end and forme of the sacrament that it should be reserued and caried about to be worshipped For it is spirituall meate whose end vse and fruit is in eating not in keeping and carying about or worshipping But nowe let vs see Maister Heskins profound Diuinitie in solution of our argument There be three manner of doings as concerning the scripture One is to do so much as the scripture biddeth An other to do against that the scripture biddeth The third to do something besides that the scripture biddeth Concerning the first hee saith that As Christ tooke breade and wine made it his body and bloud commaunded it to be eaten and dronken in remembrance of him so he that taketh bread and wine and doth consecrate it eat it and drinke it in remembraunce of his death c. doth as much as the scripture biddeth him and is blamelesse in this respect This is true and all this doe we in our Church therefore are we blamelesse by his owne conclusion But they that being commaunded to eate and minister to bee eaten doe not eate it nor giue it to be eaten but keepe it and hang it vp doe manifestly breake this commaundement and so doe the Papisteâ— For they doe against that the scripture biddeth And whereas he alledgeth the sixt Counsell of Constantinople reprouing the Armenians for ministring with wine without water it seemeth that both
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
is cyted thus Non enim prudenter c. Those things which suffice for a short time shal not wisely be called by that name neither was that bread good which the Elders of the Iewes did eate and are dead For if it had bene from heauen and of God it had deliuered the partakers of it from death Contrariwise that body of Christe is bread from heauen bicause it giueth the eaters of it eternall life Cyrill saith the body of Christe is the bread that came downe from heauen and which giueth eternall life being eaten euen in the sacrament all this we confesse alwayes But as the body of Christe did not naturally descend from heauen which he receiued here on earth no more speaketh he of a carnall presence or corporall manner of eating but yet of his very flesh and bloud eaten spiritually by faith The two and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by S. Augustine and Theophylact. Saint Augustine is cyted Tract 26. iâ— Ioan. Hic est panis c. This is the bread which came downe from heauen that by eating thereof we might liue bicause we can not haue eternall life of our selues Not saith he as your Fathers did eate Manna and are deade He that eateth this bread â–ª shall liue for euer Therefore that they are dead he would haue it so to be vnderstoode that they should not liue for euer For truely they also die temporally that eaâ— Christ but they liue eternally bicause Christ is eternall life Maister Heskins wondereth what gloses the aduersaries inuent vpon this saying but I maruell what hee can picke out of it for his purpose except it bee this that who so euer eate Christ shall liue for euer but that I am sure hee will none of The saying of Theophylact but that I stand not on his authoritie being a late writer seemeth to be directly against him For hee saith that The Lorde by his flesh which he tooke of the Virgine Marie shall preserue our spirituall nature Which as it is very true so must it needes inforce a spirituall receiuing For our spirituall nature can not receiue carnally or corporally but onely spiritually And yet the wise man noteth in his margent a plaine place for the proclamer which is plaine against his owne purpose The three and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the next text in the sixt of S. Iohn The text is that when our Sauiour had taught this doctrine in the synagogue in Capernaum diuers of his disciples were offended and saide This is an hard saying who can abide it Hee aunswereth out of Saint Augustine In Psal. 98. They were hard and not the saying The like out of Theophylact. In Ioan. 6. Who beeing carnall can eate spirituall meate and the bread which came downe from heauen and the flesh which is eaten c. For bicause they had flesh they thought he would compell them to be deuourers of flesh and bloud But bicause we vnderstand him spiritually we neither are deuourers of flesh but rather we are sanctified by such a meate This place for any thing that I can see therein is directly against the carnall eating of the Papistes sauing that Theophylact lyuing in a corrupt time writeth in other places suspiciously of the carnall presence and transubstantiation Nowe where Maister Heskins chargeth vs to be Caparnaites whome he calleth Sacramentaries and derideth our carnall vnderstanding bycause wee can not conceiue howe Christes very body should bee in the sacrament except it should occupie a place and bee felt with our senses let the world iudge whether our vnderstanding or theirs bee more spirituall or else more grosse and like the Capernaites The foure and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Si videritis c. by Saint Augustine and Saint Cyrill The text is this What if you see the sonne of man ascend where he was before Ere he enter into his exposition hee moueth this doubt howe Christe doth say the sonne of man shall ascend where he was before seeing concerning his humanitie hee was neuer in heauen before he spake these wordes For answere he bringeth a long sentence of Saint Augustine which containeth this in effect that Christ concerning his humanitie would ascend thither where he was before concerning his diuinitie For by reason of the vnion of two natures in one person of Christe that is often spoken of the whole person which is proper either to the diuine nature onely or to the humane nature onely For exposition hee cyteth Augustine Tr. 27. in Ioan. Quid est hoc Hinc soluit c. What is this by this he resolueth them whome he knewe by this he hath opened whereby they were offended by this plainely if they would vnderstand For they thought that he would giue foorth his body but he saide that he would ascend into heauen whole When you shall see the sonne of man ascending where he was before certainly euen then at least you shall see that he giueth not foorth his body after that manner that you thinke certainly euen then at least you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bytinges Although this place is so directly against him that nothing can bee more plaine yet hee is not ashamed to cyte it for his purpose Affirming that Augustine by these wordes denyeth not the giuing of Christes bodye but the manner of the giuing of his bodye This wee confesse but what manner of giuing doth hee denye Maister Heskins saith onely the giuing of it by lumpes and peeces as the Capernaites did imagine But that is false for he denieth not onely the giuing of Christes bodie by lumpes but also al corporall and carnall manner of giuing thereof as both these wordes aboue cited and the whole discourse of that treatise doth shew most euidently First he saith that Christ by telling them of his ascention doth clearely resolue them and open plainely where at they were offended Which is very true For when they should see that he carried his naturall bodie whole into heauen they might well perceiue that he would not giue that bodie to be eaten after a corporall manner either in peeces much lesse in the whole For the giuing thereof in whole is much more monstruous then the giuing therof in peeces And if there remained a corporall receipt of his whole bodie notwithstanding his absenting thereof from the earth the doubt by his ascention is nothing at all resolued but by an hundreth times more increased Againe where he saith after his ascention Then you shall see that he giueth not his bodie after the manner that you thinke then you shal vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitings By these wordes he doeth plainely determine of the manner of giuing that the Iewes thought which was corporall whether it were in whole or in peeces and after what manner Christes bodie is giuen namely by grace But Maister Heskins citeth another place out of Augustine In
downe from heauen to giue eternall life to all them that did receiue him in all ages past and to come The seuenth Chapter proceedeth to declare the same by Saint Hierome and Saint Cyrill In the beginning of this Chapter Maister Heskins maruelleth that we whom he counteth the aduersaries of the truth would leaue a doctrine so vniuersally taught and receiued as though he had prooued their doctrine of the sacrament to be such comparing the protestantes to Esopes dogge that snatching for a shadowe lost the bone out of his mouth neuerthelesse he will proceede on his matter if there be any hope to reclayme vs And first he will choke vs with the authoritie of Saint Hieronyme In 1. Cor. 10. expounding that saying They did eate the same spirituall meate c. Manna figura corporis Christi suit Manna was a figure of the bodie of Christe It is very true we neuer saide the contrarie But the same Hierome in the same place vpon that saying The rocke was Christe Saith that the rocke was a figure of Christe which Maister Heskins vtterly denyeth Quia Christus erat postmoduÌ„ sequnturus cuius figuram tunc Petra gerebat idco pulchrè dixit consequente eos Petra Because Christe was afterward to followe of whom the rocke was a figure therfore he saide very fitly of the rocke that followed them By which wordes it is most manifest that by his iudgement they dranke of Christes bloud who was to come and consequently did eate his bodie whereof Manna was a figure But it followeth after in Hieronyme which Maister Heskins rehearseth at large and to no purpose Omnia enim quae in populo c. For all thinges which at that time were done in the people of Israell in a figure now among vs are celebrated in truth for euen as they by Moses were deliuered out of Egypt so are we by euerie priest or teacher deliuered out of the worlde And then beeing made Christians we are ledde through the wildernesse that by exercise of contempt of the worlde and abstinence we may forget the pleasures of Egypt so that we knowe not to go backe againe into the worlde But when we passe the sea of Baptisme the diuell is drowned for our sake with all his armie euen as Pharao was Then wee are fedde with Manna and receiue drinke out of the side of christ Also the clearenesse of knowledge as a piller of fire is shewed in the night of the worlde and in the heate of tribulation we are couered with the clowde of Diuine consolation In these wordes Maister Heskins noteth two thinges the applications of the truthes to the figures and the drinke flowing out of the side of Christe concerning the first it is cleare that he maketh their temporall benefites figures of our spirituall benefites and in that sense he vseth the tearmes of figures and trueth for otherwise hee confesseth that those thinges were truely done among them and in a figure were the same that ours are immediately before these wordes before rehearsed by Maister Heskins Ipsis verè facta sunt quae in figura erant nostra vt â—imeamus talia agere ne talia incurramus Those thinges were truely done vnto them whiche in figure were ours that we might feare to doe suche thinges least we incurre such thinges As for the drinke flowing out of his side we confesse to be the bloud of Christe as I haue shewed a hundreth times receiued after a spirituall manner But Maister Heskins reasoneth wittily as he thinketh when he sayeth as the Iewes did verily eate Manna so we doe verily eate the bodie of Christ. But he marketh not howe Hieronyme saith We are fedde with Manna and we receiue drinke flowing out of the side of Christ. Wherevpon I will inferre as we are fedde with Manna so we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe but are not fedde with Manna corporally but spiritually so we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ not corporally but spiritually After this least we should doubt of this authoritie as falsly ascribed to Hierome he returneth to Hierome Ad Hedibiam qu. 2. which we cannot refuse to be S. Hierome But seeing that place is sufficiently answered in the 53. Chapter of the second booke I wil not trouble the Reader with the repetition Likewise the place of Cyprian De Coena Dom. in the 17. Chapter of the first Booke Likewise the other parcels of Chrysostome he citeth In Matth. 25. Hom. 83. In the 55. Chapter of the second Booke The other named and not rehearsed be oftentimes answered throughout the Booke and none of them all haue any thing in them for his purpose Now commeth Cyrill In 6. Ioan. Cap. 19. Non enim prudenter c. Those thinges that suffice but for a shorte time shall not wisely be called by this name neither was that bread of God which the elders of the Iewes did eate are dead for if it had bene from heauen and of God it had deliuered the partakers of it from death But contrariwise the bodie of Christe is bread from heauen because it giueth eternall life to them that receued it Here saith M. Heskins is a breefe and plaine testimonie that manna was a figure and the bodie of Christ is the thing figured This is graunted but that Cyrill meant to make it only a figure or a bare figure it is vtterly false as appeareth in his commentarie vpon the same Chapter Lib. 3. Cap. 34. Manna verò figura quaedam vniuersalis Dei liberalicatis loco arrhae hominibus concessa Manna truely was a certeine figure of the vniuersall liberalitie of God granted to men in place of a pledge or earnest By these words you see that Manna was not a bare figure but an earnest or assurance of all the bountifulnes of god And in the same place he saith Sic enim planè videbitur quod verum Manna Christus erat qui per figuram Mannâ— priscis illis a Deo dabatur For so it shall plainely be seene that Christ was the true Manna which was giuen of God to those auncient fathers by the figure of Manna Thus it is moste euident that Manna was not a figure onely of Christe but that Christe in deede was giuen by that figure as hee is by our sacrament and so no corporall presence by his iudgement Neuerthelesse M. Heskins harpeth on his old string really and substantially and that by this authoritie of Cyrillus Cap. 14. in 6. Ioan. Quoniam c. Because the flesh of our sauiour is ioyned in the WORDE of God which is naturally life it is made able to giue life when we eate it then haue we life in vs beeing ioyned to him which is made life These wordes indeede doe declare that whosoeuer eateth the fleshe of Christ is partaker of eternall life which M. Heskins will not graunt but with his distinction spiritually therefore this place maketh nothing for him for Cyril speaketh generally So that no man
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
pixe to be adored And Tertullian in his Booke De Corona militis doeth rehearse this custome among those thinges that had no ground of scripture for them The liks is to be saide to the place of Cyprian where a woman kept it in her chest as for the miracle whether it reproued her vnworthinesse or her reseruation it is not plaine by the authour The story of Satyrus out of Ambrose proueth not directly reseruation for it is like the Christians being in daunger of shipwrack did minister the communion in the shippe not bring it with them from the shore consecrated And Satyrus being then but a nouice or Catechumein and not baptised desired the sacrament of them meaning to receiue it before his death if he sawe present daunger of drowning otherwise to tarry vntill he were admitted to it by order of the Church But this proueth nothing at all the Popishe reseruation although the fact of Satyrus was not without imperfection as greatly as it is commended of Ambrose and much lesse the Carnal presence For Satyrus did not so put his affiaunce in the sacrament that he thought it to be God but that he desired it as an helpe of his faith that he might not depart this life without the communion of the body of Christ in the sacrament The place of Chrysostome is nothing at all for reseruation where he saith that in a tumult the souldiers rushing into the Churches The most holy bloud of Christ was shed vpō their clothes For he must remēber it was on Easter day when all the people did communicate and such as came were baptised And where he saith it was Ad vesperū diei that they did enter that is in the afternoone he must wit that Chrysostome after the maner of the scripture calleth the morning before day light Vespere Sabbati therfore his collection is vaine But although it were in the afternoone what inconuenience is it if we say they spent al the forenoone in prayer fasting and hearing the worde of God and ministring baptisme which then was ministred twise a yeare at Easter at Pentecost and then in the afternoone towarde euening went to the communion Hierome reporteth of Exuperius that he caried the Lords body in a wicker basket and his bloud in a glasse What reseruation is here M. Heskins saith he did beare it about with him but Hieronyme saith not so except you meane about the Churche when he ministred the communion But here Maister Iewel hath a double blow O cunning Maister of defence For here is not onely reseruation bu◠also he calleth it in plaine wordes the body and bloud of our Lorde Maister Iewel shal not greatly feele these blowes To the reseruation I haue saide before and to the plaine calling of it body and bloud I say what other thing is it then as Maister Iewel himselfe will call it and worthily yet no transubstantiation meant by him But how will Maister Heskins warde these blowes Exuperius had no hallowed pixes nor chalices of Golde and siluer as the Papistes must haue And Exuperius ministred to the lay people in both kindes as the Papistes will not do What hath M. Heskins gayned by Exuperius But then Eusebius shall help him for in his 6. booke and 36. Chapter is declared that a certeine priest sent to Serapion beeing at the point of death a litle portiō of the Eucharistie in the night season by which it appeareth that it was reserued In deed Dionysius bishop of Alexandria writeth so vnto Fabianus Bishop of Rome But withall he sheweth that it was no publique order of the vniuersall Church but his own commandement vnto his owne Church that he might not seeme in any point to resemble the Nouatians which denied reconciliation to them that had fallen in persecution wherfore he saith that although the priest was sicke and could not come Tamen quia pręceptum fuerat a me vt lapsis in exitu nemo recōciliationis solatia denegaret maximè ijs quos priùs id rogasse constaret parum c. Yet because it had beene commanded by me that no man should denie to them that had fallen the comfort of reconciliation at their departure especially to those who were known to haue desired it before he gaue a litle of the Eucharistie c. Whiche wordes M. Heskins hath cleane left out of the text wherby the particular commandemēt of Dionyse is expressed and yet it is not proued that the Priest had the sacrament reserued but it might well be that he did then consecrate and send him parte as he should haue done if he could haue come to the sicke man himselfe for his owne weakenes Last of all he rehearseth the wordes of Cyril Ad Colosyrium I heare that they say that the mystical blessing if any remnants thereof remaine vnto the next day following is vnprofitable to sanctification But they are madd in so saying for Christe is not made an other neither shal his holy body be chaunged but the vertue of blessing and the liuely grace do alwayes remaine in him M. Heskins translateth in illo in it as though the vertue quickening grace were included in the sacrament which the author saith to remain in Christ. But touching the authoritie of this Cyrillus ad Colosyrium I must admonish the Reader that these wordes are not to be found in all the workes of Cyrillus that are extant but is only a patch cited by other men the whole epistle is not to be found So that we can neither tel whether it were writē by the ancient Cyrillus of Alexandria or by some late writer of that name nor yet what was the argumēt scope of that Epistle Neuertheles it semeth to some that he wrote against the Anthropomorphits which thought that the body of Christ was corrupted if the remnants of the sacrament were corrupted but that Cyrillus denieth because Christ is eternall incorruptible He saith not that the remnantes of the sacrament are so for that the Papistes confesse to be otherwise affirming that they ceasse to be the body bloud of Christ when the species or kinds of bread and wine are putrified or rotten But Cyril saith that vertue grace do alwayes remaine in him not in that sacrament reserued which doeth corrupt Finally he speaketh but of reseruatiō for one day to the vse of eating and not of adoration therefore he speaketh nothing against the challenge which was not simply of reseruation but of reseruing the sacramēt to be worshipped But whereas M. Heskins mainteyneth reseruation by dipping of stoales and linnen clothes in the cup he must remēber that Iulius in his decretal epistles forbiddeth that dipping as diuers counsels also do which in due place are alledged Finally Origen doth vtterly condemne that abuse of reseruation of the sacrament affirming that it is in the same case that the sacrifice of the passeouer and the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing were of which it was not lawfull to reserue
he denyeth transubstantiatioÌ„ If he say it was not verie bread wine which Christ did sacrifice then he denyeth the resemblance vnto Melchisedechs sacrifice and hath Cyprian against him who as we heard before saith Obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat id est panem vinum suum scilicet corpus sanguineÌ„ He offered that selfe same thing that Melchisedech had offered that is to say bread wine euen his body bloud Note here that Melchisedech and Christ offering both the verie selfe same thing they both offered bread and wine and likewise they both offered the body and bloud of Christ. Whereby not onely transubstantiation but also the carnal presence is vtterly ouerthrowne And to presse him harder by his owne weightes euen to death If aliud signifie an other substance as he taught vs before then hoc idem signifieth the same substance and much rather Therefore whâ—n Cyprian saith that Christ offered hoc idem quod Melchisedech it followeth that Melchisedech offered the same substance which he expoundeth bread and wine his body and bloude And this two forked reason will hold down all the papistes noses to the grindstone that they shall not be able to auoide it for their liues The thirtieth Chapter treateth of the same matter by S. Hieronyme and Theodoret. The place of Hieronyme which M. Heskins doth so triumph vpon is vpon the 110. Psalme but those coÌ„mentaries both by Erasmus and by Bruno Amerbachius are vtterly denyed to be Hieronymes doing But seeing they be falsly intituled to him we are coÌ„tent to take this place as thogh it were Hieronymes writing in deed The words vpon the fourth verse are these It is superfluous for vs to goe about to make an exposition of this verse seeing the holy Apostle to the Hebrues hath most fully treated thereof For hee saith this is Mechisedech without father without mother without generation And of all ecclesiastical men it is said that he is without father as concerning the flesh and without mother as concerning his godhead This only therefore let vs interpret thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech let vs only see wherfore he said after the order After the order that is thou shalt not be a priest according to the sacrifices of the Iewes but thou shalt be a prieste after the order of Melchisedech For as Melchisedech kinge of Salem offered breade and wine so shalt thou offer thy bodie and thy bloud true bread and true wine This Melchisedech hath giuen vs these mysteries which we haue He it is that hath saide he that shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloude Hee hath deliuered to vs his sacrament according to the order of Melchisedech What can be saide more plainely in exposition of this writer then that hee him selfe saith that hee hath giuen vs these mysteries that he hath deliuered to vs his sacrament after the order of Melchisedech by which he expresseth what his meaning was by offering his bodie and bloud verie bread and verie wine or true bread and true wine not in the proper sence of a sacrifice but in a mysterie in a sacrameÌ„t But nowe let vs see howe M. Heskins insulteth vppon vs for this counterfete Hieronyme First that he taketh vpon him to expound that which was left vnexpounded by the Apostle to the Hebrues namely that Christ was a prieste which is altogether false for the Apostle doth not onely speake of his eternall priesthood but also of his one oblation by which hee purchased eternall redemption And although this writer doth refer his order to the similitude of his sacrifice in bread and wine yet both the prophet in the psalme and the Apostle to the Hebrues doe sufficiently declare that the excellencie of Melchisedechs order doth consiste in this that he was both a Kinge and a Priest and so a liuely figure of the reall priesthoode of our sauiour Christ. But whereas M. Heskins will controle not only vs but euen his owne vulgare interpretation of the bible which saith not obtuliâ— hee offred but protulit hee brought forth by authoritie of this Hieronyme who hee saith both knewe the olde testament and vnderstoode the Hebrue tongue he bewrayeth his owne weaknesse and sheweth how good a reader he hath been of Hieroms works when he knoweth not what the true Hieronyme himselfe writeth of this matter in his Epistle to Enagrius in which setting downe the verie Hebrue text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth thus expound it Et Melchizedech rex Salem protulit panem vinum Erat autem sacerdos Dei exelsi And Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine and he was a priest of the high god The same word protulit hath Ambrose de mysterijs initiandis and Augustine vppon the title of the 33. Psalme and Cyprian as we heard in the last Chapter lib. 2. Epi 3. ad Caecilium Besides this Hierome in the same Epistle sheweth that the best learned of the Hebrues iudgement was that Melchizedech victori Abraham obuiam processerit in refectionem tam ipsius quà m pugnatorum ipsius panes vinumque protulerit Melchizedech came forth to meete Abraham the conquerour and for refection as well of him as of his warriours brought forth breade and wine And concerning the order of Melchizedech he saith that the Greeke writers interpret it many wayes As for example that he alone was both a King and a Priest and that he was a Priest before circumcision that he was not annoynted with the oyle of the Priestes but with the oyle of gladnesse that hee offered not sacrifices of flesh and bloud and tooke not the bloud of beastes and their bowels and what soeuer is in them more then meate Sed pane vino simplici puroque sacrificio Christi dedicauerit sacramentum but with breade wine being a simple and pure sacrifice he dedicated the sacrament of christ This the true Hierome writt and yet in the ende will determine nothing of his owne iudgement But M. Heskins repeting againe a parcell of Cyprians saying vttered in the Chapter before Who is more properly the Priest of the high God then our Lord Iesus Christe which offered a sacrifice to God his father and offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech had offered that is bread and wine euen his bodie and bloud compareth it with this saying of Hierome As Melchizedech offered bread and wine so shalt thou offer thy bodie and thy bloud the true breade and the true wine And not content with this hee noteth in the margent a plaine place for M. Iuel Howe plaine it is to confute M. Heskins I haue shewed abundantly in the last partâ— of the Chapter next before this whether I remit the reader and passe to Theodoret who in his second dialogue writeth thus Godly Moses writing the olde genealogie hath taught vs that Adam when hee was thus many yeres old begat Seâ—h and when he had liued so many yeres he made
panis hic remissio peccatorum est Wee may receiue euen the Lorde himselfe which hath giuen vs his fleshe euen as he himselfe saith I am the bread of life For he receiueth him that examineth himselfe he which receiueth him dyeth not the death of a sinner for this bread is the remission of sinnes This place doth first ouerthrowe M. Heskins dreame of two breades Secondly the Papistes assertion that wicked men receiue the bodie of christ And thirdly teacheth that to eate Christ his fleshe is to receiue forgiuenesse of sinnes which M. Heskins and the Papistes denye Another place of Ambrose is alledged li. 4. de sacra Ca. 4. Let vs then teach this How can that which is bread be the bodie of Christ By consecration By what and whose wordes then is the consecration Of our Lorde Iesus For all the other things that be sayed praise is giuen to God petition is made in prayer for the people for Kings and for the rest but when it is come to that the honourable sacrament is made now the Priest vseth not his owne wordes but he vseth the wordes of Christe Therefore the worde of Christ maketh this sacrament This is noted to be a plaine place for M. Iuell but for what purpose I cannot tell except it be to proue that he will not denye that the sacrament is consecrated and made the bodie of Christ to the worthie receiuer by the wordes of Christe as before Eusebius Emissenus hath the next place in Hom. Pasc. The inuisible Priest with his worde by a secreat power turneth the visible cratures into the substance of his body bloud This place being more apparant for his transubstantiation then any that he hath alledged he vrgeth not nor gathereth of it but onely that Christ is the author of the consecration and conuersion As for the conuersion I thinke his conscience did tell him that it was not of the substance but of the vse of things a spirituall and not a corporall change as both Eusebius and other writers do sufficiently expound what maner of mutation it is The last man is Cyprian De Caen Dom. It were better for them a milstone to be tyed to their neckes and to be drowned in the Sea then with an vnwashed conscience to take the morsell at the hande of our Lorde who vntil this day doeth create and sanctifie and blesse and to the godly receiuers diuide this his most true and most holy bodie Here M. Heskins vrgeth that he createth not an imaginatiue bodie but his moste true bodie But the blinde man seeth not that either this creation is figuratiue or else it ouerthroweth transsubstantiation For to create is not to change one substance into another but to make a substance of nothing Secondly that Christ diuideth his bodie but to the godly receiuers Finally in the same Sermon he saith that all this mysterie is wrought by faith Haec quotie◠agimus c. So often as we do these things wee do not sharpen our teeth to byte but with a syncere faith we breake and deuide this holy breade To conclude this Chapter seeing M. Heskins hath laboured so well to proue that Christ onely not the priest doth consecrate and so often chargeth vs with slaundering them to make God the bodie of Christ I would demaunde wherefore the Bishop when he giueth them the order of Priesthood giueth them power to consecrate saying Accip◠potestatem consecrandi offerend◠pro vinit defunctis Take authoritie to consecrate to offer for the quick and the dead If the Priest cannot consecrat whereto serueth this power If the Priest take vpon him to consecrat Christ God and man howe are we charged with slaundering of them The ninth Chapter expoundeth the next text that followeth in Saint Iohn The text which he taketh vpon him to expound in this Chapter is this The Iewes stroue among them selues saying How can this fellowe giue vs his flesh to eat And first he sayth that they being carnall could not vnderstande the spirituall talke of Christe wherein as he saith truely so hee speaketh contrarie to him selfe For he will haue those words to be spokē carnally They could not vnderstand sayth he because they did not beleeue therefore they questioned how it might be euen as the Pseudochristians do How can the bodie of Christ be in the sacrament vnder so litle a peece of bread c. But the aunswere to all their questions is that they be don by the power of god And if you proceede to enquire of his will he hath declared it in these wordes the breade which I will giue is my fleshe not a fantasticall nor a mathematicall or figuratiue flesh but that same flesh◠that I will giue for the life of the worlde But if wee proceede to demaund further how he proueth that he will giue that flesh to be eaten with our mouth carnally in the sacrament then is he at a staye he can go no further Wee doubt not of the power of God we will extend his will no further then his worde For to eat the fleshe of Christe is not to eat it with our mouthes but with our hearts by faith as Augustine vppon the same text teacheth vs. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere ponum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit cius sanguinē licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christie sed magis tantę rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat bibit This is therefore to eate that meate to drinke that drinke to abide in Christe and to haue him abyding in them And by this he that abydeth not in Christ and in whome Christe abydeth not out of doubt doth neither spiritually eat his flesh nor drinke his bloud although carnally visibly he presse with his teeth the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his owne condemnation Thus Augustine teacheth how the flesh of Christe is eaten and by whome and what difference betweene the flesh bloud of Christ and the sacrament thereof in all those points directly contrarie to the Papistes which affirme that the flesh of Christ is eaten with the mouth and that it is eaten of the wicked and last of all that the sacrament of the flesh of Christ his flesh is all one The tenth Chapter prouing against the aduersaries that the bodie of Christ may be is in moe places then one as once M. Heskins taketh occasion of the doubtful how of the Iewes to answer the proclaimers how that is how Christs body may be in a thousand places moe at once first he trifleth of the number
Saint Augustine in the same place expoundeth what this meate and drinke was saying Hunc itaque eâ—bum potum societatem vult intelligi corporis membrorum suorum quod est sancta Ecclesia in praedestinatis vocatis iustificatis glorificatis sanctis fidelibus eius â–ª He woulde haue this meate and drinke to be vnderstoode the fellowship of his bodie and his members which is the holy Church in them that are praedestinated and called and glorified euen his sayntes and faithfull ones And afterwarde he sayeth Huius rei sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis sanguinis Christi alicubi quotidie alicubi certis interuallis dieruÌ„ in Dominica mensa prÄ™paratur de mensa Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit The sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the bodie and bloude of Christe in some places euerie daye in some places at certeine dayes betweene is prepared in the Lordes table and from the Lordes table is receiued vnto some to life to other some to destruction But the thing it selfe whereof it is a sacrament is to life vnto euery man and to destruction of none that shal be partaker of it These places declare that the text in hande is by Augustine expounded not of the sacrament but of the societie of the members of Christe in his bodie whereof the communion is a sacrament So that Master Heskins alledgeth Augustine directly against his playne meaning The seconde place he citeth out of Augustine is in Psalm 98. Nisi quis c. Except a man eate my flesh he shall haue no life They tooke it foolishly carnally they thought and they thought that our Lorde woulde cutt certeine peeces from his bodie and giue them They vnderstood not sayeth Maister Heskins that he woulde giue them his fleshe to be eaten verily in the sacrament But howe verily let Saint Augustine tell his owne tale in the same place Ille autem instruxit eos ait eis Spiritus est qui viuificat caro autem nihil prodest Verba que loquntus sum vobis spiritus est vita Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquntus sum Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis â–ª bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me cruâ—ifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendâ—â—i spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vot Et sinecesse est illud visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen inuisibiliter intelligi But he instructed them and sayeth vnto them It is the Spirite that quickeneth the fleshe profiteth nothing The wordes that I haue spoken to you are spirite and life Vnderstande ye spiritually that whiche I speake You shall not eate this bodie which you see and drinke that bloude which they shall shead that shall crucifie mee I haue commended vnto you a certeine sacrament which being spiritually vnderstoode shall quicken you Although it be necessarie that the same should be celebrated visibly yet it must be vnderstoode inuisibly This saying of Augustine being so plaine I shall not neede to gather any more of it then euery simple man at the first reading will conceiue The thirde place he citeth is de Doct. Christ. lib. 3. Capitul 16. which he citeth corruptly and truncately although I see not what frawde lyeth in his corruption saue onely he declareth that he hath not redd the place in Augustine him selfe but taketh it out of some collectour or gatherer The woordes of Augustine are these Si praeceptiua locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus vetans aut vtilitatem aut beneficentiam iubens non est figurata Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere aut vtilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare figura est Nisi manducaueritis inquit carnâ—m filij hominis sanguinem biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis facinur vel flagitium videtur iubere figura est ergo praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa vulnerata sit If it be a speache of commaundement forbidding any wickednesse or heynous offence or commaunding any profite or well doing it is no figuratiue speache But if it seeme to commaunde a wicked deede or an heynous offence or to forbidd any profit or well doing it is a figure Except you shall eat sayth he the flesh of the sonne of man drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you He feâ—â—eth to commaund a heynous offence or a wicked deede therefore it is a figure commaunding vs to communicate with the pasâ—ion of our Lorde and swetely and profitably to keepe in a memorie that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Although this place be directly against his purpose and the purpose of al the Papistes yet by a fonde glose of one Buitmundus that wrote against Berengarius he would seeme to make it serue his turne and wring it out of our hands And this forsooth is the shift The sacrament is not a figure of the bodie of Christe but of his death But Augustine in this place calleth not the sacrament a figure but sayeth that the text in hande is a figuratiue speach and sheweth howe it must be vnderstood The fourth place he rehearseth out of Augustine is Contra aduers. legis Proph. Cap. 9. he omitteth to quote the booke but it is in the second booke and thus he citeth it Quamuis horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quà m perimere humanum sanguineÌ„ potare quà m fundere nos tamen mediatorem Dei hominum Iesum Christum carnem suam nobis manducandam bibendumque sanguinem dantem fideli corde ore suscipimus Although it may seeme to be more horrible to eate the flesh of man then to kill a man and to drinke the bloud of man then to shed it yet wee for all that doe receiue the mediatour of God and man Iesus Christ giuing vs his flesh to be eaten with a faithfull heart and mouth and his bloude to be drunken Thus Augustine But rather thus Heskins the impudent falsifier truncator gelder peruerter and lewd interpreter of Augustine and all other doctours that come in his hande But Augustine him selfe writeth thus Sicut duos in carne vna Christum ecclesiam istis nolentibus fine vlla obscoenitate cognoscimus sicut mediatorem Dei homimum hominem Christum Iesum carnem suam nobis manducandam bibendumque sanguinem dantem fideli corde ore suscipimus quamuis horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quà m perimere humanum sanguinem potare qà um fundere Atque in omnibus sanctis scripturis secundùm sanae fidei regulam figuratè dictum vel factum si quid exponitur de quibuslibet rebus verbis quae sacris paginis continentur expositio illa ducatur
Psalm 98. to proue that he denieth the giuing of his bodie by lumpes or peeces But the place is altogether against him if he had alledged the whole and not cut it off in the waste Tunc autem c. Then when our Lorde setting foorth this had spoken of his flesh and had saide except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue in him life euerlasting Some of the seuentie were offended and saide This is an harde saying who can vnderstand it And they departed from him and walked no more with him It seemed a harde thing to them which he saide Except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue eternall life They tooke it foolishly they thought of it carnally and they thought that our LORDE would cut certeine peeces of his bodie and giue them and they saide this is an harde saying Here stayeth Maister Heskins but it followeth in Augustine Ille aâ—tem instruxit eos c. But he instructed them and saith vnto them it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life Vnderstand you spiritually that which I haue spoken You shal not eate this bodie which you see drinke that bloud which they shal shed which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a certeine sacrament or mysterie which beeing vnderstoode spiritually shall giue you life Although it be needefull that it be celebrated visibly yet it must be vnderstoode inuisibly In these wordes Augustine denieth not onely the giuing of his bodie in peeces but all maner of corporall eating of his naturall and visible bodie and aduoucheth onely a spirituall vnderstanding of this text that we haue beene so long in expounding But M. Heskins willeth vs not to triumph before the victorie for Augustine In sermo ad Neophy hath a plaine place for M. Iewel Hoc accipite in pane c. Take ye this in the bread that did hang on the crosse Take ye this in the challice that was shed out of the side of christ He shall haue death not life that thinketh Christe a lyar If M. Heskins had expressed in what booke or â—ome I should haue sought for this sermon Ad Norphil he might haue spared me a great deale of labour which I haue lost in searching for it and yet cannot finde it There are many homilies and sermons of Augustine Ad Neophyl and yet in none of them can I reade that whiche he aduouched out of him It seemeth therefore that this place is taken out of some later writer that without iudgement ascribeth it to Augustine which is not to be found in his workes And yet the saying is not such but that it may haue a reasonable interpretatioÌ„ for the bread after a certein maner as Augustine speaketh is that which did hang on the crosse the wine is that which was shed out of his side that is sacrameÌ„tally but not naturally or after a bodily maner S. Cyril followeth ca. 22. sup 6. Ioan. Ex imperitia multi c. Many that folowed Christ for lack of knowledge not vnderstanding his wordes were troubled For when they had hearde Verily verily I say vnto you Except you shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you they thought they had bene called by Christ to the cruell manners of wilde beastes and prouoked that they would eate the rawe flesh of a man and drinke bloud which are euen horrible to be heard for they had not yet knowen the fourme and most goodly dispensation of this mysterie This also moreouer they did thinke howe shall the flesh of this man giue vs eternall life Or how can he bring vs to immortalitie Which things when he vnderstod to whose eyes all things are bare and open he driueth them to the faith by an other maruelous thing Without cause saith he O syre are ye troubled for my words And if you will not beleeue that life is giuen by my bodie vnto you what will you do when you see me flie vp into heauen I doe not onely say that I will ascend least you should aske againe how that should be but you shall see it with your eyes so to be done Therfore what will you say when you see this Shall not this be a great argument of your madnesse For if you thinke that my fleshe can not bring life vnto you how shall it ascend into heauen like a birde How shall it flye into the ayre For this is a like impossible to mankinde And if my fleshe beside nature shall ascende into heauen what letteth but it may likewise beside nature giue life Cyrill noteth as M. Heskins saith two vaine thoughtes of the Capernaites one of eating raw the flesh of Christ the other how that flesh shuld giue life the latter he answereth at large the other breefely they vnderstoode not the fourme and dispensation of the mysterie by which he meaneth the spirituall mysticall maner of receiuing his bodie cleane contrarie to their grosse imagination for otherwise the ascention of Christe would not answere that doubt but increase it Maister Heskins citeth another text to shewe the power of Christes fleshe whiche is needelesse for it is confessed of vs to be such as he himselfe hath declared it to be Non verbo soliù c. He did not onely with his worde raise dead men but also with his touching to shewe that his bodie also doth giue life If then with his onely touching corrupted thinges are made sound how shall we not liue which doe both tast and eate that fleshe it will without all doubt refourme againe to immortalitie the partakers thereof Neither doe thou inquire after the Iewish manner how But remember that although water by nature be colde yeâ— by comming of fire to it forgetting her coldeneâ— it boyleth with heate Here M. Heskins will not allowe vs our glosse that Cyril speaketh of the spirituall receiuing of Christes flesh because he teacheth more then once that we are ioyned to Christ not onely spiritually but also after the flesh and that by eating the same flesh as though we could not truely be partakers of the fleshe of Christe â–ª by a spirituall receiuing of him not onely in the sacracrament but also by faith without the sacrament And Cyril saith we doe both taste and eate his flesh whiche of necessitie imployeth a spirituall manner of receiuing for other tast we haue not of Christes flesh but spirituall and by faith In the ende of the Chapter to deliuer himselfe his fellowes from the grosse errour of the Capernaites he scoffeth finely at our spirituall sifting of the sacrament so fine that we leaue nothing but the bare bran of the signifying signe in our owne hand whiche is the grosse bread we feede on If we taught a bare signe or bare bread in the sacrament there were some place for Maister Heskins ieaste But when we teache that presence and receiuing which
which terme he giueth to the waters in baptisme Maister Heskins chattereth I wot not what about it nor to what purpose Certaine it is that he vseth not the terme as the Papistes doe for they apply it only to the sacrament of the altar as they call it Leo is cited Serm. 7. de pass dom Iesus confisij sui certus c. Iesus being at a point with him selfe and ready to doe his fathers disposition without feare finished the olde Testament and made the newe Passeouer For his disciples sitting with him to eate the mysticall supper while they in the house of Caiphas were treating howe Christ might be slaine he ordaining the sacrament of his body and bloud did teach what manner of sacrifice should be offered to God and from this mysterie remoued not the traytour This place being against Maister Heskins where hee calleth it the sacrament of his body and bloud c. hee would aunswere the matter by this principle that olde writers did so call the very naturall body of Christ in the sacrament which is all the matter in question But hee will proue it by an other saying in the same place Vt vmbrae c. That shaddowes might giue place to the body and images might ceasse vnder the presence of the trueth the olde obseruance is taken away with a newe sacrament the sacrifice passeth into the sacrifice bloud excludeth bloud and the festiuitie of the lawe while it is chaunged is fulfilled These wordes must needes bee referred to the passion of Christe whereof the sacrifice is a memoriall for the sacrifice of Christe and his bloud shedding on the crosse was the very fulfilling of the shaddowe and image of the Paschall Lambe in the olde lawe and not the institution of the sacrament whiche is a figure or sacrament thereof And so the groundwork of al M. Hes. building is quite ouerthrown The seuen and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same wordes by S. Cyrill and S. Gregorie Cyrillus is cited as he is often ad Colosyrium Non dubites an c. Doubt thou not whether this be true when hee saith manifestly This is my body but rather receiue the worde of our Sauiour in faith For seeing hee is the trueth hee doth not lye Maister Heskins inferreth that the wordes of Christe are manifest and so to be taken in the literall sense without figure bicause he vseth these wordes Christ saide manifestly this is my body but this is a childish mockerie Christe saide manifestly I am the doore Doeth it therefore followe that it is no figuratiue speach and that the woordes of Christe are manifest and therefore to bee taken in the literall sense And yet I beleeue bicause Christ saide manifestly I am the doore that he is in deede the doore though not literally but figuratiuely taken It greueth M. Hes. that the proclamer should play with Duns his indiuidâ—um vagum saying that by the like meanes hee might disgrace the faith of the trinitie to open the quiddities of distinctions and relations of persons that bee spoken thereof And I thinke the same if hee shoulde teach that holy mysterie after the schoole manner not after the word of god But he returneth to an other place of Cyrill Ne horreremus carnem sanguinem Bicause this place is already rehearsed more at large and answered in the 51. Chap. of this booke I will send the reader backe to consider it in that place Gregorie is cited Lib. 4. dialog cap. â—8 Debemus itaque praesens sÄ™culum c. We ought therfore seing we see this present world to be passed away with al our mind to contemne it to offer to god the daily sacrifices of teares the daily sacrifices of his body and bloud For this sacrifice doth singularly saue the soul from eternal destruction which repayreth to vs the death of the only begotten by a mysterie Who although since he arose from death he doth not now dy and death shal haue no more dominion of him yet liuing in him self immortally incorruptibly is sacrificed againe for vs in this mysterie of the holy oblation For his body is there receiued his flesh is diuided for the health of the people his bloud is shed not nowe vpon the hands of the Infidels but into the mouthes of the faithfull Hereof therefore let vs consider what sacrifice this is for vs which for our deliuerance doeth followe the passion of the onely begotten Sonne For which of the faithfull ought to haue any doubt that in the same houre of the immolation the heauens are opened at the Priestes voyce that the companies of Angels are present in the mysterie of Iesus Christ That the lowest things are coupled to the highest earthly things are ioyned to heauenly thinges and that one thing is made of thinges visible and inuisible Of these last wordes of ioyning high and lowe heauenly and earthly thinges he maketh a greate matter which is saith hee that Christe is ioyned to the earthly formes of breade and wine Where note I praye you that he nameth the accidents of things for the thinges them selues which is a toy to mocke an ape And yet he pleaseth him selfe so well therein that he would drawe Irenaeus which is cleane contrarie to transubstantiation to bee a great patrone thereof Irenaeus saith as wee haue shewed before more at large that Eucharistie consisteth of two thinges earthly and heauenly Nowe hee inquireth of vs what is the heauenly part of the sacrament And he reasoneth that it is neither the grace of God nor thanksgiuing nor the worde of God nor sanctification Well what is it then Gregorie saith it is the bodye of Christ and so say we spiritually receiued But if I shuld aske M. Hes. what is the earthly part of the sacrament hee wil say the accidents of bread wine but sauing his wisdome accidents be neither earthly not heauenly but the earthly thing must needs be a substantiall thing what other earthly substance can there be but the substance of bread and wine He saith that corporall receiuing is here auouched by Gregory Then must he tel me how in these words the sacrifice of teares is matched with the sacrifice of his flesh and bloud and how the death of Christe is repaired by a mysterie howe the fleshe of Christ is diuided or parted if this can not bee done but spiritually then Christes body can not be eaten but spiritually The iudgement of Barnard which followeth we leaue to be weighed according to the corruption of the age in which he liued The eigth and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition among the eldest Fathers by Euthymius and Isidorus Although neither of these writers are within the compasse of the challenge yet bicause Euthymius vseth much to followe auncient Doctours and Isidorus was neere the time of the challenge I will set downe their places and examine their wordes Euthymius is cyted In 26. Math. Sicut vetus testamentum c.
But louers truely doe shewe this desire in mony garments possessions no man euer in his owne bloud But Christ in this hath shewed both his care and his vehement loue toward vs And in the olde Testament when they were more vnperfect that bloud which they offered to idolâ— he himselfe would accept that he might turne them away from idols which also was a signe of inspeakable loue But here he hath prepared a much more wonderfull and magnificall sacrifice both when he changed the sacrifice it selfe and for the slaughter of brute beaste commanded him selfe to be offered Although M. Hesk. hath disioyned this place to make shew of varietie I haue set it down whole and entire Here M. Hesk. triumpheth not a litle rayling against blessed Cranmer for abusing S. Paules words because Chrysostome saith that which is in the cup is that which flowed out of Christes side therfore it must needs be his bloud that corporaly receiued neither can he abide to heare tell of a trope or figure in these wordes Buâ— in spight of his heart Chrysostom must be vnderstood with a trope or figure because he saith immediatly after that Christ willeth the Corinthians to sprinkle his altar with his bloud I am sure M. Hesk. wold not dip his holiwater sprinkle in the challice and shake it ouer the altar Therefore the whole speech of Chrysostom is a continued trope and allegorie And therfore neither M. Hes his presence nor his sacrifice caÌ„ be proued out of this place Concerning the sacrifice I haue often shewed how the ancient fathers called the sacrament a sacrifice namely of thanksgiuing First not of propitiation so we grant that Christ did institute a sacrifice in the supper Secondly vnproperly as a remeÌ„brance of Christes sacrifice and so doth Chrysostome expound him selfe vpon the tenth to the Hebrues Non aliud c. We offer not another sacrifice as the high priest but the same we do always but rather we worke the remeÌ„brance of that sacrifice Another place of Chrysostome he citeth out of his Ser. de Eucharist in Enconija Reputate salutareÌ„ c. Esteeme that wholsome bloud to flowe as it were out of his Diuine and vnpolluted side and so comming to it receiue it with pure lippes This saith he must needes proue a reall presence because it is receiued with lipâ— as the spiritual receiuing is not And these words must be spoken in a plaine maner without all figure because he spake them in a sermon to the common people O blockish reasons surely he hath not read this place in Chrysostom but borowed it of some note book For immediatly before these wordes is a place that hath a great shewe of transubstantiation but in deede it cleane ouerthroweth both the corporal maner of receiuing M. Hesk. two doughtie reasons Num vides panem num viâ—um â–ª Noâ—â— ficut reliqui â—ibi in secessum vadunt Absit ne sic cogites queÌ„aedâ—oâ—â— enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimulatur nihil substantia vemanet nihil superfluit sic hic puâ—a mysteria consumi corporis praesentia Propâ—er quod accedentes ne putetis quod accipiatis Diuinum corpus ex homine sed ex ipsis Seraphim forcipe igneÌ„ quem scilices Esaias vidit vat accipere What doest thou see bread or wine Do they go into the drought like other meal God forbid that thou sholdest so thinke Foâ— as waxe if it be put to the fire is made like vnto it none of the substance remaineth nothing ouerfloweth so here think the mysteries to be consumed by the presence of the bodie Therfore you that come to it think not that you receiue the diuine bodie of a man but that you receiue the fier which Esaie saw with a paire of tongs of the Seraphims themselues If M. Hesk. will not allow any figures in this sermon because it was made to the common people that we receiue not the Lords bodie at the Priests hand but fire from the altar by an Angels hande and that Chrysostome allowed none but a spirituall receiuing of Christ not corporally present on the altar but in heauen he teacheth sufficieÌ„tly both by this place more plainely following the former place which M. Hesk. cited before In 1. Cor. 10. Ad hoc 〈◊〉 nos inducis sacrificiâ—on formidandâ—â— admirabile quod iubet nobis vt cum concordia charitate maxima ad se accedamis aquilae in hac vita facti ad ipsum câ—lum euotemus vel potius supra 〈◊〉 Vbi enim cadâ—uer inquit illic aquilae Cadauer Domini corpuâ— propter mortem nisi enim ille cecidisset nos noÌ„ resurrexissemus Aquilas 〈◊〉 appellat vt oftendat ad alta eum oportere conteÌ„dere qui ad hoc corpus acâ—edit nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune neque ad inferiora trahi repere sed ad superiora seÌ„per volare in solem institiae intueri mentisqué oculum acutissimum habere Aquilaerum enim non gracculorum hec mensa est For vnto this doeth the fearefull and wonderful sacrifice bring vs that he coÌ„mandeth vs that we come vnto him with concord and great charitie and beeing made eagles in this life we flie vp into heauen or rather aboue heauen For where the carkase is saith he there are the Eagles The Lords bodie is the carkas in respect of his death for except he had fallen we had not risen againe And he calleth them Eagles to shew that he must get vp on high that coÌ„meth to this body must haue nothing to do with the earth nor be drawn and creepe to the lower places but alwayes to flie vp on high and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse and to haue a most cleare eye of the minde For this is the table of Eagles and not of Iayes These words may satisfie a reasonable man that Chrysostom in this homily ment none other but a spirituall manner of receiuing of Christe in heauen and not transubstantiated in the sacrament on the altar in earth the other places he soweth together after his manner to peece out his Chapter out of Cyprian De Coen Chrysost. De prodition Iudae August contra literas Pet. Iren. Lib. 4. Cap. 32. are answered at large before in seuerall places namely in order Lib. 1. Ca. 17. Lib. 1. Cap. 18. Lib. 1. Cap. 19. and Lib. 2. Cap. 49. The place of Ambrose In prima oratione praepar c. Deserueth none answere beeing none of his workes but a counterfet as Erasmus and all learned men do iudge that be not wedded to their owne affection The seuententh Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by the exposition of Chrysostome and S. Hierome Chrysostome is cited as before vpon this text In 1. Cor. 10. vpon these wordes The bread which we breake is it not the communication of the bodie of Christ Quare non dixit participatio Why said he not the participatioÌ„ because he wold signifie somewhat
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
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
prelates in their lyfe yet in this accompt of Master Heskins they are burgesses of the lower house and liued much about a time To fill vp the chapter he citeth certaine miracles reported by Sainte Cyprian Sermone 5. De lapsis to shewe howe God punisheth the vnworthie receiuing of the sacrament although they doe not all shewe it for the first example is of an infante that coulde not brooke the sacramentall wyne after it had tasted of breade and wine offred to Idolles where the negligence of the parentes was rather punished then the vnworthinesse of the child The whole story is at large set downe in the last chapiter of the second booke The seconde example is of a woman who receiuinge vnworthily was striken with sodaine death The third of a woman who kept the sacrament in her coffer and when she woulde with vnworthie handes open the coffer in which was the holy thing of the Lorde there sprange out a fire by which she was so terryfied that she durst not touche it A iust punishment for her reseruing of that which should haue bene receiued The fourth miracle is of a man who presuming to receiue the sacrament vnworthily coulde neuer eate the holy thing of God nor handle it For when he had opened his hand he sawe nothing in it but ashes This is a marueilous thing saith Master Heskins Whereby is declared that God is not willing that his holy sacrament shoulde be receiued of a filthie sinner for so muche as sodeinly it pleaseth him to chaunge it into ashes he himselfe departinge from it In deede this is a straunge and miraculous transubstantiation But if I might be so bolde to aske M. Heskins what is that which is chaunged if there be no bread in the sacrament God he saieth is departed from it there remaineth the aceidentes onely of breade and wine and so belike the accidentes are chaunged into ashes O monstrous mutation But why doeth not M. Hes. gather by this miracle that if the sacrament could not be receiued of a wicked man much lesse the body of Christ and so doeth Cyprian gather of it Documento vnius ostensum est Dominum recedere cum negatur nec immerentibus prodesse ad salutem quod sumitur cum gratia salutaris in cinerem sanctitate fugiente mutetur By example of this one it is shewed that the Lorde doeth depart when he is denyed neither doeth that which is receiued profit to saluation the vnworthie persons seeinge the wholsome giftes the holinesse departing from it is chaunged into ashes Cyprian gathereth by the chaunge of the outwarde sacramente before it was receyued that Christ departeth from them that denye him and is not receyued at all But M. Hes. would learne forsoth what one thing is in the sacrament receiued that profiteth hurteth he aunswereth it cānot be the bread wine for they profit alike to al men therfore it must needes be the body of Christ a wholsome conlusion by whiche the bodye of Christe is made a hurtefull thing but if it please him to vnderstand our aunswere we deny that there is any thing included in the bread or wine that either profiteth or hurteth to saluation It is the grace and spirite of God which worketh as well by this sacrament our spirituall nourishing as by baptisme our spirituall regeneration And that which hurteth the wicked man is in him selfe and not in the sacrament euen his owne wickednesse and detestable presumption to defile the holy sacraments of god Wherefore it is diuelish and blasphemous that M. Heskins affirmeth the body of Christ to be hurtful to any bicause the vnworthy receiuing of the sacrament hurteth him that receiueth by his owne acte and not by any thing that is receiued The nine and fiftieth Chapter treateth of these wordes of Saint Paul. We are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones by Irenaeus and Hilarius Irenaeus is cited Lib. 5. Quomodo carnem negant esse capacem c. Howe doe they deny that the flesh is able to receiue the gift of God that is eternall life which is nourished with the bloud and body of Christ and is made a member of him euen as the Apostle saith in that Epistle which is to the Ephesians Bicause we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones speaking this not of any spirituall and inuisible man for a spirite hath neither flesh nor bones but of that disposition which is after the nature of man which consisteth of flesh and sinewes and bones which is nourished of the cup which is his bloud and is increased of the bread which is his body That both our bodies and soules are nourished vnto eternall life by eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christe we doe most willingly confesse and acknowledge But withall we affirme that as our bodyes are not naturally nourished and increased with the body of Christ but spiritually after a diuine manner so onely spiritually and after a diuine manner we doe eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ and not after a carnall naturall or papisticall manner And this is the plaine sense and meaning of Irenaeus his wordes As our bodyes are naturally nourished and increased with the bread and wine of the sacrament so are our bodyes and soules spiritually nourished and increased vnto eternall life For M. Heskins him selfe denyeth that our bodyes are naturally nourished and increased with the body and bloud of Christ when he saith The flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh which must needes be if we vnderstand that Irenaeus saith our flesh is nourished and increased of the body of Christ but he saith of the bread which is his body and of the cup which is his bloud our flesh is nourished and increased Therefore there is naturall and very bread in the sacrament for our flesh can not be nourished and increased by accidentes euen as certainely as there is the body and bloud of Christe after a spirituall manner dispensed vnto the faithfull which are the members of Christ flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Therefore also the wicked receiue not the body and bloud of Christe bicause they are no members of his body That I haue not in this interpretation varied from the mynde of Irenaeus his plaine words shall testifie Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Quemadmodum enim qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam iam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Euen as that bread which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God is not now comon bread but the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing consisting of two thinges an earthly thing and an heauenly thing so also our bodyes receiuing the Eucharistie are not nowe corruptible hauing the hope of resurrection The place that Maister Heskins citeth out
corporis Christi Vocaturque ipsa īmolario carnis que sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio nō rei veritate sed significāte mysterio The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a peculiar maner is called the body of Christe when as in very deed it is the sacramēt of the body of christ And euen the oblation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysteri Those words which are borrowed out of August into the decrees the glose doth thus vnderstand Coeleste sacraementū quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè Vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio◠Vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but vnproperly Therefore it is saide to be after a peculiar manner but not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the body of Christe that is it doth signifie the body of Christe If these testimonies that are taken out of the Romish Bishops owne writings decrees and gloses that are so plaine will not satisfie the Papistes that their doctrine of transubstantiation and carnall presence is neither true ancient nor Catholike it is in vaine to spend more wordes with them as with men that are obstinate and will not be satisfied with any truth contrarie to their presumed heresie The one and sixtieth Chapter maketh a recapitulation of that that is done in this worke Seeing this Chapter containeth no argument or authoritie to defend his cause but only rehearseth what he fantasieth that he hath brought in other places throughout all his booke for the maintenance of the same I referre it to the indifferent readers iudgement what I haue done in this breefe confutation of the same And here I conclude this acte of repeale that notwithstanding this bill offered to the Parleament by Tho. Hesk. in the lower house hath many friends so that the greater part of voyces if the house were diuided might seeme to ouercome the better yet for as much as in the higher house the greatest number haue spoken directly against his bill and no one lord of that house which liued within the compasse of 600. yeres of the challenge hath giuen his voyce to allowe it not only the pretensed acte of Parleament set forth by the said Tho. Hesk. is proued to be false forged counterfet but also the bill that he hath put in to be considered is vtterly reiected condemned spurned out of the house GOD BE PRAYSED A CONFVTATION OF AN IDOLATROVS TREATISE OF NICOLAS SANDER Doctor in Diuinitie which mainteyneth the making and honouring of Images by W.F. Doctour in Diuinitie ECCLESIASTIC 45. The memoriall of the beloued of God is blessed that is to say any thing that maketh vs to remember him that is beloued of God is worthie of praise and honour A Doctour like interpretation and a pithy argument whereupon I may conclude The idols that Salomon made are things that make vs remember Salomon who was the beloued of God and so called of God him selfe therefore the idols were worthie of prayse and honour The preface conteining a breefe declaration which is the true Churche Maister Sander taking in hand so absurde and wicked an argument as is the defence of idolatrie or honouring of Images thought good to present it in the best vessel that he had which is the painted boxe of the Churche which that he might the rather commend to his countrimen he hath taken vpon him to describe it both inside and outside as he saith by certeine knowen truethes in number no lesse then 112. which after they haue been all well vewed and sufficiently considered I doubt not but to the reasonable and indifferent Reader shall appeare nothing else but a faire coloured but yet an empty vessell I will followe his diuisions and where I finde any trueth I will confesse it without wrangling where in steede of trueth he offereth falshode I will breefely confute it 1 The first I graunt that Christe hath alwayes had and alwayes shall haue a Church on earth out of which there is no saluation This Churche consisteth of men whiche beleeue in him haue their faith sealed and confirmed by outward sacramentes 2 The Church is the kindome of Christe the Citie of God and the kingdome of heauen wherein Christ shall reigne for euer 3 The kingdome is spread more largely and gouerned more prudently then any earthly kingdome euer was euen to the endes of the worlde to continue world without end 4 Notwithstanding all this to say that the Churche or this kingdome of Christe was hidden any one houre from the eyes of the worlde is not to make it more obscure then any earthly kingdome euer was as Maister Sander doeth affirme for the glorie of this Kingdome whiche is spirituall neuer did nor shall appeare to the wicked of this worlde The Churche is an article of our faith and faith is of those thinges whiche are not seene Hebru 11. but with spirituall eyes Therfore the exaltation of the Lordes hill that Esaie 2. and Micheas 4. doe speake of is of a spirituall aduauncement and a citie built vpon an hill is euerie true minister of Gods worde Matthewe 5. and not the whole Churche Finally the glorie and ioye that Esaie 60. promiseth vnto the Church and her happie enlargement among the nations Cap. 61. proue no worldly pompe or greatnesse to be seene with carnall eyes but is ment of the ioyfull and comfortable addition of the Churche of the Gentiles vnto the Churche of the Iewes For otherwise these wordes could not be verified of all wicked men All that see them shall knowe them that they are the blessed seede which the Lorde hath blessed 5 The cheefe meane whereby the Church is so clearely seene and so glorious in the sight of men is that Christ being the true light hath cōmunicated his brightnesse to his Apostles sayng you are the light of the worlde A citie built vpon an hill can not be hidden Neither do men light a candel and put it vnder a bushel but vpon a candlestick that it may giue light to al them that are in the house But this brightnesse is heauenly and spirituall not worldly and carnall to be seene of the children of light not of the blind bussards of the worlde 6 The Churche dyed not when the Apostles dyed for Bishops and Pastours succeeded in their place as lightes set vpon the candlestickes which are the seuerall Churches Apoc. 1. 7 The light and glorie of Gods Churche commeth chiefely from the Bishops and Pastours thereof I meane from their heauenly doctrine not from their persons as Maister
now by the papistes cannot bee but extraordinarie and yet lawfull as hauinge authoritie of God and approbation of Gods Churche mooued with chariti◠to call men out of the blindnes of Idolatrie into the light of the Gospell This I saye as if he had not bin called thither to preach by the Church of God which was in persecution in those places which is an ordinarie a most lawfull calling The seconde fault he findeth is of their preaching in the woodes and fieldes which hath not bene vsed in a Christian countrie but in time of warre As though he hath not reade that in Affrica when the Arrians which are as good Christians as the papists persecuted the true Catholikes and draue them out of the cities they were constrained to meete in such places as they could in woods or fieldes or desert corners That there were sectes amonge them it was to be lamented and yet not to bee marueiled for there muste bee euen heresies amonge you sayeth the Apostle that they which are tryed may be made manifest 1. Corinth 11. verse 19. That the feast of the Assumption was chosen wherein they began the spoile I hope it was of no hatred to the Virgin Mary whom they honour with such honour as is due to her and called her blessed because God hath chosen her to be a mother of Christ although they allow not the new cōception of Christs body vnder forme of bread by the popish priests compared in dignitie by papistes vnto the blessed Virgine as I remember in fiue pointes M. Sander is angry that the newe preachers hate that feast of the Assumption of Mary yet keepe holy the day of the death of S. Paule and S. Thomas They hate it because of the popishe fable of the Assumption of the body of the virgin liuing which yet M. Sander is ashamed of and calleth it the daye of her death The other feastes which they keepe they keepe not in the honor of men but to the honour of God they vse the dayes in which the people is accustomed to be assembled as things indifferent which except it be in cases of offence geuing may well be vsed The watche worde giuen by a boye who striking the Image saide Marye thou must come downe is a vaine matter and yet much more probably to bee defended then the prayers of the Idolaters made to that deafe Idole Blessed Lady helpe me c. Pater noster qui es in coelis c. After the watche worde followed the spoyle of all Idoles and monuments of Idolatrie the magistrates forbidding in vaine I saide before the disordered doing of priuate men cannot bee defended although where M.S. chargeth them with stealinge and caryinge away I am perswaded he slaundereth them as men of as good credit as he do testifie except some pilfering theeues thrust in amongst them who as the report goeth being apprehended were iustly punished The maner of their vtter defacing of al tables and all that belonged to them whiche Master Sander so muche misliked if it had not wāted lawful authoritie had been verie commendable yea euen the pissing vpon the foule Idoll of the altar might haue bene defended by the example of Iehu which turned the temple of Baall into a lakes if it had bene done by the commandement of a zelous Magistrate For M.S. most impudently doth bely vs when he saith that by our doctrine their Masse cake is a mysticall figure of Christes bodye when it is rather a foule stinking and abhominable Idoll If any Library was destroied by them with the bibles doctors works maps of countries it was very euil barbarously done of them yet I am sure they burned no booke of holy scriptures knowing them to be such as the papists doe not by tumult of a few ignoraunt persons but by consultation deliberation of the wisest of them knowing them to be the holy scriptures wilfully defacing them not more with flames of fire then vilainous despightful words It is wel known that D. Cole the papist being visitor in Cambridge when a Bible was brought to him to be defaced called it bible bable They defaced the Friers kitchin stuffe spoyled and caried away their vitailes stuffe it was more then may be defended I thinke more then was true and especially that they shoulde bring strumpets into the Abbeyes to prouoke the yong Monkes and Fryers to lust which was needlesse for their chastitie is well inough knowne But lest the fault should be laid vpon a disordered multitude without a head M.S. saith they had one Hermanus a preacher to their captaine which had bin a theefe and had lost one of his eares if his report be true he was like to be captaine of such a band As for the praier of the Nuns that stopped his mouth that he was able to say no more to them let them beleeue it that thinke papistes cannot lye There might be cause why Hermanus would geue ouer his perswasions when hee sawe them obstinate though his mouth were not stopped with their prayer To conclude although the defacing and destroying of Idolatrie be good yet may it not be attempted without auctoritie and order vnder pretence of zeale and therefore this fact of the lowe countrie men is not by anye wise man defended howsoeuer their zeale may be praised or the worke of god in their inconsiderate doings may be considered THE II. CHAP. The state of the question concerninge the adoration of holy Images where also a reason is giuen of the order which is taken in the booke following In this chapter hee mooueth foure questions 1. whether Images may be made 2. whether any Images may bee worshipped 3. whether it bee expedient that anie shoulde be worshipped 4 with what kinde of worship Images may be worshipped To the first he aunswereth that Images may be made To the seconde that these Images onely may be worshipped in respect of Christian religion which bring vs in minde either that there is a God or that there are three persons of the Trinitie or which represent Christ or his holy Angels and Saints by which he alloweth the making and worshippinge of the Images of god or of the trinity beside the images of Christ men and Angels To the third he answereth that it is expedient that Images should be worshipped To the fourth he defendeth it for more probable that the same degree of honor is not due to the Image of Christ of our Lady or of other saintes which is due to Christ our Lady other saintes themselues but there is a certaine proper honour due to holy Images which may be called a worship or honour due to a good remembraunce or monument These be his owne wordes by which hee sheweth himselfe contrary to other Papistes that defende that Images are to be worshipped with the same honour that is due to the thinges whereof they are Images As that the Image of God is to be worshipped euen with
whereas their is no dout but such strong wine as groweth in those countries will be preserued as long from sauoring as the bread froÌ„ moulding Like is the example of Serapion being at the point of death to whom the priest being sicke also sent by a boye the sacrament Vppon which example he vrgeth reseruation which though it be not necessarie yet is it not the matter in controuersie secondly the coÌ„munion in one kind which is false for he sent both and willed him to dippe the bread in the wine which he sent and not in any thing else as M. Rastell saith which were an absurditie that the bodie of Christe should be dipped in prophane licour or sent by a boy either if the Priest had ben so persuaded of it as Rastel would beare vs in hand that all olde fathers were That he receiued alone proueth no priuate Masse nor alloweth sole receiuing as ordinarie which was done in a case of extreame necessitie in one which was excommunicated and could not departe this life before he had receiued the sacrament The last example is the superstitious fact of Satyrus the brother of Ambrose which beeing not baptised obteined the sacrament of the Christians that were in a ship with him in daunger of shipwracke which because he might not receiue he caused it to be wrapped in Orario a linnen garment which Maister Rastell calleth a stole wrapped that linnen garment about his necke and without other helpe escaped by swimming Here M. Rastel thinketh he hath great aduauntage First that the Christians had the sacrament out of the Church As though the ship might not be their Church for that time to minister the communion in the time of that great daunger Secondly that it was in one kind except we can deuise how to wrap wine in a stole No M. Rastel this proueth not that the Christians receiued in one kinde though they had wrapped one kinde in the stole as you call it for Satyrus as yet no Christian. But why might they not either soake the bread in wine as some did in those days or else dippe a corner of that linnen cloth as some also vsed to doe and wrappe it vp in that great linnen garment And the words of Ambrose Fusum in viscera powred into his bowels wold not agree to drie bread Last of all whereas you say it was no fantastical figuratiue memorie which saued him from daunger I agree with you but it was not the sacrament that he carried whatsoeuer you will call it but his faith as S. Ambrose saith that preserued him And how soeuer it was the example of an vnbaptised mans weake and superstitious doing doeth ye but small honestie to confirme your common priuate Masse sole receiuing opinion of carnal presence or what so euer beside you can gather out of it SECTIO 39. From the 132. leafe to the second face of the 135. leafe of seruice in a straunge tongue To the Bishoppes challenge that common prayer was not in a straunge tongue within the compasse of 600. yeares after Christ he hath nothing in the worlde But onely affirmeth that Augustine the Monke brought Latine seruice into Englande whiche the people vnderstoode not whiche both is somewhat without the compasse and also onely said of him without proofe or likelyhoode He saith he made not a newe Englishe seruice or Kentish rather but vsed the Romane fashion and language Be it graunted that he brought in the Latine seruice yet how proueth he that the people did not at that time for the moste parte vnderstand the Latine tongue Seeing he could preach to them onely in Latine beeing a Romane and they also tâ—at came with him vnderstoode no parte of the English tongue as our stories doe testifie And that he planted not the Romane seruice it may appeare by the aunswere of Gregorie to his thirde demaunde of the diuersitie of the Romane Churche and the French Church in which answere he bindeth him not to the Romane Church but willeth him to choose out of all Churches what he thinketh most conuenient and profitable for the Englishe Churche And seeing the Scriptures and diuerse Homelyes and Prayers remaine still in the Saxon or old English tongue I do not see but he might haue made a newe English seruice although by reason of so many mutations troubles as happened in this land by meanes of ciuil and externe warres in the meane time Antichrist daily more and more incroching the same might growe out of vse and latine onely be reteined which perhaps at the first was but vsuall vnto monasteries or clarkes But how soeuer it was this is an inuincible argument that Augustine planted not the Romane seruice in this land bicause there were so many diuersities of customes as there were diuerse Bishops sees and al they differing from the vse of the Romane church But hauing none authoritie he hath reasons perhaps to defend latine seruice First latine seruice is as meete for Englishmen as English seruice is for WelshmeÌ„ wherwith he saith we finde no faulte wherin he lieth For the Welshmen that vnderstand not english haue their common praier in their Welshe tongue The second reason he vseth that Sainct Paule did write in greeke to the Romanes ergo the seruice must be in latine to Englishmen He saith himselfe there be many differences betweene an epistle a common forme of praiers which is verie true But will he proue therby that the Romanes had their common praiers in greeke The cause why the Apostle did write in greeke was bicause he wrote not only to the Romanes but to the whole churche vnto which the greeke tongue was more familiar then the latine and was of many vnderstoode in Rome And also because the holy Ghoste â—ad consecrated the Greekâ— tongue beeing the principall tongue of the gentiles vnto the writinges of the newe Testament auoyding to vse the Latine tongue euen to the Romanes for the mysterie of the name of Antichriste Latinos conteined in the nomber of the beastes name 666. as Irenaeus doeth testifie His thirde reason is that there be many thinges to be saide in publique praier which ought to be saide in secrete therefore an vnknowne tongue is best to vtter them His antecedent he proueth not out of scripture or any auncient authenticall writer but out of the liturgies falsely ascribed to Saint Basil and Saint Chrysostome and yet the argument hath no consequence in the world for then those prayers in the Latine seruice to the Romanes shoulde bee in an vnknowen tongue and all the rest in a knowne tongue to euerie nation Finally where he saith there needeth no diuersitie of seruice according to the diuersitie of languages he speaketh directly contrarye to the decree of the councell of Laterane cap. 9. which commanded the bishoppes to prouide that the sacraments and other diuine seruice should be ministred to all people in their diocesse according to the diuersitie of their languages and customes By which it is
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
in spite of your heart for I will be at masse as soone as you and then will I receiue at my Masse when you receiue at your Masse and so by our owne principle whereby wee defend our priuate Masses to be communions I will communicate with you whether you will or no yea I can not choose but communicate with you if I say Masse when you doe And if you will say to me that I ought not to say Masse being excommunicate I tell you you can not excommunicate me so long as I can say Masse For though you count me excōmunicate yet you knowe by our owne diuinitie that if I doe say Masse notwithstanding your censure I doe consecrate as well as the proudest of you and after I haue consecrated I will receiue and then I communicate and so your excommunication is no excommunication at all SECTIO 48. in the 155. leafe Whereas the Bishop said that the Masse had nether her name nor her partes vntill foure hundreth yeares after Christe he aunswereth that she had the essentiall and necessarie partes but not the garnishing and decking parts So that by his owne confession it was a namelesse and naked Masse which they had in the church for foure hundreth yeares after Christes So that the later times with him were alwayes more wise and more religious then the former newe deuises better then olde customes And where then is there the proud challenge of antiquitie vniuersalitie consent Apostolike tradition And if the Church might be without the Popish Masse so long after Christe why should they teach that nowe it is so necessarie as there ought to be none other forme of communion vsed in the Church of God but it SECTIO 49. M. Rastel protesting once or twise that he was wearie will now conclude with onely confuting these conclusions of M. Iewels comparison S. Iames Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well neere nothing else but mans inuention To disproue this he saith the epistle and Gospell the collets of the Sunday the Hymne of the Angell the confession of faith the saying of Agnus Dei c. are translated out of their Masse into our communion therefore we take them for parte of Christes institution I answere we take them as Christes institution and not as commended by the Masse and yet are they no parte of the communion though they be vsed in our liturgie some before and some after the communion Secondly he would seeme to confute the Bishops saying that Saint Iames Masse had Christes institution because if we had thought so in deede we would haue translated it into English and so haue vsed it in steede of the Popish Masse and then it would haue seemed more superstitious and full of ceremonies then the Popish Masse And so he rehearseth a number of superstitious ceremonies gestures and prayers that are in it I answere the Bishop said truely as he thought that the liturgie falsely ascribed to Saint Iames hath Christes institution concerning the Lorde Supper notwithstanding it be ful fraught with idle ceremonies and some superstitious and erronious prayers whereas the Popish Masse hath cleane ouerturned the institution of Christ touching the ende of the Lordes supper reteyning well neere nothing of Christes institution except you will say it hath bread and wine which it most horribly abuseth to the prophanation of Christes death and most filthie idolatrie Finally the saluation of the virgine Marie whiche was then aliue although it were more meere to be vsed to her person beeing aliue then after she was departed out of this worlde the prayer made for them that liued in monasteries the tearme of consubstantiall not heard of in the Church before the Nicene councell and many other argumentes doe sufficiently proue that the saide liturgie was not written by Saint Iames the Apostle nor by any that liued many hundreth yeares after him to the iudgements of al men that haue either knowledge to discerne trueth from falshoode or conscience to acknowledge that which they can not choose but know And euen Bartholomew Garanza a Papist that gathered the abridgement of councels affirmeth that the liturgie which Saint Iames vsed is not extant at this day O Lord bring into the way of trueth all such as erre of simplicitie and be not mercifull to those that sinne of malicious wickednesse After this clearkly confutation followeth a counterfet challenge as he pretendeth to shew the Bishops follie but in deede to shewe his owne follie and the weaknesse of his cause which he learned not as he saith of Salomon to answere a foole according to his follie but of Menalcas one of Virgils sheepheardes in his thirde Eglogue which when he could not answer the ridle propounded vnto him by his aduersarie he putteth for than other as harde as he thinketh Dic quibus in terris c. His first section conteineth 21. articles whereof the greatest parte are not helde at all by any of vs therefore there is no cause why we should proue them the rest be matters of meere indifferencie which may be vsed or left vndon without any hurt of our religion some perhaps may be proued which he litle thinketh of to his shame Of the first sort are these 1. that there was no drie communion and we say there ought to be none although the Papistes make a drie communion when they robbe the people of the cuppe of the Lordes bloud The thirde that Bishops did not sweare by their honour we affirme they ought not to sweare nor yet by God as I heard Boner sweare being conuented before the Bishop of Winchester his Chauncelour and a great number of persons beeing present The 4. that bagpipers horscoursers gailers alebasters were not admitted into the Cleargie without sufficient triall We affirme they ought not nor yet any of the scullerie or blacke garde as some yet liuing were made Priestes in Queene Maries time The 6. that no Bishoppe not content with prisoning his aduersaries call vppon Princes to put them to cruell death We holde that no Bishop should imprison his aduersary much lesse procure his death but if the challenge had beene of Gods aduersaries I would haue aunswered otherwise For if in 600. yeares none of Gods aduersaries was or ought to haue beene put to death by procurement of Bishops by what ground of antiquitie doe Popish Bishops procure so many to be put to death yea murther them selues in their prisons and inquisitions vnder pretence that they be Gods aduersaries The 17. that no Bishoppe did gather beneuolence of his Cleargie to marrie his daughter c. We aunswere this no way concerneth religion no more then putting of the ring on the womans left hande which is the 18. or calling the people by ringing of a bell whiche is the 21. Now concerning the rest as the seconde that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper except there be a good number to communicate three or foure at the least