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
offering bread and wine as he before saide most blasphemously that the execution of that Priesthoode lay onely therein But now let vs looke to his collectioÌ„s out of this place First that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ. That shall easily â–ª he graunted Secondly that Melchisâ—dech was a figure of Chrisâ— in three pointeâ— and theâ— the Authour doth applie them all to Christ namely a Priest of the highest GOD in offering sacrifice to his father and that he offered the very same that Melchisedech did which was bread and wine But these two Master Heskins â–ª you would make all one when you expound the sacrifice that he offered to his father to bee the bread and wine that he offered in the supper and so there shall not be three pointes Besides that you are enforced to confesse that Christ offered bread and wine to his father the very same that Melchisedech did offer which I am sure was no accidents and so you doe flatly ouerthrowe your owne dearling transubstantiation Your next cauil is of obiâ—â—lie protulie whereas both the text and Cyprian haue protiliâ— he broughâ— foorth although he seemeth to thinke that he brought it out eo offer And therefore to the impudencie that you charge your aduersaries withall will sit still in your owne brasen forehead For although he thinketh that Melchisedech offered the bread and wine which he brought foorth yet he cyteth the scripture truly And Melchisedech brought foorth bread and wine and he was a priest of the highest GOD which you haue most impudently falsified as I shewed before saying for he was a Priest. Your third glose you bring to proue that the sacrifice which Christ offered was but on the crosse but at the supper is that the image of the sacrifice went before which the Lord perfected and fulfilled offering bread and the cup mixed with wine Anâ— though that sacrifice may not be referred to his sacrifice on the crosse bicause the image thereof was ordeined in bread and wine and yet he fulfilled the trueth of the prefigured image when hee offered bread and wine in the supper as a sacrament of that sacrifice which he offered on the crosse as Cyprian in the first senteÌ„ce of this place doth cal it And for most cleare demonstratioÌ„ that Cyprian by sacrifice meaneth a sacrament signe and memorial of the passion of Christ not a sacrifice properly consider his owne wordes in the same Epistle Et quia passionis eius mentioneÌ„ in sacrifioijs omnibus facinous pastio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus And because wee make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices for the sacrifice which wee offer is the Lordes passion wee ought to doe nothing but that he did him selfe This one place will aunswere all that can bee brought out of Cyprian or any olde doctour for the sacrifice of the Lords supper The sacrifice which wee offer is the Lordes passion sayth Cyprian what was Christe crucified in their sacrifices or were their sacrifices nothing els but a sacrameÌ„t of thankes giuing for the passion of Christe You see by this place howe vnproperly they spake but yet so as of reasonable men they might well inough bee vnderstoode and they them selues do often expounde them selues Wherfore thou seest reader what iniurie the papistes doe vnto the doctors when they faine such monsters to be begotten by them while they interprete literally which the doctors did write figuratiuely But to the testimonie of Isychius which is a curious allegorie of sacrifices wherin no merueyle if he vse the name of sacrifice figuratiuely or vnproperly his wordes are these And what is this sacrifice Two tenth deales of fine flower sprinkeled with oyle For wâ—e must knowe to contemper the perfect manhoode and the perfecte Godhood that it to come together into one in oyle that is by that comparison which hee hath towarde vs For so the sacrifice is founde a sweete sauour to our lord when wee vnderstande of him thinges that bee worthie In what thinges the sacrifice whiche is the oblation of the intelligible lambe is and by whome it is done howe it is celebrated that whiche followeth declareth For neither by vnreasonable beastes doth God receiue sacrifice of vs as the wordes that followe-doe plainely shewe â—or hee saith and the drinke offering of it shall bee of wine the fourth part of an Hiâ— bread Polentant M. Heskins calleth it parched corne Because peraduenture it might haue been doubtfull by whome the mysterie of the sacrifice whiche is by Christs that wee spake of before is celebrated behold thou hast the oblation of intelligible Melchisedech which is perfourmed in breade and wine in which the fourth parte of an Him is offered in drinke offeringes of wine that by the fourth part hee might signifie the tradition or deliuerie of the Gospell which is in foure bookes â–ª by the drinke offering the Lordes worde when hee saith This is my bloude which shall bee shedde for you for it seemed good to the lawe giuer without diminishing to signifie the mysterie of Christe And then againe hee saith The oblation of these present giftes which we haue shewed to bee the mysterie of the onely begotten sonne hath reconciled vs to God and giuen vs the meate of the newe parched corne Nowe to M. Heskins collections Wee must learne here that Melchisedech did not only bring forth but also offer bread and wine In deed wee learne that Isychius thought so And that Christ the intelligible Melchisedech did sacrifice in breade and wine Yea but this sacrifice was a mysterie of that sacrifice whiche hath reconciled vs to God for so saith Isychius also and that no man offered this sacrifice but hee himselfe for that hee saith also Reade ouer the place if you doubte of my collection By which it is plaine it was not the sacrifice of the masse that euerie hedge priest may offer But that wee shoulde not say that it was bare breade that hee sacrificed he sheweth what breade it was saying by the drinke offering hee woulde signifie that of which hee saide this is my bloude See this impudent falsarie the writer saith hee woulde signifie Dominician sermonem the Lordes worde and hee saith that of which he saide c. Where is then the breade that the mysterie might bee fullie signified Is it not that which he calleth the tradition of the Gospell which is in foure bookes I dispute not howe well he applyeth these thinges but it is more then manifest that he speaketh so figuratiuely that no argument can be fastened of his wordes for the carnal presence And whereas M. Heskins shrinketh in his hornes about the oblation of bread and wine saying it was not bare breade but he sheweth what bread it was Let him aunswere me plainly if he dare for his eares Was it verie bread and wine which Christ did sacrifice or no If he say it was verie bread and wine then
filthy garments that is our sinnes by the name of his first begotten sonne and being set on fire by the word of his calling are a right kinde of high priests of God as God himself doth witnes That in al places among the Gentiles acceptable pure sacrifices are offred to him But God receiueth no sacrifice of any but of his Priestes Wherefore God before hand doth testifie that he doth accept all them that offer by this name the sacrifices which Iesus Christe hath deliuered to be made that is in the Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of the bread and the cuppe which are done in euery place of the Christians By these words it appeareth not that Christ was offered but thankesgiuing in the sacrament not of the priest alone but by all Christians And yet more plainely in the wordes of his that are in the same Dialogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as concerning those sacrifices which are offered to him of vs Gentiles in euery place that is of the breade of thankesgiuing and the cup likewise of thankesgiuing hee foresheweth saying that we do glorifie his name and that you do prophane it In which saying what can we see but the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the bread and cup And to proue that the Church hath none other sacrifice but of prayers and thankesgiuing he saith within few lines after the place cited by M. Heskins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I my selfe do affirme that prayers and thankesgiuing 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 minde by their drie and moyst nourishment of the passion which God the son of God is recorded to haue suffered for them This place doth not onely shewe what the only sacrifice of Christians was in his time but also teacheth that in the sacrament is drie and moyst nourishment that is bread and drinke not bare accidents as the transubstantiators affirme How little Iustinus maketh for the sacrifice of the Masse these places doe sufficiently declare The second place hee citeth is out of Hierom in his booke of Hebrue questions Quod autem â—it c. whereas he saâ—th thou art a Priest for â—uer after the order of Melchisedech in the word order our mysterie is signified not in offering vnreasonable sacrifices by Aaron but in offering bread and wine that is the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ. We haue shewed sufficiently before howe the olde writers vsed the worde of sacrifice licentiously when there was no such heresie as fined is sprung vp of the sacrifice of the Masse for the memoriall of the sacrifice of Christes body and bloud in which was offered the spirituall sacrifice of prayers and thanksgiuing which reasonable men might wel ynough vnderstand though heretiques do nowe drawe it to their meaning As when Hierom calleth this offering of bread and wine a mysterie euery indifferent reader may vnderstand that he speaketh not properly in calling it the body and bloud of Christe and a sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe But as to a sicke man of the ague all drinkes seeme bitter so to a popish heretique all sayings of the Doctours seeme popish and hereticall The third place he alledgeth it is out of Ambrose his preparatiue prayer to Masse I will not vouchsafe to rehearse it bicause it is a meere bastard and counterfet writing out of which it is cyted hauing as much of S. Ambrose in it as M. Heskins hath witt and honestie in alledging it If any man will obiect that then I must bring arguments to disproue it or else I may likewise denye any authenticall writer I answere it were too long to do in this shortnesse that I must vse and not necessarie when they are notorious and well knowne already to euery man of meane reading in the Doctors and Erasmus in his censure doth plainly reiect it The fourth is Isydorus li. 1. ca 18. de off which althogh he be somwhat without the coÌ„passe of 600. yeares after Christ yet because he is an auncient writer nere that time I will consider his speach which is cited by M. Heskins in these wordes The sacrifice that is offered to God by the Christians our Lorde and maister Christ did first institute when hee commended to his Apostles his bodie and bloude before hee was betraied as it is redd in the Gospell Iesus tooke the bread and the cup and blessing them gaue the same vnto them Here beside the vsuall phrase of sacrifice which we haue often declared what it did signifie and whence it came is nothing to quarrell at For Isydore ment no doubt the spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing which is offered in the celebration of the Lords supper not the propitiatorie sacrifice of the popish masse of which scarce the foundations were begonne to be laide in his time of certaine odde stones of vnproper speach and licentious phrases of sacrifices and oblations As for Haymo and Cabasila I will neuer trouble my self to examine their speaches they are but late writers therefore of small credite in these causes And whereas M. Heskins glorieth that he hath aunswered foure members of the proclamation in this booke the scriptures in the vulgar tongue the reseruation of the sacrament the offering of Christe to his father and the presence of his bodie and bloude in the sacrament let the iudgement reste with the indifferent readers whether although hee hath some of the lower house to fauour his billes more might haue if hee woulde aske their voyces yet I haue proued by this short aunswere that of the higher house he hath not one that hath giuen a voyce with theÌ„ but many that haue spoken directly against them God be praysed THE SECOND BOOKE OF HESKINS PARLEAMENT repealed by W. Fulke The first Chapter declareth the offices of the olde lawe and the benefites of the newe lawe with an exhortation to submit our vnderstanding to the knowledge of faith and therewith to the beleefe of the sacrament HOW vnsauerly he discourseth vpon the two offices of the lawe it were too long to examine in euerie pointe Onely this let the reader obserue that when he hath made the first office of the lawe to giue them knowledge of sinne and to restrayne them from it The other office hee saith was by lineamentes of figures and shadowes to leade the people to Christe as S. Paule sayth the lawe was our scholemaister to Christ c. As though the lawe was not a Schoolemaister to bring vs to Christe by shewing vs our sinnes and condemnation but onely by shadowes and figures After this hee maketh him selfe a ioly hunter That with great trauell and some pleasure hath passed through the bushes and thickets of the lawe and nowe being come into the faire land of the Gospell forgetting his former trauels with freshe delight will followe on his game So that hee is nowe belike
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
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
eaten when his fleshe is eaten as a man doth see when his eye or rather his soule by the eye doth see c. For the godhead is not eaten therefore it cannot be spiritually eaten but verily Still he maketh spirite and trueth contrarie as though what soeuer were done spiritually were not done verily But he remembreth not that Cyrill sayeth that he which eateth this fleshe is wholy refourmed or fashioned anewe into Christe Whereby hee doth not onely exclude wicked men but also teache a spirituall eating as the reformation is spirituall And as the worde was made fleshe by an vnspeakable vnion so wee by eating that fleshe are ioyned to him by an vnspeakable vnion Finally where Maister Heskins sayeth that Christs fleshe cannot be verily eaten but in the sacrament he excludeth all them from the benefites of his fleshe which are not partakers of the sacrament and so condemneth all children not come to yeares of discretion O cruell transsubstantiation The Thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the nexte text by Saint Ambrose and Chrysostome The text is This is that breade that came downe from heauen not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse and are dead He that eateth this bread shal liue for euer Saint Ambrose is alledged lib. 8. de initiandi but I thinke he should saye Capitâ— 8. de mysterijs initiandis Reuera mirabile c. Truely it was maruellous that God did rayne Manna to the fathers and that they were fedd with dayly foode from heauen Wherefore it is sayde man did eate the breade of Angels But yet they that did eate that breade in the wildernesse are dead But this breade which thou receiuest this breade of life which came downe from heauen giueth the substance of eternall life And whosoeuer shall eat this breade shall not dye for euer And it is the body of Christ. M. Heskins noteth that he calleth it the body of Christ as though any man doubted thereof But the same Ambrose reacheth that it must bee spiritually receiued in the same booke Chap. 9. In illo sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritualis est In that sacrament Christ is bicause it is the body of Christe therefore it is not corporall but spirituall meate If it be spirituall meate it must be spiritually receiued and not corporally as it is no corporall meate Now followeth a long sentence of Chrysostome Hom. 46. in Ioan. which Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth to make no great mention of the sacrament yet bycause he saith it followeth vpon his iudgement of the sacrament I will set it downe to be considered He saith therefore he that eateth my flesh shall not perish in death he shall not be damned But he doth not speake of the common resurrection for all shal riâ—e again but of that cleere and glorious which deserueth reward Your fathers haue eaten Manna in the wildernesse and be deade He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer He doeth oft repeate the same that it might be imprinted in the mindes of the hearers This was the last doctrine that he might confirme the faith of the resurrection and euerlasting life wherefore after the promise of eternall life he setteth foorth the resurrection after he hath shewed that shall be And howe is that knowne By the scriptures vnto which he doth alwayes send them to be instructed by them When he saith it giueth life to the world he prouoketh them to emulation that if they be moued with the benefite of other men they will not be excluded them selues And he doth often make mention of Manna comparing the difference allureth them to the faith For if it were possible that they liued fourtie yeares without haruest corne and other things necessarie to their liuing much more nowe when they are come to greater things For if in those figures they did gather without labour the things set foorth nowe truely much more where is no death and the fruition of true life And euery where he maketh mention of life For we are drawne with the desire there of and nothing is more pleasant then not to dye For in the olde Testament long life and many dayes were promised but nowe not simply length of life but life without end is promised Herevpon hee noteth that we are come to greater things in the sacrament then the Iewes did in Manna I graunt the faithfull come to greater thinges then the vnbeleeuing Iewes of whome and to whome our sauiour Christ speaketh Otherwise they that were faithfull did eate the same spirituall meate in Manna that we doe in the Sacrament 1. Cor. 10. But if the reall presence be not in the sacrament saith Maister Heskins Manna is greater then a bare peece of breade This comparison is topsi-turuie Chrysostome compareth bare Manna which the wicked receiued with the body of Christ which the godly take Maister Heskins compareth Manna to bare breade The one and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Hierome and S. Cyrill Hierome is cyted Ad Hedibiam quÄ™st 2. Si ergo panis c. Then if the bread which came downe from heauen is the body of our Lorde and the wine which he gaue to his disciples be his bloud of the newe Testament which was shed for many in remission of sinnes let vs cast away Iewish fables and let vs ascend with our Lorde into the great parler paued and made cleane and let vs take of him aboue the cuppe of the newe Testament and there holding the Passeouer with him let vs be made dronke by him with the wine of sobrietie for the kingdome of GOD is not meate and drinke but righteousnesse and ioye and peace in the holy Ghoste Neither did Moses giue vs the true bread but our Lord Iesus hee being the guest and the feast hee him selfe eating and which is euen S. Hierome proceedeth with that which M. Hes. omitteth His bloud we drinke and without him we can not drinke it and daily in his sacrifices we tread out new redd wine of the fruit of the true vine and of the vine of Sorech which is interpreted chosen and of these wee drinke the wine new in the kingdome of his father not in the oldenesse of the letter but in the newenesse of the spirit By these words more that foloweth it is most euident that Hieronyme speaketh of spirituall eating by faith as also by that he saith we ascend with Christ into the parler by which he meaneth heauen and there aboue we receiue the cup of the newe Testament Maister Heskins noteth that the bread which descended from heauen is the body of our Lorde But he must beware he say not that the naturall body of Christ descended out of heauen Againe he forgetteth not to repeat that that bread is the body of Christe but he will not see in Hieromes wordes that Christ gaue wine to his disciples Cyrillus
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
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
of our Lords words bringeth in the perfection of certeintie who said This is my bodie which is giuen for you doe this in remembraunce of me In this aunswere seeing he bringeth no exposition but onely citeth the bare wordes of the text there is nothing that maketh for M. Heskins He saith the wordes are plaine inough and neede none other interpretation It is true before the worlde was troubled with the heresie of carnall presence the text seemeth plaine ynough these wordes Do this in remeÌ„brance of me were thought a sufficient interpretation of those words This is my bodie and so doth Basill vse them But S. Ambrose he saith is so plaine that if his mother the Church had not beene good to him he should haue bene shut out of the doores For Oecolampadins reiected his book of the sacraments as Luther did the Epistle of S. Iames. Touching Luther although he were too rash in that censure yet had he Eusebius for his author twelue hundreth yeres before him And not only OecolaÌ„padius but many other learned men do thinke both the phrase and the matter of that booke to be vnlike S. Ambrose But for my part let it be receiued I hope M. Hesk. shal gaine litle by it he hath noted many short sentences which I wil rehearse one after another First Lib. 4. Ca. 5. Antequam Before it be consecrated it is bread but when the wordes of Christe are come to it it is the bodie of christ Finally heare him saying take eate ye all of it This is my bodie And before the words of Christ the cuppe is full of wine and water when the wordes of Christe haue wrought there is made the bloud which redeemed the people Ibi. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Tu forte Thou peraduenture sayest my bread is vsuall bread but this bread is bread before the wordes of the sacramentes when consecration is come to it of bread it is made the fleshe of Christ. And againe in the same Chapter Sed audi but heare him saying that sayeth he saide and they were made he commanded and they were created Therefore that I may answere thee Before consecration it was not the bodie of Christe But after consecration I say vnto thee thaâ— now it is the bodie of christ He saide and it is made he commanded and it is created And in the same booke Cap. 5. Ipse Dominus Our Lord Iesus himselfe testifieth vnto vs that we receiue his bodie and bloud shall we doubt of his trueth and testification Out of these places he concludeth not onely that figures be excluded but also that the tearme of consecration is vsed seriously I graunt but not in such sense as the Papistes vse it but as the worde signifieth to hallow or dedicate to an holie vse How figures be excluded and how these places are to be taken that are so plaine as he pretendeth I pray you heare what he writeth in the same bookes of sacramentes Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Ergo didicisti quòd ex pane corpuâ— fiat Christi quòd vinum aqua in calicem mittitur sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi Coelestis Sed fortò dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis vt nullus horror cruoris sit precium tamen operetur redemptionis Didicisti ergo quia quod accipis corpus est Christi Therefore thou hast learned that of the bread is made the body of Christ and that the wine and water is put into the cup but by consecration of the heauenly worde it is made his bloud But perhappes thou sayest I see not the shewe of bloud Yet hath it the similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud that there may be no horror of bloud yet it may worke the price of redemption Thou hast learned then that that which thou takest is the bodie of christ Here you see it is so the bodie of Christ as it is the similitude of his death so the bloud as it is the similitud of his bloud Moreouer in the same book Ca. 5. Dicit sacerdos c. The priest saith make vnto vs saith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. And Cap. 6. Ergo memores c. Therefore beeing mindefull of his most glorious passion and resurection from hell and ascention into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudie sacrifice this holie bread and cup of eternall life And againe Lib. 6. cap. 1. Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipiâ— sacramentuÌ„ sed verae naturae gratiam virtus émque consequeris Therfore lest any man should say this and there should be a certeine horror of bloud but that the grace of redemption might remaine therefore truely thou takest a sacrament for a similitude but thou obteinest the grace vertue of his true nature Thus Ambrose hath spoken sufficiently to shewe him selfe no fauourer of Maister Heskins bill although as the scripture teacheth he call the sacrament the bodie bloud of Christ and declareth why it is so called because it is a figure similitude and a memoriall thereof The three and fiftieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of Christes wordes by Gregorie Nicene and S. Hierome Gregorie Nicene is cited Ex serus Catatholico De Diuinis sacram Qua ex causa panis in eo corpore mutatus c. By what cause the bread in that bodie beeing chaunged passed into the diuine power by the same cause the same thing it done now For as there the grace of the word of God maketh that bodie whose nourishment consisted of bread and was after a certeine maner bread So bread as the Apostle saith by the word of God and prayer is sanctified not because it is eaten growing to that that it may become the bodie of the WORDE but foorthwith by the worde it is chaunged into the bodie as it is saide by the WORDE This is my bodie This place saith Maister Heskins ouerthroweth three heresies The first of Luther or Lutherans that the sacrament is not the bodie of Christ except it be receiued Gregorie saith it is not the bodie of Christ because it is eaten But that is no ouerthrow to Luthers assertion for Gregorie meaneth that the sacrament by nourishing our bodies is not made the bodie of Christe as the breade that a man eateth is turned into his bodie and so was the bread that our sauiour did eat turned into the substance of his bodie while he liued but by the power of God this notwithstanding it is made that bodye of Christ only to the worthie receiuer Of which aâ—sertion M. Hesk. saith they
haue no substantial grounde in scriptures as though an argument framed out of the scripture of the end vse of the sacrament were not a substantial ground And as for the popish counsell of Florens is a sorie ground without scripture Although 〈…〉 nor as he slaundereth vs that the power of consecration dependeth vpon the will of the receiuer but vpon the wonderfull worke of God with such practice as he requireth The second supposed heresie to be ouerthrowen is that the substance of bread wine do still remaine because Gregorie sayth it is changed into the bodie of Christe But this change is not of substance but of vse for as hee sayth it is changed into the bodie so he sayth it is chaunged into the diuine vertue which words though Maister Hesk. would racke to signifie the diuine flesh of Christ yet cannot he auoyde a manifest figure in the speache of Gregorie therfore it is nothing so plaine for him as he pretendeth To this he adioyneth a defence of the terme of transubstantiation which he confesseth to be but new as in deede the doctrine therof is but yet he compareth it with the terme vsed of olde by the fathers Homousion to signifie that Christe is of the substance of the father But to be short for termes we will not striue let him proue transubstantiation so olde as he pretendeth we will acknowledge the terme The thirde pretended heresie to be ouerthrowen is that he teacheth a reall presence and therefore the wordes This is my bodie are to be vnderstood without trope or figure But this is auoyded in aunswere to the seconde and so we leaue him discharged of M. Hesk. cauils Hierome is alledged ad Hedibiam qu. 2. the place hath bene alreadie handled proued to be against M. Hesk. in the 31. Chap. of this booke whither I referre the reader for breuities sake only in this place I wil deale with such points as were not spoken of there and rehearse the whole discourse of S. Herome together not in patches as M. Hesk. hath done interlacing his fond gloses Questio secunda Quomodo accipiendum sit c. The second question How that saying of our sauiour in Mathew is to be taken I say vnto you I will not drinke from hence forth of this fruite of the vine vntil that day in which I shal drinke it newe with you in the kingdome of my father Out of this place some men build the fable of a thousand yeres in which they contend that Christ shall raigne corporally drinke wine which hee hath not dronke from that time vnto the end of the world But let vs heare that the bread which our Lord brake gaue to his disciples is the bodie of our Lord sauiour as he saith vnto them Take eat ye this is my bodie that the cupp is that of whiche he spake againe drinke ye all of this this is my bloud of the new testament which shal be shed for many c. This is that cupp of which we read in the Prophet I will take the cupp of saluation And in another place Thy cup inebriaeting is verie noble If therfore the bread which came downe from heauen is the bodie of our Lord and the wine which he gaue to his disciples is his bloud of the new testament let vs reiect Iewish fables ascend with our Lord into the great parler prepared made clean let vs receiue of him aboue the cup of the new testament there holding passouer with him let vs be made dronke with the wine of sobrietie For the kingdome of God is not meat drinke but righteousnesse ioy peace in the holy ghost Neither did Moises giue vs the true bread but our Lord Iesus he being the guest the fest he himselfe eating which is eaten His bloud we drinke without him we cannot drinke it daily in his sacrifices wee tread out of the generation of the true vine the vine of Sorec which is interpreted chosen the redde newe wines and of them wee drinke newe wine of the kingdome of his father not in the oldnesse of the letter but in the newnesse of the spirite singing a newe song which none can sing but in the kingdome of the Churche which is the kingdome of the father This bread also did Iacob the Patriarch couet to eate saying if the Lord shal be with me giue me bread to eat and rayment to couer mee For as many of vs as are baptised in Christ haue put on Christ and do eat the breade of Angels and do heare our Lorde saying My meate is that I may do the will of him that sent mee my father that I may accomplish his worke Let vs therefore do the will of his father which sent vs and let vs accomplish his worke and Christ shall drinke with vs his bloud in the kingdome of the Church This is the whole discourse of Hierome and by the distinction of the letter you see what Maister Heskins hath left out both in the beginning and in the ende and yet he raileth at the proclaimer for snatching truncately a fewe wordes to make a shew to deceiue his auditorie But by this whole treatise you may see what the question is and howe it is answered namely that the promise of Christ must bee vnderstoode of a spirituall drinking in the Church which vtterly ouerthroweth the popish fantasie of real presence For Christ is so present at euery celebration of the supper in his church that he eateth his bodie and drinketh his bloud as Hierome sayth which no man except he bee mad wil say to be otherwise then after a spirituall manner and in the end Hierome openeth what is his meate and how he drinketh his bloud with vs and that wee so eat his bodie as we put him on for a garmēt in baptisme and as Iacob did eat it which must needes be spiritually More collections if any man desire let him resort to the 31. Chapter of this second booke The foure fiftieth Chapter testifyeth the vnderstanding of the same words by Isychius S. Augustine Isychius is alledged in Leuit. lib. 6. Cap. 2◠vpon this text He that eateth of the holie things vnwittingly shall put the fifth parte thereunto and giue vnto the Priest the hallowed thing Sancta sanctorum c. The most holie things properly are the mysteries of Christ because it is his bodie of whome Gabriell said vnto the virgin The holy ghost shall come vpō thee and the power of the moste highest shall ouershadowe thee therefore that holy one that shal be borne of thee shal be called the sonne of god And Esay also The Lord is holie dwelleth in the heightes that is to saye in the bosome of his father For from this sacrifice he hath forbidden not onely strangers and soiourners hyred seruaunts but hee commaunded also not to receiue it by ignorance And he taketh it by
suppressing the rest for very shame they make so much against him Surely in all reasonable mens consciences what so euer hee left out of this place hee left the aduauntage of his owne cause and no title againste him But let vs see here what Maister Heskins a man of inuention passing Sinon the GrÄ™cian hath gathered out of it There bee two thinges in this place plainely taught The first is the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in that he so reuerently calleth the sacrament vnder one kinde the portion of the Lords body and the other he calleth the cup of the holy bloud For the spiritual bloud is not contained in external or material vessels No syr but the sacrameÌ„t of his natural bloud is wherof he speaketh as it is manifest by the words immediatly before the portion of the Lords body for his natural body is not broken into portions but the bread which is a sacrament thereof is broken and therby is shewed what wicked men receiue both in this saying of Gelasius in the other of Leo not the naturall body of Christe which cannot be receiued in portions but a portion of the sacramental bread which is therfore called the body of Christ bicause it is so indeed to them that receiue it worthily is consecrated to that vse that it may be the coÌ„munication of the body of christ And as it hath ben often shewed sacraments beare the names of the very things wherof they are sacrameÌ„ts The second thing that he teacheth saith M. Hes. is that he calleth not these two kindes Sacramentum a sacrament but Sacramenta sacramentes in the plural number signifying therby that each of them is a whole sacrament O new Diuinitie theÌ„ ye Papistes haue eight sacraments But are you such a prudent gatherer M. Hes it appeareth you wil lease none aduantage for the taking vp I commend you But for all that doth not your Authour Leo call both kindes sacramentum a sacrament and that is more for it is too too childish to reason of the singular number doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kindes Vnum idémque mysterium one and the same mysterie And when he vseth the plural number the ground of your Achillean argument doth he not say Integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur Let them take the whole sacramentes or else let them be kept from the whole signifying that they which tooke the bread onely tooke but halfe the sacramentes and none took the whole but they that tooke the cup also But nowe for the practise of the Primitiue Church to haue receiued in one kinde he saith that in time of persecution the Priest deliuered them of the sacrament wrapped in fine linnen clothes to carie home with them and to receiue it secretly by them selues and this could bee none other but the sacrament vnder the foâ—ne of breade Admit it were so that they caried home the sacrament yet it followeth not but they might as well carie the wine in a faire pot as they caried the breade in a faire cloth And although TertulliaÌ„ writing to his wife name bread only yet doth it not followe but that he comprehendeth the cup also The wordes of Tertullian are before rehearsed and answered Lib. 1. cap. 24. 27. Next is brought in Basil. Episto ad Caesareant patriciam Illud autem c. As for that to be a grieuous thing in the times of persecution any man to be inforced to receiue the communion with his owne hand the Priest or Deacon not being present it is more then nedeth to proue for bicause the same thing is by a long custome and by the very vse of things established For all they that in the wildernesse lead a solitarie life where there is no Priest keeping the communion at home communicate of them selues But in Alexandria and Aeâ—ypt euery one of the people for the most part haue the communion in their owne house For when the Priest doth consecrate the sacrifice and distribute it we must well beleeue to participate and receiue it For in the Church the Priest giueth part and he that taketh it receiueth it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand It is therfore the same thing in vertue whether a man take one part of the Priest or many parts together Of the credite and authoritie of this Epistle which being cited in the name of Saint Basil is not to be found in all his workes I haue spoken before sufficiently as also of the reseruation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first booke cap. 27. But for the communion in one kinde I see nothing that he saith sauing that Maister Heskins gathereth that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hote countries conueniently in their own kind such long time as they were forced to reserue the sacrament in the wildernes and else where But I aunswere him that such strong wine as they haue in those hote countries will bee kept longer from sowring then the breade will bee from moulding and therefore his gathering is altogether fond ridiculous But now you shall heare a more plaine testimoine for this receipt vnder one kinde if you will hearken to S. Cyprian He is cited In sermone de Lapsis a long saying to litle yea to no purpose at all Praesente ac teste meipso c. Heare what came to passe my selfe beeing present and witnesse The parentes of a childe flying by chaunce while for feare they tooke no good aduisement leaft their young daughter vnder the cherishing of a nource the nource brought her so left vnto the Magistrates They before an Idole where the people were gathered because for her age she could yet eate no flesh gaue vnto her bread mixed with wine which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish Afterwarde the mother receiued her daughter But the litle mayde could no more speake and declare the offence that was committed then vnderstand it before and forbidde it Through ignorance therfore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her whyle we were sacrificing But truely the girle beeing among the Saintes not abiding our prayer and supplication sometime was constrained to crie out sometime with vehement greefe of minde was tossed here and there euen as though a tormentor compelled her the ignorant soule by such tokens as she could acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those yong and tender yeres But after the solemnities beeing accomplished the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present and when the rest had receiued and her place was next the little one by the instinct of Gods Maiestie turned away her face pressed her mouth with her lippes stopped refused the cuppe Yet the Deacon persisted and though it were against her will powred in somewhat of the sacrament of the cuppe Then followed belking and vomite In a bodie and a mouth that was defiled the Eucharistie
could not remaine The drinke sanctified in the bloud of our Lord brake out of her polluted bowels c. Out of this Historie Maister Heskins gathereth two thinges First that the sacrament in that time was ministred to infantes which was in deede a great abuse contrarie to the worde of god Secondly that this childe receiued onely the cup which is false for though she was not so troubled at the receipt of the bread yet it followeth not that she receiued no bread but contrariwise Cyprian saith the Eucharistie by whiche wordes the fathers alwayes vnderstand the whole sacrament could not remaine in her bodie And whereas he reasoneth foolishly that if she had receiued the bread she should like wise haue beene troubled he must vnderstand that when God worketh a miracle he taketh times and occasions at his pleasure And it is like he would not discouer her pollution that come by bread and wine before she had receiued both bread and wine as the sacrament If I should vrge vpon this place as the scoole men doe whether this that was vomited was the bloud of Christ and what should be done with it or what was done with it in this storie I should trouble him more then he could easily answere Another tale he telleth out of Sozomenus Eccl. hist. lib. 8. Cap. 5. Ioanne Constantinopolitanum c. When Iohn Chrysostome did very well gouerne the Church of Constantinople a certeine man of the Macedonian heresie had a wife of the same opinion When this man had heard Iohn teaching what was to bee thought of God he praysed his doctrine and exhorted his wife to be of the same minde with him But when she did more obey the words of noble women then his conuersation and after many admonitions her husband had profited nothing Except quod he thou be a cōpaniō with me in Diuine matters thou shalt not be hereafter a partaker of liuing with me When the woman heard this promised her consent dissemblingly she cōmunicated the matter with a certeyne maide seruant which shee iudged to be trustie vnto her and vseth her seruice to deceiue her husband And about the time of the mysteries they that be receiued to them know what I say she keping that she had receiued fell downe as though she would pray Her maide standing by giueth her priuily that which she brought in her hand with her which thing when it was put to her teeth it congeled into a stone The woman beeing astonnied fearing least any euil should happen to her for that thing whiche came to passe from God made hast to the Bishop and bewraying her selfe sheweth the stone hauing yet vpon it the markes of her bit and shewing an vnknowen matter and a wonderful colour and also desiring pardon with teares promised that she would agree with her husband And if this matter seeme to any man to be incredible this stone is a witnesse which is kept to this day among the Iewels of the Churche of Constantinople If this storie be true as it is no article of our beleefe yet proueth it not that the communion was ministred in bread only to all the rest that would receiue the cuppe although I wote not what was turned into a stone before the time came she should receiue the cuppe If M. Heskins will vrge she could not haue any thing to conuey into her mouth in steede of the wine I answere she might easily counterfet the drinking by kissing the cuppe and so letting it passe from her without tasting thereof Wherefore this is but a blind and vnreasonable coniecture of Maister Heskins that the sacrament was ministred in one kinde because she that had dissembled in the receipt of one kinde was punished with depriuation from both kindes The last reason he vseth Is that it is testified by learned men that the manner of receiuing vnder one kinde which is vsed in all the Latine Church vpon good Friday on which day the priest receiueth the hoste consecrated vpon maundie Thursday hath been so vsed from the primitiue Church But what learned men they be except such as him selfe and what proofes they haue of this vsage he sayeth not so much as halfe a word The whole matter standeth vpon his owne credite But if he and all the learned of that side should fast from good Friday vntill they haue shewed proofe of such an vse in the primitiue church not as they vse to fast in Lent but from all manner of nourishment there would not one learned Papist be left aliue on gang Monday to shew what proofes they haue found Thou hast seene Reader what his reasons and authorities are iudge of the answers according to thy discretion ¶ The end of the second Booke THE THIRD BOOKE OF MAISTER HESKINS PARLEAment repealed by W. Fulke The first Chapter entereth by Preface into the first text of S. Paule that toucheth the sacrament and expoundeth it according to the letter TThe Preface is out of Didymus that diuine matters are to be handled with reuerence and considering the difficultie of the scriptures by Hierome that in matters of doubt recourse must be had by Irenęus his aduise vnto the most auncient Churches in which the Apostles were conuersant In so much that Irenaeus saith Libro 3. Cap. 4. Quid autem c. And what if the Apostles had left vs no writinges ought we not to haue followed the order of tradition which they deliuered to them to whome they had committed the Churches Wherevpon Maister Heskins gathereth that not onely for matters conteined in scripture but also for traditions vnwritten in the holie scriptures the fathers are to be credited But he goeth farre from Irenaeus minde who confuted the heretiques both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the moste auncient Churches whose traditions must haue beene all our institution if there had ben no scriptures But seeing that scriptures inspired of God by his gratious prouidence are left vnto vs al traditions are to be examined by them that is twise proued after Irenaeus minde whiche is proued both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the Churches Otherwise the scriptures are sufficient of them selues 2. Tim. 3. And no tradition or authoritie is to be receiued which is repugnant or contrarie vnto them The text of Saint Paule that he speaketh is written 1. Cor. 10. Brethren I would not haue you ignorant that all our fathers were vnder the cloude and all passed through the sea and were all baptised by Moses in the cloude and in the sea and did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the same spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christe Where it is to be noted that Maister Heskins in steede of the same spirituall meate and the same spirituall drinke translateth one spiritual meate and one spirituall drinke as though the sense were that the Fathers did all eate drinke of one spiritual kind
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
in thy holie hil He that is innocent of hands of a cleane hart These things we say most deare brethrē that you may al learn out of the new Testament not to cleane to earthly things but to obteine heauenly thinges The precepts therefore beeing discussed are found to be all the same or else scarse any in the Gospel which haue ben said of the prophets The precepts are the same the sacraments are not the same the premises are not the same Let vs see wherfore the praecepts are the same because that according to them we ought to serue god The sacramentes are not the same because they be other sacraments giuing saluation other promising the sauiour The sacramentes of the new Testament do giue saluation the sacramēts of the old Testament promised the sauiour Therefore now that thou holdest the thinges promised what seekest thou things promising the sauiour now hauing him I say holdest the things promised not that we haue already receiued eternall life but because Christe is already come which was foreshewed by the prophets The sacraments are changed they are made easier fewer holsomer Notwithstanding the vain exclamation of M. Hesk. vpon this place except we wil make S. August contrarie to him selfe in the places before alledged we may plainly see how he expoundeth himself in the latter end of this long passage whereof the greatest part might altogether haue ben spared Namely that there is no difference in the substance of our sacramēts frō theirs but the Christ is already come And our sacraments do not giue saluation as though we had eternal life deliuered by them in possession but because Christ the authour of eternal life that in the other was promised is now come Not that grace in them was only promised not giuen for them M. Hesk. own definition of a sacrament should be false wherin he wil not allow any thing that is superfluous much lesse vntrue But M.H. is not content with this interpretation saying that S. Augustine compareth the sacraments of the olde lawe to childrens trifles in the same place Numquid quiniam puero c. Because there are giuen to a childe certein childish playing trifles by which the childish minde is called away are they not therefore plucked out of his hands when he waxeth a great one No more therfore God because he hath plucked away those things as childrens trifles out of the handes of his sonnes by the new Testament that he might giue thē something more proprofitable they beeing now waxed greater is to be thought not to haue giuen those former things Gentle Reader I wish thee to turne ouer to this place in S. Augustine and except thou be too much blinded in affection toward M. Hesk. thou wilt confesse that he hath aduouched a manifest vntruth when thou shalt see that Augustine vttereth not these words of the sacraments of the olde Testament but of the promises of earthly benefites made vnto the Fathers of those times I can say no more conferre and iudge The sixteenth Chapter proceedeth to the next text of S. Paule which is Calix cui Benedi This text which he pretendeth to expound is written in 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which we breake is it not the cōmunion or partaking of the bodie of Christ This text he saith proueth the reall presence and sacrifice And first he will haue no trope or figure to be vnderstoode in this place but the very things themselues with how grosse absurditie it is I referre it to the iudgment of al reasonable Papists that know what a trope meaneth Secondly he saith it is an euil manner of disputation to go about to proue like effectes of vnlike causes Wherein I will agree with him But what vpon this Forsooth then it followeth that as the Iewes of whom S. Paule taketh example were partakers of the altar because they did eate the sacrifices so we are partakers of the bodie bloud of Christ because we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ corporally and not because we eate a peece of bread and drink a litle wine Againe as the Corinthians by eating meate offred to idols were made partakers of idols so the Christians because they did eate the bodie of Christ are made partakers thereof But to discusse this vaine cloude of sophistrie I wil reason vpon his own Maxime like causes haue not vnlike effectes S. Paule saith he would not haue the Corinthians partakers of Diuels by eating meate offered to idols which in effect was offred to diuels As they that were made partakers of Diuels bycause they did eate meat offred to diuels were not partakers of the substance and nature of diuels neither did they eate the substance of diuels no more doth it follow that we eating drinking the bread of thanksgiuing cup of thanksgiuing which are a cōmunication of the bodie and bloud of Christ do corporally eate and drink the bodie bloud of Christ or be made partakers corporally of the nature substance of the bodie bloud of christ The like I say of the altar Now concerning the sacrifice M. Hesk. saith that if S. Paule did not as well take the cup table of the Lord to be a sacrifice as the cup and table of diuels to be a sacrifice as the sacrifices of the Israelites he would not haue vsed like termes but shewed a difference I answer if the sacrament had ben a sacrifice he would haue so called it especially in this place or at least in some other place therefore it is no sacrifice he shewed a sufficient difference when he called the one a sacrifice and not the other Although if I shold grant it to be a sacrifice of thanksgiuing M. Hes. were neuer the neere of his propitiatorie sacrifice But the fathers of Christes Parleament house must be heard to establish this interpretation of M. Hes. and first Chrysost. In 1. Cor. 10. Maximè c. With these wordes he doeth get greatly to him selfe both credite and feare And the meaning of them is this That which is in the cup is the same which flowed one of his side and thereof we are partakers And he called it the cup of blessing because that when we haue it in our handes with admiration and a certeine horror of that vnspeakable gift we prayse him giuing thankes because he hath shed his bloud that we should not remaine in errour Neither hath he onely shed it but made vs all partakers of it Therefore saith he if thou desirest bloud do not sprinkle the altar of idols with the slaughter of bruite beasts but my altar with my bloud What is more maruelous then this Tell me I pray thee wha◠is more amiable This also louers when they see those whom they loue allured with desire of other mens things giue their owne vnto them and counsel them to absteine from these
beloued flye from the honouring of Idols Afterward following he sheweth to what sacrifice they ought to appertein saying I speak as vnto wise men iudge what I say is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communication of the bloud of Christ and is not the bread which we breake a communication of the bodie of our Lord In this saying after the worde altar he hath gelded out thus much Ideo quippe addidit carnaliter vel secundùm carnem quia est Israel spiritualiter vel secundùm spiritum qui veteres vmbras iam non sequitur sed eam consequentem quae his vmbris praecedentibus significata est veritatem For therfore he added carnally or after the flesh because there is a Israel spiritually or according to the spirite which doth not now followe the olde shadowes but the trueth following which was signified by those shadowes All this is left out of the very middest From the end he cutteth of these wordes following Quia vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus omnes enim de vno pane participamus Et propter hoc subiunxit videte Israel secundùm carnem nonne qui de sacrificijs manducant socij sunt altaris vt intelligerent ita se iam socios esse corporis Christi quemadmodum illi socij sunt altaris Because there is one bread and we beeing many are one bodie for we are all partakers of one bread And for this cause he added Behold Israel according to the flesh are not they which eate of the sacrifices fellowes or partakers of the altar That they might vnderstand that they are now so fellowes or partakers of the bodie of Christe as those are partakers of the altar What can be saide more playne for the spirituall manner of participation of the bodie of Christe Except M. Heskins will say that the Iewes were really corporally and substantially partakers of the altar And this is conteined in the first booke Cap. 19. And wheras M. Hesk. iangleth of the sacrifice mentioned in this place heare what sacrifice it may be by Augustines owne wordes in the 18. Chapter of the same booke Sed nec laudibus nostris eget c. But neither hath he need of our prayses but as it is profitable for vs and not for him that we offer sacrifice to God and because the bloud of Christe is shed for vs in that singular and onely true sacrifice therefore in those first times God commanded the sacrifices of immaculate beastes to be offered vnto him to prophecie this sacrifice by such significations that as they were imaculate from faults of their bodies so he should be hoped to be offered for vs who alone was immaculate frō sins Here the sacrifice of death is the singular sacrifice the only true sacrifice propitiatorie of the Church otherwise for the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing or for the sacrament to be called vnproperly a sacrifice of the auncient fathers I haue often confessed before As for Damascenes authoritie li. 4. Ca. 14. it is not worth the aunswering being a late writer more then 100. yeares out of the compasse and full of grosse absurdities and in the place by M. Hesk. alledged denyeth that Basill calleth breade wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exemplaria exemplaries of the bodie and bloud of Christ after the consecration which is an impudent lye for before the consecration they are no sacraments and so no exemplars of the bodie and bloud of Christe therefore if he called them exemplars it must needs be when they are sacraments that is after consecration but such lippes such lettyce he is a sufficient author for M. Heskins and yet hee is directly against transubstantiation For he saith cum sit mos hominum edere panem bibere vinum ijs rebus adiunxit suam diuinitatem whereas it is the manner of men to eate beead and drinke wine hee hath ioyned his diuinitie to these things In these words he acknowledgeth the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament the diuinitie of Christ to bee ioyned to them The nynteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Isidore Oecumenius M. Hesk. hath many friends in the lower house as hee hath neuer a one in the vpper house that fauoureth his bil Yet Isidorus saith litle for him but rather against him He citeth him lib. 1. offic Cap. 18. Panis c. The bread which we breake is the bodie of Christ which sayth I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen and the wine is his bloud and this is it that is written I am the true vine M. Hesk. saith truely that Isidore is the rather to be credited because he alledgeth the scripture and therefore according to these two textes of scripture he must be vnderstoode but neither of both these texts is to be vnderstood litterally but figuratiuely therefore his saying the breade is the bodie and the wine is his bloud must be vnderstood figuratiuely not litterally which M. Heskins perceiuing would help him out by foysting in a place of Cyrillus in Ioan. Annon conuenienter c May it not be conueniently sayde that his humanitie is the vine we the branches because wee be all of the same nature For the vine the branches be of the same nature So both spiritually corporally wee are the braunches and Christ is the vine In these wordes Cyrill reasoneth against an Arrian as is more at large declared in the sixth Chapter of this third booke that would interpret this place only of the diuinitie of Christe to make him lesse then his father as the vine is subiect to the husbandman But Cyrill contendeth that it may well be vnderstoode also of his humanitie because we are not onely ioyned to the diuinitie of Christ but also to his flesh which is testifyed vnto vs by the sacrament wherin we are spiritually fedd with the verie bodie bloud of Christe and so Christe is the vine both spiritually corporally that is both after his godhead after his manhod But Cyrillus would neuer denie that this saying I am the true vine is a figuratiue speach which is the matter in controuersie betweene M. Hesk. and vs. Oecumenius is alledged to as litle purpose as Isidorus in 1. Cor. 10. Poculum vocat c. He calleth the cupp of the bloud of Christ the cupp of blessing which we blesse which hauing in our hands we blesse him which hath giuen vs his bloude Here is neuer a worde but I will willingly subscribe vnto it yet M. Hesk. sayth it is a common manner of speache that the vessel is named by the thing that it conteineth hee dare not say it is a figuratiue speach lest while he would haue the bloud of Christ locally conteined in the cupp he might be pressed with the figure in the worde bloud which he cannot denye though he dissemble in the word cupp In the end he braggeth of an euident
haue noted Maister Heskins falsification in this place translating Corpus nempe Christi Verily the body of Christe but that hee would delude the ignoraunt reader afterwarde and say if it bee verily the body of Christe it is not figuratiuely his body as though nempe were the same that verè or propriè But herein I will leaue him to children in the Grammer schoole to be derided and boyes that neuer read three leaues of Aristotles Logike in the Vniuersities The like follie hee sheweth in preuenting our aunswere that Oecumenius speaketh of the mysticall body of Christe bycause hee speaketh first of the breade that wee receiue and after of vs that receiue it But doeth hee not say wee are made the same body that wee receiue Wherefore I will thus inferre wee are made the same body that wee receiue but wee are not made the same naturall body corporally therefore we receiue not the same natural body corporally Nowe let Maister Heskins make as much as hee can of Oecumenius authoritie and rayâ—e as long as hee list against the disagreement of Luther Zuinglius and Oecolampadius they shall bee found to agree better where they most disagree then the Pope and al his cleargie agree with Christ and the trueth when they all agree to persecute and oppresse And as concerning these properties of a true Prieste that hee gathereth out of Malachie the lawe of trueth in their mouth peace and equitie in their wayes and conuersion of men from iniquitie notwithstanding Maister Heskins slanderous pen shal be found in them and in al the true preachers of our church in the iudgment of Christ when the Pope and his Popish shauelings shal be condemned of false doctrine crueltie abhominable life in them selues and teaching the doctrine of licentiousnesse vnto others I meane the doctrine of merites satisfactions purgatorie pardoning and such like The authoritie of Anselme a professed enimie of Berengarius I resigne to M. Hes. with ten thousand such as he is not comparable in credite with one of the higher house who only are meâ—te to determine this controuersie of the manner of Christes presence in the sacrament The nine and twentieth Chapter treateth of the same text by Theophylact and Dionyse and endeth with Remigius The last couple saith M. Heskins make vp a ful Iewrie to passe for life and death but we may lawfully chalenge the aray being enpanelled by M. Heskins a partial shirif and also we haue excepted against many of the Iewrors and now do except against both these namely Theophylact of Bulgarie as a late writer and an heretique and Dionyse of the Charterhouse as one of the feeid and fed seruants of the Pope Although Theophylact being reasonably expounded according to his owne sayings in other places saith nothing directly against vs But in default of these here is a third man taken belike de circunstantibus that is Remigius whome M. Heskins to make him a lawfull Iewrie man affirmeth to haue liued Anno Dom. 511. and so within the compasse of the challenge But if he deale so wee must haue a writ against him de identitate nominis For as we finde that there was in deede one Remigius bishop of Remes about that time so likewise we finde that the authour of this commentarie in 1. Cor. 10. was bishop Antisiodocensis almost 400. yeres after namely about the yere of Christ. 894. Notwithstanding bicause his words are almost the same which are before ascribed to Hierom Cap. 17. I will not spare to set them downe Calix benedictionis c. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christe Therefore he named the cup first because he would afterward treate more at large of the bread It is called the cup of blessing which is blessed of the priestes in the altar the cuppe it selfe is called a communication as it were a participation because all do communicate of it and receiue parte of the Lordes bloud which it conteineth in it And the bread whiche we breake in the altar is it not the participation of the Lordes body Surely it is first consecrated and blessed of the priests and of the holie Ghost and afterward is broken when as now although bread be seene in trueth it is the bodie of Christ â–ª Of which bread whosoeuer do communicate they doe eate the bodie of christ Because we being many which eate that bread are one bread vnderstand of Christ and one bodie of Christ. Maister Heskins noteth that the cup conteyneth the bloud of Christ which speech may be allowed because the cup conteineth the wine which is the bloud of Christ after a certeine manner as S. Augustine saith Secondly that though it seem bread yet indeed is the body of Christ he saith Lices panis videatur Though bread be seene yet Christ his bodie is present after a spirituall and incomprehensible manner But M. Heskins wil note that all men did drinke the bloud of Christe out of the cup. And that he saith the bread is broken when it is the bodie of Christe by which wordes he denyeth transubstantiation as in the former the communion vnder one kinde Finally in affirming vs that eate that bread to be the same bodie of Christ which we do eate he doth clearly ouerthrowe the carnall manner of eating Christes body in the sacrament as he doeth establish the spirituall manner of coniunction that we haue with the bodie and bloud of Christ. The thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Ye cannot drinke of the cup of our Lorde and of the cup of diuels by S. Cyprian and Chrysostome This text saith M. Heskins is a conclusion therefore it must include sacrifice that was in the premisses But I denie that sacrifice was any of the termes in the premisses of that argument wherof this is the conclusion although it were named in the sacrifices of the Iewes and of the Gentiles euen as Israel Gentiles altar temple were likewise named and yet not to be found in this conclusion because that although they were spoken of in the discourse yet they were not in the premisses of this argument for this it is Who so euer is made one bodie with CHRISTE can not drinke of the Lordes cuppe and of the cuppe of Diuels but you are made one bodie with Christe therefore you cannot drinke the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels Now therefore to Saint Cyprian Ser. 5. de Lapsis Contra Euangelij vigorem c. Against the force of the Gospel against the law of our Lord and of God by the rashnesse of some communication is set as libertie to them that are vnprouided Which is a vaine and a false peace perillous to the giuers and nothing profitable to the receiuers They seeke not the patience of health nor the true medicine by satisfaction Repentance is shut vp from sinners The remembrance of a moste greeuous and extreeme offence is taken away The woundes of
them that are in dying are couered and the deadly strype in the deepe and inward bowels is hidde with dissembled sorrowe Retourning from the altar of the diuell with handes filthye and defiled with the greasie sauour they come to the holie of the LORDE Almoste yet belching out the deadly meates of Idols with their lawes yet breathing out their wickednesse and sauouring of their deadly infections they set vpon the Lords body whereas the Scripture commeth againste them and cryeth and sayeth Euerie cleane person shall eate the fleshe But if any eate of the fleshe of the wholesome sacrifice whiche is the Lordes hauing his vncleanenesse vpon him the same soule shall perishe from among his people The Apostle also witnesseth and sayeth ye can not drinke the cuppe of the Lorde and the cuppe of Diuels Ye can not communicate of the table of the Lorde and the table of diuels In this sermon Cyprian reproued those men whiche had admitted to the communion such persons as had sacrificed to idols before they were throughly penitent and had made satisfaction to the Church which was offended by them contrarie to the order of good discipline Now saith Maister Heskins he would not so sharply haue reproued them if the thing they receiued had beene but a peece of bread A wise reason What if a man at that time had come vnreuerently to baptisme had it not ben an horrible offence although the outward element of baptisme be nothing but a litle water Although when we say â–ª that bread is a parte of the sacrament we neuer teache that it is but a peece of bread neither doe we say that baptisme is nothing but water They that vnreuerently rush vnto the Lords sacraments are punished for their presuÌ„ption not in respect of that they receiue whether it be bread wine or water but for that they receiue it vnworthily Another thing he noteth out of Cyprian is that Christes bodie is a sacrifice because he alledgeth the scripture of Leuiticus which is spoken of a sacrifice as though the scripture could not be rightly applyed that spake of holie meate vnreuerenely receiued vnto the vnreuerent receiuing of the sacrament except the sacrament were a sacrifice this is out of all compasse of reason He might as well say the sacrament is a burnt offring because it is compared to a sacrifice which is a burnt offring and an hundreth other absurdities may likewise be inferred which for reuerence of the blessed mysteries I spare to name But it followeth in Cyprian immediately where Maister Heskins leaueth Idem conuâ—â—nacibus pertinacibus comminatur detrâ—â—iciat dicens quicunque ederis panem aut biberit calicem Domini indignè reus eriâ— corporis sanguinis Domini Spretis his omnibus atque contempâ—is vis infertur corpori cius sanguini eiut Plus modò in Dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt quà m cum Dominum negâ—uerunt The same Paule threateneth and denounceth to the obstinate and froward saying whosoeuer shal eate of the bread drink of the cup of the Lord vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the lord All these sayings being despised and contemned violence is done vnto his bodie his bloud They do more offend against the Lord now with their hands their mouth then when they denied the Lord. These wordes declare that Cyprian calleth not the bread cup the bodie bloud of Christ â–ª as M. Hesk. would haue it properly but figuratiuely for no force or violence can be done to the bodie and bloud of Christe but to the sacrament thereof there may and Christ is iniured in the contempt of his mysteries as the Prince in contumelious breaking abusing of the broad seale by rebellious subiectes though he suffer no violence in his owne person Chrysostome is cited Ho. 11. ad Populum Antiochen Quomodo sacruÌ„ videbimus pascha c. How shal we see the holie passeouer How shall we receiue the holy sacrifice How shall we coÌ„municate in these maruelous mysteries with that tongue with which we haue contemned the lawe of God With that â—ong with which we haue defiled our soule For if no man durst take the Kings purple robe with foule hands how shall we receiue the Lordes body with a defiled tonge For swearing is of the wicked sacrifice is of the lord Therefore what communication is there betweene light and darknesse what agreement between Christ and Beliall Here saith M. Hesk. by the excellent titles he giueth the sacrament is proued the reall presence The holie sacrifice wonderful mysteries the bodie of our Lord light Christ himself But one of these titles is manifestly vnproper and figuratiue namely that of light and why may not the rest be so likewise Baptisme hath honourable titles yet is there no transubstantiatioÌ„ therin The second note to proue the reall presence is that saying how shall we with defiled tong receiue the Lordes body Here the body is receiued with the mouth and tong therefore corporally But if I should say that Chrysostome by this interogation denyeth that it can be receiued with a defiled tong where were the strength of this place but I will graunt that he vseth so to speake but vnproperly that the hand the tong receiue the bodie and bloud of Christ and yet meaneth no carnall maner of presence as Ho. 21. ad Pop. Antioch Cogita quid manu capias ipsam ab omni auaritia rapina liberam conserua Consider what thou receiuest with thy hand and keepe it free from all couetousnesse extortion This peraduenture pleaseth M. Heskins But it followeth soone after Etenim perniciosum est tam tremendis ministraâ—â—em mysterijs linguam sanguine tal purpuratam factam aureum gladium ad cornicia contumelias scurrilitates transferre For it is a pernicious thing to transferre that tonge which ministreth vnto so reuerend mysteries is died purple with such bloud and made a golden sworde vnto rayling reuiling and scoffing Here the tong doth not only receiue the bloud of Christ but also is made red or purple with it is made by it a golden sword If these be not figuratiue speeches they be monstruous absurdities And yet againe in the same place Sed rursum aduertens quod post manus liâ—guam cor suscipit horrendum illud mysteriâ—en ne vnquam in proximuÌ„ sumas dolum sed menseÌ„ tuam ab omni malitia mundâ—m conserua fic oculos aures munire poteris But againe considering that after thy handes thy tong thy heart receiueth that fearefull mysterie neuer deuise any craft against thy neighbour but keepe thy minde cleane from all malice so maist thou defende thine eyes and thine eares And the like speeches he hath of the eyes and the eares By which it is euident that although he speak figuratiuely in the way of exhortation yet he meaned not to teache any other but a spirituall manner of receiuing the bodie of Christ
in alcari Dei c. This that you see on the altare of God you sawe the night last past But what it was what i◠mean◠of howe great a thing it conteined the sacrament you haue not yet heard therefore that which you sawe is bread and a cuppe which thing also your eyes doe tell you ▪ But that your faith requireth to be instructed The breade is the bodie of Christe the cuppe is his bloud Our Lorde Iesus Christe wee knowe whence he receiued fleshe 〈◊〉 of the virgine Marie Hee was suckled being an infant he was norished he grewe he came to the age of a young man he suffered persecution of the Iewes hee was hanged on the tree he was killed on the tree he was buryed he rose againe the thirde day That day he woulde ascende into heauen thither he lifted vp his bodie from whence he shall come to iudge both the quicke and the dead There he is nowe sitting at the right hand of the father Howe is the breade his bodie and the cuppe or that which the cupp containeth how is it his bloud Brethren these things are therefore called sacraments because one thing in them it seene another thing is vnderstoode that which is seene hath a corporall shewe that which is vnderstoode hath a spirituall fruite I doubt not but euery Christian man that readeth this saying vnderstandeth it to be verie cleere against both transubstantiation and the carnall presence as is shewed before lib. 2. Cap. 37. which that Maister Heskins might obscure he maketh a smoke to bleare mens eyes that they might not see any thing therin but the altar Wherefore he rayleth like him selfe against the proclaimer charging him bothe to haue falsified S. Augustine and also truncately to haue alledged him because saith he he citeth him thus Quod videtis in mensa panis est that ye see in the table is bread whereas Augustine sayeth in the altar and not on the table which he durst not name for shame But with what shame Heskins can so reuile and slaunder that godly learned father you shall see by that which followeth immediately where he leaueth in Augustine and iudge whether Master Heskins left out the wordes for shame or else because his note booke serued him no further Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelligere audi Apostolum dicentem fidelibus vos estis corpus Christi membra Si ergo vot estis corpus Christi membra mysterium vestrum in MENSA positum est Mysteria Domini accipitis ad quod estis Amen respondetis respondendo subscribitis Audis ergo corpus Christi respondes Amen Esto membrum corporis Christi vt verum sit Amen tuum quare ergo in pane nihil hic de nostro affiramus Ipsum Apostolum item audiamus Cum ergo de isto sacramento loqueretur ait vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus Intelligite gaudete Therefore if thou wilt vnderstande the bodie of Christ heare the Apostle saying to the faithfull you are the bodie of Christ and his members If you therefore be the bodie of Christ and his members your mysterie is set on the TABLE you receiue the Lords mysterie wherunto you are you aunswere Amen and in aunswering you subscribe Thou hearest therfore the bodie of Christ and thou aunswerest Amen bee thou a member of the bodie of Christe that thy Amen may bee true Why then in bread let vs here bring nothing of our owne Let vs likewise heare the Apostle Therefore when hee spake of this sacrament he sayeth There is one bread wee being many are one bodie vnderstand ye reioyce ye I trust you see by this that the altar he spake of was a table as you see also how the sacrament is the bodie of Christ. But lest hee might replye that the table was an altar I must further alledge Saint Augustines authoritie that it was a table for it was made of boordes and was remouable For speaking of the Deacons of Rome in Quaest. vet non test q. 101 he sayth Vt antem non omnia ministeria obsequiorum per ordinem agant multitudo fecit clericorum nam vtique altare portarem vasa euis aquam in manus sunderent sacerdoti ficut videmus per omnes ecclesias But that they doe not perfourme all the ministeries of their seruice in order the multitude of Clerkes hath caused for surely they shoulde both carrie the altar and the vessels thereof and powre water on the Priestes handes as wee see it in all churches That they were of boordes and tymber and not of stone lest the Papistes should dreame of their Altare portatiue that their hedge priestes carrie in their sleeues to say Masse in corners the same Augustine writing to Bonifacius Ep. 50. sheweth in these wordes speaking of the insurrection of the Donatistes against Maximianus a catholike bishop of Sagium Stantem ad altare irruente◠horrendo impetu furore crudeli fustibus huiusmodi telis lignis denique eiusdem altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt Rushing in with an horrible violence and cruell furie they stroke him moste outragiously standing at the altare with staues and such like weapons yea euen with the boordes of the same altare which they brake in peeces The like complaint maketh Optatus in his booke against the Donatistes sauing that he nameth not wood or bordes yet it is plaine by the circumstance that hee spake of none other The place as Maister Heskins citeth it is this Quid est tam sacrilegum c. What is so great sacriledge as to breake scrape or shaue and remoue the altares of God in which you also sometimes haue offered on which the prayers of the people and the members of Christ haue been borne at which God almightie hath beene called vppon where the holie Ghost being desired hath come downe from which the pledge of aeternall life and the sauegarde of faith and the hope of resurrection hath beene receiued of many the altares I say vpon which our Sauiour hath commaunded the giftes of the fraternitie not to be layde but such as are made of peace Lay downe saith hee thy gifte before the altare and returne and firste agree with thy brother that the Priest may offer for thee For what is the altar but the seat of the bodie and bloud of Christe All these your furie hath either scraped or broken or remoued What hath God done to you which was wont to be called vpon there What had Christe offended you whose bodie and bloud dwelleth there at certeine momentes And what doe you offende your selues to breake the altars on which long time before vs as you thinke you haue offered holily Thus haue you followed the Iewes They layde handes vppon Christe on the crosse of you he was striken in the altar of whome the Prophet Helias complaineth to the Lorde speaking in the same wordes with which you among other haue deserued to bee accused Lorde sayeth he they haue
no. And why then may not the bodie of Christ be present and yet not corporally nor locally conteyned in pixe corporax cupp hand or mouth but after a spirituall manner as the holy Ghost is in the cuppe by his owne Iames his saying The last quarrell he picketh is to our ministers who sayeth he haue none authoritie to consecrate because they receiue it not from the catholike succession As for that authoritie which we haue receiued of God by the outwarde calling of the church wee minde not to exchange with the Popes triple crowne and much lesse with Maister Hesk. shauen crowne But to shape him an answere according to his lewde obiection seeing many are suffered to minister in our church which were made priestes after the Popish order of antichrist why should he denye any of them them at the least to haue power to consecrate according to the Popish diuinitie though the wordes be spoken in English so long as he hath intentionē consecrandi before he be of them disgraded and hath his indebeble character scraped out of his handes and fingers endes I aunswere he is not able to defend his opinion that thei cannot consecrate neither in Sorbona of Paris nor in the schoole of Louain To shutt vp this Chapter he flappeth vs in the mouth with S. Mathewes Masse testified by Abdias in the diuels name a disciple of the Apostles as hee saith but one that sawe Christ him selfe as M. Harding sayeth in verie deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more then Caunterburie tales And thinketh he that such fables will nowe bee credited except it bee of such as wilfully will be deceiued The fiue and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the manner of consecration vsed and practised by the disciples of the Apostles and the fathers of the primitiue and auncient church His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian but a late writer who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgie which Peter Paule and the Apostles vsed Although that which he rehearseth of Clemens his Liturgie be to small purpose litle or nothing differing from that hee had before of Iames yet Nicolaus Methon is too yong a witnesse to bee credited in this case For he was not of yeres of discretion to discerne that for the authenticall writing of Clemens which the more auncient church by a thousand yeres could not haue perfect knowledge to be his Neither doth the testimonie of Proclus help him any whit For as it is not to be doubted but S. Iames the other Apostles Clemens also appointed some forme of Liturgie for the churches by them planted instructed which is all that Proclus saith yet how proueth M. Hesk. that those which we haue were the same which were written by Iames Clemens or any other of lawful antiquitie when wee bring manifest demonstrations for the contrarie Againe where he saith that Peter vsed the Liturgie of Clemens he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which sayth that Peter vsed a Liturgie of his own cōsisting of three praiers only The next witnesse should be Dionysius falsly surnamed Areopagita but that he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstantiation carnal presēce priuate Masse or sole cōmunion therefore vnder pretence of his obscuritie he dare cite neuer a sentence out of him Then follow the Liturgies vnder the names of Basil Chrysost. verie litle in words nothing at al in matter differing from that former Liturgie ascribed to S. Iames which because M. Hesk. knoweth we cannot receiue as the lawful writings of Basil Chrysost. he would vnderprop them by the authoritie of Proclus B. of Constantinople as he did S. Clem. S. Iames masse euen now The reason alledged by Proclus will cleane ouerturne his ground worke proue that none of these Liturgies were writen by thē to whom they be ascribed For Proclus sayeth that Basil and Chrysostom made the auncient Liturgies receiued from the Apostles shorter cutting many things away frō them because they were too long for the peoples colde deuotion to abide First this is a colde reason to alter the tradition of the Apostles so many yeres continued in the church for want of the peoples deuotion But be it that they followed this reason then doth it followe moste manifestly that this Liturgie which is ascribed to S. Iames is none of his because it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But if M. Hesk. will defende that of S. Iames then hee must needes refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it therfore none abridgements of it After these Liturgies hee addeth the testimonie of the sixt counsell of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretike wherein it is reported the S. Iames Basil Chrysostome ministred in their Liturgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water But this proueth not that these Liturgies which we haue are the same that were set forth by those fathers as for the water they striue not for it but for wine to be vsed not water onely Finally where the fathers of that counsell call the celebration of the communion an oblation and an vnbloudie sacrifice they speake in the same sence that the elder fathers vse the same termes otherwise that counsell being an hundreth yeres without the compasse of the challenge hath no place but in the lower house among the Burgesses whose speaches may be hearde but they haue none authoritie to determine in this cause by M. Heskins order according to the challenge Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latine church as though Clemens if he were bishop of Rome and wrote a Liturgie as he affirmeth before that of his making might not serue the Latine church But Ambrose is cited lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca. 5. Vis scire c. Wouldest thou knowe that the sacrament is consecrated with heauenly wordes Marke what the wordes be The Priest sayth Make vnto vs faith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ which the day before he suffred tooke bread in his holie hands looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thanks blessed it brake it being broken gaue it to his Apostles and disciples saying Take ye eat ye all of this for this is my bodie which shal be broken for many Likewise also he tooke the cupp after he had supped the day before he suffered looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thankes he blessed it deliuered it to his Apostles disciples saying Take ye and drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud M. Hesk. passeth ouer that the oblation of the church is the figure of the body bloud of Christ for feare he should be espied taken with such an assertion he flyeth in all the haste to other words of
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
Christ it is euident that he neither beleeued transubstantiation nor the carnall presence nor consecration nor intention after the manner of the Papistes as also by this that hee calleth the bread and wine after consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplaries or figures You see therefore howe with patches and peeces rent off here and there he goeth about to deceiue the simple readers which either haue no leasure or no boookes or no skill to trie out his falsifications and malicious corruptions The like sinceritie hee vseth in citing Chrysostomes Masse for so he calleth his Liturgie in which is a prayer for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius which was seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostomes death and therfore could not possibly be written by him Besides this there be diuers copies in the Greeke tong one that Erasmus translated which is very vnlike that copie which is printed in Greeke since that time as the learned sort doe knowe The wordes he citeth be in a manner the same that were in Basils Liturgie sauing that in the end he addeth Permutans ea sancto spiritu tuo changing them by the spirt This change may well be without transubstantiation as hath bene often shewed before The saying of Ambrose is more at large in the Chapter next before As for the praier of the Popish Masse that the oblation may be made the body and bloud of Christ as it is vnderstoode of them is nothing like the prayers of the elder Liturgies although in sound of some words it seeme to agree And as foolishly as vniustly he findeth fault with our praier in the communion that wee receiuing the creatures of breade and wine in remembrance of Christes death according to his institution may be made partakers of his most blessed body bloud S. Iames S. Clement and the rest saith he prayed not that they might receiue bread and wine No more doe we thou foolish sophister But that receiuing bread and wine we might be partakers of Christes body and bloud and this did all the Apostolike and Primitiue Church pray as we pray in baptisme not that we may receiue water but that receiuing water we may be borne a newe Neither did they euer pray that the breade and wine might be transubstantiated into the body bloud of Christ but that they might be made the body bloud of Christ to theÌ„ after a spirtual sacrameÌ„tal maner But I am much to blame to vouchsafe these childish sophismes of any answere Next to this he would knowe what authoritie the Protestants can shewe that the eating and drinking of bread wine is of Christes institution That it is a part of his institution the Euangelists S. Paul do shewe most euidently But though he tooke breade and wine in his hands saith M. Heskins he changed it before he gaue them so that it was no more bread and wine but his body and bloud and therefore we charge Christ with an vntrueth to say that receiuing of bread and wine is of Christes institution O Maister of impietie and follie Christ made no such change in his handes but that which was in the cup was still the fruit of the vine as he himself testified saying I wil no more drinke of this fruit of the vine vntill the day come when I shall drinke it a newe with you in the kingdome of my father Math. 26. As for the praier of those Liturgies of Iames and Basil That God would make them worthie to receiue the body and bloud of Christe without condemnation proueth not that they meant to receiue the body of Christ after a corporall maner nor that the very body of Christe may be receiued to damnation The thirde Liturgie of Chrysostome which Erasmus expoundeth hath it otherwise Dignos nos redde potenti manu â—ua vt participes simuâ— immaculati tui corporis preciosi tui sanguinis per nos omnis populus Make vs worthy by thy mightie hand that we may be partakers of thy vndefiled body and of thy precious bloud and so may al the people by vs This prayer is godly sound and so are the other being rightly vnderstoode namely that they which eate of that bread drinke of that cup of the Lord vnworthily as S. Paule saith do eat and drinke their owne damnation not considering the Lords body But M. Heskins vrgeth that the spiritual body of Christ or Christ spiritually cannot be deliuered by the Priestes to the people but the real body may Yes verily much rather then the body of Christ corporally euen as the holy Ghost may be deliuered in baptisme and as eternal life and forgiuesse of sinnes may be giuen in preaching the Gospell and none of these feinedly but truly yet otherwise are they giuen by God otherwise by this Ministers But in this distinction of M. Hes â–ª it is good to note that he maketh Christ to haue a reall body which is not spirituall a spirituall body which is not reall Christ hath in deede a mysticall body which is his Church and that is not his natural body but by spiritual coniunction vnited to his only true naturall body But of this mystical body M. Hes. speaketh not Further he taketh exceptions to our prayer affirmeth that It is not the institution of Christe to receiue the creatures of breade and wine in the remembrance of his death But notwithstanding all his childish blockish quarels our prayer is waranted by the Apostles words 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat of this bread drinke of this cup ye shewe the Lords death till he come In the last part of this Chap. he will determine of the intention of the ministers of the new Church And that is that Desiring to receiue the creatures of bread wine they exclude the body and bloud of Christ. Who euer heard a more shamelesse lye or a more inconsequent argument But seing there be two sorts of ministers in this new founded Church he wil speake of them both one sort were made Popish Priestes so haue authoritie to consecrate but they lacke intention now they be fallen to heresie there is a second sort which thought they could not haue intention to consecrate yet being none of the greasie and blasphemous order they lack authoritie But I wold there were not a third sort of whom I spake in the last chap. that wer made popish Priestes and so continue but in outward dissimulation ioyne with vs if these intend to consecrate when they minister the coÌ„munion how can M. Hes. dissuade the Papists from receiuing of them or count their sacrameÌ„t nothing but bare bread And wheras M. He. seemeth in the end to inueigh against such I will willingly confesse that they are worse then he is or such as professe what they are but not worse then hee hath beene in King Henries King Edwards dayes when he dissembled and swaâ—e as deepely as any of them all As for our intention seeing it is
death vntil he come How is he that is to come distinct from him that is present for Saint Paule maketh an exposition of this breade this cuppe which are present to shewe the Lordes death that is to come But let vs heare what Saint Ieronyme sayeth that may helpe him in 1. Cor. 11. Ideo hoc c. Therefore our Sauiour hath deliuered this sacrament that by it we might alwayes remember that he dyed for vs For therefore also when we receiue it wee are warned of the priestes that it is the bodie and bloud of Christ that we might not be thought vnthankefull for his benefites I like this saying verie well which teacheth that the sacramēt is therefore called the bodie bloud of Christ that thereby we might be put in minde of the benefite of Christes death to be thankfull for it And that his meaning is none otherwise his owne wordes shal declare going both before and after Vpon these wordes Gratias egit c. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus vltimam nobis commemorationem sine memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat vt quotiescunque illud viderit possit eius beneficia amicitias memorare quod ille si perfectè dilexit sine ingenti desiderio non potest videre vel fletu That is blessing or giuing thankes euen when hee was to suffer he left to vs his last commemoration or remembrance Euen as a man going into a farre countrey doth leaue some pledge to him whome he loueth that so often as he seeth it he may remember his benefites and frendship which pledge he if he loued perfectly cannot beholde without great desire or weeping In these words you see S. Hierom compareth the sacrament to a pledge which is left in remembrance of loue benefites receiued of him that in person is absent The same writer vpō the same words of our text donec venerit vntill he come thus writeth Tam diu memoria opus est donec ipse venire dignetur So long we haue neede of a remembraunce vntill he him selfe vouchesafe for to come Nothing can bee more plaine to shewe his meaning not to be of a carnall or bodilie presence although as Christ hath giuen vs the president he call the bread and cuppe by the name of the bodie and bloud of Christe The testimonie of Theophylact being a Greeke Gentleman of the lower house I haue hetherto refused to admitt and therefore in this place also will not trouble the reader with him The challenge was made of writers within sixe hundreth yeares after Christe this man liued about a thousande yeres after Christ yet if I would wrangle about his wordes he hath nothing that may not bee reasonably construed on our side without any wresting The fiue and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by S. Basil Rupert S. Basil is alledged de baptismo Oportet accedentem c. It behoueth him that commeth to the bodie and bloud of our Lord to the remembrance of him that was dead for vs and rose againe not onely to be pure from all vncleannesse of bodie and soule lest he eate and drinke to his owne condemnation but also to shewe euidently and to expresse the memorie of him that hath dyed for vs and risen againe And what sayeth Basil in these words that we do not graunt vnderstanding purenesse by faith and repentance Maister Hesk. sayeth in steede of that S. Paule sayde this bread and this cupp he sayeth the bodie and bloud of Christe although I might stande with him that this is no interpretation of Sainct Paules wordes but an exhortation which Basil maketh to the worthie receiuing of the sacrament what inconuenience is it to graunt that it is both bread and wine and also after a spirituall manner his verie bodie and bloud which is receiued of the faithfull But either Maister Heskins note booke serued him not or els his malice against the trueth would not suffer him to see what the same Basil writeth not many lines before these wordes which he citeth vpō the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ of the institution of this blessed sacrament and immediatly after the verie text of the Apostle now in hande As often as you eate of this bread and drinke of this cuppe you shewe the Lordes death vntill he come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then do these words profit vs that eating drinking we might always remember him which dyed for vs and is risen againe and so wee might bee instructed of necessitie to obserue before God and his Christe that lesson which is deliuered by the Apostle where hee sayeth for the loue of Christe doeth constreine vs iudging this that if one hath dyed for all then all are dead M. Heskins denyeth the sacrament to be a remembrance of Christe for feare he shoulde confesse Christ to be absent affirming it is a remembrance only of the death of christ But Basil saith that in eating and drinking we must remember Christe that is dead risen againe for vs and so be transformed into his image by mortification and newnesse of life This is all the profite that Basil gathereth of the institution of the supper of the Lorde Where is then the carnall presence the sacrifice propitiatorie the application of it according to the priestes intention and such like monsters of the Masse The testimonie of Rupertus a burgesse of the lower house I will not stand vpon notwithstanding it little helpeth Maister Heskins cause For he doth not say that the sacrament is so a remembrance of Christes death that it is not a remembrance of Christ him selfe But Maister Heskins sayeth all the rable of sacramentaries cannot bring one couple of catholike authors that saye Saint Paule spake here of materiall bread neither can Maister Heskins bring one single auncient writer within the compasse of the challenge which is 600. yeres after Christ that denyeth that S. Paule spake of materiall breade as the earthly part of the sacrament He hath named Hierome Basil but neither of them denie it as for Theophylact Rupertus although neyther of them also denye it in the places by him cited yet I knowe not why we might not as well produce Berengarius and Bertrame as auncient as they which affirme that Saint Paule spake here of bread But that there is materiall bread in the sacrament as the earthly part thereof we haue already cited Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Origen in 15. Matthaei Cyrill in Ioan. Lib. 4. Cap. 24. and many other Toward the end of this Chapter Maister Heskins taketh vpon him to aunswere an obiection of Oecolampadius who iustly chargeth the Papistes of wilfull ignorance in that they make the body of Christ both the exemplar and the thing exemplified the figure and the thing figured the signe and the thing signified whereas relation must be betwixt two thinges distincted and not of
one thing to it selfe bycause euery relatiue must haue a correlatiue For aunswere to this obiection hee saith hee will not vse the quiddities of the schooles but plaine examples but hee pretendeth quiddities where the matter is plaine his examples be mere sophistications The first is That in the diuine presence be sundrie relations grounded vpon the one nature of God. Therefore relation must not be of necessitie betwixt two things distinct A wise example as though the persons betweene which there is relation be not two distinct thinges though they be one vndiuided GOD There is relation betweene the person of the Father and the person of the Sonne therefore the Father is not the Sonne nor the Sonne is the Father yet are they both with the holy Ghost one God. The second example Christ being transfigured in the mount shewing him self in a glorious maner was an exemplar or figure of him selfe nowe in glory and of his glorious comming It is well that he fleeth out of the schooles before he vttereth these absurdities for surely euery boy in Cambridge that hath but once kept sophisme would hisse at him for this assertion wherein he confoundeth the substaunce with the accidents But to leaue the schoole termes which M. Heskins can not nowe abide bicause they bewray his follie I deny that Christes body then was a figure or exemplar of his body now but the glory of his body then was a figure of his glory now and wherewith he shall come and I am sure hee will confesse that they be two distinct thinges for his glory nowe is greater then the brightnesse of the Sunne wherevnto it was then compared Likewise to his third example I answere denying That his immortall body which he shewed to Thomas with the signes and tokens of his woundes was an exemplare of the same body both mortall and passible I say that his immortall body was no exemplar of his mortall body but euen the very same chaunged in qualitie not in substance and the signes of his woundes were signes of his passion and they were two distinct things It is all one that hee citeth out of Chrysostome that Christe shall come to iudgement with the signes of his passion wherevpon he gathereth That Christes body shall then be a signe memoriall or exemplar of it selfe The scripture saith they shall see him whome they haue perced but whether with signes of woundes I dare not say sauing Chrysostomes authoritie but admit he shall come with the same print of woundes yet I deny that his body shall be a figure exemplar or memoriall of it selfe but those signes should be an argument of their crueltie and vngodlinesse that crucified him You see the plainnesse of these examples howe they are plainely against him and that it still remaineth vnremouable that a signe and the thing signified be distinct things Therefore the sacrament being a signe figure exemplar and memoriall of the body and bloud of Christ is not the same after a corporall manner The sixe fourtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Whosoeuer therefore shall eate of this bread drinke of the cupp c. The text is this Whosoeuer shall eat of this bread drink of this cupp of the Lord vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde M. Heskins requireth to the worthie receiuing two things faith and charitie and therefore he concludeth that neither heretikes nor scismatikes can receiue worthily which we confesse to be true Afterward he chargeth vs with abusing this text in two points The one that we affirme material bread to remaine after consecration the other that we deny that wicked men can receiue the body and bloud of Christ and both these errors he promiseth to confute but in the end you shal see they be so assured truthes that all the smoake and mist of his confutation can not darken the light of their veritie The first witnesse he citeth for interpretation of the text is S. Cyprian Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra Euangelij legem c. They against the lawe of the Gospell and your honourable petition before repentance shewed before open confession made of a most grieuous and extreme offence before hands laid on by the Bishop and the cleargie vnto repentance are so bolde as to offer for them and giue them the Eucharistie that is to prophane the holy body of our Lord seeing it is written Whosoeuer shall eate of the bread and drinke of the cup of the Lord vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lord. Of these wordes M. Heskins gathereth that the body of Christe is deliuered and not materiall bread for if materiall bread and not the body is deliuered then the bread is prophaned and not the body A proper collection If the Kings seale for a benefite be deliuered to the Kings enimie or a traitour that receiueth it vnreuerently and vnthankfully is not the King iniuried and his fauour abused I thinke al wise men wil graunt and not say the waxe and parchment only is iniuried and abused bicause the Kings body is not deliuered but waxe and parchment Moreouer I maruell howe M. Heskins can auoyd blasphemie when he saith in the literall sense the body of Christe is prophaned or vnhallowed for to speake properly the body of Christe can not be prophaned or vnhallowed but the sacrament of his body which beareth the name thereof may and the abuse of the sacrament is iustly counted an iniurie vnto his body and bloud whereof it is a sacrament although his body in deed can suffer no iniurie or hurt But the Cyprian acknowledged bread and wine to remain in the sacrament many places of his writings do clearly shew namely lib. 1. ep 6. ad Magnum Denique vnanimitatē Christianam firma sibi atque insuperabili charitate connexam etiā ipsa domini sacrificia declarant Nam quando Dominus corpus suū panē vocat de multorū granorū adunatione congestū populū nostrū quem portabat indicat adunatū Et quando sanguinem suum vinum appelat de botris atque acinis plurimis expression atque in vnum coactum gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum Finally euen our Lords sacrifices doe declare the Christian vnanimitie which is knitted vnto him with an insuperable vnitie For when the Lorde calleth bread which is made one by the gathering together of many cornes his body hee declareth our people which he did beare to be vnited together And when he calleth wine which is pressed out of many clusters and grapes and so gathered into one his bloud hee doth likewise signifie our flocke coupled together by cōiunction of the multitude that is brought into one Here you see the bread which is now the sacrament and is called the body of Christe to be made of many graines likewise the wine to be pressed out of many grapes by which nothing can be vnderstoode but materiall
bread and wine The same Cyprian Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium thus writeth Sic verò calix Domini non est aqua sola aut vinum solum nisi vtrumque sibi misceatur quomodo nec corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi vtrumque adunatum fueris copulatum panis vnius compage sclidatum quo ipsâ— sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus So water onely or wine onely is not the Lordes cup vnlesse both be mingled together euen as onely meale or onely water can not be the body of Christe except both be ioyned and coupled and compacted together in one breade by which very sacrament our people is shewed to be vnited Here bread made of meale and water is called the body of Christ therefore material bread The next authoritie M. Hesk. citeth is Chrysostome Hom. 83. in 26. Matth. Non permittam c. I will not suffer these things to be done I will first deliuer vp my life before I wil deliuer the lords body to any person vnworthily and I will suffer my bloud to be shed rather then I will giue that most holy bloud to any other then to a worthie receiuer Out of this saying he gathereth that the body of Christ may be receiued of an vnworthie wicked person How be it no such thing followeth of these words for though Chrysostome deliuer the body of Christ it followeth not that they receiue it which receiue the sacrament vnworthily which is as much as to refuse it Chrysostome in the same Homely saith this sacrament to be a symbole and signe of Christ crucified and speaking of the cup he saith Sed cuius gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit Perniciosam quandam hÄ™resim radicitus euellere voluit eorum qui aqua in mysterijs vtuntur ita vt ostenderet quia quando hoc mysterium traderet vinuÌ„ tradidit iam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensa vino vsus est Ex germine autem ait vitis quae certè vinum non aquam producit But wherefore did hee not drinke water but wine after his resurrection Hee would plucke vppe by the rootes a certaine most pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the mysteries so that he would shew that both when he deliuered this mysterie he deliuered wine nowe after his resurrection in the bare table of the mysterie he vsed wine And he saith of the fruit of the vine which truly bringeth foorth wine not water Now compare these two sayings of Chrysost. in one sermon Christ deliuered wine Chrysost. would not deliuer the body bloud of Christ see whether the later proue any transubstantiation or carnall manner of presence Besides this it is good to note that Chrysostome saith that Christ vsed wine in the sacrament after his resurrection contrarie to all the Papistes which holde that he ministred to the two disciples at Emaus in bread only And bicause M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of Christes body to the wicked and thereby will gather that the wicâ—ed receiue the very body of Christe let him heare also what Chrysostome saith in the same place speaking of the vnworthy comming to the sacrament Illud enim pessimum est ficus Paulus ait Christum conculcare testamenti sanguinem ducere communem spiritus gratian contemnere For this is the worst thing that can be as Paule saith to tread Christe vnder feete and to esteeme the bloud of the couenaunt as vncleane and to contemne the grace of the spirite Will he say that very body of Christe is troden vnder the feete of the vnworthie receiuer And bicause he standeth so much of the word body and bloud Chrysostome saith further Nullus communicet nisi ex discipulis sit nullus impuro animo sicut Iudas panem assumat ne similia patiatur Corpus Christi etiam hÄ™c multitudo est quare cauendum tibi est qui hÄ™c mysteria ministras ne Dominum irrites corpus hoc non purgando ne acutum gladium pro cibo praebeas Let none communicate except he be of the disciples Let no man with an vnpure minde as Iudas receiue the bread least he suffer the like punishment Euen this multitude also is the body of Christe wherefore thou that doest minister these mysteries must take heede that thou prouoke not the Lorde by not purging this body least thou deliuer a sharpe sword in steed of meat In this saying let the indifferent reader obserue that Iudas receiued bread and wicked men receiue bread that the multitude of Christians is the body of Christe as the sacrament is finally that the minister to a wicked man deliuereth a sharpe sword in steede of spirituall meate and let him iudge howe honestly M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of the body and bloud of Christ to the wicked to exclude bread and to proue that they receiue the very body of Christ. His third witnesse is Origen Hom. 5. in diuorsos Quando sanctum cibum illudque incorruptum epulum accipis c. When thou receiuest that holy meat and the vncorrupt banquet when thou inioyest the bread and cup of life thou eatest and drinkest the body and bloud of the Lord then the Lord entreth vnder thy roofe and do thou then humbling thy selfe followe this Centurion and say Lorde I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe For where he entreth vnworthily there he entereth to the condemnation of the receiuer Here M. Heskins first noteth the presence of Christe secondly that the sacrament it not bare bread both which are graunted thirdly that the body of Christe may be receiued of euill men But all men will confesse that this is an Alegoricall and figuratiue maner of speaking that Origen vseth and may be wel vnderstoode according to the rule of sacraments which beare the names of those things whereof they be sacramentes And seeing Origen doth else where expresly affirme that euill men do not neither can eate the body of Christe in Matth. Cap. 15. it is great vnshamefastnesse to wrest his figuratiue saying in these wordes contrarie to his plaine meaning vttered in plaine wordes Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth this may be obiected and referreth vs to the thirtieth Chapter of this booke for the answere whither I also referre the reader both for the place it self and for the replie to M. Heskins answere The seuen and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstanding of the same by S. Basil and S. Hierome Saint Basil is alledged de baptism Li. 2. QuÄ™st 93. Quoniam Deus in lege c. For so much as God in the lawe hath ordained so great a paine against him that in his vncleannesse dare touch the holy things for it is written to them figuratiuely but for our aduertisement And the Lord saide vnto Moses say to Aaron and his sonnes that they take heede to the holy things of the children of Israel and they shall not
defile my name what so euer they sanctifie to me I am the Lorde Say to them and to their families Euery man that is of your seede and commeth to the holy things what so euer the children of Israel shall sanctifie vnto the Lord and his vncleannesse be vpon him that soule shall be rooted out of my presence I am the lord Such threatnings are set foorth against them that only come to those thinges that are sanctified by men But what shall a man say against him which dare be bolde against so greate and such a mysterie For looke howe much greater a thing then the temple is here according to the Lords saying by so much the more greeuous and fearefull it is in the filthinesse of his soule to touch the body of Christ then to touch Rammes or Bulles for so the Apostle hath saide wherefore he that eateth the bread and drinketh the cup of the Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lorde But more vehemently and also more horribly he doth set foorth and declare the condemnation by repetition when hee saith Let euery man examine him selfe and so let him eat of this bread and drinke of this cup. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his condemnation not discerning the Lordes body If then he that is onely in vncleannesse and the propertie of vncleannesse we learne figured in the lawe hath so horrible a iudgement howe much more he that is in sinne and presumeth against the body of Christ shall draw vnto him selfe horrible iudgement First I will note M. Heskins falsifications which are two the one as it seemeth partly of ignoraunce of the Greeke tong partly of greedinesse to drawe Basils wordes to his vnderstanding for where the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heere is a thing or one greater then the temple he turneth it looke howe much greater this is then the temple as though hic which is an Aduerbe were a Pronoune The other is altogether of malitious corruption for he translateth his Latine Contra corpus Christi audet which is He dareth presume against the body of Christe hee translateth it Hee dareth to presume vpon the body of Christ as though he receiued the body of Christe Nowe he noteth two differences in these wordes of Basil the one of the sacrifices of the olde lawe which were Bulles and Rammes the other of the newe lawe which is the body of Christ. But in the wordes of Basil there is no mention of any sacrifice of the newe lawe onely he compareth the ceremonies of the olde lawe with the heauenly part of the sacrament of the newe Testament which we confesse to be the body and bloud of Christ. The second difference is the vncleannesse of the lawe made vnworthie partakers of the sacrifices but deadly sin maketh men vnworthie receiuers of the body of Christe Yet hath Basil no such wordes of receiuing the body of Christ by wicked men Onely he denounceth their grieuous punishment that presume against the body of Christ when with vnreuerence and vnrepentance they presume against such and so high a mysterie as the blessed sacrament is and this is the plaine sense of his wordes without any cauilling If M. Heskins will vrge their touching of the body of Christ it is a very nice point and must either be referred to a figuratiue speach or else it will breede infinite absurdities Basils mind is plaine the wicked ought not to presume to touch the blessed sacrament which after a certaine manner of speaking is the body of Christe But he annexeth an other place of Basil Dominê° dicens c. The Lorde saying Here is one greater then the temple teacheth vs that he is so much more vngodly that dare handle the body of our Lorde which hath giuen him selfe for vs to be an oblation and offering of sweete sauour by howe much the body of the onely begotten sonne of God exceedeth Rammes and Bulles not in reason of comparison for the excellencie is incomparable This place saith Maister Heskins proueth well that the receiuer of the sacrament receiueth the body of the onely begotten sonne of God and not a bare figure for else howe should hee sinne incomparably by receiuing vnworthily I aunswere hee sinneth incomparably not bicause he receiueth the body of Christe vnworthily but bicause the body of Christe being offered vnto him to be receiued he doth contemne it refuse it most vnthankfully and iniuriously Againe Basil doth here compare the outward signes or elements of the old sacrifices with the thing represented and offered by our sacrament the like speaches he hath of Baptisme But that you may heare him saith Maister Heskins by most plaine wordes teach that the body of Christe is receiued of euill men hearken what he saith de baptism lib 1. cap. 3. Si verò is qui c. If he that for meate offendeth his brother falleth from charitie without the which both the workes of great giftes and iustification do nothing auayle What shall a man say of him which idly and vnprofitably dare eate the body and drinke the bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ But M. Heskins to make it seeme more plaine on his side hath cut off those wordes which doe plainly declare that Basil speaketh not of wicked men that are voyde of the spirite of God but of such as be not zealous and earnest ynough to practise mortification reuocation therefore it followeth immediatly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thereby much more greeuing the holy spirite which wordes being added to the former doe plainely testifie that Basill speaketh not of wicked and vngodly persons but of the faithful in whom the spirite of God was and yet they had not so great care of profiting in newnesse of life as they ought to haue For against the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idly and vnprofitably he opposeth afterwarde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 earnestly and effectually so that those Aduerbes idly and vnprofitably are spoken in comparison and not simply as if he saide they take nothing such paines in mortification as they should they profite nothing in comparison that they might by the Lordes body which labour not to be renewed according to his spirite and as he saith they grieue the spirit of God whereby they are sealed to eternall life when they doe not with more earnestnesse and profite come to the Lordes table The second Authour Hierome is cited in Psal. 77. Haec de his c. These wordes are spoken of them which forsooke GOD after they had receiued Manna For nowe in the Church if any man be fed with the flesh and bloud of Christ and doth decline to vices let him knowe that the iudgement of God doth hang ouer him as Paule the Apostle saith He that shall take the body and bloud of our Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde I maruell what Maister Heskins meaneth to alter the wordes of Hierome for he
diuel contemned the body of Christ that he entred immediatly after the bodie of Christ receiued but he saith he contemned not the body of Christ for Iudas was so full of wickednes that the bodie of Christ entred not into him but the diuel before had possessed him And that this is more agreable to the mind of Chryso his wordes in the Hom. 45. In Ioan. doe declare Daemones cum Dominicum sanguinem in nobis vident in fugam vertuntur When the diuels doe see the bloud of our Lorde in vs they are put to flight This proueth that Iudas receiued not the bloud of Christ seeing immediately after the receipt of the sacrament as he sayeth the Diuel entred into him Therefore the other place which Maister Heskins alledgeth out of Chrysost. Ho. 83. In Mat. is likewise answered Caenantibus c. When they were a◠Supper Iesus tooke bread blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples O the blindnesse of that traitor which when he had bene partaker of the vnspeakable mysteries he remained the same man and being admitted to Gods table would not be changed into better which Luke signified saying that after this Satan entred into him not because he despised the Lordes bodie but because he laughed to scorne the folly of the traytor These vnspeakeable mysteries M. Hesk. saith can not be a bare piece of bread and a cup of wine but must needes be the bodie and bloud of Christ. But sauing his authoritie is not the baptisme wherewith wicked men are baptised an vnspekable mysterie and yet no wicked man in baptisme receiueth the spirite of regeneration But Chrysostome proceedeth in the sentence before alledged Maius enim peccatum vtraque ratione fiebat quia tali animo mysterijs susceptis nec timore nec beneficio nec honore melior factus est For his offence was made greater both wayes because that hauing receiued the mysteries with such a minde neither with feare nor with the benefite nor with the honour he was made better Chrysostome saith he receiued the mysteries he doth not say he receiued the bodie of christ Now iudge whether Chrysostome doth plainely affirme that Iudas receiued the bodie of Christ with the other Apostles or whether M. Heskins doth lye that so affirmeth of Chrysostome and can no better proue it then you haue heard Now followeth S. Aug. In Ep. contra Donatist post Collat. Quisquis autem c. Who so euer shall liue wel in this church other mens sinnes do nothing hinder him for in it euerie one shall beare his owne burthen as the Apostle saith and whosoeuer shall eate the bodie of Christ vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe for the Apostle him selfe hath written this In these wordes Augustine calleth the sacrament of the bodie of Christe the bodie of Christ as it followeth immediately after Cum autem dicit iudicium sibi manducat satis oftendit quia non alteri iudicium manducat sed sibi Hoc nos egimus ostendimus obtinuimus quia communio malorum non maculat aliquem participatione sacramentorum sed consensione factorum And when he saith he eateth iudgement to himselfe he sheweth sufficiently that he eateth not iudgement to another but to himselfe This haue we treated shewed and proued that the fellowship of euill men doth not defile any man by participation of the sacramentes with them but by consent of their deedes Likewise he tearmeth the sacrament by the name of the bodie of Christ. Cont. Donat. Lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sicut enim c. As Iudas to whom our Lord gaue the morsel gaue place himselfe to the diuell not by receiuing an euill thing but by receiuing is amisse so any man receiuing vnworthily the Lordes sacrament causeth not because he himselfe is euill that it should be euil or because he receiueth it not to saluation that he receiueth nothing For it was neuerthelesse the bodie and bloud of our Lord euen to them whom the Apostle saide He that eateth drinketh vnworthily eateth drinketh iudgement to himselfe In these wordes he reasoneth against the Donatistes that saide that baptisme ministred by heretikes was no sacrament which he confuteth by example of the other sacrament of Christes bodie bloud which Iudas and other wicked men receiued So that in these wordes the bodie and bloud of the Lorde are to be taken for the sacrament of the bodie bloud of christ Which sacrament as Augu. saith Tract 26. in Ioan. is receyued of some to destruction Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit But the thing it selfe whereof it is sacrament is vnto life to euerie man to destruction to no man whosoeuer shall be partaker therof But M. Heskins flyeth to his distinction of receiuing spiritually and corporally as though Augustine euer saide that the bodie of Christe was receiued corporally of any man. But let vs heare his owne wordes whiche M. Heskins hath cited in the same treatise Quantum pertinet ad illam mortem c. As touching that death of which the Lorde saide that their fathers be dead Moses also did eate Manna Aaron did eate Manna Phinees did eate Manna many did eate which pleased the Lord died not Wherfore Because they vnderstoode the visible meate spiritually they hūgred spiritually they tasted spiritually that they might be filled spiritually For we also at this day haue receiued a visible meate But the sacrament is one thing the vertue of the sacrament another thing which many do receiue of the altar doe die in receiuing doe die Wherefore the Apostle saith he eateth drinketh his owne iudgement In these words Augustine teacheth that the visible meate which is the sacrament may be eaten to condēnation which is the thing we affirme as for eating the body of Christe otherwise then spiritually he speaketh not one worde But M. Heskins would learne of the aduersarie what Augustine meaneth by this word Vertue which many do dye in receiuing it and therefore it cannot be the vertue of his passion so it must needs be his very bodie So that by this conclusion Christs bodie may be receiued without the vertue of his passion But if it please him to learne what Aug. meaneth by this word Vertue in that place I answere he meaneth force or efficacie which is either to life or to death as the receiuer is affected that taketh the sacrament for immediatly after he saith Nam bucella Dominica venenum suit Iudae tamen accepit For the Lords morsel was poyson to Iudas yet he receiued it You see therefore a double vertue in the sacramēt one to saluation another to condemnation no bodily presence necessarie for either of them Another place he citeth In Ioan. Tr. 6. Recordamini vnde sit scriptū Remember frō whence it is written Whoso euer shal eat the bread and drinke the cup of
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
cōmon meate being consecrated is profitable for the whole man as a medicine to heale infirmities and a sacrifice to purge sinnes but neither our faith in Christ crucified nor the merites of his passion are the sacrifice but his very body therefore this meate is his very body The Maior of this argument is ambiguous and therefore it must be distinguished for this worde sacrifice is either taken properly or vnproperly and figuratiuely if it be taken figuratiuely for a sacrament or a memoriall of a sacrifice as Cyprian meaneth the proposition is true but if it be taken for a sacrifice in the proper sense it is false For Christe offered but one sacrifice and that but once neuer to be repeated which was on the crosse Nowe to proue that Cyprian vsed the word sacrifice vnproperly for this time I will shewe no more but his owne word Holocaustum which signifieth a whole burned sacrifice for M. Heskins will graunt that the sacrifice of Christ is vnproperly called a burned offering The second note that he gathereth is of the Propertie of this word Aliud in the Neuter gender it signifieth an other substance forsooth as we may say Alius pater alius filius but not aliud pater aliud filius And then the rule is extended to vnum for Christ saith ego pater vnum sumus hij tres vnum sunt This he would beare men in hand to be the determination of learned men and so the bread before consecration was aliud that is one substance but after consecration it is aliud that is an other substance and so the body of Christe This is an high point in a lowe house but the young pettites in the Grammer schoole can teach him that aliud in the Neuter gender put absolutely must bee resolued into alia res an other thing and so doth Maister Heskins him selfe translate it And Cyprian sheweth what other thing it is after consecration when he saith here is declared the difference betweene the spirituall meate and the corporall meate namely that it was one thing when it was first set before them that is corporall meate and an other thing which was giuen by their maister namely spirituall meate The same substance remaining it is spirituall meate that before was corporall meate as in baptisme the same substaunce of water remayning it is a spirituall lauer that before was a corporall lauer This is the greate diuinitie of aliud and aliud But I maruell that Maister Heskins which seeth such high mysteries in aliud can not see that Cyprian saith they did eate of the same breade before after the visible forme which they did afterward eate being conuerted into spirituall meate so that it was the same breade before and after although it had nowe a newe vertue giuen it by the wordes of Christ to nourish the whole man which before nourished only the body The next place which he alledgeth out of Saint Cyprian is Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecitium Where he leaueth out the beginning of the matter bicause it expoundeth all the rest of the place against him but I will be so bold as to add it for the better vnderstanding of S. Cyprian and the discharging him of M. Heskins blasphemies Item in sacerdote Melchisedech sacrificij dominici sacramentum praefiguratum videmus secundùm quod scriptura diuina testatur dicit Melchisedech c. Also in the Priest Melchisedech we see that the sacrament of our Lordes sacrifice was prefigured according to that the scripture testifieth and saith And Melchisedech king of Salem brought foorth bread and wine and he was a Priest of the highest God and blessed Abraham And that Melchisedech did beare the figure of Christ the holy Ghost declareth in the Psalmes saying in the person of the father vnto the sonne Before the day starre I haue begotten thee The Lorde hath sworne and it shall not repent him thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech which order verily is this comming of that sacrifice and from thence descending that Melchisedech was a priest of the most high God that he offered bread and wine that he blessed Abraham For who is more the priest of the highest God then our Lord Iesus Christ which offered vp a sacrifice to God his father ▪ And offered the selfe some thing that Melchisedech offered that is bread and wine euen his body and bloud And concerning Abraham that blessing going before perteined to our people For if Abraham beleued God and it was imputed to him for rightuousnesse so likewise who so euer beleueth God liueth also by faith is found righteous and long agoe shewed to be blessed and iustified in faithfull Abraham a◠S. Paule the Apostle proueth saying Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse Ye knowe therefore that they which are of faith euen they are the sonnes of Abraham Wherefore the scripture foreseeing that God iustifieth the Gentiles by faith foreshewed to Abraham that all nations should be blessed in him Therefore they that are of faith shall be blessed with faithfull Abraham Wherevpon in the Gospell we find that many are raised vp of stones that is that the sonnes of Abraham are gathered of the Gentiles And when the Lord praised Zacheus he answered and saide This day is saluation happened to this house bicause this man is also made the sonne of Abraham Therefore that in Genesis the blessing about Abraham might duely be celebrated by Melchisedech the priest the image of the sacrifice goeth before ordeined in bread and wine Which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling offered bread and the cup mixed with wine and he that was the fulnesse fulfilled the truth of the image that was prefigured Thus much Cyprian In cyting this place note what falshood M. Heskins vseth first of all he leaueth out the beginning where Cyprian calleth the supper the sacrament of the Lordes sacrifice by which it is plaine what he meaneth when he calleth it afterward an oblation or sacrifice Secondly he falsifieth his wordes where Cyprian saith Fuit autem sacerdos that is and he was a Priest Maister Heskins chaungeth it into Fuit enim sacerdos for hee was a priest Thirdly where Cyprian compareth Christ to Melchisedech in three thinges distinctly in that he was the Priest of the highest GOD in that he offered breade and wine and in that hee blessed Abraham shewing that Christe was the Prieste of the highest GOD when hee offered his sacrifice to his father meaning in his passion ▪ that hee offered breade and wine as he did meaning in his supper and last of all that he blessed his people as Melchisedech did Abraham Maister Heskins confoundeth the first with the second by putting out the interrogatiue point that is after obtulit and ioyning the next sentence to it and the last he omitteth by cutting off the dicourse that Cyprian maketh thereof As though Cyprian had spoken of no resemblance of Melchisedech vnto Christe but in
is offred to my name a pure sacrifice Wherefore our sacrifice to the most high God is the sacrifice of praise Wee sacrifice to God a full 〈◊〉 holie sacrifice We sacrifice after a newe maner according to the new testament a pure sacrifice c. M. Heskins asketh vs if we do not see that Eusebius expoundeth the Prophet of the sacrifice of Christes bodie but wee may well bid him shore vp his eyes see if he do not in plain words expound him of the sacrifice of praise But because he calleth this sacrifice horrorem adferens bringing horror meaning not a slauish but a reuerent feare as is meant to be in all matters of religion which ought to be handled with feare and reuerence of Gods Maiestie vnto whom they apperteine he will needes haue it the body of Christ and first he alledgeth a saying of Dionysius whom he falsely calleth the disciple of Saint Paule although he be a writer of good antiquitie Eccle. Hier. part 1. cap. 3. Neither is it almost lawfull for any mysterie of the priestly office to be done except that his diuine and most noble sacrament of thankesgiuing doe fulfil is What he picketh out of this saying as he noteth not so I am not of his counsell to knowe neither why after his accustomed boldenesse he translateth Sacramentum Eucharistiae the sacrament of Christe From Dionyse he flitteth to the hyperbolicall amplifications of Chrysostom which Lib. 6. De Sacerdotio calleth the sacrament That sacrifice most full of horror and reuerence where the vniuersall Lorde of all thinges is daily felt with handes And de prod Iud. Hom. 30. The holy and terrible sacrifice where Christ that was slaine is set foorth He that will not acknowledge these and such like to be figuratiue speeches must enter action against Chrysostom for many heresies or rather Chrysostome may enter action against him of slaunder and defamation In the same treatise De Sacerdotio Lib. 3. speaking of the same sacrifice he sayeth You may see the whole multitude of people died and made redde with the precious bloud of Christ. But to shewe that all this is spirituall he demaundeth if you thinke your selfe to stand vpon the earth when you see these thinges and not rather that you are translated into heauen and casting away all cogitations of the flesh with a naked soule and pure minde you beholde those thinges that are in heauen Therefore to conclude neither Augustine nor Eusebius haue spoken any thing to the furtherance of Maister Heskins bill of the carnal presence The sixe and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of Malachie by Saint Hierome and Damascen S. Hierome vpon the Prophet Malachie writeth thus Ergo propriè nuÌ„c ad sacerdotes IndeoruÌ„ sermo sit domini qui offeruÌ„t caecuÌ„ clanduÌ„ languiduÌ„ ad immolanduÌ„ vt sciant carnalibê° victimis spirituales victimas successuras Et necquaquam tantorum hircerùmque sanguinem sed thymiana hoc est sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea nec in vna iudaea vrbe Hierusalem sed in omni loco offerri oblationem nequaquam immundam vt a populo Israel sed mundum vt in ceremonijs Christianorum Now therefore the word of the Lorde is properly spoken to the Priestes of the Iewes which offer the blinde and lamue and feeble to be sacrificed that they might knowe that spirituall sacrifices should succeede those carnall sacrifices And not the bloud of bulles and goates but an incense that is to say the prayers of the Sainctes should be offered to the Lord and that not in one prouince of the world Iewry neither in Ierusalem one citie of Iewry but in euery place an oblation is offered was vncleane as of the people of Israel but cleane as in the ceremonies of the Christians Doest thou not maruell Gentle Reader that Maister Heskins alledgeth this place which in euerie point is so directly contrarie to his purpose He saith that among the ceremonies of the Christians none can be properly called the cleane sacrifice but the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ. O shamelesse begger that craueth no lesse then the whole controuersie to be giuen him And that contrarie to Hierome whose name he abuseth which expoundeth this place of spirituall sacrifices and more expressely of the prayers of the saintes whiche are not vsed in one but in all the ceremonies of the Christians But to set some colour vpon the matter he bringeth in an other saying of Hierome which is written before this in exposition of another place perteining nothing to this prophecy of the pure sacrifice but wher by analogie or like reason as the prophet rebuketh the priestes of the Iewes he doeth reprehend also the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the Church for their negligence Offertis inquit c. You offer saith he vpon mine altar bread polluted We pollute the bread that is to say the body of Christ when we come vnworthily to the altar and we beeing filthie doe drinke cleane bloud and say the Lordes table is contemptible c. Here forsooth we vnderstand that the body of Christ is the sacrifice of the Christians yea but according to the former sentence so offered that it is a spirituall sacrifice But what else Here we are taught that we doe not take one thing videlicet bread and do iniurie to another thing that is the body and bloud of Christ as the sacramentaries say but receiuing the very body and bloud of Christ we do iniury to the same But vouchsafe to heare the same teacher speaking of the same matter and in the same place in fewe wordes to satisfie the reasonable and to stoppe the mouthes of quarrellers Dum enim sacramenta violantur ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur For while iniurie is done to the sacramentes iniurie is done to him whose sacraments they are He sheweth a reason against them that demaunded proudly wherein they had polluted God when they had but polluted his sacraments Leauing therefore Hierome at open warre with M. Heskins I will passe to Damascen who for lacke of a Greeke auncient Baron beeing an auncient burgesse of the lower house Maister Heskins is bolde to matche with Hironyme though farre inferiour to him in antiquitie and credite whose wordes are these This is that pure and vnbloudy sacrifice which our Lord speaketh by the Prophet to be offred to him from the rising of the sunne to the going downe of the same namely the body and bloud of Christ vnto the vnconsumed and vncorrupted establishment of our body and soule not going into secesse God forbid that any such imagination should be but it is a purgation of al manner filth and a reparation of all manner of hurt vnto our sustentation and conseruation This place saith Maister Heskins is so plaine that a childe may perceiue it for it is sufficient for him if he heare once body and bloud named Howbeit if either Damascens authoritie
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
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
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
figure the sacrament is a figure of Christes body therefore Christe hath a true body That this is the true meaning of Tertullian it appeareth plainely by the wordes before alledged and by these that followe and by the whole discourse of his worke Lib. 5. hee saith Proinde panis calicis sacramento iam in Euangelio probauimus corporis sanguinis Dominici veritatem aduersus phantasma Marcionis Therefore by the sacrament of the breade and the cuppe nowe in the Gospell we haue proued the trueth of the body and bloud of our Lorde against the fantasie of Marcion But M. Hes. interpretation of Tertullians meaning is not onely false but also ridiculous He saith that Tertullian to proue that Christ had a true body bringeth in the institution of the sacrament saying that Christ made the breade his true body therefore hee had a true body as though Marcion whiche woulde not beleeue that Christe had a true body when he liued on the earth would acknowledge that Christe had a true body in the sacrament But Marcion acknowledged the sacrament to be a figure of Christes body and therevpon Tertullian inferreth that hee had a true body whereof the sacrament was a figure But nowe it is a sport to see howe M. Heskins taketh vpon him To open Tertullian and to deliuer him from the sacramentaries His saying hath two partes the one that Christe made the breade his body the other that he saith This is my body that is to say a figure of my body Nowe hee will require of the aduersarie whether of these two parts he will receiue and he is certaine they wil not receiue the former part bicause Zuinglius OecolaÌ„padius Bullinger with the rest denieth the bread to be the naturall body of Christ. But he is fouly beguiled for al these we with theÌ„ will neither receiue the first part by it selfe nor the latter part by it selfe but both parts together as they are vttered by Tertullian that Christ so made the bread his body that hee made it a figure of his body That is to say that hee made it a sure vndoubted pledge of his body And we agree with Cyprian De caeâ— Deuâ— that The bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples to be eaten being not chaâ—nged in shape but in nature by the almightie power of the word was made flesh and with S. Ambrose li. 4. de sacr cae 4. That this bread before the wordes of the sacrament is bread but when the consecration commeth to it of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Places often answered before by interpretation of the same Authours And we do so vnderstand Tertullian as he is not contrarie to him selfe nor to any Catholique writer of his time in this matter which is Maister Heskins rule to vnderstand a Catholique Authour And we so vnderstand the sacrament to bee a figure as it is not a bare figure But nowe bicause Maister Heskins must needes acknowledge the sacrament to be a figure he maketh two kindes of figures A figure of a thing absent and a figure of a thing present Bicause there is no doubt of the former I will touch onely the latter An example of a figure of a thing present he maketh in these wordes As the spouse beholding her very husband and seeth the scarres and tokens of wounds that he suffered for her defence and safegard and of his children and hers is brought in remembrance of his louing kindnesse and of the dangers sustained for her sake In which case although the substance of the man be present yet to his wife he is a figure and token of remembraunce of him selfe absent in condition of a man nowe in fight dangered with sore and deepe woundes For nowe he is no such man but whole sound a perfect man. Haue you not heard a wise similitude thinke you Is the substance of the man present a figure of his actioÌ„s passions absent or rather the scarres present a token of his wounds suffered and actes passed If hee be so grosse that he cannot distinguish betweene substance and accidents and the properties and effectes of them both yet very children can plainely see that the substance of the man occasioneth no such remeÌ„brance as he speaketh of but the scarres of the woundes neither do they bring the substance of the man in remeÌ„brance but the actions and passions of the man And therfore this is too blockish an example that a figure may be of a thing present in substance But Augustine Lib. sentent Prosperi doth helpe this matter as he weeneth Caro carnis c. The flesh is a sacrament of the flesh and the bloud is a sacrament of the bloud By both which being inuisible spirituall and intelligible is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues and diuine Maiestie M. Hes. noteth that the inuisible body of Christ in the sacrament is a figure of the same visible Very good But let me goe with him Although S. Augustine or Prosper speake not of an inuiâ—ible body But he saith directly that the flesh and the bloud in the sacrament are both spirituall and intelligible flesh and bloud which is as much as I aske Then the spirituall flesh of Christe which is in the sacrament doth signifie that visible and palpable body of Christ then the which nothing can be said more plainly against the corporall presence nor for the spiritual presence But he obiecteth further that the scriptures also vse such speaches saying that Christe was made in the likenesse of a man Ph. 2. When he was a man in deede and so Tertullian might well cal it a figure although it be the body it self As though S. Paule in that place speaketh of the substance of his humanitie not rather of the base shewe and condition that he tooke vpon him in his humanitie whereas he might haue behaued him self as God being both God and man Yet Augustine hath two places by conference whereof this thing shall appeare that the sacrament is both a figure and the very thing it selfe The first place is in Psal. 3. speaking of Iudas the traytour which place M. Heskins read not in Augustine but in some other mans collections for both he cyteth it truncately also addeth wordes both in the Latine and the English which are not in Augustine although he do not alter the sense But Augustines wordes in deede are these Et in historia c. And in the historie of the newe Testament the patience of our Lord was so great and woonderfull that he suffered him so long as though he had bene good Whereas he was not ignorant of his thoughtes when he had him present at the feast in which he commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and his bloâ—d The other place is cyted Ep. 162. Our Lorde him selfe doth suffer Iudas a diuill a theefe and his seller He letteth
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
therefore no figure nor spiritual receit only which are not wonderfull This argument is false for sacramentall figures and spirituall things are great wonders thought not sensible myracles As for eating the Lamb the Sheepe and such other are so plaine figures that impudencie her selfe would not deny them to be figures Finally he noteth that sinners receiue the bodye of Christe in the sacrament which hee saith the Protestantes denye which is as grossely for except sinners should receiue Christe in the sacrament no men should receiue him But the Protestantes say that wicked men or reprobate men vngodly men vnpenitent sinners receiue not the body of Christe which though it haue bene sufficiently proued before yet I will adde one more testimony out of Saint Augustine De ciuitate Dei. Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Denique ipse dicens Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus sed reuera corpus Christi manducare eius sanguinem bibere Neyther is it to be saide that these men meaning heretiques other wicked men doe eate the bodie of Christ bicause they are not to bee accounted among the members of christ Finally he himself saying He that eateth my flesh drinketh my blud abideth in me I in him sheweth what it is not touching the sacramēt only but indeed to eat the body of Christ drink his bloud But now let vs returne to Chrys. who Hom. 83. in 26. Math. hath these words Praecipuā He dissolueth their chiefe solemnitie and calleth thē to another table ful of horror saying Take ye and eat ye this is my body How then wer they not troubled hearing this bicause they had heard many great things of these before Here M. Hes. troubleth him self very much his readers more to proue that by the doctrin which they heard before vttered in the sixt of Iohn they were so instructed as they were not troubled which we confes to be true although that doctrine doth none otherwise pertaine vnto the sacrament then as the sacrament is a seale of the doctrine But Chrysostome saith further in the same Homely Hac de causa c. For this cause with desire I haue desired to eate this passeouer with you that I might make you spirituall He him self also dranke thereof least when they had heard his wordes they should say what then do we drinke bloud and eate flesh and so should haue bene troubled For when he spake before of those things many were offended only for his wordes Therefore least the same thing should happen nowe also he him selfe did it first that he might induce them with quiet minde to the communication of the mysteries Here M. Heskins falleth into a sound sleepe and then dreameth a long dreame of the reall presence and the trouble of the Apostles and lothsomnesse of bloud the contradiction of Chrysostomes wordes and I wote not what beside ▪ But to a man that is awake Chrysostom speaketh plaine ynough He saith this was the cause why Christ desired to eate the Passeouer with them which he taketh to be that hee did first drinke before them c. that hee might make thē spirituall that is that they might not haue carnall imaginations of eating his body and his bloud as the Capernaites had but vnderstande those thinges spiritually the rather when they sawe him eate and drinke of them which if he had eaten his owne naturall body and drunk his owne natural bloud would haue troubled them more then if he had not tasted of them And how so euer M. Heskins drumbleth and dreameth of this matter Cranmer saith truely that if Christ had turned the breade into his body as the Papistes affirme so great and woonderfull a chaunge should haue bene more plainely setfoorth in the scripture by some of the Euangelistes Sedulius for varietie of names is cyted In 11. pri ad Cor. Accipite hoc est corpus meum c. Take ye this my body as though Paule had saide take heede ye eate not the body vnworthily seeing it is the body of Christ. What is there here that the proclamer will not confesse and yet is there nothing to binde him to subscribe for the proclamer would neuer denye that the sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ though after an other sort then it is affirmed by the Papistes The sixe and fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Theophylus and Leo. Theophylus Alexandrinus is brought on the stage in this shewe cyted Lib. 2. Pasch. Consequens est c. It is consequent that he that receiueth the former things should also receiue those things that follow And he that shall say that Christ was crucified for diuels must allowe also that it is to be saide vnto them This is my body and take ye this is my bloud For if he be crucified for diuels as the author of new doctrine doth affirme what priuiledge shall there be or what reason that onely men should communicate with his body and bloud and not diuels also for whome he shed his bloud in his passion Hee saith here is no mention of tropes and figures A substantiall reason therefore none are vsed It is a good reason that Theophylus vseth that Christ died not for the diuels bicause he giueth them no participation of his body and bloud but it hangeth on a rush that M. Hes. concludeth Such as are partakers of his reall body may be made partakers of his spirituall body but diuels can not of his reall body therefore not of his spirituall body be partakers See how this peruerse man maketh the sacrament to be the reall body of Christ and that which was crucified his spirituall body By which he doth not only make Christe haue two bodies but also ouerthroweth the truth of the one to establish the falshod of the other But the same writer in the first booke doth more certainly auouch the real presence deny the figures in these wordes Dicit spiritum sanctum c. Origen saith that the holy Ghost doth not worke vpon those things which are without life nor commeth to vnreasonable things Which when he saith he thinketh not that the mysticall waters in baptisme by the comming of the holy Ghost to them are consecrated and that the Lords bread by which our sauiours body is shewed and which we breake for sanctification of vs and the holy cup which are set on the table and be things without life are sanctified by inuocation and comming of the holy Ghost to them M. Hes. translateth quo saluaioris corpus ostenditur in which the body of our Sauiour is shewed but it is plaine ynough Theophylus meaneth that by the breade the body of Christe is shewed that is signified or figured or represented As for consecration
the words of Germanus can abyde no such boyish sophisme for hee sayeth Christ is seene by the fearefull and holie mysteries but neyther bread nor wine by M. Heskins confession much lesse the accideÌ„ts of them are fearfull holie mysteries therfore the whole sacrament is so called by which Christ is seene touched and eaten but with the eye hand and mouth of faith The foure and sixtieth Chapter sheweth the exposition of Petrue Çluniacensis Bessarion vpon the same In this Chapter beside the sayings of this Dan Peter of Clunye Bessarion which for a Cardinals hatt in the counsell of Florence forsooke the vnitie of the Greeke church he maketh a short repetition of all the authors names sayings whom he hath cited vpoÌ„ this text This is my bodie which because I haue aunswered at large it were needelesse to recapitulate in this place I trust the indifferent reader will confesse that not one of the highher house hath giuen a cleare voyce on his syde but all are most cleare against him The fiue and sixtieth Chapter treateth of the bread blessed and giuen by Christ to the two disciples in Emaus and proueth by Theophylâ—st Bedâ— that it was the sacrament It shal be easily graunted him that not only these two whome he nameth of late time but also diuerse of the auncient doctours are of opinion that Christ did giue the sacrament at Emaus but yet it followeth not that it was so For no certeine circumstance of Scripture can leade vs or them so to thinke Beda in 24. Luke writeth thus â—erti mysterij causae c. It came to passe for the cause of a certein mysterie that another shape shoulde bee shewed to them in him and so they should not know him but in the breaking of bred â–ª left any man should say that he hath knowen Christ if he bee noâ— partaker of his bodie that is to say of his Church whose vnitie the Apostle commendeth at the sacrament of the bread saying one bread we many are one bodie that when he reached to them the blessed bread their eyes were opened that they might know him This place indeed sheweth that Beda his opinion was that the sacrament was there giuen but either for transubstantiation or the real presence or for the communion in one kinde he sayth nothing For the English church in his time knewe none of all these monsters The sixe sixtieth Chapter proueth the same by S. Augustine and Chrysostome I sayd before we confesse that not Augustine onely but other also of the fathers were of this opinion The place of Augustine hath ben alreadie cited considered I would also omit the place of Chrysostome but that he gathereth further matter out of it then the pretence of this Chapter He is cited in Hom. 17. in Math. Quia de sanctis c. Because we haue begon to speake of holy things it is not to be left vnspoken but that sanctification is one thing and the thing sanctified another For that is a sanctification that sanctifieth another thing but that which is sanctifyed cannot sanctifie another thing although it selfe be sanctified As for example thou â—ignest the bread which thou eatest as Paule saith it is sanctifyed by the worde of God by prayer Thou hast sanctified it thou hast not made it sanctification But that which the priest giueth from his hand is not onely sanctified but also it is sanctification because that onely is not giuen which is seene but also that which is vnderstoode Of the sanctified breade therefore it is lawfull to cast to beastes and giue it to infidels because it doth not sanctifie the receiuer But if that which is taken of the hande of the priest were such as that which is eaten at the table all men would eate of the table and no man receiue it of the priestes hands Wherefore our Lord also did not onely blesse the bread in the waye but gaue it with his hand to Cleophas his fellowe And Paul fasting did not onely blesse the bread but also reached it with his hande to Luke and the rest of his disciples Three things M. Heskins noteth First that Chrysostome calleth the sacrament not only a sanctified thing but also sanctification it selfe And here he would haue the aduersarie to answere him where this sanctification resteth in the bread or in the priest I answere in neither of both but in Christ which is the heauenly matter of the sacrament receiued by faith for if sanctification rested in the bread then all they that receiue the bread should bee sanctified but all they that receiue the bread receiue not sanctification neither be they sanctified therefore sanctification resteth not in the breade and so consequently the bodie of Christ is not in the bread And whereas M. Hesk. reasoneth that the priest giueth sanctification I answere that is said because he giueth the outward sacrament as Iohn baptised yet speaking properly of the ministerie of man he restraineth it to the washing of water The seconde thing he would haue noted is that Christe deliuered the sacrament to Cleophas and his fellow wherof as Chrysostome hath no ground in the scripture so that which he affirmeth that Paule in the ship should minister the sacrament which is the third thing M. Hesk. obserueth is vtterly false and confuted by the text For his exhortation was to the whole multitude whereof the greatest parte and almost all were infidels And the text sayeth that they did all receiue foode being satisfyed cast the rest ouer borde to lighten the shippe But the place Actes 2. that they continued in the doctrine of the Apostles communication breaking of bread prayers I confesse may well and aptly be vnderstood of the participation of the Lords table yet nothing lesse may be gathered out of it then that horrible sacriledge of robbing the church of the Lords cupp because bread is onely named as in the next Chapter shal be shewed The seuen and sixtieth Chapter proueth by the scriptureâ— and practises in the last Chapter handled that the Communion vnder one kinde is lawfull and good It aunswereth to one parte of the challenge he saith to proue that the communion was ministred within 600 yeres after Christe in one kinde onely And this he will do verie easily For he beginneth with Christ himselfe whome moste impudently and blasphemously he affirmeth to haue ministred the Communion in one kinde onely to the disciples at Emaus First although diuerse of the olde writers are of opinion and yet wthout asseueration that Christe there gaue the sacrament yet none of them is so bolde to gather any such diuision of the sacrament out of that place Secondly notwithstanding their opinion it is most probable that hee neuer ministred the sacrament after his first institution thereof not onely because there is no mention thereof but because he gaue that as the last pledge of his presence with them immediatly
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
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
no man of learning will acknowledge them to be his And seeing the Greeke Liturgies are very vnlike the Latine Masse hee doth but mocke the ignorant readers to say they be all one Finally hee doth most absurdly conclude that his Masse should be within the compasse of Saint Augustines rule ad Ian. Ep. 118. That those thinges which the vniuersall Church obserueth throughout the worlde we may vnderstand that they are retayned as ordained either of the Apostles them selues or of the generall Counsels whose authoritie in the Church is most profitable Illa que per orbem vniuersa obseruat Ecclesia datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel a plenarijs concilijs quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrim a authoritas statuta retineri Thus hath M. Hes. cited Augustine to haue a starting hole vnder the name of the church but Saint Augustines wordes are somewhat otherwise Illae autem quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus quÄ™ quidem toto terrarum orbe obseruantur datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel plenarijs concilijs quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas commendata atque statuta retineri sicuti quod Domini passio resurrectio ascensio in Coelum aduentus de Coelo Spiritus sancti anniuersaria solennitate celebrantur si quid eliud â—ale occurrerit quod seruatur ab vniuersis quacunque se diffundat Ecclesia Those things which we obserue being not written but deliuered which truely are obserued throughout all the world it is giuen to be vnderstoode that they are retained as commended and decreed either by the Apostles or by generall Counsels whose authoritie in the Church is most wholsome as that the Passion resurrectioÌ„ of our Lord and his Ascention into heauen and the comming of the holy Ghost from heauen are celebrated with yerely soleÌ„nitie or if there be any such like matter which is obserued of all men wheresoeuer the Church spreadeth her self But seing the Popish Masse was vnknowne to the world in Augustines time neuer vsed throughout the worlde of all men for the orientall Churches neuer receiued it to this day if it haue no better holde then it getteth by this place of Augustine it must needes fall to the ground And thus much concerning the name fourme of the Masse In the next Chapter we shall heare of the matter or substance of the Masse it selfe The three and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the Masse it selfe Maister Heskins first with rayling tearmes taketh exception to the proclaymers diuision of the Masse into foure partes Prayers consecration receiuing doctrine except he adde oblation as the fifte or comprehend it vnder the name of consecration Moreouer he saith this is but a description of Masse in the large signification But the Masse it selfe properly is the holie consecration of the bodie and bloud of Christ the holy oblation and offring of the same in the memoriall and remembrance of his passion and death with humble and lowly thankes lawdes and prayses for the same and holy receiuing of that body and bloud so consecrated Here is the Lions skinne couering the asse but yet not so closely but the long eares may be seene hanging out For as the forme of these wordes for the most parte may be applyed to the holy communion so almost by euerie word he vnderstandeth another thing then either the scriptures or the auncient fathers do teache as we shall best see in the examination of the partes which followe First where he sayeth the proclaymer cannot abide consecration he sayeth falsely for both he graunteth consecration and the presence of Christes bodie and bloud but not the Popish charming nor their carnall manner of presence whiche how they be proued by M. Heskins let the readers iudge Oblation the second part he sayeth is proued in the first book and declaration of the prophesies of Melchisedech Damascen Malachie and in the 37. Chapter In the same places let the reader consider the answere In receiuing which is the thirde part two things saith Maister Heskins offend the proclaymer that is receiuing vnder one kinde and receiuing of the Priest alone The former is defended by him Lib. 2. from the 64. Chap. to the end of 67. Chap. there it is in this booke confuted The priuate receiuing he saith shall be defended afterward In doctrine the 4. part he knoweth not what faulte the proclaymer can finde wherein is greatest fault of all but M. Heskins will haue nothing to be the doctrine of the Masse but the Gospell and Pistle and other scriptures that are read in it In prayer the fift and last parte he findeth two faultes namely prayer to Saintes and for the dead for triall of these he will haue recourse to the primitiue Church It is well he can haue no recourse to the holie scriptures nor to the most ancient Church which is properly called the primitiue Church although these two errors be of great antiquitie But before M. Heskins vndertake these trials he girdeth at the communion ministred in copes and the proclaymer wearing Aarons garment for a bishoprick If the Popish priestes had no more pleasure to say masse in their vestments then the proclaymer to minister in copes I thinke the common sort of Papistes would haue lesse deuotion to the Masses then Gods people haue to the communion when it is ministred without any ceremoniall attyre But Maister Heskins will proue that neuer yet was heard off that Christ himselfe saide Masse For he instituted the Masse in his last supper and that he will proue by Cyprian but why doth he not rather proue it by the Euangelistes Forsooth because the scriptures haue no such vnproper speech to make any shewe of the Masse as Cyprian and the rest of the fathers haue Well let vs heare how Cyprian affirmeth that Christ saide Masse Maister Heskins saith First for the consecration Lib. 2. Ep. 3. He writeth thus Vt in Genesi c. That the blessing in Genesis by Melchisedech the priest might be duely celebrated about Abraham the image of the sacrifice appointed in bread and wine goeth before which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling offered bread the cup mixed with wine and he that is that fulnesse hath fulfilled the veritiâ— of the prefigured image In these wordes M. Heskins forgetting that Christ offred bread wine gloseth vpon the veritie of the image fulfilled by Christ and expressed by Cyprian in other wordes Obtulit c. He offred the same thing which Melchisedech had offered that is bread and wine euen his bodie and bloud Here againe is bread and wine offered by Christe which is his bodie and bloud after a spiritual manner as it was offered by Melchisedech Hitherto no worde of consecration nor of the carnall manner of presence but directly against it Nowe let vs heare howe he proueth oblation Quaerendum est c. It must be asked whom they haue folowed For if in the sacrifice which is
taketh to be ordeined of him for as much as it is not by any diuersitie of maners varied or altered But if it were as he fableth that S. Paul ordeined the ceremonial part of the Masse that was vsed in Augustines time the Popish Masse being not the same in ceremoniall partes as he will confesse that it was in Augustines time it foloweth that the Popish Masse is not that which was ordeined of S. Paule for it is well known it was patched peeced together by many peeces long since August time And as certein it is that almost euerie Church in his time had a seuerall forme of liturgie and therefore by his owne words they cannot be that which S. Paule set in order at the Church of that Corinthians The like impudeÌ„cie he sheweth in the next saying of Aug. which he citeth Et ideo non proecipit c. And therfore he coÌ„manded not in what order it should be receiued afterward that he might reserue this place to the Apostles by whoÌ„ he would set the Churches in order It followeth which M. Hesk. hath omitted Etiamsi hoc ille monuisset vt post cibos alios semper acciperetur credo quòd eum moreÌ„ nemo variasset For if he had charged this that it should always be receiued after other meats I beleeue that no man would haue varied froÌ„ that maner When August speketh so expresly of that one order of receiuing the communioÌ„ before meat what boldness is it to say that crouching kneeling other dumb ceremonies although they were not instituted by Christ yet were ordeined by S. Paul vpoÌ„ colour of Aug. authority who in the same epistle wished al such idle ceremonies vtterly to be abolished The next Massemonger he maketh is S. Andrew out of whose legend written by I knowe not what priestes deacons of Achaia he wil proue that S. Andrew did both say Masse and also therin offer in sacrifice the bodie bloud of Christ. But he is too much deceiued if he thinke any man of reasonable vnderstanding will in these dayes giue credite to such fabulous legends after S. Andrew coÌ„meth in S. Iames with his Masse said at IerusaleÌ„ which is in print but not heard of in the Church 600. yeres after Christ yet M. Hesk. saith it is allowed praysed by the proclaymer which is vtterly false for he proueth by a manifest argumeÌ„t that the liturgie which is in print vnder the name of S. Iames is a counâ—erfet because therein is a special prayer conteyned for such as liue in Monasteries whereas there was neuer a monasterie in the world many hundreth yeres after the death of S. Iames. And for a further proofe of the false inscription of that liturgie to S. Iames I will adde this argument that he vseth the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or consubstantial which as the learned knowe was neuer heard of in the Church before the heresie of Arrius was condemned in the Nicene counsell although the Catholike Church did alwayes confesse that Christ was God of the same substance equal with the father and the holy Ghost In deede the B. of Sarum confesseth that there is more in those liturgies against the Papistes then for them as by examining these parcels which M. Heskins citeth we shall easily perceiue First the liturgie of Iames hath these wordes Dominus c. Our Lord Iesus the same right in which he was betrayed or rather in which night he deliuered himselfe for the life of saluation of the world taking bread into his holie vndefiled innocent immortall hands looking vp into heauen shewing it to the God father giuing thankes sanctifying breaking he gaue it to vs his disciples saying Take ye eate ye this is my bodie which is broken for you and giuen vnto remission of sinnes Likewise after he had supped he tooke the cup and mingling it with wine and water looking vp into heauen and shewing it to the God and father giuing thankes sanctifying blessing filling it with the holy Ghost he gaue it to vs his disciples saying Drinke ye all of this this is my bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you and many and giuen for remission of sinnes This saith Maister Heskins was his maner of consecration vnlike the manner of the newe ministers in their communion which only rehearse the words of Christ historically not directing theÌ„ to God as a prayer wherein he lyeth most impudently as euerie man that heareth or readeth the praier immediately before the receiuing of the sacrament can testifie Concerning the tearme of consecration I haue often shewed that in the true sense thereof we both allow vse it although he wold make ignorant obstinat papists that wil neither heare our preachings nor read our writings to beleeue the contrarie only because he saith it Another ridiculous cauil he hath that we take not the bread into our handes before we consecrate it But let it lie on the table as though we had nothing to do with it Surely we do not acknowledge such holines in our hands that it can consecrate the bread but we pray to God to blesse those his creatures of bread wine that they may be vnto vs the bodie and bloud of Christ his sonne our lord If the Papists haue such holy vndefiled and immortal hands as this Iames speaketh of it is more then we knowe or will confesse before they can proue it In the consecration of the wine he chargeth vs that we mingle no water with the wine But when he can proue by the word of God that our sauiour Christ did so we will confesse our errour otherwise we see no necessitie of the water so their own schoolemen do confesse We acknowledge that in the primitiue Church it was an ancient custome to mingle water with the wine but not as a ceremonie at the first but as the coÌ„mon vsage of al men that drank the hotte wines of the East countries but afterward it grewe to be counted a ceremonie including some mysterie and at length with some it excluded the wine altogether as with those that were called Aquarij so daungerous a matter it is to vse any thing in Gods seruice more then is prescribed by himselfe But M. Heskins caÌ„not be persuaded that after al this sanctifying blessing and filling of the cup with the holy Ghost there should bee nothing else but a bare hungrie figure As though there were no choyce but either transubstantiation or a bare hungrie figure In baptisme there is sanctification blessing and filling with the holie Ghost as much as in the communion is there therefore transubstantiation in baptisme because there is not a bare hungrie figure But if I might be so bold as to examine him in his own fained Masse of S. Iames I would aske him how the cuppe is filled with the holie Ghost essentially so that the holie Ghost or any parte of him is conteined in the cupp I dare say he will say
sacrifice of thankesgiuing or a memoriall of the sacrifice of Christ by which it is easie to iudge howe the doctrine that the Papistes do nowe holde of the propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse doth agree with the auncient Liturgies ascribed to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church The eight and twentieth Chapter treateth of the prayer for acceptation of the oblation or sacrifice made in the Masse and vsed as well by the Apostles as the Fathers That the Apostles and Fathers commended to God by prayers the sacrifice which thei offered it is a manifest argument that they offered not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe for that needeth no commendation of our prayers They prayed therefore that their sacrifice of thankes giuing and duetifull seruice celebrated in the memorie of Christes death might be acceptable to God as you shal see by al their prayers First the Liturgie vntruly ascribed to Iames praieth thus Pro oblatis c. For these offred and sanctified precious heauenly vnspeakable immaculate glorious feareful horrible diuine gifts let vs pray to our Lord God that our Lord God accepting them into his holy heauenly mentall and spirituall altar for a sauour of spiritual sweet smell may giue vs againe and send vnto vs the diuine grace and gift of the most holy spirite These sanctified giftes can not be the body and bloud of Christe which are holy of them selue but the bread and wine sanctified to be a memoriall of the death of Christe in a spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing Saint Clement if wee beleeue Nicholas Methon prayed thus Rogamus c. We pray thee that with mercifull and cheerefull countenaunce thou wilt looke vpon these giftes set before thee thou God which hast no neede of any thing and that thou mayest be pleased with them to the honour of thy Christ. These wordes are plaine that he offered not Christe but the breade and wine to bee sanctified to the honour of Christe namely that they might be made the body and bloud of Christe to as many as receiue them worthily In the Liturgie imputed to Basil the Priest prayeth thus Dominum postulemus c. Let vs desire the Lorde for these offered and sanctified the most honourable giftes of our Lorde God and for the profite of the goods of our soules that the most mercifull God which hath receiued them in his holy heauenly intelligible altar for a sauour of sweete smelling would send vnto vs the grace and communion of his holy spirite The same wordes in a manner be in the Liturgie fathered vppon Saint Chrysostome though it be manifest that it was written seuen hundreth yeares after his death as is shewed before Pro oblatis c. For the offered and sanctified precious giftes let vs pray the Lorde that our mercifull God who hath receiued theÌ„ in his holy heauenly intelligible altar may send vs therfore grace the gift of the holy Ghost Maister Heskins would haue vs note that these Fathers seeme to pray for their sacrifice which we note very willingly for thereby is proued that their sacrifice was not the very body of Christ for that nedeth no commendation of our prayers Wel S. Ambrose followeth Lib. de Sacr. 4. Cap. 6. Petimus c. We pray and desire that thou wilt receiue this oblation in thy high altar by the handes of the Angels as thou hast vouchsafed to receiue the gifts of thy seruant righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that which thy high Priest Melchisedech offered to thee The very name of gods heauenly mental intelligible holy high altar do argue a spirituall sacrifice and not a reall oblation of the naturall body and bloud of christ Next to these Liturgies Maister Heskins adioyneth the wordes of the Canon of the Popish Masse agreeing in effect with these of Ambrose but nothing at all in vnderstanding For that the Papistes esteeme their sacrifice to be very Christ God and Man which none of the auncient fathers did For which cause the Bishop of Sarum iustly reproued those three blasphemies in their Canon not in respect of the words but in respect of their vnderstanding of them The first that they seeme to make Christ in his fathers displeasure that he needeth a mortall man to be his spokesman The second that the body of Christe should in no better wise bee receiued of his father then a Lambe at the handes of Abel The third that they desire an Angel may come and carie away Christes body into heauen These three blasphemies M. Heskins taketh vpon him to auoyde or excuse To the first after many lowd outcries and beastly raylings against that godly learned father of blessed mâ—mory he answereth defending it first by example of these auncient Liturgies that they prayed for their sacrifice but this helpeth him not for they neither thought nor saide that their sacrifice was very Christe God and Man but a sacrament and memoriall of him Afterward hee saith the meaning of their Church is not to pray for Christe but by Christ to obtaine fauour bicause they say in the end of euery prayer per Christum Dominum nostrum by our Lord Christ. But this hole is too narrowe for him to creepe out at For he confesseth that he prayeth for his sacrifice and he affirmeth that his sacrifice is Christ therfore he praieth for Christ. To auoyde the second blasphemie hee saith that the meaning of their Church is not to pray that God will accept the sacrifice which is acceptable of it selfe but their deuotion and seruice and them selues the offerers as hee did accept Abell and his sacrifice c. and so flyeth to the example of the olde Liturgies but that will not serue him For their sacrifice was not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ but a seruice and duetie of thankesgiuing in remembrance of Christe And therefore they might well pray that their sacrifice might be accepted as Abell and his sacrifice as Noe and his burnt offering and so of the rest but this meaning will not stande with the wordes of their Canon which are that God will accept the sacrifices that is the body and bloud of Christ as hee accepted the giftes of his iust seruaunt Abell c. Therefore they must either chaunge the wordes of the Canon or his aunswere to the second accusation by the meaning of their Church can not stande howe so euer Hugo Heskins would seeme to salue or rather to daub vp the matter To the third and last hee aunswereth denying that the meaning of their Church is that the body of Christe should be caried by an Angel but that their prayers should bee offered by an Angel or Angels in the sight of GOD making a long and needlesse discourse of the ministerie of Angels and howe they offer our prayers to GOD which is nothing to the purpose For the Maister of the sentences affirmeth that an Angel must be sent to
close Maister Heskins aunswereth this is a small fault and from the Masse of S. Iames flyeth to S. Basils Masse Where it is said the Bishop prayeth secretly yet he spake the wordes as they call them of consecration openly The thirde comparison S. Iames in his Masse ministred the communion to the people The Papists in their Masse receiue them selues alone To this he aunswereth denying that S. Iames did always minister the communion to the people which is an impudent shift except he will denie the fourme of that liturgie which prescribeth the ministration to the people after the consecration His reason is because in Chrysostomes liturgie which was written more then a thousand yeares after S. Iames and falsely beareth the name of Chrysostome there is a rule what the priest shall doe when there are no communicants The fourth comparison S. Iames ministred the communion to the people vnder both kindes The Papists in their Masse in one kinde onely Here hath he none other refuge but to say that S. Iames did not alwayes minister vnder both kindes Then let him denie the credite of the liturgie which prescribeth the cōmunion to be ministred in both kindes The fift comparison Saint Iames preached and set foorth the death of Christ They in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe gestures and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstand not and make no manner of mention of Christes death M. Hes. complayneth of the Bishops repetitions imputing them to want of stuffe when he himselfe moste absurdly repeateth his three vntruthes surmised to be in this assertion which he set downe before in the 39. Chapter whither I referre the Reader for the answere Only this I wil note that he can finde no other preaching to the people but the Aulbe to signifie the white garment that Christe was sent in from Herode the vestiment the garment that he was mocked in in the house of Pilate the Crosse vpon the vestiment signifieth the crosse of Christe which he did beare as the priest doth on his backe the eleuation signifieth the lifting vp of Christe on the crosse he might say by as good reason the Priests hands signified the two theeues the Priest himselfe the tormentors that did lift him vp to the crosse Beholde this is the preaching of Christes death in the Masse whether it be an impudent vntruth as Maister Heskins tearmeth it to call these dumbe gestures and ceremonies or M. Heskins an impudent beast to defend these dombe signes for preaching of Christes death let the reader in Gods name consider and iudge The sixth comparison S. Iames Masse was full of knowledge their Masse is full of ignorance M. Heskins aunswereth that there is as much knowledge in their Masse as in S. Iames Masse because in substance it is all one which if it were true as it is most false yet what knowledge can be when al is done in a strange language and no preaching but by dombe signes as we heard before The seuenth S. Iames Masse was full of consolation their Masse is full of superstition To this he aunswereth they haue as much consolation which cannot be when they haue no preaching of the Gospel how can he say that they haue no superstition when they haue an hundred idle ceremonies and gestures which Christ neuer instituted and therfore are meere will worship and superstition The eyghth comparison he saith is all one with the third that the people resorted to receiue the communion when S. Iames sayed Masse Although it followe of the thirde yet is it not all one with it for as S. Iames was readie to minister so the people ordinarily were readie to receiue which is not looked for of the popish priestes because they reach them that it is needelesse so to doe The last comparison Saint Iames in his Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well more nothing else but mans inuention To this he aunswereth that they haue Christes institution for their Masse which is an impudent falshood either for their carnall maner of presence or for their sacrifice or for their priuate receiuing or for their depriuing the people of all doctrine but such as is by dombe signes which he is not afrayde to ascribe to the inuention of the holy Ghost as though the spirite of God in ceremonies would be contrary to him selfe in the scriptures After this he reporteth the substantiall differences betweene the Masse and the newe communion as he calleth it which because they be all set foorth and aunswered before in the 34.35.36 Chapters of this booke I will leefe no time about his vaine recapitulation or repetition of them contayning nothing but rayling and slaundering The foure and fortieth Chapter returning to the exposition of S. Paul expoundeth this text As often as ye shal eat of this bread c. by S. Hierom Theophylact. M Heskins hauing wandred abroad to seek the Masse in auncient writers nowe is come home againe to his text and that is this As often as you shall eat of this bread drinke of this cupp ▪ you shall shewe forth the Lordes death vntill be come Vpon this text saith he the ministers of Sathan for so it pleaseth him to call vs haue grounded two arguments against the reall presence One that the sacrament is a memoriall of Christe and therefore Christ is absent because a memoriall is of a thing absent the other that it is bread for so the Apostles called it not the bodie of christ The solution of the first argument is that the receipt of the sacrament is not a memoriall of Christes bodie but of his death and passion This is a noble distinction but when Christ sayeth do this in remēbrance of mee whether is the remembrance of Christe the remembrance of his bodie or onely of the temporall act of his dying and suffering which is past I think all Christian men will confesse that the communion is a memoriall of Christ that was crucified and not of his crucifying onely But when Saint Paul sayeth vntill he come how can he say that he is present in bodie which is yet to come in bodie To the seconde argument he aunswereth that Saint Paule calleth it breade as Christ calleth bread his flesh and therfore he calleth it this bread signifying a speciall bread No man sayeth the contrarie but that it is a speciall bread and as Saint Augustine sayeth after a certeine manner the bodie of Christe But if Maister Heskins in this place may denye breade to bee taken in the proper sence for breade why doth hee exclame against them that in these wordes This is my body denye the worde body to be taken in the proper signification thereof for a naturall bodie But let vs take Maister Heskins interpretation of bread to signifie the bodie of Christe then the sense of Saint Paules wordes shal be this As often as ye eat of the bodie of Christ and drinke his bloud you shall shewe the Lordes
our Lord vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde For when the Apostle saide this he spake it of them which receiued the bodie of our Lord vndiscreetly and negligently as they wold do any other meat Whersoeuer he borowed these words they are not to be found in that treatise of Aug. which he citeth But if they be August in any place they haue none other sense then before is expressed that such men are said to eate the bodie of Christ which eate the sacrament therof whiche in some manner of speache is called the body of christ The words that I find in Augustine sounding any thing like are these Et sancta possunt obesse in bonis enim sancta ad salutem insunt in malis ad iudicium Certè enim fratres nouimus quid accipiamus vtique sanctum est quod accipimus nemo dicit non esse sanctum Et quid ait Apostolus Qui autem manducat bibit indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit Non ait quia illa res mala est sed quod ille malus malè accipiendo ad iudicium accipit bonum quod accipit Non enim mala buccella erat quae tradita est Iudae à Domino Absit medicus non daret venenum Salutem medicus dedit sed indignè accipiendo ad perniciem accepit Euen holy things may hurte For in good men holy things are vnto saluation in euill men vnto condemnation For surely brethren we know what we receiue and no man sayeth that it is not holy And what sayeth the Apostle He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne condemnation He sayeth it not because that thing is euill but because that euill man by euill receiuing receiueth vnto condemnation that good thing which he receiueth For the morsell was not euill which was deliuered by our Lorde to Iudas God forbidde the Phisition woulde not giue poyson the Phisition gaue health but hee by receiuing vnwoorthily receiued to his destruction To this iudgement of Augustine wee doe subscribe that wicked men receiue a holye thing namely the sacrament for prophaning whereof they heape vp damnation to them selues besides their other sinnes But that the naturall bodie of Christe voyde of his quickening spirite entreth into the mouth of any man wee doe vtterly denye and of the same iudgement is Augustine as we haue shewed in this Chapter in many other places The nine and fourtieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by Isychius and Sedulius In the beginning of this Chapter by a saying of Augustine hee exhorteth vs to heare the doctoures of the Catholike church affirming that he hath alreadie brought sixe plainely expounding this texte of the bodie of Christ and more will bring hereafter whereas the proclaimer required but onely one But what trueth is in his affirmation the reader I doubt not will be able to discerne that is not blinded with affection Isichyus is cited in Leuit. Cap. 26. Propter quod c. Wherefore let vs feare his holie place that we neither defile our bodie nor rashly come to the bodie of Christe in the which is all sanctification For in him abydeth the fullnesse of the godhead without diligent examination of our selues but rather let vs examine our selues remembring him that sayde Whosoeuer shall eate the breade or drinke the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde Because Maister Heskins knoweth not what to gather out of these wordes with any shewe of likelyhood to mainteine his cause he runneth into another matter altogether impertinent and needelesse to shewe out of Theophylact how the fullnesse of the Godhead doth dwell in Christe At length he commeth to ridiculous questions why should he dehort wicked men from eating the bodie of Christ if they cannot eat it at all As though their presumption may not bee condemned which cannot attaine their purpose Why shoulde wicked men bee dehorted from seeking the ouerthrowe of Christe and his church seeing it is impossible for them to preuayle either against the one or the other yet Maister Heskins thinketh him selfe wittie when he sayeth It were strange to persuade a man not to pull downe heauen or to eat the starres because it is vaine to moue men not to doe that which is impossible to be done But because Maister Heskins is so angrie with a peece of breade in the sacrament let him heare what the same Hesychius or as he calleth him Isichius writeth in Leuitic lib. 2. Cap. ◠Propterea carnes cum panibus comedi praecipient vt nos intelligeremus illud ab eo mysterium dici quod simul panis est caro Therefore commaunding the flesh to bee eaten with the breade that wee might vnderstande that he spake of that mysterie which is both bread and fleshe together You see that Hesychius acknowledged breade to bee in the mysterie naturallye as the fleshe of Christe is spiritually Nowe let vs heare Sedulius Accipite c. Take ye this is my body As though Paule had sayed take heede ye eate not that bodie vnworthily seeing it is the bodie of Christe You shall eate this vnworthily if you shame the poore and if you eate any meate before the spirituall meate and the supper of the Lorde Here againe he noteth that the bodie of Christ may be receiued of vnworthie persons hee meaneth wicked persons for otherwise all men are vnworthie of it but no such thing can followe of the wordes of Sedulius both because hee speaketh of receiuing the sacrament which after a certeine manner is the bodie of Christe also because he speaketh not of wicked persons and reprobates but of faithfull persones offenders and that not in greate matters namely in shaming the poore with their plentifull feastes and eating bodily meate before they receiue the Lordes supper This place is cited before lib. 2. Cap. 55. The argument that wee bring of the inseparable coniunction of Christe with his spirite he sayeth is vaine for though Christe bee neuer disioyned from his spirite yet his spirite is not alwayes effectuall which is as absurde as the other to saye that the quickening spirite of Christe together with his bodye is in the wicked and worketh not life But hee weeneth Cyprian shall stande with him whose wordes he citeth In Sermone de Coena Sacramenta quidem quantum in se est c. The sacraments truely as concerning them selues cannot be without their proper vertue Neither doeth the Diuine maiestie by any meanes absent it selfe from the mysteries But although the sacraments doe suffer them selues to bee taken or touched by vnworthie persons yet cannot those be partakers of the spirite whose infidelitie or vnworthinesse gaynsayeth so great holinesse And therefore those giftes are to some the sauour of life vnto life vnto some the sauour of death vnto death For it is altogether meete that the contemners of grace should be depriued of so great a benefite
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
in due examination vprightnesse of faith and puritie of life And this faith hee determineth to be the Apostolique and Catholique faith which must be learned of hearing as Saint Paule saith Faith commeth of hearing and as he saith it must bee learned of the Elders and so bee continued by tradition But Saint Paule saith Hearing must be of the worde of God for Elders may erre as well as youngers but the worde of GOD can not erre neither can he erre that followeth the doctrine of the worde of GOD in any thing Vnto purenesse of life he requireth confession alledging the confession of Augspurge for the confirmation thereof as though Christian confession and the Popish shrift were all one As fond it is that he saith the Apostles were instructed by Christe in the faith of the sacrament before the institution thereof by the miracle of the fiue loaues and in purenesse of life by washing of his disciples feete Where yet was neither contrition confession nor satisfaction After this he rayleth vpon Luther for saying that onely faith maketh men pure and worthie to receiue as though by so saying he did exclude the fruites of repentance and reformation of manners which necessarily do followe of a true and liuely faith which onely maketh vs righteous in the sight of God and worthie receiuers by reputation or acceptation which in the conclusion Maister Heskins himselfe confesseth to be all the worthines that any man hath or can haue to be partaker of the body and bloud of Christ. The foure and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the Fathers vpon the same text with Saint Hierome and Saint Chrysostome S. Hierome is alledged in 1. Cor. 11. Si in linteum vel vat sordidum non illud mittere audeat c. If a man dare not put that thing into a soule cloth or vessell howe much more in a defiled hart which vncleannesse God aboue all things detesteth and which is the only iniurie that can be done to his body For euen therefore did Ioseph that righteous man burie the Lordes body wrapped in a cleane linnen cloth in a newe tombe prefiguring that they which should receiue the Lords body should haue both a cleane minde and a new M. Heskins saith these wordes make plaine for the presence of Christ in that Hierome saith we receiue the body of Christe And who denyeth either the presence of Christ or that we receiue the body of Christ in the sacrament Only we differ whether Christ be present bodily and whether we receiue his body after a corporall manner or after a spirituall or heauenly manner It is pitie he can not see in Hieromes wordes that Christes body must be receiued in a cleane sort as in a cleane vessell And whereas Maister Heskins translateth mittere illud to put that body into a foule cloth or vessell it is maruell he considered not that which aunswereth in similitude to a foule vessell namely a foule heart He thought by that translation or rather falsification to make it seeme that wicked men receiue the body of Christe with the mouth but his authour saith with a filthie heart which is the only iniurie that can be done to the body of Christe therefore he speaketh of the wicked presuming to receiue the sacrament of his body and bloud not affirming that they do it in deede For vpon these wordes He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation he saith Dupliciter reus effectus presumptionis scilicet peccati Being made twise guiltie namely of presumption and sinne and vpon those words He shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde hee saith Quia tanti mysterij sacramentum pro vili despexerit bicause he hath despised the sacrament of so great a mysterie as nothing worth But Maister Heskins citeth another place of Saint Hierome against the licentious doctrine of Luther as he saith that would haue none other preparation but onely faith also to maintaine his carnall presence Lib. 1. Apoll. contra Iouinian Probet se vnusquisque c. Let euery man examine him self and so let him come to the Lords body He would not saith he call it the body of Christe if it were but bread Howe often shall I tell him that it is one thing to say it is breade an other thing to say it is but breade The former we say and also that it is Christes body the latter we vtterly deny But Saint Hierome more at large is cited in 1. Cor. 11. vpon these wordes of Saint Paule Who so euer shall eate of this breade and drinke of this cup of the Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde Sicut scriptum est Omnis mundus manducabit c. As it is written Euery cleane person shall eate it and againe The vncleane soule that shall eate it shall be rooted out from his people And our Lorde him selfe saith If before the altar thou shalt remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee leaue thy gifâ— before the altar and goe and be reconciled to thy brother Therefore the conscience must first be searched if it doe in nothing reprehend vs and so we ought either to offer or to communicate There be some that say he doth not here forbid an vnworthie person from the holy thing but him that receiueth vnworthily If therefore the worthie person comming vnworthily he drawne backe howe much more the vnworthy person which can not receiue worthily Wherfore it behoueth the idle person to cease from vices that he may holily receiue the holy body of our Lord. In these wordes Maister Heskins noteth the preparation required against Luthers onely faith and the thing receiued to be the holy body of our Lorde I haue aunswered before that Luthers onely faith doth not exclude but of necessitie drawe with it all things requisite to a due preparation And that the holy body of our Lorde is receiued of the faithfull wee doe willingly confesse but not of the vnfaithfull and wicked persons For the same Hierome in the Chapter before cited vpon this saying of the Apostle This is my body writeth thus Qui manducat corpus meum bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo Vnde agnoscere se debet quisquis Christi corpus edit aut sanguinem bibit ne quid indignum ei faciat cuius corpus effectus est Hee that eateth my body and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Wherefore hee ought to knowe him selfe who so euer either eateth the body of Christe or drinketh his bloud that hee doe nothing vnworthily to him whose body hee is made This sentence plainely declareth both howe the body and bloud of Christe are eaten and dronken and of whome namely they are so receiued as hee that receiued them is made the body of Christe that is of necessitie spiritually and they are receiued of them in whome Christe dwelleth and they in him therefore of
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
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„
And your Authour saith he dranke none other bloud but that he powred vpon them Here is also alledged Chrysostomes name for Christes drinking of his bloud but his wordes are referred to another place Then followeth a conclusion If Christ drank his owne bloud he drank it spiritually or corporally spiritually he could not wherfore he dranke it corporally This is very round dealing M. Heskins But if he could drinke his bloud I pray you why could he not drinke it spiritually as well rather then corporally For if he dranke his owne bloud he also did eate his owne body which if it sound not grossely in your eares it is because you haue a grosse vnderstanding In this Chapter two Lordes of the Parleament beeing required of their iudgment haue giuen their voices both directly against his bill for the carnall presence The seuenteenth Chapter proceedeth in the same matter by S. Cyprian and Euthymius Maister Heskins in his Epistles and prefaces promiseth great sinceritie and euery where obiecteth impudencie and insinceritie against the proclaymer and his complices But see what sinceritie he vseth that matcheth Euthymius scarse worthy to be a burgesse of the lower house â—ith Cyprian one of the most auncient Barons of the vpper house And yet afterward he him selfe placeth him in the lower house that is among the writers within the compasse of nine hundreth yeres Wheras the higher house consisteth of them that writ within 600. yeares after Christ as the Bishop whom he tearmeth the proclaymer maketh his challenge And certeinely Euthymius was neuer accounted for a Lord of the parleament before he was called thereto by Maister Heskins writte which of what force it is to make a Baron let the readers iudge For he liued about the yeare of our Lord 1170. Notwithstanding we will examine his voyce as it commeth in order But we must first consider the voyce of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage Which is this The supper therefore being ordered among the sacramentall meates there mette together the newe ordinances and the olde And when the lambe was consumed or eatâ—n which the olde tradition did set foorth the maister did set before his disciples the inconsumptible meatâ— Neither are the people now bidden to feastes painefully wrought with expenses and cunning but the foode of immortalitie is giuen differing from common meates reteyning the kind of appearance of corporall substaÌ„ce but prouing by inuisible efficiencie the presence of Gods power or the diuine vertue to be there In this saying First there is neuer a worde to proue that the Pascall Lambe was a figure of the Lordes supper which is the purpose of the Chapter but onely that the newe institution succeeded the olde which is manifest by the history of the Gospell Euen as Baptisme succeded circumcision and yet was not circumcision a figure of Baptisme Secondly note that he doeth not affirme the reall presence of Christes naturall bodie but the inuisible working of his diuine power And so his voyce is flatly againg Maister Heskins bill Nowe let vs consider his fonde collections First that Christ gaue inconsumptible meate the sacramentaries giue consumptible meate For they giue but bread This is a false slaunder a thousand times repeated for they giue not bread only but euen the same inconsumptible meate by the inuisible working of his diuine power which Cyprian affirmeth that Christe gaue his Disciples But he vrgeth That it was put before them taken by hande laid in sight which the merite and grace of his passion could not be See I pray you how this man agreeth with Cyprian Cyprian saith it was by inuisible working of Gods fauour he saith it was put before them for so he translateth apponit taken by hand and laide in sight His second collection is That it differeth from common meates reteining the fourme of corporall substaunce whiche can neither be the breade which differeth not from common meates nor the spirituall meate which they call the merite of his passion because that reteineth not the fourme of corporall substance A wise reason disioyning and seuering thinges that should bee taken together The water in baptisme differeth from common water and conteyning the fourme of corporall substance by inuisible working proueth the presence of Gods power to be there So doeth the bread and wine in the Lordes Supper Which although of them selues they be no more holy then other creatures yet when they are consecrated for the vse of the sacrament they differ as muche from common meates as the bodie and the soule doe as temporall life and eternall life as heauen and earth doe differ so doeth the water consecrated for baptisme differ from common water His third collection that it is called The foode of immortalitie which cannot be bare materiall bread A true collection for the sacrament is not bare material bread but the body and bloud of Christ represented by materiall bread as a materiall lauer is the water of regeneration but not bare materiall water For confirmation is brought in Ignatius ex Ep. ad Ephe. Be ye taught of the comforter obedience to the Bishop and the priest with vnswaruing or stable minde breaking the bread which is the medicine of immortalitie the preseruatiue of not dying but of liuing by Iesus Christ. Although no learned man that is not more wilfull then wise will graunt this Epistle to be written by that auncient father Ignatius whose name it beareth yet doth this saying coÌ„tein nothing but very sound doctrine of the sacrament which he calleth bread that iâ— broken to be the medicine of immortalitie M. Heskins vrgeth as before that it can non be bare bread which hath such effects Which I graunt willingly but I reply vpon him that it cannot be the naturall body of Christ which he exhorteth them to breake For Christes body is not broken but the sacramentall bread to signifie the breaking and participation of his body But he proceedeth to another speech of Cyprian which is in deede a more apparant speeche for his purpose the wordes are these Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effâ—gie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro Et fiout in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebaâ— diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter se diuina infudie essentia This bread which our Lorde did reache vnto his disciples beeing chaunged not in shape but in nature by omnipotencie of the worde is made fleshe And as in the person of CHRISTE the humanitie was seene the diuinitie was hidden euen so the diuine essence hath powred it selfe vnspeakably into the visible sacrament The Papistes esteeme this place to be an inuincible bulwarke of their transubstantiation but alas it is soone ouerthrowne when the meaning of Cyprian is boulted out not onely by sentences going before and after this saying but also by the very wordes of this same sentence For he maketh a manifest difference betweene the visible sacrament and the diuine essence which
prefigurate the truth of his body likewise For it importeth an equalitie of both their doings Melchisedech by breade and wine did represent or prefigurate the truth of his body and Christ also by breade and wine did represent the truth of his body For Christ could not doe also that which an other had not done Therefore very foolish are M. Heskins oppositions of typicall passeouer and true passeouer and figure and truth where the argument is a consentaneis and not a dissentaneis The other friuolous interpretation that he maketh of the bread comforting mans heart being both out of the minde of Hieronyme and out of his purpose I omit At length hee commeth to an other place of Hieronyme ad Heliodorum Ep. 1. Absit vt de ijs quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt God forbid that I shuld speake any euil of thē which succeeding the apostolike degree doe make the body of Christ with their holy mouth M. Heskins translateth it which do consecrate bicause in the word make which Hieronyme vseth hee should be enforced to acknowledge a figuratiue speach But let him turne ouer all his vocabularies Calepines and dictionaries vnto which he sent vs ere while and he shall not finde this Verbe conficio signifying to consecrate but to make to dispatch or to kill Likewise he leaueth out these wordes which folowe immediatly Per quos nos Christiani sumus by whome wee also are Christians It is euident that Hieronyme speaketh hyperbolically of the dignitie of priestes for as to speake properly we are not made Christians by them no more is the bodie of Christ made by them But where he speaketh properly he vseth proper tearmes as Contra Iouin lib. 2. In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum In the figure of his bloud he offered not water but wine Here he calleth the sacrament the type of his bloude and saith it is wine And in the same booke he saith of Christ that although it be written of him that he hungred and thristed and went often to diner yet excepto mysterio quod in typum suae passionis expressit probandi corporis veritate nec gulae scribitur seruisse nec ventri Excepting the mysterie whiche he expressed in figure of his passion and in prouing the trueth of his bodie it is not written that he did serue his throte or bellie Meaning that it is not saide expressedly what he did eate and drinke but onely a◠his last supper and after his resurrection to proue the trueth of his body The other collection that hee maketh that because priestes doe consecrate with their mouthe therefore the faith of the receiuer maketh not the presence of Christ in the sacrament beside that it is not Hieronymes word yet it proueth nothing because as there be causes that worke altogether alone so there be causes which be helping and concurre with other of which sorte is the faith of the receiuer necessarilie to conceyue with the ministerie of the Minister that Christ may bee present That Christian Priestes should not be contemned if they be good it is easily graunted if they be naught the ministerie is to bee honoured but not the person Out of Chrysostom are alledged two long testimonies the one out of his homilies de prodit Iudae But by that also an other greater benefit was shewed that that lamb was a signe of the lambe to come and that bloude shewed the comming of the Lordes bloude and that sheepe was an example of the spirituall sheepe That lambe was a shadowe this lambe the trueth But after the sunne of righteousnesse shined the shadowe was put away by the light And therefore on the same table both the passeouers were celebrated both that of the figure and that of the trueth For as painters are wont to shadowe the table that is to be painted with certayne lineamentes and so with varietie of colours to make it perfecte Euen so Christ did in the table Hee did both describe the figure of the Passeouer and shewed the passeouer of trueth Where wilt thou that wee prepare for thee to eate the passouer That was the Iewish passouer but let the passouer giue place to the light and the image be ouercome of the trueth If this place be well considered it maketh altogether against the Bill of transubstantiation For the similitude of the Painters Table hauing in it shadowes and colors applyed vnto the pascal lambe and the sacrament declareth that they both together make a perfect image to shew and represent the true lambe Christ which was offered for vs the olde pascall being the shadowing the new sacramēt which he calleth also a passouer being the varietie of colors by which the passouer of trueth is discribed and plainely shewed Therfore M. Heskins collections are vaine and from the authors meaning For his purpose is not to make the pascall lamb a figure of the sacramēt but of christ and both the lamb the sacrament figures of Christ but yet the lambe a shadowing figure like the first draught of a painter the sacrament a cleare demonstration like an image in colors It is therfore verie babish that he groūdeth vpon the word of the Passeouer shewed in the table that the bodie of Christ was really present on the table in the sacrament wheras it is plain that Chrysostom speaketh of shewing by signes as by colours an image is set forth in a painted table As childish it is that he will oppresse the proclamer to tell him why Hierome and Chrisostom call not the Iewish pascal light trueth veritie as they doe our pascall seeing by it they receiued Christ◠as well as wee in our sacramente A sore matter The Iewishe pascall represented if I may vse that tearme vnder correction of M. Heskins dictionarie the true pascal Christ as our sacrament doeth who is the light trueth and veritie the sacramente they call not the pascall lambe light nor trueth but by a figure as they call it manye other thinges But when they speake properlie they vse other tearmes so doth Chrysostome Homi. Ex. Psal. 22. 116. Sapientia ędificauit sibi Domum supposuit columnas septem parauit mensam suam misit seruos suos conuocans omnes dicens venite edite de panibus meis bibite vinum quod miscui vobis quia istam mensam preparauit seruis ancillis in conspectu eorum vt quotidie in similitudinem corporis sanguinis Christi panem vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sacramento ideo dicit parasti in conspectu meo mensam aduersus eos qui tribulant me Wisedome hath builded hir an house shee hath set vnder seauen pillers shee hath prepared hir table shee hath sent foorth her seruantes calling all men to hir and saying come and eate of my breade and drinke of the wine that I haue powred foorth for you and because
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
trueth whereof the Pascall lambe was the figure and shadowe Which trueth was no mysterie newly inuented but practised euer since Moses for not by the fleshe and bloud of the Lambe but by the flesh and bloud of Christ the people were deliuered from death The Lambe was then a sacrament Christe was then and euer shall be the trueth but what neede we more striue wheÌ„ M. Heskins confesseth That the faithfull of the olde Testament did eate the flesh drinke the bloud of Christ spiritually as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. They did all eate the same spirituall meate c. And Cyrill saith We haue no newe mysterie but euen the same that hath beene practised since the time of Moses The twentieth Chapter ioyneth Saint Gregorie and Damascen to confirme the same matter In the beginning of this Chapter he doeth honestly confesse that Gregorie was the last of the higher house Damascen the first and chiefest of the lower house he may make him Vantparlar if he will. But neither of theÌ„ haue any thing materiall for his purpose that he alledgeth them nor for the generall purpose of his bill For Gregories wordes are altogether alegoricall therefore cannot be taken in the Grammaticall sense Hom. 22. Pasch All which thinges do bring forth to vs great edifying if they be discussed by mystical or alegoricall interpretation For what the bloud of the lambe is you haue learned not now by hearing but by drinking which bloud is put vpon both the postes when it is dronke not only with the mouth of the body but also with the mouth of the heart For he that doeth so receiue the bloud of his redeemer that he will not as yet followe his passion hath put the bloud on a post Heare what a great thing is there But that he calleth the sacrament of the bloud the bloud of the redeemer speaking alegorically as he calleth it the bloud of the Lamb meaning the olde Paschal whiche doth signifie the bloud of christ Therfore if Maister Heskins will vrge the bloud of the redeemer dronke not only with the mouth of the body but with the mouth of the heart he may likewise vrge the bloud of the lamb if this be a figuratiue speech so is that But Gregorie proceedeth In the night saith he we eate the lambe because we do now receiue the Lordes body in a sacrament when as yet we do not see one anothers conscience Note here that Gregorie doth not say simply we eate the Lords body but we eate the Lordes body in a sacrament or mysterie comparing the night of the Iewish eating with the mysterie of the Lordes body And in neither of both his sayinges affirmeth the lambe to be a figure of the supper which is the purpose of the Chapter As for Damascen his chiefe words are these For it were too long to rehearse all he being but a knight of the lower house If God the word by willing was made man c. can he not make bread his owne body and wine with water his bloud God saide in the beginning let the earth bring forth greene hearbes and vnto this day beeing holpen strengthened by Gods coÌ„mandement the rayne comming it bringeth forth fruits God said this is my body this is my bloud and do ye this in remeÌ„brance of me by his almightie coÌ„mandement it is brought to passe vntill he come In this testimonie which M. Hesk. rehearseth more at large sauing that he nameth the old Passeouer that Christ did celebrate at his last supper there is no mentioÌ„ of any figure that it was of his supper SecoÌ„dly although the time in which Damascen liued was very corrupt yet there is nothing in these wordes whiche may not wel be referred to the spiritual presence of Christs body vnto the faith of the worthie receiuer M. Heskins maketh a needlesse digression of the coÌ„mandement of consecratioÌ„ which shal be granted to him if he wil not frame a new signification of consecration which none of his Calepines Vocabularies nor Dictionaries do acknowledge For to consecrate is to halow or to separat to an holy vse so we grant the bread and wine to be consecrated But the Papistes call consecrating to change the substances or to transubstaÌ„tiat And so neither Chrysostom nor any other learned man did euer vse that word His wordes as M. Heskins citeth theÌ„ Ho. de pro. Iud. be these And now the same Christ is present which did furnish that table he also consecrateth this For it is not man that maketh the thinges set foorth to be the body and bloud of Christ by consecration of the Lordes table but he that was crucified for vs euen Christ Wordes are spoken by the mouth of the priest but they are consecrated by the power and grace of god This is saith he my body By this worde the thinges set foorth are consecrated And as that voyce that said grow ye multiply ye was but once spoken but yet it feeleth alway effect nature working with it vnto generation so that voyce was but once spoken but through all the tables of the Church vnto this day and vntill the comming it giueth strength to the sacrifice In these wordes because M. Heskins bringeth them in for consecration note that Chrysostome affirmeth all consecration vnto the worldes end to be wrought by the voice of Christ once spoken by him selfe This is my body whereas the Papistes affirme consecration to be by the vertue of these words spoken by a priest So that there is great diuersitie betweene their iudgements of consecration The one twentieth Chapter concludeth the matter of the figure of the Pascall lambe by Haymo and Cabâ—sila There is no doubt but in the lower house M. Heskins may finde many that fauour his bill but seeing it is shut out of the higher house I will not trouble my selfe nor the Reader much to examine the voyces of the lower house Which if they should euery one allowe it yet it cannot be an enacted trueth without the consent of the higher house Onely this will I note that Maister Heskins maketh Haymo elder by 500. yeares then such chronicles as I haue read do account him But this thing in this Chapter must not be omitted that he saith that The sacramentaries cannot bring one father teaching the sacrament to be onely a figure And ioyneth issue with the proclaymer that if he can bring any scripture any catholique counsell or any one approued doctor that by expresse and plaine words doth denie the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament then he will giue ouer and subscribe to him Still he chargeth them whom he calleth the sacramentaries to make the sacrament only a figure or a bare signe which is false But for euidence to informe the men that shall go vpon this issue I will alledge first S. Augustine in plaine and expresse wordes denying that which Maister Heskins and the Papistes call the reall presence of Christes body
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
pixe to be adored And Tertullian in his Booke De Corona militis doeth rehearse this custome among those thinges that had no ground of scripture for them The liks is to be saide to the place of Cyprian where a woman kept it in her chest as for the miracle whether it reproued her vnworthinesse or her reseruation it is not plaine by the authour The story of Satyrus out of Ambrose proueth not directly reseruation for it is like the Christians being in daunger of shipwrack did minister the communion in the shippe not bring it with them from the shore consecrated And Satyrus being then but a nouice or Catechumein and not baptised desired the sacrament of them meaning to receiue it before his death if he sawe present daunger of drowning otherwise to tarry vntill he were admitted to it by order of the Church But this proueth nothing at all the Popishe reseruation although the fact of Satyrus was not without imperfection as greatly as it is commended of Ambrose and much lesse the Carnal presence For Satyrus did not so put his affiaunce in the sacrament that he thought it to be God but that he desired it as an helpe of his faith that he might not depart this life without the communion of the body of Christ in the sacrament The place of Chrysostome is nothing at all for reseruation where he saith that in a tumult the souldiers rushing into the Churches The most holy bloud of Christ was shed vpō their clothes For he must remēber it was on Easter day when all the people did communicate and such as came were baptised And where he saith it was Ad vesperū diei that they did enter that is in the afternoone he must wit that Chrysostome after the maner of the scripture calleth the morning before day light Vespere Sabbati therfore his collection is vaine But although it were in the afternoone what inconuenience is it if we say they spent al the forenoone in prayer fasting and hearing the worde of God and ministring baptisme which then was ministred twise a yeare at Easter at Pentecost and then in the afternoone towarde euening went to the communion Hierome reporteth of Exuperius that he caried the Lords body in a wicker basket and his bloud in a glasse What reseruation is here M. Heskins saith he did beare it about with him but Hieronyme saith not so except you meane about the Churche when he ministred the communion But here Maister Iewel hath a double blow O cunning Maister of defence For here is not onely reseruation bu◠also he calleth it in plaine wordes the body and bloud of our Lorde Maister Iewel shal not greatly feele these blowes To the reseruation I haue saide before and to the plaine calling of it body and bloud I say what other thing is it then as Maister Iewel himselfe will call it and worthily yet no transubstantiation meant by him But how will Maister Heskins warde these blowes Exuperius had no hallowed pixes nor chalices of Golde and siluer as the Papistes must haue And Exuperius ministred to the lay people in both kindes as the Papistes will not do What hath M. Heskins gayned by Exuperius But then Eusebius shall help him for in his 6. booke and 36. Chapter is declared that a certeine priest sent to Serapion beeing at the point of death a litle portiō of the Eucharistie in the night season by which it appeareth that it was reserued In deed Dionysius bishop of Alexandria writeth so vnto Fabianus Bishop of Rome But withall he sheweth that it was no publique order of the vniuersall Church but his own commandement vnto his owne Church that he might not seeme in any point to resemble the Nouatians which denied reconciliation to them that had fallen in persecution wherfore he saith that although the priest was sicke and could not come Tamen quia pręceptum fuerat a me vt lapsis in exitu nemo recōciliationis solatia denegaret maximè ijs quos priùs id rogasse constaret parum c. Yet because it had beene commanded by me that no man should denie to them that had fallen the comfort of reconciliation at their departure especially to those who were known to haue desired it before he gaue a litle of the Eucharistie c. Whiche wordes M. Heskins hath cleane left out of the text wherby the particular commandemēt of Dionyse is expressed and yet it is not proued that the Priest had the sacrament reserued but it might well be that he did then consecrate and send him parte as he should haue done if he could haue come to the sicke man himselfe for his owne weakenes Last of all he rehearseth the wordes of Cyril Ad Colosyrium I heare that they say that the mystical blessing if any remnants thereof remaine vnto the next day following is vnprofitable to sanctification But they are madd in so saying for Christe is not made an other neither shal his holy body be chaunged but the vertue of blessing and the liuely grace do alwayes remaine in him M. Heskins translateth in illo in it as though the vertue quickening grace were included in the sacrament which the author saith to remain in Christ. But touching the authoritie of this Cyrillus ad Colosyrium I must admonish the Reader that these wordes are not to be found in all the workes of Cyrillus that are extant but is only a patch cited by other men the whole epistle is not to be found So that we can neither tel whether it were writē by the ancient Cyrillus of Alexandria or by some late writer of that name nor yet what was the argumēt scope of that Epistle Neuertheles it semeth to some that he wrote against the Anthropomorphits which thought that the body of Christ was corrupted if the remnants of the sacrament were corrupted but that Cyrillus denieth because Christ is eternall incorruptible He saith not that the remnantes of the sacrament are so for that the Papistes confesse to be otherwise affirming that they ceasse to be the body bloud of Christ when the species or kinds of bread and wine are putrified or rotten But Cyril saith that vertue grace do alwayes remaine in him not in that sacrament reserued which doeth corrupt Finally he speaketh but of reseruatiō for one day to the vse of eating and not of adoration therefore he speaketh nothing against the challenge which was not simply of reseruation but of reseruing the sacramēt to be worshipped But whereas M. Heskins mainteyneth reseruation by dipping of stoales and linnen clothes in the cup he must remēber that Iulius in his decretal epistles forbiddeth that dipping as diuers counsels also do which in due place are alledged Finally Origen doth vtterly condemne that abuse of reseruation of the sacrament affirming that it is in the same case that the sacrifice of the passeouer and the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing were of which it was not lawfull to reserue
an ende of his life Euen so also he sayth of Seth and Enos with other As for the beginning of the generation of Melchizedech and the ende of his life he ouerpasseth it in silence Wherefore if the historie bee looked on he hath neither beginning of dayes nor end of life So in deede the sonne of God neither hath beginning of his being neither shall haue ending Therefore in these most great and verie diuine things was Melchizedech a figure of Christ our lord And in his priesthood which agreeth rather to man then to God our Lord Christ was an high Priest after the order of Melchizedech For Melchizedech was an high Priest of the Gentiles And our Lord Christ offered a holy and healthfull sacrifice for all men If I sayde neuer a word as I neede not to say many yet the indifferent reader would see that here is no comparison of Melchizedechs bread and wine with the sacrament of the Lordes supper Yea he would easily see that he speaketh of the sacrifice of his death which our sauiour offered for all men both Iewes and Gentiles And much more plainly by that place which M. Heskins addeth out of the first dialogue If therefore it appertaineth to Priestes to offer giftes and Christ concerning his humanitie is called a Priest he offered none other sacrifice but his owne bodie This speaketh Theodoret expressely of the true sacrifice of his death and not of the fained sacrifice of his supper nor yet of any sacrament or figure of his onely true sacrifice which the olde writers as I shewed before do often call a sacrifice oblation burnt offring c But that M. Heskins cannot gaine by the doctours wordes he will winne by reason First if wee denye that Melchizedech was a figure of Christe his Priesthood saying he was a figure onely of his eternitie then wee ioyne with Eutyches who graunted the diuinitie of Christe and denyed his humanitie vnto which his priesthood properly perteyned But who tolde M. Heskins that wee denye Melchizedech to be a figure of Christs Priesthood when wee most constantly affirme that he was a figure of his eternall Priesthood vnlesse Maister Heskins thinke the humanitie of Christe hauing once conquered death is not nowe euerlasting It is not our exposition that mainteineth the heresie of Eutyches that the nature of Christes bodie is absorpt into the diuinitie but it is your heresie of vbiquitie and carnall presence Maister Heskins that mayntaineth it most manifestly in verie deede though in wordes you will say the contrarie But Maister Heskins followeth his reason and vrgeth vs that it is the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice wherefore if Christe resemble Melchizedech in Priesthood he must resemble him in sacrifice and that is the sacrifice of breade and wine for other sacrifice wee reade none that Melchizedech offered I aunswere as wee reade of none other so wee read not in the Scripture one worde of that sacrifice of breade and wine as hath beene often declared at large And seeing the scripture expresseth not what sacrifice Melchizedech offered wee are content to be ignorant of it satisfying our selues with so much as the scripture affirmeth that Christ offering him selfe once for all on the Crosse was in the same called a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech as wee haue shewed at large before out of Hebr. 5. 7.9.10 But it is a sport to see how M Heskins skippeth to fro as it were one whipped at a stake when hee woulde reconcile his transubstantiation with this counterfet sacrifice of breade and wine Christe sacrificed in breade and wine In breade and wine I say a kinde of foode more excellent then the breade and wine that did figure it I meane with Theodoret and Hierome the true bread and wine that is the bodie and bloud of Christ that is to say no bread nor wine But if you giue him a lash on the other side and saye if Christ sacrificed not naturall bread wine then he answered not your figure he wil leap to the other side say with Cyprian Isychius that Christe offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech did and in one place he sayeth he occupyed bread and wine in his sacrifice so did he a table and a cuppe and other things but was any thing his sacrifice that he occupyed therein sauing onely that which he offered he will say no. Did he offer bread and wine hee dare not aunswer directly and so the poore man to vpholde two lyes the one contrarie to the other is miserably tormented The one and thirtieth Chapter concludeth this matter of Melchizedech by S. Augustine and Damascene S. Augustine is alledged vppon the 33 Psalme whose wordes are these The sacrifices of the Iewes were before time after the order of Aaron in offrings of beastes and that in a mysterie The sacrifice of the bodie and bloud of our Lord which the faithfull and they that haue read the Gospell do knowe was not yet which sacrifice is nowe diffused throughout all the worlde Set before your eyes therefore two sacrifices both that after the order of Aaron and this after the order of Melchizedech For it is writen the Lord hath sworne and it shall not repent him Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech Of whom is it saide thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech of our Lord Iesus christ For who was Melâ—hizedech The King of Salem And Salem was that Citie which afterward as the learned haue declared was called HierusaleÌ„ Therefore before the Iewes reigned there this Melchizedech was Priest there which is written of in Genesis the Priest of the high god He it was that mett Abraham when he deliuered Loth from the hande of his persecutors and ouerthrewe them of whom he was helde and deliuered his brother And after the deliuerie of his brother Melchizedech mett him so great was Melchizedech of whom Abraham was blessed he brought forth breade and wine and blessed Abraham And Abraham gaue him rythes See ye what he brought forth and whome he blessed And it is sayed afterwarde Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech Dauid sayed this in the spirite long after Abraham Nowe Melchizedech was in the time of Abraham Of whome sayeth he in anâ—â—her place â–ª Thou arâ— a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech 〈◊〉 of him whose sacrifice you knowe Here saith Maister Heskins is sacrifice auouched and the sacrifice of the body and bloud of our Lorde who saith nay But this is not the sacrifice of the masse but the sacrifice of CHRISTES death whereof the holy sacrament is a memoriall But Augustine saith farther The sacrifice of Aaron is taken away and them beganne the order of Melchizedech Very well but once againe this sacrifice is the sacrifice of Christes death the remembraunce whereof is celebrated in the Lordes Supper where let the Reader obserue that he doeth yet againe denie the
sacrifice of Christes passion to be a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech contrarie to the expresse worde of God affirmeth that it was after the order of Aaron saying that The sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech was onely as the Supper Here note that he maketh the sacrament more excellent then the sacrifice of Christes death by so muche as the Priesthoode and sacrifice of Melchisedech is more excellent then the sacrifice and priesthoode of Aaron But Augustine hath more yet if it will helpe vpon the same Psalme Con. 3. Before the kingdome of his father he chaunged his 〈◊〉 and left him and went his way because there was the sacrifice according to the order of Aaron And afterwarde he himselfe by his body and bloud instituted a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech Therefore he chaunged his countenance in the priesthoode and left the nation of the Iewes and came to the Gentiles By this we must needes vnderstand that Christe did institute a sacrifice of his body and bloud after the order of Melchizedech Yea verily But howe doe wee vnderstand that this was in the sacrament Therefore for any thing that is here shewed it is no slaunder that the Pope hath turned the holy sacrament into a sacrifice to obscure the glorie of Christe and his onely sacrifice once offered on the crosse For although the Fathers did sometimes call the sacrament a sacrifice yet they meant nothing but a memoriall or sacrifice of thankesgiuing for that one sacrifice offered once on the crosse for the redemption of the whole worlde Whereof none other shal be a better witnesse then Augustine himselfe and in his exposition of this selfe same Psalme Saginantur ergo illo Angeli sed semel ipsum exinaninit vt manducaret panem angelorum home formam serui accipiens in similitudinem hominum factus habitu inuentus vt homo The Angels therefore are fead with that bread meaning the diuinitie of Christe But he emptied himselfe that man might eate the bread of Angels taking the shape of a seruant beeing made like vnto men and in his habite was found as a man Humilianit se factus obediens vsque ad mortem mortem autem crucis vt iam de cruce commendarâ—tur nobis carâ— sanguis Domini 〈◊〉 sacrificium quia mutauit vultum suum coram Abimelech id est eoram regno patris He humbled himselfe and was made obedient to the death euen the death of the crosse that now the body and bloud of our Lorde might be commended to vs from the Crosse beeing the new sacrifice because he chaunged his countenaunce before Abimelech that is before the kingdome of his Father By this it is manifest that Augustine referred the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech vnto the crosse of Christ whereof we are made partakers in the holy mysteries of his blessed supper So that as well the body and bloud of our Lorde as the newe sacrifice in those mysteries are commended to vs to be participated from the crosse where they were truely and essentially offered vnto God by the eternall spirite of our sauiour Christ wherby he procured euerlasting redemption The same Augustine in his Ep. 23. to Bonifacius Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso tamen in suet 〈◊〉 non sobèrâ— per omnes paschÄ™ solennitates sed omni die populiâ— immolatur nec vbique mentitur qui interrogatus eum respondarit immolari Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem â—arum rerum quaruÌ„ sacramenta suÌ„t non habereÌ„t omnino sacramenta non essent Ex haec autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est Was not Christe once onely offered vppe by himselfe And yet in a sacrament â–ª not onely at euery solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people neither doeth he lye which being asked the question answereth that he is offered For if sacraments had not a certeine similitude of those thinges whereof they are sacramentes they should not be sacramentes at all And of this similitude oftentimes they take the names euen of the very thinges themselues Therfore as after a certeine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith What can be vttered more plainely either against the Popishe sacrifice or against their carnal presence This one place may expound whatsoeuer in Augustine or any other olde writer is spoken of the sacrifice of the Lordes supper and of the presence of Christes body and bloud therein After Augustine M. Heskins citeth Chrysostome in Mat. 26. to proue that the sacrament is now of the same force that it was when it was first ordeined by Christe at his last supper These workes are not of mans power what thinges he did then in that supper he himselfe doth nowe worke he himselfe doeth make perfect We holde the order of Ministers but it is he himselfe that doeth sanctifie and chaunge these thinges With my disciples saith he doe I keepe my Passeouer For this is the same table and none other This is in nothing lesser then that For Christ maketh not that table and some other man this but he himselfe maketh both Hieronyme followeth a vaine discourse against I wote not what Petrobrusians and Henricians that denied the body of CHRISTE to be consecrated and giuen by the priestes as it was by Christe him selfe Whome peraduenture Petrus Cluniacensis Maister Heskins Author doeth slaunder when they saide none otherwise then Chrysostome saide before and that which Maister Heskins himselfe affirmeth That Christ and not man doth consecrate But by this place also are confuted the Oecolampadians and Caluinistes if we will beleeue Maister Heskins who first rauing against Cranmer vrgeth the worde of sanctification of the bread and wine that Chrysostome vseth charging Cranmer to haue saide that the creatures of bread and wine cannot be sanctified Which no doubt that holy Martyr spake of the substance and not of the vse in the sacrament Then he snatcheth vppe Chrysostomes wordes Transmutat he doeth transmute and change them This is easily aunswered He chaungeth the vse but not the substance But for more confirmation Origen is called to witnesse Lib. 8. Cont. Celsum We obeying the creator of all thingâ—s after we haue giuen thankes for his benefites which he hath bestowed vpon vs doe eate the bread which is offered which by prayer and supplication is made into a certeine holier bodie which truly maketh them more holie which with a more sound minde do vse the same Here by Origens playne wordes the vse doth sanctifie the worthie receiuers And though you adde to Ambrose his phrase De pane fit corpus Christi of the bread is
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
is my fleshe which I will giue for the life of the worlde Thou seest howe by little and little he more and more openeth him selfe and doeth set foorth this wonderfull mysterie Hee saide hee was the liuing and quickening breade which shoulde make the partakers of it without corruption and giue them immortalitie Nowe he saith his fleshe is that breade which hee will giue for the life of the worlde and by which hee will quicken vs that are partakers of the same for truely the quickening nature of the WORD beeing ioyned to it by that vnspeakeable manner of vnion maketh it quickening and therefore this flesh doth quicken them that are partakers of it For it casteth foorth death from them and vtterly expelleth destruction Maister Heskins alledgeth two reasons to proue that Cyrillus speaketh of the sacrament and neither of both worth a strawe First bicause he calleth it a woonderfull mysterie as though the incarnation of Christ whereof he speaketh expresly were not a woonderfull mysterie Secondly By that he saith the flesh of Christe giueth life to the partakers For the proper partaking of Christes flesh is in the receiuing of this holy sacrament As though we are not partakers of Christes flesh by faith according to that saying of Augustine vpon the same place Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie Beleeue and thou hast eaten c. you see it is a poore helpe that he hath out of Cyrillus when hee speaketh neuer a woorde for his cause nor of his cause The seuenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact and Lyra. A short aunswere shall serue this Chapter these two Burgesses of the lower house being late writers speake fauourably for Maister Heskins bill But their authoritie is so small that wee make none account of their speach seeing not onely many in the lower house haue spoken against it but all the whole vpper house is manifestly contrarie vnto it And whereas hee chargeth Oecolampadius for adding this worde tantùm onely in his translation of Theophylact I doubt not but Oecolampadius followed either a truer copie or a better reason then Maister Heskins in so many additions detractions and falsifications of Doctors which hee hath vsed in this worke Finally where he chargeth the aduersaries with cauilling and slaundering when they say that Popish Priestes make God he himselfe slaundereth his aduersaries for we haue learned of their owne writers namely of S. Bonauentura that a Priest is creator sui creatori◠the creator of his creator and that Christ is his prisoner on the altar The eyght Chapter declareth by whose authoritie and power the sacrament is consecrated Christes bodie made present As though such blasphemous speaches as I haue touched imediatly before had neuer ben vttered by Papists M. Heskins stomaketh the matter rayleth throughout this Chapter against his aduersarie for charging the priests with such arrogancie as though they tooke vpon them to make god Nowe concerning the purpose of the Chapter we agree that God no man Christ and not the minister doth consecrate the sacrament and make Christes bodie and bloud to be present I might therefore passe ouer his authorities but that out of some of them he gathereth also his corporall presence transubstantiation The first is Damascen De Orth. Fid. Lib. 4. Ca. 14. If thou aske now how the bread is made the bodie of Christ and the wine and water the bloud of Christ I also answere thee The holy Ghost euer shadoweth and worketh these things aboue speech and vnderstanding The bread and wine are transsumed This place Maister Heskins noteth for a plaine place both for the presence and for transubstantiation If it were as plain as he would haue it yet is Damascen but a Burgesse of the lower house out of the compasse of the challenge But whatsoeuer his opinion was of the presence certaine it is that he knew not transubstantiation which the Greekes long after did not acknowledge And though we take the word of transuming for changing turning transmuting or transelementing which wordes the olde writers doe sometimes vse yet meane they not chaunge of one substance into another but of the nature and propertie of the foode to be chaunged from corporall to spirituall and not otherwise Next followeth Chrysostome in 2 Tim. Ho. 2. Volo quiddam c. I will adde a certeine thing plainely wonderfull and maruell ye not neither be you troubled And what is this The holy oblation whether Peter or Paul or a Priest of any maner of life do offer it is euen the same which Christ gaue vnto his disciples and which the priestes do now make This hath nothing lesse then that Why so because men do not sanctifie it but Christ which had hallowed it before For as the wordes which Christ spake are the same which the priests do now pronoūce so also is the oblation Here M. Hesk. cutteth of the taile of this sentence for Chrysostoms wordes are Ita oblatio eadem est eademque baptismi ratio est adoe omnia in fide consistunt So the oblation is the same and the same reason is of baptisme so all thinges consist in faith Marke here that M. Heskins conceleth that the change and consecration is the same that is in baptisme and the thing is receiued onely by faith as in baptisme And nothing else meaneth Chrysostome in the seconde place by M. Heskins cited Hom. 30. de prod The same Christ is nowe present which did beutifie that table hee doth also consecrate this For it is not man which by consecration doeth make the thinges set foorth on the table the bodie and bloude of our Lorde but euen Christ which was crucified for vs The wordes are spoken by the mouth of the Prieste but by the power grace of God they are consecrated This is saith hee my bodye with this worde the thinges set foorth are consecrated Here we must note that Christ maketh the bread and wine his bodie and bloude Wee acknowledge he doth so for the faith of the worthy receiuer as in the former sentence it is manifest Nowe commeth S. Ambrose De benedict Patr. c. 9. Who is then rische but he in whome is the depth of wisdome and knowledge This rich man then is the treasure of this fatte breade which who shall eate he cannot hunger This breade he gaue to his Apostles that they should deuide it to the beleeuing people And now hee giueth the same to vs which hee beeing the Priest doeth consecrate with his owne wordes This bread then is made the meate of the Sainctes Here againe M. Heskins cutteth off that which liketh him not for it followeth Possumus ipsium Dominum accipere qui suā carnem nobis dedit Sicut ipse ait ego sunt panis vitae Ille enim accipit qui scipsum probat qui autem accipit non moritur peccatoris morte quia
afterward falsely ascribed to Ambrose haue the same interpretation The other place vpon the 38. Psalme differeth not in sense That Christ is offered on earth when his bodie is offered For he speaketh but of a remembrance or commemoration of the sacrifice of Christe euen as Chrysostome and as he him selfe teacheth lib. 4. Chap. 5. de Sacram The wordes of the Priest in the celebration Fac nobis inquit haenc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi Make sayeth he this oblation vnto vs ascribed reasonable acceptable which thing is the figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ. This was the Priest wont to say in the celebration of the supper in Saint Ambrose time And againe Chap. 6. Ergo memores gloriosissimae eius passionis ab inferis resurrectionis in Caelum ascensionis offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam rationabilem hostiam incruentam hostiam hunc panem sanctum calicem vitae aeternae c. Therefore being mindfull of his most glorious passion and resurrection from hell and ascention into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudie sacrifice this holie bread and cup of aeternall life Wee see therefore that the sacrifice was a remembrance and thanksgiuing for the onely true sacrifice of Christ once offered by him selfe for all To conclude because I will omitt Bernard a late writer not to be heard in this controuersie Chrysostome in his booke de Sacerdotio lib. 3. speaketh not contrarie to him selfe in other places saying O miracle O the goodnesse of God he that sitteth aboue with his father in the same point of time is handled with the handes of all and deliuereth himselfe to them that will receiue him and imbrace him Wherefore this hyperbolical exclamation proueth no more that Christes bodie is both in heauen on earth then these words of his proue that our bodies are both in heauen earth ad Pop. Antioch Hom. 55. Morduca me dixi bibe me te sarsum habeo deorsum tibi connector I sayde eate me drinke mee I haue thee both aboue and am knitt to thee also beneath Hitherto therefore nothing is brought to proue that Christes bodie may be in more places then one The eleuenth Chapter proueth that as two bodies may be in one place so the bodie of Christ being one may be in diuerse places M. Heskins in this Chapter like a monsterous Gyant cryeth open battel against naturall Philosophie reason and thinketh he hath a sure shield to fight vnder the omnipotencie of god But for as much as the lawe of nature is the lawe and ordinance of God he doeth nothing else but set the power of God against his will and decree in making whereof did concurre his power wisdome and goodnesse God hath decreede that one body can be but in one place at one time and that two bodies cannot occupie one proper place at once nor one body without comixtion of partes be in another bodye And therefore both Cranmer and Oecolampadius haue truely sayed that it is vnpossible those thinges should be otherwise then God hath decreed them Now riseth vp this Gargantua and will proue by scripture that one bodie may be in another and two bodies in one place alledgeth the text Ioan 20. that Iesus came the dores being shutt and stoode in the middest of them and saide peace be with you and this being testifyed for a miraculous comming in of Christ proueth that he so comming in passed through dore or wall as his pleasure was to do Although the wordes of the texte 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the dores were shutt doth not inforce vs to acknowledge any miracle but that he might be let in of the porter at euen after the dores were shutt vp for feare of the Iewes soudein breaking in vppon the Disciples that were gathered together in that place yet I will willingly acknowledge a miraculous comming in of Christe but no passing through the bordes of the dore or stones of the wall but that by his diuine power he did either open the dore and shutt it immediatly after he was passed through or else at the vttermost that the substance of the dore or wall gaue place to his diuine presence and immediatly returned to his naturall state and place And whereas M. Heskins no lesse impudently then vnlearnedly doth charge Cranmer with falsifying the Scripture where he affirmeth that Christ might as well come into the house when the dore was shutt as the Apostles coulde go out of prison the dore being shutt Act. 5. he doth nothing else but bewray his great folly ioyned with no lesse malice against the trueth Cranmer was not ignorant that the Angell opened the dore to the Apostles and yet shutt it againe so close that it could not be perceiued that it had beene opened euen â—o might the Angell doe at the passage of our Sauiour Christe What absurditie or repugnance is here but in such an absurde persons eare as Heskins is that ouerthroweth all lawe order of nature to establish his brutish and monstrous errour But nowe we shall heare these monsters brought forth of the doctours which Scripture hath not and nature abhorreth And firste shal be Chrysostome Hom. de Ioan. Bapt. Sancta Maria beata Maria c. Holy Maria blessed Marie both a mother and a virgine Shee was a virgine before birth a virgine after birth I marueile at this howe of a virgine a virgine should be borne and after the birth of a virgine â–ª the mother should be a virgine Will you knowe howe he was borne of a virgine and after the birth how shee was both a mother and a virgine The dores were shutt and Iesus entred in No man doubteth but that the dores were shutt he that entred by the dores that were shutt was no phantasie he was no spirite he was verily a body For what sayd he looke and see that a spirite hath no flesh and bones as ye see mee haue He had flesh he had bones and the dores were shutt How did fleshe and bones enter when the dores were shutt The dores are shutt and hee doth enter whome wee sawe not goe in How did he go in all things are close there is no place by the which he might go in and yet he is within which entered in Thou knowest in howe it was done and doest referre it to the omnipotencie of god Giue this also to the omnipotencie of God that he was borne of a virgine In these wordes Chrysostome saith that Christe might as well bee borne of a Virgine as hee entered into the house after the doores was shut this was not without a miracle and no more was that But for two bodies in one place at one instant hee speaketh nothing as yet No more doth Hieronyme In Apol. cont Iouin Respondeant mihi c. Let them aunswere me howe
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
the body of Christe by Origens owne wordes and therefore the proclamer sayde truely that wee receiue Christe none otherwise in the sacrament then the Iewes did in Manna concerning the substaunce of the spirituall meat And Maister Heskins saith falsely That we excell the Iewes for our incorporation in Christ and therefore receiue him corporally as though the Iewes also were not incorporated into Christe and were not liuely members of his body in as great excellencie as we yea and with a prerogatiue of the first begotten and of the naturall oliue wherein wee are inferiour The place of Ambrose hee cyteth Lib. 9. cap. 1. De sacramentis Sicus verus est Deifilius Dominus noster Iesus Christus c. As our Lorde Iesus Christe is the true sonne of God not as men by grace but as a sonne of the substance of his father euen so it is true flesh which we receiue as he him selfe saith and very drinke This is noted for an other plaine place for the proclamer as though the proclamer did not graunt that we receiue the true flesh and bloud of Christe in the sacrament but spiritually and by faith not carnally nor transubstantiated But Ambrose is the best expounder of him selfe who in the 6. booke and Chap. 1. De sacramentis hath these wordes Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis sacramentum sed verae naturae gratiam virtutémque consequeris Therefore least more should say this as though there were a certaine horrour of bloud but that the grace of redemption might remaine therefore thou receiuest the sacrament truely for a similitude but thou obtainest the grace and vertue of his true nature By which Ambrose expresseth the whole substaunce of the sacrament that it is a similitude of the body and bloud of Christe but not a similitude onely but such a one as by which we receiue the grace and power of that true nature which is resembled by it This place would satisfie a sober minde but a froward heart will admit no wisedome The nineteenth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Eusebius Emiss and S. Augustine Eusebius is cyted out of Hom. 5. pasch Quia corpus assumptum c. Bicause hee would take his assumpted body from our eyes and bring it into heauen it was necessarie that in the day of his supper he should consecraâ—â— vnto vs a sacrament of his body and bloud that it might be celebrated continually by a mysterie which was offered for our price that bicause the daily and vnwearied redemption did runne for the health of all men the oblation of the redemption might be perpetuall and that eternall sacrifice should liue in memorie and that true onely and perfect sacrifice should be present in grace to be esteemed by faith not by shewe neither to be iudged by outward sight but by inward affection Wherevpon the heauenly authoritie confirmeth that my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede This sentence being directly against him as euery man that readeth it may easily perceiue he is neither ashamed to alledge it hauing nothing to gather out of it for his purpose nor yet that is worse most breastly to corrupt it by false translation and wrong distinction or pointing committing that childish sophisticatioÌ„ which is called ab accentu For where the Latine is Et perennis victima illa viueret in memoria semper prÄ™sens esset in gratia vera vnica perfecta hostia fide aestimanda non specie c. hee hath dismembred it by this translation And that perpetuall sacrifice should liue in memorie and alway be present in grace A TRVE ONE ONLY AND PERFECT SACRIFICE to be esteemed by faith and not by outward forme c. And al bicause he would not acknowledge the presence of Christ that onely true sacrifice by grace which is absent in the bodie as the purpose of Eusebius is to shewe And therfore those words that follow are to be vnderstoode by them that goe before Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie therefore departe seeing hee that is the Authour of the gift is also witnesse of the trueth For the inuisible priest with his worde by secrete power conuerteth the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie and bloud The former sentence sufficiently declareth that he speaketh of a spiritual and not a carnall conuersion because his body which is absent from vs and carried into heauen is present with vs by grace and not otherwise Saint Augustine is cyted Tr. 26. in Ioan Cum enim cibo potu c. For as much as men by meate and drinke do this desire â–ª that they should neither hunger nor thirst nothing perfourmeth this truely but this meate and drinke which maketh them of whom it is receiued immortall and incoâ—â—uptible that is the fellowship of the Saints where peace shal be full and perfect vnitie For therefore truely as the men of God haue vnderstoode it before vs our Lord Iesus Christ commended his bodie and bloud in those thinges which of many are brought to one certein thing For the one is made into one of many graynes so consisteth the other coÌ„meth into one of many grapes Because this sentence is clean contrarie to the carnal presence transubstantiation you must cal to remeÌ„brance the glose of a certeine blind Authour that there be three things in the sacrament to be considered The first the sacrament only which is a signe of an holy thing and that is the forme of bread The second the thing signified conteined that is the very bodie of christ The third is signified but not conteined that is the mysticall bodie of christ But this balde distinction is so farre of Augustines minde that he cleane ouerthroweth two partes of it First the carnall presence of Christes bodie conteined when he affirmeth that this meate maketh them of whome it is receiued immortall and incorruptible whiche are onely them that receiue it by faith for if it were conteined wicked men should also receiue it but they receiue it not therefore it is not conteined Secondly he ouerthroweth transubstantiation when he saith that Christe commended his bodie in such thinges as are made one of many as one bread of many graines and one wine of many grapes For the fourme by which Heskins meaneth the accidents of bread is made neither of graynes nor of grapes Therfore the fourme of Bread is none of those things in which Christ commended his body and bloud But when nothing is in Augustine then the collections of Prosper must helpe on this manner Hoc est quod dicimus c. This it is which we say which by al meanes we labour to approue that the sacrifice of the Church is made by two meanes and consisteth of two thinges the visible kinde of the elementes and the inuisible fleshe and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe
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
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
transmutationem aluntur ipsius incarnati Iesu Christi carnem sanguinem esse educti sumus Into this English with foysting in a parenthesis and chaunging his letter EVEN SO WE BE TAVGHT THAT THE FOODE wherewith our flesh and bloud be nourished by alteration WHEN IT IS CONSECRATED BY THE PRAYER OF HIS WORD TO BE THE FLESH AND BLOVD OF THE SAME IESVS INCARNATED In this beastly racking peruerting he hath left out thankâ—giuing not knowing wher to place it The cause of this falsification is for that he can not abide that the food after it is consecrated shuld nourish our bodies which Iustinê° doth most expresly affirme But before I proceede to his collections I will gather my selfe out of this place that which the Papistes wil not wel like of and yet although they would burst for anger thei can not auoyde but that they be necessarie collections First that there was no priuate Masse in his dayes for all that were present did communicate Secondly that the people as well as the ministers receiued in both kindes Thirdly that the things wherof they were partakers were bread wine and water which after they were consecrated were the nourishment of their bodies Now let vs heare M. Hes. collection for the reall presence First he saith not these things were signes figures tokens therefore they were none A tried argument of the authoritie of a man negatiuely Secondly he saith they were taught that by consecration they were made by the power of Gods worde the flesh and bloud of Christ that was incarnated We beleue the same likewise Thirdly M. Hes saith the real presence was as certaine to the primitiue Church as the incarnation So saith not Iustinus neither that the sacrament was the same substance of naturall flesh and bloud of Iesus that was incarnat by that diuine wonderful means by which he was incarnate and this do we most constantly beleeue And therefore here is no plaine place for the proclamer to proue the reall presence whereof Iustine speaketh none otherwise then the proclamer did speak beleeue while he liued But M. Heskins although there was neuer seene a more impudent falsifier of the Doctours sayings and meanings and euen in this place as I haue plainely discouered most lewdly corrupted the authours wordes by false translation yet he shameth not to slaunder holy and learned Cranmer of the same crime But what should an harlot do but after she hath plaied the strumpet call euery honest woman shee meeteth whore first Cranmer saith he reporteth as though Iustine should say the sacrament is but called the body of Christe This is first an intollerable lye For Cranmer saith it is called the body of Christ he saith not it is but called so that is only called so Secondly Cranmer saide out of Iustinus that these creatures after they be consecrated do nourish the bodies and are chaunged into them And therein he saith most truely and as the wordes of Iustine are and as the Latine translation is and Maister Heskins most falsely hath corrupted them as I shewed before Of which falsification being guiltie in his owne conscience he fleeth from his former Latine translation which is true in this point to the translation of Petrus Nannius a Papist which yet helpeth him not but by false pointing and displacing of the wordes Ita quoque per preces verbi illius cibum ex quo caro nostra sanguis per immutationem aluntur cum benedictus fuerit Iesu ipsius incarnati carnem sanguinem didicimus esse But the Greeke Article is so placed as it can abide no such patcherie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euen so we are taught that that foode after thankes are giuen for it by prayer of his word of which our flesh and bloud by permutation are nourished is the flesh and bloud of that Iesus which was incarnated So are the very wordes of Iustine But to helpe out the matter Ambrose is alledged Lib. 4. de sacra Cap. 5. Before it be consecrated it is bread but when the wordes of Christ are come to it it is the body of Christ. But the same Ambrose in the same booke and Chapter saith of the sacrament in the prayer of the Church Fac nobis inquit hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabileÌ„ quod est figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi Make vnto vs saith the priest this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus christ By these wordes it is manifest how Ambrose and the Church in his time tooke the breade to be the body of Christ. The like may be said of Augustine whose wordes M. Heskins cyteth De verbis Domini ser. 8. Before the wordes of Christ that which is offered is called breade when the words of Christ are spoken now it is not called breade but is called his body Who seeth not that these words are vttered by comparison it is not caled bread but his body that is it is rather called his body then bread as S. Paule saith Christe sent me not to baptise but to preach that is rather to preach then to baptise But nowe commeth in the authoritie of Alexander somtime Byshop of Rome to which I will not vouchsafe to make any answere bicause it is a meere forgerie and counterfet Epistle as all the pack of these decretall Epistles are that are feined in the name of those auncient holy Martyrs sometimes Bishops of the citie of Rome by some lewde Losel that could not write true Latine as is easie to see of all men that will take paines to read such beastly baggage I will giue you a taste of this counterfet Alexander speaking of holy water If the ashes being sprinkled with the bloud of a heifer did sanctifie the people much more shall water sprinkled with salt and hallowed with godly prayers See howe the brutish blasphemous Asse transferreth the argument of the Apostle Heb. 9. from the precious bloud of Christ to his beggerly holy water I wil therfore leaue M. Heskins rooting with his groyne in this draffe sacke and passe to the next Chapter The foure and fortieth Chapter by occasion of the wordes of Alexander treateth of the adoration and honouring of Christes body in the sacrament It is a worshipfull Alexander that gaue you the occasion of this discourse by his wordes But let the occasion goe we will looke to the matter First he rehearseth halfe a side of M. Iewels wordes against the adoration of the sacrament out of which he gathereth two arguments the one thus Christ neuer gaue coÌ„mandement to worship the sacrament ergo it is not to be done This argument he answereth is negatiue and therfore concludeth nothing But vnder correction of his great Logike when God chargeth vs to do that onely which he commaundeth an argument of negatiues of Gods commaundement concludeth al things to be vnlawfull which God hath not commaunded Hee bringeth examples
from our sight but also place it in heauen and in steede therof he leaueth the sacrament of his bodie and bloude which no man doubteth but it ought to be honoured as so high a mysterie deserueth but not as God or Christe The other saying of Eusebius which hee addeth doeth shewe howe it is to be honoured When thou commest to the reuerende altare to be satisfied with heauenly meates beholde with faith the holy bodie and bloud of thy God honour it wonder at is touch it with thy minde take it with the hande of thy heart and cheefely receiue it with the inwarde draught What can be layed more plainely for the spirituall receiuing and the like reuerence to be giuen to so holie a sacrament But because M. Heskins thinketh this saying to make more against him then for him therefore he sayeth to auoyde cauilling Eusebius proceedeth sone after in these words Sicut autem c. As any man comming to the faith of Christe before the wordes of baptisme is yet in the bands of the olde deis but when the words are spoken is foorthwith deliuered from all dregâ— of sinne So when the creatures are set vppon the holie altares to be blessed with heauenly words before they be consecrated by inuocation of the most highest name there is the substance of bread wine but after the wordes of Christ the bodie bloud of Christ. This is a plaine place for M. Iuell what else But if it be rightly vnderstood it is a plaine place against M. Hesk. for he sheweth the change or transubstantiation that is in the Lordes supper to be the same that it is in baptisme which is spirituall and not carnall and so doth verie fitly compare them together or else his similitude were to no purpose if it were not to shewe by that which is don in baptisme what is likewise done in the other sacrament M. Heskins still blattereth of a bare figure which is of vs always denyed Consequently he citeth Bernarde whose authoritie I leaue vnto him being a burgesse of the lower house in which he hath many voices as he hath neuer a one in the vpper house though he wrest their speaches most iniuriously To confirme some phrase of Bernard he rehearseth certein phrases of the old writers like to them in words but not in sense which haue bene aunswered alreadie as Hierom. ad Hed. qu. 2. Our Lord Iesus is the feaster the feast he that eateth and which is eaten Ambrose in praepara ad miss which is none of his but falsly intituled to him Thou art the Priest and the sacrifice wonderfully and vnspeakably appointed And Augustine in Psal. 33. He was borne in his owne hands But he leaueth out a worde which expoundeth both Augustine and all the rest that speake so quodam modo after a certeine manner Christ was borne in his owne hands is the feast that which is eaten the sacrifice I say quodam modo therefore not simpliciter Last of all he wil ioyne issue to subscribe on this point that the proclaimer can bring but one auncient doctor that saith the sacrament is not to be adored To whome I answer that forasmuch as in the primitiue church the opinion of transubstantiation was not knowen there neuer grew any question of the adoration of the sacrament as that Papistes nowe do vse it and commaund it The eyght and fortieth Chapter confuteth the rest of the proclaymers wordes before rehearsed against the honouring of Christ in the sacrament The words which he taketh vpon him to confute are these It is a newe deuise to worship the sacrament About three hundreth yere past Pope Honorius commaunded it to be lifted vp and the people reuerently to bowe vnto it How doth he confute these words First he saith it is no newe deuise but the contrarie that is the denying of the adoration is not past fourtie yeres old and yet he confesseth before that some infected with the heresie of Berengarius Wickliffe might whisper it in corners yet Berengarius and Wickliffe preached openly beâ—ore them Bertrame wrote a booke to Charles the great wherein he confuteth the reall presence which began in that time to be receiued of some as it seemeth vpward euen to Christ al the auncient fathers are against that carnall presence consequently against adoration But to proceede Admitting that Honorius was the first that commaunded it to be worshipped which was 300 yeres agoe yet is he elder then Oecolampadius not defamed of heresie as Oecolampadius was yes M. Hesk he is defamed of more then heresie and proued to bee an antichrist As for the continuance of 300. yeres in an errour can make no prescription against the trueth But he saith it is a fond argument of the proclaimer Because Honorius commaunded the adoration of the sacrament therefore it was neuer in vse before But if it were generally beleeued vsed in all ages before as M Hesk. would beare vs in hande what neede had Pope Honorius to commaund it He saith in like manner the fleshly sort of them dispute to mainteine their shamelesse abode with their women it is a newe deuise that priests should not marrie inuented by Vrban and Gregorie Whether M. Heskins were marryed or else had a shamelesse abode with a woman I leaue to be tryed by God the countrie in the countie of Cambridge But to the purpose I haue not heard any affirme these late Popes to be the first forbidders of marriage and therefore it is to no purpose that he citeth Syluester before them and Calixtus before him and the counterfet Canons of the Apostles before them all And yet by the prohibition of the latest Popes it is certeine that Priestes were married vntill their time And for as much as the scripture alloweth their marriage and condemneth the forbidders thereof and the eldest fathers in the primiâ—iue church confesse no lesse it is not to bee regarded although a whole hundreth Popes in a rowe did euery one forbid it The like example he bringeth of fasting in Lent decreede in the eight Toletane counsell neere 700. yeres after Christe but yet affirmed of Hierome to be a tradition of the Apostles For so they vsed to father such ceremonies and vsages as they knewe not the beginning of them vpon tradition of the Apostles neuerthelesse he cannot shewe any Pope or any councell before Honorius that did commaund adoration of the sacrament wherefore the wordes are vnconfuted vntill the contrarie can be shewed After this the Proclaimer sayth he falleth to mocking the Scholasticall doctours as S. Thomas Duns Durand Holcos and such like to make it seeme a dangerous thing to honour the sacrament for that the people cannot discerne the accidents from the bodie of Christ and so may committ idolatrie in honouring the outwarde formes in steede of Christ or if the priest do â—mitt consecration This M. Heskins calleth a mocking but he is not able to auoide it in good earnest
fiftieth Chapter sheweth the minde of Iunencus Euseb. Emissen vpon the wordes of Christ. Iuuencus a Christian Poet is cited Lib. 4. Euang. Histor. Haec vbi dicta dedit palmis sibi frangere panem c. When he had thus said he tooke bread in his handes and when he had giuen thankes he diuided it to his disciples and taught them that he deliuered vnto them his owne bodie And after that our Lorde tooke the cuppe filled with wine he sanctified it with thankesgiuing and giueth it to them to drinke and teacheth them that he hath diuided to them his bloud and saith this bloud shall remitte the sinnes of the people Drinke you this my bloud Because this Poet doeth but onely rehearse the historie in verse without any exposition and interpretation and saith no more then the Euangelistes say I will not stand vpon him onely I will note the vanitie of Maister Heskins which like a young child that findeth miracles in euerie thing he seeth still noteth a plain place for Maister Iewel a plaine place for the proclaymer when either there is in it nothing for his purpose or as it falleth out oftentimes much against him Euseb. Emissen is cited Hom. 5. Pasc. Recedat omne c. Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie depart For truely he which is the auctour of the gifte is also the witnes of the trueth For the inuisible priest by secrete power doth with his worde conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie bloud saying thus This is my bodie And the sanctification repeated take and drinke saith he this is my bloud This place hath beene often answered to be ment of a spirituall and not a carnall conuersion as diuerse other places out of the same homilie alledged by M. Hesk. himself doe proue First it foloweth immediately Ergo vt c. Therfore as at the will of our Lord sodenly commanding of nothing the height of the heauens the depths of the waters the wide places of the earth were in substantiall beeing euen so by like power in the spirituall sacramentes vertue is giuen to the word and effect to the thing Therefore how great and notable thinges the power of the Diuine blessing doeth worke and how 〈◊〉 ought not seeme to the too strange and impossible that earthly and mortall thinges are chaunged into the substance of Christ aske of thy selfe which now art borne againe into Christe Here saith M. Heskins he proueth the chaunge possible I graunt and with all sheweth what manner a chaunge it is euen such a one as is in regeneration namely spirituall The same is shewed in the other places following Non dubites quispiâ—â— c Neither let any man dout that by the wil of the Diuine power by the presence of his high maiestie the former creatures may passe into the nature of the Lordes bodie when he may see man himselfe by the workmanship of the heauenly mercie made the bodie of christ And as any man comming to the faith of Christ before the wordes of baptisme is yet in the band of the olde debt but when they are rehearsed he is forthwith deliuered from all dregges of sinnes So when the creatures are set vpon the holie altars to be blessed with heauenly wordes before they be consecrated by inuocation of the highest name there is the substance of bread and wine but after the wordes of Christe the bodie and bloud of christ And what maruell is it if those things which he could create with his word beeing created he can conuerte by his worde Yea rather it seemeth to be a lesse miracle if that which he is knowne to haue made of nothing he can now when it is made chaunge into a better thing Vpon these sayings Maister Heskins vrgeth the chaunge I acknowledge the chaunge and vrge the kinde or manner of chaunge to be spirituall according to the examples of baptisme regeneration Vnto these authorities hee annexeth a large discourse of transubstantiation and citeth for it diuers testimonies olde and newe what the olde are we will take paynes to viewe as for the younger sorte we will not sticke to leaue vnto him First Gregorie Nicene is cited Serm. Catech. de Diuin Sacram. Sicut antem qui panem videt quodammodo corpus videt humanum c. And as he that seeth bread after a certeine manner seeth a mans bodie because bread beeing in the bodie becommeth a bodie so that diuine bodie receiuing the nourishment of bread was after a certeine manner the same thing with that meate as we haue said beeing turned into the nature of it For thâ—t which is proper to all flesh we confesse to haue apperteined to him For euen that bodie was susteined with bread but that bodie because God the WORDE dwelled in it obteined Diuine dignitie Wherefore we doe nowe also rightly belieue that the bread sanctified by the worde of God is chaunged into the bodie of God the WORDE Maister Heskins after his vsuall manner translateth Quodammodo in a manner if not falsely at the least obscurely But that worde Quodammodo that is after a certeine manner looseth all the knotte of this doubt For euen as the bodie of CHRISTE was bread after a certeine manner because it was nourished with bread and bread was after a certeine manner the bodie of Christ euen so we beleeue that the sacramentall bread is after a certeine manner chaunged into the bodie of Christ that it may be the spirituall foode of our soules Ambrose is cited De his qui initian Cap. 9. Where Maister Heskins beheadeth the sentence for it is thus Prior enim â—ux quà m vmbra veritas quà m figura corpus authoris quà m manna de coelo For light is before the shadowe the trueth before the figure the bodie of the authour before manna from heauen Which wordes we may vnderstand howe he taketh the bodie of Christe that sayeth it was before manna namely for the effecte of his death and sacrifice perfourmed by his bodie But M. Heskins beginneth at these wordes Forte dicat c. Peraduenture thou mayst say I see another thing How doest thou assure me that I take the bodie of Christ And this remaineth for vs to proue Howe many examples therefore doe we vse that we may proue this not to be that which nature hath formed it but which the blessing hath consecrated and that there is greater force of blessing then of nature for by blessing nature it selfe is chaunged Moses helde a rodde hee cast it doâ—ne and it was made a serpent Againe he tooke the serpent by the tayle and it reâ—â—rueth into the nature of the rodde Thou seest therefore by the prophets grace the nature of the serpent and of the rodde to 〈◊〉 beene twise changed And after many exaÌ„ples Quod si c. If then the benediction of man was of so great power that is chaunged nature what say we of the very diuine consecration where the very wordes of our Lorde
ignorance which knoweth not the vertue and dignitie thereof which knoweth not that this bodie and bloud is according to the trueth but receiueth the mysteries and knoweth not the vertue of the mysteries Vnto whome Salomon sayth or rather the spirite which is in him When thou sittest to eat with a Prince attende diligently what things are set before thee He also compelling openly and constraining him that is ignorant to adde a fifth parte For this fifth parte being added maketh vs to vnderstande the diuine mysteries intelligibly Nowe what the fifth parte is the wordes of the Law giuer may teache thee For he sayth he shall add a fifth parte with that he hath eaten And howe can a man adde a fifth parte of that which he hath alreadie eaten and consumed For he biddeth not another thing or from any other where But a fifth parte to be added of it or with it or as the 70. interprete vpon it Then the fifth parte of it vpon it is the worde which was vttered by Christ him selfe vpon the Lordes mysterie For that being added deliuereth and remoueth vs from ignorance as to thinke any thing carnall or earthly of those holie things but decreeth that those thinges shoulde bee taken diuinely spiritually which is properly called the fifth part for the diuine spirite which is in vs and the worde which he deliuered doth sett in order the senses that are in vs and doth not onely bring foorth our taste vnto mysterie but also our hearing sight and touching smelling so that of these things which are verie high we do suspect nothing that is neare to lesse reason or weake vnderstanding This place M. Hesk. noteth that the mysteries are called a most holy thing and a sacrifice We confesse it is a most holy thing a sacrifice of thanksgiuing for so the fathers meant and not a propitiatorie sacrifice Moreouer he noteth that it is called the verie bodie and bloud in verie deede Although the wordes of the author sounde not so roundly yet let that be graunted also what is then the conclusion Marie then haue ye a plaine place for the proclaimer issue ioyned thereupon that no one writer of like auncientie sayth it is not the verie bodie For thè plainesse of the place I wish always that the author may be his own expositor First where he sayth that the fifth part added maketh vs to vnderstand the mysteries intelligibly that is as he vseth the terme spiritually mystically although M. Hesk. translate intelligibiliter easily Secondly where he sayth wee must thinke nothing carnally or earthly of the holy things and that the worde of God decreeth that they should be taken diuinely and spiritually As for the issue it was ioyned tryed in the one and twentieth Chapter of the first booke But wee must heare what Hesychius sayth further Quicunque ergo sanctificata c. Whosoeuer therfore shal eat of the things sanctified by ignorance not knowing their vertue at we haue saide shall adde a fifth parte of it vpon it and giue it to the Priest into the sanctuarie For it behoueth the sanctification of the mysticall sacrifice and the translation or commutation from thinges sensible to things intelligible to be giuen to Christ which is the true Priest that is to graunt and impute to him the miracle of them because that by his power and the worde vttered by him those things that are seene are as surely sanctified as they exceede all sense of the flesh Out of these words M. Hesk. would proue transubstantiation because he saith there is a translation or cōmutation from things sensible to intelligible that is from bread which is perceiued by the senses to the body of Christ which in this manner is not perceiued by senses But M. Hesk. must proue the bodie of Christe to bee no sensible thing but a thing which may be perceiued by vnderstanding only or else his exposition wil not stand for here is a diuision exposition of things sensible intelligible which is a plaine ouerthrow of popish transubstantiatiō carnall presence for that wherunto the things sensible are changed is not a sensible thing as the naturall bodie of Christ is but they are changed into things intelligible ▪ that is which may only by vnderstanding be conceiued so is the spiritual feeding of our soules by faith with the verie body bloud of christ Next Augustin is cited in Ps. 33 a place which hath ben cited answered more then once alreadie Et ferebatur c. And he was carried in his own bāds Brethren how could this be true in a man c. I will remit the reader to the 10. Chap. of this second book where it is answered by Aug. him self in the same exposition Christ caried himself saith Aug. in his hands quodam modo after a certaine manner but not simply Maister Hesk. iangling of an onely figure hath bene often reproued wee make not the sacrament such an onely figure as Dauid might carrie in his handes of him selfe for Dauid could make no sacrament of him selfe but such a figure as is a diuine and heauenly worke to giue in deede that it representeth in signe An other place of Augustine is cyted De Trin. lib. 3. cap. 4. but truncately as he termeth it for he neither alledgeth the heade nor the feete by which the scope of Augustines wordes might be perceiued But the whole sentence is this Si ergo Apostolus Paulus c. If therefore the Apostle Paule although hee did yet carrie the burthen of his body which is corrupted and presseth downe the soule although he did as yet see but in part and in a darke speach desiring to be dissolued and to bee with Christ groning in himself for the adoption wayting for the redēption of his body Could neuerthelesse preach our Lord Iesus Christ by signifying otherwise by his tong otherwise by his Epistle otherwise by the sacrament of his body bloud for neither his tong nor the parchments nor the ynke nor the signifying sounds vttered with his tong nor the signes of the letters written in skinnes do we call the body and bloud of Christ but only that which being taken of the fruits of the earth being consecrated with mysticall prayer we do rightly receiue vnto spiritual health in remembrance of our Lords suffring for vs which when it is brought by the hands of mē to that visible forme it is not sanctified that it shuld be so great a sacramēt but by the spirit of god working inuisibly whē God worketh al these things which in that work are done by corporall motions mouing first the inuisible parts of his ministers either the soules of men or of secret spirits that are subiectes seruing him what maruel is it if also in the creature of heauen earth the sea al the ayre God maketh what he wil both sensible and inuisible things to set forth him selfe in them as he him selfe knoweth it shuld
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
Euen as the olde Testament had sacrifices and bloud so hath the newe namely the body and bloud of our Lorde Nowe he did not say These are the signes of my body and my bloud but these thinges be my body and bloud Therefore we must not looke to the nature of those things that are set foorth but to the vertue of them For as he did supernaturally deifie if I may so speake his assumpted flesh so doth he also vnspeakably transmute these thinges into the same his quickening body and into his precious bloud and into the grace of them And the bread hath a certaine similitude vnto the body and wine to bloud For both the bread and body are earthly but the wine and the bloud are airie and hote And as bread doth comfort so the body of Christe doth the same and much more it sanctifieth both the body and the soule And as the wine doth make glad so the bloud of Christ doth the same and moreouer is made a defence Although the chiefest partes of this place are answered in the 17. Chapter of the first booke and in the 51. Chap. of this second booke yet as M. Hes. gathereth here two other matters so I wil make answere to them First he saith That the figuratiue glose of the sacrameÌ„taries is flatly denied But by what words I pray you â–ª Marrie where he saith Christ saide not these be signes of my body and bloud but these are my body and bloud if this be a flat deniall of a figure bicause Christe saide not so then is it likewise in these speaches he saide not the rocke was a signe of Christe but the rocke was Christe the Lambe is the Passeouer c. Euthymius meaneth not to exclude all figures from the saying of Christ but to shew that the sacrament is not a bare naked and vaine signe but a true signe of the very body and bloud of Christe giuen to the faythfull in the administration of the supper The second matter that Maister Heskins noteth is of the vnspeakable transmutation and that must needes bee meant of transubstantiation of the breade and wine into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christe by this reason there be foure thinges called the bodie of Christ. 1. The figure 2. The Church 3. The merite fruite or vertue of his passion 4. And his bodie naturall but it can not be into the figure nor into the Churche Nor into the spirituall bodie of Christe I meane the merite vertue and grace of Christes passion Ergo it must needes be spoken of the naturall bodie of Christ. But vouchsafe gentle Reader to runne ouer once againe these wordes of Euthymius which in Latine are these Ita hec ineffabiliter transmutaâ— in ipsum vinificâ—â—â— corpus in ipsius prÄ™ciosum sanguinem siâ—on in gratiam ipso 〈◊〉 Euen so he doth vnspeakably transmute and change thesâ— thinges into the same his quickening bodie and into his owne precious bloud and into the grace of them Now tell me whether M. Heskins doth flatly denie that which Euthymius doeth flatly affirme that the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of the bodie and bloud of Christ By whiche words he doth sufficiently expound what kind of change he meaneth of them into the bodie and bloud of Christ not a corporall but a spirituall transmutation To the rest of the sentence which is a good exposition of the former parte shewing both the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament and for what cause they are vsed to represent the bodie and bloud of Christe namely for the similitude they haue vnto the bodie and bloud of Christ Maister Heskins sayeth nothing But let the reader weigh it well and he shall see it cleane contrarie both to transubstantiation and the carnall presence Nowe we come to Isodorus whom he confesseth to be somewhat out of the compasse of the challenge and his wordes De Offi. Eccle. Lib. 18. are these Sacrificium c. The sacrifice that is offered of the Christians vnto God Christe our God and Maister did first institute when he commended to his Apostles his bodie and his bloud before he was betrayed as it is read in the Gospel Iesus tooke bread and the cuppe and blessing them gaue vnto them In this place is nothing for the carnall presence but that Isydore calleth the sacrament the bodie and bloud of Christ which we also do and acknowledg to be so rightly called And Maister Heskins can conclude nothing but vpon a negatiue he saith not he gaue a figure so may I conclude he saith not he gaue his naturall body and no figure After this he reasoneth as fondely of Christes blessing of the bread which although the Euangelistes do expound to be giuing of thanks yet admit blessing to signifie consecration and what hath he gayned Forsooth Christ wold not haue blessed it to make but a figure still he playeth the foole with that bable but a figure onely a figure a bare figure which we vtterly doe forsake But toward the ende of the Chapter he falleth to gathering his voyces and affirmeth that none of the olde fathers cal the sacrament a figure except Tertullian onely wherein he lyeth impudently for beside Ambrose and Augustine which both vse the very worde figure we haue shewed in due places that both they in a manner al the rest of the fathers haue either written plainely against the carnall presence or else nothing for it As for his last challenge that all the protestants must bring forth when any countrie did professe the same religion that is now preached is vaine and hath beene sufficiently aunswered in other treatises It is certein that all nations that were conuerted by the Apostles before they were corrupted by heresie and Antechristianitie professed the same religion that we doe As for the alterations in King Henries time King Edwardes and the Queenes Maiesties that now is it is easie to answere King Henrie began the worke whiche King Edwarde finished and the Queene repayred and vpholdeth in spight of the diuel and the Pope As for the consent and peace of the Popishe Church it proueth nothing but that the diuell had then all thinges at his will and therefore might sleepe on both sides but now hee is disturbed of possession of the house nowe he stormeth and of Robin good fellowe which he was in the Popishe time is become playne Sathan the Diuell The nine fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the same text by the fathers of the latter days first Damascen Haymo Before M. Heskins begin his pretended exposition he chargeth Luther to be a proude contemner of the fathers who reuerenced them as much as it was meet they should be reuerenced although he preferred one authoritie of scripture before a thouâ—â—nd Cyprians Augustines Next to Luther he rayleth on the bishop of Sarum whoÌ„ he calleth the proclaymer charging him with mocking of the holie fathers whereof some he saith be
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
nothing of the institution of the sacrament bicause hee spake of it most plentifully in this Chapter by Augustines iudgement Ioannes c. Iohn saide nothing in this place of the body and bloud of our Lord but plainely in an other place he testifieth that our Lord spake of them most plentifully Here he will haue vs note that Augustine calleth it not a signe or figure but plainly the body and bloud of Christ therefore it is not a figure or signe By the same reason he may say Augustine calleth it not a sacrament therefore it is no sacrament But Christ him selfe saith Not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer In which wordes M. Heskins noteth two thinges The first that Manna is a figure of Christe in the sacrament for proofe of which he sendeth vs backe to the 4.5.6.7.8.9 10. Chapters of this booke The second is the excellencie of the body of Christ in the sacrament aboue Manna the eaters whereof are dead but the eaters of the body of Christe in the sacrament shall liue for euer M. Heskins saith he wot not what for if you aske him whether all they that eat the body of Christ in the sacrament shall liue eternally he will say no. For wicked men as he saith eate it which shall not liue eternally Againe if you aske him whether al they that did eat Manna are dead he will say no. For though they be dead in body yet bicause many did eate Christ spiritually by faith they shall liue for euer You see what pith is in his reason and substance in his doctrine But in very deede Christe compareth his flesh with Manna as it was a corporall foode only and so all that did eate it are dead but all they that eat the flesh of Christe which is eternall life shall liue eternally for though they dye corporally yet will be raise them vp in the last day And whereas Maister Heskins voucheth S. Augustine to warrant De vtilita poenit Manna de coelo c. I must send the reader to the eight Chapter of this booke where that authoritie is cited and answered to be flat contrarie to M. Heskins Likewise the sentence of Cyprian de Coen Dom. Coena disposita c. is handled in the first booke Chapter 17. and the other beginning Significata in Lib. 1. Cap. 39. The saying of Ambrose Lib. 4. de sacra Cap. 5. is also against Maister Heskins as we shall plainely see Ipse Dominus c. The Lorde Iesus him selfe testifieth vnto vs that wee receiue his body and bloud ought we to doubt of his fidelitie and testification Nowe returne with me to my proposition It was truely a great and a venerable thing that he rayned Manna to the Iewes from heauen But vnderstand which is the greater Manna from heauen or the body of Christe The body of Christe truely who is the maker of heauen Further he that hath eaten Manna hath dyed but he that shall eate this body it shall be made to him remission of sinnes and he shall not dye for euer By the effectes of the sacrament which are remissioÌ„ of sinnes eternal life M. Hes. saith the excellencie thereof is proued aboue Manna I answere Ambrose folowing our sauiour Christ doth not compare Manna the sacrament with our sacrament but Manna the corporall foode with the body of Christ the heauenly substance of our sacrament so it is more excellent without comparison But Maister Heskins skippeth ouer with a drye foote that Ambrose saith Whosoeuer shall eate of this body it shall be made to him remission of sinnes and he shall not not die for euer by which words it is euident that no wicked man eateth this body but they only which eat it spiritually by faith An other place of Ambrose hee citeth De myster initiand Cap. 9. Considera nunc c. Consider nowe whether is better the bread of Angels or the flesh of Christ which truly is the body of life That Manna was from heauen this aboue heauen that of heauen this of the Lorde of heauens that subiect to corruption if it were kept vntill the next day this farre from all corruption which who so euer shall taste religiously he can feele no corruption The water did satisfie them for an houre the bloud doth wash thee for euer The Iewe drank and thirsteth when thou hast drâ—nke thou canst not thirst And that was in a shaddowe this in the trueth And after a fewe wordes he saith Thou hast knowne better thinges for light is better then a shaddowe the trueth then a figure the body of the Authour then Manna from heauen This place of Ambrose vtterly denieth the body of Christ to be receiued of the wicked which perish and so consequently denyeth it to be corporally present But least we should obiect that Ambrose speaketh not of the sacrament he addeth a long discourse following immediatly Forte dicaâ— c. which bicause it is contained in the 51. Chapter of the second booke I will send the reader thither where he shall see it aunswered by Ambrose him selfe and in the same place and in the tenth Chapter of the second booke where some part of it is touched For it were in vaine to trouble the reader with one thing so often as M. Heskins listeth to repeat it The fifteenth Chapter prouing all our sacraments generally to be more excellent then the sacraments of Moses First baptisme in respect of The noble presence of God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost must bring with it some more noble gift then a bare signe or token See howe this impudent beast would make Popish fooles beleeue that we teach baptisme to be nothing else but a bare signe or token We thinke and speake of it as honourably as the scripture teacheth vs Let the forme of baptisme vsed in the Church of England testifie whether we make it nothing but a bare signe or token Let our catechismies of al sorts beare witnesse of the same But nothing will stop a slanderous mouth Yet to aunswere the title of that Chapter S. Augustine is cited contra Faust. lib. 19. cap. 13. Prima sacrameÌ„ta c. The first sacraments which were obserued celebrated by the lawe were the foreshewing of Christ that was to come which when he had fulfilled by his coÌ„ming they were taken away therfore they were taken away bicause they were fulfilled For he came not to breake the law but to fulfill it And other are instituted greater in power better in profite easier to be done fewer in number Maister Heskins asketh wherein bee they greater in power but in this that the sacramenets of the olde lawe had no power but to signifie onely oures not onely to signifie but also to giue that they signifie And I will aske him seeing he maketh the sacraments instruments of Gods grace by what instrument did they receiue the grace 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
the sacrament was ministred therefore one Priest did not eat vp all alone in Chrysostomes time To the saying of Ambrose which the Bishop alledgeth in 1 Cor. 11. Inuicem expectaâ—â— c. Ad inuicem expectandum dicit vt multorum oblatio simul celebratur vt omnibus ministretur He sayeth they ought to tarie one for another that the oblation of many might bee celebrated together and that it might be ministred vnto them all M. Heskins aunswereth that this doctour doth onely reproue their want of deuotion which is false for he doth also shewe that all ought to communicate together or else it is not to eat the Lordes supper vppon which wordes of the Apostle he sayeth also Murius enim oblatum tosius populi sit quia in vno paene omnes significantur per id quod enim vnum sumus de vno paene omnes nâ—c sumere oportet For the gift which is offered belongeth to all the people because they are all signified in one bread for in that wee are one we ought to receiue all of one bread If al must then one ought not alone As for that balde shift hee flyeth vnto that all priestes in seuerall places communicate together is too bad for a begger to vse for so might the Corinthians whome the Apostle reproueth for not tarying one for another say they communicated with them whome they left out and with al Christians in the worlde But now M. Heskins with full sayle in rayling seas inueigheth against the proclaimer for falsifying wrong translating of Leo when hee doth not translate him at all but onely doth gather the summe of his saying in fewe wordes and that truely though hee name neither Masse nor sacrifice which are in the saying of Leo which how little it maketh either for the popish Masse or for the sacrifice propitiatorie or finally for the priuate Masse I desire the reader to returne to the 32. Chapter of this booke where he shall finde the place at large set downe and vrged which therefore I thought it in vaine to repeat in this Chapter After this hee defendeth that by the Masse booke they are not bounde to haue a communion but one priest may receiue alone And whereas the Bishop rehearseth diuerse exhortations to prayer vsed in the Masse as Oremus let vs praye Orate pro me fratres sorores pray for me brethren and sisters c. And after the Agnus Dei haec sacro sancta c. This holie commixtion and consecration of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ be vnto mee to all that receiue it health of mind bodie All which sayings import a number present the last a number receiuing whereas in the priuate Masse there is neuer a brother or sister present many times but one sorie boy that helpeth the priest to Masse though they be present yet vnderstaÌ„d they not that they are bidden to pray for the priest when he turneth about Maister Hesk. trifleth vpon the former prayers separating them from the last and affirming that they may pray together though they do not receiue together For he saith there be two communions in the Masse beside the receiuing and therfore-belike that is not needefull the one of prayer the other of sacrifice and as for the last prayer for them that receiue is not ment onely of them that receiue in the church at that time but for all receiuers of all places and times when and wheresoeuer But what reason hath he to persuade vs that those brethren sisterne whome the priest firste exhorteth to pray for him that their sacrifice might be acceptable to God are not the same which ought to receiue with him neuerthelesse in the ende supposing the priestes prayeth with limitation of time and place he sayth it is no reason that if the people will not receiue the priest should not ye as verily because Christe instituted a communion of many participantes in one time and place and not one priests breakefast in a corner by him selfe Againe the wordes of the Masse Omnibus sumentibus to all which do receiue and quae sumpsimus which wee haue receiued doe proue a number of receiuers and which haue receiued at thaâ— time and in that place or else the Priest should saye to mee which receiue it and which I haue receiued And whereas Maister Heskins chargeth the proclaimer for adding the worde Consecration which is not in their Masse booke I confesse I knowe not whether it be in all coppies omitted but I am persuaded the bishop had some ground of his saying or else it might be the faulte of the Printer But whereas the proclaimer alledgeth the Canons of the Apostles and decrees of the bishops of Rome Maister Heskins sayth as odious as the Popes be to him faine he is to praye ayde of them But he is altogether deceiued God be thanked the holy scriptures are sufficient for vs both to proue al trueth and to disproue all errours But if either counsels or Popes decrees be alledged it is to beat downe the Papistes with their owne weapons and to cast their owne doung in their owne faces as the Prophet sayeth But let vs heare the Canon of the Apostles Can. 9. Fideles c. The faithfull which come to the Church and heare the Scriptures and receiue not the holye communion let them be excommunicated as men that disquiet the church Here he doth most impudently charge the proclaimer with falsification which he himself committeth alledging it not out of the booke of Canons but out of the Popes dirtie decrees Omnes fideles c. All Christian men that in the solemne seruice come together to the church let them heare the scriptures of the Apostles the Gospell And such as continue not in prayer vntill masse be all done nor do receiue the holie communion it is meete they be excommunicated as such as moue disquietnesse to the church but that the learned reader may see how syncerely the bishop hath dealt how falsly Hesk. belyeth him I wil set down the Canon in Greek as it was firste written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the faithfull or Christians which enter into the church and heare the Scriptures but tarrie not out the prayer the holie coÌ„munion or participation ought to be separated as causers of disorder in the Church Here you see no mention of Masse at all And if any ignorant papist dare not trust my translation out of Greeke let him vnderstand that in the book of councels he shal find two translations of this the rest of those Canons called the Canons of the Apostles of which the bishop hath followed the one but Hesk. neither of both for as I said before there is no mention of the Masse in any of them Therfore what is the falsification committed in the Popes lawe out of which he citeth it how honestly in so doing reprouing the bishop for following the trueth let the readers iudge But
citeth them thus Qui acceperit corpus sanguinem Domini indigne reus erit corporis sanguinis Domini Wheras the words of Hierome be Qui acceperit corpus sanguinem Christi indignè iudicium sibi sumis bibit Hee that shall receiue the body and bloud of Christe vnworthily receiueth and drinketh iudgement to him selfe To aunswere to the iudgement of GOD which hee saide did hang ouer him that after hee is fed with the body and bloud of Christe declineth to vices not meaning wicked reprobates but Gods elect children whiche are sometimes ingratefull to GOD for his mercies and fall into grieuous sinnes but yet by Gods grace rise againe as the wordes immediatly following do most plainly declare Et electos Israel impediuit Impedumtur nunc electo Ecclesiae si ne ipsi quoque sacerdotes innocenter haec sacramenta percipiunt And hee hindered the elect of Israel The elect of the Church are nowe also hindered if the Priestes them selues doe not receiue these sacraments innocently In which wordes he sheweth the cause that many of the elect do decline to vices after the sacrament receiued euen by the euill example of the Priestes and therefore worthily are to be awaked out of the sleepe of sinne and securitie by this sentence of Paul. Nowe whereas M. Hes. excuseth S. Hierome for altering the words of Paule and in steede of the bread and the cup placing the body and bloud of Christe it is nothing so needfull as that he should render a reason why hee doth him selfe alter the words of Hierome except hee thinke he may be as bold to chaunge the wordes of Hierome as Hierome was to chaunge the words of Paule Although M. Hes. is lesse to blame in this place where he chaungeth the words without any great alteration of the sense then in almost an hundreth places beside where hee falsifieth the wordes and peruerteth the meaning also The eight and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by Chrysostome and S. Augustine Chrysostome is cited Hom. 45. in Ioan. Qui enim manducat c. For he that eateth and drinketh the bloud of our Lord vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to him selfe For if they which defile the kings purple are none otherwise punished then they which rent it what maruell if they which receiue the body of Christ in an vncleane conscience suffer the same punishment that they did which fastened him with nailes to the crosse Two things M. Hes. noteth out of these words one that the body of Christ is receiued in the sacrament the other that euill men receiue the sacrament Concerning the first there is no doubt but that the bodie of Christ is receiued in the sacrament after a spirituall manner of faith and touching the latter this place proueth not that wicked men receiue the body of Christ with their mouthes wherin is the controuersie for neither doth Chrysost. here speake of reprobates but of the faithfull that were sinners which receiued Christes bodie in an vncleane conscience not carnally with their mouthes But admitte he did speake of reprobates and wicked persons yet he speaketh of the sacramentes that are called the bodie and bloud of Christ and not of the natural bodie and bloud of Christ and therefore he vseth the similitude of the Kinges purple whereunto he compareth the sacrament For euen as he that abuseth by rending or defyling the Kings purple robe though he touch not his person yet is he punished as a traitour so he that abuseth the sacrament either as an open contemner or as a prophane receiuer is guiltie of the bodie and bloud of christ And to put the matter out of question he faith not three lines before speaking of the bloud of Christ Qui huius sanguinis sunt participes cum Angelis Archangelis supernis virtutibus commorantur ipsam regiam Christi stolam induti spiritualibus armis muniti sed nihil dixi immo ipsum induti sunt regem They that are partakers of this bloud do dwell with Angels Archangels and the high powers hauing put on the very royall robe of Christ being armed with spiritual armour but I haue said nothing yea they haue put on the King himselfe By these words it is plaine that euerie one that is partaker of the sacrament is not partaker of the bloud of Christ. But Maister Heskins will bring forth other places of Chrysostome wherein he doeth plainely affirme that Iudas the traitour did receiue the bodie of Christ with the other Apostles But suspend thy iudgement gentle Reader vntill thou haue read his places The first is Hom. â—0 de proditione Iuda Cum manducarent biberent c. When they did eate and drinke Iesus tooke bread and brake it and saide This is my bodie They that be consecrated to the diuine mysteries knowe what I speake And againe he tooke the cup and saide This is my bloud and Iudas was present when Christ spake these wordes This is my bloud Say Iudas whom hast thou solde for thirty pence Is this the bloud for which thou hast made a bargaine before with the Pharisees O the mercie of Christ O the madnesse of Iudas He bargained that he might sell him for thirtie pence and Christ offered him the bloud which he hath solde that he might haue forgiuenesse of sinnes if he would not haue bene vngodly For Iudas was present and was partaker of that sacrifice Here we see plainely that Christ offered his bloud to Iudas that he might haue remission of sinnes but no worde that Iudas receiued the bloud of christ It is saide that Iudas was partaker of that sacrifice that is of the outwarde sacrament for so Chrysostome often calleth it but not of the bodie and bloud of christ And whereas Maister Heskins noteth that because Christ offred the same bloud that Iudas solde therfore the sacrament is the naturall bloud of Christ it is a most friuolous reason For euerie childe vnderstandeth the selling of Christes bloud is a figure of betraying Christ euen as the bloud whiche he offered is a figure of that which was betrayed and so the reason maketh altogether against him But Chrysostome hath other wordes in the same sermon Nullus igitur fictus accedat c. Therefore let no feigned person come Let none be so bolde with a counterfet mind to come neere so great mysteries least he be condemned deserue sentence and suffer that which Iudas suffered For after the partaking of the table the diuell entred into him not because he despised the Lordes bodie but because the impudencie of Iudas and the maliciousnesse of his minde caused that the aduersarie dwelled in him By these words M.H. would proue that the Lords body had entred into Iudas before the diuel but the contrarie may more probably be gathered for Chrysost. answereth a secret obiection that might be made vpon the appellation of the sacrament to be the bodie of christ It might seeme the
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
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
as good reasons as that ▪ comon iest The staffe standeth in the corner therefore the good man is not at home As for the saying of Origen we receiue it willingly for hee speaketh of such receiuers as Saint Paule doth that is not wicked and reprobate persons but such as for their offences were chastened of the Lord that they might not be condemned with the worlde But he will presse vs with a more vehement place of Origen Hom. 13. in 25. Exod. Volo vos admonere c. I will admonish you with the examples of our own religion You that are wont to be present at the diuine mysteries doe knowe howe you receiue the Lords bodie you giue heede with all warinesse and reuerence that no little portion of it should fall downe that no parte of the consecrated gift should fall away for you beleeue your selues to be guiltie and you beleeue rightly if any of it should fall from you through negligence If then you vse so great warinesse about the conseruing of his bodie and worthily do vse it howe do you thinke it is lesse offence to haue neglected the worde of God then his bodie Maister Heskins noteth two things in this sentence First a playne saying for the proclaimer that without mention of figure signe or sacramentall bread hee sayeth the people receiued the bodie of Christe Secondly that he commendeth the reuerend vsage of the same Concerning the first there is expresse mention of the Diuine mysteries and not that onely but then in that he calleth the sacrament the bodie of Christe it appeareth both that there is bread and that it is not so his bodie as the Papistes do deeme For whereof be those litle portions that may fall away partes of the breade or of the bodie of Christe I thinke he is not so madde to say that peeces may fall off from Christes holy and naturall bodie Then it remaineth that they bee peeces or crommes of breade that may fall away And seeing that whereof peeces may fall away is called the bodye of Christe it is manifest that hee meaneth not the naturall bodie of Christe to be corporally present from which no peeces can fall away Finally seeing Origen maketh it as great a fault to neglect the worde of God as to neglect the sacrament it followeth that Christe is none otherwise present in the sacrament then in his worde that is spiritually and after an heauenly manner As for the other matter that Origen alloweth the reuerence of the people in handling the sacrament we also do allowe the same so farre as neither idolatrie nor superstition be mainteined And whereas he raileth against vs for our vsage of that breade and wine which remaineth after the ministration of the communion he sheweth his wisedome and charitie For that which remaineth on the table when the ministration is ended is no more the sacrament then it was before the ministration began and therefore may be vsed as all other bread whatsoeuer the Popes decrees are to the contrarie Now let vs heare what he can say out of S. Ambrose against vs He citeth him in 1. Cor. 11. Vt verum probaret c. That he might proue that there is a iudgement to come of them which receiue the Lords bodie he doth nowe shewe a certeine image of the iudgement vppon them which vnaduisedly had receiued the bodie of our Lord while they were punished with feuers and infirmities and many dyed that by them the rest might learne and being terrified by the example of a fewe they might be reformed knowing that to receiue the bodie of our Lorde negligently is not left vnpunished but if his punishment be here deferred that he shal be more grieuously handled hereafter because he hath contemned the example Here againe M. Heskins chargeth Ambrose to saye that the sacrament is the naturall bodie of Christe and that it hath bene receiued of euil men when hee sayeth neither of both for he speaketh of them that were faithfull and that might bee reformed whereas the wicked reprobates be vncurable And as for the carnal manner of presence howe farre he was from it let his owne wordes in the same place declare Vppon this texte You shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quę pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lord being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking we do signifie his fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs And in the same place a little after Testamentum ergo sanguine constitutum est quia beneficij Diuini sanguis testis est in cuius typum nos calicem mysticum sanguinis ad tuitionem corporis animae nostrę percipimus The testament therefore is established by bloud because his bloud is a witnesse of the diuine benefite in figure of whose bloude wee doe receiue the mysticall cuppe to the preseruation both of our bodie and of our soule These sentences are plaine to declare to any man that wil be satisfied with reason that this writer acknowledged not a carnall but a spirituall manner of presence But Maister Heskins will vrge vs with another place that followeth Deuoto animo cum timore accedendum ad communionem docet vt sciat mens reuerentiam se debere ei ad cuius corpus sumendum accedit He teacheth vs to come to the communion with a deuoute minde and with feare that the minde may knowe that it oweth reuerence to him whose bodie it commeth to receiue Maister Heskins sayeth here be plaine termes for the proclaimer in deede I woulde wish no playner for the spirituall manner of presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament because this author sayeth the minde must yeeld reuerence to him whose body it cōmeth to receiue If the minde receiue the body of Christ it must needs be spiritually for the minde can receiue nothing corporally And there followe as plaine termes in the next sentence immediatly Hoc enim apud se debet iudicare quia Dominus est cuius in mysterio sanguinem petat qui est testis beneficij Dei. For this it ought to consider with it selfe that it is the Lorde whose blood it drinketh in a mysterie which blood is a witnesse of the benefite of God. In the former sentence the minde receiued the body of Christ now in this it drinketh the blood of Christ in a mystery which is a witnesse or assuraunce of the benefite of God namely the redemption of the world by the blood of his onely sonne our Lorde Iesus Christ. The eight and fiftie chapter endeth the exposition of the same text by Theophylact and Anselme Theophylact saith nothing but of the temporall punishment that God layeth vppon the contemners of his mysterie Anselme borrowed his wordes of Ambrose cited in the last chapter And both Theophylact and Anselme though great
should sleepe with thee in the darke like blinde men And if any lay men or perhaps deuout we men through ignorance or simplicitye doe so for the honour of the Martyrs of whome we may truly say I confesse they haue a zeale but not according to knowledge what leesest thou thereby By these words you may see howe this custome came vp namelye of superstition and ignorance by Hieromes owne confession although hee was more readie to excuse it then to reforme it as his duetie had beene After some rayling against our grosse vnreasonable and vnnaturall heresies as he calleth them hee returneth to two other exceptions the one of prayers made to saintes vsed at the communion the other of prayer for the deade For proofe of the first hee citeth the liturgies falsely intituled to Basill and Chrisostom which the worlde knoweth are of a much later stampe the one being vnknowen to Gregorie Nazianzen that wrote Basils life and commended his actes the other praying for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius whiche were sixe hundreth yeares after Chrisostome was deade After these he citeth the authorities of Chrisostome Augustine that mention was made of the saintes and martires at the celebration of the communion in their time which wee confesse and so there is in our ministration but no prayer was in their time offered vnto them more then is nowe as euen that place of Augustine which hee citeth sufficiently doth proue De ciuit dei lib. 22. Cap. 10. although he cite it falsely and by patches Suo loco ordine nominantur non tamen à sacerdote qui sacrificat inuocantur they are named in their order and place yet are they not called vppon by the priest that sacrificeth what can be more plaine against inuocation of saintes then this testimonie of Augustine But hee citeth another place of Augustine Contra Faust. Manich. lib. 20. cap. 2 where hee saith the Christians did solemnelye frequent the memories of the martyrs both to stirre vp themselues to a following of them and also to be made companions of their merites and to be helped by their prayers This was Augustines iudgement in deede but yet in the same place he denyeth that any Aultars were set vp vnto them or that any prayers were euer offered vnto them Quis enim Antistitum c. for what bishoppe standing at the aultar in the places of the holy Martyrs euer saide We offer vnto thee O Peter or Paule or Cyprian As for prayer for the deade wee confesse it was vsed at the communion in the time of Chrisostome and Augustine but not as any part of the communion or as the institution of Christ or the practise of the Church for two hundreth yeares after Christ but onely as a superstitious errour crept into the Church and not espied while the fathers were busily occupied in fighting against monstruous heresies of greater importance Wherefore these exceptions notwithstanding our celebration of the Communion hath the whole institution of Christe the practise of the Apostles and the obseruation of the primitiue Church for fiue or sixe hundreth yeares so farre as it agreeth with the saide institution and practise which was in all substantiall and essentiall partes although the later age had added diuers superfluous and supersticious vsages and otherwise we boast not of the conformitie of our ministration with the auncient obseruaton as maister Rastel like a malicious cauiller doth charge the Bishop I cannot say whether more lewdely then folishly SECTIO 5. From the first face of the 38. leafe to the 2 face of the 41. leafe The Bishoppe said there is no ordinance or misterie so good â–ª but through foly or frowardnes of men it may be abused after reherseth many abuses of the sacrameÌ„t M. Rastel saith if he can take him tardie but in one he must be guiltie of all A wise man I promise you I haue taken him tardye alreadie in falsifying the scripture and Saint Augustine yet will I not denye but that some thing he saith is true But let vs see howe he taketh him tardâ—e The abuse of baptizing dead men was condemned in the third Councell of Carthage and the sixt Canon But saith Maister Rastell in the seuenteene Canon of that Councel strange women are forbidden to dwel with the Cleargie whereas nowe saith he they doe not onely receiue them to their seruantes but also to their bedfellowes And I pray you syr haue not some Popish Priestes such seruants and bedfellowes also Of seruants he will not deny but bedfellowes if they haue hee will say they haue them not as wiues but as Concubines So that belike it is better to haue Concubines then wiues Neuerthelesse the Canon which forbiddeth straunge women forbiddeth not their wiues as it is most manifest nor yet their sonnes wiues to dwell with any of the Cleargie wherby you see he is taken tardie in his owne trip It seemeth he neuer read the Councel or else he is a most impudent reporter of that he readeth As for the 27. Canon that he citeth in steed of that 24. of water to be mixed with wine I say he falsifieth the Councel saying that it commaundeth water and wine both to be vsed in the sacrifice the words be these Vt in sacramentis corporis sanguinis domini nihil amplius offeratur quà m ipse Dominus tradidit hóc est panis vinum aqua mixtum Nec amplius in sacrificijs offeratur quà m de vuis frumentis That in the sacramentes of the body and bloud of our Lorde nothing more be offered then our Lord himselfe deliuered that is bread and wine mixed with water And let nothing more be offered in the sacrifices but that which commeth of grapes and of corne This last clause then excludeth water as any necessarie part But yet he will presse vs with the 36. Can which forbiddeth a Priest to consecrate the Chrisme and licenseth him to coÌ„secrate virgins And we as he saith haue taken away oyle consecration and virgines In deed in such matters of ceremonies and externall discipline we do not deny but that we varie from theÌ„ vpon good grounds otherwise we are not bound to the determination of any Councels but as they agree with Gods word But seeing the Papistes glorie that al their doctrine ceremonies and discipline are of Catholike or vniuersall antiquitie and consent wee may iustly presse them with euery Canon of any auncient Councell which they affirme can not erre Namely with the 26. Can. of this present Councel which forbiddeth that the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop of any principal See should be called Princes of the Priestes or the highest Priest or by any like title but only the Bishop of the principall See. I might alledge many other Canons wherein order is taken for the modest behauiour of the sonnes and daughters of Bishops which proueth their mariages lawful but for shortnes I passe them ouer Another abuse the Bishop noteth that in
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.
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