she hath prepared this table for hir seruauntes and maides in the sight of them that she might dayly shew vs in the sacrament after the order of Melchisedech breade and wine in similitude of the bodie and bloude of Christe therefore she saith thou hast prepared a table in my sight againste them that trouble mee What Papistes holding transubstantiation would thus write that breade and wine is shewed in the Sacrament in the similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ The seconde testimonie that M. Heskins alleageth out of Chrisostome is vpon the 1. Cor. 10. This table is the strength of our soule the sinewes of our minde the bonde of our trust our foundation hope healpe light our life if we depart hence defended with this sacrifice with most greate confidence wee shall ascende into the holy entrie as couered with certaine golden garmentes But what speake I of thinges to come For while wee be in this life this mysterie maketh earth to be heauen vnto vs Ascende vnto the gates of heauen marke diligently or rather not of heaueÌ„ but of heauen of heauens theÌ„ thou shalt behold that we say For that which is worthy of highest honor I will shew thee in earth For as in kings houses not the walles not the golden roofe but the kinges body sitting in the throne is most excellent so also in heauen the kinges body which nowe is set foorth to be seene of thee in earthe I shewe thee neither Angels nor Archangels nor the heauens nor the heauens of heauens but the Lorde himselfe of all these thinges Thou perceiuest how that which is greatest and cheifest of all things thou doest not onely see it on earth but also touche it and not onely touch it but eate also and when thou haste receiued it returnest home wherefore wipe thy soule from all filthinesse prepare thy minde to the receyuing of these mysteries For if the Kinges childe being decked with purple and diademe were deliuered to thee to bee carried wouldest thou not cast all downe to the grounde and receiue him But nowe when thou receiuest not the childe of a kinge beeing a man but the onely begotten sonne of God tell mee I praye thee doest thou not tremble and caste awaye the loue of all seculer thinges This testimonie so necessarily muste bee vnderstood of a figuratiue and spirituall receyuing of Christe by faith that nothing in the worlde can bee more plaine For euen as earth is made heauen vnto vs so is Christe made present And euen as wee see the Lorde vppon earth so we handle and eate him and that is onely with the eye hand and mouth of faith But let vs see M. Heskins collections First hee is enforced to confesse that the sentence beginneth with a figure The table for the meate therevppon Secondely hauing such honourable tearmes it can not bee a peece of breade but Christe himselfe This shall bee graunted also Thirdly that Christe is verily on the table which he calleth Altars As verilie as earth is made heauen Fourthly that it is Christ whiche is worthie of highest honour verily present in the Sacramente As verily present as hee is seene but hee is seene onely by faith therefore present onely to faith But this obiection hee taketh vppon him to aunswere If we saye the bodie of Christ can not be sene in the sacrament No more saith he can the substance of man be seene but his garmentes or outward formes accidentes This is such a boyish sophisme as I am ashamed to aunswere it By which I maye as well proue that Christes body was neuer seene and therefore not seene in the sacrament contrarie to that whiche Chrysostome saith FroÌ„ this obiection he falleth into an other that if christ in the Sacrament be worthie all honour then of sacrifice also and the sacrifice being Christ Christ shal be offered to him selfe This he calleth an ignorant obiection But there is more knowledge in it then he hath witt to answere He alledgeth the words of Augustine lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 14. Christ abideth one with him to whome he offereth and maketh him selfe one with them for whom he offereth himself and is one with them that offer one with that which is offered Here are diuerse kindes of vnitie and yet not Christ offered vnto him selfe vnlesse M. Heskins will be a Sabellian and a Patripassian to confound the persons of the Godhead and say that God the father yea the whole Trinitie is likewise transubstantiated in the Sacrament Though Christe be one with his father yet did he not offer him selfe to him selfe but himselfe to his father As for the other saying of Augustine that he bringeth it is altogether against him De ciuitate Dei. lib. 10. c. 20. He is the Priest him selfe he is the offerer he is the oblation whereof he would haue the daily sacrifice of the Church to be a sacrament seeing that of her bodie he is the head and of his head shee is the bodie as well shee by him as he by her being accustomed to be offered First Christ is the offerer and the oblation but not he to whome it is made Secondly that which he calleth the sacrifice of the Church is a sacrament that is a holie memoriall of that propitiatorie saâ—â—â—fice which he offered Thirdly this sacrifice of the Church is of the Churche her selfe offered by Christ and of Christe offered by the Church which must needes be spirituall as the coniunction of Christ and his Church is spirituall therefore it is not the natural bodie of Christ offered by the priest but his mystical bodie offered by the Church by himselfe and so a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation After these obiections he returneth to his collections out of the authoritie of Chrysostome There neede no such preparation nor trembling if the Sacrament were but a peece of bread He hath neuer done with this slaunder as though any Christian man did saye it was but a peece of bread which Christe vouchsafed to call his bodie Wee saye truely it is bread but wee say not it is but a peece of bread The ninteenth Chapter continueth the proofe of the same matter by S. Augustine S. Cyrill M. Heskins promiseth in his Epistle and gloryeth often in his worke that he doth not alledge the doctors wordes truncately by peece meale as heretikes do But you shal see how well he handleth him selfe He would haue S. Augustine speake for his bil and alledgeth his words out of his worke contrae literas Petiliani quoting neither what booke nor what Chapter of the same by which it seemeth that either he red not the place him self out of Augustine but receiued it of some gatherer or else hee would cloake his vnhonest dealing Hee citeth it thus Aliud est Pascha quod adhuc Iudaei celebrant de Oue Aliud auteÌ„ quod nos in corpore sanguine domini celebranus It is another Passouer that the Iewes do yet
Sander perhaps would insinuate And the hystorie of the Church is described by Eusebius Socrates Theodore c. by the doctrine vttered in preaching writings and consent in councels and doings and sufferings of the Elders of the Churches and not altogether or cheefely by their knowen gouernement as Maister Sander affirmeth As for example Eusebius sheweth the doctrine of Clement out of his writing for the allowance of marriage who affirmeth that the Apostles were married begot children Lib. 3. Cap. 30. Socrates sheweth that Spiridion a Bishop of Cypres in time of his Bishopricke of great humilitie kept sheepe Lib. 4. Cap. 12. Sozomenus saith he had a wife and children and sheweth his iudgement for eating flesh on a fasting day accounting him no Christian that would refuse it Lib. 1. Cap 11. Finally although some Churches haue ben known by their Pastors and Bishops yet haue there bene infinite Churches known to be in the worlde whose Bishops Pastours are altogether vnknowen And although some heretical and Schismatical companies haue bene knowen by their heades yet not all for the Acephali were so called because they had no head the Anthropomorphites also were rustical Monkes or Eremites in Aegypt vnder no head of their owne but the Bishop of Alexandria which was a Catholike Niceph. Lib. 13. Cap 10. 8 Although the Churche of Christ ceassed not at the end of the first fiue or sixe hundreth yeares nor the glory of Christes kingdome was euer darkened yet a greate number of the Bishops and pastors of the visible Church began then to be dimme and some altogether darke because they lighted not their candels at the word of God the onely true light shyning in the darke but declined to the inuentions of men and doctrine of diuels according to the prophesie of Saint Paule 2. Thess. 2. of the apostasie and departing from the faith 1. Tim. 4. towarde the comming reuelation of Antichrist Neither is it true that M. Sander saith that after the first 600. yeares the Church was spread into mo countries then it was before but the contrarie For Mahomet soone after peruerted the greatest parte of the worlde whereas Affrica long before was ouerrunne and Christianitie spoyled by the Vandales which were either Heathens or Arrians Notwithstanding some small countries haue beene since that time turned to the Christian profession And as it is true that Pastors and Doctors must still be to the end of the worlde in the Church and Christ neuer forsaketh the same so is it false that Popish Bishops Priestes which either were ignorant or altogether negligent in feeding and teaching the Churche with the foode and doctrine of Gods worde whereof Saint Paule spake Ephesi 4. or taught the doctrine of Diuels in steede thereof be those Pastours and Doctours by whome the preaching of the Gospell is continued though they sitte in the same places where sometime the true teachers satt euen as Antichrist their head sitteth in the Temple of GOD which is the proper place of Christe Neither is the credite of such late writers as account them for successors of the Apostles and godly pastours and teachers sufficient to authorise them for such in deed when their whole life and doctrine is contrarie to the writings of the Apostles and those auncient godly Pastors Doctors 9 We say not that the Church of Christ was knowen for the first â—00 yeres after Christ only or chiefely by the Bishops Pastors therof but by their doctrine agreable to the word of god And therefore it is sufficient ground for vs to deny the later rout that professeth not the same doctrine to be the church of christ The succession of persons or places without the continuance of the same true doctrine can no more defende the Pope poperie then it could defend Caiphas Sadduceisme For Caiphas a Sadducei which denyed the resurrection coulde more certeinly declare his personall and locall successioÌ„ from Aaron then the Pope can from Peter 10 I haue proued before that it is false which Master Sander againe sayeth to be true that Eusebius and other writers point foorth the church of 500. yeres onely or chiefely by Bishops which ruled in Rome Antioche Alexandria c. The doctrine actes of those Bishops agreeable to the scriptures is their description not their personall or locall succession as it was accompted in the latter times when they had nothing else to commende their counterfet Bishops being in life and doctrine contrarie to the worde of God the testimonie of the primitiue church And where he sayeth noting in the margent August Ep. 165. that in olde time they were knowen to be heretikes which departed from the knowen companie of Bishops Pastors agreeing in one faith c. it is verie true but then this faith was proued to be true not onely by successions of Bishops but by the holye scriptures as the same Augustine sayeth in the same place Quanquam nos non tam de istis documentis praesumamus quà m de scripturis sanctis Although wee do not presume so much of those documentes as of the holie scriptures To conclude all practises and councels that are contrary to the holie Scriptures were then refused euen as they be nowe Cyprian refused the practise of ministring the communion with water because it was contrarie to the scripture Augustine refused the practise of Cyprian and the Councell of Carthage â–ª for rebaptizing them that were baptized by heretikes and for the same cause our church refuseth the Masse the Laterane and the Tridentin councels without daunger of schisme or heresie 11 The vniuersall church is a spiritual collection of many members into one bodie whereof Christe is the onely head both in heauen and earth as the Apostle sayeth Eph. 3. Cor. 15. The vnitie hereof is mainteyned by following the direction of his worde and his holye spirite The order of particuler churches is mainteined by the seuerall gouernement of them But their whole church although it be like an armie of men well sett in arraye yet can it haue no one chiefe Capteine in earth to direct it but hee that is omnipotent and fitteth in heauen not onely to ouerlooke it but to rule and order it For no mortall man can looke into all places knowe all cases prouide against all mischiefes nor giue ayde in all dangers 12 Therefore Peter was none such and although Pascere be both to feede and rule yet it is to rule like a Shepeheard and not like an Emperour Neither were the sheepe by Christe committed to Peter more then to the other because hee loued more then the other but Peter was charged as hee woulde by his forwardnesse shewe more zeale and loue then the rest so to employe the same to the feeding of Christes flocke And whereas Maister Sanders quoteth Chrysostome in Ioan Hom. 87. I knowe not wherefore except it were to shewe the prerogatiue of Peter aboue the rest You shall heare what his iudgement was
content to permitte to the Pope of the Elder Rome to be Primus Sacerdotum according to the definition of the Canons it proueth not his pretended supreame authoritie ouer all other men but onely that he was first in Order For hee himselfe deposed two Popes Syluerius and Vigilius And where Maister Sander interpreteth the definitions of the Cannon to be all the foure first councells he ouerreacheth too much for the Pope could neuer proue his primacie by the Councell of Nice although he forged a decree thereof as is shewed before 63 It is true that Phocas the traytor and murderer of his M. Mauritius vsurping the Empire for a great summe of monie receiued of Boniface the thirde determined the controuersie between Constantinople and Rome giuing Rome the title of Antichrist which from such a holy beginning it claimeth and vsurpeth vnto this day But if the See of Rome had beene the head of all churches by the word of God what neede had the Bishop of Rome to buy it of Phocas but onely to shewe himselfe the successor of Simon Magus not of Simon Peter 64 As it is true that God vsed the peace and authoritie of the Romane Empire to spread abroade the doctrine of the Gospel so is it altogether vntrue that Constantine resigned the citie of Rome to Syluester the Bishop thereof because he builded another imperiall citie in the East to keepe those partes of the Empire in peace and subiection For it is well knowen that many hundreth yeres after Constantine the great his successors inioyed the citie and pallaces of Rome vntill they were defaced by the Gothes and yet afterward the citie was restored to Iustinianus the Emperour out of the handes of the Gothes by Bellisarius and Narses And whereas M. Sander saith that neuer any Emperour of the West had his seate at Rome after Constantinus he sheweth either his great impudence or ignorance in histories For although some of them occupied in warres kept at Milliane Treueres or other cities yet is it vtterly false that there was neuer any Emperour suffered to make his ordinarie mansion place at Rome For Honorius Valentinianus Iunior dwelt at Rome before the subuersion of it by the Gothes many other euen vnto Augustus After which time Italy being oppressed with barbarous nations was no place for the Emperours safetie to dwell in In which meane time the Pope grewe to such greatnesse that he made challenge not onely to the citie but euen to the Empire it selfe taking vppon himselfe Antichrist to remoue it from the East vnto the West which was in deede a great miracle but such a miracle as was more meete for Antichriste to make then the successour of Peter 65 It is true that Rome hath lost no preheminence by the departure of the Emperor for as Chrysostome sheweth in 2. Thes. Antichrist was to succeed the Emperour in the seat of the Empire being made voide and to vsurpe all auctoritie both of God and men pretending the seat of Peter but being in deede the seat of the beast Apoca. 13. and of the Whore of Babylon Apo. 17. as both Augustine and Hieronym doe often times confesse Augu. De Ciuit. Dei. lib. 18. cap. 2. 22. Hie. Algas 9.11 In Esai lib. 13. cap. 47. 66 Although it be confessed by vs that the prerogatiue of the first place was graunted to the bishoppes of Rome in many metings and councels yet is it not granted that it was so alwayes nor in all generall councels And therefore this our confession prooueth not the Pope to be suche a starre candell or light as M. Sanders doeth imagine Nor that hee shoulde bee heade of the church because hee was first in place no more then an archbishoppe is head of the churche of his prouince because he is first in place although his church be compared to the members of a body For all particular churches make but one bodye whereof Christ is the onely head for it were a monstrous body that shoulde haue two heades and therefore it is truely saide in the councel of Basil Papa non est caput principale nec ministeriale vniuersalis ecclesiae The Pope is neither the principall nor the ministeriall heade of the vniuersall churche And therefore as it is saide in the same place the Pope neuer had any prerogatiue but by concession or permission of councels Now make what you can M. Sander of our confession and your owne popish councels 67 It is a faint proofe that the church of Rome is the head rote and mother of all churches because Ambrose and Hierome called the faith of the church of Rome the Catholike faith at suche time as it was true and Catholike in deede As if a man shoulde say the faith of the church of Englande is all one with the Catholike fayth therefore the churche of Englande is the head roote and mother to all churches Likewise that the Vandales which were barbarous people and Arrians calleth the Catholikes Romanes differing from them in nation as much as in religion 68 The fathers neuer beleeued that the Romaine churche cannot erre in the profession of their faith For Cyprian lib 4. Epist. 3. ad Romanos c. Falshood canne haue no accesse to the Romanes meaneth not as M.S. saith such Romaines as tarye in the vnitie of S. Peters chaire but of such as continue in the faith which S. Paule praised therefore hee saith Ad Romanos quorum fides c. The Romanes whose faith was praised by the Apostles Againe he speaketh not of erringe in profession of fayth but of falshood in winking at Scismatikes which sought for a refuge in S. Peters Chaire the principal churche beinge iustly banished out of other Churches And that Cyprian thought not that the Churche of Rome cannot erre in profession of faith it is most manifest by this that if he had bin so perswaded he woulde not haue contrary to the iudgement of the churche of Rome decreed with his felow bishops to adnihilate the sacraments ministred by heretikes As for the decretall epistle of Lucius we reiect it as a counterfet with all the rest of that rable in which these ancient bishops of Rome are faine to write so barbarously as no Carter did speake Latine in their time when they liued and alway extoll the dignity of that See of Rome as though in these great persecutions they had nothing els to talke of but their prerogatiues priuiledges The testimonies of Leo which he citeth sauour of a Romane stomake drawing as neere to the Antichristian pride as the man was to the time which wrote them Barnarde was but a late writer when Antichrist was in the top of his pride therefore his iudgement argueth the corruption of his time Finally when so many Popes haue bin condemned for heretikes what impudācie is to say the Pope or See of Rome cānot erre ▪ 69 To proue that the Emperours acknowledged the church of Rome to be the head of all churches he citeth
in reformation no doubt but there were mutuall messages betweene them The vnion and communion of our Church with other particular Churches of God throughout the world is spirituall made by the working of the holy Ghost and not by embassages or orders taken by men But the same is declared and shewed by the confession of our faith fully agreeing in all necessarie Articles with them 91 The publique protestations and confessions of our faith doe shewe our reconciliation and coniunction with the Catholique Church of Christ without that it is needfull for vs to exhibite any billes of submission to any singular persons as hath bene vsed in cases of particular discipline as in reconciliation of Vrsarius and Valens to Iulius of Rome Maximus Vrbanus other to Cyprian of Carthage 92 The realme did neuer submit it selfe to Luther Zuinglius or Caluine but to Christe and his Church As for offring of billes of submission to forreigne Bishops it is no part of Christian discipline But if it were a matter of any substance al the Cleargie of England gaue their subscription to the Archbishop of Canturburie and other Bishops for the departure out of the Popish Church into the Church of England That we receiued not the errour of Luther concerning the reall presence it sheweth wee depend not vpon any man further then his doctrine is true and agreeable to the word of God. 93 Caluine and Zuinglius although they receiued some light of vnderstanding by the ministerie of Luther yet came they not from him but were stirred vp of God as he was 94 The realme in King Edwards time neuer purposed to submit them selues to Caluine who although he misliked the title of supreme head in that sense whiche Steuen Gardiner maintained it at Ratisbone as though it gaue vnto the King an absolute authoritie to do what he would in the Church yet in that sence that it was receiued of King Edward and vnderstoode of all godly men that is to bee the highest Magistrate in the Church as well for the ordering of Ecclesiasticall as ciuill matters he neuer did condemne it 95 King Edward retaining that title in the godly sense aboue rehearsed the Church of England notwithstanding was vnited to the Catholique Church of Christ throughout the world 96 When Queene Marie came to the Crowne shee found the realme a member of the Catholique Church of Christe which she forsooke and sought to bring it in bondage againe to the Antichristian See of Rome which by meanes of a Legacie from the Pope brought by Cardinall Poole long before attainted for treason against his Prince and countrie was by an acte of Parleament yeelded vnto Although GOD reserued more then seuen thousand that neuer bowed their knee to Baal of Rome whereof many were cruelly put to death and suffered martyrdome the rest were persecuted and by the protection of God escaped out of that bloudie and fierie persecution 97 The seat of Peter could not be planted at Rome in the dayes of Claudius the Emperour bycause that in the tenth or eleuenth yeare of his Empire Peter was at Antioch reproued by Paule Gala. 2. The last yeare or the first of Nero S. Paule writte his Epistle to the Romanes from Corinth where he taried almost two yeres in which Epistle he sending salutation to sixe and twentie singular persons beside diuers families would not haue omitted to salute Peter if he had bene there But admit that Peter had a seat at Rome yet the Papacie hath not continued from that time but since the dayes of Boniface the third which was more then â—00 yeares after Christe Neither hath the faith of the See of Rome continued without chaunge as M. Sanders saith these 1500. yeares but is altogether in a manner chaunged from the faith of Peter and of the Apostolike Church therefore Queene Marie bringing the realme to that Church did not reconcile it to the true Church of Christ but restored it to the slauerie of the Antichristian tyrannie 98 Seeing the realme is nowe againe returned to the embracing of the doctrine of the Gospell set foorth in the holy scriptures taught in the Primitiue Church many hundreth yeares after Christe continued in all times though vnder persecution of Antichrist and nowe openly and publiquely professed of many nations it is a member of the true Catholike Church of Christe whereof Christe onely is the head and communicateth with the Church of Christ of all nations in all pointes of true religion necessarie to saluation and therefore is no seismaticall Church but a Catholique and Apostolique Church 99 The Catholique Church of Christe whereof the Church of England is a part is an inuisible Church and therefore an Article of our faith which is of things inuisible Heb. 10. and no Church vnder a bushell But Hierusalem that is in heauen is the mother of vs all Gala. 4. Contrariwise the Popish Church which is visible is the Church of Infidels and Rome which is vpon earth is the mother of all Antichristians 100 The preaching of Gods worde is the ground of faith â–ª the celebrating of the sacramentes is the confirmation of the same these exercises haue alwayes beene in the true Churche of God when they be not hindred by persecution 101 The Gospell of Christ hath beene preached vnto all nations And the Church hath had Pastours and teachers froÌ„ Christes time vnto Luthers age Maister Sander asketh where they were through all nations As though it were necessarie they should be in euerie nation at all times Poperie when it was at the largest had not teachers in all nations For many coÌ„tinue in barbarous Gentilisme beside Mahometisme which hath filled the greatest part of the worlde The Church of Christe is scattered in many nations and hath had and now also hath many Kinges that walke in the light thereof And at this time more then the Popish Church hath 102 The true Church in England is honoured nourished by the Kinges whome she honoureth as supreme gouernours heades or rulers thereof And although Ecclesiasticall persons pay subsidies vnto their princes yet are not their Princes and their Courtiers nourished by the goodes of the Church as Maister Sander moste slaunderously reporteth otherwise then it is meete that subiects should contribute to the maintenance of the state of the Prince and their owne defence 103 The worde of God written is in deede honorable and true and conteineth all that doctrine by whiche the Church of God was gouerned two thousand yeres before any word of the Bible was written when by reason of that long life of the Patriarches the tradition might be certeine The Gospell also was preached by the Apostles before any of the foure Gospels was penned but yet agreable to the scriptures of the olde Testament and is the same that is written and none other which written word of God is able to make the man of God perfect and is deliuered vnto the Church of Christe as a moste certeine rule to followe that
which the holy Ghost in expresse words denyeth Heb. 7.11 But the first that figureth both the priesthood and sacrifice of the new law is Melchisedech So that this priesthood is peculiar only to our sauiour Christe as both Dauid Psal. no. and the Apostle to the Hebrues the 7. do proue it there is no doubt but Melchisedech was a figure of Christ But what sacrifice hee offered the scripture maketh no mention neither is M. Heskins able to shewe For first he hath rehearsed the historie of him which is written in Gen. 14. And Melchisedech king of Salem brought foorth breade wine and he was a priest of the most high God Therfore he blessed him saying blessed is Abraham of God most high possesser of heauen and earth and blessed be the most high God which hath deliuered thine enimies into thine hande And Abraham gaue him tithe of all In which words there is no mentioÌ„ of any sacrifice Afterward he compareth him in all those points in which the Apostle to the Hebrues doth Heb. 7. Which are these that he was king of rightuousnesse and king of peace without father without mother without kinred on earth Hauing neither beginning of dayes nor end of life but is likened to the sonne of God and continueth a Priest for euer that he blessed Abraham and that Abraham payde tythes vnto him In all which applications there is not one worde of any sacrifice Neither in the apostle nor in M. Heskins therefore as I sayde in the beginning M. Heskins hath not satisfied the title of his Chapter And verily the Apostle in these two pointes onely considereth the Priesthoode of Melchisedech that he blessed Abraham which had the promises and receiued tythes of him in whose loynes Leuie the father of Aarons Priesthoode was tythed who vndoubtedly would not haue omitted the sacrifice of breade and wine if there had bene any when he applyed the interpretation of his name which was a great deale lesser matter And surely it seemeth that Maister Heskins could not handsomely frame an application thereof else would he not haue admitted so plausible a matter and so commonly prated of among the Papistes He sawe first in the text was no mention of oblation secondly if there had bene oblation of bread and wine it would not well haue figured that sacrifice wherein they say is neither bread nor wine The fourteenth Chapter declareth after the minde of Chrysostome that Iob was a figure of Christ for the desire his seruants had to eate his flesh Maister Heskins doth well to adde after the minde of Chrysostome for it is plaine by the text that the words of eating his flesh are meant of hatred and not of loue Either that Iobs seruaunts shewed their desire to be reuenged of their maisters enimies of whoÌ„ he speaketh in the two verses before or else as Saint Hieronyme thinketh that he had procured his seruants hatred for his intertainment of straungers and other vertues mentioned in the next verse following Pro hospitalitatibus eius virtute quae caeterâ— sancti Deo placuerunt odium seruorum contraxerat So that this matter standeth not vpon any certaine figure of the scripture but onely vpon Chrysostomes minde vnto which you heare the contrarie minde of Hieronyme But â—owe let vs consider what the authoritie of Chrysostome maketh for him his wordes are as he cyteth them out of Hom. 45. in 6. Ioan. Vt autem non solùm per dilectionem c. But that we should be conuerted into that flesh not onely by loue but also in deede it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath giuen vs For when he would shewe his loue toward vs he hath mixed himself with vs by his body and made himself one with vs that the body might be vnited to the hed These last words For this is the maner of them that loue especially in M. Heskins traÌ„slation are left out I know not for what causes peraduenture of negligence This did Iob signifie by his seruants of whome he was loued especially which declaring their loue did say Who would giue vs that we might be filled with his flesh Which thing Christe did that he might binde vs to him with gâ—â—â—ter loue and that he might shewe his desire that he had to vs suffering him selfe not onely to be seene of them that desire but also to be touched and eaten and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh and all to be filled with the desire of him Wherefore let vs rise from that table as Lyons breathing fire terrible to the diuell and let vs knowe our heade and what loue he hath shewed vnto vs Parents haue oftentimes giuen their children to be nourished of other but I doe feede with mine owne flesh I giue my selfe vnto them I fauour all I giue an exceeding good hope to all of things to come He that giueth him self so vnto vs in this life much more in the life to come I would be your brother and I tooke flesh and bloud with you for your sakes and by what thinges I am ioyned to you the same I haue giuen to you againe In this long speach of Chrysostome what is there that maketh for Maister Heskins bill that hee hath promoted into the Parleament house and not rather altogether against it For first it can not bee necessarily concluded out of this place that Chrysostome speaketh of the Lordes supper but rather of that table meate giuing and eating of Christes flesh which is spoken of in the sixt of Saint Iohn where no worde is of the sacrament or supper which at that time was not instituted Secondly if we should neuer so much vnderstand this speach of the sacrament yet must we graunt it to be figuratiue or else there wil folow infinite absurdities beside such as M. Heskins affirmeth Wherfore I will reason thus Christ by this saying of Chrysostome is none otherwise eaten then he is seene but he is not seene corporally but spiritually by faith therefore he is not eaten corporally but spiritually by faith And likewise thus as Christ is touched and teeth fastned in his flesh so is he giuen or eaten but he is not touched corporally or naturally nor teeth fastned in his flesh corporally but spiritually therefore hee is not giuen nor eaten in the sacrament corporally but spiritually The maiors of these argumeÌ„ts are Chrysostoms words the minors are the confessions of the Papistes which affirme Christes body to be in the sacrament inuisibly and doe correct the recantation of Berengarius where he affirmed that the body of Christ is torne with the teeth the conclusions I trust be rightly inferred But nowe let vs see what handsome stuffe M. Heskins gathereth out of this text of Chrysostome First that we are ioyned to Christe two wayes by loue and by the thing it selfe Which in other termes is called spiritually and really Marke this wise diuision of spiritually and really as though such things as are ioyned spiritually
be shed for you vnto remission of sinnes This place is falsly truncatly cited by M. Hesk. thus Quem paneÌ„ etsi fractum coÌ„minutumque vidimus integer tamen cum ipso suo patre manet in coelis De quo pane dicit panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita Which he Englisheth thus which bread although we haue seen brokeÌ„ brused on the crosse yet it abideth with that his father whole in heauen of the which bread he saith c. Wheras the very wordes are quem panem etsi fractum comminunumque vidimus in passione integer tamen mansit in illa sua indiuidua vnitate De isto pane de isto calice dicebat ipse Dominus Panis quem ego dedero caro 〈◊〉 est pro saeculi vita c. Although this writer as it is manifest to any man that will reade his treatise speaketh onely of the vnitie of the Godhead of Christ with his Father and the holy Ghoste notwithstanding the breaking of his body in his passion which is represented in the sacrament yet M. Heskins vpon his owne falsification inferreth that the body of Christ was and is in three sundrie places on the Table or Altar on the Crosse and in heauen with his father Yea he appealeth to the grammarian for the nature of a Relatiue That the same bread is on the table which was broken on the crosse and that which was broken on the crosse is it which is whole sitting in heauen Which how vaine a reason it is when it is vrged of that thing which hath two natures vnited in one person as our Sauiour Christ hath I appeale from all grammarians to al Catholike diuines as in the saying of Christ no man hath ascended into heauen but he that came downe from heauen euen the sonne of man which is in heauen Ioan 9. Let M. Hesk. with the graÌ„marian vrge the relatiue in this place he shal proue him selfe both an Anabaptist a Marcionist For Christ coÌ„cerning his humanitie came not down out of heauen neither was he in heauen according to his humanity when he was on the earth But what stand we trifling about this testimonie Seeing Augustine both in the interpetation of this whole chapter is so copious vpon the Psal. 98. in exposition of this text is so plain direct against the carnal presens of Christs body in the sacrament Nisi quis c. acceperunt illud stulte carnâ—liter illud cogitauerunt putaâ—eruÌ„t quòd praecifurus esset Dominus particulas quas daÌ„ de corpore suo daturus illis c. I lle auteÌ„ instruxit eos ait illic spiritus est qui vinificat caro auteÌ„ nihil predest Verba quae loquatuâ— suÌ„ vobis spiritus est vita Spiritualiter intelligite quae loquatus sum Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent sacramentum aliquod vobis commendati spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos â–ª â—t si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen inuisibiliter intelligi Except a man eate the flesh c. They tooke it folishly they imagined it carnally and thought that our Lorde would haue cut off certaine peeces of his 〈◊〉 and haue giuen them c. But he instructed them and 〈◊〉 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 shall not eate this body which you see and drinke this bloud which they shall shed which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a certaine sacrament or mysterie which beeing spiritually vnderstoode shall quicken you Although it is necessarie that the same be celebrated visibly yet must it be vnderstood inuisibly Likewise In 6. Ioan. Tr. 27. Illi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille autem dixit se ascensurum in Coelum vtique integrum Cum videatis filium hominis ascendentem vbi erat priùs certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum certè vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus He speaketh plainely if they will vnderstand him For they thought that he would giue his body but he said that he wold ascend whole into heauen WheÌ„ you shal see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was before surely then at the least you shall see that hee giueth not his body after that maner that you think surely then at the length you shall vnderstand that his grace is not coÌ„sumed with bitings If these places were not most manifest euen to the first eye that looketh vpon them I might spend time in obseruing and noting out of them We come nowe to Chrysostome who in his 45. Hom. in Ioan. vpon those wordes The bread which I will giue is my flesh saith The Iewes that time tooke no profite of those sayings but we haue taken the profite of the benefite Wherefore it is necessarily to be saide howe woonderfull the mysteries be and wherefore they were giuen and what profite there is of them And immediatly after We are one body and members of his flesh and of his bones and yet more plainely And that we might be conuerted into that flesh not onely by loue but also in deede it is brought to passe by the meat which he hath graunted vnto vs. He addeth also an other cause of the giuing of this mysterie When hee would shewe foorth his loue toward vs hee ioyned him selfe 〈…〉 his body and brought him selfe into one with vs that the 〈◊〉 might be vnited with the head Finally he adioyneth a plaine place for the proclamer I would be your brother and for your sakes I tooke flesh and bloud with you and by what things I was conioyned vnto you those things againe I haue giuen vnto you Here he triumpheth as though the game were his when in deede there is nothing for his purpose but much against it For no one word of all these sentences proueth that the sixt of Iohn must be vnderstoode of the supper otherwise then as it is a sacrament of that feeding and coniunction of vs with Christ which is therein described And wheras he argueth vpoÌ„ the last sentence Christ gaue vs that flesh by which he was ioined to vs but he was ioyned to vs by very substantiall flesh therfore he gaue vs his very substantiall flesh I confesse it to bee most true for he gaue his very substantiall flesh to be crucified for vs If he vrge that he gaue his flesh in that sacrament although Chrysostome saith not so in this place directly yet the manner of the participation of his flesh must be such as is the maner of his coniunction with vs but that is spiritual by which he is the head and we the members and yet vnited
non aspernanter sed sapienter audiamur Euen as we knowe though against these mens will two in one fleshe Christe and his Church without any filthinesse euen as with faithfull heart and mouth wee receiue the Mediatour of God and man Iesus Christe giuing vs his fleshe to bee eaten and his bloud to be drunken although it seemeth a more horrible thing to eate the fleshe of man then to kill him and to drinke the bloud of man then to shed it And in all the holie scriptures if any thing figuratiuely spoken or done be expounded according to the rule of sounde faith of any things or wordes which are conteyned in the holie scriptures let not the exposition be taken contemptuously but let vs heare wisely Where is nowe that should pinche the proclaimer by the conscience of receiuing the bodie of Christ with the mouth Where is that lewd insultation against Maister Horne whome he sayeth he heard in Cambridge abuse the figuratiue speach and place it there where it should not be placed c. When S. Augustine maketh this whole text a figuratiue speache And if Maister Horne as he sayeth did not place the figuratiue speach as Augustine doeth why did not such a doubtie doctour as Maister Heskins is either in another sermon openly confute him or in priuate conference admonishe him of it But such hedgecreapers as he is that dare not ioyne with a much weaker aduersarie then that reuerend father is in any conference or open disputation can shoote out their slaunderous boltes against them when they are a farre of and prate of placing and displacing of Augustine when he himselfe as I haue shewed most impudently peruerted and displaced the wordes and sense of Augustine euen in this verie sentence whereuppon he thus taketh occasion to iangle Out of Cyrill are alledged two places neither of both any thing to his purpose but directly against him the former In 1â— Ioan. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the bodie could not otherwise be brought to vncorruptiblenesse and life except the bodie of naturall life were ioyned to it Doest thou not beleeue mee saying these thinges I pray thee beleeue Christ saying Verily verily I saye vnto you except you shall eaâ—e the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you Thou hearest him openly saying that wee shall not haue life except wee drinke his bloude and eate his fleshe He sayeth in your selues that is in your bodie The same fleshe of life by right may be vnderstanded life What is there here for the sacrament or that euery Christian man of our side will not graunt But belike the second place maketh all playne Non negamus c. Wee do not denye that with right faith and syncere loue wee are spiritually ioyned to Christe but that wee haue no manner of coniunction with him after the fleshe that truely wee do vtterly denye and that wee saye to be altogether contrarie to the holye Scriptures For who hath doubted that Christe is euen so the vine and wee the braunches that wee receiue life from thence into vs Heare Saynt Paule saying that we all are one bodye in Christ For although wee be many yet we are one in him for wee all take parte of one breade Or peraduenture doth hee thinke that the power of the mysticall blessing is vnknowen to vs which when it is done in vs doeth it not make Christe to dwell in vs corporally by the participation of the fleshe of Christe For why are the members of the faithfull the members of Christ Knowe ye not sayeth he that the members of the faithfull are the members of Christe Shall I then make the members of Christ the members of an harlott In this place Cyrill sayeth that Christe doth dwell corporally in vs but howe by participation of the fleshe of Christe which as he tooke of our nature so hath he againe giuen the same vnto vs to bee in deede our nourishment vnto eternall life which thing is testified vnto vs by the sacrament euen as the vnitie wee haue one with another and all of vs with Christe is testified in that we all take part of one breade Otherwise I see nothing in this place that may help Maister Heskins For such as our vnitie is such is our participation of his flesh and as we are members of his body so doe we eate his body This M. Heskins must graunt if he will allowe Cyrills authoritie but our vnitie participation and coniunction of members though it be in his body of his flesh and vnto him as our head yet is not after a carnall manner no more is the eating of his flesh nor the corporall dwelling of him in vs after a carnall or corporall manner but after a diuine and spirituall manner The place of Chrysostome hee cyteth hath bene once or twice considered already The fifteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Leo and Euthymius The place of Leo is cyted out of Serm. 6. de Ieiu sep mens Hanc confessionem c. This confession most welbeloued vttering foorth with all your heart forsake ye the vngodly deuises of heretiques that your fastings and almes may be defiled with the infection of no errour For then the offering of sacrifice is cleane and the giuing of almes is holy when they which performe these things vnderstand what they worke For as our Lord saith except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you you ought so to be partakers of the holy table that you doubt nothing of the trueth of the body of Christe and of his bloud For that is taken with the mouth which is beleeued by faith and in vaine doe they answere Amen which dispute against that which is receiued Leo in these words as Maister Heskins is enforced to confesse speaketh against the Eutychian heresie which denyed the trueth of Christes body after the adunation therof to the Diuinitie as the papistes do indeed though not in words by their vbiquitie traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ saith thei cannot be partakers rightly of the sacrameÌ„t of his body bloud which do not acknowlege that he had a very body bloud Therfore it is intollerable impudencie in M. Hes. to note a place for M. Iewel wheÌ„ he him selfe after confesseth that he spake not of the trueth of his body in the sacrament And whereas he saith the mouth receiueth that which is by faith beleeued it helpeth him nothing for he meaneth nothing else but that those men cannot receiue with their mouth the sacrament of his flesh and bloud which deny him to haue true flesh bloud for the sacrament is a seale and confirmation of faith Nowe how far Leo was from transubstantiation or vbiquitie we haue shewed before in the 11. Chapter of this booke where his saying may be read The testimonie of Euthymius is cyted In 6. Ioan. Nisi comederitis
And of Caluine yet not as Heskins like a lewde lyer slaundereth him to say This is the verie substance of my bodie but it is not my bodily substance but agreeing in effect with all the rest that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued but not after a carnall or bodily manner but after a spirituall vnspeakable manner As for the fiue sectes numbred among the Lutherans which dissent from vs in this point we make none accompt of them Thus where M. Hesk hath gathered as he reckoneth sixteene seueral sectes foure of them being condemned of vs for hereticall with the authors of them fiue agreeing with the papistes in the carnall presence and Luthers owne secte if he dissent from them as Heskins maketh him to doe the sixt tenne are of vs generally refused The other sixe that remaine in Maister Heskins number are falsely forged to disagree when they holde all one thing in effect although they expresse the same thing in diuerse formes of wordes as it is not possible for diuerse interpreters though they agree in sense and interpretation to iump all in one forme of words for then all commentaries should be one But as God giueth his giftes diuersely some expound the scriptures briefely some more at large some more plainly some more obscurely so all these and fiue hundred more God be thanked learned men either in writing or in preaching haue shewed the vnderstanding of Christes wordes hardly fiue of them agreeing in all termes and phrases yet all moste sweetely consenting in one sense and meaning which consent and agreement is more notable when it is vttered in so many diuerse formes of wordes And yet to take away all cauels and flaunders all the churches for the moste parte in Fraunce Scotland Sauoy Heluetia Germanie Hungarie Piemont Polonia c. beside the persecuted Churches of Italians Spanyards and others haue subscribed to one forme of confession concerning not onely the sacrament but all other principall poyntes of religion which wee do likewise receiue in this Church of England And if disagreing of men among themselues were a matter of such importance it were no harde thing to shewe the battels of the schoole doctours among the Papists not onely about other matters but euen about the manner of the presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament transsubstantiation If you say all these whome you reiecte as the Lutherans in this poynt the Swinkefeldians Anabaptistes Libertines Henrinicolaites and such other do all disagree with you from the Catholike church of Rome therefore you are all together naught By this reason all Christianitie might bee condemned of the Iewes and Gentiles because so many sectes and heresies as be vnder the name of Christianitie together with the true Church of Christe be all against Iudaisme Gentilisme But agreeing or disagreeing of men among themselues is a weake argument to proue or disproue any thing onely agreeing with the trueth is a sure reason to allowe and disagreeing from the trueth is a certeine argument to refuse either men or matter propounded by them The two and fourtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the wordes of Christe after the Catholike manner with certein proues of the same First he setteth downe the sayings of the three Euangelistes Mathew Marke and Luke and of the Apostle Paule in which they describe the institution of the sacrament of which he sayeth not one maketh any mention of tropes figures or significations wherein hee vseth a shamelesse kinde of Sophistrie for although they name no tropes or figures or signification yet by the Papistes owne confession Saint Luke S. Paule vse manifest tropes figures and significations namely where they say This cupp is the newe testament in my bloud First it is a trope or figure to saye the cupp for that which is conteined in the cup vnlesse they will say that the cupp of what metall or matter so euer it was was likewise transubstantiated into the bloud of Christe Likewise where he sayeth this cuppe is the newe testament or couenant he must either acknowledge a signification this cuppe signifieth the newe testament or else he must make the newe testament to be nothing else but a cuppe Finally where he sayeth this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud except hee acknowledge a trope or figure he will vtterly denye that which is in the cup to be the bloud of Christe And out of all controuersie this manner of speache vsed by Saint Luke and Saint Paule is a manifest interpretation of the wordes vsed by S. Mathewe and Saint Marke this is my bloud which are all one in sence and meaning and teache vs howe the wordes spoken of the breade are to be interpreted this is my bodie this is the newe testament in my bloude which is as much to saye this is a seale and confirmation of the newe couenaunt which is remission of sinnes purchased by the breaking of my bodie and the shedding of my bloud for you This breade and this cuppe receiued of you shall assure you that you are truely incorporated into my bodie so made partakers of eternall life This interpretation hath in it nothing farre fetched or strange from the words of Christ the vsuall maner of speaking in the scripture But nowe M. Heskins will proue that the wordes of Christ are to be vnderstanded without trope or figure by the slaunders of the Infidels which defamed the Christians in the primitiue Church for eating the fleshe of men and of children as appeareth in Euseb. lib. 5 Cap. 2. 3. in the storie of Blandina and Attalus martyrs when they did eate the flesh of Christ. But none of them neither in Eusebius nor yet Iustine Origen Tertullian or any other that haue written Apollogies defended the Christians by the commaundement of Christ to eat his bodie but vtterly denyed and derided the slaunder that they were sayde to eat the fleshe of men or children as they did other slaunders which had no ground nor similitude of trueth as that they worshipped an Asses head that they companyed together in the dark like brute beastes and such like whereas if they had eaten the naturall fleshe of Christ as the Papists teache they woulde neither haue simply denyed the eating of a mans flesh nor yet haue spared to shewe how it was eaten vnder the formes of bread wine to auoide all crueltie and lothsomnes As for the legend of S. Andrewes passion which M. Heskins sayeth was written per Presbyteros diaconos Achaie is of as good credit as the booke of Beuis of Hampton the like I say of the fable of Amphilochius a newe found olde writer concerning the Iewe that sawe a childe diuided when the sacrament was broken The Legend and festiuall haue many such miracles But why did he not see a man diuided seeing Christe is not nowe a childe but a man Belike the authours of those miracles thought that if they feigned him to be a little child like Tom
pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis nec hoc probatum ex Euangelio testimonium receperunt vbi Apostolis corpus suum commendauit sanguinem Seorsim enim panis seorsim calicis commendatio memoratur Nam intinctū panem alijs Christum praebuisse non legimus excepto illo tantùm discipulo quem intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderet non quae sacramenti huius institutionem signaret That also is to be condemned that to make perfect the communion they deliuer to the people the sacrament dipped in the cupp neither haue they receiued this testimonie brought out of the Gospell where he deliuered to his Apostles both his bodie his bloud for seuerally of the breade and seuerally of the cupp the deliuerie is mentioned For we read not that Christ gaue dipped bread to others except that disciple only whome the dipped soppe shewed to be the traitour of his maister but did not set forth the institution of this sacrament Note here the iudgement of this Counsell that the institution of Christ is to be obserued Secondly that they are condemned that receiue not the testimonie of that first institution as an onely rule to followe in the ministration of the sacrament as the Papistes do Thirdly that the bloud must not be deliuered in the bread and the body in the cuppe but seuerally the breade and seuerally the cup must be deliuered Fourthly that the communion is not perfect without both kindes which euen they confessed that dipped the bread in the wine and so gaue it foorth Fiftly consider if this Counsel could not allowe the ioyning of both kinds in one soppe what would they haue thought of taking one kinde cleane away But to follow Maister Heskins The second obiection and that presseth him hardest is the saying of Gelasius bishop of Rome That the diuision of one and the same mysterie cannot be done without great sacriledge To auoyde this most manifest and cleare authoritie he thinketh it sufficient to shewe that the decree was made against other heretiques namely the Manichees Eutychians as though it were sacriledge in one kinde of heretiques and lawful in an other He saith the Manichees to cloake their heresie would dissemblingly receiue the breade and would not receiue the cup bicause they held that Christ had but a fantasticall body without bloud And the Eutychians ioyned with them which receiued the breade as a sacrament of the diuine body of Christe in which was no bloud Concerning the Eutychians there might bee some such fantasie if they ioyned with the Manichees in this point which presently I doe not remember that I haue read But concerning the Manichees it is certaine there was an other cause of their refusall of the cup bicause they condemned all drinking of wine And of them it seemeth that Leo spake Serm. 4. de quadra which M. Heskins rehearseth Abducunt se c. They withdrawe them selues from the sacrament of the health of man and as they deny Christe our Lorde to be borne in the veritie of our flesh so they doe not beleeue that he did verily die and rise againe and therefore they condemne the day of our health and of our gladnesse with the sadnesse of their fasting And when to couer their infidelitie they are so bold to be present at our mysteries they so temper them selues in the communion of the sacraments that sometimes they are more safely hidden With vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe but the bloud of our redemption they altogether refuse to drinke which thing we will your holinesse to vnderstand for this cause that suche kinde of men may be knowne to you and by these tokens and that they whose sacrilege and dissimulation shall be found out being noted and bewrayed by the Priestly authoritie may be banished the societie of the Saints This M. Hes. confesseth to be spoken against the Manichees And I wold he would further note that Leo chargeth them with dissimulation ioyned with sacriledge which yet is more tollerable then the Papistes open impudencie and violent sacriledge But here he noteth a plaine place for the proclamer in that Leo saith with vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe but that Leo so calleth the sacrament of the body of Christ which after a certaine manner is the body of Christe and not simply or absolutely it appeareth by that which followeth imediatly that those heretiques refuse to receiue the bloud of our redemption whereby hee meaneth the cup and the sacrament of his bloud for if hee should not meane the outward sacramentes but the body and bloud of Christ indeed how could his body be receiued without his bloud Therefore it is manifest hee speaketh of the signes and not of the things signified euen by their owne rule of concomitance And nowe followeth the whole saying of Gelasius Comperimus autem c. We haue found out of a certaintie that certaine men after they haue receiued a portion of the holy body do abstaine from the cup of the holy bloud who bicause I knowe not by what superstition they are taught to be withholden let them without all doubt receiue the whole sacramentes or else let them bee forbidden from the whole For the diuision of one and the same mysterie can not be done without great sacriledge Maister Heskins to shift off this place saith it was written against the Manichees But that is altogether vnlike for then Gelasius would not haue saide he knewe not by what superstition they were led for he knewe well the blasphemies of the Manichees Wherefore it is certaine they were other such superstitious people as the Papistes be nowe But if it were written against the Manichees the Papistes following their steppes shall gaine nothing but proue them selues to ioyne with the Manichees Secondly Maister Heskins saith the diuision of one mysterie is not the diuiding of the cuppe from the breade but of the body of Christ from his bloud which the Manichees did Although hee bee worthie to be knocked in the head with a mall that will not vnderstand Gelasius to speake of the sacrament yet there is no shadowe of reason to shrowde him most impudently affirming the contrarie For the Manichees did not diuide the body of Christe from his bloud but vtterly denyed him to haue either body or bloud Againe when hee saide immediately before that they should eyther receiue the whole sacramentes or abstaine from the whole hee addeth this for a reason For the diuision sayth hee of one and the same mysterie can not bee done without greate sacriledge Hee therefore that denyeth him to speake one title of diuiding the one kinde from the other is woorthie to bee diuided in peeces and to haue his partes with hypocrites where shall bee weeping and gnashing of teeth But as though he had not passed impudencie her selfe alreadie hee falleth on rayling against the proclamer that had not brought foorth past halfe a score wordes of this place
bread which he giueth to all which he giueth daily which hee giueth alwayes it is in thy selfe that thou maiest receiue this bread Come vnto this bread and thou shalt receiue it Of this bread it is said all they that estrange them selues from thee shall perish If thou estrange thy self frō him thou shalt perish If thou come neere vnto him thou shalt liue He is the bread of life He that eateth life can not die For howe doth he die ▪ whose meate is life How shall he fayle which hath that vitall substance Come ye vnto him and be satisfied for he is breade Come ye vnto him and drinke for he is a wel Come ye vnto him and be lightened for he is light Come ye vnto him and be deliuered for where the spirite of the Lord is there is libertie Come ye vnto him and be absolued for he is remission of sinnes You aske who this may be Heare ye him selfe saying I am the breade of life he that commeth to me shall not hunger and hee that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst You haue heard him and you haue seene him and you haue not beleeued him therefore you are dead The latter part of this long discourse sufficiently expoundeth the former That Christe and the flesh and bloud of God which M. Heskins noteth to be a plaine place for the proclamer is so our true meate and drinke as he is breade as he is a well as he is light as he is libertie as he is remission of sinnes that is after a spiritual maner And where he saith Manna was a figure or shaddowe and not the trueth of that which was to come he meaneth of Manna as it was corporall meate and eaten of the vnfaithfull that are dead and not as it was spiritual meat and eaten of the faithfull which are aliue as S. Augustine saith Moreouer it is to be noted that S. Ambrose saith that he which eateth this bread which is life can not dye Therefore no wicked man eateth this bread this meate this flesh of God which with S. Ambrose are all one As for the difference of our sacramentes what it is we haue shewed before and this place sheweth none For Ambrose speaketh of Manna as a corporall meat and not as it was a spirituall meate and sacrament The sixt Chapter declareth that Manna was a figure by the testimonie of S. Cyprian and Chrysostome It hath bene often confessed that Manna of the olde fathers is called a figure of the body of Christ but that it was only a bare figure and not the body of Christe vnto the faithful that is it we deny Cyprian is cited to litle or no purpose in ser. de Coen Dom. Huius panis c. Of this bread Māna was a figure which rayned in the desert So whē we are come to the true bread in the land of promise that meat fayled M. Heskins saith it is more manifest then that it can be denyed that this bread he speaketh of is the holy bread of the sacrament in which he acknowledgeth to be no breade at all Then as manifest as he maketh it it was a figure of Christ which is the spiritual matter of the sacrament and not of any holy breade thereof But this he saith will be proued by the last wordes of that sermon which in deede proue the cleane contrarie to his purpose Sed nos ipsi c. But we also being made his body both by the sacrament and by the thing of the sacrament are knit and vnited vnto our heade euery one being members one of an other shewing the ministerie of loue mutually do communicate in charitie are partakers of one cup eating the same meate and drinking the same drinke which floweth and runneth out of the spirituall rocke which meate and drinke is our Lord Iesus Christ. Here is a plaine place for the proclamer the meate and drinke is our Lorde Iesus Christe But what proclamer denyeth that our meat and drinke in the sacrament is the body and bloud of Christe This we deny that the same is present after a bodily maner or after a bodily manner receiued but spiritually onely or by faith euen as the same writer faith immediatly before Haec quoties agimus c. As often as we doe these things we sharpen not our teeth to eate but with sincere faith wee breake and diuide that holy bread But how can M. Heskins auoyde this that we are made the body of Christe as we are partakers of his body in the sacrament whiche must needes be spiritually Howe liketh he the distinction of the sacrament and the thing or matter of the sacrament when with Papistes either there is no difference made betweene the sacrament of his body and his body it selfe or else the sacrament is nothing else but the accidents of breade and wine by which we are neither made the body of Christ nor vnited to him But to auoyde our glose of spiritualitie he fleeth backe to the saying of Cyrillus in 15. Ioan. which he hath so often repeated and yet mangled and gelded least the true sense might be gathered out of it Non tamen negamus c. Yet do we not denye but that we are spiritually ioyned to Christ by right faith and sincere loue but that we haue no manner of coniunction with him after his flesh that truely we doe vtterly deny and say it to be altogether repugnant to the holy scriptures For who hath doubted that Christe is also a vine and we the branches which from thence receiue life into vs Heare what Paule saith that we are all one body in christ For although we be many yet are we one in him For we all take part of one breade Or doeth he thinke perhaps that the vertue of the mystical benediction is vnknown to vs Which when it is done in vs doth is not make Christ to dwell in vs corporally by communication of the flesh of Christ. For why are the members of the faithfull the members of Christ c. In these wordes Cyrillus reasoneth against an Arrian which abusing this text I am a Vine and my father is the husband man saide it was spoken of the deitie of Christ and could not be expounded of his manhoode which Cyrill denyeth shewing that we are not onely spiritually ioyned to Christe as to God but also corporally that is to his body as to man yet after a spirituall manner as the textes by him alledged doe proue sufficiently and namely the argument taken of the vertue of the mysticall blessing which by communication of his fleshe maketh vs his members of his body which all men confesse to bee so after a diuine manner that euen they which neuer receiued that sacrament are yet members of Christe hauing put him on and beeing ingrafted to him in baptisme But Maister Heskins will tell vs the difference of the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament out of August in deede out of the sentences of
his Epistle to the Romaines and before Peter also came thither as it is plaine by the Epistle to the Galath cap. 2. And therefore seeing the church of Rome was first founded neither by Peter nor Paule she hath nothing to brag of their preheminence which many churches planted by the Apostles might with more equitie challenge As for the bequething of Peter and Paule that hee speaketh of when he can shew vs a copie of their Testament we wil shape him an other answere 24 That there were many martyrs and confessours at Rome in the primitiue churche the cause was the great multitude of people in that church by reason of the frequens of the imperial city But this proueth no prerogatiue of ancestrie ouer other churches That so many of the first bishops suffred death for Christs cause although it may be doubted of the number of 30. vpwarde because no auncient writer doth testifie it it was by reason they were neerest vnto the greatest persecutors which were the emperors of Rome But this proueth not the supremacy of the bishop of Rome before the bishops of other cities who haue likewise suffred death for Christ. 25 It is vtterly false that he affirmeth that no faithful people of any citye had euer so notable witnes as the church of Rome of S. Paul your faith is preached in the whol world In which translation he falsifieth the words of S. Paule for he saith your faith is reported or commended in all the world not that it was preached for thē an vnsufficient faith should haue bin preached which needed the iustification of that Epistle And whereas M.S. saith that Cyprian saith the Apostle spake it prophetically not onely in respect of their faith present but also of thē that should folow it is to smal purpose except M.S. can proue that the Romanes now do hold the same faith which S. Paul S. Cyprian commended in his felow bishop Cornelius and the Romanes of his time And as for as notable and a more notable testimonie of an other people then the Romanes read the beginning of the 2. Thessalon capit 1.1 Collossians cap. 1. 26 Whereas he saith that S. Hiero. proueth the faith of the Romaines which Saint Paule praised to haue remayned in his dayes because none other people did so deuoutly visite the sepulchres of the martyres which the protestantes counte for infidelitie rather then faith he sheweth himselfe to bee an impudent wrangler The words of Hierom be these In prooem lib. 2. in Epist. ad Gal. 3. Vultis scire ô Paula Eustochiū quomodo Apostolus vnam quāque prouinciā suis proprietatibus denotarit Vsque hodie cadem vel virtutum vestigia permanent vel errorum Romanae plebis laudatur fides Vbi alibi tanto studio frequentia ad ecclesias martyrum sepulchra concurritur vbi sic ad similitudinem caelestis tonitrui Amen reboat vacua idolorū templa quatiuntur Non quod aliam habeant Romani fidem nisi hanc quam omnes Christi ecclesie sed quod deuotio in eis maior sit simplicitas ad credendum Rursum facilitatis superbię arguuntur Will you know ô Paula Eustochium how the Apostle hath described euerye prouince in their owne properties Euen to this daye the steppes remaine either of vertues or of errors The faith of the Pope of Rome is praised Where is there such concourse any where els with so great desire and frequence vnto the churches and sepulchres of martyres Where doth Amen so rebound like to heauenly thunder the emptye temples of Idoles so shaken with it Not that the Romaines haue any other faith but the same which al the churches of Christ haue but because in them is greater deuotion and simplicitie to beleeue likewise they are reproued for too much facility pride These words declareth that Hierome speaketh of no Popish pilgrimage but of resorting to the churches which were builded vpō the sepulchres of the martyrs therefore called the memories of the martyrs Secōdly what he meaneth by faith namely deuotion simplicitie of beleeuing not doctrine Thirdly that the Romaines reteined aswell the vices as the vertues of their auncesters But nowe they reteine onely the vices 27 The Papists liue vnder a visible head but the same is Antichrist the protestants vnder an inuisible head which is christ The Pope fitteth in Rome the mother of al abhominations hauing nothing to brag of but the vertues of such as haue dwelled there before him and no good qualitie of his owne Yet the title of vniuersall shepherd M.S. denieth vnto him although he most arrogantly do vsurpe it Howbeit properly M.S. saith he ought not to haue it 28 Therfore the bishops of Rome before Gregory the first refused the same title as prophane proude which belongeth onely to christ Yet the councel of Chalcedō offred it to Pope Leo the first but he refused it as slanderous This being cōfessed by M S. chuse whether you wil say the councell did erre in offring the same or Pope Leo in refusing or the latter Popes in vsing the same 29 Gregorie the first in deede tooke vppon him the humble style of the seruaunt of the seruaunts of God as M.S. saith but his successors vsing that title for a formality hauing bene content to be called Lord of Lords and God aboue all gods and our lord God the Pope and the most holiest and an hundreth more blasphemous titles beside treading on the Emperours necke such like examples of prophane pride as Nero Heliogabalus no Dioclesian euer shewed the like 30 It is not to be proued that he saith there were 4. Patriarks at the beginning nor that the Pope of Rome was chiefe For the councell of Nice Canon 6. doth make the patriarke of Alexandria and the rest equall with the bishop of Rome Although afterward the bishops of Rome as they were cōmonly ambitious when persecution was staied by prerogatiue of the imperiall citie challenged a kinde of primacie yet not of authoritie but of order And whereas he sayeth other Patriarches were preferred in respect of the affinitie they had with S. Peter it is false for the Patriarch of Constantinople was placed next to him of olde Rome because Constantinople was newe Rome the imperiall cittie Concil Constantinop Cap. 2. or after Garanza Cap. 5. That the Pope did erect patriarchal Seas at Aquileia at Senis it was not for that the other were infected with heresie but that they refused to acknowledge his Antichristian authoritie bought of Phocas the murtherer by Boniface the third for if his authoritie had bene so great as is pretended he would haue deposed those hereticall bishops and set vp Catholikes in their places rather then to haue spoyled the seates of their dignities for euer for the fault of the bishops 31 It is false that he sayeth neuer any bishop was so much esteemed as the bishop of Rome for Athanasius of Alexandria was more esteemed of the