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
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
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
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
of our Lords words bringeth in the perfection of certeintie who said This is my bodie which is giuen for you doe this in remembraunce of me In this aunswere seeing he bringeth no exposition but onely citeth the bare wordes of the text there is nothing that maketh for M. Heskins He saith the wordes are plaine inough and neede none other interpretation It is true before the worlde was troubled with the heresie of carnall presence the text seemeth plaine ynough these wordes Do this in remeÌ„brance of me were thought a sufficient interpretation of those words This is my bodie and so doth Basill vse them But S. Ambrose he saith is so plaine that if his mother the Church had not beene good to him he should haue bene shut out of the doores For Oecolampadins reiected his book of the sacraments as Luther did the Epistle of S. Iames. Touching Luther although he were too rash in that censure yet had he Eusebius for his author twelue hundreth yeres before him And not only OecolaÌ„padius but many other learned men do thinke both the phrase and the matter of that booke to be vnlike S. Ambrose But for my part let it be receiued I hope M. Hesk. shal gaine litle by it he hath noted many short sentences which I wil rehearse one after another First Lib. 4. Ca. 5. Antequam Before it be consecrated it is bread but when the wordes of Christe are come to it it is the bodie of christ Finally heare him saying take eate ye all of it This is my bodie And before the words of Christ the cuppe is full of wine and water when the wordes of Christe haue wrought there is made the bloud which redeemed the people Ibi. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Tu forte Thou peraduenture sayest my bread is vsuall bread but this bread is bread before the wordes of the sacramentes when consecration is come to it of bread it is made the fleshe of Christ. And againe in the same Chapter Sed audi but heare him saying that sayeth he saide and they were made he commanded and they were created Therefore that I may answere thee Before consecration it was not the bodie of Christe But after consecration I say vnto thee thaâ— now it is the bodie of christ He saide and it is made he commanded and it is created And in the same booke Cap. 5. Ipse Dominus Our Lord Iesus himselfe testifieth vnto vs that we receiue his bodie and bloud shall we doubt of his trueth and testification Out of these places he concludeth not onely that figures be excluded but also that the tearme of consecration is vsed seriously I graunt but not in such sense as the Papistes vse it but as the worde signifieth to hallow or dedicate to an holie vse How figures be excluded and how these places are to be taken that are so plaine as he pretendeth I pray you heare what he writeth in the same bookes of sacramentes Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Ergo didicisti quòd ex pane corpuâ— fiat Christi quòd vinum aqua in calicem mittitur sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi Coelestis Sed fortò dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis vt nullus horror cruoris sit precium tamen operetur redemptionis Didicisti ergo quia quod accipis corpus est Christi Therefore thou hast learned that of the bread is made the body of Christ and that the wine and water is put into the cup but by consecration of the heauenly worde it is made his bloud But perhappes thou sayest I see not the shewe of bloud Yet hath it the similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud that there may be no horror of bloud yet it may worke the price of redemption Thou hast learned then that that which thou takest is the bodie of christ Here you see it is so the bodie of Christ as it is the similitude of his death so the bloud as it is the similitud of his bloud Moreouer in the same book Ca. 5. Dicit sacerdos c. The priest saith make vnto vs saith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. And Cap. 6. Ergo memores c. Therefore beeing mindefull of his most glorious passion and resurection from hell and ascention into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudie sacrifice this holie bread and cup of eternall life And againe Lib. 6. cap. 1. Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipiâ— sacramentuÌ„ sed verae naturae gratiam virtus émque consequeris Therfore lest any man should say this and there should be a certeine horror of bloud but that the grace of redemption might remaine therefore truely thou takest a sacrament for a similitude but thou obteinest the grace vertue of his true nature Thus Ambrose hath spoken sufficiently to shewe him selfe no fauourer of Maister Heskins bill although as the scripture teacheth he call the sacrament the bodie bloud of Christ and declareth why it is so called because it is a figure similitude and a memoriall thereof The three and fiftieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of Christes wordes by Gregorie Nicene and S. Hierome Gregorie Nicene is cited Ex serus Catatholico De Diuinis sacram Qua ex causa panis in eo corpore mutatus c. By what cause the bread in that bodie beeing chaunged passed into the diuine power by the same cause the same thing it done now For as there the grace of the word of God maketh that bodie whose nourishment consisted of bread and was after a certeine maner bread So bread as the Apostle saith by the word of God and prayer is sanctified not because it is eaten growing to that that it may become the bodie of the WORDE but foorthwith by the worde it is chaunged into the bodie as it is saide by the WORDE This is my bodie This place saith Maister Heskins ouerthroweth three heresies The first of Luther or Lutherans that the sacrament is not the bodie of Christ except it be receiued Gregorie saith it is not the bodie of Christ because it is eaten But that is no ouerthrow to Luthers assertion for Gregorie meaneth that the sacrament by nourishing our bodies is not made the bodie of Christe as the breade that a man eateth is turned into his bodie and so was the bread that our sauiour did eat turned into the substance of his bodie while he liued but by the power of God this notwithstanding it is made that bodye of Christ only to the worthie receiuer Of which aâ—sertion M. Hesk. saith they
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
Ambrose following Vide c. See all those be the Euangelists words vnto these words Take either the bodie or the bloud from thence they be the wordes of christ Note euery thing Who saith he the day before he suffered tooke breade in his holie hands Before it be consecrated it is bread but after the wordes of Christe be come vnto it it is the bodie of christ Finally heare him saying Take ye eat ye all of it this is my bodie And before the wordes of Christ the cuppe is full of wine water after the wordes of Christ haue wrought there is made the bloud which redeemed the people To the like effect be the words taken out of his treatise de oration Dom. Memini c. I remember my saying when I entreated of the sacraments â–ª I told you that before the wordes of Christ that which is offered is called bread when the wordes of Christ are brought forth nowe it is not called bread but it is called his bodie Here M. Hesk. triumpheth in his consecration of the vertue therof But he must remember what Ambrose saith De ijs qui myster initiant Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus c. Our Lord Iesus him selfe doth speake alowde This is my bodie before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is named another kinde but after the consecration the bodie of Christ is signified And lib. de Sac. 4. Cap. 2. Ergo didicisti c. Then hast thou learned that of the bread is made the bodie of Christ that the wine water is put into the cup but by consecration of the heauenly word it is made his bloud But peraduenture thou sayest I see not the shew of bloud But it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud that there may bee no horror of bloud yet it may worke the price of redemption Here M. Hesk. for all his swelling brags hath not gained one patch of his popish Masse out of the auncient writers for none of them vnderstoode consecration to cause a transsubstantiation of the elements into the naturall bodie of Christe but only a separation of them from the common vse to become the sacraments of the bodie bloud of christ As for the foolish cauil he vseth against protestants refusing to follow the primitiue church for loue liking of innouation is not worthie of any reputation for in al things which thei followed Christ most willingly we folow theÌ„ but where the steps of Christs doctrin are not seene there dare we not follow them although otherwise we like neuer so well of them The sixe thirtieth Chapter declareth what was the intention of the Apostles fathers in about the consecratioÌ„ in the Mass. M. Hesk. will proue that their intention was to transsubstantiate the bread wine into the bodie bloud of christ And first the idol of S. Iames is brought forth on procession in his Liturgie which M. Hesk. had rather call his Masse Miserere c. Haue mercie vpon vs God almightie haue mercie vpoÌ„ vs God our Sauiour haue mercie vpon vs ô God according to thy great mercie send down vpon vs vpoÌ„ these gifts set forth thy most holy spirit the Lord of life which sitteth together with thee god the father the only begotteÌ„ sonne raigning together being consubstantiall coeternall which spake in the law the prophets in thy newe testament which discended in the likenesse of a doue vpon our lord Iesus Christ in the riuer of Iordan abode vpon him which descended vpon thy Apostles in the likenesse of fierie tongue in the parler of the holy glorious Sion in the day of Pentecost send down that thy most holy spirite now also ô lord vpon vs vpon these holie giftes set forth that comming vpoÌ„ theÌ„ with his holie good glorious presence he may saÌ„ctifie make this bread the holy body of thy Christe and this cup the precious bloud of thy Christ that it may be to all that receiue of it vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes and life euerlasting M. Heskins saith he would not haue prayed so earnestly that the holy Ghost might haue sanctified the bread and wine to be onely figures and tokens which they might be without the speciall sanctification of Gods spirite as many things were in the lawe As for only figures and tokens it is a slaunder confuted and denyed a hundreth times alreadie But what a shamelesse beast is he to affirme that the sacraments of the olde lawe which were figures of Christe had no speciall sanctification of the holy Ghost or that baptisme which is a figure of the bloud of Christ washing our souls may be a sacrament without the speciall sanctification of Gods spirite you see howe impudently he wresteth and wringeth the wordes of this Liturgie which if it were graunted vnto them to be authenticall yet hitherto maketh it nothing in the world for him But let vs heare how S. Clement came to the altar Rogamus vt mittere digneris c. We pray thee that thou wouldest vouchsafe to send thy holy spirite vpon this sacrifice a witnesse of the passions of our Lord Iesus Christ that he may make this breade the body of thy Christ and this cup the bloud of thy Christ. Here saith M. Heskins his intent was that the bread and wine should be made the body bloude of christ And so they be to them that receiue worthily But M. Heskins will not see that he calleth the bread and wine a sacrifice before it is made the body and bloud of Christ by which it is plaine that this Clemens intended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice as the Papistes pretend to do S. Basil in his Liturgie hath the same intention in consecration Te postulamus c. We pray and besech thee ô most holy of al holies that by thy wel pleasing goodness thy holy spirit may come vpon vs and vpon these proposed gifts to blesse and sanctifie them to shew this bread to be the very honourable body of our Lorde God Sauiour Iesus Christ and that which is in the cup to be the very bloud of our Lord god sauiour Iesus Christ which was shed for the life of the world Of this praier M. Hes. inferreth that Basil by the sanctification of the holy ghost beleeued the bread and wine to be made Christes body bloud he meaneth corporally traÌ„substantially But that is most false for this praier is vsed in that liturgie after the words of consecration when by the Popish doctrine the body and bloud of Christe must needes be present imediatly after the last sillable vm in hoc est corpuâ— meâ—um pronounced Wherefore seeing the Author of this Liturgie after the words of coÌ„secration pronounced praieth that God will sanctifie the breade and wine by his spirite and make it the body and bloud of
sacrifice of thankesgiuing or a memoriall of the sacrifice of Christ by which it is easie to iudge howe the doctrine that the Papistes do nowe holde of the propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse doth agree with the auncient Liturgies ascribed to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church The eight and twentieth Chapter treateth of the prayer for acceptation of the oblation or sacrifice made in the Masse and vsed as well by the Apostles as the Fathers That the Apostles and Fathers commended to God by prayers the sacrifice which thei offered it is a manifest argument that they offered not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe for that needeth no commendation of our prayers They prayed therefore that their sacrifice of thankes giuing and duetifull seruice celebrated in the memorie of Christes death might be acceptable to God as you shal see by al their prayers First the Liturgie vntruly ascribed to Iames praieth thus Pro oblatis c. For these offred and sanctified precious heauenly vnspeakable immaculate glorious feareful horrible diuine gifts let vs pray to our Lord God that our Lord God accepting them into his holy heauenly mentall and spirituall altar for a sauour of spiritual sweet smell may giue vs againe and send vnto vs the diuine grace and gift of the most holy spirite These sanctified giftes can not be the body and bloud of Christe which are holy of them selue but the bread and wine sanctified to be a memoriall of the death of Christe in a spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing Saint Clement if wee beleeue Nicholas Methon prayed thus Rogamus c. We pray thee that with mercifull and cheerefull countenaunce thou wilt looke vpon these giftes set before thee thou God which hast no neede of any thing and that thou mayest be pleased with them to the honour of thy Christ. These wordes are plaine that he offered not Christe but the breade and wine to bee sanctified to the honour of Christe namely that they might be made the body and bloud of Christe to as many as receiue them worthily In the Liturgie imputed to Basil the Priest prayeth thus Dominum postulemus c. Let vs desire the Lorde for these offered and sanctified the most honourable giftes of our Lorde God and for the profite of the goods of our soules that the most mercifull God which hath receiued them in his holy heauenly intelligible altar for a sauour of sweete smelling would send vnto vs the grace and communion of his holy spirite The same wordes in a manner be in the Liturgie fathered vppon Saint Chrysostome though it be manifest that it was written seuen hundreth yeares after his death as is shewed before Pro oblatis c. For the offered and sanctified precious giftes let vs pray the Lorde that our mercifull God who hath receiued theÌ„ in his holy heauenly intelligible altar may send vs therfore grace the gift of the holy Ghost Maister Heskins would haue vs note that these Fathers seeme to pray for their sacrifice which we note very willingly for thereby is proued that their sacrifice was not the very body of Christ for that nedeth no commendation of our prayers Wel S. Ambrose followeth Lib. de Sacr. 4. Cap. 6. Petimus c. We pray and desire that thou wilt receiue this oblation in thy high altar by the handes of the Angels as thou hast vouchsafed to receiue the gifts of thy seruant righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that which thy high Priest Melchisedech offered to thee The very name of gods heauenly mental intelligible holy high altar do argue a spirituall sacrifice and not a reall oblation of the naturall body and bloud of christ Next to these Liturgies Maister Heskins adioyneth the wordes of the Canon of the Popish Masse agreeing in effect with these of Ambrose but nothing at all in vnderstanding For that the Papistes esteeme their sacrifice to be very Christ God and Man which none of the auncient fathers did For which cause the Bishop of Sarum iustly reproued those three blasphemies in their Canon not in respect of the words but in respect of their vnderstanding of them The first that they seeme to make Christ in his fathers displeasure that he needeth a mortall man to be his spokesman The second that the body of Christe should in no better wise bee receiued of his father then a Lambe at the handes of Abel The third that they desire an Angel may come and carie away Christes body into heauen These three blasphemies M. Heskins taketh vpon him to auoyde or excuse To the first after many lowd outcries and beastly raylings against that godly learned father of blessed mâ—mory he answereth defending it first by example of these auncient Liturgies that they prayed for their sacrifice but this helpeth him not for they neither thought nor saide that their sacrifice was very Christe God and Man but a sacrament and memoriall of him Afterward hee saith the meaning of their Church is not to pray for Christe but by Christ to obtaine fauour bicause they say in the end of euery prayer per Christum Dominum nostrum by our Lord Christ. But this hole is too narrowe for him to creepe out at For he confesseth that he prayeth for his sacrifice and he affirmeth that his sacrifice is Christ therfore he praieth for Christ. To auoyde the second blasphemie hee saith that the meaning of their Church is not to pray that God will accept the sacrifice which is acceptable of it selfe but their deuotion and seruice and them selues the offerers as hee did accept Abell and his sacrifice c. and so flyeth to the example of the olde Liturgies but that will not serue him For their sacrifice was not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ but a seruice and duetie of thankesgiuing in remembrance of Christe And therefore they might well pray that their sacrifice might be accepted as Abell and his sacrifice as Noe and his burnt offering and so of the rest but this meaning will not stande with the wordes of their Canon which are that God will accept the sacrifices that is the body and bloud of Christ as hee accepted the giftes of his iust seruaunt Abell c. Therefore they must either chaunge the wordes of the Canon or his aunswere to the second accusation by the meaning of their Church can not stande howe so euer Hugo Heskins would seeme to salue or rather to daub vp the matter To the third and last hee aunswereth denying that the meaning of their Church is that the body of Christe should be caried by an Angel but that their prayers should bee offered by an Angel or Angels in the sight of GOD making a long and needlesse discourse of the ministerie of Angels and howe they offer our prayers to GOD which is nothing to the purpose For the Maister of the sentences affirmeth that an Angel must be sent to
it therefore followe that all or the moste priestes doe vnderstand them whereof a great number can neither conster the Latine of their masse nor of those bookes And generally it may be said that they all vnderstand them not because these writers themselues doe not agree in the interpretation of them The thirde he saith is A plaine lie that in the Masse they make no mention of Christes death whereas the Masse setteth forth the death of Christe more liuely then the new communion For with great outcries he saith that there is mention of his death where it is saide The day before he suffred and The bloud of the new Testament that it shed for you and beeing mindfull of his passion resurrection c. and do this in remembrance of me Here is all the preaching of Christes death that he can finde in the Masse But seeing he grateth vpon the wordes No mention of his death Which was not the Bishops meaning but no profitable mention to the institution of the people who vnderstand nothing although there were neuer so long a sermon of Christes death in Latine yet I say he hath not shewed the death of Christe once mentioned in the Masse I say not by implication but in fourme of wordes whereof he taketh aduauntage to charge the Bishop of a lie But how open plaine lowd impudent a lie it is that The Masse setteth foorth the death of Christ more liuely then the new communion as he termeth it I will not in one worde goe about to confute least I should acknowledge any neuer so small shew of trueth to be in it The fortieth Chapter treateth of priuate Masses as the proclaymer termeth them and solueth his arguments Maister Heskins first rehearsing the Bishoppes Arguments against the priuate Masse first maketh this generall aunswere to them al that they proue it is lawfull for the people to receiue with the Priest but not that it is necessarie And first he chargeth him with falsifying of Hierome In 1. Cor. 11. That the supper of the Lorde must be common to all the people for Christ gaue his sacraments to all his disciples that were present Where saith Maister Heskins he hath left out this worde equally by whiche is meant that poore men haue as good right to the sacrament as riche men but not that it is necessarie that all men present at Masse should receiue with the priest In deed the words of Hierome are these Conuenientibus c. Iam non est Dominica sed humana quando vnâ—s quis quae tanquam caenam propriam solus inuadis alij qui non obtulerit non impereit Ita vt magis propter saturitatem quà m propter mysterium videamini conuenire Caeterùm coena Dominica omniâ—us debes esse communis quia ille omnibus discipulis suis qui aderant Ä™qualiter tradidit sacramenta Coena auteÌ„ ideo dicitur quia Dominuâ— in coena tradidit sacramentum Item hoc ideo dicit quia in ecclesia conuenientes oblationes suas separatim offerabant post communionem quae cunque eis de sacrificijs supersuissent illic in Ecclesia communem coenam coÌ„medentes pariter consumebant Et alius quidem esurit c. Quicumque non obtulisset non communicabat quira omnia soli qui obtulerunt insumebant When you come together c. Nowe is it not the LORDES supper but a mannes supper when euerie one falleth to it alone as it were his owne supper and giueth no parte to another which hath offered nothing so that you seeme to come together rather to fill your bellies then for the mysteries sake But the Lordes supper ought to be common to al men because he deliuered his sacramentes to all his disciples that were present equally And it is therefore called a supper because the Lorde at supper deliuered the sacramente Also he saith this therfore for that when they came together in the Church they offered their oblations seuerally and after the communion whatsoeuer was left to them of the sacrifice euen there in the Church eating a common supper they consumed it together And one truely is a hungred whosoeuer had not offred did not communicate because they that had offred consumed all alone By this let the Reader iudge what falsifying the proclaymer vsed and whether Hierome that condemned seuerall communions of riche men would allowe a singular partaking of the priest alone An other reason he hath of baptisme whiche though it be common to all men and that two speciall times in the yeare were appointed for the ministration thereof yet it may be ministred alone But the example is nothing like for it was alwayes lawfull and often vsed to baptise singuler persons at all times so was it neuer of the Lordes supper because the mysterie that S. Paul speaketh of 1. Cor. 10. Many partaking of one bread cannot bee expressed when one priest receiueth alone The third reason he bringeth is a counterfet decree ascribed to Fabianus of Rome 242. yeres after Christe that people should receiue thryse in the yere which had beene needlesse if they receiued so often as the priest saide Masse In deede the impudent forgerie of this decree is manifest when two hundred yeares after Fabianus the people of Rome as both Saint Augustine and Saint Hierome do write and Maister Heskins cannot denye receiued the communion euery day As for the decree of once a yere receiuing I knowe not when it was made but wicked it was whensoeuer it was made But Chrysostome I wene doth make much for priuate Masses for he writeth but Maister Heskins dare not tell where for shame Nonne per singulos dies offerimus offerimus quidem sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius Do wee not euery day sayth hee make oblation we offer in deede but doing it to the remembrance of his death This question of Chrysos is but an obiection of the vsual phrase of offering which he expoundeth to be nothing else but a celebration of the remembraunce of Christs death and therfore in the end of that discourse for a full resolution he setteth down Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex sed id ipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur Wee offer not another sacrifice as the holie priest but the same alwayes but rather wee make the remembraunce of that sacrifice This correction sheweth what he meaneth by the name of sacrifice And whereas Maister Heskins vrgeth that they ministred dayly none were bound but priests to communicate aboue thrise in the yere he concludeth the priest receiued oftentimes alone But he playeth the papist notably in taking rather then begging two principles one that the people were not bounde which hee is not able to proue another that there was but one Priest in a church whereas at that time commonly there was but one church in a citie in which were many priestes which by his owne confession were bound to receiue as often as
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