which the holy Ghost in expresse words denyeth Heb. 7.11 But the first that figureth both the priesthood and sacrifice of the new law is Melchisedech So that this priesthood is peculiar only to our sauiour Christe as both Dauid Psal. no. and the Apostle to the Hebrues the 7. do proue it there is no doubt but Melchisedech was a figure of Christ But what sacrifice hee offered the scripture maketh no mention neither is M. Heskins able to shewe For first he hath rehearsed the historie of him which is written in Gen. 14. And Melchisedech king of Salem brought foorth breade wine and he was a priest of the most high God Therfore he blessed him saying blessed is Abraham of God most high possesser of heauen and earth and blessed be the most high God which hath deliuered thine enimies into thine hande And Abraham gaue him tithe of all In which words there is no mentioÌ„ of any sacrifice Afterward he compareth him in all those points in which the Apostle to the Hebrues doth Heb. 7. Which are these that he was king of rightuousnesse and king of peace without father without mother without kinred on earth Hauing neither beginning of dayes nor end of life but is likened to the sonne of God and continueth a Priest for euer that he blessed Abraham and that Abraham payde tythes vnto him In all which applications there is not one worde of any sacrifice Neither in the apostle nor in M. Heskins therefore as I sayde in the beginning M. Heskins hath not satisfied the title of his Chapter And verily the Apostle in these two pointes onely considereth the Priesthoode of Melchisedech that he blessed Abraham which had the promises and receiued tythes of him in whose loynes Leuie the father of Aarons Priesthoode was tythed who vndoubtedly would not haue omitted the sacrifice of breade and wine if there had bene any when he applyed the interpretation of his name which was a great deale lesser matter And surely it seemeth that Maister Heskins could not handsomely frame an application thereof else would he not haue admitted so plausible a matter and so commonly prated of among the Papistes He sawe first in the text was no mention of oblation secondly if there had bene oblation of bread and wine it would not well haue figured that sacrifice wherein they say is neither bread nor wine The fourteenth Chapter declareth after the minde of Chrysostome that Iob was a figure of Christ for the desire his seruants had to eate his flesh Maister Heskins doth well to adde after the minde of Chrysostome for it is plaine by the text that the words of eating his flesh are meant of hatred and not of loue Either that Iobs seruaunts shewed their desire to be reuenged of their maisters enimies of whoÌ„ he speaketh in the two verses before or else as Saint Hieronyme thinketh that he had procured his seruants hatred for his intertainment of straungers and other vertues mentioned in the next verse following Pro hospitalitatibus eius virtute quae caeterâ— sancti Deo placuerunt odium seruorum contraxerat So that this matter standeth not vpon any certaine figure of the scripture but onely vpon Chrysostomes minde vnto which you heare the contrarie minde of Hieronyme But â—owe let vs consider what the authoritie of Chrysostome maketh for him his wordes are as he cyteth them out of Hom. 45. in 6. Ioan. Vt autem non solùm per dilectionem c. But that we should be conuerted into that flesh not onely by loue but also in deede it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath giuen vs For when he would shewe his loue toward vs he hath mixed himself with vs by his body and made himself one with vs that the body might be vnited to the hed These last words For this is the maner of them that loue especially in M. Heskins traÌ„slation are left out I know not for what causes peraduenture of negligence This did Iob signifie by his seruants of whome he was loued especially which declaring their loue did say Who would giue vs that we might be filled with his flesh Which thing Christe did that he might binde vs to him with gâ—â—â—ter loue and that he might shewe his desire that he had to vs suffering him selfe not onely to be seene of them that desire but also to be touched and eaten and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh and all to be filled with the desire of him Wherefore let vs rise from that table as Lyons breathing fire terrible to the diuell and let vs knowe our heade and what loue he hath shewed vnto vs Parents haue oftentimes giuen their children to be nourished of other but I doe feede with mine owne flesh I giue my selfe vnto them I fauour all I giue an exceeding good hope to all of things to come He that giueth him self so vnto vs in this life much more in the life to come I would be your brother and I tooke flesh and bloud with you for your sakes and by what thinges I am ioyned to you the same I haue giuen to you againe In this long speach of Chrysostome what is there that maketh for Maister Heskins bill that hee hath promoted into the Parleament house and not rather altogether against it For first it can not bee necessarily concluded out of this place that Chrysostome speaketh of the Lordes supper but rather of that table meate giuing and eating of Christes flesh which is spoken of in the sixt of Saint Iohn where no worde is of the sacrament or supper which at that time was not instituted Secondly if we should neuer so much vnderstand this speach of the sacrament yet must we graunt it to be figuratiue or else there wil folow infinite absurdities beside such as M. Heskins affirmeth Wherfore I will reason thus Christ by this saying of Chrysostome is none otherwise eaten then he is seene but he is not seene corporally but spiritually by faith therefore he is not eaten corporally but spiritually by faith And likewise thus as Christ is touched and teeth fastned in his flesh so is he giuen or eaten but he is not touched corporally or naturally nor teeth fastned in his flesh corporally but spiritually therefore hee is not giuen nor eaten in the sacrament corporally but spiritually The maiors of these argumeÌ„ts are Chrysostoms words the minors are the confessions of the Papistes which affirme Christes body to be in the sacrament inuisibly and doe correct the recantation of Berengarius where he affirmed that the body of Christ is torne with the teeth the conclusions I trust be rightly inferred But nowe let vs see what handsome stuffe M. Heskins gathereth out of this text of Chrysostome First that we are ioyned to Christe two wayes by loue and by the thing it selfe Which in other termes is called spiritually and really Marke this wise diuision of spiritually and really as though such things as are ioyned spiritually
corporis Christi Vocaturque ipsa īmolario carnis que sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio nō rei veritate sed significāte mysterio The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a peculiar maner is called the body of Christe when as in very deed it is the sacramēt of the body of christ And euen the oblation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysteri Those words which are borrowed out of August into the decrees the glose doth thus vnderstand Coeleste sacraementū quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè Vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio◠Vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but vnproperly Therefore it is saide to be after a peculiar manner but not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the body of Christe that is it doth signifie the body of Christe If these testimonies that are taken out of the Romish Bishops owne writings decrees and gloses that are so plaine will not satisfie the Papistes that their doctrine of transubstantiation and carnall presence is neither true ancient nor Catholike it is in vaine to spend more wordes with them as with men that are obstinate and will not be satisfied with any truth contrarie to their presumed heresie The one and sixtieth Chapter maketh a recapitulation of that that is done in this worke Seeing this Chapter containeth no argument or authoritie to defend his cause but only rehearseth what he fantasieth that he hath brought in other places throughout all his booke for the maintenance of the same I referre it to the indifferent readers iudgement what I haue done in this breefe confutation of the same And here I conclude this acte of repeale that notwithstanding this bill offered to the Parleament by Tho. Hesk. in the lower house hath many friends so that the greater part of voyces if the house were diuided might seeme to ouercome the better yet for as much as in the higher house the greatest number haue spoken directly against his bill and no one lord of that house which liued within the compasse of 600. yeres of the challenge hath giuen his voyce to allowe it not only the pretensed acte of Parleament set forth by the said Tho. Hesk. is proued to be false forged counterfet but also the bill that he hath put in to be considered is vtterly reiected condemned spurned out of the house GOD BE PRAYSED A CONFVTATION OF AN IDOLATROVS TREATISE OF NICOLAS SANDER Doctor in Diuinitie which mainteyneth the making and honouring of Images by W.F. Doctour in Diuinitie ECCLESIASTIC 45. The memoriall of the beloued of God is blessed that is to say any thing that maketh vs to remember him that is beloued of God is worthie of praise and honour A Doctour like interpretation and a pithy argument whereupon I may conclude The idols that Salomon made are things that make vs remember Salomon who was the beloued of God and so called of God him selfe therefore the idols were worthie of prayse and honour The preface conteining a breefe declaration which is the true Churche Maister Sander taking in hand so absurde and wicked an argument as is the defence of idolatrie or honouring of Images thought good to present it in the best vessel that he had which is the painted boxe of the Churche which that he might the rather commend to his countrimen he hath taken vpon him to describe it both inside and outside as he saith by certeine knowen truethes in number no lesse then 112. which after they haue been all well vewed and sufficiently considered I doubt not but to the reasonable and indifferent Reader shall appeare nothing else but a faire coloured but yet an empty vessell I will followe his diuisions and where I finde any trueth I will confesse it without wrangling where in steede of trueth he offereth falshode I will breefely confute it 1 The first I graunt that Christe hath alwayes had and alwayes shall haue a Church on earth out of which there is no saluation This Churche consisteth of men whiche beleeue in him haue their faith sealed and confirmed by outward sacramentes 2 The Church is the kindome of Christe the Citie of God and the kingdome of heauen wherein Christ shall reigne for euer 3 The kingdome is spread more largely and gouerned more prudently then any earthly kingdome euer was euen to the endes of the worlde to continue world without end 4 Notwithstanding all this to say that the Churche or this kingdome of Christe was hidden any one houre from the eyes of the worlde is not to make it more obscure then any earthly kingdome euer was as Maister Sander doeth affirme for the glorie of this Kingdome whiche is spirituall neuer did nor shall appeare to the wicked of this worlde The Churche is an article of our faith and faith is of those thinges whiche are not seene Hebru 11. but with spirituall eyes Therfore the exaltation of the Lordes hill that Esaie 2. and Micheas 4. doe speake of is of a spirituall aduauncement and a citie built vpon an hill is euerie true minister of Gods worde Matthewe 5. and not the whole Churche Finally the glorie and ioye that Esaie 60. promiseth vnto the Church and her happie enlargement among the nations Cap. 61. proue no worldly pompe or greatnesse to be seene with carnall eyes but is ment of the ioyfull and comfortable addition of the Churche of the Gentiles vnto the Churche of the Iewes For otherwise these wordes could not be verified of all wicked men All that see them shall knowe them that they are the blessed seede which the Lorde hath blessed 5 The cheefe meane whereby the Church is so clearely seene and so glorious in the sight of men is that Christ being the true light hath cōmunicated his brightnesse to his Apostles sayng you are the light of the worlde A citie built vpon an hill can not be hidden Neither do men light a candel and put it vnder a bushel but vpon a candlestick that it may giue light to al them that are in the house But this brightnesse is heauenly and spirituall not worldly and carnall to be seene of the children of light not of the blind bussards of the worlde 6 The Churche dyed not when the Apostles dyed for Bishops and Pastours succeeded in their place as lightes set vpon the candlestickes which are the seuerall Churches Apoc. 1. 7 The light and glorie of Gods Churche commeth chiefely from the Bishops and Pastours thereof I meane from their heauenly doctrine not from their persons as Maister
both of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament that is the bodie of Christ as the person of Christ consisteth of God man seeing Christ himselfe is very God ▪ and verie man Because euerie thing conteineth in it the nature and trueth of those thinges of which it is made but the sacrifice of the Church is made of two the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament that is the bodie of Christ therefore there is the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament This last sentence M. Hesk. hath not translated But he noteth three things in these words affirmed which the sacramentaries denie that is that the Church hath a sacrifice that therein is a sacrament which is the fourmes of bread and wine and that there is present the very body and bloud of Christ which he calleth the thing of the sacrament Concerning the tearme of sacrifice it is a stale quarrell whereby he meaneth the sacrifice of thankes giuing or the Eucharistie For the formes of bread wine that is as Maister Heskins meaneth the accidentes it is false he hath nothing tending to that end he saith Specie elementorum that is the kinde of elementes which is the substance and not the accidentes of bread and wine And for the presence heare his owne wordes in the same booke Escam vitae accepit poculum vitę bibit qui in Christo manet Cuius Christus habitator est Nam qui discordat a Chricto nec panem cius manducat nec sanguinem bibit etiamsi tanto rei sacramentum ad iudicium suę praesumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat He hath receiued the meat of life and drunke the cuppe of life which abideth in Christ in whom Christ dwelleth But he that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth his bread nor drinketh his bloud although he receiue euerie day indifferently the sacrament of so great a thing vnto the condemnation of his presumption This place is plaine against the corporall eating of Christe and M. Heskins wise distinction seeing the wicked by the iudgement of Prosper out of Augustine eate onely the sacrament that is bread and wine and not the bodie bloud of Christ which is not eaten but by faith The twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Saint Hilarie and Euthymius Hilarius is cited Lib. 8. de Trinitat Que scripta sunt c. Let vs reade those thinges that be written and let vs vnderstande those things that we shall read then shal we performe the dutie of perfect faith Such thinges as we learne of the naturall trueth of Christ in vs except we learne of him we learne foolishly and vngodly For he him selfe saith my flesh is meat in deed my bloud is drinke in deede He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him There is no place left to doubt of the trueth of his flesh and bloud For now by the profession of our Lord himselfe it is verily fleshe and verily bloud And this beeing taken and dronken bring this to passe that Christ is in vs and we in Christ. Out of these wordes he noteth three thinges The first that the text is spoken of the sacrament conteyning the bodie and bloud of Christe of the veritie whereof there should be no doubt The second is the corporall receiuing of Christ in the sacrament The third is that thereby Christ is in vs and we in him To the first note this text is none otherwise spoken of the sacramēt as we haue often shewed then as the sacrament is a seale of this eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud which is also without the sacrament And that we should not doubt of the trueth of his fleshe and bloud it is true we confesse he hath true flesh true bloud with the same doeth feede vs but that this flesh and bloud is conteined in the sacrament Hillarie saith not but Heskins Neither doeth he speake of any corporall receiuing of Christe in the sacrament which is the second note but seeing he dwelleth in all them that receiue him which is the thirde note there is no place for the corporal receiuing which the Papists confesse to be common to the wicked in whome Christ dwelleth not nor they in him But to proue the corporall receiuing he hath another place out of the same booke Si enim verè c. For if the WORDE was verily made flesh and we doe truely eate the worde made flesh in the Lordes meate how is he not to be thought to abide naturally in vs which being borne a man hath taken vpon him the nature of our flesh now inseparable hath admixed the nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder the sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated vnto vs. This with him is a plaine place and much adoe he maketh about this worde naturally by which he meaneth nothing else but truly for otherwise M. Heskins if he be in his right wittes wil confesse that the abiding of Christe in vs is not naturall nor after a naturall manner but spirituall and after a Diuine manner And although he spake plain ynough of the participation of his flesh vnder a sacramēt yet more euidently in the same booke in these wordes Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit verè homo ille qui ex Maria natus fuit Christus est nosque verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnum erimus quia Pater in eo est ille in nobis quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit vnitatis If therefore Christe did verily take vpon him the flesh of our bodie that man which was borne of Marie was verily Christ and we doe verily receiue the fleshe of his body vnder a mysterie and thereby shall be one because the Father is in him and he in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie Here he saith we do verily eate the flesh of his bodie but if you aske how He aunswereth vnder a mysterie as before he said vnder a sacrament Therfore to take that absolutely as M. Heskins doth which of him is spoken but after a certeine manner as vnder a sacrament or a mysterie is a grosse abusing both of the authour and of the readers Euthymius is cited In Ioan. Caro mea c. My fleshe is meate in deede It is true meate or moste conuenient meate as which nourisheth the soule which is the moste proper part of man And likewise of the bloud or else he saide this confirming that he spake not obscurely or parabolically I maruel what Maister Heskins gayneth by this place Forsooth that this is no figuratiue speech but a plain speech signifying none otherwise then the wordes sound Well yet we must not cast away that which Euthymius saide
For both they haue taken vppon them one administration and both are appointed forerunners wherefore he sayde not this truely it Helias but if ye will receiue it this is hee That is if with diligent studie and with a gentle not a contentious mynde you will consider the dooings of them both Thus Chrysostome And yet I am not ignorant that else where he supposeth that Helias the Thesbite shall come before the day of iudgement which sauoureth of a Iewish fable more then of a Christian trueth as is plainly proued before The fourth Chapter beginneth to declare by the holy fathers of what things Manna and the waters be figures He beginneth this Chapter with a shamelesse lye for he sayeth that wee affirme Manna to be a figure only of the worde of God which is vtterly false for wee affirme that it was a sacramentall figure of the bodye of Christe and so a figure that it was in deede the bodie of Christ after a spirituall manner to them whiche receiued it worthelie But Maister Heskins will haue it a figure not onely of the worde of God but also of the bodie of Christe in the sacrament and so a figure that is was nothing else but a bare figure and not a sacrament And this hee hopeth to prooue out of Sainct Ambrose ad Iren. Ep. 62. Quaeria◠me c. Thou askest mee why the Lorde God did rayne Manna to the people of the fathers and doeth not nowe rayne it If thou knowest he rayneth and daily rayneth from heauen Manna to them that serue him And that bodily Manna truely is founde at this day in many places But nowe it is not a thing of so greate miracle becaus◠that which is perfect is come And that perfecte is the breade from heauen the bodie of the virgine of which the Gospell doeth sufficiently teache thee Howe much better are these things then the former For they which did eate that Manna that is that breade are deade But whosoeuer shall eate this breade shall liue for euer But it is a spirituall Manna that is a rayne of spirituall wisedome which is powred into them that be wittie and searching is from heauen and deweth the myndes of the Godly sweeteneth their iawes Because there is nothing in this saying of Saint Ambrose for his purpose hee falleth into a greate rage against Oecolampadius for leauing out of this sentence Quanto praestantiora sunt haec superioribus Howe much more excellent are these then the other aboue rehearsed Which howesoeuer it was as I am sure it was not of a falsifying mynde so no man in the worlde might worse exclaime against falsifying of the doctours then Maister Heskins as I haue often shewed and doubt not but I shall shewe hereafter But to the purpose it is euident that Saint Ambrose in the former sentence speaketh of Manna as a corporall foode not as a sacrament in which respect there is no comparison between it the body of christ And he is so farre from saying that Manna as it was a sacrament was but a figure of the bodie of Christ as M. Heskins belyeth him that he saith not at all that it was a figure But hee chargeth vs with two other wicked opinions namely That the sacramentes of the newe lawe giue no grace and that they are of no more excellencie then the sacraments of the olde lawe To the first we aunswere and say that the sacramentes giue not grace of the worke wrought as they teach but that GOD giueth grace by his sacramentes in all his elect wee affirme And to the second wee aunswere that as in substaunce the sacramentes of the olde time were not inferiour to oures so in cleerenesse of reuelation and vnderstanding oures are farre more excellent then theirs and that the place of Saint Ambrose which Maister Heskins doeth next alledge doeth very well shewe Oriente autem c. The sonne of righteousnesse arising and more bright sacramentes of Christes body and bloud shining foorth those inferiour thinges or sacramentes should cease and those perfect should be receiued of the people Maister Heskins noteth that if the sacrament were but a bare signe it should not be so magnified by Saint Ambrose But so often as hee chargeth vs with a bare signe so often must we charge him againe with an impudently For wee doe as much detest a bare signe or figure as hee doth a signe or figure As for the three kindes of Manna that Maister Heskins gathereth is altogether out of Saint Ambrose his compasse For hee hath no more but the bodily Manna and the spirituall Manna as the signe and the thing signified And the rayne of spirituall wisedome is the spirite of GOD which sealeth inwardly in the heart that whiche is expressed outwardly by the externall signes I maruell Maister Heskins alledgeth not Saint Ambrose vpon this text 1. Cor. 10. whose woordes might seeme to haue more colour of his bare figure although they be flat against it in deede Manna aquaquae fluxit de Petra haec dicit spiritualia quia non mundi lege parata sunt sed Dei virtute sine elementorum commixtione ad tempus creata habentia in se figuram futuri mysterij quod nunc nos summus in commemorationem Christi Domini Manna and the water which flowed out of the rocke these he calleth spirituall bicause they were not prepared by the order of the world but by the power of God with out commixtiō of the elements created for a time hauing in them a figure of the mysterie to come which nowe we receiue in remembraunce of Christe our Lorde By these wordes it is euident that our sacraments do so differ from theirs as a figure of that which is to come and a remembrance of that which is past do differ For all sacramentes haue their strength of the death of christ Secondly we see that this father calleth our sacrament a mysterie in remembrance of Christ which speach is farre from a corporall manner of presence that M. Heskins would maintaine by his authoritie The other places cited out of Euthymius a late writer as we haue often saide affirme that Manna was the figuratiue bread and a figure but not Christe which was the trueth Howbeit he meaneth nothing else but that Christ was not in flesh present to the fathers in Manna before he was incarnate and so vseth the terme figure as a prefiguration and shadowing not of the sacrament but of Christ him selfe which is the matter of the sacrament euen as Christ him selfe in the 6. of S. Iohn opposing Manna against the true bread that came downe from heauen speaketh not of that spirituall meat which Manna was to the faithfull but of the outward creature which was onely considered of the wicked to fill their bellies and not to feede their soule But M. Heskins remitteth his reader for al matters concerning the 6. of Iohn to the second booke 36. chapter c. and so do I to the same
more for we do not communicate only in participation and receiuing but in vnitie for as that bodie is vnited to Christ so are we by this bread ioyned together in an vnion But why doth he adde Which we breake This may we see in the Eucharisty but in the crosse not so but altogether contrariwise There shall no bone of his be broken saith he but that he suffred not in the crosse he suffereth in the oblation and permitteth for thee to be broken Here first he misliketh the translation of the English Bible that calleth it participation A simple quarrel I would see the Bible perfectly translated into English by the Papists And yet the vulgar Popish Latine hath Participatio M. Heskins himselfe translateth it the partaking But beside the communion whiche hee passeth ouer M. Heskins gathereth his reall presence and sacrifice I will adde none other place of Chrysostome to explane his meaning this is so manifest of it selfe against both First whereas M. Heskins reasoneth for the reall presence of the communion which is such with vs Christ as is with Christ and his bodie and that is substantially and not spiritually I answer he vtterly falsifieth Chrysostoms meaning for he speaketh of our coniunction one with another which is spiritually not of Christe with vs we communicate saith he in vnitie that we might be ioyned one with an other in an vnion Therefore M. Heskins argument holdeth not Secondly that he speaketh of breaking of Christ in the sacrifice is so manifest to be vnderstood spiritually that it ouerthroweth both the presence and the sacrifice for Christ is not broken but spiritually therefore he is not present but spiritually M. Heskins â—ombleth out the matter with a foolish caueat that though Christ suffer be broken in the sacrament yet he suffreth no violence nor paine But let him speake plainely if he dare for his eares that Christe is really and substantially broken though without pain for that breaking of his body which Christ speaketh of in the institution of the sacrameÌ„t was perfourmed really and substantially vpon the crosse Wherefore vpon Chrysost. authoritie I will conclude against all the Papistes in the world Christ is so present in the sacrament that he is broken therin but he is not broken corporally but spiritually therefore he is not present corporally but spiritually Beside this it is to be noted in that saying of Chrysost. that he compareth that bodie with this bread As that bodie is vnited to Christ so are we by this bread ioyned together in an vnitie or vnion Hoc ilâ—ud be spoken of diuers things else he wold haue said so by the same body we are ioyned in an vnion but he saith by this bread therfore the body is one thing this bread another thing in corporal substance S. Hierom is cited 1. Cor. 10. Calix benedictionis c. The cup of blessing c. Therefore he named the cup first that he might dispute more at large of the bread Is it not the coÌ„munication of the bloud of Christ as our sauiour himselfe saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in me I in him Here is nothing but that we do all confesse sauing that M. Hes. will denie the bread that S. Hierome speaketh of to al men the cup to all lay men The other place of Hierome that he interlaceth after his maner In Psal. 110. is answered before Lib. 1. Ca. 30. The third place followeth in Hierome immediatly after the first Et panis quem frangimus noÌ„ne participatio corporis Domini est Ita panis idolatrie daemonuÌ„ participatio esse monstratur And is not the bread which we breake a participation of the bodie of our Lord Euen so also the bread of idolatrie is a participation of diuels Here M.H. to mainteine his fond quarrel against the translation of the English Bible hath falsified S. Hier. in steede of Participatio set downe CoÌ„municatio corporis c. a coÌ„munication of the body c. The place it self is directly against M. Hesk. bil because the participation of the Lords bodie is coÌ„pared with the participation of diuels which cannot be a corporal maner of partaking And it foloweth Omnes quideÌ„ de vno pane de vno Calice participamus Ita si cuÌ„ idololatris de vno pane comedimus vnuÌ„ cuÌ„illis corpus efficimur videte Israel secunduÌ„ carneÌ„ Carnalis Israel carnales hostias offerebat sicut spiritualis sacrificia spiritualia offert Christo We al truly are partakers of one bread of one cup so if we eat of one bread with idolaters we are made one body with them Behold Israel according to the fleshe The carnal Israel did offer carnal sacrifices euen as the spiritual Israel doth offer spirituall sacrifices to Christe In these wordes obserue that we are so made one bodie by partaking of one bread and cup as by eating one bread with idolaters which can not be after a corporall manner Secondly that we offer not Christ in sacrifice but offer spiritual sacrifice to Christ. Finally he saith vpon the same Chapter Non potestis calicem Domini bibere calicem Daemoniorum Non potestis Dei Daemonum esse participâ—s You can not drinke of the cup of our Lorde and the cup of diuels you can not be partakers of God and of Diuels See nowe by S. Hieromes iudgement that to be partaker of the cup of the Lord is to be partaker of God not of the bloud of Christ after a corporal but after a spiritual maner For if the bloud of Christ were conteined locally substantially in the cup that wicked men might drink the bloud of Christ as Papistes holde then a man might be partaker both of the cup of the Lord of the cup of diuels yea of the bodie of the Lord of the table of diuels which Saint Paul doth so expresly denie As touching his bald reason of the sacrifice it is answered before and out of Hierome euen now and his real presence being taken away it passeth away with it The eighteenth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Augustine and Damascen He citeth S. Augustine Contra Inimic Leg. prophet naming neither what booke nor Chapter to cloake his shamefull corruption and falsification For in the very middes he leaueth out a sentence or two beside that he cutteth off the later parte which doth clearely open Saint Augustines mind thus he citeth it Nolâ— vos socies Daemorum c. I will not that ye be made fellowes of Diuels He did truely forbid them from idolatrie For the which thing he would declare to them that they should euen so be made fellowes of diuels if they did eate Idolathytes of the sacrifice as the carnall Israel whiche did eate of the sacrifices in the Temple â–ª was fellow of the altar By occasion of that he began that he would say this wherefore my most
mihi videris esse Non enim corpus solùm sed etiam panis vitae nominatur Ita enim Dominus ipse appellanit Porro autem ipsum corpus Diuinum corpus appellanus viuificum Dominicum docentes non esse commune alicuius hominis sed Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui est Deus homo Orthodoxus Say then the mysticall tokens which are offered to God by the Priestes of God of what thinges sayest thou they are tokens Eran. Of the body bloud of our Lorde Orth. Of that bodie which truely is Or of such a bodie as truely is not Eran. Which truly is Ortho. Very well For it behoueth the patterne to be example of the image For painters doe followe nature and do paint the images of those thinges which are seene Eran. It is true Orth. Then if the Diuine mysteries doe represent that bodie which is a bodie in deede therefore our Lordes bodie is euen nowe also a-bodie not beeing chaunged into his Diuine nature but filled with Diuine glorie Eran. It came well to passe that thou diddest speake of the Diuine mysteries For euen out of the fame will I shewe vnto thee that our Lordes bodie is chaunged into another nature Therefore aunswere vnto my questions Orth. I will answere Eran. What doest thou call the gifte which is offered before the inuocation of the Priest Orth. I may not speake it openly for it is like that some are present that are not admitted to the mysteries Eran. Then answere darkely Orth. That meate which is made of such kinde of seedes Eran. And how doe we cal the other signe Ortho. That is also a common name which signifieth a kinde of drinke Eran. But after sanctification how doest thou call them Ortho. The bodie and bloud of christ Eran. And doest thou beleeue that thou art made partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ Orth. So I beleeue Eran. Therefore euen as the tokens of the bodie and bloud of our Lord are other things before the inuocation of the priest and after the inuocation are changed and made other thinges euen so the Lordes bodie after the assumption is changed into his Diuine substance Orth. Thou art taken with thine owne nets which thou haste made For the mysticall signes after sanctification do not departe from their nature For they remain in their former substance figure and shape they may be both seene and handled euen as before But they are vnderstoode to be those thinges which they are made to be are beleeued reuerenced as those which are the same thinges that they are beleeued to be Compare therefore the image with the examples and thou shalt see the similitude For the figure ought to be like to the trueth For that same bodie hath the former shape and fashion circumscription and to speake at once the substance of a bodie But it is made immortall after his resurrection and more mightie then that any corruption or destruction can befall vnto it and it is made worthie to sit at the right hand of God and is worshipped of euerie creature as that which is called the naturall bodie of our Lorde Eran. But yet the mysticall token changeth the former name For it is no more called that it was called before but it is called the bodie Therefore the trueth also ought to be called God and not a bodie Orth. Thou seemest vnto me to be ignorant For it is not only called the body but also the bread of life For so our Lorde himselfe called it But his very bodie we call a Diuine bodie a quickening and our Lordes bodie teaching that it is not a common bodie of any man but of our Lord Iesus Christ which is both God and man By this discourse of Theodoretus you may see both howe syncerely Maister Heskins hath cited his authoritie and also what the writers minde was both concerning transubstantiation and the carnall manner of presence The authoritie of Anselmus Bishop of Canterburie I passe ouer as I haue done alwayes with Burgesses of the lower house But Maister Heskins affirmeth that the preparation we are commanded to make for the receipt of the sacrament the danger of vnworthie receiuing do argue the reall presence for such preparation and perill should not be for receiuing a peece of bread And if we aunswere that by faith we receiue Christs bodie bloud verily but yet spiritually he will confute vs by that wee affirme the fathers to haue receiued Christ as verily as we doe who yet had not like preparation nor like punishment for vnworthie receiuing For their preparation was onely in outwarde things their punishment onely bodily and temporall But who is so grosse of vnderstanding as M. Heskins that will not acknowledge that the fathers of the olde Testament by that purifying and preparation in bodily things were admonished that inward spiritually purenesse was more necessarie And wheras he sayeth the vnworthie receiuers of those auncient sacraments were punished only with temporal death how often doth those threatenings occurre in the lawe That soule shal be rooted out from my face that soule shall perish from his people he hath broken my couenant c Wil ye make vs beleeue that God threateneth onely a temporall and not an eternall death to the contemners of his ordinances Finally when the same punishment of condemnation remaineth to them that receiue baptisme vnworthily which abydeth them that receiue the Lordes supper vnworthily how will hee proue a reall presence more in the one sacrament then in the other The seuen and fiftieth Chapter expoundeth this text For this cause manie are weake and sicke c. by Origen Saint Ambrose Origen is cited in Psalm 37. Iudicium Dei parui pendis c. Settest thou little by the iudgement of God and despisest thou the church admonishing thee Thou are not afraide to communicate the bodie of Christ comming to the Eucharistie as cleane and pure as though nothing vnworthie were in thee and in all these thou thinkest that thou shalt escape the iudgement of god Thou doest not remember that which is written that for this cause many among you are weake sick many are fallen a sleepe Why are many sicke Because they iudge not them selues neither examine themselues neither do they vnderstand what it is to communicate with the church or what it is to come to so great and so excellent sacraments They suffer that which men that be sicke of agues are wont to suffer when they eat the meates of whole men and so cast away them selues Here Maister Heskins noteth firste that Origen calleth the sacrament in plaine wordes the bodye of Christe therefore it is no breade figure or signe of the bodie of christ Secondly he calleth it mysteries therefore it is two sacraments whole Christ bodie bloud is vnder eche kind Thirdly sicke men sometimes will eate whole mens meate therefore euil men receiue the bodie of christ These be all
the Papistes say that men may eat Christ which doe not beleeue at all And it is a very childish sophisme out of which M. Heskins woulde gather that if to eate be to beleeue and it be not lawfull for the Iewes to eate Christe it is not lawfull for them to beleeue in christ For continuing in Iudaisme they can no more beleeue in Christ then they can eate the flesh of Christe But contrariwise by their doctrine if the sacrament be giuen to a Iewe that is no Christian yet he eateth the body of Christ as he that beleeueth in Christe The testimonie of Theophylact although it make little for M. Hesk. yet as alwayes before so nowe at the last I will refuse to examine bicause I will not yeeld to his authoritie he being a late writer But M. Hesk. noteth vpon the Apostles words We haue an altar that the Church hath but one altar which is the body of Christ and that is very true of the true Catholique Church but the hereticall and schismaticall Church of Rome hath many thousand altars which they can not say are all one altar although they cauill that their infinite multitudes of hostes are one sacrifice of Christes body Therefore the Church of Rome is not the Catholique Church of Christe by his owne reason And the saying of Hierome which he citeth Lib 2. in Hose Cap. 8. and wresteth against vs doth very aptly condemne him selfe and his felow Papistes for heretiques Vnum esse altare c. The Apostle teacheth that there is in the Church but one altar and one faith one baptisme which the heretiques forsaking haue set vp to themselues many altars not to appease God but to increase the multitude of sinnes therefore they are not worthie to receiue the lawes of God seeing they haue despised them which they haue receiued before And if they shall speake any thing out of the scriptures it is not to be compared to the words of God but to the senses of Ethnikes These men do offer many sacrifices and eate the flesh of them forsaking the only sacrifice of Christ nor eating his flesh â–ª whose flesh is the meat of the beleeuers whatsoeuer they do counterfeting the order and custom of the sacrifices whether they giue almes whether they promise chastitie whether they counterfet humilitie and with feigned flatterings deceiue simple persons the Lord will receiue nothing of such sacrifices We forsake not the only sacrifice of Christ once offred but our whole trust is in the merits of that sacrifice therefore we set vp no newe altars The Papistes set vp an other sacrifice and therefore other altars If our allegation interpretation of the scriptures may not be warranted by the spirite of God iudging in the same scriptures by other textes that are plaine and euident we desire not that any man shall receiue them as the Papistes doe whatsoeuer the Popish Church doth define though it be contrarie to the expresse word of god And although wee admitte not that grosse and carnall manner of Christes body in that sacrament that they doe hold yet do we eate the flesh of Christ verily after that maner which the Papistes themselues do confesse to be the only profitable eating thereof namely that which is spirituall What our workes be I referre them to the iudgement of God wee boast not of them And although fasting for merite bee iustly punishable by statute yet godly and Christian fasting is not cleane exiled out of our Church though not so often perhaps vsed as meere it were it should Our doctrine of fasting is sound and agreeable to the word of God and therefore we dare iustifie it our doing wee will not iustifie nor excuse our faultes but humbly submitte our selues to his iudgement who knoweth our hearts of whome we craue pardon for our offences and grace to keepe his commandements But now to conclude this matter I will produce one testimonie of Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome which I thinke shuld be of great weight with al Papists if they giue in deed such reuerence either to that See or to antiquitie as they pretend And thus he writeth Cont. Eusychet Certè sacrameÌ„ta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi diuina res est propter quod per eadeÌ„ diuinÄ™ efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia natura panis vini â–ª Et certè imago vel similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysterioruÌ„ celebratur Satis ergo nobis euidenter osteÌ„ditur hoc in ipso Domino Christo sentienduÌ„ quod in eius imagine ê“fitemur celebramus sumimê° vt sicut hÄ™c in diuinaÌ„ traÌ„ feuÌ„t spiritu sancto ê‘ficiente substantiaÌ„ ê‘manent tamen in suÄ™ ê“prietate naturae sic illud ipsuÌ„ mysteriuÌ„ principale cuius nobis officientiaÌ„ veritatemque veraciter reprÄ™sentat ex ijs quibus conflat propriè permanentibus vnuÌ„ ChristuÌ„ quoniam integruÌ„ veruÌ„que permanere demonstret Certainly the sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing therefore by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet the substance nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be And surely an image or similitude of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries Therfore it is shewed vnto vs euidently ynough that we must iudge the same thing euen in our Lord Christ him selfe which we professe celebrate receiue in that which is an image of him that as by the working of the holy Ghost they passe into a diuine substance yet abide stil in the propertie of their owne nature euen so the same principal mysterie doth shew that one Christ abideth whole and true whose efficiencie truth it doth truly represent vnto vs those thinges of which he consisteth properly still remaining Thou seest gentle reader that this auncient Bishop of Rome first doth vtterly ouerthrowe transubstantiation when he saith that the substance nature of the bread wine do remaine still in the sacraments although they be a diuine thing Secondly that he excludeth the carnall maner of presence when he saith we celebrate receiue an image and similitude of the body bloud of Christ in the sacraments lastly that he aduoucheth the spiritual diuine maner of presence of Christ when he saith that the sacrameÌ„ts are turned into a diuine substance which he meaneth not of the substance of the deitie but of the heauenly wonderful manner of presence by which Christ vouchsafeth to giue vnto his faithfull members his very body and bloud in a mysterie And that the Church of Rome in much later times did not acknowledge this carnall presence it shal appeare euen out of the Popes own Canon law euen in the decrees De Consecrat distinct 2. Cap. Hoc est Coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo nominatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentuÌ„
105. After all these iollie questions he confesseth he should do vs wrong to require the probation of these articles bicause many of them containe indifferent ceremonies in many he sticketh vpoÌ„ such termes as he thinketh are not found in the auncient Fathers in some he presseth vs with particular wordes leauing the generall principle and in some with priuate mens opinions he might haue added in some with his own impudent lyes and forgeries which none of vs do holde and such he would make the Bishopâ— challenge to be but the world hath sufficiently seene the contrarie proued that most of the matters contained in that challenge be of the greatest mysteries of Poperie whereas these of M.Ra. witlesse and shamelesse deuising for the most part are not maintained at all in manner and forme as he propoundeth them and such as be materiall are sufficiently proued But nowe that he hath played the foole as he confesseth all this while he promiseth to play the wise man in propounding matters of weight substance in which you shall see that euen as before he chargeth vs to proue many things which we do not hold and therefore he playeth not the wise man but the craftie marchant to make the ignorant beleeue that wee maintaine that we are not able to iustifie He diuideth his challenge into foure partes the first hath three Articles To the first that it is vnlawful to make a vowe to God of chastitie obedience or pouertie I answere it is vnlawfull to make a vowe of that which is not in a mans power to performe as is the vowe of Virginitie which is a gift not giuen to all as our sauiour Christ testifieth Matt. 19. Also ConciliuÌ„ ArasicanuÌ„ 2. decreed ca. 11. De obligatione votoruÌ„ Nemo quicquam Domino rectè vouerit nisi ab ipso acceperit sicut legitur Quae de manu tua accepimus damus tibi Of the bonde of vowes No man shall rightly vowe any thing to the Lord except he haue receiued it of him as it is read Such things as we haue receiued of thy hand we giue to thee That breakers of such vowes were esteemed aboue others as singular witnesses of the libertie of the Gospell is no part of our assertion But that their meaning is honest is proued by Leo B. of Rome Ep. 90. speaking of a Monke Vnde qui relicta singularitatis professione ad militiam vel ad nuptial dâ—uolutus est publicae paenitentiae satisfactione purgandus est quia etsi innocens militia honestum potest esse coniâ—gium electionem tamen meliorem deseruisse transgressio est Wherefore he which hath forsaken the profession of sole life and fallen to warfare or marriage must be purged by satisfaction of open repentance bicause that although his warfare may be harmelesse and his marriage honest yet it is a transgression to haue forsaken his better choyse To the second that it was abhominable to make any sacrifice to God beside the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in words the figures for his benefites with remembrance of his passion c. I proue by the authoritie of Iustinus which affirmeth that these were the only sacrifices deliuered vnto the Christians therefore it was abhominable to vse any other His wordes are in his Dialogue with Tryphon against the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I my selfe doe affirme that prayers and thankesgiuings made by worthie persons are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to god For these are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make to be put in mind by their drie and moyst nourishment of the passion which God the sonne of God is recorded to haue suffered for them Here note that he calleth the sacrament drie and moyst nourishment To the third that there was no Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech but onely the Priesthoode of our Sauiour Christ it is manifest by the 110. Psalme that the Priesthood pertaineth to him that sitteth at the right hand of God euen to the Lord Iesus Christe also by the Apostle to the Hebrues 5. 7. Chapter in which it is saide that he hath that Priesthoode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is so peculiar to him as it passeth not by succession Neither was there euer any greater blasphemie then that euery Popish Priest should bee a Priest after the order of Melchisedech to offer Christe to his Father And that Priestes haue not a singular sacrifice to offer for the sinnes of the people is proued by S. Augustine â— Contra aduersar leg prophe who calleth the death of Christ Vâ—um singulare solum verum sacrificium that one singular and onely true sacrifice in which the bloud of Christe was shed for vs But the Papistes call their blasphemous sacrifice an vnbloudie sacrifice therefore they haue not any singular sacrifice for the sinnes of the people The second part containeth 12. Articles in which he falsly chargeth Caluine in his institutions with diuers Articles which neither he nor any of vs doe holde The first that the sacrament of baptisme instituted by Christ is no better then the circumcision of the old lawe is proued by Saint Augustine which saith in Ioan. Tr. 26. speaking of the sacraments of the old law that they were in fignis diuersa in re quae significatur paria diuers in signes equall in the thing signified The second that baptisme is a signe onely of our profession and that our sinnes are not truly forgiuen in it is no doctrine of ours but of the Anabaptistes mightily confuted by Caluine whome he slaundereth to hold it The 3. that confirmation ought to be a sacrament is an inuention of man plaine for that it is not taught in the scriptures to be an institution of christ IrenÄ™us testifieth that the annointing with sweete oyle came first of the Valentinian heretiques Lib. 1. cap. 18. Also in S. Hieromes time the Priestes made the oyle of Chrisme and laide on their handes and not the Bishop only In Sophon cap. 3 â–ª For a Bishop did nothing more then a Priest but only in ordeining of ministers Hier. Euagrio Wherevpon it followeth that the Popish confirmation was not then a sacrament which they hold can be ministred of none but of a Bishop The fourth that Christ deliuered in his last supper a figure only of his body to be eaten of his Apostles is none of our assertions for we affirme that he deliuered breade and wine not as a figure onely but as his very body and bloud spiritually to be eaten and dronken The 5. that the power of forgiuing and reteyning sinnes which Christ gaue to his Apostles is nothing else but a comforting or fearing of mens consciences by the promises or menaces of the scripture c. is not affirmed of vs but that Christ hath giuen power to his ministers to assure the penitent of forgiuenesse in his name to pronounce his iudgment to the vnrepentant so that man followeth the sentence of God and not God of man.