celebrate with a sheepe another that wee do celebrate in the bodie bloud of Christ. But Augustines wordes not truncately and by peece meale rehearsed nor altered are these Contrae literas Petiliani lib. 2. Cap. â—7 Sed sicut aliud est carnis circumcisio Iudeorum aliud autem quod octauo die baptizatorum nos celebratius et aliud est Pascha quod adhuc illi de Oue celebrant aliud autem quod nos in corpore sanguine domini accipimus sic alius fuit baptismus Ioannis alius est baptismus Christi illis enim ventura ista praemanciabantur istis completa illa praedicantur But euen as the circumcision of the fleshe of the Iewes is one thing and that which wee do celebrate the eyght day of them that are baptized is another thing and the Passeouer whiche they do yet celebrate of a sheepe is one thing and that which wee receiue in the bodie and bloud of the Lorde is another thing So the baptisme of Iohn was one and the baptisme of Christe is another for by those things these things were foreshewed to come by these those things are preached to be accomplished First the supper is not made here another Passeouer but another thing that is an other sacrament Secondly here is declared howe the sacraments of the old lawe differ from ours of the newe Testament not in substance which is all one in both but that they were signes of things to come ours are signes of things accomplished Which thing hee teacheth often and in this Chapter moste plainly Lex Prophetae c. The lawe and the Prophetes had Sacraments foreshewing the things to come but the Sacraments of oure time do testifie that to bee come which they did preache that it should come And in Ioan. Tract 28. hee sayeth that the Sacraments of the olde testament and the newe in signis diuersa sunt in re quae significatur paria In visible kindes diuerse but aequall in spirituall vertue By which and a hundreth such places it is manifest to be ouerthrowen which M. Heskins would buylde that Christ spiritually receiued is not our Pascall lambe but that we receiue another substance of Christe then the faithfull did in the olde Testament The seconde place he citeth out of Augustine I marueile he could not see it to be as plaine against him as the first cont Faust. man lib. 20. Cap. 18. The Hebrues in the sacrifices of beastes which they did offer to God many and diuerse wayes as for so great a matter it was meete did celebrate a Prophesie of the sacrifice to come which Christ hath offered Wherefore nowe the Christians do celebrate the memorie of the same sacrifice being accomplished by the holie oblation and by the participation of the bodie and bloud of Christ. In this sentence is manifestly declared the same difference we spake of before of the Iewishe sacraments and of our sacraments the one being a Prophesie of Christes sacrifice to come the other a remembrance of the same beeing past and fulfilled And whereas M. Heskins vrgeth the worde oblation to exclude the spirituall eating he doth verie ridiculously as though there might not be as wel a spiritual oblation as a spirituall participation especially when the author shewing what we do in oblation and participatioÌ„ sayeth we so celebrate the memorie of Christes sacrifice alredie fulfilled Therefore this oblation is another from that namely a spirituall oblation and thanksgiuing for that whose memorie it celebrateth as Augustine most plainly teacheth in the same booke Cap. 21. Sed quid agam tantae caecitati istorum HÄ™reticorum quando demonstrabo quam vim habeat quod in Psalmis canitur Sacrificium laudis glorificabit me illie via est vbi ostendam salutare meum Huius sacrificij caro sanguis ante aduentum Christi per victimas similitudinâ—m promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsum veritatem reddâ—batur post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur But what shall I do or when shall I shewe vnto so great blindnesse of these heretikes what force that hath which is soung in the Psalmes The sacrifice of praise shall glorifie mee and there is the way where I will shewe my saluation The fleshe and bloud of this sacrifice before the comming of Christ was promised by sacrifices of similitudes in the passion of Christ by the verie trueth it selfe it was giuen vp after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance Iudge by this place whether Christes bodie be really offered or whether it be a mathematicall sacrifice as it pleaseth M. Heskins in his merie vaine to call it Augustine maketh three kindes of oblation of the fleshe and bloud of Christ In promise by sacrifices of similitudes in truth by Christ in his passion in the sacrament of remeÌ„brance after his death Now followeth a long speache of Cyrill directly against M. Heskins the alledger of it lib. 4. in Ioan. 6. ca. 14. Nec putet c. Neither let the Iewe of the dullnesse of his whiche thinke that we haue inuented mysteries neuer heard of before For he shall see if he will seeke more diligently that the verie selfe same thing hath beene done since the times of Moses For what deliuered their Elders from death and the destruction of Aegypt when death raigned vpon the first borne of Aegypt Is it not euident to all men that because they being taught by Gods institution did eat the flesh of the Lambe and oynted the postes and vpper doore postes with the bloud of the Lambe therfore death departed from them for destruction that is death of this fleshe raged against mankinde for the transgression of the first man For because of sinne we haue heard Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt returne but for asmuch as Christ by his flesh would ouerthrow that cruell tyrant therefore that was shadowed by a mystery among the auncient fathers and they beeing sanctified by the sheepes fleshe and bloud God so willing escaped destruction Therefore ô Iewe why art thou so troubled seeing the trueth prefigured long before Wherefore I say art thou troubled if Christe saith except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you whereas it behoued thee beeing instructed in the lawes of Moses and well taught by the olde shadowes to beleeue to be most ready to vnderstand these mysteries The shadowe and the figure thou knowest therefore learne the very trueth of the thing My fleshe saith he is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede In these wordes beside that there is nothing to proue the Pascall Lambe to be a figure of the Lordes Supper it is directly said that the selfe same mysterie of eating the fleshe of Christ hath ben obserued since the time of Moses and that there is no cause why the Iewe should be offended at the saying of Christe if he would vnderstand the
Christe as betweene the shaddowe and the bodies betweene the image and the trueth betweene the exemplars of thinges to come and the thinges them selues prefigured by the exemplars Therefore as meeknesse patience sobrietie moderation abstinence from lucre hospitalitie also and benignitie ought to be chiefly in a Byshop and amongest all Lay men excelling so also a peculiar chastitie and as I may say Priestly continence that hee doe not onely keepe him selfe fâ—om an vncleane woorke but also the mynde that shall make the body of Christe may be free from casting of the eye and wandring of thought In these wordes Hieronyme maketh the shewe breade a shadowe and figure of the body of Christe but not of the sacrament thereof Neither will Maister Heskins collection of the office of a bishop standing in consecration offering and receiuing the body of Christ helpe him For here is no word of consecrating but of making the body of Christe Mens Christi corpus confectura the minde shall make the body of Christ which if it be not a figuratiue speach Hieronyme speaketh both grossely and vntruely neither of offering the body of Christ but offering vndefiled sacrifices which are prayers Finally if it were plaine that he called the sacrament by the name of that which it signifieth yet hee him selfe is the best expounder of him selfe Where hee sheweth a double taking of the body bloud of Christe spirituall and corporall In Ep lib. 1. cap. Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi caro intelligitur vel spiritualis illa atque diuina dâ— qua ipse dixit caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potus Et nisi manducaueritis carnem meum sanguinem meum biberitis non habebitis vitam aeternam Vel caro sanguis quae crucifixa est qui militis effusus est lancâ—a The bloud and flesh of Christ is vnderstoode two wayes either that spirituall and diuine flesh of which hee saide My flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede And except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue eternall life or else that flesh that was crucified that bloud which was shead by the souldiers speare This place may suffice to expound whatsoeuer either Hieronyme or any other olde writer saith of the consecration offering or receiuing of the body and bloud in the sacrament making a manifest difference betweene that flesh and bloud which is eaten and dronke and that which was crucified which the Papistes teach to bee all one But M. Heskins cannot omit this place without a gird against married Priests of which number he him selfe was once one saying they haue put away the consecration to keepe their women but he did put away his wife that he might returne to consecration Howbeit to the matter As it is verie well knowen Hieronyme was too much addict to the prayse of virginitie so in this Chapter hee cannot simplie condemne the mariage of Byshoppes although he wish rather a continence in them that can absteine and openly saith to professed virgines that either they must marie if they cannot conteine or els continue if they will not marie Ad Demetriadem Next to Hieronyme which is of the higher house hee is faine to place Damascene of the lower house Who sayeth that The shewe bread did figure this breade meaning the sacramentall breade and not as M. Heskins expoundeth it the bodie of Christ in the sacrament For transubstantiation is not so olde as Damascene neither was it receyued in the Greeke Church neither is it at this daye neither doe these wordes helpe him which hee addeth Therefore with all feare and pure conscience and with a sure faith let vs come to him and worship him with all purenesse of minde and bodie Let vs come to him with burning desire fashioning our handes in manner of a crosse let vs receiue this bodie of him that was crucified There can no necessarie collection bee made of this place that Damascene spake of the popishe reall presence And if it might yet it is but one doctors opinion of the lower house whose authoritie we weigh not But why doe not the Papistes holde their handes a crosse when they receyue the sacrament by like all their ceremonies bee not so auncient as Damascene The three and twentie Chapter proceedeth in the proofe of the same by S. Augustine and Isychius Out of Augustine he alleadgeth Ep. 86. Ad Casulanum reprouing one Vibicus Dicit cessisse pani pecus c. Hee saith that the sheepe hath giuen place to breade as though he knewe not that then also the shewe breade was wont to bee set on the Lords table and that now also he doeth take part of the bodie of the immaculate lambe Hee sayth that bloude hath giuen place to the cuppe not considering that nowe also hee receyueth bloude in the cuppe Therefore howe much better and more agreably shoulde hee saye that the olde thinges are passed and newe thinges are made in Christe so that Altar gaue place to Altar sworde to sworde fire to fire breade to breade sheepe to sheepe bloude to bloude For wee see in all these that the carnall oldnesse giueth place to the spirituall newnesse The vnderstanding of this place dependeth vppon the knowledge of the errour of Vibicus And that was this Hee thought that the outwarde ceremonies of the olde lawe did signifie the outwarde ceremonies of the newe Testament that is that carnall thinges did succeede carnall thinges As the lambe did signifie the bread the bloude did signifie the wine in the sacrament and so bread gaue place to the lambe the cuppe to the bloud But this Augustine denyeth For they had bread then and they haue breade nowe they had the fleshe of a lambe then and they haue the fleshe of a lambe nowe they had bloude then and they haue bloude nowe they had carnall thinges then and wee haue spirituall thinges nowe This place therefore is directly against M. Heskins bill of the carnall presence and hath nothinge to prooue that the shewe breade was a figure of the sacrament but onely affirmeth that they had breade as wee haue breade for they had the shewe breade But if there had ben transubstantiation that is no bread in the sacrament hee might easily haue confuted Vibicus saying that breade gaue place to the sheepe But hee confesseth that wee haue bread and affirmeth that they had breade also And where he sayth that wee eate parte of the body of the immaculate lambe hee declareth sufficiently that hee spake of no carnall presence for then hee woulde not haue deuided the bodie of the lambe into partes which the Papistes say euerie one receiueth whole Finally where he saith that the carnall oldenesse gaue place to the spirituall newnesse hee doth moste clearely teach vs that the outwarde ceremonies of the olde Testament were figures of the spirituall things signified and giuen by our sacramentes and not of the outwarde
then he should haue suffered oftentimes since the beginning of the world And Heb. 10. He offered but one sacrifice for sinnes and is set downe at the right hand of God for euer c. For by one only oblation he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified And in the same Chapter where there is forgiuenesse of sinnes there is no more sacrifice for sinne Whervpon it followeth that if Christes sacrifice at his supper tooke away sinnes he offered no sacrifice vpon the crosse Secondly he affirmeth that Christe was a priest after the order of Aaron which he denied before and is in plaine wordes denied by the holy Ghost Heb. 7. which place M. Heskins himselfe setteth downe in this Chapter if perfection had beene by the Priesthoode of the Leuites for vnder it the law was established to the people what needed it further that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedech c not to be called after the order of Aaron Thirdly he affirmeth that the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse was after the order of Aaron Wherevpon it wil follow that it was not an eternall redemption purchased by it but transitorie as the priesthoode of Aaron was Whereas the holy Ghost saith that by his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place and found eternall redemption which could neuer be obteined by any sacrifice after the order of Aaron Fourthly he affirmeth that Christ altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God except he did offer sacrifice in his supper of bread and wine By which he denieth that the once offring vp of himselfe by his eternall spirite on the crosse was any parte of his priesthoode appointed him by God then the which there can be no more diuelish blasphemie And yet the beast is not ashamed to challenge and write If not then ◠let the aduersary shewe when and where Christ did sacrifice after the order of Mechizedech Euen then and there thou enimie of the crosse of Christ when and where he was made obedient to the death of the crosse and hauing learned obedience by the thinges he suffered he was consecrated and made the authour of eternall saluation vnto all them that obey him and is called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedech Heb. 5. Hauing an euerlasting priesthod by which he is able perfectly to saue them that come vnto God by him seeing he euer liueth to make intercession for them For such an high priest it became vs to haue which is holy harmelesse vndefiled separated frō sinners and made higher then the heauens which needed not daily as these high Priestes to offer vp sacrifice first for his owne sinnes and then for the peoples for that he did once when he offred vp himself Heb. 7. But beside his detestable blasphemies see his ridiculous vanitie If the priesthoode of Melchizedech standeth in his offering of bread and wine then Christ also offered bread and wine as he saide before Christ offered in bread and wine as Aaron did in bloud If bread wine be Christes offring or any part of it then there is bread and wine in the sacrament what is becomme of transubstantiation If there was no bread wine in the sacrifice of Christe then where is Melchisedeches priesthoode by his owne diuinitie Againe if he say there be the shewes or accidents of bread wine then Melchizedeches bread and wine was a figure of the accidents of bread and Wine then the figure was better then the thing figured contrarie to his worshipfull rule giuen in the 15. Chapter If he say that Melchizedeches bread wine figured not the Accidents but the bread wine before it be consecrated then he breaketh his rule once againe for Melchizedeches bread if it were not hallowed was as good if it were hallowed as it was if it were offred it was better then the vncōsecrated bread wine Finally if he say it figured neither the vncōsecrated bread wine nor the accidents of the same consecrated but the body and bloud of Christ vnder these accidēts beside that he makes it a figure of a figure or signe which he said could not be he denieth that Christ did that wherein he affirmed the priesthoode of Melchizedech to stand namely that he offred bread and wine And so thou seest M. Heskins hanged in his owne halter The nine and twentieth Chapter proceedeth to prooue the same by S. Cyprian and Isychius I confessed before that diuers of the olde fathers were of opinion that the bread and wine which Melchisedech brought forth was sacrificed by him and that it was a figure of the sacramēt which they vnproperly called a sacrifice meaning nothing else but that it was a holy signe and a thankesgiuing offered to God for the passion of Christe as it is manifest by diuers places in their writings But they were farre from those blasphemies which M. Heskins hath vttered in the Chapter before as to make Christes passion a sacrifice after the order of Aaron to make Christ offer two sacrifices and the better sacrifice that was after the order of Melchizedech in the sacrament c. But now let vs consider the places of Cyprian whether such poyson may be drawen out of them as M. Heskins hath sucked out of his own poysoned brayne The words of the first place are these The sacraments signified of old since the time that Melchisedech came forth to the sonnes of Abraham that do his workes the high priest bringeth foorth bread and wine This sayth he is my body They had eaten and dronken of the same bread according to the visible fourme but before those wordes that common meate was profitable only to nourish the body But after it was saide by the Lorde do this in remembrance This is my flesh this is my bloud As oftē as it is done with these wordes and with this faith that substantiall bread and cuppe consecrated with a solemne blessing profiteth vnto the life and health of the whole man being both a medicine Et Holocaustum and a burnt offering to heale infirmities and purge iniquities There is also declared the difference betweene spirituall meate and corporall meate namely that it was one thing that was first set before them another thing which was giuē distributed by their Maister First it is graunted that Cyprian thought the bread wine brought foorth by Melchizedech to be a figure of the sacrament and that herein also he resembled the priesthoode of Christ which we are neither afraide nor abashed to denie because the Apostle an older doctor then Cyprian such an one as in his writings could not erre could finde no such resemblance betweene Melchizedech and christ Concerning the sacrifice of bread and wine I wil speake hereafter in answere to the other places of Cyprian But now let vs examine M. Heskins two notes for the reall presence as he calleth it The first is that this
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
Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud you shall haue no life in you They thought this impossible but he shewed that it was altogether possible and not that only but also necessarie which also he did vnto Nicodemus He addeth also of his bloud signifying the cup which as is saide already he would giue to his disciples in the last supper Here Euthymius a late writer and out of the compasse of the challenge vnderstandeth this text of the sacrament yet speaketh hee nothing of the carnall manner of eating As for the other place he braggeth of in Matth. 26. which he cyteth in the 58. Chapter of this booke how little it maketh for him I wish the reader before he go any further to turne to the Chapter and consider The sixteenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text in hand by the Ephesine Counsell The woordes of the Epistle of the Ephesine Counsell vnto Nestorius be these Necessario hoc c. This also we do adde necessarily for shewing foorth the death of the onely begotten sonne of God after the flesh that is of Iesus Christe and confessing together his resurrection and ascention into heauen we celebrate it in our Churches the vnbloudie seruice of his sacrifice so also doe we come to the mysticall blessings and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy body and precious bloud of Christ the redeemer of vs all Not taking it as common flesh which God forbid nor at the flesh of a sanctified man and ioyned to the word according to the vnitie of dignitie or as possessing a diuine habitation but truely quickening and made proper vnto the word it selfe For he being naturally life as God bicause he was vnited to his owne flesh professed the sonne to haue power to giue life And therefore although he say vnto vs Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you yet we ought not to esteeme it as of a man that is one of vs For howe can the flesh of a man after his owne nature be a quickening flesh But as verily made his owne flesh which for vs was both made and called the sonne of man. The Fathers of this Counsell do not as M. Heskins saith expound this text of the sacrament or declare what they receiue in the sacrament but rather shew what they iudged of that flesh whereof they receiued the sacrament namely that it was not the flesh of a pure man as Nestorius affirmed but the flesh of the son of God therfore had power to giue life being eateÌ„ by faith either in the participation of the sacrament or without it And whereas he noteth a plaine place for M. Iewel when they say They were made partakers of the body and bloud of Christ there is no more plainenesse then M. Iewell will confesse But where he addeth Receiuing it not as coÌ„mon flesh but as the flesh truely giuing life he corrupteth the sense of the Counsel referring that to the receiuing of the sacrament which they vnderstand of their iudgement of the flesh whereof they receiued the sacrament Finally where he would helpe the matter with the opinion of Cyril of our corporall coniunction with Christ howe little it auayleth we shewed before in aunswere to that place Cap. 14. But least he shuld lacke sufficient proofe of this matter he confirmeth his exposition by the erronious practise of the Church of Aphrica from Saint Cyprians time vnto Saint Augustines time at the least which imagined such a necessitie of thaâ— sacrament by this place Except ye eate c that they ministred the Communion to infants he might haue added that some did minister it to dead folkes But this absurditie which followeth of the exposition will rather driue al wisemen from that exposition then moue them to receiue it And although the Bohemians vsed this text to proue the communion in both kindes yet doth it not followe that it is properly to be expounded of the sacrament The seuenteenth Chapter expoundeth the next following by S. Augustine and Cyrill The text he will expound is He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life in him That this text is not to be expounded of the sacrament it is manifest by this reason that many doe eate the sacrament that haue not life in them as Augustine whom he alledgeth most plainly affirmeth But let vs see his profes for his exposition First Augustine Tr. 26. in IoaÌ„ Hanc non habet c. He hath not this life that eateth not this bread nor drinketh this bloud For without is men may haue temporall life but eternall they can not He therefore which eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud hath no life in him and he that eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath life eternall He hath answered to both in that he saith life euerlasting It is not so in this meate which we take to sustaine the life of this body For he that shall not take it shall not liue Nor yet he that shall take it shall liue For it may be that by age or sicknesse or any other cause many which haue taken it may dye but in this meat and drinke that is the body and bloud of our Lord it is not so For both he that taketh it not hath not life he that taketh it hath life and that eternall Although there be not one word spoken here of the sacrament and M. Heskins him selfe alledgeth the words following in which he confesseth that Augustine expoundeth this meate and drinke of the societie of Christ and his members which is his Church yet either so blinde or obstinate he is that with vaine gloses he will go about to drawe Augustine to his side First he saith though this meate signifie the mysticall body of Christe yet it signifieth not that alone but his naturall body in the sacrament whereof he hath neuer a worde in this treatise of S. Augustine secondly Augustine did not go about to instruct the people what they should receiue but how wel they shuld receiue it Which is vtterly false for hee doth both and there is no better way to instruct men howe well they should receiue the sacrament then to teach them to consider what they do receiue And therfore the conclusion of this treatise which he cyteth is altogether against him Hoc ergo totum c. Let all this therfore auayle to this end most welbeloued that we eaâ—e not the flesh and bloud of Christ onely in a sacrament which many euill men doe but that we eate and drinke euen to the participation of the spirit that we may remaine in the body of our Lorde as his mâ—mbers that we may be quickened by his spirite and not be offended although many do nowe with vs eate and drinke the sacraments temporally which in the end shal haue eternal torments Oâ—t of these wordes M. Hes doth
in the beginning of the sentence that it is a meate to nourish the soule and not for the bodie to receiue neither receiued but where it nourisheth the soule And that ouerthroweth the corporall manner of eating The one and twentieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by Chrysostome and Lyra. Chrysostome is cited Hom. 46. in Ioan. The same wordes almoste that were before ascribed to Euthymius who borrowed them of Chrysostome Quid autem c. But what meaneth this saying my fleshe is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede Either that he is the true meate whiche saueth the soule or that he might confirme them in that he said before least they should thinke he spake darkely in parables If this be spoken of the fleshe of Christe in the sacrament then none receiue the flesh of Christ in the sacrament but they whose soules are saued but many receiue the sacrament whose soules are not saued therefore this is not spoken of the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament Ye but are ye aduised that this is a plaine place for M Iewel that these words My fleshe is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in is no figuratiue speeche Let it be as plaine as you will it must be meate in deede and drinke in deede to feede our soules and that must needes be spiritually for our soules cannot eate carnally As for Lyra a late Popishe writer I haue often protested that I will not stay vpon his authoritie let him be on M. Heskins side The two and twentieth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by S. Cyrill and Dionyse S. Cyrill is alledged Lib. 4. Cap. 16. in Ioan. Vmbram figuram nosti c. Knowest thou the shadowe and the figure Learne the very truth of the thing For my flesh saith he is meate indeed and my bloud is drinke in deede Againe he maketh a distinction betweene the mystical benediction and manna the streames of water out of the rocke and the communication of the holie cuppe that they should not more esteeme the miracle of manna but rather receiue him which is the giuer of the heauenly bread and of eternall life For the nourishment of Manna brought not eternall life but a short remedie of hunger Therefore it was not the true meate But the holie bodie of Christ is a meate nourishing vnto immortalitie eternall life Also that water out of the rocke easied bodily thirst for a short time neither brought it any thing beside Therfore it was not that true drinke but the bloud of Christ by which death is vtterly ouerthrowen and destroyed is the true drinke For it is not the bloud of a man simply but of him which being ioyned vnto a natural life is become life Because M. Heskins cannot tell what to gather out of this place for his purpose he taketh vp yesterdayes colde ashes of the authorities cited before by light of them to wrest this place to his purpose but all remaineth still darke and dyme for his intent Of the excellencie of the fleshe and bloud of Christe aboue Manna the water as they were corporal foode there is neither doubt nor question nor yet that the same is eaten in the sacrament of the faithfull but whether it be eaten corporally or spiritually is all the question And Dionyse the Charterhouse Monke whome he matcheth vndiscretely with Cyrill denieth also that the body of Christ is receiued corporally in the sacrament Verè est cibus animae non corporis quia non visibiliter nec corporaliter sumitur quamuis verum corpus sumatur It is meate in deede but of the soule not of the bodie because it is not receiued visibly nor corporally although the very body be receiued So that the Papistes them selues do not al agree of the maner of receiuing In this Chapter beside these two expositors are also cited Augustine Chrysostome Augustine in Saint Prosper to auouch the phrase of formes of bread and wine Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in sacramento accipimus sanguis eius est quem sub vini specie sapore potamus It is his flesh which we receiue in the sacrament couered with the fourme of bread and it is his bloud which we drinke vnder the kinde and taste of wine Beside that this collection of Prosper is not to be found in any of Augustines owne workes I denie the names of Forma and Species to be taken for accidentes in that sense the Papistes doe but for a figure or signification as by the wordes immediately following it is most manifest which M. Heskins hath moste lewdly suppressed Caro videlicèt carnis sanguis sacramentum est sanguinis carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili spirituali intelligibili signatur spirituale Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile plenum gratia omnium virtutū diuina Maiestate That is the flesh is a sacrament of the flesh and the bloud is a sacrament of the bloud by both of them beeing inuisible spirituall intelligible is signified the spirituall bodie of our Lord Iesus Christe which is palpable ful of the grace of all vertues and diuine Maiestie In these wordes he calleth the elementes of bread wine flesh and bloud which are sacramentes of his true glorious palpable bodie which is in heauen as it is yet more plaine by that whiche followeth Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui caro Christi est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile quod mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus sit Christi passiō mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significāte mysterio sic sacramentum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As that heauēly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a certeine manner is called the body of Christ when in very deede it is the sacrament of the bodie of Christ which beeing visible which beeing palpable which beeing mortall was put on the crosse the very offring of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstood to be baptisme is faith In these words he affirmeth the elements to be the bodie bloud of Christ as the action of the Priest is his passion death crucifying as baptisme is faith not in trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Chrysostome is alledged to proue that the whole bodie of Christe is in the sacrament Hom. 24. in 10. ad Cor. 1. Et quando c. And when thou seest that thing set foorth say with thy selfe for this bodie I am no more earth and ashes this bodie being crucified and beaten was not ouercome by death This same bodie being
bloudied and wounded with a speare hath sent foorth founteines of bloude and water wholesome to all the world Here is much a doe the same bodie is in the sacrament which was crucified Wee knowe Christ hath no more bodies but euen that one that was crucifyed the same is eaten in the sacrament as in a mysterie significatiuely as the same Chrysostome in the same place doth testifie Quid enim appello inquit communicationem id ipsium corpus sumus Quid significat panis Corpus Christi Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christi non multa sed vnum corpus For what do I call it saith he a participation We are the verie same bodie What doth the bread signifie the bodie of Christ. What are they made that receiue the bodie of Christ not many bodies but one bodie Lo here the breade signifyeth the bodie of Christe which was crucified And the faithfull that receiue it are made the same bodie of Christ that was crucified but all this in a mysterie not carnally or corporally What reader of Cambridge he girdeth at that alledged obiectiōs of Duns against the carnall presence I knowe not Duns might frame or reherse more arguments against it then with al his subtilties he could aunswere but my thinke M. Hesk. should not enuie this practise when he himselfe hath neuer an argument nor authoritie almost out of the doctors but such as he hath of other mens gathering and not of his own reading as his manifold mistakins do declare beside wilfull corruptions and falsifications The three and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact Beda Of these two being both of the lower house the testimonie of Theophylactus maketh nothing for him the saying of Beda maketh much against him Concerning Theophylact let them that list read his sentence for I compt it superfluous to rehearse their testimony whose authoritie in this matter I will not stand to But because the opinion of carnall presence was not receiued in this church of England in the age of Beda nor long after I thinke it not amisse to consider his authoritie He writeth therefore in Ioan. Dixerat superiùs c. He had sayde before he that eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloud hath life eternall And that he might shewe howe great a difference is betweene corporall meate and the spirituall mysterie of his bodie bloud he added my fleshe is meate in deede my bloud is drink in deede Here Beda calleth the sacrament a spiritual mysterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ which although it be playne against the carnall presence yet M. Heskins would cloke it with a fonde definition of a mysterie to be that I wot not what which conteyneth couertly a thing not to be perceiued by sences or common knowledge and so the sacrament is a mysterie conteyning the verie bodie of christ Besides that he remembreth not that Beda calleth it not onely a mysterie but a spirituall mysterie I would wit of him what it is that Beda calleth a spirituall mysterie if he say the sacrament I would further knowe what he calleth the sacrament he will aunswere the formes of breade wine for so they determine forsooth Well then Christ would not shewe the difference of the spirituall foode of his flesh bloud which is the thing conteined but of the accidents of bread and wine from the corporall foode O foolishe conclusion of Beda or rather O false definition counterfet exposition of Hesk For Beda sheweth the excellencie of the spirituall mysterie of Christes bodie and bloud which is our spirituall foode aboue the corporall foode and neuer dreamed of M. Heskins mysterie The foure and twentieth Chapter beginneth the ex-position of the next text in the sixt of S. Iohn by S. Hillarie S. Augustine The text is He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee and I in him For vnderstanding of this text he premiseth a destinction of two manners of abyding in Christ that is spiritually and naturally spiritually by right faith and sincere charitie as S. Cyrill doth teache and naturally by receiuing of Christes fleshe as S. Hillarie teacheth This distinction not being made by any doctour but deuised vpon occasion of termes vsed by the doctours to ouerthrowe the meaning of the doctours he pleaseth him verie much therein I haue shewed before that Hillarie by the worde naturally meaneth truelye that as Christ is truely ioyned vnto vs by taking on him our fleshe and we are truely ioyned to him by eating drinking his flesh vnder a sacrament and vnder a mysterie for both these termes of restreint he hath to shewe the manner of our eating to be sacramentall and mysticall not as M. Heskins would carnall and naturall so Christ is truely one with God not in vnitie of will only but in vnitie of Godhead in substance of diuinitie in essence of eternitie But let vs heare his owne wordes lib. 8. de Trinit Quod autem in eo c. But that we be in him by the sacrament or mysterie of his fleshe and bloud which is communicated vnto vs he testifieth him selfe saying And this world doth not nowe see mee but you shall see mee for I liue and ye also shall liue because I am in my father and you in mee and I in you c. But that this vnitie in vs is naturall he hath witnessed saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in mee I in him For there shall no man be in him but in whome he shal be hauing onely his assumpted flesh in him who hath taken his By this place out of which he would buyld his destinction of naturall and spirituall abyding the same is manifestly ouerthrowne For the drift of that distinction as he confesseth is to shewe that Christe may abyde naturally where he doth not abyde spiritually as in the wicked But the place of Hillarie is plain that where this naturall vnitie is Christe abydeth eternally therefore this naturall vnitie is not in the wicked Thus while Maister Heskins harpeth greedily vppon the terme naturally for the naturall presence of Christes bodie he looseth his distinction and with all his naturall presence also For if his bodie be not naturally receiued of the wicked it is not naturally present in the sacrament as all Papistes do confesse And further that this natural vnitie is after a spirituall manner it appeareth by the last wordes of the sentence That he in whome Christ dwelleth hath onely the assumpted flesh of Christ in him But this must needes be after a spirituall manner as the holie and innocent fleshe of Christe is made oures therefore this naturall vnitie he speaketh of is not in that sense naturall that Maister Heskins immagineth but after a diuine and vnspeakable manner For otherwise Godly men haue fleshe of their owne yea and sinfull fleshe which is not of the singular substance of the fleshe of Christe though
Maister Heskins so often confesseth to be onely profitable and which we finde in the scriptures and auncient doctors we haue the sacrament so perfectly boulted and fined to our hand that we acknowledge no branne or drosse at al to be in the bread neither yet any dregges at all in the cuppe whatsoeuer there is in the Popish challice which the priest hath sucked and licked so drie that there is not one droppe of the bloud of Christe in it to quench the thirst of the poore people The fiâ—e and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text and endeth it by Euthymius and Petrus Cluniacensis Euthymius is cited In 6. Ioan. following the exposition of Cyrillus as he doth often of the olde Greeke writers Si ergo videritis c. If therfore ye shal see the sonne of man ascending where he was before what will you say He speaketh of the assumption of him selfe into heauen ascending according to his humanitie where he was before according to his Diuinitie For he that can make this fleshe heauenly can also make it meate of men Maister Heskins inferreth vpon this saying that the argument of the ascention vsed by Christ is vaine to proue the spirituall eating but good to proue the reall eating of his fleshe Note here first that he counteth the argument of his ascention expounded and vsed by Augustine in the Chapter next before to be vaine Secondly although Cyrillus vseth the argument of Christes ascention to prooue that Christes flesh being eaten may as well giue life as it could ascend into heauen doth it therefore proue a reall corporal or carnal presence eating of Christes bodie which is taken away by his ascention But he saith The flesh of Christ was spiritually the meate of the holie fathers in the olde lawe therefore that needed not to be proued possible which was knowen so long before A wise reason as though Christ had to doe with faithfull Iewes and not with Infidels that neither knew nor beleeued any such matter or if hee had spoken to the Patriarches them selues as though they had knowne and vnderstoode the mysteries of Christ so distinctly and plainly that Christes instruction had bene needelesse to them But Maister Heskins in all his arguments and expositions almost setteth downe that as certeine and granted which is the whole matter in controuersie His meate is flesh in deede his flesh is not eaten spiritually c. He must haue an easie aduersarie or else he shall gaine litle by such petition of principles The saying of Petrus of Clunie though he be but a late writer conteineth more against him then for him for he denieth the mangling of Christs flesh after the Capernaites imaginations and teacheth that it is Diuided without paine parted without diminution and eaten without consumption because it is the spirite that quickeneth and because his fleshe beeing so receiued and vnderstoode giueth eternall life What can we here vnderstand but a spirituall receiuing The sixe and thirtieth Chapter createth of the next text by Augustine Chrysostome This text is this it is the spirite that quickeneth the fleshe profiteth nothing This text is made so familiar he saith that boyes and girles can blatter it against Christes presence in the sacrament as though they denied the vertue of his fleshe that denie your carnal presence in the sacrament But we must heare Saint Augustine Tract 27. In Ioan. Quid est quod adiâ—ngit c. What is that he ioyneth It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Let vs say vnto him for he suffreth vs not gainsaying but desirous to know O Lord good Maister how doeth not the flesh profite any thing when then hast said except a man eate my flesh drink my bloud he shal not haue life in him Doth not life profite any thing And wherfore are we that that we are but that we may haue eternal life which thou doest promise by thy flesh What then is it it profiteth not any thing The flesh profiteth nothing but as they vnderstoode it For they vnderstoode fleshe so as it is rent in peeces in a dead bodie or solde in the shambles not as it is quickened by the spirit It is therfore so saide the flesh profiteth nothing as it is saide knowledge puffeth vp a man Shall we nowe then hate knowledge God forbid And what it is then Knowledge pâ—ffeth vp beeing alone without charitie Therefore he added But charitie doth edifie Therefore adde charitie to knowledge and knowledge shal be profitable not by it selfe but by charitie So now likewise the fleshe profiteth nothing that is the fleshe alone But let the spirite come to the flesh as charitie commeth to knowledge and it profiteth verie much For if the flesh had profiâ—ed nothing the worde should not haue beene made flesh that it might dwell in vs If Christ haue profited vs much by his flesh how doeth the flesh profite nothing at all But the spirite by the flesh hath done some thing for our health The fleshe was that vessel marke what it had in it not what it was The Apostles were sent did their flesh profite nothing If the flesh of the Apostles profited vs not could our Lordes flesh not profite vs For how came the sound of the word vnto vs but by the voyce of the flesh From whence the stile From whence the writing All these workes be of the flesh but the spirite mouing it as his instrument Therefore it is the spirite which quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing As they vnderstoode flesh so do I not giue my flesh to be eaten Maister Heskins doth glorie that he bringeth not this sentence truncately as the heretiques do but wholy that the reader should not be defrauded of S. Augustines right meaning vpoÌ„ this scripture And here again he repeateth his rotten distinction that Christ giueth not his flesh by lumpes peeces yet giueth it corporally that S. Augustine meaneth none otherwise But as long a sentence as he rehearsed he hath omitted the very interpretation of his text in hand Which Augustine maketh in these wordes Quid est spiritus vita Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt What is spirite and life spiritually to be vnderstanded neither is there one worde in all that treatise for the corporall presence or receiuing And yet we coÌ„fesse that Christ truly giueth vs his fleshe we are truely fed therewith but not after a corporall maner but after a spiritual vnspeakable maner Chrysostome is cited hom 46. In Ioan. Quid igitur caro c. What then Doth the fleshe profite nothing He speaketh not of the very flesh God forbid but of them that carnally take those things that are spoken And what is it to vnderstand carnally Simply as the thinges are spoken and not to thinke any other thing of them For thâ—se thinges that are seene are not so to be iudged but all mysteries are to be considered with inwarde eyes that is spiritually
other cauil that followeth of lay men artificers preaching in open places ministring the sacramentes deserueth no answere for if they be admitted to the office beeing worthy thereof there is no doubt but they may as well now as in all ages of the Church they haue done neither are they to be takeÌ„ for laymen though they haue beene artificers Yet if they presume without calling and admission of the Church they are no more borne withall among vs then suche as counterfet themselues to be Priestes among the Papistes As Englishe Ioan did to clyme to the Papacie as of late a lewd fellow in Italie feigned himselfe to be a Cardinall as Stephanus in his defence of Herodotus doth witnesse We condemne according to the scriptures not only all intrusion of men without calling but all ambitious and symoniacall practises to procure the outward calling So farre off is it that we allowe euerie man of his owne fantasie to intrude himselfe as this man doth most vainely slaunder vs. The 8. Chap. exhorteth men to heare or to read the expositions of the scriptures not to presume vpon their own vnderstanding If there were nothing in this Chapter but answering to the title thereof I would willingly subscribe vnto it But after he hath exhorted as he promiseth by the counsell of Iames Salomon and Hieronyme that we should heare learne of them whom God hath appointed pastors and teachers in his Church he dissuadeth men also by the authoritie of Paule and Ecclesiasticus to appoint vnto them selues Elders or maisters to be carried about with new and straunge doctrines decreeth That they only are lawfull Elders that haue learned of their fathers For whiche cause Luther was no good Elder allowing women to teach openly contrary to Paul 1. Cor. 14. which is an impudent slaunder of Luther who by no meanes would haue women to teache except it were extraordinarily as the prophetesses of the olde time did namely Debora Holda such like Such stuffe is in the other slaunders That contrition maketh a man more sinner where Luther meaneth of that which is without faith therfore must needs be sinne That a righteous man in euery good worke sinneth mortally where he meaneth that sinne and imperfection is mixed euen with the best works not that good workes are sinne That is also a detestable lye that Luther should teach Euery Christian man to be a priest for the common or publique ministery wheras he neither thought nor spake otherwise then the scripture speaketh which hath made vs Kings Priests Apoc. 1. And no lesse is the slander of Zwinglius That he taught that originall offence is no sinne whereas the worlde knoweth that Zwinglius taught the contrarie and the Papistes come neerer to that errour whiche define it to be no sinne in the regenerate it is as false that he taught That Christian mens children neede not to be baptised As it is true that if they dye without baptisme without any coÌ„tempt of their part it is no cause of condeÌ„natioÌ„ vnto them The saying of Christ except a man be borne againe of water of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaueÌ„ maketh no more for the baptisme of infantes then his saying also except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man drinke his bloud ye haue no life in you maketh to proue that infants must receiue the coÌ„munion for neither in the one speaketh he of the sacrameÌ„t of baptisme nor in the other place of the sacrameÌ„t of his supper But where Luther doth often protest that he will not be taught by man but by God he doeth as euerie Christian man ought to do and yet excludeth not the ministerie of men but the authoritie doctrines traditions and inuentions of men which by Luciferian pride take vpon them to teache that they haue not learned of god But howe shall we vnderstand this saying of Maister Heskins speaking in despight of Luther This is another Paule As though only Paul wer called of God without the ministery of maÌ„ wheÌ„ all the Apostles were so or as though it were a reproche to be so called as Paul was if God do extraordinarily stir vp any man as he did the Apostles EuaÌ„gelistes After his deriding of Paul Zwinglius is condemned by that which Maister Heskins hath saide for writing a booke De claritate verbi Dei How wisely and iustly let the godly Readers iudge Next followeth generall rayling against Oecolampadius Bullingerus Caluinus Bucer of whom his aduersarie meaning I thinke the B. of Sarum learned his heresies then he returneth to vnlearned artificers teaching in corners All which he would haue to be auoyded I suppose because he hath rayled vpon them and called them heretiques for other reason he bringeth none Except this be one that Hieronyme thinketh it not sufficient if a man say he loueth God and yet breaketh the vnitie of the Church The Church once named by and by all is his As though it were no coÌ„trouersie at this day whether the Synagogue of Rome be the Church of God or no. And as though all Christendome had bene at all times and in all places obedient to the Churche of Rome before these fewe yeares And therfore he is bolde to demaunde where it was taught in the Christian worlde that Christes naturall bodie is not in the sacrament nor to be offered nor receiued nor honoured Nay Maister Heskins where was this taught in the affirmatiue for fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Christe As for your other questions of prayer for the dead and prayers to the dead if you bring any reasons for theÌ„ in this your OmnegatheruÌ„ they shal be answered otherwise the readers for me shall resort to other treatises where they be handled of purpose But seeing men must learne the law of their mother that is the Church they must follow Hieronyme which neuer ceased from his youth to seeke knowledge of learned men and trauelled to Alexandria to be instructed of Didymâ—s So did Augustine to Millain to learne of Ambrose No wise man will mislike this counsell But this one thing especially is notable That Damasus being bishop of Rome did send to S. Hieronyme to be answered in certein doubts and disdained not to learne of him I had thought the Pope had had all knowledge In scrinio pectoris in the closet of his brest that he had the spirite of trueth to resolue all doubtes so that he could not erre and that Hieronyme hauing him at Rome needed not to haue sought knowledge at Alexandria But Damasus although euen in that time a ioly stately Prelate as appeareth by some of his Epistles if they be not counterfet yet shewed himselfe farre from that Antichristian pride which the Popes of Rome I cannot say his successors did shew afterward and yet to this day do holde But to omitte Damasus Many learned of Saint Augustine and of other learned men also which were learned them selues They did wel
the 58. verse he concludeth and sayeth plainly that it is the same breade that came downe from heauen and that who so eateth of this breade shall liue eternally Secondly that the promise of giuing his flesh is not to be restrayned to the giuing of the sacrament his wordes are plaine that he will giue his fleshe for the life of the worlde which all true Christians will acknowledge to haue beene perfourmed in the sacrifice of his death and not at his last supper Finally that his flesh must not bee separated from his spirit nor his spirit from his flesh he doth as plainly teach vs when he affirmeth that it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing that except we eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud we haue no life in vs For neither the flesh profiteth but as it is made quickening by the spirite neither do we participate the life of his spirite but as it is communicated vnto vs by his fleshe by which we are made fleshe of his fleshe and bone of his bone which holie mysterie is liuely represented vnto vs in the blessed sacrament And this your aduersaries confesse Maister Heskins not denying as you charge them that any one worde of that Chapter perteineth to the sacrament but affirming the sacrament to bee a seale of the doctrine which is deliuered in that Chapter and not otherwise The iudgement of the olde writers consonant to this vnderstanding shall followe afterwarde in confutation of M. Heskins vngodly and hereticall distinction not of the two natures in Christ but of participation of the one without the other which hee maketh by his two last breades The thirde Chapter proueth by the doctours that the sixt of S. Iohn speaketh as well of the bread Christes fleshe in the sacrament as of the bread his godhead Chrysostom is alledged in Ioan 6. Hom. 44. Iam in mysteriorum c. Nowe will he come to the setting forth of the mysteryes and first of his godhead he sayeth thus I am the breade of life this was not spoken of his bodie of which about the ende he sayeth The breade which I will giue is my flesh but as yet of his godhead for that is bread because of God the worde euen as this bread because of the spirite comming to it is made heauenly breade Maister Heskins asketh if we do not here plainely see a distinction of breades I answere no forsooth but a distinction of two natures in one breade Againe he asketh Doth not nowe the sixt of S. Iohn speake of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament I aunswere that no such thing appeareth by these wordes of Chrysostome otherwise then as the sacrament is a liuely representation of that his bodie which he gaue for the life of the world And that Chrysostome meaneth not to diuide Christe into two breades as M. Heskins doth he teacheth speaking of the same mysterie of his coniunction with vs by his fleshe Hom. 45. Vester ego frater esse volui communicaui carnem propter vos sanguinem per quae vobis coniunctus sum ea rursus vobis exhibui I would be your brother and so I tooke parte of fleshe and bloud for you and the same things I haue giuen you againe by which I was ioyned vnto you So that not the godhead of Christ alone nor his flesh alone is giuen vs as two breades but Christ by his flesh is ioyned vnto vs as one bread of life Let vs nowe see what S. Augustine sayeth who expounding the same text writeth thus Our Lorde determineth consequently howe he calleth him selfe bread not onely after his godhead which feedeth all things but also after his humaine nature which is assumpted of the worde of God when he sayeth afterwarde And the bread which I will giue is my flesh c. Once againe M. Heskins asketh whether Augustine teach not a plaine difference of the bread of the Godhead of Christe and the bread of his manhood And once againe I aunswer not so but he teacheth directly the contratie namely Christe God and man to be one breade and not two breades And that the doctrine of this Chapter is not to be restrained vnto the sacrament the same Augustine in the same place teacheth abundantly while hee maketh no mention of the Lordes supper vntill he come to the ende and then sheweth that the mysterie of this fleshe and bloud is represented in the supper when it is celebrated of the Church in remembrance of his death passiō Huius rei sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis sanguinis Christi alicubi quotidie alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Dominica mensa praeparatur 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 bloud of Christ in some places euery day in other some at certeine space of dayes betweene is prepared in the Lordes table and is taken at the Lordes table of some vnto life of some vnto to destruction But the thing it selfe whose sacrament it is to all men is to life and to no man for destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker thereof Note here also the distinction betweene the sacrament and the thing wherof it is a sacrament and that the sacrament may be receiued to destruction but not the thing or matter of the sacrament which is the bodie and bloud of Christ. To these Barones he wil ioyne two Burgesses and the first shal be Theophylact one of them which he sayeth is well towarde a thousand yeare olde Hee woulde fayne get him credite by his antiquitie but he ouer reacheth too farre to make him so auncient which cometh nerer to fiue hundred then to a thousande yeares But let vs consider his speache in 6 Ioan. he writeth thus Manifestè c. He speaketh manifestly in this place of the communion of his bodie For the bread sayeth he which I will giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world And shewing his power that not as a seruant nor as one lesse them his father he should be crucified but voluntarily he sayeth I will giue my flesh for the life of the world Note sayth M. Hesk. that Christ spake manifestly of the communion of his bodie Who doubteth or denyeth that but that he spake not of the communion of his bodie which we receiue in the sacramēt Note saye I that Theophylact speaketh manifestly of his crucifying and nor of the communion in the sacrament After this he interlaceth a fond excourse of the authoritie of the later writers whome he affirmeth and wee confesse to haue written plainly of his side whereas hee sayeth the olde writers did write obscurely and then he taxeth Bullinger for alledging Zwinglius whome he slaundereth to haue
beene slaine in a sedition raysed by him where as the worlde knoweth it was in warre that was helde in defence of his countrie The like foolish quarell he hath for putting out of Polycarpus out of the Calender placing Thomas Hutten in his stood all which as vnworthie any aunswer I passe ouer it is sufficiently knowen what Bullinger esteemed of mâ—ns authoritie what Fox if he meane him iudged of the old Martyrs diuinitie The other reasons following I could scarse read without loathsomnesse that preachers must ceasse if writers may not be receiued vnder 1000 yeres antiquitie more that speaking writing are of like authority and such like blockish stuffe The elder writers are allowed not for their age but for their agreement with the worde of God the later preachers are beleeued not for that their speaking is better then Papistes writing but because they speake thinges consonant to the word of God the touchstone and triall of trueth And therefore we receiue not the testimonie of Nicholaus de Lyra the second Burgesse because it is contrarie to the word of God and the consent of the elder Doctours that Christ speaketh of the sacrament when he saith the bread which I will giue is my fleshe which wordes Theophylacte euen nowe affirmed to be spoken of the passion of Christ. The fourth Chapter beginneth a further proofe of the former master by S. Cyprian and Euthymius For proof of the two breads that the text The bread which I will giue is my flesh c. is ment of the sacrament Cyprian is alledged although the place be not quoted but it is in the sermon vpoÌ„ the Lords prayer in these words Panis vitae Christus est c. Christ is the bread of life and he is not the bread of all men but our bread And as we say our father because he is the father of theÌ„ that vnderstand beleeue so we call it our bread because Christ is our bread which touche his body And this bread we pray to be giuen vs daily least we that are in Christe and daily receiue the Eucharistie to the meate of health some greeuous offence comming betweene while beeing separated and not communicating we be forbidden from that heauenly bread we be separated from the body of Christ he himselfe openly saying and warning I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and the bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde Howsoeuer M. Hesk. would falsly gather out of this place Cyprian maketh not two breades but one bread of life Christ God man as for the two respects of his Godhead manhoode that he prateth of cannot make Christ to be two breads but one true foode of our soules And that Cyprian doth apply this text to the sacrament only it is utterly false in that he saith we must pray for this daily bread Christ to feede vs although for some greeuous offence we be restrained from the sacrament as is also euident by these words that follow Quando ergo dicit in aeternum viuere si quis ederit de tius pane vt manifestum est cos vinera qui corpus eius 〈◊〉 Eucharistitum â—â—re coÌ„municationis accipiunt ita contrae timenduÌ„ est erandum ne dam quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore procul remaneat a salute comminante ipso dicente Nist ederitis carnem fâ—ij hominis biberiâ—is sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis Et ideo panem nostrium id est Christum dari nobis quoâ—idie petimus vt qui in Christo manemus vinimus a sanctificatione corpore eius non recedamus Therefore when he saith that he liueth for euer whosoeuer shal eate of his bread as it is manifest that they do liue which touch or come neare vnto his body and by the right of communication receiue the sacrament of thankesgiuing so contrariwise it is to be feared and to be prayed for lest while any being sequestred is separated from the body of Christe he remaine farre from health he himselfe threatening saying except ye shal eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you And therefore we pray daily that our bread that is to say Christ may be giuen to vs daily that we which remaine liue in Christ go not away from sanctification and his bodie In these wordes as in the former Cyprian directly referreth that text to our spirituall communication with the body of Christ by right of which communication we receiue the sacrament thereof And this participation of Christ he calleth Contingere attingere corpus Christi not to touch his body with our teeth or mouth in that sacrameÌ„t as M. Heskins dreameth Here followeth Euthymius of whose antiquitie we haue spoken in the first booke Neuerthelesse we wil examine his saying which is this In 6. Ioan. Duobus modis c. Christ is saide to be bread two wayes that is after his godhead and after his manhood therefore when he had taught the manner which is after his godhead now doeth he also teach the manner which is after his manhoode For he did not say which I do giue but which I will giue for he would giue it in his last supper when thankes being giuen he tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and saide take eate this is my body M. Heskins maruelleth that the aduersaries cheekes waxe not redd for shame to see so plaine a sentence against them But if we knew not that Maister Heskins had beene as impudent as a frier we might maruell that he was not ashamed first to alledge Euthymius as a writer within 6. hundreth yeares after Christ who liued about the yeare of our Lorde 1180. And secondly to make two breads of that which Euthymius saith to be one bread after two manners Finally although Euthymius referred this text to the sacrament yet saith he nothing for the carnall presence in as much as it is manifest that Christ spake there of a spiritual communication of his fleshe or else all infantes are damned that receiue not the sacrament The fift Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by S. Augustine and Chrysostome S. Augustine is alledged De Agricultura agri Dominici a treatise of no account for the authoritie being falsely intituled to Augustine which was the worke of a farre later writer The wordes neuerthelesse are these The table of thy spouse hath whole bread and a holy cuppe which bread although we haue seene broken and brused in his passion yet he remained whole in that his indiuided vnity with his father Of this bread and of this cup our Lorde himselfe saide The bread which I will giue is my fleshe for the life of the world and the cuppe which I wil sanctifie is my bloud which shal
beginning of this Chapter â–ª he saith there was neuer heretiques but had some shew of argumentes to auouche his heresie and bringeth in diuerse examples only the proclaymer made no argument in his 〈◊〉 for that he would haue the people receiue his bare proclamation What arguments he vsed let the world iudge the Papistes if they can study to answer him But Oecolampadius he saith hath heaped vp scriptures to proue the ascention of Christ which the Papistes doe graunt yet acknowledge his presence on the earth in the sacrament as though his departing out of the world and presence in the world concerning his bodily presence could stand together Then he flyeth to his diuine power by which he is able to be present in diuerse places as well as do such and such miracles as he rehearseth and wisheth that we should not be so streight and cruell to the body of Christ as to giue it no greater prerogatiue then vnto any other body Verily we do acknowledge as great prerogatiue thereof as he himselfe hath giuen it whereof we haue vnderstanding by his holy worde and otherwise it were madnesse in vs to take vpon vs to be liberall to him which giueth all thinges And if we found as good authoritie for the vbiquitie or pluralitie of placing of his body as we finde for the feeding vs thereby into eternall life we would as easily confesse the one as we doe the other But we finde not in deede as M. Heskins saith that he himselfe hath giuen or would giue his body that prerogatiue to be euery where or in more places then one at once As for the possibilitie we extend it no further then his will. We know he can do what soeuer he will. And many thinges we know he cannot do because he wil not But M. Heskins to assure vs of his will hath nothing to bring but that which is al the controuersie which most impudently he affirmeth that he hath proued both by scriptures and doctours that Christ hath caused his bodie to be in diuers places at one time which neither scripture nor any Doctour of antiquitie euer did affirme in proper manner of speaking otherwise in figuratiue speech we may truly say we eate in the sacrament the body of Christe which is in heauen when to speake properly and without figure we eate but the bread which to the faithfull receiuer is a sacrament and seale of our spirituall nourishment whiche we receiue of his flesh and bloud after a diuine and vnspeakable manner vnto eternall life saith rather lifting vs vp into heauen then bringing Christes body into the earth Maister Heskins saith the scriptures that say Christ is in heauen speake without exclusiues or exceptiues and therefore there is no denial imployed but that he may be beleeued to be also on the earth in the sacrament When Peter in the Actes 3. affirmeth that Christ must be conteined in heauen which is meant of his humanitie vntill the time of restoring of all thinges is not this an exclusion of all other places or beeings of his humanitie When Paule to the Colossians Colo. 3. willeth them to seeke those thinges that are aboue and where Christ is at the right hand of God to set their mindes on thinges aboue and not on things vpon the earth is not the reâ—son because Christ concerning his humanitie is aboue not vpon earth Is not this an exclusiue and exception When Christe sayeth not only I goe to my father but also I leaue the worlde Ioan. 16. Whiche saying the Apostles confessed to be plaine and without all parable Is not this a manifest exclusion of his bodily presence from the worlde So that it is manifest that this ascention and abiding in heauen concerning his humane nature in which he ascended is an excluding and shutting out and denying of all other places or presences of his bodie then to be in heauen only But now that he hath thus tombled vp the authorities of the scripture he wil take in hand to answer the obiections brought out of the Doctours And first shal be the saying of Augustine Ad Dardanum ep 57. Which place contrarie to his bragg in the beginning he alledgeth truncatly by halfe beginning at the middest thereof But this place is in Augustine Et sic venturus est illa angelica voce testante quemadmodum ire visus est in Coelum id est in eadem carnis forma atque substantia cui profectò immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstulis Secundùm hanc formam non est putandus vbique diffusus And he shall come euen so as that voyce of the Angel doth testifie euen as he was seene to go into heauen that is in the same fourme and substance of his fleshe to which truly he hath giuen immortalitie but he hath not taken the nature from it According to this fourme he is not thought to be diffused in all places All this hath Heskins left out and beginneth thus Cauendum est enim no ita veritatem astruâ—muâ— hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus Non est enim consequens vt quod no Deo est ita sit vbique vt Deus For we must beware that we doe not so affirme the Deitie of the man that we take away the trueth of his body For it is no consequent that that which is in God should so be euerie where as God is Note here that Saint Augustine doeth not onely flatly denie the vbiquitie of Christes body but also affirmeth that it reteineth still the nature of a bodie which is to be conteined in one onely place Againe he sayeth in the same Epistle Iesus vbique per id quod Deus est in coelo autem per id quod homo est Iesus by that he is God is euerie where by that he is man he is in heauen Nowe let vs heare howe wisely Maister Heskins will auoide this authoritie First he sayeth that Augustine in this epistle speaketh not of the sacrament and therefore these sentences make not against that matter But when Augustine speaketh generally of the bodie of Christ that it reteineth the nature of a body that it is not euerie where c. he doeth not except the sacrament Although it is false that Heskins saith for in the latter end of that Epistle he hath these wordes Huius corporis caput est Christus huius corporis vnitas nostro sacrificio commendatur The head of this bodie is Christ the vnitie of this bodie is commended in our sacrifice By sacrifice as Maister Heskins will confesse he meaneth the celebration of the sacrament Wherefore he forgate not the sacrament in that Epistle but that he might haue made exception thereof if he had thought good The seconde aunswere of Maister Heskins is a balde distinction that a thing may be at one time in many places two wayes the one is by nature the other by gifte By nature he confesseth that the body of Christe can not be in two places
to the end of the worlde he is both gone away and is here is come againe and hath not forsaken vs For he hath carried his bodie into heauen he hath not taken away his Maiestie from the worlde And in the same treatise speaking of his presence in the sacrament Si bonus es ad corpus Christi pertines quod significat Petrus habes Christum in praesenti in futuro In presenti per fidem in praesenti per signum in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum If thou be a good man and perteynest to the bodie of Christe thou hast that which Peter doeth signifie that is Christ in present and in that which is to come In present by faith in present by signe in present by the sacrament of baptisme in present by the meate and drinke of the altar And againe Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundùm Maiestatem suam secundùm prouidentiam secundùm ineffabilem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus vsque ad consuÌ„mationem saeculi Secundùm carnem verò quam verbum sumpsit secundùm id quod de virgine natus est secundùm id quod a Iudae is prÄ™hensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis inuolutus quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare quoniam conuersatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hic est non enim recessit prÄ™sentia maiestatis Aliter secundùm praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundùm prÄ™sentiam carnis rectè est discipulis Me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundùm praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modò fide tenet oculis non videt c. That is He spake of the presence of his bodie For according to his Maiestie according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled that was saide of him Beholde I am with you all the dayes vnto the end of the worlde But according to the fleshe which the worde tooke vpon him according to that he was born of the virgin according to that he was taken of the Iewes that he was crucified on the tree that he was taken down from the crosse that he was wrapped in linnen clothes that he was laied in the sepulchre that he was openly shewed in his resurrection you shall not always haue me with you Why so because he was conuersant with his disciples according to the presence of his body by the space of 40. dayes and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he ascended into heauen and is not here For there he is where he sitteth at the right hand of his father And he is here also For he is not departed concerning the presence of his Maiestie otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes But according to the presence of his flesh it was well saide to his disciples but me shall ye not alwayes haue For according to the presence of his flesh the Church had him a few dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eyes These places and such like of which a number might be brought out of diuers authours I wish the Readers to consider for the presence of his body in the worlde or in many places at one time and to see how they will stande with Popish transubstantiation The thirteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of an other text in the sixt of Saint Ioan. The text he meaneth is this Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you That this should be spoken of in the sacrament of the Lordes supper he wil proue by this reason as a man must haue birth and nourishment so there be two sacraments baptisme the supper by which we are born and nourished vnto eternal life and both necessarie for as Christ speaketh here of the one so to Nicodemus he speaketh of the other except a man be borne of water and of the spirite c. But seeing he himselfe denieth the necessitie of the one and of the other but in them that are of type age c. it is manifest that neither the one place is of baptisme nor the of the other supper but as these sacramentes are seales to testifie the grace of regeneration preseruation But if his reason faile the doctours interpretation shall helpe namely Cyprian and Theophylacte The place of Cyprian hath bene already rehearsed and â—onsidered in the fourth Chapter of this booke whether I referre the Reader for breuitie sake The other place cited by Maister Heskins to proue that Cyprian by this word Eucharistia meaneth the bodie of Christ is Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra legem Euangelij c. They contrarie to the lawe of the Gospell and also your honourable petition before penance done and before confession made of their most greeuous and extreeme offence before hand was laide on them by the Bishop and the Cleargie for repentance dare be bolde to offer for them and giue them the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing that is to prophane the holy bodie of our Lorde Thus much Heskins rehearseth but Cyprian proceedeth Cum scriptum sit c. Seeing it is writen he that eateth this bread and drinketh this cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shal be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lorde By these wordes which Maister Heskins concealeth it is apparent how they did prophane the bodie of Christ that gaue the sacrament to vnpenitent offenders namely in that sense which S. Paule saith they are guiltie of the death of Christ. That Theophylacte vnderstandeth this text of the receiuing of the Diuine mysteries and requireth faith in the receiuers although it make litle for his purpose yet because he is a late writer I will not spende time about his authoritie The fourteenth Chapter expoundeth the same text by S. Augustine and Cyrill Out of Saint Augustine are alledged foure places one In Ioan. Tra. 36. Quomodo quidem detur c. How it is giuen and what is the manner of the eating of this bread ye knowe not Neuerthelesse except ye eate that flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you This did he speake not to dead carkases but to liuing men By this place sayeth Maister Heskins is proued that the Iewes knewe not the manner of eating of Christes fleshe in the sacrament And no maruell for his disciples did not yet knowe it nor could before the sacrament was instituted and therefore
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
gather that Augustine doth acknowledge both spiritual and corporal receiuing by like bicause he saith that many euil men do eat and drinke the body bloud of Christ in a sacrament but what he meaneth is plain by his owne words in the same treatise Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio nec maÌ„ducat spiritualiter carnem eiuâ— nec bibit eius sanguinem licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus saecramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat bibit This it is therefore to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ to haue him abiding in him And by this he that abideth not in Christe and in whome Christ abideth not out of dout neither eateth spiritually his flesh nor drinketh his bloud although carnally and visibly hee presse with his teeth the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ but rather eateth and drinketh to his owne damnation the sacrament of so excellent a thing And that the wicked receiue not Christ at all neither spiritually nor corporally he writeth in the 59. Tr. in Ioan. Illi manducabant panem Dominum ille panem Domini contra dominum illi vitam ille poenam They meaning the Apostles did eat the bread which was our Lorde but he meaning Iudas did eat the Lords bread against the Lord they did eate life hee did eat punishment Here he denyeth that Iudas did eat Christe who did only eat the bread which Christ gaue him and not that bread which was Christe as the rest did But nowe let vs see howe Cyrillus doth expound this text of the sacrament In 15. Ioan. Mariet enim c. Both the natures abide inuiolated and of them both Christâ— is one but vnspeakably and beyonde that mans mynde can vnderstand The woorde conioyned to the manhoode hath so reduced it wholy into him selfe that it is able to giue life to thinges lacking life So hath it expelled destruction from the nature of man and death which by sinne was very strong it hath destroyed Wherefore he that eateth the flesh of Christ hath euerlasting life For this flesh hath the word of God which is naturally life Therefore he saith and I will raise him againe in the last day He said I that is my body that shall be eaten shall raise him again For he is none other then his flesh I say not that bicause he is none other by nature but bicause after his incarnation he suffereth not him selfe to be diuided into two sonnes I therefore saith he which am made man by my flesh in the last day will raise them vp which do eat it But yet an other place of Cyrill In 6. Ioan. Cap. 14 Oportet c. Truely it must needes so haue bene that not only the soule by the holy Ghost should ascend into blessed life but also that this rude and earthly body by a like natured taste touching and meate should be brought to immortalitie In neither of both these sentences is one worde of the sacrament and thereforâ— they fauour M. Hesk. exposition as much as nothing at al. The eighteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text in the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn by Origen and S. Ambrose The text is My flesh is verily meat and my bloud is verily drinke And here hee maketh a fond and childish discourse of the difference of verus cibus true meate and verè cibus meate in deede or verily meate Which distinction is confounded by Origen one of his pretended expositors in the very text by him alledged and in many other places of his workes where he speaketh of this text But to the exposition before he commeth to Origen hee toucheth a place of Chrysostome That reipsa conuertimur in â—arnem Christi in very deede we are turned into the flesh of Christ. Which wordes if they be not vnderstoode of a spirituall conuersion good Lord what a monstrous transubstantion shall we haue of our flesh into the flesh of Christ But Papistes had rather mingle heauen and earth together then they will depart from their prodigious absurdities But to Origen in Num. Hom. 7. Lex Dei c. The lawe of God is not nowe knowen in figures and images as before but euen in plaine trueth and such things as were before set forth in a dark speache are nowe fulfilled in plaine maner trueth Of which things these that followe are some Antea in aenigmate fuit baptismus in nube in mari nunc autem in specie regeneratio est in aqua Spiritu sancto Tunc in aenigmate erat Manna cibus nunc autem in specie caro verbi Dei verus cibus sicut ipse dicit Caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potur Before Baptisme was in a darke manner in the clowde and in the sâ—â— but nowe regeneration is in plaine manner in water and the holie Ghost Then Manna was the meate in a darke manner But nowe the fleshe of the worde of God is the true meate in a plaine maner as he him selfe sayth my fleshe is meat in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede In these wordes Origen teacheth that the sacramentes of the Gospell are cleare and plaine whereas in the lawe they were obscure and darke Neither doth he denye that the Gospell hath figures but affirmeth it hath none other figures but such as serue to open and set forth the mysteries more plainly whereas the ceremonies of the olde lawe did rather hide and couer them And if it be true as M. Heskins sayeth that the Gospell hath no figures I woulde knowe what be all the ceremonies of the Popish Church figures of the Gospell or false inuentions of men But if wee will beleeue him our onely spirituall receiuing is impugned by Origen In what wordes good sir he answereth The fleshe of the sonne of God is eaten in verie plaine manner And may not this be spiritually as well as regeneration is spiritually wrought in baptisme and yet in the same playne manner that this eating is spoken of But let vs heare what Origâ—n him selfe will say in the same booke Hom. 16. Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem Christi non solùm sacramentorum ritu sed cum sermones eius recipimuâ— in quibus vita consistit sicut ipse dicit c. We are sayde to drinke the bloud of Christe not onely in the ceremonie of the sacramentes but also when wee receiue his sayings in which life consisteth as he him selfe saith In these wordes hee teacheth such a drinking in the sacramentes as in beleeuing his woorde and therefore it must needes bee spirituall and not carnall And as the cloud and Sea was baptisme so was Manna
it be of the nature and kinde thereof but corrupted with sinne as his neuer was Thus the shewe that Maister Heskins would make by snatching at one worde misunderstoode by a little diligence vsed in discussing the sentence is turned altogether against him both in shewe and purpose of the author The other place he citeth though he citeth it truncately contrarie to his promise in his preface I will cite it whole as I did before in the 20. Chap. of this book If the worde in deede be made flesh and we do verily eat the word made fleshe in the Lordes meate howe is he not to be esteemed to dwell naturally in vs which being borne a man hath taken vppon him the nature of our fleshe nowe inseparable and hath ioyned the nature of his fleshe vnto the nature of aeternitie vnder a sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated to vs For so wee are all one because the father is in Christ and Christ is in vs Therefore whosoeuer shall denye the father to be naturally in Christ let him first denye that either he is naturally in Christe or Christ is in him For the father being in Christ and Christ in vs do make vs to be one in them Therefore if Christ did verily take vppon him the fleshe of our bodie and that man which was borne of Marie is verely Christe and we do verily receiue the fleshe of Christe vnder a mysterie and by this shal be one because the father is in him and he in vs how is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by a sacrament is the sacrament of perfect vnitie In these wordes the fleshe of Christe is communicated vnto vs but vnder a sacrament wee eate the fleshe of his bodie but vnder a mysterie the naturall propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfecte vnitie And besides all this marke that this naturall vnitie is such as thereby we are vnited to the father and being vnited to the father by Christ it must needes followe that we are made partakers of eternitie which no wicked men are therefore wicked men receiue not Christ naturally nor spiritually and so the distinction remaineth without a difference But nowe we come to S. Augustine of whome he borroweth the other parte of his distinction Tract 26. in Ioan. Denique iam Nowe at the last he expoundeth how that may be done which he speaketh and what it is to eate his bodie and drinke his bloud He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloude abydeth in mee I in him This it is therefore to eat that meate and to drinke that bloude to abide in Christ and to haue him abyding in him And by this hee that abideth not in Christ and in whome Christe abydeth not out of all doubt neither eateth his fleshe spiritually nor drinketh his his bloude although carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christe But rather hee eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation because he being vncleane presumed to come to the sacraments of Christe which no man receiueth worthily but hee which is cleane of whome it is sayed blessed are the cleane of hart for they shall see God. S. Augustine in these words maketh a distinctiō of eating the sacrament of the bodie bloud of Christ of eating the bodie and bloud of Christ and not onely of eating spiritually eating carnally shewing that spiritually the fleshe of Christ is eaten carnally the sacrament which were vaine if bothe were one And the whole discourse of that treatise is against that carnall eating of the bodie and bloud of Christ which M. Heskins himselfe confesseth to be vnprofitable yea damnable without the spirituall eating whereas the spirituall eating vndoubtedly causeth eternall life But better to vphold this distinction of Christes naturall spirituall abyding he citeth a testimonie out of the 11. Sermon de verbis Dom. in Euangelio vnder the name of Augustine which whether it be rightly intituled to him I will not contende The wordes are these Illud etiam c. This also that he sayeth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee I in him how shall we vnderstand Can wee take them here also of whome the Apostle sayth that they eate and drinke their owne damnation when they eat that fleshe and drinke that bloude Did Iudas also the seller and vngodly betrayer of his maister although he did eat and drinke that first sacrament of his flesh and his bloud made with his own hands with the rest of the disciples as Luke the Euangelist declareth more plainly did he abyde in Christ or Christ in him Finally many which either with fained heart do eat that fleshe and drinke that bloud or when they haue eaten and dronken they become Apostataes do they abyde in Christ or Christ in them But truely there is a certeine manner of eating that fleshe and drinking that bloude after which manner he that shall eate and drinke abydeth in Christ Christ in him We must receiue this authoritie so that it may stande with all the rest of the vndoubted workes of Augustine we must be as bold to distinguish the words fleshe and bloud as M. Heskins is the spirituall and naturall eating By flesh and bloud aequiuocally he vnderstandeth the sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christe as where he sayeth that Iudas did eate the sacrament of his flesh and bloud he doth him selfe declare And then he distinguisheth of the manner of eating for the sacrament as Augustine sayth is eaten of both wicked and godly but the matter of the sacrament is not eaten but to eternall life And that Iudas did not eate the breade that was the Lorde as we alledged before and Prosper in his collections out of Augustine plainly defineth He that disagreeth from Christe neither eateth his breade not drinketh his bloud although he dayly receiue the sacrament of so excellent a matter vnto condemnation of his presumption Wherefore although we shoulde receiue this authoritie yet it proueth not that wicked men receiue the fleshe of Christ but onely the sacrament thereof which is in some manner of speaking called the fleshe of Christ as Augustine euery where affirmeth Finally what a blasphemous absurditie is it to say that Christ dwelleth naturally in wicked men in whome he is not spiritually and that his flesh is there where his quickening spirite doth not worke The fiue twentieth Chapter proceadeth in the exposition of the same by Chrysostome S. Gregorie Chrysostome is cited Hom. 45. in Ioan. Qui manducat c. He that eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloud dwelleth in mee I in him which he sayeth that he may shewe him selfe to be ioyned vnto him M Heskins translateth mingled with him And what this mingling is he willeth vs to remember what this author sayeth in the same Homilye that wee should not onely by loue but in verie
deede be turned into his fleshe it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath giuen vnto vs. I will aske no better interpretation for this must either be a spirituall and vnspeakeable manner of conuersion or else it would be a monsterous and blasphemous transmutation of our flesh into the flesh of Christ as I haue diuerse times before noted of this place But what sayeth S. Gregorie in Iob. Cap. 6. Natus Dominus c. Our Lorde being borne is layd in the manger that it might be signified that the holie beaster which long vnder the lawe were founde fasting should be filled with the haye of his incarnation Being borne he filled the manger who gaue him selfe to be meate to mennes mindes saying he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in me and I in him What winneth M. Heskins by this place it is the meate of the soule therefore it must be spiritually receiued Or if hee will not haue it onely spiritually receiued wherefore serueth the text alledged which he affirmeth to be verified onely in them that receiue spiritually But we must heare further out of Gregorie in Hom. Pasc. Quid namque c. For what the bloud of the lambe is you haue not nowe learned by hearing but by drinking which it put vpon bothe the postes when it is not dronke onely with the mouth of the bodie but also with the mouth of the heart What newes haue we here forsooth Christes bloud dronke with mouth of bodie and mouth of heart I heare him say the bloud of the Pascall lambe which he sayth doth figure the sacrament is so dronke but not the naturall bloud of Christ. Why then marke what he sayeth soone after Qui sic c. Hee that so taketh the bloud of his redeemer that he will not yet followe his passion he hath put the bloud on the one post In this allegorie if he call the sacrament of Christes bloude the redeemers bloud as he calleth it the bloud of the lambe what great marueile is it or what great matter is it the whole speache being figuratiue both allegoricall and metonymicall The sixe and twentieth Chapter continueth this exposition by Saint Cyrill and Lyra. Cyrill is cited in Ioan. Cap. 15. Qui manducat c. Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee I in him Whereuppon it is to be considered that not by disposition onely which is vnderstoode by charitie Christ is in vs but also by a naturall participation For as if a man do so mingle waxe that is melted with fire vnto other waxe likewise melted that one thing seeme to be made of them both so by the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christe he is in vs and wee in him For this corruptible nature of our bodye coulde not otherwise bee brought to incorruptiblenesse and life except the bodie of naturall life were ioyned to it By these wordes Cyrill teacheth that wee are ioyned to the naturall fleshe of Christe so that by participation thereof wee are made one with him but wicked men are not made one with Christe nor partakers of incorruptiblenesse therefore wicked men are not ioyned to Christe by that naturall participation he speaketh of and consequently Christe is not corporally receiued of them nor of any other Yet Maister Heskins noteth as his manner is a plaine place for Maister Iewell when he saith we do partake the naturall flesh bloud of Christe Which wee alwayes confesse but wee partake it spiritually by faith and haue eternall life thereby therefore wicked men partake it not which want both the meane and the effect Thus Cyrill beeing aunswered wee force not vpon Lyra. As for that which followeth in the Chapter to shewe that by participation of Christes fleshe wee are not deliuered from temporall death but from eternall destruction being no matter of question I passe ouer as needelesse The seuen and twentieth Chapter abydeth in the same exposition by Theophylact and Ruperius Tuicen Although there is no greate matter in the speache of the two Burgesses to helpe maister Heskins purpose yet because they are too young to beare witnesse in this cause I will not trouble my selfe nor my reader either to rehearse them or to make aunswere to them The eyght and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Haimo Euthymius As for fryer Haimo I leaue him to M. Hesk. although in the words cited by him he sayeth nothing greatly to his intent But for as much as Euthymius Zigabonus â–ª doeth often borrowe his expositions of the old doctours though he him selfe be not so auncient a writer I will rehearse his testimonie in Math. 26. Si de vno c. If all we that are faithfull do partake of one bodie and bloud wee are all one by the participation of these mysteries and we are all in Christ and Christ is in vs all He sayth he that eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloude dwelleth in mee and I in him For the WORDE by assumption was vnited to flesh and againe the flesh is vnited to vs by participation Here M. Heskins noteth a plaine proofe of the presence against the proclaimer How so the naturall fleshe was vnited to the sonne of God and the sonne is vnited to vs by participation What else but this participation is by faith and causeth vs to bee one with Christe and Christe in vs all and is not in the wicked which thing Maister Heskins with a dry foote passeth ouer as also in translation he omitteth the word fideles all wee that are faithfull because he woulde haue the ignorant to thinke that the vnfaithfull do partake the same flesh as truely as the faithfull The nine and twentieth Chapter expoundeth the next texte that followeth in the sixt of Saint Iohn by Saint Augustine and S. Cyrill The text is this As the liuing father sent mee and I liue for the father and he that eateth mee shall liue also for mee or by the meanes of mee In exposition of this text he will onely declare by Saint Augustine Howe Christ liueth by the father which because it is no matter of controuersie betwixt vs I do altogether omitt come to Cyrillus whose wordes concerning anâ— thing our question are these for the rest as impertinent I passe ouer Quemaedmodum ego factus c. As I am made man by the will of my father and liue by the father because I haue naturally flowed out of that life which is so of nature perfectly do keepe the nature of my father so that I also am naturally life euen so he that eateth my fleshe shall liue for mee being wholly reformed vnto mee which am life and am able to giue life And he sayeth that he him selfe is eaten when his fleshe is â—aten Because the worde was made fleshe not by confusion of natures but by the unspeakable manner of vnion Here Maister Heskins noteth that Christe is
Psalm 98. to proue that he denieth the giuing of his bodie by lumpes or peeces But the place is altogether against him if he had alledged the whole and not cut it off in the waste Tunc autem c. Then when our Lorde setting foorth this had spoken of his flesh and had saide except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue in him life euerlasting Some of the seuentie were offended and saide This is an harde saying who can vnderstand it And they departed from him and walked no more with him It seemed a harde thing to them which he saide Except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue eternall life They tooke it foolishly they thought of it carnally and they thought that our LORDE would cut certeine peeces of his bodie and giue them and they saide this is an harde saying Here stayeth Maister Heskins but it followeth in Augustine Ille aâ—tem instruxit eos c. But he instructed them and saith vnto them it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life Vnderstand you spiritually that which I haue spoken You shal not eate this bodie which you see drinke that bloud which they shal shed which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a certeine sacrament or mysterie which beeing vnderstoode spiritually shall giue you life Although it be needefull that it be celebrated visibly yet it must be vnderstoode inuisibly In these wordes Augustine denieth not onely the giuing of his bodie in peeces but all maner of corporall eating of his naturall and visible bodie and aduoucheth onely a spirituall vnderstanding of this text that we haue beene so long in expounding But M. Heskins willeth vs not to triumph before the victorie for Augustine In sermo ad Neophy hath a plaine place for M. Iewel Hoc accipite in pane c. Take ye this in the bread that did hang on the crosse Take ye this in the challice that was shed out of the side of christ He shall haue death not life that thinketh Christe a lyar If M. Heskins had expressed in what booke or â—ome I should haue sought for this sermon Ad Norphil he might haue spared me a great deale of labour which I haue lost in searching for it and yet cannot finde it There are many homilies and sermons of Augustine Ad Neophyl and yet in none of them can I reade that whiche he aduouched out of him It seemeth therefore that this place is taken out of some later writer that without iudgement ascribeth it to Augustine which is not to be found in his workes And yet the saying is not such but that it may haue a reasonable interpretatioÌ„ for the bread after a certein maner as Augustine speaketh is that which did hang on the crosse the wine is that which was shed out of his side that is sacrameÌ„tally but not naturally or after a bodily maner S. Cyril followeth ca. 22. sup 6. Ioan. Ex imperitia multi c. Many that folowed Christ for lack of knowledge not vnderstanding his wordes were troubled For when they had hearde Verily verily I say vnto you Except you shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you they thought they had bene called by Christ to the cruell manners of wilde beastes and prouoked that they would eate the rawe flesh of a man and drinke bloud which are euen horrible to be heard for they had not yet knowen the fourme and most goodly dispensation of this mysterie This also moreouer they did thinke howe shall the flesh of this man giue vs eternall life Or how can he bring vs to immortalitie Which things when he vnderstod to whose eyes all things are bare and open he driueth them to the faith by an other maruelous thing Without cause saith he O syre are ye troubled for my words And if you will not beleeue that life is giuen by my bodie vnto you what will you do when you see me flie vp into heauen I doe not onely say that I will ascend least you should aske againe how that should be but you shall see it with your eyes so to be done Therfore what will you say when you see this Shall not this be a great argument of your madnesse For if you thinke that my fleshe can not bring life vnto you how shall it ascend into heauen like a birde How shall it flye into the ayre For this is a like impossible to mankinde And if my fleshe beside nature shall ascende into heauen what letteth but it may likewise beside nature giue life Cyrill noteth as M. Heskins saith two vaine thoughtes of the Capernaites one of eating raw the flesh of Christ the other how that flesh shuld giue life the latter he answereth at large the other breefely they vnderstoode not the fourme and dispensation of the mysterie by which he meaneth the spirituall mysticall maner of receiuing his bodie cleane contrarie to their grosse imagination for otherwise the ascention of Christe would not answere that doubt but increase it Maister Heskins citeth another text to shewe the power of Christes fleshe whiche is needelesse for it is confessed of vs to be such as he himselfe hath declared it to be Non verbo soliù c. He did not onely with his worde raise dead men but also with his touching to shewe that his bodie also doth giue life If then with his onely touching corrupted thinges are made sound how shall we not liue which doe both tast and eate that fleshe it will without all doubt refourme againe to immortalitie the partakers thereof Neither doe thou inquire after the Iewish manner how But remember that although water by nature be colde yeâ— by comming of fire to it forgetting her coldeneâ— it boyleth with heate Here M. Heskins will not allowe vs our glosse that Cyril speaketh of the spirituall receiuing of Christes flesh because he teacheth more then once that we are ioyned to Christ not onely spiritually but also after the flesh and that by eating the same flesh as though we could not truely be partakers of the fleshe of Christe â–ª by a spirituall receiuing of him not onely in the sacracrament but also by faith without the sacrament And Cyril saith we doe both taste and eate his flesh whiche of necessitie imployeth a spirituall manner of receiuing for other tast we haue not of Christes flesh but spirituall and by faith In the ende of the Chapter to deliuer himselfe his fellowes from the grosse errour of the Capernaites he scoffeth finely at our spirituall sifting of the sacrament so fine that we leaue nothing but the bare bran of the signifying signe in our owne hand whiche is the grosse bread we feede on If we taught a bare signe or bare bread in the sacrament there were some place for Maister Heskins ieaste But when we teache that presence and receiuing which
He that eateth not my flesh and drinketh not my bloud hath no life in him selfe How doeth the fleshe profite nothing without the which no man can liue See that this particle The flesh profiteth not any thing is not spoken of the fleshe it selfe but of the carnall hearing M. Hesk. saith that Chrysostome needeth no expositor to open his exposition And I am of that same iudgment For he is so plaine against al grosse and carnal imagination about these mysteries that nothing can be plainer He saith to vnderstand these thinges in the sixt of Iohn simply as they are spoken is to vnderstād them carnally which ought not to be for all mysteries must be vnderstood spiritually the receiuing of Christ in the sacrament is a mysterie therfore it must be vnderstāded spiritually The seuen and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Theophylact S. Bernarde Theophylacte following Chrysostome as he doth very much whē he is not carried from him by the corruption of his time saith That the wordes of Christ must be vnderstood◠spiritually Whervpon M. Hesk. maketh an obiection how those words may be vnderstood spiritually yet the carnal presence receiuing retained He answereth that the Papists also confesse the words of Christ must be vnderstode spiritually and first alledgeth Theophylacte to proue that he allowed the carnal presence which though they do not vndoutedly proue it yet considering the time in which he liued it may be granted that he did allow it What then Marie spiritual vnderstāding letteth not the carnal presence But I haue shewed before that while Theophylact wold followe Chrysost. yet mainteine the errour of his time no maruel though he were contrarie to himself But spiritual vnderstanding by M. Hesk. definition is to vnderstand that these thinges are not done by any naturall meane but by the spirit of God namely transubstantiation such like But Chrysostom as we sawe in the Chapter before determined otherwise of spirituall vnderstanding of this scripture namely that the sayings must not be taken simply as they are spokē but as mysteries be considered with the inward eyes But M. Heskins hath a plaine place for the proclaymer out of S. Aug. serm Ad Infant Quod videtis in altari panis est c. That which you see on the altar is bread and the cuppe which also your eyes do shew you But that faith requireth to be instructed the bread is the bodie the cup is the bloud In the mind of some man such a thought may arise Our Lorde Iesus Christ we know whence he receiued flesh namely of the virgin Marie he was nourished grewe vp was buried rose again ascended into heauen thither he lifted vp his bodie from whence he shall come to iudge both the quick the dead There he is now siting at the right hand of the father how is therfore bread his bodies or that which is in the cuppe how is it his bloud Brethren therefore those things are called sacraments because one thing is seene in them another thing is vnderstanded That which is seene hath a corporall forme that which is vnderstoode hath a spirituall fruite What plainnes is in this place except it be against transubstantiation and the reall presence let the readers iudge And withal I must admonish them that M. Hesk. citeth it farre otherwise then it is in Augustine beside that he leaueth out that which followeth maketh all the matter as plain as a pack staffe which are these words Corpus ergo Christi c. Therfore if thou wilt vnderstand the body of Christ heare the Apostle saying to the faithful you are the bodie of Christ his mēbers If you therefore be the bodie of Christ his members your mysterie is set on the table you receiue the Lords mysterie you answer Amen to that which you are in answering you consent Thou hearest therefore the body of Christ thou answerest Amen Be thou a mēber of the bodie of Christ that thy Amen may be true Why then in bread Let vs here bring nothing of our owne Let vs also heare the Apostle Therfore when he spake of this sacrament he saith One bread we being many are one bodie Vnderstand this and reioyce By these wordes it is moste manifest that Augustine excludeth the carnall presence affirming the elementes to be the bodie and bloude of Christ euen as we are the bodie and members of Christ and that is spiritually mystically as we are the bread namely by significatiō not by transubstantiation The testimonies of Algerus and Bernard I leaue to M. Hesk. for that they are without the compasse of the challenge The eight and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Euthymius and Lyra. Euthymius is cited In 6. Ioan. in these words Spiritus est qui viuificat c. It is the spirite that quickeneth Now he calleth the spirit the spiritual vnderstanding of those things which are said likewise the flesh to vnderstand them fleshly For the speech is not now of his flesh which quickeneth Therefore he saith to vnderstand these thinges spiritually giueth that life which I spake of before but to vnderstand them carnally it profiteth nothing Maister Hesk. wold fain make Euthymius to speak for him if he could tell how to wring him in but it wil not be Spiritual vnderstanding is as Chrysost. before in the 36. Chap. hath declared not as M. Heskins would racke it to make it stand with his grosse and carnal vnderstanding From the iudgement of Lyra as no compotent Iudge I appeale although in this place he speake nothing for M. Heskins but rather against him for he agreeth with the rest that the wordes must be spiritually vnderstanded The nine and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text by S. Augustine and Cyrill The text is this the wordes that I speake vnto you are spirite and life of which Augustine writeth thus Tra. 27. In Ioan. Quid est c. What is it they are spirite and life They are spiritually to be vnderstoode Hast thou vnderstoode them spiritually they are spirite and life Hast thou vnderstoode them carnally Euen so also they are spirite and life but not to thee M. Heskins hauing once made a blind determination of spirituall vnderstanding taketh spirituall vnderstanding wheresoeuer he findeth it for carnal vnderstanding carnall vnderstanding for spirituall vnderstanding without all ryme or reason But still Chrysostome lyeth in his way to vnderstand carnally is to vnderstand things simply as they are spoken for all mysteries must be vnderstood with inward eyes that is spiritually When the inward eyes see the bread they passe ouer the creatures neither do they thinke of that bread which is baked of the baker but of him which called himselfe the bread of eternal life Cyril is cited Cap. 24. In 6. Ioan. Verba quae c. The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirit
He calleth it a phantasie like to that which ioyned with auarice pulled downe all the Abbeys in England The like phantasie he sayth might moue vs not to honour Christ in heauen and much more the Apostles that honoured Christ in the flesh percase not sufficiently discerning the humanitie from the Deitie and so likewise others that worshipped Christ yet doe euen some of the proclaymers schollers vnderstand not these quiddities Shal they therefore fly the honor of Christ in heauen A wise comparison betweene Christe both God and man who no doubt is to be worshipped both as God as the mediator of God man and the accidents of breade wine or bread and wine when they are not consecrated Christ in the flesh is to be worshipped because he was incarnate and ioyned to the humanitie in a personall vnion but he is not to be worshipped in bread wine or in the accidents of bread wine because he is neither impanated nor inuinated nor inaccidentated that is not ioyned to any of them in a personall vnion To these doubtes that are moued by his owne schoolemen what if the Priest do not consecrate what if he speake not the wordes of consecration what if he had none intention to consecrate in all which cases the schoolemen define that the people committ idolatrie if they worship their hoste First hee sayeth he goeth about to shake the foundation of this sacrament as Brentius doth of baptisme Concerning Brentius although it were easie to defende his assertion euen by the schoolemen yet because it is no matter of our controuersie I will briefely passe it ouer Brentius helde that Christ hath not bound vs to baptise in certein forme of wordes to be pronounced by the minister so the meaning be obserued that he baptise into the name of the Father of the Sonne of the holie ghost Herevpon charitable M. Heskins rayleth on him that he impugneth the forme of baptisme and reiecteth the wordes of baptisme which is vtterly false and then he reasoneth that if the wordes of baptisme may be without daunger omitted why may not the words of consecratiō likewise as though Brentius sayeth they might be omitted where he speaketh of altering the forme of wordes when the same sense remaineth Next to this he farceth in another slaunder of vs that we agree not in the number of the sacraments some admitting three some two some foure and some neuer a one The world knoweth what we holde herein After this he sheweth out of Basil Damascen the necessitie of the forme of baptisme which wee confesse Brentius him self doth not denye At length he defineth contrarie to the scholemen that if consecration be omitted the danger is to the priest not to the people that worship an idol Finally he wil moue the like doubt of our ministration what if the minister of the communion doe neither speake the words of consecration nor haue intent to minister what do the people receiue I aunswer with his intentiō wee haue nothing to doe but for asmuch as nothing is whispered or mumbled in our Communion but so vttered that all men may heare and vnderstand if any thing be omitted that is necessarie to the consecration of the sacrament if the people communicate with him they are in as great fault as he As for Richerus whome he calleth a Caluenist that forbiddeth to pray to Christ and reiecteth the wordes of consecration if any such be let him aunswere for him self we haue nothing to do with him Although we acknowledge not any mumbling of wordes but the whole action according to Christes institution to be the forme of consecration of the sacrament The nine and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstanding of Christes wordes by Irenaeus Tertullian Irenęus is cited lib. 4. Cap. 32. Sed discipulus c. But also giuing counsell to his disciples to offer to God the first fruites of his owne creatures not as to one that hath neede but that they also should neither be vnfrutefull nor vnthankefull he tooke that bread which is of the creature gaue thankes saying this is my bodie likewise he confessed the cupp which is of the creature that is among vs to be his bloud taught the newe oblation of the newe testament which the church receiuing of the Apostles in all the worlde offereth to God. Here M. Hesk. choppeth off the taile for it followeth Euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs the first fruites of his giftes which words do both open the purpose of Irenaeus shewe that the oblation was of bread wine not the naturall bodie of Christ as M. Hesk. gathereth together with the reall presence But for clearer proofe he addeth another testimonie out of Irenęus which he quoteth lib. 5. but it is lib. 4. ca. 34 which it seemeth he redd not him selfe in the author both because he knewe not where it was writen also because he omitteth some wordes in it Quomodo autem constabit eis c. he leaueth out autem eis but thus the wordes are in english But how shall it be knowen vnto them that that bread in which thankes are giuen is the bodie of their Lorde and the cupp of his bloud if they say not that he him selfe is the sonne of the maker of the worlde c. And how againe do they say that the fleshe commeth to corruption receiueth not the life which is nourished of the bodie bloud of our Lord Out of these places he noteth that the sacrament is the bodie and bloud of Christ that our flesh is nourished by the same bodie bloud This we confesse so he meane spiritually but that he will not haue And therfore to drawe the places to his carnall presence nourishing he sayth that Irenaeus hereby impugned two heresies One that Christ was not the sonne of God that made the world but a man liuing in Iewrie which dissolued the law the Prophets all the works of God that made the world The other that the soule only should be saued not the bodie And therefore to confute the former he maketh an argument of the real presence How could a bare naturall man compasse that his bodie should so be if he were not the sonne of God that made the world c. This proceedeth of grosse ignorance or rather of intollerable mallice to deceiue the ignorant For the heresie against which he writeth was not that Christ was a bare man not the sonne of God but that he was the sonne of another God then he that made the world for they made two gods one the maker of the world which they sayd was God of the old testament another the father of Christ which they said was God of the newe testament Now Irenaeus proueth by institution of the sacrament in the creatures of bread wine that Christ is the sonne of God that created the world of none other
God to which purpose he sayth in the 57. Chapter of that fourth booke Quomodo autem iustè Dominus si alterius patris existens huius conditionis quae est secundiòm nos accipiens panem fuum corpus confisebatur temperamentum calicis sui sanguinem confirmanit How did our Lorde iustly if being sonne of another father taking bread which is of this creation that we are ▪ confesse it to be his bodie and the temperament of the cuppe he confirmed to be his bloud Thus you see neither in the one place nor in the other he reasoneth of the diuine power of Christe to make a reall presence or transubstantiation but of the inconuenience that Christ shoulde ordeine his sacrament in the creatures of another god The seconde heresie he impugneth in deede by the receipt of the bodie and bloude of Christe in the sacrament by which our fleshe is nourished vnto immortalitie which nourishing M. Heskins in no wise will haue to be vnderstoode spiritually but corporally and sayeth it doth inuincibly proue the reall presence I will not rippe vp what absurdities do followe if wee say that Christes fleshe doth nourish our flesh corporally or after a carnall manner as of the concoction and digestion thereof to be turned into our nature where he sayed before that our flesh is turned into his fleshe but I will proue out of Irenaeus that he meant nourishing spiritually and not corporally For lib. 5. he hath these wordes Quando ergo mixtus calix factus panis percipit verbum Dei fit eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna quae sanguine corpore Christi nutritur membrum eius est When therefore the cuppe that is mixed and the bread that is made receiueth the worde of God it is made the Eucharistie of the bloud bodie of Christe of which the substance of our fleshe is increased and consisteth howe do they denye that the flesh is capable of the gift of God which is eternall life which is nourished with the bodie and bloud of Christ and is a member of him Here you see plainly that our fleshe is so nourished of the bodie and bloud of Christ that it is increased of the same and so consisteth of them that wee are his members but our bodies are not increased c. but spiritually therefore they are not nourished but spiritually after an heauenly manner But moste plainly for impugning of both the heresies aforesaide and other heresies more of transubstantiation and the carnall presence and the sacrifice propitiatorie of the masse he writeth lib. 4. Cap. 34. Nostra autem consonans est sententia Eucharistiae Eucharistia rursus confirmat sententiam nostram Offerimus enim ei quę sunt eius congruenter communicationem vnitatem praedicantes carnis spiritus Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena caelesti sic corpora nostra percipientia Euchaeristiam iam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Offerimus autem ei non quasi indigenti sed gratias agentes donationi eius sanctificantes creaturam But our sentence is agreeable to the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing and the Eucharistie againe doth confirme our sentence For wee offer vnto him those things that be his owne agreeably setting foorth the communication and vnitie of the fleshe and the spirite For as the breade which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God is not nowe common bread but the Eucharistie consisting of two things an earthly thing an heauenly thing euen so our bodies also receiuing the Eucharistie are not nowe corruptible hauing hope of resurrection And wee offer to him not as to one hauing neede but giuing thankes for his gifte and sanctifying the creature By this place is transubstantiation ouerthrowen where he sayth the sacrament consisteth of two things an earthly and an heauenly the carnall presence when hee defineth it to be a heauenly thing that is a diuine and spiritual communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ the propitiatorie sacrifice when he sayeth that the creatures of breade and wine were offered for a thankes giuing c. That Melancton defending the popish presence abused the authoritie of Irenaeus against Oecolampadius it ought to be no preiudice to vs especially seeing as M. Heskins before confessed that Melancthon him selfe forsooke that opinion in the end Now come we to Tertullian whose testimonie though it bee flatly against him yet hee hath laboured if it were possible by wrestling and wrangling to make it serue his turne or a least to auoyde it that it should not hurt his cause Lib. 4. contra Marcionem Professus itaque c. When therefore he had professed that with desire he desired to eate the Passeouer as his owne for it was vnmeete that God shuld desire any thing pertayning to an other the breade that was taken and distributed to his disciples he made it his body saying This is my body that is to say a figure of my body But it had bene no figure except his body had bene of trueth Here M. Heskins cutteth off but it followeth in Tertullian Caeterum c. For a vaine thing which is a fantasie could receiue no figure Or if therefore he feigned the bread to be his body bicause he lacked the trueth of a body then ought hee to haue giuen the breade for vs It would haue made for Marcions vanitie that the breade should haue bene crucified The alteration falsification and truncation of Tertullians wordes which Maister Heskins vseth was noted in the first booke partly and it wearieth me to note these faultes so often as he committeth them But here he turneth these wordes Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus But it had not bene a figure except it were a body of trueth As though the breade were both a figure and a body of trueth which cleane peruerteth the sense of Tertullian and is contrarie to his purpose as you may see by that which followeth For Marcion agreed with Valentinus against whome Irenęus writte that Christ was not the GOD of the olde Testament and moreouer affirmed that Christe had not a true body but a fantasticall body Against both these hereticall opinions hee reasoneth in this sentence First he saith Christe desired to eat the Passeouer therefore it was of his owne institution for it was vnmeete that God should desire any thing of an other Gods institution And that Christe had a true bodye hee proueth by the institution of the sacrament which was a figure of his body for a fantasticall body or a vaine thing can haue no figure for a figure hath a necessarie relation to a thing of trueth whereof it is a
and Sauiour doe worke For this sacrament which thou reciuest is made with the worde of Christ. And againe Thou hast read of all the workes of the worlde that he saide they were made be commanded and they were created Therefore the worde of Christ which could of nothing make that which was not can it not change those thinges that are into that they are not For it is no lesse thing to giue newe natures to thinges then to chaunge natures Hitherto you haue heard Ambrose speaking earnestly for a change of nature in the sacrament now heare him expound it in the same place for a spirituall change Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus moâ—m ante benedictionem verborum coelestium aliâ— species nominatur post consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aâ—ud dicitur post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur It was the verie fleshe of Christ which was crucified which was buried therefore this is truely a sacrament of that flesh our Lord Iesus crieth out saying This is my bodie Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after the consecration the bodie of Christ is signified He himselfe saith it is his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud And in the same place againe In illo sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritualiâ— est In that sacrament Christ is because the bodie of Christe is Therefore it is not corporall meate but spirituall meate Wel then the bread is chaunged from the nature of coÌ„mon bread to be a true sacrament of the bodie of Christ wherby Christ his bodie is signified and to be spiritual meate and this is the change and conuersion he speaketh of and nor the Popish transubstantiatioÌ„ Next is alledged Chrysostome Hom. 83. in Matth. Non sunt c. These are not the works of mans power he that then in that supper made these things he also now worketh he performeth them We holde the order of ministers but it is he which doth sanctifie and change these things Here is a change or transmutatioÌ„ but no word of the maner of the chaunge therfore it maketh nothing for Popish transubstantiation and this place hath beene more then once answered before by Chrysost. authoritie After him he citeth Cyrillus ad Colosirium in these words Vâ—uificatiâ—â—em c. The quickening WORDE of God vniting himselfe to his own flesh made that also quickning How when the life of God is in vs the WORD of God being in vs shall our bodie also be able to giue life But it is an other thing for vs to haue the sonne of God in vs after the manner of participation and an other thing the same to haue beene made flesh that is to haue made the bodie which he tooke of the blessed virgin his owne bodie Therefore it was meete that he should be after a certeine manner vnited to our bodies by his holie flesh precious bloud which we receiue in the quickening blessing in bread and wine For least we should abhorre fleshe and bloud set vpon the holie altars God condescending to our fragilities inspireth to the thinges offered the powre of life turning them into the trueth of his owne flesh that the bodie of life may be found in vs all certeine seede giuing life Here Maister Heskins in his translation cleane leaueth out Quodammodo after a certeine manner Christe is vnited to our bodies by the sacrament and so is this chaunge made after a spirituall manner for otherwise this place is directly against transubstantiation where he saith we receiue the flesh and bloud of Christ in bread and wine Euthymius is the next In Matth 26. Quemadmodum c. As he did supernaturally Deifie as I may so say his assumpted flesh so he doeth also vnspeakably chaunge these thinges into his quickening bodie and his precious bloud and into the grace of them When he saith the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of his bodie and bloud it is easie to vnderstand that he meaneth a spirituall chaunge and the last clause is an exposition of the former they are chaunged into the bodie and bloud of CHRISTE that is into the grace of them Remugius followeth 1. Cor. Cap. 10. The fleshe whiche the worde of God the father tooke vpon him in the wombe of the virgin in vnitie of his person and the breade which is consecrated in the Church are one bodie of Christe for as that flesh is the body of Christ so this bread passeth into the bodie of Christe neither are they two bodies but one bodie He meaneth that the bread is a sacrament of the very and onely true bodie of Christ otherwise his antiquitie is not so great to purchase him authoritie but as a Burgesse of the lower house what so euer he speake The rest that remaine although I might well expound their sayings so as they should not make for Popish transubstantiation which the Greeke Church did not receiue yet beeing late writers out of the compasse as Damascen Theophylact Paschasius I omit them But of all these doctors M. Heskins gathereth that it is a maruelous and wonderfull worke that is wrought in this chaunge of the sacramentall bread and wine therefore he would proue it caÌ„ not be into a bare token or figure but it may well be into a spirituall meate to feede vs into eternall life which is a wonderful and great work of God as likewise that the washing of the bodie in baptisme should be the washing of the soule from sinne And therfore be saith very lewdly that the institution of sacramental signes as the Pascall lambe and such like is no wonderfull worke of God and as fondly compareth he the institution of sacramentes with bare signes and tokens of remembrance as the twelue stones in Iordane c. And yet more lewdly with the superstitious bread vsed to be giuen to the Cathechumeni in Saint Augustines time that had no institution of god Finally touching the determination and authoritie of the late Laterane counsell for transubstantiation as we doe not esteeme it beeing contrarie to the worde of God so I haue in the first booke shewed what a grosse errour it committed in falsification of a text of scripture out of Saint Iohns Gospell The two and fiftieth Chapter openeth the minds of S. Basil S. Ambrose vpon the wordes of Christ. Basil is cited Quaest. comp explic qu. 17â— In aunswere to this question with what feate what faith or assured certeintie and with what affection the bodie and bloud of of Christ should be receiued Timorem docet c. The Apostle teacheth vs the feare saying He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his own damnation but the credite
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
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
verbi sanctificatur ad benedictionem mysticaâ— adeâ— actiuum fit vt possit sanctificationem nobis fuam imâ—â—ttere Therefore saith he none euill can happen vnto you though I shall be absent in flesh seeing the power of my Godhead which hath saued you hitherto shall also preserue you hereafter We speake not these thinges therefore bicause we doe not greatly esteeme the Lordes bodie but bicause wee thinke that these maruellous effectes are to be attributed to the glorie of his Godhead For euen the same body of our Lorde is sanctified by the vertue of the Worde that is ioyned with it and made so effectuall vnto the mysticall blessing that it can send in to vs the sanctification thereof Note here gentle reader that the flesh of Christ though it be absent yet by the diuine power is able to make vs partakers of his sanctification Absent I say as concerning locall presence after which it is in heauen and not vpon earth yet hath it these maruellous effectes by the glory of his Godhead as Cyrill saith that ioyning vs vnto it by faith in the participation of the holy mysteries it feedeth vs vnto eternall life The place of Cyrill in 15. Ioan. Cap. is contained and aunswered in the 6. Chapter of this third booke where you shall see that the proclamer denyeth nothing that Cyrill in that place affirmeth As for the saying of Thomas of Aquine one of the scholasticall sophisters in Diuinitie I passe ouer hee is cocke sure of M. Heskins side The seuen and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Euthym. and Hugo Concerning the antiquitie of Euthymius I haue often testified before that he is no Lorde of the higher house Notwithstanding bicause he borroweth most of his matter of the elder writers I will set downe his wordes which make nothing for M. Heskins purpose In Math. 6. Quemadmodâ—m c. As breade doâ—h comfort so the body of Christ doth the same and more also it sanctifieth both the body and the soule And as wine doth make glad so the bloud of Christe doth the same and moreouer is made a defence And if all we that are faithfull doe partake of one body and bloud we are all one by the participation of these mysteries both all in Christe and Christe in us all He that eateth saith he my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him For the wordâ— truely by assumption is vnited to the flesh and this flesh again is vnited to vs by participation This place seemeth to M. Heskins to be very plaine and so thinke I for there is nothing in it but I graunt to bee true being rightly vnderstoode M. Heskins saith he expoundeth the breade and the cuppe to be the body and bloud of Christ or else the text were cleerer then the exposition in which fantasie he pleaseth him selfe exceedingly We graunt that the breade and cup in S. Paule signifie the body and bloud of Christe which we receiue in the sacrament after a spirituall and diuine manner Thirdly he noteth that we are vnited by participation into the flesh of Christe which he saith we deny but hee lieth impudently for we constantly affirme that except we be partakers of the flesh and bloud of Christe we can not be partakers of eternall life But that this partaking is after a corporall manner or only in the sacrament that we deny And that also doth Euthymius deny in effect where he teacheth that whereas we are vnited to Christe Christe to vs so are we vnited together but this is after a spiritual ineffable manner so is the other We graunt that Cyril saith we could not be partakers of eternal life except we were ioyned to the body of natural or true life that is to the body of Christ in Ioan. 6. li. 15. but we are ioyned otherwise then by the Lords supper or els no infants shuld be partakers of eternall life Finally where M. Hes. affirmeth that the words of Euthymius by no engin â–ª can be wrested from his carnal maner of preseÌ„ce bicause he speaketh before of the transmutation of the bread wine into the body bloud of Christ I answere he speaketh of no such transmutation but that we do graunt the same namely a sacramental change such as is of the water in baptisme of which also he taketh a similitude Siquidem in baptismo sensibilis quidem est aqua sed donum intelligibile est regeneratio QuoniaÌ„ enim in nobis anima coÌ„serta est corpori in sensibilibus intelligibilia tradidit nobis Deus For in baptisme also the water truely is a sensible thing but regeneratioÌ„ is an intelligible gift For bicause our soule is inclosed in our body God hath deliuered vnto vs intelligible things in sensible things The water in baptisme is not chaunged into regeneration nor regeneration included in the water and speaking of the same transmutation hee saith the breade and wine are transmuted into the body and bloud of Christe and into the grace of them But the substance of the bread wine is not turned into the grace of the body and bloud therfore neither into the body and bloud And this is the great helpe he hath out of Euthymius As for Cardinall Hugh I will not trouble the reader with his saying whose authoritie I vtterly refuse In the latter end of this Chap. as he vseth to deale when he hath such single witnesses in hand he patcheth in a piece or two of his old stuffe serued before as that of Dionyse falsly called the Areopagite Eccle. Hierach 1. part cap. 3 answered before Li. 1. Ca. 35. That of Ambrose de mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9. lib. 2. cap. 10. ser. 2. and else where oftentimes He nameth also Irenaeus Lib. 5. aduers. haer but he setteth not downe his wordes The eight and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Oecumenius and Anselmus In the beginning of this Chapter he glorieth vainly of the multitude of writers of his side but then they must be such as he nameth in the title that is late writers although Oecumenius hath nothing that maketh strongly for him the place that is here alledged in 1. Cor. 10. is in a maner the very words of Chry. which we had euen now in the cap. 24. Vnus panis c. We are one bread one body For we are al partakers of one breade He addeth a reason howe we are made the body of Christe For what is the bread saith he forsooth the body of Christe And what are they made which partake it Surely the body of Christe For that maketh vs also partakers of the body of Christe For one breade is Christe For of many graines as for example we may speake one breade is made and we being many partaking of that one are made one body of Christe For bicause our olde flesh is corrupted vnder sinne we had neede of a newe flesh I had not thought to
a Gentlewoman called Caesaria Patritia which feared to touch the sacrament with her owne hande saith thus Cōmunicare per singulos dies c. To communicate euery day to participate of the holy body and bloud of Christ it is a godly thing and very profitable as hee saith manifestly Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall For who doubteth but the often participation of life is nothing else but many ways to liue Wherefore we communicate foure times in euery weeke On Sunday and Wednesday on Friday and Saturday and on other dayes if there be the memorie of any Saint But that it is no greeuous thing that any man should be constrained by necessitie in times of persecution when the Priest or the Minister is not present to take the Communion with his owne hand it is superfluous to declare for so much as it is by the very vse of the thing confirmed by a long custome For all they that lead a solitarie life in the wildernesse where there is no Priest keeping the Communion at home doe receiue it of them selues But in Alexandria and in Aegypt euery one of them which are of the people for the most part hath the Communion in his owne house For after the Priest hath consecrated the sacrifice and distributed it we must beleeue worthily to participate and receiue it For in the Church the Priest giueth part he which receiueth it taketh it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand Therfore it is the same in vertue whether any man take one part of the Priest or many parts together Here M. Heskins vrgeth that euery man in his own house receiued the sacrament in time of persecution But this proueth not a sole receiuing if priuate men haue the Communion in their house for they might receiue many together But concerning the Hermites that dwelled in dens caues alone he saith they could haue no cōpanie and therevpon insulteth against the proclamer for saying the Indians Arabians Armenians Grecians c. neuer receiued nor vsed the priuat Masse And hath he proued the priuate Masse by the receiuing of the Hermites which were Lay men and no Priests No forsooth For he is feine to fasifie the wordes of this epistle in translating to proue that they receiued alone The wordes are in Greeke thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine a se ipsis cōmunicant Which he turneth falsly They communicate by them selues as though they did receiue it alone whereas he should say they receiue the Communion of them selues that is one of an other for it is well knowne they were not so solitarie but they had meetings at sometimes as appeareth by the histories As for other things that M. Heskins noteth out of this place bicause they are noted and aunswered in other partes where some of these sentences are alledged I will spend no time in repeating of them here Only concerning the authoritie of this fragment of an Epistle which is not extant in al S. Basils workes I giue the reader to vnderstand that it may be doubted of what antiquitie it is whether it were written by the ancient Basilius surnamed the great or by some other of that name of much later time Next is brought in Hieronyme to testifie that the like hath ben vsed in Rome in his time in time of persecutiō I maruel why M. Hes. addeth in time of persecution for in Hieromes time there was no such persecution at Rome he speaketh not of it as a shift in time of persecution but as a custome in time of peace Belike M. Hes. would haue the custome excused by necessitie of persecutiō which otherwise he can not allow to be good of it self But what saith Hier. ad Iouin Apoll. Scio Romae hanc esse consuetudinem c. I I know this custome is at Rome that the faithfull do always receiue the body of Christ which thing I do neither reprehend nor allowe For euery one aboundeth in his owne sense But I appeale to their conscience which the same day after carnall copulation do communicate and as Persuis saith purge the night with water Why dare they not goe to the Martyrs Why come they not into the Churches Is Christe one in the publique place an other in the priuate houses That which is not lawful in the church is not lawful at home Nothing is hid from God yea the very darknesse is bright with him Therefore let euery man examine him selfe and so let him come to the body of Christ. Here hee vrgeth that the people did communicate in their houses sometimes namely after companie with their wiues when they durst not come to Church But this custome doth Hierom seuerely reproue would not haue them communicate but when they might come to the Church without scruple of conscience So that Maister Hesk. bringeth in an vnlawfull custome to proue his priuate Masse to be lawfull which yet is neuer the neerer although this custome were good for therby is not proued so much as sole receiuing nor reseruation as we haue shewed before bicause nothing appeareth to the contrarie but that they might haue the Priest to consecrate and minister to them at home As for the admonition he giueth to married persons to abstaine from companie with their wiues c. I passe it ouer as not worthie the rehearsal Married men are to be exhorted to temperance and chastitie and further to prescribe times c. it may be Popish Diuinitie but it hath no ground in the word of god As for the married Priestes he hath little to doe with them let him take thought for his vnmaried Priestes But Chrysostome he thinketh saieth much for the priuate Masse in Cap. 1. ad Ephe. Hom. 3. Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio frustra stamus ad altare Nemo est qui participet The daily oblation or sacrifice is done in vaine we stand at the altar in vaine There is no man that will partake with vs. By this hee saith it is euident that Masse was sayde in the Greeke Church though there were no communicants with the Priest ▪ But this euidence is false Maister Heskins for first there was a number of the Cleargie which always did communicate although none of the people would receiue as was proued before by the ancient canons cōmonly called of the Apostles And where as you labour to proue that the Masse was not in vain although no man did receiue with the Priest because the Masse had two ends the one of oblation the other of receyuing so that although it were in vain in respect of the receiuing yet it was not in vaine in respect of oblation I pray you look back again to Chrysostoms words see if he do not say that was done in vaine whiche you labour moste to proue could not bee in vaine namely Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio The daily offring or sacrifice as you turne it is done in vaine For make
and that the puritie of so greate grace shoulde not make a dwelling for it selfe in vnworthie persons I am verie wel content that this place shal determine the controuersie betweene vs Cyprian sayeth the maiestie of GOD doth neuer absent it selfe from the sacramentes but either hee worketh saluation or damnation by them as well in baptisme as in the Lords supper for hee speaketh of both in the plurall number And seeing infidels and wicked persons cannot bee partakers of the spirite of Christe it followeth they cannot bee partakers of the bodie of Christe for Christ his bodie is neuer separate from his spirite But Augustine contra Crescen is alledged the place is not quoted but it is lib. 1. Cap. 25. Quid de ipso corpore c. What shall wee saye euen of the bodie and bloude of our Lorde the onely sacrifice for our health Although the Lorde him selfe doeth saye Except a man doe eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud he shall haue no life in him doeth not the Apostle teache that the same is made hurtfull to them that vse it amisse For he sayeth whosoeuer shall eate the breade and drinke the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shal bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde But it followeth imediately Ecce quemadmodum obsint diuina sancta malè vtentibus Cur non eodem modo baptismus Behold how diuine and holy things do hurte them that vse them amisse why not baptisme after the same manner By which woordes it appeareth that Augustine speaketh of the sacrament and not of the thing signifyed by the sacrament For he compareth baptisme ministred by heretikes with the Lordes supper vnworthily receiued which comparison cannot stande except you vnderstande the outwarde parte of the sacrament in bothe Baptisme is ministred by heretikes that is to say the outwarde sacrament of baptisme the bodie of Christe is receiued vnworthily to destruction that is the outwarde sacrament of the bodie of Christe for as wee heard in the last Chapter Res ipsa sacramenti the thing it selfe of the sacrament is receiued of euery man to life of no man to destruction whosoeuer doth receiue it The fiftieth Chapter sheweth the vnderstanding of the same â—ext by Effrem Primasius Effrem is cited in tract de die Iudicij Si procul a nobis est Siloe c. If Siloe whither the blinde man was sent be farre from vs yet the precious cuppe of thy bloude full of light and life is neere vs beeing so much neerer as hee is purer that commeth vnto it This then remayneth vnto vs O mercifull Christ that being full of grace and the illumination of thy knowledge with faith and holinesse wee come to thy cuppe that it may profite vs vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes not to confusion in the day of iudgement For whosoeuer being vnworthie shall come to thy mysteries hee condemneth his owne soule not cleansing himselfe that hee might receiue the heauenly king and the immortall brydegrome into the moste pure chamber of his brest For our soule is the spouse of the immortall bridegrome and the heauenly sacramentes are the couple of the marriage For when wee eate his bodie and drinke his bloude both hee is in vs and wee in him Therefore take heede to thy selfe brother make speede to garnish continually the chamber of thine heart with vertues that hee may make his dwelling with thee with his blessed father And then thou shalt haue praise glorie and boasting before the Angels and Archangels with great ioy and gladnesse thou shalt enter into Paradise This saying being directly contrarie both to the corporall manner of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christe and also to that absurde opinion that the wicked receiue the body of Christe Maister Heskins is not ashamed not onely to alledge it as making for him but also tryfleth off the nearnesse of the bloud of Christe which hee sayeth wee denye when wee affirme Christe to bee alwayes in heauen As though the bloude of Christe cannot purge and clense vs except it come downe from heauen and bee powred in at our mouthes As though faith cannot make Christ him selfe to dwell in vs. But where Effrem sayeth his bloud is so much the neerer as hee is purer that commeth vnto it why cannot M. Hesk. vnderstand that the more vnpurer the receiuer of the cup is the further off the bloud of Christ is and so farthest of all from them that be most vnpure that is the wicked and the reprobate But hee woulde haue the bloud of Christ to be as neere the wicked as the godly Againe when Ephrem saith when wee eate and drinke his body and bloude hee is in vs and wee in him with what face can Maister Heskins or any papist in the worlde saye that the wicked receiue the bodye and bloud of Christe in whom Christe is not nor they in him The like syncerity hee vseth in racking the wordes of Primasius Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in mee and I in him As though he should saye they that so eaâ—â— as it is to bee eaten and so drinke as my bloud is to be dronken For many when they seeme to receiue this thing abide not in God nor God in them because thei are affirmed to eate their own damnation M. Hesk. hath so corrupted this place in translation that you may see hee ment nothing but falshood trechery The latine text he citeth thus Qui edit meane carneus bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo pro eo ac si diceret qui sic edent vs edenda est sic bibent vs bibendus est sanguis meus Multi enim cùm hoc videantur acciperâ— in Deo non manent nec Deus in ipsis quia sibi iudicium manducare perhibentur He translateth in English thus He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in mee and I in him As if he should say they that so shal eate my flesh as it is to be eaten and shall so drinke my bloud as it is to be dronken For many when they are seene to receiue this sacrament neither dwell they in God nor God in them because they are witnessed to eate and drinke their owne damnation Now let the reader though hee bee but a meane Latinist iudge whether he haue not corrupted Primasius in translation especially where hee sayeth Multi cùm hoc videantur accipere whiche is manye when they seeme to receiue this thing namely the body and bloud of Christe of whiche hee spake Maister Heskins turneth it into manye when they are seene to receiue this sacrament Many seeme to bee Christians that are not many seeme to bee baptized with the holy Ghoste which are not so many seeme to eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe which doe not because God dwelleth not in them nor they in god Therefore take awaye Maister Heskins false translation and this saying of Primasius
is directly against him that wicked men receiue not the bodie and bloude of Christe And wheras hee noteth that the sixte of Iohn and Saint Paule in this texte speake of one thing it is cleane contrarye for Christe speaketh of that which is testifyed and giuen in the sacrament to the faithfull Paule of the sacrament receiued vnworthely And Primasius ioyneth them to shewe the diuersitie of these textes and not as though they signified one thing For by Saint Paule hee prooueth that not all eating and drinking is the eating and drinking of the bodie and bloude of Christe but the eating and drinking worthily The one and fiftieth Chapter abydeth in the exposition of the same texte by Cassiodorus and Damascene Cassiodorus is cited in Psalm 110. vppon this verse Tu es sacerdos c. Thou arte a priest after the order of Melchizedeche in these wordes Cui enim putest veracitet euidenter aptari nisi Domino saluatori qui corpus sanguinem sâ—um in paniâ— vini erogatione salutariter consecrauis Sicut ipse in Euangelio dicit nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis hiberitis eius sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis Sed in ista carne sanguine nil cruentum nihil corruptibile mens humana concipiat ne sicut dicit Apostolus Qui enim corpus Domini indignè manducat iudicium sibi mandueas sed viuificaâ—ricem substantiam atque salutarem ipsius verbi propriam factam per quam peccatorum remissio aeterno vitae donapraestuntur For vnto whome may it bee truely and euidently applyed but to our Lorde and Sauiour which hath healthsontly consecrated his body and bloude in the giuing foorth of breade and wine as he him selfe sayeth in the Gospell except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and dâ—inke his bloud you shall haue no life in you but in this fleshe and bloud let the minde of man conceiue nothing bloudie neither corruptible left as the Apostle sayeth For he that eateth the Lordes bodie vnworthily eateth his owne damnation but a substance giuing life and health and made proper to the WORDE himselfe by which remission of sinnes and the giftes of eternall life are perfourmed This saying being directly contrarie to all Maister Heskins three assertions namely transsubstantiation carnall maner of eating and the wicked receiuing Christes bodye hee hath cloked the two firste with a false translation the last with a needelesse excursion into the heresies of Marcion Manicheus c. For where it is firste manifest by Cassiodorus that when Christe gaue the sacrament to his disciples hee gaue foorth breade and wine Maister Heskins translateth Corpus sanguinem suum in panis vini erogatione salutariter consecrauit In the giuing foorth of breade and wine to our health hee consecrated his bodie and bloud whereas euery litle boye will teach him that the Aduerbe must be ioyned with the Verbe in construing to declare his signification Therefore his meaning must needs be as I haue translated it he did helthsomly or profitably consecrate his bodie and bloud in giuing forth of breade and wine therfore he gaue forth breade and wine Touching the seconde of the carnall manner of presence whereas Cassiodorus sayeth In ista carne sanguine nil cruentum nihil corruptibile mens humana contipiaâ— which is In this fleshe and bloude let the minde of man conceiue nothing bloudie nothing corruptible Maister Heskins translateth it Let not the minde of man conceiue any thing grosse any thing corruptible whereas the mynde of the author is seeing we must in this fleshe and bloud conceiue nothing bloudie we must not conceiue the flesh of Christ to be present carnally nor the bloud of Christ to be present bloudily but spiritually and as he addeth a quickening and healthfull substance giuing forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life to all that receiue it And therefore impertinent is al that discourse that Maister Heskins maketh afterwarde against the olde heretikes of which some denyed the humanitie some the diuinitie of Christe and ridiculous is that rayling of his by which hee woulde charge vs with their heresies for mainteining the trueth against their carnall manner of presence which in deede sauoureth of the heresie of the Marcionistes Mannyches and Eutychians Finally where Cassiodorus sayeth he that eateth the bodye of our Lorde vnworthily eateth his owne damnation it is manifest that hee calleth the sacrament by the name of that which it signifieth as many of the fathers doe But where he sayeth that forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life are giuen by the fleshe and bloud of Christe it followeth that the wicked which are not partakers of the one are not partakers of the other Concerning Damascene a corrupt writer farre out of the compasse of the challenge who writeth so monstrously of this sacrament that the Papistes them selues do not receiue him in all thinges as I haue alwayes refused his authoritie so nowe I will not trouble the reader with it The two and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this texte by Theodoret and Anselmus In the beginning of this Chapter he maketh much adoe that Damascenes authoritie might be receiued and so he shoulde haue twelue which make a quest to giue verdict in this matter But seeing Damascene cannot be taken hee presumeth him selfe to bee the foreman of the quest and to speake for all the rest But because he was neuer impannelled nor returned foreman of the quest wee will not take the verdicte or rather the falsedict at his mouth but as the manner of Lordes of the parleament is to let euery man giue his verdict for him selfe so I wish the reader to consider their seuerall sayinges and hee shall finde that not one of them being rightly vnderstoode speaketh on Maister Heskins syde But Theodoret hee sayeth though Cranmer would deceiue the people by his authoritie is altogether on their syde Hee citeth him in 1. Cor. 11. Hic eos quidem pungit c. Here truely he pricketh them that were sicke of ambition Also he pricketh him which had committed fornication and with them those that without any difference were partakers of those thinges that were offered to idols Besides them also vs which with an euill conscience dare receiue the diuine sacraments As for that hee sayeth He shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud signifyeth this that as Iudas betrayed him and the Iewes mocked and reuyled him euen so doe they dishonour and disworship him which receiue his moste holie bodie with filthie handes and put it into a filthie and defiled mouth Here Maister Heskins noteth that the bodie of our Lorde is receiued with hande and mouth cleane or vncleane In deede the sacramentes which are called by the name of that whereof they bee sacramentes are so receiued and of them doeth Theodoret speake by expresse wordes Another sentence hee alledgeth out of the same Chapter Sacram illam ex omni parte
beatam noctem c. Hee calleth againe to memorie that holye and by all meanes blessed night in which hee both made an ende of the figuratiue passeouer and shewed the true paterne of the figure and also opened the gates of the wholesome sacrament and gaue not onely to the eleuen Apostles but also to Iudas the traytour his moste precious bodie and bloud To this I aunswere as before that hee calleth the sacrament which hee gaue the precious bodie and bloude of Christe not that hee meant that the bread and wine in the sacrament are turned into the bodie and bloude of Christe and so giuen to good and badd but that the signes beare the names of the thinges signifyed as shall moste plainly appeare by the woordes of Theodoret him selfe in his firste dialogue called Incommutabilis Orthodoxus Scis quòd Deus suum corpus appellauit panem Eranistes Scio. Orthodoxus Porro etiam alibi carnem tritieum nominauit Eran. Hoc etiam scio Audiui enim eum dicentem venit hora vt glorificetur filiut hominis Et nisi granum tritici quod cecidit in terram mortuum fuerit solum manet sin autem mortuums fuerit fert multum fructum Orth. In mysteriorum autem traditione corpus panem appellauit id quod in calito infusum commixtum est sanguinem Eran. Itae nominauit Orth. Atqui quod est secundùm naturam corpus corpus iure vocabitur itidem sanguis Eran. In confesio est Orth. Seruator ceriè noster nomina commutauit corpori quidem id quod erat symboli signi nomen imposuit symbolo autem quod erat corpuris Ita cùm se vitem nominasset sanguinem id quod erat symbolum appellauit Eran. Hoc quidem verè dixist◠Vellem autem scire causam mutationis-nominum Orth. Manifestum est institutum ijs qui sunt diuinis mysterijs initiati Volebat enim eot qui sunt Diuinorum mysteriorum participes non attendere naturam eorum quae videntur sed propter nominum permutationem mutationi quę fit ex gratia credere Qui enim quod natura est corpus triticum panem appellauit vitem se rursus nominauit is symbola quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens Eran. Et mysticè mystica dicta sunt apertè declarata quae non sunt nota omnibus Orth. Quoniam ergo in confesso est Patriarcham corpus Domini vestem indumentum nominasse ad dicendum autem de Diuinis mysterijs ingressi sumus dic per veritatem cuius symbolum figuram esse existimas alimentum sanstissimum Diuinitatis ne Domini Christi an corporis sanguinis Eran. Clarum quod illorum quorum appellationem susceperunt Orth. Corporis sanguinis dicis Eran. Ita dico Orth. Vi decet amicum veritatis dixisti Etenim Dominus cum accepisset symbolum aut signum non dixit Hoc est Deitas mea sed hoc est corpus meum Et rursus hic est sanguis meus Et alibi Panis autem quem ego dabo caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita Eran. Vera sunt haec Sunt enim diuina eloquia Orth. Si ergo vera corpus vtique habuit Dominus In English thus Orthodoxus Knowest thou that God called his body breade Eranistes I knowe it Orth. Moreouer in in one place he called his flesh wheate Eran. This also I knowe For I haue heard him saying The houre is come that the sonne of man shall be glorified And except the graine of wheate which is fallen into the earth do dye it remaineth alone but if it dye it bringeth forth much fruit Ortho. And in the deliuerie of the mysteries he called breade his body and that which is powred in the cup and mingled his bloud Eranistes He called it so in deede Orthodoxus Why then that which is a naturall body shall of right be called a body and likewise bloud Eranistes That is confessed Orthodoxus Certainely our Sauiour chaunged the names and gaue that name to his body which was the name of the token or signe and to the token that which was the name of his body So when he called him selfe a vine hee called his body that which was the token thereof Eranistes This thou hast saide truely But I would knowe the cause of the chaunge of the names Orthodoxus The purpose is manifest to them that are made partakers of the Diuine mysteries For hee would haue them which are partakers of the Diuine mysteries not to regard the nature of those things that are seene but in respect of the chaunging of the names to giue credite to that chaunge which is by grace For hee which called his naturall body wheate and breade and named him selfe againe a vine euen hee hath honoured the tokens that are seene with the name of his body and bloud not chaunging their nature but adding grace vnto the nature Eranistes Those mysticall things are both vttered mystically and those things are openly declared which are not knowen to all men Orthodoxus Therefore seeing it is confessed that the Patriarch called the Lordes body a vesture and a garment and we are entred to speake of the Diuine mysteries tell truely whereof doest thou thanke this most holy foode to be a token and figure of the Godhead of our Lorde Christe or of his body and bloud Eranistes It is cleare to be of them whose names they haue receiued Orthodoxus Thou saiest of his body and bloud Eranistes So I say Orthodoxus Thou hast saide as becommeth a louer of the trueth For when our Lord had taken the token or signe he saide not This is my Godhead but this is my body And againe This is my bloud and in an other place The breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Eranistes Those things are true For they are the word of god Orthodoxus Then if they be true our Lord had a body This discourse of Theodoret is so plaine as I neede to adde no exposition thereof to declare what his iudgement was As for the authoritie of Anselmus which hee adioyneth there is no more reason why we should admit it then why Maister Heskins will not receiue the authoritie of Cranmer which was Archbishop of Canterburie as well as Anselmus Hee anueth also a saying of Oecumenius but both bicause he is a late writer and his wordes in a manner are the same that he alledged out of Theodoret of whom it seemeth that Oecumenius borrowed them I omit them as already aunswered in aunswere to Theodoret. The three and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text of S. Paule which is Let euery man examine him selfe and so let him eate In this Chapter Maister Heskins promiseth to teach men howe to examine them selues that they may receiue worthily And two things he requireth
no wicked men Nowe let vs heare Chrysostome whom hee citeth in foure places but the two first are one compt In 1. Cor. 11. Probet seipsum c. Let a man examine himselfe whiche thing also he sayeth in the second Epistle proue your selues whether you be in the faith examine your owne selues not as we doe nowâ— comming rather for the times sake then of any earnest desire of the minde Neither doe we come as full of compunction prepared to purge out our vices but we consider that wee may bee at the solemnities when all men are presente But Paule doeth not so commaunde but he knewe one time in whiche we should come to the purenesse of communication and conscience For if we would neuer communicate at a sensible table if wee be sicke of an ague and doe abounde with humours least we should be caste away muche more wickednesse it is to touche this table being intangled with noysome lustes which are more greeuous then feuers And when I speake of noysome lustes I speake of lustes of the bodie and of money and of anger and of wrath and plainely all lustes that be naught All which he that commeth to receiue must auoide and so touche that pure sacrifice not to be slouthfully disposed nor miserably to be compelled for the solemnities sake to come Neither againe beeing penitent and prepared to be hindered because there is no solemnitie For solemnitie is an euident declaration of good workes purenesse of soule certeintie of life whiche thinges if thou hast thou mayest alwayes celebrate a solemnitie and alwayes come therefore sayth he let a man examine him selfe and so let him eate It followeth immediately Non iubet vt alter alteri probetur sed ipse sibi non publicum faciens iudicium sine teste argutum He doth not commaunde that one should be examined of an other but eache man of him selfe making the iudgement not publike and the accusation without witnesse Maister Heskins alledged the place to proue the necessitie of preparation which no man denieth but these last words of Chrysostome doe clearly ouerthrow auricular confession which Maister Heskins compteth for a necessarie parte of repentance He noteth further that the sacrament is called of him a pure sacrifice and the bodie of christ How it is called either a sacrifice or the body of Christ we haue often shewed before yet he will presse vs with an other place out of his Hom. Oporteâ— haereses c. Deinde vbi multum c. Then when he had disputed much of those which vnworthily are partakers of the mysteries and had greâ—uously rebuked them and shewed that they should suffer the same punishment that they did which had slaine Christe if they receiue his bloud and body without examination rashly he turneth againe his communication vnto the matter in hande Of these wordes M. Heskins will needes gather both his carnall presence and the presence of Christ vnto the wicked receiuer but seeing Chrysostome expressely nameth the partaking of the mysteries it is plaine in what sense the bodie of Christ is said to be receiued vnworthily namely wheÌ„ the mysteries that is his sacrament are receiued vnworthily But our doctrine he saith is without all ground of scriptures that only faith maketh Christe present in the sacrament in deed meaning either such a presence as he fantasieth included in the sacrament or suche an only faith as he slandereth vs withal neither do we affirme it neither is it in the scriptures to be found but that Christ dwelleth in our heartes by faith both in the receiuing of the sacramentes and in receiuing of the word of God the Apostle teacheth vs Eph. 3. and our sauiour Christ testifieth Ioan. 6. that whosoeuer eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath life euerlasting euen as he saide before he that beleeueth in him hath life euerlasting whervpon Augustine In Ioan. Tract 26. doeth rightly gather Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem viuum To beleeue in him that is to eate the bread of life and Tra. 25. Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie beleeue and thou hast eaten it Yet another place of Chrysostome M. Heskins heapeth vpon vs Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Eph. Considera nunc c. Consider now what great sobrietie of life those partakers of the olde sacrifice did vse For what did they not They were purified euerie time And doest thou comming to this wholsome sacrifice which the Angels them selues doe receiue with trembling measure so great a thing with the compasse of times With what face wilt thou appeare before the iudgement seate of Christ which hast beene so bolde with vncleane handes and lippes so impudently to touch his bodie Thou wouldst not choose to kisse the King if thou hast a stinking mouth doest thou shamelesse man kisse the King of heauen with thy soule so stinking of vices Surely this maner of thing is a cruell reproche Tell me wouldest thou take vpon thee to come to so honorable a sacrifice with vnwashed handes I thinke not but as I coniecture thou haddest rather altogether to refraine from comming then to come with foule hands And whylest thou art so religious in so small a thing thou commest hauing thy soule defiled with the myre of vices and darest thou touch it thou impudent man Although a man for the vncleanenesse of his handes doe withholde himselfe for a time yet to cleanse his soule from the filthie puddle of all vices let him returne altogether Maister Heskins noteth in this figuratiue speeche three thinges first the corporal presence of Christes bodie that it may be touched with handes or lipps And he is not ashamed to cite the saying of Christ handle me and see that a spirite hath no fleshe and bones as you see we haue as though any man either by sight or feeling could discerne Christe corporally present in the sacrament But what a shamelesse man is this to vrge the kissing of Christ with a foule mouth which is a figuratiue and vnproper speech when it followeth that he is kissed of the wicked with a foule soule Like impudencie is in the second note that the bodie of Christe may be touched and receiued of him that hath a filthie soule which Chrysostome saith not but inueyeth vehemently against their presumption that hauing a filthie soule would presume to receiue the sacrament The thirde that it is an wholsome sacrifice which the Angels do honour doth no more proue the corporall presence of Christ on earth then the same Authors wordes soone after do proue the corporal presence of the receiuers in heauen Dic quaeso si rex quispiam praecepisset ac dixisset si quis istud vel istud fecerit mensa mea abstineat an non huius gratia omnia fecissetis In coelot nos vocauit Deus ad mensam magni admirandi Regis recusamus moras nectimus ad rem tantam
nec festinantes nec accurrentes Tel me I pray thee If any King had commanded and said if any man haue done this or that let him not come to my table wouldest not thou haue done any thing for his sake God hath called vs into heauen vnto the table of the great and wonderfull King and doe we refuse and make delayes neither making haste nor comming to so great and excellent a matter This place of Chrysostome doth teach vs that Christes bodie commeth not downe corporally to vs but that we are called vp into heauen to receiue him there spiritually by faith This is in deede a great and wonderfull mysterie which Chrysostome doeth garnish with many figures as he was an eloquent preacher to make the people to haue due reuerence thereof Neither is Luthers doctrine one hayre breadth differing from Chrysostoms iudgement concerning the preparation necessarie for all them that shall receiue the sacrament worthily howsoeuer it pleaseth Maister Heskins neuer to haue done railing and reuiling him charging him with that which I thinke the holy man neuer thought certeine I am he neuer did teach but the contrarie And because this is the last testimonie he citeth out of Chrysostome I thought good to set downe one place also directly ouerthrowing his transubstantiation for which he striueth so egerly It is written Ad Caesa. monachum Et Deus homo est Christus Deus propter impassibilitatem homo propter passionem vnus filius vnus Dominus idem ipse procul dubio vnitarum naturarum vnam dominationem vnam potestatem possidens etiamsi non consubstantialiter existant vnaquaeque incommixta proprietatis conseruas agnitionem propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis panem nominamus Diuina autem illum sanctificante gratia mediante sacerdote liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in ipso remansit non duo corpora sed vnum filij corpus predicattâ—r sic haec Diuina inundante corporis natura vnum filium vnam personam vtraque haec secerunt Christe is both God and man God because of his impassibilitie man for his passion being one sonne and one Lord he himselfe doubtlesse possessing one domination one power of the two natures being vnited although they haue not their being consubstantially and either of them vnmingled doeth keepe the acknowledging of his propertie because they are two vnconfounded For euen as the bread before it be sanctified is called of vs bread but when the grace of God doth sanctifie it by meanes of the priest it is in deede deliuered from the name of bread and is compted worthie of the name of our Lordes bodie although the nature of the bread hath remained in it and it is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne so both these the diuine nature ouerflowing the body haue made one sonne one person I knowe Stephan Gardener when he can not aunswere this place denyeth it to bee written by Iohn Chrysostome ascribing it to an other Iohn of Constantinople but seeing it caÌ„ not be denied to be an ancient authoritie it is sufficient to proue the doctrine of transubstantiation to be newe and vnknowen to the Churche of God in the elder times The fiue and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same by Isichius and S. Augustine To garnishe his Booke with the name of Isichius he continueth his most vniust and slaunderous quarrell against Luther as though he denied all preparation requisite to the woorthie receiuing of this holie sacrament which is so impudent an vntruth that all the world doth see it And God in time will reuenge it Isichius is cited In 26. Leuit. Probet autem c. Let a man examine him selfe and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cuppe What manner of examination doeth he speake of It is this that in a cleane heart and conscience and to him that intendeth to repent those thinges wherein he hath offended men should participate of the holy things to the washing away of their sinnes M. Hesk. would make men beleeue that Luthers doctrine were contrarie to this saying and multiplieth his slaunders against him which seeing they be without al proofe yea and manifest proofe to the contrarie it shall suffice to denie them and so to consider what he will bring foorth of S. Augustine He citeth him Ad Iulianum Ep. 111. Whereas in deede ther is no such Epistle in any good edition of Augustine and the treatise he speaketh of may rather be called a Booke then an Epistle for the length of it But the stile of it is as like vnto the stile of Augustine as our Asse is to a Lyon. It hath no inscription to whom it should be directed and therefore some say to Iulianus some to Bonifacius It beginneth O mi frater c. and so continueth in such balde Latine that Erasmus hath not only reiected it out of the number of Augustines Epistles but also out of his authenticall workes such iudgement or honestie M. Heskins vseth in citing the fathers all is fishe that commeth to his nette I will set downe the wordes Ab ijs pietas c. From them let the pietie of our Lorde Iesus Christe deliuer vs and giue himselfe to be eaten who saide I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen he that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting life in him But let euerie man before he receiue the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ examine himself and so according to the commandement of the Apostle let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that vnworthily eateth the bodie and bloud of our Lord eateth and drinketh his owne condemnation making no difference of the bodie of our Lorde Therefore when we shall receiue we ought before to haue recourse to confession and repentance and curiously to searche out all our actions and if we finde in vs any punishable sinnes leâ— vs hasten quickely to washe them away by confession and true repentance least we with Iudas the traytor hyding the diuell within vs doe perish protracting and hyding our sinnes from day to day And if we haue thought any euill or naughtie thing let vs repent vs of it and let vs make hast to scrape that speedily out of our heart This is the saying of this counterfet and forged Augustine out of which Maister Heskins gathereth not only his manner of presence to be such as the wicked receiue the bodie bloud of Christ but also his auricular confession But what the iudgement of the true Augustine is you haue hearde before concerning the former as for the later question is neuer touched in all his owne workes De ciuit Dei Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Non dicendum eum manducare corpus Christi qui in corpore non est Christi It is not to
prelates in their lyfe yet in this accompt of Master Heskins they are burgesses of the lower house and liued much about a time To fill vp the chapter he citeth certaine miracles reported by Sainte Cyprian Sermone 5. De lapsis to shewe howe God punisheth the vnworthie receiuing of the sacrament although they doe not all shewe it for the first example is of an infante that coulde not brooke the sacramentall wyne after it had tasted of breade and wine offred to Idolles where the negligence of the parentes was rather punished then the vnworthinesse of the child The whole story is at large set downe in the last chapiter of the second booke The seconde example is of a woman who receiuinge vnworthily was striken with sodaine death The third of a woman who kept the sacrament in her coffer and when she woulde with vnworthie handes open the coffer in which was the holy thing of the Lorde there sprange out a fire by which she was so terryfied that she durst not touche it A iust punishment for her reseruing of that which should haue bene receiued The fourth miracle is of a man who presuming to receiue the sacrament vnworthily coulde neuer eate the holy thing of God nor handle it For when he had opened his hand he sawe nothing in it but ashes This is a marueilous thing saith Master Heskins Whereby is declared that God is not willing that his holy sacrament shoulde be receiued of a filthie sinner for so muche as sodeinly it pleaseth him to chaunge it into ashes he himselfe departinge from it In deede this is a straunge and miraculous transubstantiation But if I might be so bolde to aske M. Heskins what is that which is chaunged if there be no bread in the sacrament God he saieth is departed from it there remaineth the aceidentes onely of breade and wine and so belike the accidentes are chaunged into ashes O monstrous mutation But why doeth not M. Hes. gather by this miracle that if the sacrament could not be receiued of a wicked man much lesse the body of Christ and so doeth Cyprian gather of it Documento vnius ostensum est Dominum recedere cum negatur nec immerentibus prodesse ad salutem quod sumitur cum gratia salutaris in cinerem sanctitate fugiente mutetur By example of this one it is shewed that the Lorde doeth depart when he is denyed neither doeth that which is receiued profit to saluation the vnworthie persons seeinge the wholsome giftes the holinesse departing from it is chaunged into ashes Cyprian gathereth by the chaunge of the outwarde sacramente before it was receyued that Christ departeth from them that denye him and is not receyued at all But M. Hes. would learne forsoth what one thing is in the sacrament receiued that profiteth hurteth he aunswereth it cānot be the bread wine for they profit alike to al men therfore it must needes be the body of Christ a wholsome conlusion by whiche the bodye of Christe is made a hurtefull thing but if it please him to vnderstand our aunswere we deny that there is any thing included in the bread or wine that either profiteth or hurteth to saluation It is the grace and spirite of God which worketh as well by this sacrament our spirituall nourishing as by baptisme our spirituall regeneration And that which hurteth the wicked man is in him selfe and not in the sacrament euen his owne wickednesse and detestable presumption to defile the holy sacraments of god Wherefore it is diuelish and blasphemous that M. Heskins affirmeth the body of Christ to be hurtful to any bicause the vnworthy receiuing of the sacrament hurteth him that receiueth by his owne acte and not by any thing that is receiued The nine and fiftieth Chapter treateth of these wordes of Saint Paul. We are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones by Irenaeus and Hilarius Irenaeus is cited Lib. 5. Quomodo carnem negant esse capacem c. Howe doe they deny that the flesh is able to receiue the gift of God that is eternall life which is nourished with the bloud and body of Christ and is made a member of him euen as the Apostle saith in that Epistle which is to the Ephesians Bicause we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones speaking this not of any spirituall and inuisible man for a spirite hath neither flesh nor bones but of that disposition which is after the nature of man which consisteth of flesh and sinewes and bones which is nourished of the cup which is his bloud and is increased of the bread which is his body That both our bodies and soules are nourished vnto eternall life by eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christe we doe most willingly confesse and acknowledge But withall we affirme that as our bodyes are not naturally nourished and increased with the body of Christ but spiritually after a diuine manner so onely spiritually and after a diuine manner we doe eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ and not after a carnall naturall or papisticall manner And this is the plaine sense and meaning of Irenaeus his wordes As our bodyes are naturally nourished and increased with the bread and wine of the sacrament so are our bodyes and soules spiritually nourished and increased vnto eternall life For M. Heskins him selfe denyeth that our bodyes are naturally nourished and increased with the body and bloud of Christ when he saith The flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh which must needes be if we vnderstand that Irenaeus saith our flesh is nourished and increased of the body of Christ but he saith of the bread which is his body and of the cup which is his bloud our flesh is nourished and increased Therefore there is naturall and very bread in the sacrament for our flesh can not be nourished and increased by accidentes euen as certainely as there is the body and bloud of Christe after a spirituall manner dispensed vnto the faithfull which are the members of Christ flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Therefore also the wicked receiue not the body and bloud of Christe bicause they are no members of his body That I haue not in this interpretation varied from the mynde of Irenaeus his plaine words shall testifie Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Quemadmodum enim qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam iam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Euen as that bread which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God is not now comon bread but the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing consisting of two thinges an earthly thing and an heauenly thing so also our bodyes receiuing the Eucharistie are not nowe corruptible hauing the hope of resurrection The place that Maister Heskins citeth out
c. is proued by the Canons of the Apostles that Excommunicate all Christians that be present and doe not communicate Can. 9. Also the first Epistle of Anacletus which is good authoritie against a Papist forbiddeth the priest or Bishop to sacrifice alone and commandeth all the ministers that are present to receiue with him in paine of excommunication And appointeth what number shall be present of deacons namely on solemne dayes seuen on other dayes fiue or three beside Subdeacons other ministers These decrees do proue that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper but when there be a good number to communicate Concerning the 5. of distinction of Bishops or Priestâ— in apparell froÌ„ the laitie which yet we hold to be a thing of his owne nature indifferent Celestinus Bish. of Rome saith in an Epistle to the Bishops of France Epi. 2. Discernâ—ndi a plebe vel cÄ™teris sumus doctrina non veste conuersatione non habitu mentis puritate non cultu We must be discerned from the common people or other men by doctrine not by garment by conuersation not by apparell by purenes of minde not by attyre To the 7. that the communion table was remoueable and carried too an fro it is proued by Augustine who In quest vet Non test ques 101. saith it was the office of the Deacons of Rome as well as of all other Churches to carrie the altar and the vessels thereof and although he call it an altar in this place and many other yet doeth he in as many places call it a table and in his Epistle to Bonifacius Ep. 50. it appeareth that it was made of boordes and not of stones To the 8. for saying communion on good Friday although perhaps it might be proued by those fathers of the primitiue Church that kept their feast of Easter after the manner of the Iewes whiche was the 14. day of the moneth whiche some tymes did fall vpon that Friday whiche is called good Friday yet beeing no matteâ— of religion there is no cause why we should be bound to proue it The like I say to the 9. of singing of Gloria in excelsis after the communion and to the 11. of saying the Creede of Athanasius vpon principall holie dayes Concerning the 10. that the sacrament was ministred in the loafe bread vsually to be eaten at the table it is proued by S. Cyprian In sermone de Caena Dom. whiche saith of that bread wherewith they did minister Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam incraementum corporâ—bus c. This common bread being chaunged into our flesh and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodies Also by S. Ambrose Li. 4. Cap. 2. de sacram Who rehearseth the obiection of the ignorant saying Tu forte dicis meus panis est vsitatus c. Thou perhaps wilt say my bread is coÌ„mon vsual bread Also by Gregorie which in his dialogues reporteth that two Coronae loaues of bread were giuen to one that was thought to be a poore man in rewarde of his seruice in a bathe but he being a guest willed that the same shoulde bee offered in sacrifice for him To the 12. for the ministers wearing of a Cope or surplesse which hold it to be no part of religion and that the communion hath bene ministred in common apparell we will go no further then our Sauiour Christ himselfe Ioh. 13. and there is no question but his Apostles and the primitiue Churche many hundreth yeares followed his example To the 13 that the words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. should be red at the ministration rather theÌ„ of S. Mathewe Marke or Luke it is a matter of meere indifferency yet better ordered then your popishe canon whiche rehearseth the wordes after none of all foure To the 14. that they vsed a common cup at the Communion is prooued also by scripture that our sauiour Christ ministred in the same cup which he and his company had vsed at supper To the 15. that the curses of Gods law should be redd vpon Ashwednesday we hold it not as a thing necessarie but an order of indifferencie vntill a better discipline be restored To the 16. concerning procession about the fields we vse none but a perambulation which is a matter of meere ciuill pollicie To the 19. whether Saint Peter were euer at Rome or no it is no article of our beliefe but we are able to proue by scripture that he neither was there as bishoppe nor so long as the common opinion is To the 20. that the minister in time of necessitie hath giuen the communion to one alone is proued by the example of Seraphion vsed of the Papistâ— but vnfitly to defende your priuate masse to whom being at the point of death the communion was sent by the prieste who at the same time also was so sicke that hee coulde not come himselfe Eusebius libros 6. capitulo 44. and yet that communicatinge which we alowe is but graunted to the infirmitie of suche as cannot bee perswaded to forbeare the sacramente not as a thing simplie allowed If anye one man aliue coulde prooue anye one of these articles by Scriptures doctours or councelles hee promiseth to subscribe what I haue prooued let the Reader iudge After this followe twentie nine articles more The 22. that the bishoppe of Rome was not called Antichriste the cause was that vntill after sixe hundreth yeare the bishoppe of Rome was not Antichriste But that Antichriste shoulde bee a Romaine it is prooued by Irenaeus Libro 5. and that Rome shoulde be the Sea of Antichriste Sainte Augustine testifieth De ciuitate Dei libro 16. capitulo 17. callinge Rome Westerne Babylon and libro 18. capitulo 2. callinge Rome seconde Babylon c. Also Hierome ad Marcellam iudgeth Rome to bee Babylon spoken of in the Apocalypse and in praefati in Didymum hee calleth Rome Babylon and the purple whore and Algasiae Quest. 11. and manye places else Gregorie also affirmeth that who so woulde bee called vniuersall bishoppe was the forerunner of Antichriste whiche was Iohn of Constantinople also he prophesieth that Antichristes reuelation was at hande and that an armye of priestes shoulde wayte vppon him whiche was fulfilled in his nexte successour saue one namely Bonifacius the thirde whiche was the first Pope of Rome that was called vniuersall bishoppe and was Antichriste him selfe as Iohn of Constantinople was his forerunner about the yeare of our Lorde â—10 To the 23. that no consecration was required to the sacramente but the vertue of the peoples fayth is not holden of vs and therefore wee are not to prooue it To the 24. that the residue of the sacramentall bread which was not receyued by any olde custome of the Church of Constantinople was giuen to young children that went to schoole is prooued by Euagrius libr. 4. cap. 36. whether to spredde their butter as hee requireth is to shewe or to eate it with cheese
is inuisible Whereas the Papistes by their transubstantiation haue no visible sacrament but onely accidents of breade and wine which they nor none other can call a visible sacrament Moreouer the word diuine essence answering to the word flesh in the former sentence plainely expoundeth what he meaneth thereby namely the diuine power which the flesh of Christ hath to giue life and not the diuine nature or substance as M. Heskins translateth it and much lesse Christ God and Man as he expoundeth it For if we take the diuine essence for the diuine substaunce of Christes Godhead it will bee a grosse absurditie and a blasphemous heresie to make any infusion or powring of that into the visible sacrament which filleth all places Wherefore of necessitie it signifieth the propertie or efficacie euen as the worde nature in the former clause doth signifie For the former shape of the breade is not chaunged but the nature or propertie is altered namely to feede the soule and not the body only as before it was made a sacrament it serued to do But M. Hesk. liketh not this glose but wil haue nature to signifie substance and not propertie as it doth very often as when we say the nature of hearbs of stones of beastes we meane the properties But whether he will or no it must be so taken seing it may be so taken or else Cyprian should be contrarie to him selfe who distinguisheth the visible sacrament from the diuine essence who calleth that diuine essence a word more vsuall for substance which is but diuine efficacie or propertie who if he had meant that the bread had bene turned into the naturall body of Christe wold neither haue coÌ„pared it with the diuinitie of Christ hid vnder his humanitie nor haue said euen so the diuine essens infundeth it selfe in the sacrament but euen so the bodie of Christ is hid vnder the formes of bread wine But that there should be no doubt of his meaning thus he writeth in the same sermon a litle after Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syncera panem sanctum franginus partimur As often as we do these thinges we doe not sharpen our teeth to byte but with a sincere faith we breake and diuide this holy breade What can be more plaine to expresse the meaning of this doctour then that wee receiue not the body of Christe with our mouth but with our heart not with the instrument of our teeth but with the instrument of our faith In the same Sermon hee writeth Panis est esca sanguis vita caro substantia corpus Ecclesia Corpus propter membrorum in vnum conuenientium panis propter nutrimenti congruentiam sanguis propter vinificationis efficientiam caro propter assumptae humanitatis proprietatem The breade is foode bloud life flesh substaunce his body the Church his body for the agreement of the members in one bread for the aptnes of nourishment bloud for the efficiencie of quickening flesh for the propertie of his humanitie that he tooke on him These places do sufficiently expound the meaning of Cyprian howe the breade is chaunged into flesh not after any change of substance but of qualitie and propertie as in so many figuratiue termes is more theÌ„ manifest Let vs nowe come to Euthymius aduaunced by Maister Heskins into the higher house And he in deede seemeth to affirme the purpose of this Chapter that the Paschall lambe was a figure of the sacrament and yet not very plainely but rather it was a figure of the true Passeouer which the sacrament doth represent but that is no materiall point of our controuersie whether one sacrament did figure an other his wordes are Christe in the same table described the figuratiue and shadowing Passeouer and set before them the true and perfect Passeouer Herevpon hee inferreth that Christe was not truely and perfectly giuen to the Iewes in the Paschall Lambe as we teach but onely a figure and signe of him but in the sacrament he is giuen to vs truely and perfectly that is by a true and reall presence But it is pitie that hee seeth not that his authour compareth the thing signified by our sacrament with the outward signe of the Iewish sacrament as also the scripture doth oftentimes against them that depended vpon the outward ceremonies Not that a false or vnperfect Christ was figured and receiued of the faithfull by them but to shewe a difference betweene the shadowe and the trueth the figure and the thing figured when the Iewes so sticked in the figure that they considered not the thing signified The other place which was alledged out of Euthymius bicause hee referreth the handling of it vnto the second booke thether also will I referre the aunswere In the meane time it is a childish insultation that hee makes against the proclamer noting that hee hath found a plaine place for Maister Iewell when neither the place is so plaine nor the Authour within the compasse of his challenge The eighteenth Chapter treateth of the same matters by S. Hieronyme and Chrysostome In this Chapter Hieronyme is first brought foorth In Matth. 26. in these wordes After the figuratiue Passeouer was fulfilled and he had eaten the flesh of the Lambe with his Apostles hee taketh breade which comforteth the heart of man and passeth to the true sacrament of the Passeouer that as in prefiguration of him Melchisedech the Priest of the highest GOD had done offering breade and wine hee also might represent the trueth of his body and bloud Here Hieronyme doeth not affirme the Passeouer to bee a figure of the sacrament but of Christe the true Passeouer Calling the supper a true sacrament of that true and prefigured Passeouer Which wordes would bee noted that hee calleth the breade a true sacrament that is a liuely signe of the verie Passeouer Christ and a representation of the trueth of his body and bloud But here Maister Heskins fareth as hee were halfe madde sending vs to the Vocabularies Calepines and Dictionaries for the signification of this worde repreâ—ento That among learned men it is not so streighted as onely to signifie to shewe a thing by a figure or signe And therevpon we will not striue but that it is often taken to shewe by a figure or signe hee him selfe can not denie and that it must be so taken here in this place appeareth by this reason The comparison will not else stand betweene Melchisedech and Christe which all though it bee not grounded on scripture Hierome often maketh except Christe offered breade and wine in a figure or representation as Melchisedech did in a prefiguration M. Heskins enforceth the word Truth that he should not meane a figure for then he would haue saide as he imagineth that he also must represent his body and bloud and not that he also might represent the truth of his body But if you marke the force of this word quoque also you shall see that Melchisedech did
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
he denyeth transubstantiatioÌ„ If he say it was not verie bread wine which Christ did sacrifice then he denyeth the resemblance vnto Melchisedechs sacrifice and hath Cyprian against him who as we heard before saith Obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat id est panem vinum suum scilicet corpus sanguineÌ„ He offered that selfe same thing that Melchisedech had offered that is to say bread wine euen his body bloud Note here that Melchisedech and Christ offering both the verie selfe same thing they both offered bread and wine and likewise they both offered the body and bloud of Christ. Whereby not onely transubstantiation but also the carnal presence is vtterly ouerthrowne And to presse him harder by his owne weightes euen to death If aliud signifie an other substance as he taught vs before then hoc idem signifieth the same substance and much rather Therefore whâ—n Cyprian saith that Christ offered hoc idem quod Melchisedech it followeth that Melchisedech offered the same substance which he expoundeth bread and wine his body and bloude And this two forked reason will hold down all the papistes noses to the grindstone that they shall not be able to auoide it for their liues The thirtieth Chapter treateth of the same matter by S. Hieronyme and Theodoret. The place of Hieronyme which M. Heskins doth so triumph vpon is vpon the 110. Psalme but those coÌ„mentaries both by Erasmus and by Bruno Amerbachius are vtterly denyed to be Hieronymes doing But seeing they be falsly intituled to him we are coÌ„tent to take this place as thogh it were Hieronymes writing in deed The words vpon the fourth verse are these It is superfluous for vs to goe about to make an exposition of this verse seeing the holy Apostle to the Hebrues hath most fully treated thereof For hee saith this is Mechisedech without father without mother without generation And of all ecclesiastical men it is said that he is without father as concerning the flesh and without mother as concerning his godhead This only therefore let vs interpret thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech let vs only see wherfore he said after the order After the order that is thou shalt not be a priest according to the sacrifices of the Iewes but thou shalt be a prieste after the order of Melchisedech For as Melchisedech kinge of Salem offered breade and wine so shalt thou offer thy bodie and thy bloud true bread and true wine This Melchisedech hath giuen vs these mysteries which we haue He it is that hath saide he that shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloude Hee hath deliuered to vs his sacrament according to the order of Melchisedech What can be saide more plainely in exposition of this writer then that hee him selfe saith that hee hath giuen vs these mysteries that he hath deliuered to vs his sacrament after the order of Melchisedech by which he expresseth what his meaning was by offering his bodie and bloud verie bread and verie wine or true bread and true wine not in the proper sence of a sacrifice but in a mysterie in a sacrameÌ„t But nowe let vs see howe M. Heskins insulteth vppon vs for this counterfete Hieronyme First that he taketh vpon him to expound that which was left vnexpounded by the Apostle to the Hebrues namely that Christ was a prieste which is altogether false for the Apostle doth not onely speake of his eternall priesthood but also of his one oblation by which hee purchased eternall redemption And although this writer doth refer his order to the similitude of his sacrifice in bread and wine yet both the prophet in the psalme and the Apostle to the Hebrues doe sufficiently declare that the excellencie of Melchisedechs order doth consiste in this that he was both a Kinge and a Priest and so a liuely figure of the reall priesthoode of our sauiour Christ. But whereas M. Heskins will controle not only vs but euen his owne vulgare interpretation of the bible which saith not obtuliâ— hee offred but protulit hee brought forth by authoritie of this Hieronyme who hee saith both knewe the olde testament and vnderstoode the Hebrue tongue he bewrayeth his owne weaknesse and sheweth how good a reader he hath been of Hieroms works when he knoweth not what the true Hieronyme himselfe writeth of this matter in his Epistle to Enagrius in which setting downe the verie Hebrue text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth thus expound it Et Melchizedech rex Salem protulit panem vinum Erat autem sacerdos Dei exelsi And Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine and he was a priest of the high god The same word protulit hath Ambrose de mysterijs initiandis and Augustine vppon the title of the 33. Psalme and Cyprian as we heard in the last Chapter lib. 2. Epi 3. ad Caecilium Besides this Hierome in the same Epistle sheweth that the best learned of the Hebrues iudgement was that Melchizedech victori Abraham obuiam processerit in refectionem tam ipsius quà m pugnatorum ipsius panes vinumque protulerit Melchizedech came forth to meete Abraham the conquerour and for refection as well of him as of his warriours brought forth breade and wine And concerning the order of Melchizedech he saith that the Greeke writers interpret it many wayes As for example that he alone was both a King and a Priest and that he was a Priest before circumcision that he was not annoynted with the oyle of the Priestes but with the oyle of gladnesse that hee offered not sacrifices of flesh and bloud and tooke not the bloud of beastes and their bowels and what soeuer is in them more then meate Sed pane vino simplici puroque sacrificio Christi dedicauerit sacramentum but with breade wine being a simple and pure sacrifice he dedicated the sacrament of christ This the true Hierome writt and yet in the ende will determine nothing of his owne iudgement But M. Heskins repeting againe a parcell of Cyprians saying vttered in the Chapter before Who is more properly the Priest of the high God then our Lord Iesus Christe which offered a sacrifice to God his father and offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech had offered that is bread and wine euen his bodie and bloud compareth it with this saying of Hierome As Melchizedech offered bread and wine so shalt thou offer thy bodie and thy bloud the true breade and the true wine And not content with this hee noteth in the margent a plaine place for M. Iuel Howe plaine it is to confute M. Heskins I haue shewed abundantly in the last partâ— of the Chapter next before this whether I remit the reader and passe to Theodoret who in his second dialogue writeth thus Godly Moses writing the olde genealogie hath taught vs that Adam when hee was thus many yeres old begat Seâ—h and when he had liued so many yeres he made
in one very substantiall flesh therefore the manner of participation of his flesh in the sacrament is also spirituall and not carnall Maister Heskins reiecteth this participation to bee the fruition of the benefites of his body and bloud crucified bycause that saith hee is common to all the sacraments and not proper to this But that the substaunce of all sacramentes is one and the difference is in the manner of dispensation of them wee haue shewed sufficiently in the first booke which were tedious nowe to repeate Wherefore we must now set downe what Chrysostome speaketh of the bloud of Christe This bloud maketh that the kinges image doth flourish in vs This bloud doth neuer suffer the beautie and nobilitie of the soule which it doth alwayes water and nourish to fade or waxe faint For bloud is not made of meate soudenly but first it is a certaine other thing But this bloud at the first doth water the soule and indue it with a certaine great strength This mysticall bloud driueth diuelles farre off and allureth Angels and the Lorde of Angels vnto vs For when the diuelles see the Lordes bloud in vs they are turned to flight but the Angels runne foorth vnto vs This bloud being shed did wash the whole world whereof Paule to the Hebrues doth make a long proces This bloud did purge the secrete places and the most holy place of all If then the figure of it had so great power in the temple of the Hebrues and in Aegypt beeing sprinkled vpon the vpper postes of the doores much more the veritie This bloud did signifie the golden altar Without this bloud the chiefe priest durst not goe into the inward secret places This bloud made the priestes This bloud in the figure purged sinnes in which if it had so great force if death so feared the shadowe how much I pray thee will it feare the truth it selfe This bloud is the health of our soules with this bloud our soule is washed with it she is decked with it she is kindled This bloud maketh our minde cleerer then the fire more shining then golde The effusion of this bloud made heauen open Truely the mysteries of the Church are woonderfull the holy treasure house is woonderfull From Paradise a spring did runne from thence sensible waters did flowe from this table commeth out a spring which powreth foorth spirituall flouds Chrysostome in these wordes doth extoll the excellencie of the bloud of Christe shed vpon the crosse the mysterie whereof is celebrated and giuen to vs in the sacrament and therefore hee saith it is Mysticus sanguis mysticall bloud which wee receiue in the sacrament which word Mysticall M. Heskins a common falsarie hath left out in his translation to deceiue the vnlearned reader Hee laboureth much to proue that Chrysostome spake in this long sentence of that sacrament which is needlesse for as he spake of the sacrament so spake he of the passion of Christe and of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the olde lawe and all vnder one name of bloud By which it is more then manifest that hee vseth the name of bloud figuratiuely and ambiguously therefore nothing can bee gathered thereout to fortifie M. Heskins bill of the naturall bloud of Christ to be in the challice The honourable titles of the sacrament proue no transubstantiation nor carnal presence in this sacramēt more then in the other The same Chrysostome vpon Cap. 9. ad Heb. Hom. 16. sheweth howe the bloud of Christ that purged the old sacrifices is the same which is giuen vs in the sacrament of the new testament Non enim corporalis erat mundatio sed spiritualis sanguis spiritualis Quomodo hoc Noune ex corpore manauis Ex corpore quidem sed a spiritu sancto Hoc vos sanguine non Moses sed Christus aspersit per verbum quod dictum est Hic est sanguis noui testamenti in remissionem peccarorum For that was no corporall cleansing but spirituall and it was spirituall bloud Howe so Did it not flowe out of his body It did in deede flowe out of his body but from the holy spirit Not Moses but Christe did sprinkle you with this bloud by that worde which was spoken This is the bloud of the newe testament for the remission of sinnes Thus let Chrysostome expound him selfe touching the mysticall or spirituall bloud of Christe which both was offered in the old sacrifices and nowe feedeth vs in the sacrament if it were in the olde sacrifices naturally present then is it so nowe if the vertue onely was effectuall so is it also to vs and no neede of transubstantiation or carnall presence The sixt Chapter proceedeth in the opening of the vnderstāding of the same text of S. Iohn by Beda and Cyrillus Although Beda our countriman were far out of the compasse of 600. yeres and so vnfitly matched with Cyrillus a Lord of the higher house yet speaketh he nothing for the corporal presence of Christes body in the sacrament but directly against it His words vpon this text of Saint Iohn are these Hunc panem Dominus dedit c. This bread our Lord gaue when he deliuered the ministerie of his body and bloud vnto his disciples when he offered him selfe to his father on the altar of the crosse And where he saith for the life of the world we may not vnderstand it for the elementes but for men that are signified by the name of the worlde In these wordes Beda according to the custome of the olde writers and the doctrine of the Church of Englande in his time and long after calleth the sacrament the mysterie of the body bloud of Christ and not otherwise Yet M. Heskins pythely doth gather that as he calleth the flesh of Christ on the crosse breade and yet it is verie flesh so the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament is called bread yet it is verie flesh Alas this is such a poore begginge of that in question videlicet that the fleshe of Christ is in the sacrament according to his grosse meaning that I am ashamed to heare it Why might he not rather reason thus the fleshe of Christe on the crosse is called bread and yet it is not naturally bread euen so the bread of the sacrament is called flesh yet it is not naturall fleshe It is plaine that breade in that texte of Iohn is taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode and so the flesh and bloud of Christ on the crosse is our food and the same is communicated to our faith in the sacrament Cyrillus in 6. Ioan. by M. Heskins alledged speaketh neuer a worde either of the sacrament or of Christes corporall presence therein Antiquus ille panis c. The old bread was onely a figure an image and a shadowe neither did it giue to the corruptible bodie any thing but a corruptible nutriment for a little time But I am that liuing and quickening breade for euer And the breade which I will giue
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
him take among his innoceÌ„t disciples that which the faithful know our price But when Augustine him selfe saith the sacraments beare the name of those thinges whereof they are sacraments it is no maruell if the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ be called our price whereof it is a figure or sacrament especially seeing Augustine flatly denyeth that Iudas did receiue the bread which was the Lorde but only the Lords bread This conference therefore maketh against him not for him As for Theophylactes authoritie which he calleth a plaine place for the proclamer wee refuse although it is not so plaine as he pretendeth for we also affirme that the sacrament is not a bare figuration of the flesh of Christ but his flesh in deede spiritually receiued Finally Tertullians place De resur Car. is nothing at all for him Caâ—o corpore c. The flesh eateth the body and bloud of Christ that the soule may be fed with God. For by the body and bloud of Christe he meaneth the sacrament of them which is called by the name of that is figured or signified by it As for the last shift that No Catholique Doctour saith that the sacrament is only a figure is too childish for a Doctour to vse for in these words of Tertullian Corpus meum id est â–ª figura corporis met my body that is to say a figure of my body there needeth not to be added the exclusiue onely for the latter part is a description of the former which must containe all that is in the thing described or else it is nothing worth as for example If I say M. Heskins is a man that is to say a soule it were fond and ridiculous but when I say he is a man that is to say a reasonable â—ight I neede not say he is onely so for I haue said before as much as he is and so hath Tertullian Meaning that the sacrament is a figure but not a common or bare figure but a diuine and mysticall token not only to signifie but also to assure vs of the spirituall feeding of vs with the body and bloud of Christ. The fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by S. Cyprian and Athanasius First he alledgeth Cyprian de cÄ™na Domini in these words Significata olim a tempore Melchisedech c. For vnderstaÌ„ding of which place seeing he referreth his reader to the first booke and 29. Chapter where he handleth it more at large thither also will I referre him for answer where the place is at large rehearsed and discussed But out of the same sermon of S. Cyprian he hath a plaine place for M. Iewel Which is this Nonâ— est â—uius sacramenti doctrina c The doctrine of this sacrament is newe and the Euangelicall schooles first brought foorth this manner of teaching and Christ beeing the teacher This learning was first made knowen to the worlde that Christian men should drinke bloud the eating whereof the authoritie of the olde lawe doeth most straitly forbidde For the lawe forbiddeth the eating of bloud the Gospell commandeth that it should be dronke In which commandemâ—â—tâ— this moste cheefely ought the Christian religion to discerne that the bloud of beastes differing in all thinges from the bloud of Christe hath onely the effect of temporall releefe and the life of them haâ—h an end appointed without reuocation Hereupon he noteth that the Christians drinke the bloud of Christ which I graunt but spiritually for so Cyprian expoundeth himselfe in the same sermon vt sciremus quòd mansio nostra in ipsâ— fit manducatio potus quasi quaedam incorporatio That we should knowe that our eating is our dwelling in him and ouâ— drinking it as it were a certeine incorporatioâ— in him And againe Esus igitur carnis huius quaedam auiditas est quoddem desiderium manendi in eo c. Therefore the eating of his flesh is a certeine desire to abide in him c. These and such like places doe proue a spirituall eating and drinking of his bloud and none other He noteth further that this is called of Cyprian a new doctrine and therefore it can not be the drinking of the figure of the bloud of Christ for that was olde I answere briefly it was so new as the gospel is the new Testament whiche yet was preached to Adam and Eue but not so clearely and distinctly as since the time of Christ and so was the eating of the bodie and bloud of Christe all one with that it is now differing but in manner of reuelatioÌ„ and not in substance of spirituall foode Athanasius is alledged as he is cited in Theodoret Dial. 2. in confus Corpus est c. It is therfore a bodie to whom he saith for them on my right hand Whereof the diuel was enimie with the euill powers and the Iewes and the Greekes By which bodie he was in deede and so was called an high priest and Apostle by that mysteria which he dâ—liuered to vs saying â–ª This is my bodie whiche is broken for you And the bloud of the new Testament not of the old which is shedd for you The Godhead hath neither bodie nor bloud but man which he did take of the virgine Marie He meaneth nothing lesse than that the sacrament was his natural body and bloud but that he could not haue instituted a mysterie of hiâ— bodie and bloud except he had ben a very man which hath bodie and bloud for the godhead hath none And therfore the rule that M. Heskins giueth that scriptures must be alledged in their literal sense in matters of faith is to litle purpose although it may stand well in this place For the mysterie of his bodie proueth his humanitie without any allegorie or other figure as I haue shewed before Athanasius is likewise alledged in the second Nicen counsell Serm. de 〈◊〉 Iesu in Berito How truly I will not say but thus he is reported to say of the bloud of Christ which was said to be in many places which he denietâ— to haue come froÌ„ Christ but from an image that was crucified Nec esse aliter 〈◊〉 a vere Catholicis praeâ—â—r id quod 〈◊〉 à nobis quasi ex carne sanguine Christi aliqâ—id pasâ—â— i◠〈◊〉 inuâ—â—iri nisi 〈◊〉 quod in aera altarit per manus sacerdanuâ— quotiâ—ie spiritualiter officitur Neither is it otherwise to be thought of true Catholiques then is written of vs as though any part of the flesh bloud of Christ may be found in the world but that which on the altar is euerie day made spiritually by the handes of the priestes I do not cite this as the vndoubted authoritie of Athanasius but thinke rather it was forged in his name as many other thinges were in that wicked idolatrous counsel yet it appeared that the maker of that sermon so the Church in such time as he liued had not receiued the Popish corporall presence The one and
be his owne substaunce as it is not appearing which is altogether vnchangeable and more inwardly and secretly higher then all the spirites which he hath created He rayleth vpon Oecolampadius for leauing out of S. Augustine that which maketh against him as though hee him selfe hath not an hundreth times done so as he chargeth him Although it is not to be thought that Oecolampadius vsed any fraud when he tooke as much as serued his purpose for which he alledged it and nothing folowed that was contrarie to it for all M. Heskins lowde crying out For Paule preached Christe by signifying in the sacrament which is called the body bloud of Christ bicause it is a sacrament thereof whereas his tong nor his parchment nor ynke nor sound of words nor figures of letters were no sacraments and yet he preached the same Christ by signifying in speaking writing and ministring the sacrament But besides this M. Heskins would haue vs note two things That the bread is sanctified and made a great sacrament and that it is sanctified and made by the inuisible worke of the holy Ghost The first he saith is against Oecolampadius Cranmer that say the creatures receiue no sanctification but the soules of men They meane that holinesse is not included in the creatures but consisteth in the whole action and so Augustine addeth to the consecration the due receiuing in remembrance of Christes death without which the bread is no sacrament But M. Heskins would learne what he meaneth by calling it a great sacrament and what the worke of the holy Ghost is in it If it please him to vnderstand the holy Ghost working inuisibly maketh it a greate mysterie of our saluation assuring our consciences that we are fed spiritually with the body and bloud of Christ as our bodies are corporally with bread and wine As for S. Iames his Masse and other such maâ—king disguisings I will not vouchsafe to aunswere being meere forgeries and counterfetings But howe S. Augustine did expound these wordes M. Heskins if he durst might haue cyted this place Contra Adimantum Nam ex eo quod scriptum est sanguinem pecoris animam eius esse prÄ™ter id quod supra dixi non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris anima possum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim Dominus dubitanit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui For of that which is written that the bloud of a beast is the life thereof beside that which I said before that it pertaineth not to me what becommeth of the life of a beast I may interprete that commandement to be giuen in a signe for our Lord doubted not to say this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body This place is plaine and will not suffer M. Heskins glose that the accidents are called a signe of his body for then it is nothing like to the text which he compareth to this bloud is the life of the beast Let this place expound Augustine when so euer he nameth the sacrament the body of Christ. The fiue and fiftieth Chapter tarieth in the exposition of the same wordes by Chrysostome and Sedulius Chrysostome is cyted In 26. Math. Hom. 83. Credamus vbique c. Let vs beleeue in euery place neither let vs resist him although it seemeth to be an absurde thing to our sense and to our cogitation which is saide Let his word I beseech you ouercome both our sense and our reason which thing let vs do in all matters and specially in mysteries not looking vpon those things only which lye before vs but also holding fast his wordes For we can not be deceiued by his wordes but our sense is most easie to be deceiued they can not be false but this our sense is often and often deceiued Therefore bicause he hath saide This is my body let vs be held with no doutfulnesse but let vs beleeue and throughly see it with the eyes of vnderstanding Here M. Heskins noteth that it passeth not reason to make present a figure of his body as though the mysterie of the sacrament were nothing but a figure of his body Secondly that Chrysostome willeth Christes wordes to be vnderstanded as they be spoken No doubt but he would haue them to be vnderstoode as they were meant by Christe and that is spiritually for which cause he willeth vs to beholde the matter with the eyes of our vnderstanding and by faith And whereas M. Heskins doth further alledge this Doctours wordes In Marc. 14. Hom. 51. Qui dixis c. He that saide This is my body did bring to passe the thing also with his worde We confesse he did so but thereof it doth not followe that al figure is wiped away as he saith neither is there any plaine place for the proclamer or in any thing that followeth in the same Homely Quando igitur c. When then thou seest the Priest giue the body thinke not the hand of the Priest but the hand of Christe is put foorth vnto thee Surely in these wordes we must either say that the Priestes hande is transubstantiated into the hande of Christ or else we must acknowledge a figuratiue speach It followeth in Chrysostome for more persuasion Qui enim maius c. For he that hath giuen a greater thing for thee that is to say his life why will he disdaine to deliuer his body to thee Let vs therefore heare both Priestes and other howe great and how woonderfull a thing is graunted to vs Let vs heare I pray you and let vs tremble he hath deliuered his flesh vnto vs him selfe offered hath he set before vs What satisfaction therefore shall we offer when after we are nourished with such a foode we doe offend When eating a lambe we are turned into woolues when beeing satisfied with sheepes flesh we rauine as lyons M. H. noteth that here be termes to plaine for figuratiue speaches yet in spite of his nose he must coÌ„fesse al this speach to be figuratiue or else he must make Chrysost. Authour of grosse absurdities I will only speak of one which is most apparant Chrysost. saith it is a greater matter that Christ gaue his life then that he giueth his body Let me aske him this question Doth hee giue a dead body in the sacrament or a liuing If hee giue a liuing body hee giueth his life in the sacrament and then howe is it lesse when hee giueth both his life and his body But Chrysostome meaneth that he suffered death which is a greater matter then that he giueth vs his body in the sacrament for that is a memoriall of his death and receiueth all the vertue from his death so the giuing of his life is a greater matter then the giuing of his body in the sacrament for the was in acte this in mysterie But let vs followe M. Hes. The sacrament is a wonderful thing
Prosper Hoc est quod dicimus c. This is that we say that by all meanes we labour to proue that the sacrifice of the Church is made of two thinges consisteth of two thinges the visible forme or kinde of the elementes and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe both of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament that is the body of Christe c. This visible forme Maister Heskins will haue to be the accidentes onely then hee will haue a sacrifice whereof one part by his owne interpretation is bare accidentes without a subiect and thirdly that it is the body of Christe corporally receiued But let vs heare not Prosper an vncertaine Authour but Augustine him selfe declare these thinges vnto vs in Ioan. Tr. 26. Huius rei sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis sanguinis Christi alicubi quotidie alicubi certis interuallis dierum 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 suerie The sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christe in some places daily in some places with certaine distaunces of dayes is prepared in the Lordes table and from the Lordes table is receiued of some persons to life and of some to destruction But the thing it selfe whereof it is a sacrament is life to euery man and destruction to no man who so euer shall bee partaker of it Nowe iudge whether S. Augustine esteemeth the sacrament to bee onely accidentes and the thing of the sacrament to bee a bodily presence whiche the wicked can not bee partakers of or whether the wicked receiue nothing but the accidents to their destruction seeing they receiue the sacrament but not the thing of the sacrament Chrysostome the second barron named in this Chapter is cited in dictum Apost Nolo vos igno Dixi enim quod c. For I saide that the trueth must haue a certaine excellencie aboue the figure Thou hast seene concerning baptisme what is the figure and what the trueth Go to I will shewe thee also the tables and the communion of the sacramentes to be described there if thou wilt not againe require of me the whole but so requirest these things that are done as it is meete to seâ— in shadowes and figures Therefore bicause he had spoken of the sea and of the cloâ—d and of Moses he added moreouer And they all did eate the same spirituall meate As thou saith he comming vp out of the lâ—uer of the waters camest to the table so they also coÌ„ming vp out of the sea came to a newe and wonderfull table I speake of Manna And againe as thou hast a wonderfull drinke the wholesome bloud so had they also a wonderfull nature of drinke Here Maister Heskins gathereth that our drinke is the wholesome bloud of Christe which we confesse spiritually receiued as it was of the Fathers likewise to proue that by the table he meant the body of Christ he citeth an other place Sicut autem c. Euen as he saide that they all passed through the sea so he prefigured the nobilitie of the Church when he saide They did all eate the same spirituall meat He hath insinuated the same againe for so in the Church the rich man receiueth not one body the poore man an other nor this man one bloud and that man an other Euen so then the rich man receiued not one Manna and the poore man an other neither was this man partaker of one spring and that man of a lesse plentifull Not content with this he addeth another sentence out of the same Homely Sed cuius gratia c. But for what cause doth S. Paule make mention of these thinges For that cause which I tolde you at the first that thou mayest learne that neither baptisme nor remission of sinnes nor knowledge nor the communion of the sacraments nor the holy table nor the fruition of the body nor the participation of the bloud nor any other such thing can profite vs except we haue a right life and a wonderfull and free from all sinne Heere Maister Heskins gathereth that Christes bodye and bloud may bee receiued of wicked men but eyther hee must vnderstand Sainte Chrysostome speaking of the sacramentes by the name of the thinges whereof they be sacramentes or else hee will fall into a great absurditie for he saith forgiuenesse of sinnes shall not profite by which he meaneth the ceremonie of absolution and not the forgiuenesse of God in deede Againe he must note an hyperbole or ouerreaching speach in this sentence or else whom shal the body and bloud of Christ profite when no man is free from sinne But we yet must heare a sentence or two more out of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 23. Quae autem c. Those thinges that followe doe signifie the holy table For as thou eatest the Lordes body so did they eate Manna And as thou drinkest his bloud so did they drinke water out of the rocke But here Maister Heskins playes his old part for he leaueth out that which following immediately expoundeth Chrysostome contrarie to his purpose Quamuis in sensu quae dabantur perciperentur spiritualiter tamen dabantur non secundùm naturae consequentiam sed secundùm muneris gratiam cum corpore etiam animam in fidem adducentem nutriuit Although those thinges that were giuen were perceiued by sense yet were they giuen spiritually not according to the consequence of nature but according to the grace of the gift bringing into faith he nourished the soule also with the body By these words it is most euident that Manna and the water were not bare figures or corporall foode onely but also foode of the soule through fayth howe so euer Chrysostome in other places speaketh of them as figures and as corporall food and in those respectes preferreth our sacramentes before them But let vs heare the last sentence Qui enim illa illis c. For he which gaue those things vnto them euen he hath prepared this table And euen he him selfe brought them through the sea and thee through baptisme And to them gaue Manna and water and to thee his body and bloud Vpon all these places of Chrysostome Maister Heskins reasoneth that the Fathers onely receiued a figure and we the veritie or else there were no difference if we both receiue a veritie spiritually and a figure outwardly I haue shewed the difference before to be not in the substance or vertue but in the manner of reuelation which was to them obscure to vs cleere to them in expectation of that which was to come to vs in assuraunce of that which is fulfilled namely the redemption by Christes death For Iesus Christe was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde and the onely foode that came
eateth Christe but he that eateth him spiritually and hath life by him Then no wicked man eateth him which hath not life consequently no man eateth him corporally But heare what the same Cyril writeth in the same Booke Chapter Haec igitur de caussa Dominus quomodo id fieri possit non enodauit sed fide id quaerendum hortatur sic credentibus discipulis fragmenta panis dedit dicens accipite manducate hoc est corpus meum calicem etiam similiter circuntulit dicens Bibite ex hoc omnes hic est calix sanguinis mei qui pro multis effunditur in remissioneÌ„ peccatorum Perspicis quia sine fide quÄ™rentibus mysterij modum nequaquam explanauit credentibus autem etiam non quÄ™rentibus exposuit For this cause thefore the Lorde did not expound how that might be done but exhorteth that it be sought by faith so to his disciples which beleeued he gaue peeces of bread saying take ye eate ye this is my bodie likewise he gaue the cuppe about and saide drinke ye all of this this is the cuppe of my bloud which shal be shed for many for remission of sinnes Thou seest that to them which inquire without faith he hath not explaned the manner of the mysterie but to them which beleeued although they inquired not he hath set it foorth In this saying of Cyril beside that he teacheth that Christe his flesh bloud are receiued in a mysterie it is good to obserue that he calleth the sacrament which Christ gaue to his Disciples fragmentes or peeces of bread which vtterly ouerthroweth Popish transubstantiation The eight Chapter proceedeth in declaration of the same by S. Augustine and Oecumenius The first place of Augustine he citeth but nameth not where it is written is this Cathechumeni iam credunt c. The learners of Christian faith doe nowe beleeue in the name of Christ but Iesus committeth not him selfe to them that is he giueth not vnto them his bodie and his bloud Let them be ashamed therefore because they knowe not let them goe through the red sea let them eate Manna that as they haue beleeued in the name of Iesus so Iesus may commit himselfe vnto them M. Heskins himselfe vpon this place saith It is common by the name of the figure to vnderstand the thing figured Therfore as Manna is called the bodie of Christ so is the sacramentall bread and wine called his bodie and bloud What is here for a Papist But Augustine in his Booke De vtilitate poenitentiae as he weeneth maketh much for him I am ergo lumine illato c. Now therefore the light being brought in let vs seeke what the rest signifie What meaned the sea the clowde Manna For those he hath not expounded But he hath shewed what the rocke is The passage through the sea is baptisme but because baptisme that is the water of health is not of health but beeing consecrated in the name of Christ which shed his bloud for vs the water is signed with his crosse and that it might signifie this the redde sea was that baptisme Manna from heauen is openly expounded by our Lord himselfe Your fathers saith he haue eaten Manna in the wildernesse and are dead For when should they liue For the figure might pronounce life it could not be life They haue eaten manna saith he are dead That is Manna which they haue eaten could not deliuer them from death not because Manna was death vnto them but because it deliuered not from death For he should deliuer theÌ„ froÌ„ death which was figured by Manna Surely Manna came from heauen consider whome is figured I am saith he the bread of life that came downe from heauen M. Heskins ioyneth another place of Augustine Lib. Nou. vet Test. Quast 65. Manna cypus est c. Manna is a figure of that spirituall meate which by the resurrection of our Lorde is made trueth in the mysterie of the Eucharistie By this he will proue that Manna in the former place was meant to be a figure of the body of Christ in the sacrament But in spite of his beard he must vnderstande it of the spiritual maner of receiuing therof by faith with the benefites of his death which are made perfect in his resurrection or else how saith he that the figure was made trueth by the resurrection of Christe For the trueth of Christes bodie did not depende vppon his resurrection and the sacrament was instituted before his death but it tooke and taketh force of his death and resurrection And concerning the former sentence I can but marueile at his impudencie that woulde alledge that treatise which is directly against him as partly you may see by the places cited by mee out of the same and followeth immediatly this place in the second Chapter of this booke partly by these places following taken out of the same booke Patres nostri inquis â—undem cibum spiritualem manducauerunt eundem potum spiritualeÌ„ biberunt Erant enim ibi qui quod manducabant intelligebant Erant ibi quibus plus Christus in corde quà m Manna in ore sapiebat Our fathers sayeth he did eat the same spirituall meate and drinke the same spirituall drinke For there were there which did vnderstande what they did eate There were there to whom Christe sauoured better in their heart then Manna in their mouth And again Breuiter dixerim Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt eundem quem nos cibum spiritualem manducauerunt Quicunque autem de Manna solam saturitatem quae fierunt patres infidelium maâ—ducauerunâ— moriui sunt Sic tui am eundem potum Petra enim Christus Eudem ergo potum quem noâ— sed spiritualem id est qui fide capiebatur non qui corporâ— hauriebatur I will saye briefely whosoeuer vnderstoode Christe in Manna did eate the same spirituall meate that wee doe But whosoeuer sought onely to fill their bellyes of Manna which were the fathers of the vnfaithfull they haue eaten and are deade So also the same drinke For the rocke was Christe They drinke therefore the same drinke that wee doe but spirituall drinke that is which was receiued by faith nor which was drawen in with the bodie And againe Eundem ergo cibum eundem potum sed intelligentibus credentibâ—s Non intelligentibus autem illud solum Manna illa fola aqua ille cibus osurienti potus iste suienti nec ille nec iste credenti Credenti autem idem qui nunc Tunc enim Christus venturus modò Christus venit Venturus venit diuersa verba sims sed idem Christus The same meate therefore and the same drinke be to them that vnderstoode and beleeued But to them which vnderstoode it not it was onely Manna that was onely water that meate to the hungrie this drinke to the thirstie neither that nor this to the beleeuer But to the beleeuer the same which is nowe for then Christ
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
to doe that which Christ commanded to be done and to receiue that which he deliuered vs to be receiued if the particular explication of our faith will not satisfie M. Hes. at least let him after his owne Popish Diuinitie holde vs excused for our implicite faith or if his own principles can hold him no longer then he listeth let him giue vs leaue to esteeme none otherwise of them then he giueth vs example to do The seuen and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the oblation and sacrifice of the Masse as it was vsed of the Apostles and Fathers When not one of the Apostles or Euangelistes make one word mention either of Masse or sacrifice therein M. Heskins taketh vpon him much more then al the Papistes in the world can proue Concerning the Fathers as they vse the terme of sacrifice so I haue often shewed that they meane a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of propitiation or else they vse the name of sacrifice vnproperly for a memorial of the onely sacrifice of Christ which he once offered neuer to be repeated Neither do any of these Liturgies which M. Heskins calleth Masses though they be falsly ascribed to Saint Iames Saint Clement Saint Basil Saint Chrysostome c. shewe any other thing but manifestly the same that I haue saide First that which is falsly ascribed to Saint Iames in these wordes Memores c. Therefore we sinners being mindfull of his quickening passions of his healthfull crosse and death his buriall and resurrection from death the third day of his ascension into heauen and sitting at the right hand of thee ô God the father and of his second glorious and fearefull comming when he shall come with glory to iudge the quicke and the dead when he shall render to euery one according to his workes we offer vnto thee ô Lord this reuerend vnbloudie sacrifice praying that thou wilt not deale with vs according to our sinnes No reasonable man can vnderstand here any other but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing or prayer or a memoriall of the sacrifice of christ For he saith not we offer the body and bloud of Christe but being mindfull of his sufferings c. we offer this reuerend and vnbloudy sacrifice for such is the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing The like and more plaine is that which is ascribed to Clemens by Nicholas Methon Memores igitur Therefore being mindfull of his passion death and resurrection returning into heauen and his second comming in which he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead and to render to euery man according to his workes we offer vnto thee our king and God according to his institution this bread and this cup giuing thankes vnto thee by him that thou hast vouchsafed vs to stand before thee and to sacrifice vnto thee This is so plaine against M. Heskins for the oblation of Christes body and bloud c. that he is enforced to flee to shamefull petitions of principles the end of which is that this bread is no bread this cup is no cup but as Christe called bread in the 6. of Iohn and S. Paule in the 1. Cor. 10. 11. in exposition whereof lyeth all the controuersie That Liturgie which is intituled to S. Basil is yet more plaine for a spirituall oblation of thankesgiuing Memores ergo c. Therefore being mindfull ô Lord of his healthsome passions of his quickening crosse three dayes buriall resurrection from death ascension into heauen sitting at thy right hand ô God the father and of his glorious and terrible second presence we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures M. Heskins saith he abhorreth not from the name of sacrifice as we do but he falsly belyeth vs for if he will looke in our Liturgie or communion booke he shall finde that we also offer a sacrifice of thankesgiuing euen our selues our soules and bodies as the Apostle exhorteth vs to be a holy liuely and acceptable sacrifice to god But he will not remember that the sacrifice he speaketh of is not the body and bloud of Christe but tua ex tuis thy creatures of thy giftes or thy gifts of thy creatures namely the bread and wine which also after consecration he prayeth to be sanctified by Gods holy spirite but the body of Christe hath no neede of such sanctification Secondly he noteth not that his Basil maketh but two presences of Christe in the worlde the first when hee liued in humilitie in the the world the second which shall be terrible and glorious by which he doth manifestly exclude the third imagined presence of Christ in the sacrament To the same effect prayeth the Priest in the other Liturgie ascribed to Chrysostome Memores c. Therefore being mindfull of this wholesome commaundement and of all those things which are done for vs of his crosse buriall resurrection ascension into heauen sitting at the right hand of his second and glorious comming againe we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures Maister Heskins saith he will not seeke the deapth of this matter but only declare that al these fathers did offer sacrifice In which words he mocketh his readers egregiously whereas he should proue that they offered the body and bloud of Christe to be a propitiatorie sacrifice and that he proueth neuer a whit Nowe that the meaning of that Liturgie was not to offer Christ in sacrifice this prayer therein vsed before the words of coÌ„secration as they terme it doth sufficieÌ„tly declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Lord receiue this sacrifice vnto thine heauenly altar So that it is manifest they called the bread wine a sacrifice not the body bloud of christ The like is that of Ambrose The Priest saith Therefore being mindfull of his most glorious passion resurrection from death and ascension into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudy sacrifice this holy bread and cup of eternall life This vndefiled sacrifice saith M. Heskins must needes be the body and bloud of Christe for else there is nothing vndefiled that a man can offer But why may it not be as Ambrose calleth it here the holy bread and cup of the communion or as he calleth it a little before in the same place the figure of the body bloud of Christ For the bread and the wine which vnproperly he calleth a sacrifice in steede of a memoriall of a sacrifice in that they be the holy sacraments of Christes body and bloud are holy vndefiled and the foode of eternal life The same Ambrose called the soule of his brother an innocent sacrifice and offered the same to God in his prayer De obiâ—â— fratris c. To conclude not one of all these Liturgies no not the Canon of the Masse it selfe saith that the body of Christe is the sacrifice that they do offer or that they offer a propitiatorie sacrifice or that they offer any other but a
they were not erected according to Gods commaundent and yet was not hee accounted an heretike 2. Regum 18. Much lesse are they to bee called heretikes that throwe downe the Popishe aultars whiche were set vp against the onelye Aulter and sacrifice of Christ and his passion to the most blasphemous defacing of the same To the 41. that any bishop was maryed on Ashe wednesday it is a foolish demaund to require the proofe but that iâ— was lawful for a bishoppe to mary any day in the yeare it is proued by the authoritie of scriptures which exclude no day as vnlawfull to mary in To the 42. that no man did write that the gouernemeÌ„t of women was monstrous we grant neither do we holde this article though some one man haue witten it To the 43. that est in these words hoc est corpus meum is to be taken for significat it is proued by Tertullian who expoundeth hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis 〈◊〉 This is my body that is to say this is a figure of my body contra Marc li 4. S. Ambrose ipse clamat dominus Iesus hoc est corpus meum Ante bedectionem verborum caelestium alia speciâ—s nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur â–ª Our Lorde Iesus himselfe saith alowd This is my body Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified Deijs qui myster init Chrysostome sayeth of the sanctified vessels in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur In which the very bodie of Christ is not but the mysterie of the bodie of Christe is conteined â–ª in Mat. Hom. 11. Augustine sayeth Nam ex eo quod scripâ—um est sanguinem pecoris animam eius esse praeter id â—uod supra dixi non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris anima possum etiam interpretari prÄ™ceptum illud in signo positum esse non enim Dominus dubitauit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui For as concerning that which is writen that bloud is the life of the beast beside that which I sayed before that it perteineth not to me what is done with the life of a beast I may also interprete that commaundement to consist in a signe For our Lord doubted not to saye This is my bodie when hee did giue a signe of his bodie contâ— Adamantum In this same Augustine sheweth that these wordes hoc est corpus meum are to be taken in the same sense that these words sanguis est anima pecoris where est is manifestly taken for significat by his iudgement there is no one article wherein we differ from the Papistes that hath more plentifull confirmation in the doctours of our doctrine therein then this of the carnall presence of Christ in the sacrament To the 44. that the lay people communicating did take the cuppe one at anothers hand it appereth by the words of Basill in Ep. ad Caesar. Patri for of those that dwelled in the wildernesse where no Priest was saith hee a seipsis communicant they receiue of themselues or one of another And in Alexandria and Aegypt euery one of the people hath the communion in his house and receiue it there at home Et in ecclesia sacerdoâ— dat partem accipit eam is qui suscipit cuÌ„ omni libertate ipsam admouâ—t ori propria 〈◊〉 Idem igitur est virtute sine vnam partem quis accâ—piet a sacerdote sine plures partes simul And euen in the Church the Priest giueth one part and he which receueth it taketh it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand Therefore it is the same in vertue whether a man take one part of the Priest or more partes together Also it appeareth by the 6. Councell of Constantinople Can. â—8 that before that time Lay men in presence of the Bishop Elder or Deacon did diuide the deuine mysteries among theÌ„ selues which vntil then was not forbiddeÌ„ Our Sauiour Christe also hauing once deliuered the cup did not take it into his handes so often as euery one of his disciples did drinke but willed them to diuide it among them selues Luc. 22. To the 45. that a controuersie of religion being decided by the Byshop of Rome the contrary parte was not taken for heresie nor the mainteiners thereof for heretikes is proued by the controuersie of rebaptising them that were baptised by heretikes which when Cornelius and Stephanus Bishops of Rome had decided yet was not the contrary opinion taken for heresie nor Saint Cyprian al the bishops of Affrica which agreed vppon it in a councel at Carthage counted for heretikes a matter notoriously knowen to all them that reade Cyprians workes or Euseb. lib. 7. Cap. 3. which vtterly ouerthroweth the popes authoritie To the 46. that any executed for felony was put in the kalendar for a Martyr is a thing needelesse to proue yet the penitent theefe whiche being crucified with Christ was executed iustly for his offences is of good writers counted a Martyr So might one hanged for felonie and at his death repenting and detesting Papistrie To the 47. that such as refused to renounce the Bishop of Romes authoritie were excommunicated it appeareth by the Councell of Carthage 3. Cap. 26. which forbad that the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop of the principal See should be called the highest Priest or the prince of Priestes or by any such title Also the Councel Mileuitanum doth excommunicate all them that appealed to the Bishop of Rome or any other out of Aphrica Cap. 22. Yea he that thought such appellations lawfull was excommunicated by which it appeareth that though there be no expresse mention of an othe yet an othe in that case vpon good ground might be tendered To proue that a Fryer of 60. yeares age being made Bishop did marry a woman of 19. yeares of age within sixe hundreth yeares after Christ which is the eight and fortith article it is impossible because there was not any fryer in the worlde 1200. yeares after Christ. To proue that any Bishop preached that it is all one to pray in a dunghill and in a Church whiche is the 49. article is no assertion of ours neither of any man I thinke in the worlde To the â—0 that such as were no heretikes refused to subscribe to a generall councell gathered by the Byshop of Rome is proued before by saint Cyprian and the Byshops of Aphrica of his time also by Saint Augustine and the bishopps of Aphrica in his time which refused to subscribe to the Bishops of Rome Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus pretending the councel of Nice for their authority in receiuing appeales but when the true Copyes were brought from Alexandria and Constantinople they werâ— found falsifiers of the Nicen Councel Concilio Aphricano â–ª cap 101.
gone out of the parleament house where matters are grauely intreated of and hath betaken him selfe to the wilde forest where hee may disporte himselfe in his games with Robin hoode and his merie mates And verilie if he had not tolde vs him selfe of his lustie hunting wee might well haue thought he had not beene at home but wandering in the woodes so wilde when in his exhortation vnto faith in the sacrament hee will persuade vs that none can vnderstande the scriptures except they haue founde faith in the veritie of the Sacramente Which happeneth to all those that wil not be with Christ in the breaking of the breade as the two disciples were that went to Emans to whome Christe was a straunger vntill he came to the breaking of the breade But leaste this vaine allegorie shoulde seeme to bee founde out only in M. Heskins chase hee trauelleth to finde it in S. Augustin Theophylact but al in vaine For first to giue vs a tast what synceritie and trueth he will vse in the rest of this booke the verie first sentence he alleadgeth out of any Doctor is corruptly and vntruly rehearsed For thus hee maketh Augustine to speake in his treatise De consensu Euangelistarum not naming in what booke or Chapter whereas that which he writeth of this matter is Lib. 3. Cap. 25. Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum a Satana fuisse ne agnosceretur Iesus sed tantùm a Christo propter eorum fidem ambiguam facta est permissio vsque ad sacramentum panis vt vnitate corporis eius participata remoueri intelligatur impedimentum inimici vt Christus possit agnosci We doe not take it incongruently that this impediment in their eies was of Sathā that Iesus shold not be knowen but only it was permitted of Christ for their doubtfull faithes sake vntill they came to the sacrament of bread that the vnitie of Christs body being participated it might be perceiued that the impediment of the enimie was remoued that Christ might be knowen In this place beside that he turneth autem into enim and leaueth out factum after fuisse he addeth of his owne propter eorum fidem ambiguam for their doubtfull faiths sake Which words are not Augustins Wherby it appeareth that hee redde not this place out of Augustine himselfe but followed some other mans collection as he doth almost euerie where But Augustine in that place comparing the wordes of Marke and Luke together sheweth that there was no alteration in the shape of Christes bodie but onely that the two disciples eyes were helde that they could not knowe him but in breaking of the bread which signified the vnity of the Church For this he writeth Neque quisquam se Christum agnouisse arbitretur si eius corporis particeps non est id est ecclesię cuius vnitatem in sacramento panis commendat Apostolus dicens vnus pà nis vnum corpus multi sumus vt cum eis benedictum panem porrigeret apperirentur oculi eorum agnoscerent cum Neither let any man thinke that he hath knowen Christ if he bee not partaker of his body that is of the Church whose vnitie the Apostle cōmendeth in the sacrament of the bread saying One bread we being many are one bodie that when he reached vnto them the blessed bread their eyes were opened and they knew him This is Augustines collection of this matter nothing agreable with M. Heskins allegorie of the soūd faith in the veritie of the sacrament but much against it teaching the true participation of the body of Christ in the sacrament which is the mystical coniunction of him vnto his Church Moreouer euen in the place by him alledged I meruell M. Heskins cannot see that Augustine calleth it the sacramēt of bread which agreeth not with his transsubstantiation and if he think the participation of the vnitie of Christes bodie doth helpe him Augustine in the same place sheweth the contrarie vnderstanding the bodie of Christ to be his Church as is before shewed But what saith Theophylact of the same Another thing also is here insumated namely that that their eyes which take this blessed bread are opened that they may knowe him For the fleshe of our Lorde hath a great and vnspeakable strength What is there here in these authorities either for M. Heskins bil of the reall presence or for his fond allegorie It pleaseth him excedingly that Theophylact saith the flesh of Christ is of vnspeakeable power which we doe most willingly admitte euen in receiuing of the sacrament it worketh mightily but hee will not see at all that Theophylact with Augustine calleth the sacrament blessed bread by which they both do shew that the substance of bread remaineth although it be blessed consecrated vnto an other vse then for bodily food The second Cha. expoundeth the sixt of S. Ioh according to the letter The summe of this literal exposition is this that three sundry breades are mentioned by Christe in this sixte of Iohn that is the bread Manna the bread the sonne of God and the bread the flesh of Christ and that these three breads are distincted both in nature and in time in whiche they were giuen For Manna was a corporall food giuen of old time in the wildernes The second bread the godhead of Christ being an eternall and spirituall substance Christ saith his father doth giue in the present tence and that he is the bread of life and requireth beleefe in him which is proper to God onely The third breade is the fleshe of Christ which he will giue for the life of the world speaking in the future tence and is meant of the sacrament And this he dare auouch to be the natiue true vnderstanding of this scripture But sauing his authoritie there are but two breades spoken of in this Chapter namely Manna and the bread of life which is not the diuinitie of Christ separated from his flesh nor his flesh separated or distincted from his godhead but euen his quickening spiritual flesh which being vnited to his eternal spirit was by the same giuen for the life of the world not in the sacrament but in the sacrifice of his bodie bloud on the crosse and is daily sealed and testified vnto vs by the sacrament of his bodie and bloud ministred according to his holie institutiō And this I dare auouch to be the true natiue sense of this scripture both by the plain circumstances of the same and by the iudgement of the best approued ancient writers And first to take away as wel the vain supposed distinction of time in which the two later breads are said to be giuen as also to proue that they are but one bread our sauior Christ him selfe after he hath promised to giue the bread which is his flesh for the life of the world and declared what fruite commeth to them that eate his fleshe and drinke his bloude c. in