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
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
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
she hath prepared this table for hir seruauntes and maides in the sight of them that she might dayly shew vs in the sacrament after the order of Melchisedech breade and wine in similitude of the bodie and bloude of Christe therefore she saith thou hast prepared a table in my sight againste them that trouble mee What Papistes holding transubstantiation would thus write that breade and wine is shewed in the Sacrament in the similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ The seconde testimonie that M. Heskins alleageth out of Chrisostome is vpon the 1. Cor. 10. This table is the strength of our soule the sinewes of our minde the bonde of our trust our foundation hope healpe light our life if we depart hence defended with this sacrifice with most greate confidence wee shall ascende into the holy entrie as couered with certaine golden garmentes But what speake I of thinges to come For while wee be in this life this mysterie maketh earth to be heauen vnto vs Ascende vnto the gates of heauen marke diligently or rather not of heaueÌ„ but of heauen of heauens theÌ„ thou shalt behold that we say For that which is worthy of highest honor I will shew thee in earth For as in kings houses not the walles not the golden roofe but the kinges body sitting in the throne is most excellent so also in heauen the kinges body which nowe is set foorth to be seene of thee in earthe I shewe thee neither Angels nor Archangels nor the heauens nor the heauens of heauens but the Lorde himselfe of all these thinges Thou perceiuest how that which is greatest and cheifest of all things thou doest not onely see it on earth but also touche it and not onely touch it but eate also and when thou haste receiued it returnest home wherefore wipe thy soule from all filthinesse prepare thy minde to the receyuing of these mysteries For if the Kinges childe being decked with purple and diademe were deliuered to thee to bee carried wouldest thou not cast all downe to the grounde and receiue him But nowe when thou receiuest not the childe of a kinge beeing a man but the onely begotten sonne of God tell mee I praye thee doest thou not tremble and caste awaye the loue of all seculer thinges This testimonie so necessarily muste bee vnderstood of a figuratiue and spirituall receyuing of Christe by faith that nothing in the worlde can bee more plaine For euen as earth is made heauen vnto vs so is Christe made present And euen as wee see the Lorde vppon earth so we handle and eate him and that is onely with the eye hand and mouth of faith But let vs see M. Heskins collections First hee is enforced to confesse that the sentence beginneth with a figure The table for the meate therevppon Secondely hauing such honourable tearmes it can not bee a peece of breade but Christe himselfe This shall bee graunted also Thirdly that Christe is verily on the table which he calleth Altars As verilie as earth is made heauen Fourthly that it is Christ whiche is worthie of highest honour verily present in the Sacramente As verily present as hee is seene but hee is seene onely by faith therefore present onely to faith But this obiection hee taketh vppon him to aunswere If we saye the bodie of Christ can not be sene in the sacrament No more saith he can the substance of man be seene but his garmentes or outward formes accidentes This is such a boyish sophisme as I am ashamed to aunswere it By which I maye as well proue that Christes body was neuer seene and therefore not seene in the sacrament contrarie to that whiche Chrysostome saith FroÌ„ this obiection he falleth into an other that if christ in the Sacrament be worthie all honour then of sacrifice also and the sacrifice being Christ Christ shal be offered to him selfe This he calleth an ignorant obiection But there is more knowledge in it then he hath witt to answere He alledgeth the words of Augustine lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 14. Christ abideth one with him to whome he offereth and maketh him selfe one with them for whom he offereth himself and is one with them that offer one with that which is offered Here are diuerse kindes of vnitie and yet not Christ offered vnto him selfe vnlesse M. Heskins will be a Sabellian and a Patripassian to confound the persons of the Godhead and say that God the father yea the whole Trinitie is likewise transubstantiated in the Sacrament Though Christe be one with his father yet did he not offer him selfe to him selfe but himselfe to his father As for the other saying of Augustine that he bringeth it is altogether against him De ciuitate Dei. lib. 10. c. 20. He is the Priest him selfe he is the offerer he is the oblation whereof he would haue the daily sacrifice of the Church to be a sacrament seeing that of her bodie he is the head and of his head shee is the bodie as well shee by him as he by her being accustomed to be offered First Christ is the offerer and the oblation but not he to whome it is made Secondly that which he calleth the sacrifice of the Church is a sacrament that is a holie memoriall of that propitiatorie saâ—â—â—fice which he offered Thirdly this sacrifice of the Church is of the Churche her selfe offered by Christ and of Christe offered by the Church which must needes be spirituall as the coniunction of Christ and his Church is spirituall therefore it is not the natural bodie of Christ offered by the priest but his mystical bodie offered by the Church by himselfe and so a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation After these obiections he returneth to his collections out of the authoritie of Chrysostome There neede no such preparation nor trembling if the Sacrament were but a peece of bread He hath neuer done with this slaunder as though any Christian man did saye it was but a peece of bread which Christe vouchsafed to call his bodie Wee saye truely it is bread but wee say not it is but a peece of bread The ninteenth Chapter continueth the proofe of the same matter by S. Augustine S. Cyrill M. Heskins promiseth in his Epistle and gloryeth often in his worke that he doth not alledge the doctors wordes truncately by peece meale as heretikes do But you shal see how well he handleth him selfe He would haue S. Augustine speake for his bil and alledgeth his words out of his worke contrae literas Petiliani quoting neither what booke nor what Chapter of the same by which it seemeth that either he red not the place him self out of Augustine but receiued it of some gatherer or else hee would cloake his vnhonest dealing Hee citeth it thus Aliud est Pascha quod adhuc Iudaei celebrant de Oue Aliud auteÌ„ quod nos in corpore sanguine domini celebranus It is another Passouer that the Iewes do yet
elementes of our sacraments By which it is manifest that spirituall thinges and not carnall thinges are the substance of our sacraments Nowe to M. Heskins collections He saith that the old sacrifices of the lambe were not figures of the sacrament denying now in one word that he laboured to proue before in 7. Chapters but of the bloudie sacrifice of Christ offered vppon the crosse after the maner of Aaron Concerning the sence of Augustines words let the readers weigh my collection his by Augustines place and by the rest of the Epistle that is of the same matter But marke here once againe that hee maketh the sacrifice of Christs passion a sacrifice after the maner of Aaron and consequeÌ„tly Christ a priest after the maner of Aaron directly contrarie to the scriptures in expresse words Heb. 7. Secondly he vrgeth that which Augustine saith we nowe receiue bloud in the cup by which he wil exclude the distinction of spirituall receiuing But all in vaine except he can conclude that we receiue partem de agni immaculati corpore part of the vndefiled lambes bodie For if the one be spirituall so is the other I am sure the naturall bodie of Christ is not deuided into parts but wee do spiritually receiue nourishmeÌ„t al of one bodie To be short if that which Augustine addeth of spirituall newnes succeeding carnall oldnes were not a sufficient demonstration of a spirituall receiuing I woulde bring other places of Augustine to shewe the same most plainly But the thing being so apparant I will not mistrust the iudgement of any indifferent reader so much as to trouble him with more testimonies which shall better come in where more shewe is for M. Heskins bill But we must passe ouer to Isychius whose wordes are set downe at large in Cap. 24. Leui. The verie number of the loaues doth call vs to a contemplation of the coÌ„mandement So doth the setting forth of theÌ„ that he doth not coÌ„mand theÌ„ to be made a burnt offering as those things which be of the frying pan of the girdiron of the fornace but that they shold be set on the table one ouer against an other that it shold be lawful only for the priestes to eat of theÌ„ not for the Leuites so that they also must eate theÌ„ in a holy place And also that they are called holie of holies vnderstand what is said for the Lord shall giue thee vnderstanding remember the mysticall table of which it is commaunded that none should beginne except the intelligible Aaron that is Christe For he began it first excepte also his sonnes which by him are made Christes and haue put on him which yet they are commaunded to eate in a holie place And hee is that holy of holies that they may haue a principall and vndespised sanctification These loaues of two tenthes for they are of God and man of the same being perfect in both are set sixe ouer against sixe The mysticall supper is set here and it is set in the worlde to come Sixe loaues are one proposition or setting foorth as the mysterie it seâ—fe is perfecte and maketh them that enioye it perfecte And in sixe dayes this visible creature was made and the sixt day man was made for whome Christe prepared his mysticall table But yet altogether are rightlie twelue loaues because the Apostles that were twelue in number first supped at the Lordes table Here is an allegoricall interpretation of the shewe breade to signifie the Lordes supper but that proueth it not a prefiguration of the sacrament For there is great difference betweene an allegory and a figure of a thing to come But to the poynte of the bill here is nothing for the carnall presence but somewhat against it First where hee saith that the Christians whom allegorically he calleth the sonnes of the intelligible Aaron induti sunt eo haue put on him meaning they are baptised for as manie as are baptised in him haue put him on But they haue put on him onely spiritually therefore they are commaunded to eate him onely spiritually Secondly the twelue loaues whiche signifieth the bodie of Christ signifieth the twelue Apostles also which mystically were his bodie by which you may see hee speaketh of no carnall presence Thirdly he calleth it a mysterie and a mysticall supper which will not stande with M. Heskins corporal collectioÌ„s No more wil that which he addeth That it is a cleane table first as making cleane secondly as hauing no lies or infectioÌ„ such as are in the misteries of the pagaÌ„s Where it is to be laughed at that he will proue a corporal presence because it cleanseth sinnes for then shal we haue the same presence in baptisme and the Papistes in holie water which they affirme to clense sinnes also But it is a per se that Isychius addeth Moreouer extolling his glorie and aduauncing the dignitie of this mysterie into an height he addeth it is the holie of holies of the Lordes sacrifices for a perpetuall lawe Therefore prayer is holie the reading of holie scripture is holie and the hearing of the interpretation thereof to be short all things that are done and sayed in the Church of God according to the lawe are holie But the holie of holies of the Lordes sacrifice of all things that are offered and done to his glorie is the table which Christ setteth forth of his owne sacrifice Here is a great commendation of that mysticall Table which Christ hath set forth of the sacrifice of his death which no man doubteth to be moste holie in the right vse thereof and in respect of him that feedeth vs with his bodie and bloud at that table But what is all this to the corporall and carnall presence But M. Heskins woulde finde a contradiction in the wordes of Oecolampadius in that he sayeth the bread is sanctified and yet it hath no holinesse in it whereas that holie man speaketh plainly and distinctly that it is sanctified and doth sanctifie in the right vse of it not in the nature of it self The foure twentieth Chapter applying the continuall reseruation of the Shew bread to the reseruation of the sacrament proueth the same reseruatioÌ„ by the olde fathers by the perpetual practisâ— of the Church That the sacrament of some was reserued in the elder dayes of the Church it is not so great a controuersie as whether it ought to bee reserued by the institution of Christe Neither is the simple reseruation one of the proclaymers articles as M. Heskins saith but whether it should be hanged vp in a Canopie for an ydol as the Papistes vse it As for reseruation how slenderly it is proued by him we shall see by examination of his witnesses For as touching his application thereof vnto the reseruation of the shewe breade because it is but his owne iudgement I will not vouchsafe to aunswere it otherwise then to denye it to be of any force to proue his purpose His first witnesse
is Clemens Ep. 2. The sacraments of Gods secretes are committed to three degrees to the priest the Deacon and the minister which with feare and trembling ought to keepe the leauings of the peeces of the Lordes bodie that no rottennes be found in the holie place lest when the thing is done negligently great iniurie be done to the portion of the Lordes bodie By this place M. Heskins will needes proue reseruation and the carnall presence but neither of both will fall out of his side although the authoritie of the Epistle is not worth a strawe beeing a counterfet decretall ascribed to Clemens neither in true latine nor good sense And first for the carnall presence note how he sayeth the remnantes of the peeces and portions of the Lords bodie and so he doth often in this Epistle meaning the crommes of the sacramentall bread which was consecrated to bee the bodie of christ For Christes naturall bodie cannot be broken into leauings fragments and portions which be the termes he vseth Nowe touching the reseruation he meaneth no keeping but of these crommes which hee calleth leauings fragments and portions and no keeping of them but from mouldinesse or rottennesse that is that they should be spent while they are good and not kepte while they stinke as the Papistes doe not the fragments but their whole Masse cakes sometimes For touching the sacrament it selfe he writeth by and by after Tanta in altario holocausta offerantur quanta populo sufficere debens Quod si remanserint in Crastinum non reseruentur sed cum timore tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur Let so great sacrifices bee offered on the altar as may suffice all the people But if any be left let them not be kept vntill the next day but with feare and trembling let them bee spent by the diligence of the Clerkes This beeing most manifest against reseruation Master Heskins is not ashamed to racke it to stande with reseruation And first he asketh the aduersarie whether hee thinketh that Saint Clement was a foole to denye that hee sayed before No verily but I think him to be no wise man that either taketh this Epistle to bee written by Clement the first bishop of Rome or so vnderstandeth it that he woulde make him contrarie to him selfe And I thinke he that did forge this Epistle vnder Saint Clements name was not onely a doltish foole but also an impudent falsarie to make that auncient Clemens to write to the Apostle Saint Iames of such bables as those be and that followe in the Epistle which if they were of weight yet the Apostle was not to learne them of Clemens but Clemens of him But concerning the keeping that he speaketh of he writeth yet more plainlye Non eijcientes foras è sacrario velamina not shaking abroad out of the holy place or vestrie the couering of the Lords table lest peraduenture the dust of the Lordes bodie shoulde fall a misse from the linnen cloth beeing washed abroade and this should be sinne to him that doth it Lo sir before wee had reliques fragments and portions nowe wee haue the dust of the Lords body What dust is this but small crommes But he goeth on and that Saint Iames might the better looke to those matters he sayeth Iterum atque iterum de fragmentis dominicâ— corporis demandamus Againe and againe wee giue charge concerning the fragments of the Lordes bodie And finally he concludeth in fine Latine and cleanly termes A principio Epistolae vsque ad hunc locum de sacramentis delegaui bene intuendis vbi non murium stercora inter fragmenta dominicae portionis appareant neque putrida per negligentiam remaneant clericorum From the beginning of the Epistle vnto this place I haue giuen charge concerning the sacraments to be well looked vpon where no Mise tordes may be seene among the fragments of the Lordeâ— portion nor they remaine rotten through the negligence of the Clerkes You see this man would haue the sacrament spent taketh thought that the crommes both small and great be not cast away nor kept vntill they be rotten nor suffered to be eaten of Mise nor defyled with their doung but he is vtterly against popish reseruation The next is Irenaeus who in his Epistle in which he doth sharply rebuke Victor bishop of Rome for excommunicating the Bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter sayth That they were neuer for that matter driuen from the fellowship of the Church or comming from those partes were not receiued but rather all the elders or Bishops that were before them did alwayes solemnely send the sacrament of Eucharistie to all the bishops or elders of those Churches that did not so obserue it M. Heskins imagineth that the Bishops of Rome did sende the sacrament into all partes of the worlde to all bishops elders of euerie Church which if he did hee had neede of many messengers But the matter is plaine ynough If any of those bishops or elders came to Rome they were louingly receiued of Victors predecessours and at the time of the Communion the bishop would send the sacrament to them by the deacons as well as to any of the citizens that were of his owne Church Here is no shadowe of reseruation but M. Heskins absurde imagination Tertullian followeth Irenaeus writing to his wife lib. 2. An arbitrare ô vxor ita gesturam te vt clam viro sint qua facis Non sciet ille quid secreto ante omne cibum gustes si sciuerie non partem illum credit esse qui dicitur Doest thou thinke ô wife so to handle thy selfe that these things that thou doest shal be vnknowen to thy husbande shall not he knowe what before all meates thou doest secretely receiue and if hee shall knowe it he beleeueth it not to be that bread that it is saide to be Thus M. Heskins hath set downe the wordes both in Latine and Englishe But wheresoeuer he had the former question â–ª An arâ—itrare ô vxor ita gesturam te vt clam viro sint quae facto He had it not of Tertullian for hee hath no such wordes in that booke but onely Non sciet maritus c. shall not thy husbande knowe c. By which it is playne that he neuer read this place in Tertullian himself but only borrowed it out of some other papist that alledged it for this purpose belike gathered the former question not as Tertullians wordes but out of his meaning which Maister Heskins not vnderstanding very ridiculously hath set down as the words of Tertullian These be the Popishe doctours that boast of their great reading when they reade but patches out of other mens notes and collections But to the matter Although it may seeme this corruption to haue entred into the African Churches that the people carried home the sacramentall bread and did eate it daily before all other meates yet this is nothing like vnto the Popish reseruation in the
foolish collectioÌ„ And wheras M. Hes. maketh so smal account of the sacrifice of thanksgiuing praises prayers obedience that he calleth them but common thinges he sheweth what religion is in his brest But where Daniel saith then daily sacrifice shal be taken away he wil proue that there must be a daily sacrifice and that of the Christians by Hieronyms authoritie Whose words are cited thus by him Hos mille ducentos nonaginta dies Porphyrius in tempore Antiochi in desolatione templi dicis completos quam Iosephus MachabÄ™orum vt dixintus liber tribus tantùni annis fuisse commemorant Ex quo perspicâ—â—â— est tres istos semis annos de Antichristi dici temporibus qui tribus semis annis hoc est mille ducentis nonaginta diebus sanctos perseqâ—â—turus est postea ceciderit in monte inclyto sancto A tempore igitur quod nos interpretaâ—i sunus iuge sacrificiuÌ„ quando Antichristus vrbem obtinens Dei cultum interdixerit vsque ad internecionem eius tres semis anni id est mille ducenti nonaginta dies complebuntur These thousand two hundreth and ninetie dayes Prophyrius saith thâ—â— were fulfilled in the time of Antiochus and in the desolation of the temple which both Iesophus and the booke of Machabees as we haue said do testifie to be dâ—n in three yeares only whereby it is plaine these three yeares and an halfe to be spoken of the times of Antichrist who by the space of three yeres and an halfe that is a thousand two hundreth and ninetie days shal persecute the holy and faithfull Christians and after shal fall downe in the famous and holy hill From the time therefore that we bene interpreted the daily sacrifice when Antichrist shal forbid the seruice of God vnto his destruction there shall be fulfilled three yeres and an halfe that is to say a thousand two hundreth and ninetie dayes We haue often seene before what an impudent falsarie M. Hesk. is of the Doctors and here I know not for what cause except it were to trouble the sense of Hieronymes words both in the Latine in his English translation he hath left out the Greeke word that Hieronyme vseth in this sentence A tempore iginer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod nos interpretati sumus iuge sacrificium c. Therefore from the time of the perpetuitie which we haue interpreted the perpetuall sacrifice c. At least wise he should haue noted in the margent Graecum est non potest legi But to the matter although Hierom contrarie to the exposition of our sauiour Christ referre this taking away of the daily sacrifice to the time of Antichrist yet doth he interprete the same sacrifice to be but the worship and seruice of God which Antichrist should forbid But Nicholas Lyra is a Doctour for M. Heskins tooth for he expoundeth it of the sacrifice of the altar And M. Heskins will proue it by reason For it can not be meant of a spiritual sacrifice of praise prayers mortification repentance c. For these can not be put downe but shal be frequented euen vnder his flames and sword therfore it must needes be the daily sacrifice of the altar And yet M. Heskins thinketh that shal not be cleane put downe but secretly be vsed of godly disposed people so that he were best to conclude that there shal none at al be put downe But may not the outward seruice of God be put downe as Hieronyme saith But it must of necessitie be the sacrament of the altar O easie necessitie that so lightly is auoyded Well beside this rushie cheine of M. Heskins necessitie you shall heare matter of congruitie If the fathers of all ages knewe that externe sacrifice did please God should not christians much more which liue in the cleare light acknowledge the same O profounde diuine He hath forgotten that the true worshippers must nowe worshippe God in spirit and trueth Ioan. 4. Yet more If those sacrifices were a sweete sauour to God for his sake whom they figured howe much more is our sacrifice offering Christe him selfe vnto him But sir their sacrifices were commanded Christ by his eternall spirite hath offered himselfe once to ende all such sacrifices For no man is worthie to offer him to God but euen himself If they giue not onely sacrifice of laude and thankes but also externall sacrifice of thankes shall not Christians which haue receiued greater benefites then they offer like or rather greater thankes Yes good M. Doctor but by such meanes as God hath appoynted and not by setting vp an other Altar and sacrifice to deface the crosse and sacrifice of christ Althoughe nothing can bee feyned more leaden and blockishe then these reasons bee yet the illuminate doctor cryeth out agaynste his obcÄ™cate and blind enemies that cannot see the congruitie of these matters as it were a light shining through a milstone The three and thirtieth Chapter openeth the Prophecie of Malachie The Prophete Malachie towarde the latter end of the first chapter of his Prophecie writeth thus I haue no pleasure in you saith the Lorde of hoastes neither will I accept an offering at your hand For from the rising of the sunne vntill the going downe of the same my name is great among the Gentiles and in euerie place incense shall bee offered vnto my name and a pure offering For my name is great among the heathen This text saith M. Heskins hath greatly tormented the protestantes for they wrest it into diuerse senses because it proueth inuincibly the sacrifice of the masse Therefore Oecolampadius expoundeth this sacrifice of the obedience of all nations to the faith Bucer of faith and the confession of the same Bullinger of the land and prayse of God Vrbanus Rhegius of mortification and inuocation of Gods name Al which M. Heskins him selfe that firste cryeth out of their discord confesseth to agre in this that they vnderstand the prophesie of the spirituall sacrifice of prayse and thanksgiuing But these hereticall expositions he saith cannot stande And why so â–ª forsooth because these spiritual sacrifices be not new but were offered by the godly euen since Abel who he saith was the first that offered sacrifice to God and that of the fruites of the earth whereas it is not to be thought that Adam offered no sacrifice al that time before and the text is plaine that Abell offered the fruit of his cattell But although the spirituall worship of God is not newe yet it was newe to the Iewes that the father shoulde bee worshipped from the time of Christ neither in the mouÌ„t Garizim nor at Ierusalem but of all nations in spirite and trueth that is without all externall and figuratiue sacrifices An other reason is of the purenesse of the newe sacrifice aboue the olde For the olde sacrifices were pure by participation the newe is pure by nature and therefore nothing else but the bodie of
alledged out of Irenaeus but for prolixitie and the same places shall afterwardes be cited for other purposes The fiue thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the exposition of the same Prophet by S. Augustine Eusebius Out of S. Augustine is alledged a long saying lib. Aduersus Iudaeos but not so long in wordes as short of his purpose Dominus omnipotens dicit c. The Lorde almightie sayeth I haue no pleasure in you neither will I receiue sacrifice of your hands Certainly this you cannot denie ô ye Iewes that not oâ—ly he doth not take sacrifice as your handes for there is but one place appointed by the lawe of the Lord where he hath commaunded sacrifices to be offered by your handes beside which place he hath altogether forbidden them Therefore seeing you haue lost this place according to your deserts the sacrifice also which was lawfull to be offered there onely in other placeâ— ye dare not offer And it is altogether fulfilled which the Prophet saith And sacrifice will I not receiue at your handes For if the Temple and the Altar remained to you in the earthly Hierusalem you might say this were fulfilled in them whose sacrifices being wicked men abiding among you the Lorde doth not accept but that he accepteth the sacrifice of other that be of you and among you which keepe the commaundements of god But this cannot be saide for asmuch as there is not one of you all which according to the lawe which proceeded from mount Sinay may offer sacrifice with his handes Neither is this so forespoken fulfilled that the sentence of the Prophes will suffer you to aâ—nswere because wee offer not flesh with our hands with our heart and mouth we offer praise according to that in the Psalme Sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise From this place also he speaketh against you which sayth I haue no pleasure in you c. Moreouer that you shuld not thinke that seeing you offer not and that he taketh no sacrifice at your hands therefore no sacrifice is offered to God whereof truely hee hath no neede who needeth not the goods of any of vs yet because he is not without a sacrifice which is not profitable for him but for vs be adioyneth and sayeth For from the rising of the Sunne vntil the going downe of the same my name is made honourable among all the Gentiles and in euery place a sacrifice is offered to my name euen a pure sacrifice because my name is greate among the Gentiles saith the Lorde Almightie What aunswere yee to these things open your eyes at the length see from the sunne rising to the going downe thereof that not in one place as it was appointed among you but in euery place the sacrifice of the Christians is offered not to euery God but to him that spake these things afore hand euen to the God of Israel Wherfore in another place he sayth to his Church and he that hath deliuered thee the same God of Israel shal be called the God of the whole earth Search ye the Scriptures in which you thinke to haue eternall life and truely you should haue if in them you could vnderstand Christ and hold him But search them through and euen they beare witnesse of this pure sacrifice which is offered to the God of Israel not of your nation alone of whose hands he saide he would receiue none but of all nations which say come let vs go vp into the hill of the Lord neither in one place as it was commaunded in the earthly Hierusalem bâ—t in euery place euen in Hierusalem it selfe â–ª neither after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchizedech First we must see how M. Heskins note booke deceiued him for where the words of Augustin in the beginning of this sentence are these Locus enim vnâ—to est lege domini constitutus c. that is â–ª there is but one place appointed by the lawe of the lord M. Hesk. hath falsified and set downe locus enim vnus est loco domini constitutus which he translateth For there is one place in the place of God appointed But this is not the first corruption that we haue bewrayed by a great many Nowe to the matter Maister Heskins still harpeth vpon one string that the sacrifice in this saying spoken of cannot be the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing because that is not peculiar to the Christians but was offered of the Iewes before Christe and may be yet if they be conuerted But I haue more than once or twise declared that here is no such peculiaritie in the matter of the offering but in the maner of the oblation And Augustine speaketh not halfe a worde by which we might deeme that he refuseth the spirituall sacrifice of the Christians to be the pure sacrifice prophesied in Malachie If you vrge that he sayeth it is offered after the order of Melchisedech and so hath relation to the offering of breade and wine in the Sacrament although it be no necessarie conclusion yet Augustin him selfe will tell vs that it is a spiritual sacrifice of laude and thanksgiuing And M. Heskins him selfe directeth vs to the booke saying As notable a saying as this hath S. Augustine in an other place also and quoteth lib. 1. Cont aduersariuÌ„ legis Prophetarum who so listeth to reade shall finde that that shall not repent him of the reading What place M. Heskins meaneth I knowe not but in the same booke I read in the 18. Chapter that he calleth the death of Christ 〈◊〉 singuler and onely was sacrifice If that sacrifice be but one singuler and the onely true sacrifice what manner of sacrifice is the sacrifice of the Masse which setteth vp a newe altar to ouerthrowe the crosse of Christ And that you may knowe what sacrifice S. Augustine meaneth when he nameth the sacrifice of the Church or the sacrifice of breade and wine or any such like phrase he speaketh this in the twentieth Chapter of certeine apocryphall writings falsly intituled to the Apostles Andrew Iohn Qua fillorum essent receptae essent ab ecclesia quae illorum temperibus per EpiscoporuÌ„ succesâ—iones certissimas vsque ad nostra deincapâ— tempora perseueraâ— immolat Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium â—â—â—dis Which if they had bene theirs they should haue bene receiued of the Church which from their times by most certeine successions of Bishope continueth vnto our times and after and sacrificeth to God in the bodie of Christ the sacrifice of lawde and prayse And let this suffice to discharge Augustine from M. Heskins and the Papistes blasphemous cauelling Now must we come to Eusebius which lib. â— Euang. Demonst. cap. 10. writeth thus The Mosaical sacrifices being reiected he doth by diuine reuelation declare our ordinaâ—ies that was to 〈◊〉 saying For from the rising of the 〈…〉 the going down of the sâ—â—e my name is glorified among the nations in euery place 〈◊〉
gone out of the parleament house where matters are grauely intreated of and hath betaken him selfe to the wilde forest where hee may disporte himselfe in his games with Robin hoode and his merie mates And verilie if he had not tolde vs him selfe of his lustie hunting wee might well haue thought he had not beene at home but wandering in the woodes so wilde when in his exhortation vnto faith in the sacrament hee will persuade vs that none can vnderstande the scriptures except they haue founde faith in the veritie of the Sacramente Which happeneth to all those that wil not be with Christ in the breaking of the breade as the two disciples were that went to Emans to whome Christe was a straunger vntill he came to the breaking of the breade But leaste this vaine allegorie shoulde seeme to bee founde out only in M. Heskins chase hee trauelleth to finde it in S. Augustin Theophylact but al in vaine For first to giue vs a tast what synceritie and trueth he will vse in the rest of this booke the verie first sentence he alleadgeth out of any Doctor is corruptly and vntruly rehearsed For thus hee maketh Augustine to speake in his treatise De consensu Euangelistarum not naming in what booke or Chapter whereas that which he writeth of this matter is Lib. 3. Cap. 25. Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum a Satana fuisse ne agnosceretur Iesus sed tantùm a Christo propter eorum fidem ambiguam facta est permissio vsque ad sacramentum panis vt vnitate corporis eius participata remoueri intelligatur impedimentum inimici vt Christus possit agnosci We doe not take it incongruently that this impediment in their eies was of Sathā that Iesus shold not be knowen but only it was permitted of Christ for their doubtfull faithes sake vntill they came to the sacrament of bread that the vnitie of Christs body being participated it might be perceiued that the impediment of the enimie was remoued that Christ might be knowen In this place beside that he turneth autem into enim and leaueth out factum after fuisse he addeth of his owne propter eorum fidem ambiguam for their doubtfull faiths sake Which words are not Augustins Wherby it appeareth that hee redde not this place out of Augustine himselfe but followed some other mans collection as he doth almost euerie where But Augustine in that place comparing the wordes of Marke and Luke together sheweth that there was no alteration in the shape of Christes bodie but onely that the two disciples eyes were helde that they could not knowe him but in breaking of the bread which signified the vnity of the Church For this he writeth Neque quisquam se Christum agnouisse arbitretur si eius corporis particeps non est id est ecclesię cuius vnitatem in sacramento panis commendat Apostolus dicens vnus pà nis vnum corpus multi sumus vt cum eis benedictum panem porrigeret apperirentur oculi eorum agnoscerent cum Neither let any man thinke that he hath knowen Christ if he bee not partaker of his body that is of the Church whose vnitie the Apostle cōmendeth in the sacrament of the bread saying One bread we being many are one bodie that when he reached vnto them the blessed bread their eyes were opened and they knew him This is Augustines collection of this matter nothing agreable with M. Heskins allegorie of the soūd faith in the veritie of the sacrament but much against it teaching the true participation of the body of Christ in the sacrament which is the mystical coniunction of him vnto his Church Moreouer euen in the place by him alledged I meruell M. Heskins cannot see that Augustine calleth it the sacramēt of bread which agreeth not with his transsubstantiation and if he think the participation of the vnitie of Christes bodie doth helpe him Augustine in the same place sheweth the contrarie vnderstanding the bodie of Christ to be his Church as is before shewed But what saith Theophylact of the same Another thing also is here insumated namely that that their eyes which take this blessed bread are opened that they may knowe him For the fleshe of our Lorde hath a great and vnspeakable strength What is there here in these authorities either for M. Heskins bil of the reall presence or for his fond allegorie It pleaseth him excedingly that Theophylact saith the flesh of Christ is of vnspeakeable power which we doe most willingly admitte euen in receiuing of the sacrament it worketh mightily but hee will not see at all that Theophylact with Augustine calleth the sacrament blessed bread by which they both do shew that the substance of bread remaineth although it be blessed consecrated vnto an other vse then for bodily food The second Cha. expoundeth the sixt of S. Ioh according to the letter The summe of this literal exposition is this that three sundry breades are mentioned by Christe in this sixte of Iohn that is the bread Manna the bread the sonne of God and the bread the flesh of Christ and that these three breads are distincted both in nature and in time in whiche they were giuen For Manna was a corporall food giuen of old time in the wildernes The second bread the godhead of Christ being an eternall and spirituall substance Christ saith his father doth giue in the present tence and that he is the bread of life and requireth beleefe in him which is proper to God onely The third breade is the fleshe of Christ which he will giue for the life of the world speaking in the future tence and is meant of the sacrament And this he dare auouch to be the natiue true vnderstanding of this scripture But sauing his authoritie there are but two breades spoken of in this Chapter namely Manna and the bread of life which is not the diuinitie of Christ separated from his flesh nor his flesh separated or distincted from his godhead but euen his quickening spiritual flesh which being vnited to his eternal spirit was by the same giuen for the life of the world not in the sacrament but in the sacrifice of his bodie bloud on the crosse and is daily sealed and testified vnto vs by the sacrament of his bodie and bloud ministred according to his holie institutiō And this I dare auouch to be the true natiue sense of this scripture both by the plain circumstances of the same and by the iudgement of the best approued ancient writers And first to take away as wel the vain supposed distinction of time in which the two later breads are said to be giuen as also to proue that they are but one bread our sauior Christ him selfe after he hath promised to giue the bread which is his flesh for the life of the world and declared what fruite commeth to them that eate his fleshe and drinke his bloude c. in
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
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
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
of many that worshipped Christe yet had they no commaundement of him so to doe A great number worshipped him not as God but as the Prophete of God for which they had commandement in the lawe and they that worshipped him as God most especially But M. Heskins will make the like argument Christ gaue the sacrament of his body to the Apostles onely and gaue no commaundement that all people should receiue it indifferently wherefore it ought not to be done Reuerend M. Doctour I denye your antecedent for ye can not proue that he gaue it only to his Apostles nor that he gaue no commaundement for he gaue an expresse commaundement to continue the same ceremonie vntil his comming againe as S. Paule doth testifie Therefore your argument is as like as an apple is like an oyster But to passe ouer the rest of his babbling against the proclamers learning too well knowne to bee defaced by such an obscure Doctours censure I come to his second argument S. Paule that tooke the sacrament at Christes hand and as he had taken it deliuered it to the Corinthians neuer willed adoration or godly honour to be giuen to it This argument he will not vouchsafe to aunswere as concluding nothing but he denyeth the antecedent saying It is false that S. Paul deliuered no more to the Corinthians then Christ did First he will make Paule a lyar when he saide that which I receiued I deliuered c. But howe will he proue that he deliuered more then Christ did If you can spare laughter in reading I could not in writing Forsooth S. Paule deliuered to the Corinthians that the vnwoorthie receiuer shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of Christ whereas Christ when he instituted the sacrament gaue no such lawe O noble Diuine as though that if Christ at his supper had vsed no longer discourse of this sacrament then those fewe words which the Euangelistes doe rehearse as a summe thereof yet it was not necessarily to be gathered that the vnworthie receiuer contemning the body bloud of Christ which is offered to him is guiltie of haynous iniurie against the same and therefore it is necessarie that euery one that receiueth it should examine him selfe that hee receiue it worthily Whether Christ receiued Iudas or no which is not agreed vpon but if he did knowing him by his diuine knowledge to be a reprobate though not yet discouered to the knowledge of man hee gaue vs none example to receiue notorious wicked persons whome wee as men knowe to be vnwoorthie without repentance But to make the matter out of doubt Saint Paul though not by the terme of adoration yet willed honour to be giuen to the sacrament When he saith let a man examine him selfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cup. For a man cannot examine him self without great honor giuē vnto the sacrament And for more manifest proofe Saint Paule referreth the honour or dishonour that is done by woorthie or vnwoorthie receiuing not to the grace of GOD or merite of Christes passion but to the sacrament Who so eateth this breade and drinketh this cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ. Nay rather hee referreth the honour or contempt of the sacrament to the body and bloud of Christe whose sacrament this is as the wordes are plaine But who would thinke that Maister Heskins would play the foole so egregiously to abuse his reader with ambiguities and aequiuocations as though there were no difference betweene adoration and honouring that is giuing of due reuerence vnto the sacraments and worshipping them as Gods. But S. Augustine I trowe helpeth him Ep. 118. ad Ian. Placuit c. It hath pleased the holy Ghost that in honour of so great a sacrament the body of Christ should enter into the mouth of a Christian man before other meates I holde him as blinde as a beetle that seeth not honour in this place to signifie reuerence which is giuen to holy things and not adoration which pertayneth onely to god His last reason to proue that Saint Paul taught the adoration of the sacrament is that which is the whole controuersie that Saint Paule taught the carnall presence but that remaineth to bee proued afterward The fiue and fortieth Chapter proueth by the same Doctours that the proclamer nameth that the sacrament is to be honoured This is a meere mockerie the Bishop speaketh against adoration of the sacrament as God M. Heskins proueth that it is to bee honoured that is to say reuerenced as a holy ceremonie And none otherwise then the sacrament of baptisme as wee shall see by his proofes First Chrysostom being one that is named by the Bishop maketh so cleere mention thereof as M. Heskins thinkes the reader will maruell hee was not ashamed to name him And what saith he De sacerdotio lib. 6. thus he writeth Quum autem ille c. But when he meaning the Prieste hath called vpon the holy Ghost and hath finished that sacrifice most full of horrour and reuerence when the common Lord of all men is daily handled in his handes I aske of thee in what order shall wee place him Howe great integritie shall we require of him How great religion For consider what handes those ought to be which doe minister what manner of tong that speaketh those words Finally then what soule that soule ought not to be purer and holier which hath receiued that so great and so worthie a spirit At that time euē the Angels do set by the Priest and all the order of heauenly powers lifteth vp cryes and the place neere to the altar in honour of him which is offered is full of the companies of Angels Which thing a man may fully beleeue euen for the greate sacrifice which is there finished And I truly did heare a certain man reporting that a certaine wonderfull olde man and one to whome many mysteries of reuelations are opened by God did tell him that God did once vouchsafe to shewe him such a vision and that for that time he sawe as farre as the sight of man could beare soudenly a multitude of Angels clothed in shining garments compassing the altar finally so bowing the heade as if a man should see the souldiers stand when the king is present which thing I do easily beleeue In these words Chrysostom doth hyperbolically amplifie the excellencie of the Ministers office vnto which no man is sufficient But notwithstanding he rehearseth a vision by hearesay of angels reuerencing the presence of God to aduance the dignitie of the ministerie yet speaketh he not one worde that the sacrament is to be worshipped adored as god And therefore M. Heskins maketh a poore consequence the ministration of the sacrament is honourable ergo much more a man ought to honour the sacrament The ministration of baptisme is honourable doth it therefore followe that the water of baptisme is to be worshipped as God An
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
and stronger sentence of these writers which when it commeth wee shal examine it in the meane time they haue no voyce in the vpper house and therefore we feare not greatly what they say The twelfth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Haime Theophylact. It were losse of time to quarrell about the testimonies of these two burgesses of the lower house Maister Heskins sayeth that there wanteth nothing in Theophylact that is necessarie for a credible witnesse At least he should haue excepted that he defended an heresie of the proceeding of the holie Ghost against the churche of Rome in 3. Ioan. As for his antiquitie which hee maketh to be before the controuersie was moued by Berengarius although it were so yet it were none argument of his trueth But it seemeth hee was much about the time of Berengarius Anno. 1049. Neither doth Peter Martyr whome Maister Heskins rayleth vppon so much esteeme his authoritie that he would wrest it to his side more then the verie words of Theophylact would beare as the learned that read his workes can testifie The one and twentieth Chapter proceedeth yet vppon the same text by Anselmus Bruno Let M. Hesk. make the moste of those burgesses the bill will passe neuer the sooner though all the lower house allowed it so long as it cannot be receiued into the higher house The latter ende conteineth a vaine repetition of Cyprian and Prospers sayings so often aunswered before with a foolishe insultation against the proclaimer as though he sawe not these doctors as well as M. Heskins who I beleeue neuer opened halfe the bookes of them whose sayings he hath alledged he hath cited the most of them so corruptly not onely falsifying them to serue his turne but also when there was no aduantage for him in his corruption The two and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Dionyse Gagneius Two worshipfull burgesses vnto whome hee addeth Bishop Fisher for the thirde after he hath made a shorte rehearsall of all those writers whose authoritie he hath vsed abused to mainteine this his exposition The three and twentieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Quoniam vnus panis c. The text is this Because there is one bread and wee being many are one bodie for we are all partakers of the same bread of the same cupp First M. Hesk. sayeth that the Apostle speaking of our Communion with Christ and with our selues declareth that bread and the cuppe bee not taken for bare figures of the bodie bloud of Christ in which argument he fighteth with his owne shadowe for we detest bare figures as much as grosse transubstantiation Secondly he sayeth our communion with Christ is both spirituall and corporall spirituall in baptisme and corporall in this sacrament or else this sacrament was instituted in vaine if we haue none other communion with Christ thereby then spirituall which is in baptisme I answere his argument is nought for the diuerse dispensations of the same grace is testified and confirmed to vs by diuerse sacraments our regeneration by baptisme and our preseruation as by spirituall foode by the Lordes supper As for the superstitious bread that was giuen in Saint Augustines time to those that were Catechumeni in steede of the sacrament hee doeth well to compare to their popish holie bread sauing that there is greate difference for that was giuen onely to them that were not baptised this altogether to them that are baptized many that haue receiued the other sacrament at their hands But where he hath tossed his corporall communion to fro at last he addeth a condition of receiuing worthily so that he denyeth in effect that he saide before that by receipt of Christes bodie men are incorporate to Christ forceth the wordes of the Apostle to be many and not all which is false for he sayeth all that eate of this bread though we be many yet are made one bodie Finally in that the Apostle sayeth we all eate of one bread drink of one cupp M. Hesk â–ª saith that he tooke it not for bare material bread for then it were not true as for his bare bread let him keepe to crome his pottage But howe prooueth he that Saint Paule spake not of materiall bread as the earthly parte of the sacrament Forsooth all do not eat one bread for the Greekes eat leuened bread the Latines fine vnleuened bread In the Popish church is giuen to euery communicant a sundrie bread in the scismaticall church euery conuenticle hath a sundrie bread and sometimes diuerse breades therfore it is no materiall bread that S. Paule speaketh of but the heauenly bodie of christ If I were as froward a reasoner as M. Hesk. I would aske him whether the body of Christ be not a materiall body because he maketh materiall heauenly diuerse differences as though he were an Eutychian But admitt that by materiall bread hee meaneth bread properly so called and the heauenly bodie figuratiuely called bread which he is loth to come to what mad man woulde vnderstand that one breade which S. Paul sayeth to be distributed in euery communion to all that are present and whereof euery one taketh parte in token of the communion or fellowship of many in one bodie for all the kindes fashions of bread that are vsed in all communions in the worlde For the Apostles argument is grounded of the similitude of bread which of many graines is made one bread so wee being many are made one bodie And therefore in vaine doeth he racke these wordes of S. Paul to the meaning of Barnarde whose authoritie we receiue not or to the words of Chrysostome which he falsly alledgeth to be in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 17. whereas they be in ad Hebraeos 10. Hom. 7. which is nothing but an obiection of his the place is wholy cited in the first booke 37. Chapter where you shall see how much it maketh for M. Hesk. The 24. Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Chrysostom and S. Augustine Chrysostome vpon this place is cited thus Quoniam vnus panis vnum corpus c. For there is one bread wee being many are one bodie For what do I call saith he a commemoration wee are the selfe same bodie What is the breade the bodie of CHRIST and what are they made which receiue it the body of Christ not many bodies but one body For as the breade is made one of many cornes so that the cornes do not appeare and yet there are cornes but ioyned together so that they can not be discerned so are we ioyned one with an other and with christ For thou art not nourished of one body and he of an other â–ª but all of the same therefore he added all we which doe partake of the same bread Of these wordes Maister Heskins wil haue vs to learne three things First that communication is to
illud c. But beholde that more reuerently that after the venerable signes are layde vppon the altare by which Christ is signified and receiued there is present by by a description of saintes or holy ones It is meete that a false matter should begin with a counterfet doctour I haue shewed before that neither Eusebius nor Hierome nor Gennadius knewe any such Dionyse by the space of fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Christ therefore his testimonie must be so many hundred yeares short of the Apostles times But M. Hesk. wil not see that his Dionyse calleth the sacrament signes by which Christ is signified and receiued He can see nothing but the altar in that saying Next to Dionyse he bringeth Ambrosius in orat prÄ™parâ—t ad missaâ—t a meere counterfeit as Erasmus hath obserued therefore worthie of none answere But before I proceede to the next author that he citeth for the altar which is Augustine I will set downe a manifest disproofe of M. Hesk. proofe that altars haue ben vsed since the Apostles times Firste it is certeine that our sauiour Christ did institute this sacrament at a table at no altar whereas if it had bene a sacrifice he would haue caused an altar to be made which had bene soone done Secondly the Apostle Paul calleth it the Lords table neuer calleth it an altar M. Hesk. alledgeth for the sacrament out of the actes of the Apostles that the disciples continued in breaking of bread in euery house but I suppose he wil not dreame that there was an altar in euerie house In the primitiue church when the people mett in corners secrete places no man of reason wil imagin they had altars set vp in those places Nay it is certein by Origen Amobius they had neither altars nor teÌ„ples nor images Origen Cont. Cel lib. 4. reporteth that the heathen man Celsus obiecteth against vs that we haue no images nor altars nor temples The like is in Arnobius lib. 2. against that Gentiles who declareth that they acuse vs that we haue neither temples nor images nor altars By these auncient writers it appeareth that it was a common obiection of the heathen men against the Christians that they had no altars The like sheweth Tertullian ad Scapulam Itaque sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris sed Deo nostro ipsâ—ut sed quo modo prÄ™cepit Deus pura prece Therfore we also do offer sacrifice for the health of the Emperour but vnto our God his only but as God hath commaunded with pure prayer These wordes of Tertullian declare that the Christians had neither altar nor sacrifice other then prayer In Cyprians time also it was a table de cana Dom. Inter Dominicae mensae cormuines animalis homo non recipitur the naturall man is not receiued among the guestes of the Lords table And although of diuerse of the olde writers it was called an altar yet was it so called improperly euen as the communion was called of them a sacrifice for still it was a table and nothing like the popish altars which are of stone set against a wall for they stoode in the midst of the church so that the people came rounde about them as appeareth by Eusebius lib. 10. ca. 4. ad Paulin. Tyr. Episc. Absoluto templo sedibus excelsissimis ad honorem praesidentium subsellijs ordine collocatis ornato post omnia sancto sanctorum videlicet altari in medio constituto The temple being finished and garnished with high seates for the honour of the gouernours lower seates placed in order after all the holie of holies that is to saye the altar placed in the middest The like hath Augustine de verb. Dom. Ser. Ioan. Ser. 46. de eo quod scrip qui manduc Christus quotidie pascit Mensa ipsiut est illa in medio constituta Quid causae est ô audientes vt mensam videatis ad epulat non accedatis Christ feedeth daily that is his table which is placed in the middest What is the cause O you hearers that seeing the table ye came not to the feast Hee speaketh to the nouices or Catechumeni Gregorius Nazianzenus calleth it a table ad imperator Irasceus shewing what intercessors he would bring to pacifie the Princes displeasure as the death passion resurrection ascension of Christ. Aut etiam mensam hanc ad quaÌ„ communiter accedimus meae sabutis rypos quos eodem celebro ore quo nunc fungor legatione sacram dico ad superna ducentem mystagogiam or else euen this table vnto which wee come all together and the figures of my saluation which I do celebrate with the same mouth with which nowe I execute this Ambassage of intreatie I meane that holy mysterie leading to high things Beside the table in the saying of Greg marke what termes he vseth in describing the sacrament he calleth it the types or figures of his saluation and a holy and heauenly mystagogie Chrysost. most commonly calleth it a table for example Hom 45. in Ioan. A mensa hac prodit fons qui fluuios spirituales diffundit From this table commeth a spring which powreth forth spirituall riuers And in a great number of places he calleth it the holie table But nowe wee must heare Maister Hesk. citing Augustine lib. 9. Conf. Ca. 13. Illa imminente c. Shee the day of her death being as hand was not carefull to haue her bodie sumpâ—uously buried or to be spiced with spices or coueted to haue a solemne monument or to be buryed in her own country These things shee did not commaunde vs but onely shee desired that remembrance of her should be made as thine altare which shee without any dayes intermission had serued From whence she knewe the holie sacrifice to be dispensed by which the hand writing was put out that was against vs. In these wordes S. Augustine calleth it an altar reporting the superstitious request of his mother according to the errour of that time We make no question but that they did call the table an altar but we affirme they called it so vnproperly euen as they did call the sacrament a sacrifice and the minister a priest and the deacon a Leuite And as they called it an altare so there is fewe or none but called it a table also and so doth Augustine often times as de cultur agr Dom. Mensa sponsi tui panem habet integrum poculum sanctum The table of thy spouse hath whole bread and a holie cupp And againe Contra liter Petilian lib. 2. Chap. 47. Non dicunt ifta nisi qui de Mensa Domini vitaiâ— suâ—ruâ—nt sicut Petrus non iudicium sicut Iudas None say these things but such as receiue life at the Lordes table as Peter and not damnation as Iudas But Maister Heskins hath another place out of Saint Augustine wherein hee calleth it the altare of God Sermone ad infant Hoc quod videris
Christ none but Christ is to be followed we must then obey and doe that whiche Christ did and which he commanded to be done Here Maister Heskins noteth that Christ is the sacrifice I answere euen as the bread is his bodie the wine his bloud But that Christ commaunded the Church to offer this sacrifice in remembrance of him he teacheth plainely saith M. Heskins Yea sir but where doth he teach either plainely or obscurely that the Masse is a sacrifice propitiatorie for the quicke and the dead which is the matter in question And not the name of sacrifice vsed by Cyprian vnproperly figuratiuely meaning a remembrance and thankesgiuing for the onely once offered sacrifice of Christe But let vs heare his words Quod si nec minimia c. If it be not lawful to breake the least of the Lordes commaundements how much more is it not lawful to infringe or breake things so greate so weightie so apperteining to the very sacrament of the Lords passion and our redemption or by mans tradition to chaunge it into any other thing then is ordeined of God For if Iesus Christ our Lord and God be himselfe the high Priest of God the father and he himselfe first did offer sacrifice and commanded this to be done in his remembrance that Priest supplyeth the roome of Christ truly which followeth that which Christ did And then he offereth a true full sacrifice in the Church to God the father if he so begin to offer as he hath seene Christ him selfe to haue offered Here M. Hesk. reproueth our ministration in two points First for that we minister with wine alone contrarie to Christes institution But when he can proue that Christ added water to his cup of wine we will grant it to be a breach of his institution and not before Secondly he reasoneth if it be so greate a matter to take away wine or water from the ministratioÌ„ it is much greater to take away Christes body there fro but it is as false that we take away his bodie as it is true that they take away his bloud Now concerning the tearme sacrifice vsed by S. Cyprian his wordes in the same Epistle declare plainely that he vsed it as I said before vnproperly Et quia passionis eius mentionem insacrificijs omnibus facimus passio est enim Domini sacrificiumâ— quod offerimus nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus And because we make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices for the sacrifice which we offer is the passion of our Lord we ought to do nothing but that he hath done By this you see that the sacrifice is Christe euen as it is the passion of Christe that is to say a sacramentall memoriall of Christes body and of his passion not otherwise But Maister Heskins taking occasion of the former saying of Cyprian by him cited rayleth at his pleasure vpon the author of the apologie for saying the contention betweene Luther and Zwinglius was about a small matter And so it was in deede in comparison of these cheefe and necessarie pointes of religion in whiche they did agree And if you make the moste of it yet was it no greater then the matter of rebaptising wherein Cyprian his authour dissented from Cornelius Bishop of Rome Neuerthelesse Maister Heskins returning to vrge the image of the sacrifice set foorth in Melchisedeches feast of bread and wine bringeth in Tertullian Contra Marcion Ita nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecrauit qui sunc viâ—â—um in sanguine figurauit So now he hath consecrated his bloud in wine which then figured wine in bloud He quoteth not the place least his falsification might appeare For first he applyeth this figure to Melchisedech which Tertullian doth to Iuda and translateth Vinum in sanguine figurauit He figured wine in his bloud whereas Tertullian speaking of the blessing that Iacob gaue to Iuda that he should wash his garment in the bloud of the grape sayeth he figured wine by bloud that is by the name of bloud of the grape he meant figuratiuely wine As for the name of consecration in the true sense thereof we neither abhorre nor refuse to vse But he hath neuer done with Melchisedeches bread wine when all commeth to all Christ offred neither bread nor wine as they say Yet M. Heskins affirmeth if he wold abide by it that Christ offred bread wine in verity But if you aske him whether he mean bread and wine in truth and veritie he will say no verily so M. Hesk. veritie is contradictorie to truth To draw to an end he citeth Ambrose In praefatione Missae in coena Do. Christus formam sacrificij perennis instituens hostiam se primus obtulit primus docuit offerri c. Christ instituting a fourme of perpetuall sacrifice first offered himselfe for a sacrifice and first taught it to be offered But where Maister Heskins founde this authority I leaue to all learned men to consider when there is not such a title in all the workes of Saint Ambrose that are printed new or olde Therefore whether he fayned it him selfe or followed some other forger he sheweth his honest and faithfull dealing But if we should admitte this testimonie as lawfull whereas it is but a counterfete yet vnderstanding howe the auncient wryters abused the name of sacrifice for a memoriall of a sacrifice and not for a propitiatorie sacrifice it helpeth Maister Heskins nothing at all Saint Ambrose himselfe very improperly vseth the name of Hostia or sacrifice as De Virgine Lib. 1. Virgo matris hostia est cuius quotidiano sacrificio vis diuina placatur A Virgine is the hoste or sacrifice of her mother by whose daily sacrifice the wrath of God is pacified If Maister Heskins coulde finde thus muche in Saint Ambrose for the sacrifice of the Masse he would triumph out of measure that he had found it a propitiatorie sacrifice euen for the quicke and the dead and that those wordes of Christe doe this in rememembraunce of me were expounded of the Fathers for offer a sacrifice propitiatorie But who so listeth to heare the trueth neede not to bee deceiued in the word of sacrifice and phrase of offring vsed by the olde writers which was not properly but figuratiuely c sometimes abusiuely For further instruction of consecration and oblation he sendeth his Reader backe to the 2. book 41. Chapter to the end of the book For the rest vnto the 1. booke 33. Chapter to the end of that booke And euen in the same places shall the Reader finde mine answere The foure and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the vse of the Masse vsed and practised by the Apostles It is maruell the Apostles were such great sayers of Masse and yet neuer make one worde mention of it in all their writinges But we must see what Maister Heskins can picke out of them And first he maketh another diuision of his Masse into inward
sacrificare locis probentur Ait namque authoritas legis Diuinę Vide ne offeras holocausta tua in omni loco quem videris sed in loco quem elegeris Dominus Deus tuus Episcopus Deo sacrificans testes vt praefixum est secum habeat plures quà m alius sacerdos Sicut enim maioris honoris gradu fruitur sic maioris testimonij incrementatione indiget In solennioribus quippe diebus aut septem aut quinque aut tres diaconos qui eius oculi dicuntur subdiaconos atque reliquos ministros secum habeat qui sacris induti vestimentis in fronte a tergo presbyteri è regione dextra laeuáque contrito corde humiliato spiritu ac prono stent vultu custodientes eum à maleuolis hominibus consension eius praebeant sacrificio Peracta auē consecratione omnes cōmunicent qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus Sic enim Apostoli statueruns sancta Romana tenes ecclesia And when the priestes do sacrifice they ought not to do it alone but let them take witnesses with them that they may be proued to do sacrifice to the Lord perfectly in places dedicated to god For the authoritie of Gods law sayeth Take heede thou offer not thy burnt offerings in euerie place which thou shalt see but in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose Let a bishop sacrificing to God haue witnesses with him as is before sayed more then another priest For as he enioyeth a degree of greater honor so he hath need of the increase of greater testimonie For in more solemne dayes let him haue with him either seuen or fiue or three deacons which are called his eyes the subdeacons and the rest of the ministers which being cloathed in the holie vestimentes let them stand before and behind him the priests ouer against him on the right hand on the left hande with contrite heart humbled spirite sober countenaunce preseruing him from malicious men let them giue their consent to his sacrifice And when the consecration is ended let al communicate which will not be depriued of entrie into the church These be the wordes of that Epistle which M. Hesk. mangleth and falsifieth thus Episcopus c. The bishop doing sacrifice vnto God let him in the solemne dayes haue either seuen or fiue or three deacons which be called his eyes subdeacons other ministers First he leaueth out That no priest ought to sacrifice alone but must take witnesses with him Secondly that a bishop ought to haue more then another priest at all times Thirdly hee citeth the words so as though the bishop should haue no neede of witnesses but only on solemne dayes Fourthly he leaueth out how the deacons other ministers should stand before and behind the bishop which will not agree with his popish altar for who can stande before the popish priest except he stand in the windowe or vppon the altar Finally wheras omnes may reasonably be vnderstood of al present he restraineth it onely to the ministers which if it were so yet it ouerthroweth the Popish priuat Masse For if there be twentie or fortie priests clarkes as there be often so many at Masse sometimes an hundreth more as at a Synode yet not one of them wil receiue with the priest neither are they banished that refuse to cōmunicate But to proue that this word all should be referred to all the clergie he citeth the Can. 9 Apost Si quis episcopus c. If any bishop c. when the oblation is made do not communicate either let him shew a cause that if it be reasonable he may obteine pardon or if he shew none let him be excommunicated as one that is cause of offence to the people giuing suspition of him which did sacrifice that he hath not wel offered it This Canō must be no interpretatiō of the Epistle and though it were yet is his priuate Masse in neuer the better case for here are still a number necessarily bounde to communicate with the Priest vnder paine of excommunication But M. Hesk. sayeth possible it might be that when the bishop had bene three attendant vpon him or such small number they might all haue cause to absteine This is a possibilitie not to like to come in esse or being once in 20. yeares For where findeth he that the bishop might haue but three with him The decree before cited requireth three deacons at the least beside subdeacons other ministers of which in the auncient church there was great store diuerse functions as acolytes exercistes readers dorekeepers c. But admitt it were possible that all these should absteine yet saith he there is no prohibition for the priest to receiue alone The decree sayeth they ought not to sacrifice alone and both it the Canon commaund all Christians especially the Clergie that be present to cōmunicate yet M. Hesk. sayeth they are not prohibited to saye Masse alone or that it is not sayd that the priuate Masse is naught What reason is in these aunswers let the readers iudge But for cleare proofe ouerthrow of the proclaimers challēge M. Hesk. sayth that in the Masse of Chrysost. there is a plain rule giuen what was to be done when the priest receiued alone that the Proclaimer had not learned so farre as to know this Indeed this is an high point of learning M. Hesk. that the proclaimer could neuer attain vnto to play with your readers noses so impudently which cannot smell out your falshod when you beare them in hande that that was Chrysostomes Masse which was written seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostome was dead as appeareth plainly by the prayer for Pope Nicolas the Emperour Alexius that is in it which the proclaimer as vnlearned as you make him yet had wit to finde out laye abrode to your open shame and to all their shames that vse the same Liturgie as authenticall rightly to be ascribed to Chrysostome The issue that you ioyne that priuate Masse is not naught nor prohibited in scripture councel or catholike writer is tryed alreadie by sufficient euidence giuen by the B. of Sarum against Harding by answere to your counterfet and false euidence vttered in this chapter in the next As for the receiuing of a sicke man alone hath nothing to do with priuate Masse which sole receiuing if it were admitted yet a case of extreme necessitie approoueth not an vsuall dayly contempt of Christes holy institution The one and fortieth chapter prooueth that the masse may bee said and the Sacrament receiued ▪ without a number of communicantes at one time in one place When all is saide and done saith M. Hesk. the Masse shal be holy and good and this shal be a trueth that a priest saying Masse or any other man godly disposed sicke or whole may receiue the holy sacrament alone for profe of this
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
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
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
comprehendeth it not Ioan. 1. and the natural man vnderstandeth not those things that be of the spirite of God. 1. Cor. 2. ver 14. and where shal we finde the practise of all nations according to the lawe of nature when they haue all declined and gone astray there is not one that doth good no not one Ro. 3. Psal. 13. Wherefore there are other two most certeine infallible rules wherby the law of nature in any case may be found out and knowen namely the word of God and the spirite of God whiche giue mutuall testimonie one to the other the worde and spirite of God beeing contrarie to the worshipping of Images The Lord saying in the first table of religion Thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worship them it is manifest that worshipping of images is contrarie to the Lawe of nature So that you see the foundation of this building already subuerted by which you may coniecture how long it is possible for the house to stande after it For what soeuer he iangleth of the internall conceptions of the minde vnproperly and metaphorically called images and comparing artificiall images vnto them it is nothing els but vain deceiptfulnesse to be contemned and hissed out not onely of all Christian Churches of euery faithfull man but also out of all schooles of Diuinitie by all them that are learned as well in the scriptures of God as in humaine phylosophie But that you may see what soundnesse there is in his doctrine thus he weaueth his copwebbe One telleth him that Christ died onely to saue man from euerlastinge paines he hearing and beleeuing this straight conceiueth Christ dying for him and is mooued to loue him Secondly he is much delighted with the Image which he conceiued in his minde of Christ dying for him and loueth that also Thirdly he loueth and honoureth him that tolde him this matter as a bringer of good tydinges So here bee three kindes of honour the cheefe to Christe the thinge it selfe the second to the inward conception or Image of him in his minde the last is to the reporter And here you haue a paterne of popishe prophane diuinitie for here is no loue nor honour due to the spirite of God who onely must open his heart to receiue suche tydings profitably nor to the worde of God which must be the warrant of this tydinges to be true nor to fayth which applying these tydinges to his owne saluation is the roote of all vertuous obedience loue honour and thankefulnesse in him But euen as he considereth of any prophane report so doeth he consider of this glad tydings of the gospell and not otherwise But to proceede of this wise distribution of three fold honour hee inferreth seuen causes of honouring artificiall Images The first is that it beareth the office of a reporter and therefore it must needes haue a rewarde of honour A slowe messenger a dumbe reporter which can neither go of this errande nor tell his tale But what skilleth it saieth Master Sander whether I learne by hearing or by seeing For Basill sayeth that both eloquent orators and cunninge paynters the one with their tongue the other with theiâ— pensil haue set forth valiant acts done in warre and stirred vp many to fortitude Hom. in 40. martyr But it skilleth vs to learne by hearing of Gods word because faith coÌ„meth by hearing Rom. 10. vers 17. and they are blessed which beleeue without seeing Ioh. 20. vers 29. Howsoeuer it skilleth papists howsoeuer all other things except religioÌ„ faith may be learned As for the reporter of the glad tydings of the gospel he is in deed worthy of honor if he do his message truly willingly diligeÌ„tly but it is honor of the second table not of the first that perteineth to him And except there be in him loue to God his neighbor he is worthy of no honor althogh he do the message Therefore if the Image were as a reporter â–ª he could haue but honor of the second table which is of charity not of religion But seeing there is in an image neither loue will diligence truth for which causes a reporter is loued cherished neither is an image cause of anye thinge there is no loue honour or worshippe due â—nto it The second cause of honoring artificial images is for that it doth speedily and most coÌ„ueniently informe our inward imagination and therefore is more to be honored theÌ„ any orator For the eye being the principal sense is most ready to instruct the minde and therfore a painted image is a more easie and liuely way to enstruct vs then any orator In deed if faith were a register of visible things as it is of inuisible thinges Heb. 11. vers 1.7 the sense of seing were a more easie speedy coÌ„uenient way of instructing then by hearing but yet images were no more to be honored then the sound of words is nowe to be worshipped when we heare the gospell preached But God saith he hath ioyned visible signes to his worde as in the proclaiming of the lawe yea sir but God shewed not there the image of any thing to teach them thereby but expressely forbad the vse of them in his religion and seruice But if God gaue visible wordes as he doeth his sacramentes it is not therefore lawfull for men to make images as visible teachers which God hath forefended There is therefore hitherto no naturall cause of the honouring of images The thirde cause of honouring of Images is because they be naturally knit and ioyned to the trueth concerning their shape and representation as the reporter if he be an Ethnike or Iewe he is ioyned to Christ in morall honestie and naturall loue of trueth if he be baptized much more as a member of Christ if he be a bishop c. as a minister of Gods worde if he be a Prophete by a more special grace if an Apostle as one nerest to Christ if it be Christ himselfe as the chiefe and God himselfe So Images as they be neerer to Christ they are more to be honoured and Christs Image most of all which speaketh alwayes and yet saith neuer a worde to them that haue spirituall eares of vnderstanding Nay carnall eyes of blinded and hardened heartes But this difference he maketh the former reporters deserue honour beeing reasonable creatures freely and voluntarily reportinge the trueth but letters and Images deserue no honour and yet it is due to them whiche is a straunge matter a due without desert yea necessarily due to them in respect of that whose image it beareth But admitte that the image were a true reporter as he is nothing but a false dumb stocke without any action yet seeinge he compareth an image to the written letters of the gospell which be figures of that trueth which is represented and learned by them I pray you what honour is due to the written letters of the Byble more then to the written letters of any other
forsoth my lord Here is an open falshood decreed and approued that Angels and soules of men haue bodies of ayer or fire and be circumscriptible But if M. Sander will stand in the defence of it because it is so decreed by this general councel at least let him heare the greatest councell for multitude that is read of namely The Laterane Cap. 1. Vnus est Deus indiuisus in essentia discretus in personis creator omnium c is ab initio temporis vtramque de nihilo condidit creaturam corporalem spiritualem Angelicam scilices mundanam Dęinde humanam quasi cōmunem ex spiritu corpore constitutā There is one God vndiuided in essence distinct in persons the creator of all thinges c. He in the beginning of time created both the creatures of nothing the bodily creature and the spirituall namely the Angels and the world Afterward the humane creature as common consisting both of a spirite and of a bodie Now let M. Sander aduise himselfe whether he will iustifie the Nicene councel with condemning the Laterane for their decrees be directly contrarie one to the other For impietie beside that which we haue already shewed Iohn deputie of the East to whome al the synode agreed vttered these wordes out of Sophionius Praestat iurantem peierare quam planè iuramentum in destructionem venerandarum imaginum seruare It is beter for him that sweareth to be forsworne then in deed to keep his oth to the destruction of reuerend images If this also may be excused from impietie what say you to that conclusion Gaudeant exultant qui Christi habentes imaginem sacrificium illi offerunt Let them reioyce and be glad which hauing the image of Christ doe offer sacrifice to it In this conclusion sacrifice whiche is the honor properly due to GOD alone euen by the Papistes confession is giuen to an image If none of al these be impietie yet to condemne the Pope of Rome for an heretike I answere with M. Sander is counted great impietie and a pernicious errour But Honorius sometime Pope of Rome was in this councell condemned for an heretike Action 6. To. 2. and Actione 7. in the definition His second reason in defence of this councel is that euerie word vttered by any father is not the determination of the whole councel no more then the voyce of euerie burgesse is an act of Parleament This granted we haue shewed the consent of the synode to moste of the speeches we haue recited which maketh a full determination His third reason is that the scriptures are better applied for honouring of images then they are impugned by Maister Iewell as he hath partely shewed What he hath shewed and how wel he hath applied them we haue seene already His fourth reason is that the miracles there tolde are not against the faith and therefore not to be derided but credited If all that be against the faith whiche is against the worde of God those miracles that are brought to confirme the worshipping of images must needes bee againste the faith That I speake not of so many dreames as be there alledged to proue the same But M. Sander thinketh images might as wel worke miracles as the shadowe of Peter did heale diseases Saint Paules girdle or napkins did heale diseases and driue out diuels But Peter him selfe confesseth that not he himselfe much lesse his shadowe or any vertue in him did heale diseases but onely Iesus Christ. Ye men of Israel saith he why maruel you at this or why look ye vpon vs as though by our owne power godlines we had made this man to walke If Peters owne person may not be looked vnto to haue any prayse of the miracle muche lesse his shadowe or Paules girdle and napkins and least of all his image for God vsed those as meanes by whiche he wrought but their images he neuer vsed Againe no man was so madde to worship Peters shadowe or Paules napkins or Elizaeus staffe for that he hath vp also although it wrought no miracle As for the hearbe which was reported to grow vnder the image in Paneade it tooke no vertue of the image if any such hearbe were but of god Although in that point Eusebius as I thinke was more credulous then a wise man shold haue ben to write such a strange matter vpon reporte which he might haue seene himselfe within a fewe dayes iourney After these generall answers he promiseth to bring a most euident reason why euerie man ought to beleeue obey the same generall councel vnder paine of euerlasting damnation And what is that I pray you Forsooth they that defended honouring of images were in possession of honouring of images because it had beene impossible that images had beene ouerthrowen if they had not beene first set vppe and honoured A lawlike reason in deede Why Master Sander will you defende a possession without a title The setting vp and worshipping of Images when it first entered into the Churche was but a Disseisure of the true and spirituall worshippe of God therefore by diuers assises holden at Constantinople Ephesus was dispossessed and the true worshippe of God restored vntill this packed Iurie of Nice put her out of possession againe And where you reiect the councels of Constantinople and Ephesus as priuate conuenticles as holden in the darke hating the light because the whole processe of their calling and actes is by your false Idolatrous Councell of Nice defaced you shewe your selfe both voide of reason and honestie Of reason because many councels were helde and thinges in them decreed obserued although the recordes of them are not to be found at large Of honesty because you would take aduauntage of your owne wronge who haue burned the recordes and then vrge your aduersarie to shew them You say they folowed in this councell the vse of their forefathers The councell of Constantinople also folowed the vse of their elder fathers whose writings they alledged against images As Epiphanius Estote memores dilecti filij ne in ecclesiam imagines inferatis nec in sanctorum cęmiterijs eas statuite sed perpetuò circumferte deum in cordibus vestris Quia etiam nec in domo communi tolerentur Non enim fas est Christianum per oculos suspensum teneri sed per occupationem mentis Be mindefull beloued children that you bring no images into the Churche neither set ye them vp in the buriall places of the saintes but alwayes carye about God in your heartes But neither in a common house let them be tollerated For it is not lawfull for a Christian man to be held in suspense by the eyes but by occupying of the minde Againe they cited Chrisostomes saying Nos perscripta sanctorum fruimur presentia non sanè corporum ipsorum sed animarum imagines habentes Non quae ab ipsis dicta sunt animorum illorum imagines sunt Wee enioye the presence of the saintes by
Hom. 3. and would haue all that receiued not to depart euen as the Canons of the Apostles and Gregorie in his Dialogues doe shewe And although many of the people were negligent in comming to the Lordes table yet was there no priuate Masse bicause that in those great Churches there were always a great number of the Clergie which receiued with the Bishop vpon paine of excommunication To the prayers of the Masse which being in the plurall number suppose a number present ▪ and a number of communicants hee saith they argue the antiquitie of the Masse to bee aboue sixe hundreth yeares after Christe which is not so in deede they argue the forme of those prayers to be ancienter then the priuate Masse and more they argue not But they may be vsed saith Maister Raster bicause at euery Masse be more present then any bodily eye can see O absurde Asse that so arrogantly braggeth of learning and so proudly despiseth so learned a Fathers arguments Admit that in steede of legions of diuels that be present at euery Masse whose seruice it is there were so many legions of Angels present as he fantasieth doeth the Priest saying Oremus Let vs pray speake to the Angels that are present to pray with him yea why not will some froward Papist say But to whome speaketh he when he turneth about and sayth Orate pro me fratres sorores pray for me brethren and sisters Be there hee Angels and she Angels also And when he prayeth that the oblation which they haue offered be saluation to all that haue receiued it doeth he meane that the Angels haue taken their rytes of the Priest though none of the people be present but perhaps one sorie boy that helpeth him to say Masse But the Prieste he saith is no priuate person but a common officer euen as when hee baptizeth But is hee such a Magistrate to altar and chaunge the institution and ordinaunce of GOD Baptisme may bee ministred to one alone according to the institution thereof but the Communion which is a feast of the Church ought not to bee kept without a number of guestes To all the rest of the authorities cited by the Bishop out of the Canons of the Apostles the decree of Calixtus the Dialogues of Gregorie hee saith they proue nothing but that the people vsed to communicate and there be diuers thinges in those writings which wee doe not obserue as though wee haue bound our selues to the obseruing of mens decrees as the Papistes haue But what so euer they haue agreeable to the worde of GOD wee obserue and willingly although hee slaunder our Church to suffer them to be present at the Communion which doe not communicate which is a most impudent and shamelesse lye and yet easily to bee borne in comparison of their blasphemies which he barketh out against the Priesthoode of our Sauiour Christe saying the order of Melchisedech should haue an end if their stinking Masse were omitted and that their Priestes must daily enter into Sancta sanctorum O Antichristian Helhoundes that challenge vnto your selues the peculiar Priesthoode of Christe who onely is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech and hath no successours in his Priesthoode Heb. 7. O blasphemous dogges that will haue your hedge Priests to enter into Sancta sanctorum the most holy places euery day whither Christ hath once for all entered and found eternall redemption Heb. 6. And these blasphemies he had rather defend then giue ouer the blasphemie of the priuate Masse which with neither learning modestie nor conscience he or any of al the rout of them is able to defend either as lawfull or as auncient SECTIO 37. in the 127. leafe To the challenge which the Bishop made against the priuate Masse he aunswereth nothing but that they haue no priuate Masse for all Masses are one common masse trifling vpon the terme when he can not say one word to the matter SECTIO 38. From the second face of the 127. leafe to the 131. leafe in which he treateth of receiuing the communion in both kindes To the Bishops challenge that the Communion was neuer ministred in one kinde to any man in the space of 600. yeres after Christes he answereth first that if it were not yet their Church is out of daūger bicause it is a matter indifferent for the Lay people to receiue in one kind or in both alledging for proofe a saying of Luther written before hee was throughly conuerted from Papistrie Secondly hee will proue that it was receiued vnder one kind first bicause in Luke 24. and Act. 20. there is no mention but of bread Ergo Christe and Paule gaue them the communion in one kind a good consequent By the same I may proue that Christe and Paule receiued them selues but bread bicause there is no mention of wine And yet the Papistes holde it necessarie that the Priest which ministreth should of necessitie receiue in both kindes And whereas he is ashamed of this negatiue consequence he chargeth vs with like reasoning out of some place of Augustine or Irenaeus c. Wheras he slandreth vs falsly except it be vpon such an affirmatiue as excludeth all other things With like impudence he saieth we doe not deny but that in Tertullians time the sacrament in one kinde was carried home to their houses which we doe vtterly deny neither is he euer able to proue As false it is that he saith in Cyprians time it was carried to mens houses in one kinde for Cyprian saith no such thing nor any worde sounding to such end And concerning the custome of sending the sacrament to Bishops that were straungers which came to Rome cited by Irenaeus Ad victor whereby he would proue it was sent vnder one kinde because wine would soone waxe sower I say he vnderstandeth not what the custome was but imagineth that the sacrament was sent a thousand myle of to those Bishops whereas it was onely from the Table to the places where they did sitte in the Churche or at the worste to their lodging where they soiourned at Rome But passing ouer as he doeth all reportes of carrying and sending the sacrament whiche prooueth nothing at all the communion in one kinde for both might as well be carried and sent as one he commeth to a fragment of an Epistle of Basilius Ad Caesariam Pratriciam which also he falsifieth in translation as the rest of the Papistes Harding and Heskins doe For where he saith that such as ledde a solitary life in the wildernesse where no Priest is keeping the communion at home receiue of themselues Communionem domi seruantes à seipsis communicant meaning they receiued one of an other which he translateth They communicate by themselues Gathering that a priest may as well receiue by himselfe in the churche as the people at home whiche doth not followe although neither of both be wel done And here againe he wil haue no wine for feare of sauoring
in spite of your heart for I will be at masse as soone as you and then will I receiue at my Masse when you receiue at your Masse and so by our owne principle whereby wee defend our priuate Masses to be communions I will communicate with you whether you will or no yea I can not choose but communicate with you if I say Masse when you doe And if you will say to me that I ought not to say Masse being excommunicate I tell you you can not excommunicate me so long as I can say Masse For though you count me excōmunicate yet you knowe by our owne diuinitie that if I doe say Masse notwithstanding your censure I doe consecrate as well as the proudest of you and after I haue consecrated I will receiue and then I communicate and so your excommunication is no excommunication at all SECTIO 48. in the 155. leafe Whereas the Bishop said that the Masse had nether her name nor her partes vntill foure hundreth yeares after Christe he aunswereth that she had the essentiall and necessarie partes but not the garnishing and decking parts So that by his owne confession it was a namelesse and naked Masse which they had in the church for foure hundreth yeares after Christes So that the later times with him were alwayes more wise and more religious then the former newe deuises better then olde customes And where then is there the proud challenge of antiquitie vniuersalitie consent Apostolike tradition And if the Church might be without the Popish Masse so long after Christe why should they teach that nowe it is so necessarie as there ought to be none other forme of communion vsed in the Church of God but it SECTIO 49. M. Rastel protesting once or twise that he was wearie will now conclude with onely confuting these conclusions of M. Iewels comparison S. Iames Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well neere nothing else but mans inuention To disproue this he saith the epistle and Gospell the collets of the Sunday the Hymne of the Angell the confession of faith the saying of Agnus Dei c. are translated out of their Masse into our communion therefore we take them for parte of Christes institution I answere we take them as Christes institution and not as commended by the Masse and yet are they no parte of the communion though they be vsed in our liturgie some before and some after the communion Secondly he would seeme to confute the Bishops saying that Saint Iames Masse had Christes institution because if we had thought so in deede we would haue translated it into English and so haue vsed it in steede of the Popish Masse and then it would haue seemed more superstitious and full of ceremonies then the Popish Masse And so he rehearseth a number of superstitious ceremonies gestures and prayers that are in it I answere the Bishop said truely as he thought that the liturgie falsely ascribed to Saint Iames hath Christes institution concerning the Lorde Supper notwithstanding it be ful fraught with idle ceremonies and some superstitious and erronious prayers whereas the Popish Masse hath cleane ouerturned the institution of Christ touching the ende of the Lordes supper reteyning well neere nothing of Christes institution except you will say it hath bread and wine which it most horribly abuseth to the prophanation of Christes death and most filthie idolatrie Finally the saluation of the virgine Marie whiche was then aliue although it were more meere to be vsed to her person beeing aliue then after she was departed out of this worlde the prayer made for them that liued in monasteries the tearme of consubstantiall not heard of in the Church before the Nicene councell and many other argumentes doe sufficiently proue that the saide liturgie was not written by Saint Iames the Apostle nor by any that liued many hundreth yeares after him to the iudgements of al men that haue either knowledge to discerne trueth from falshoode or conscience to acknowledge that which they can not choose but know And euen Bartholomew Garanza a Papist that gathered the abridgement of councels affirmeth that the liturgie which Saint Iames vsed is not extant at this day O Lord bring into the way of trueth all such as erre of simplicitie and be not mercifull to those that sinne of malicious wickednesse After this clearkly confutation followeth a counterfet challenge as he pretendeth to shew the Bishops follie but in deede to shewe his owne follie and the weaknesse of his cause which he learned not as he saith of Salomon to answere a foole according to his follie but of Menalcas one of Virgils sheepheardes in his thirde Eglogue which when he could not answer the ridle propounded vnto him by his aduersarie he putteth for than other as harde as he thinketh Dic quibus in terris c. His first section conteineth 21. articles whereof the greatest parte are not helde at all by any of vs therefore there is no cause why we should proue them the rest be matters of meere indifferencie which may be vsed or left vndon without any hurt of our religion some perhaps may be proued which he litle thinketh of to his shame Of the first sort are these 1. that there was no drie communion and we say there ought to be none although the Papistes make a drie communion when they robbe the people of the cuppe of the Lordes bloud The thirde that Bishops did not sweare by their honour we affirme they ought not to sweare nor yet by God as I heard Boner sweare being conuented before the Bishop of Winchester his Chauncelour and a great number of persons beeing present The 4. that bagpipers horscoursers gailers alebasters were not admitted into the Cleargie without sufficient triall We affirme they ought not nor yet any of the scullerie or blacke garde as some yet liuing were made Priestes in Queene Maries time The 6. that no Bishoppe not content with prisoning his aduersaries call vppon Princes to put them to cruell death We holde that no Bishop should imprison his aduersary much lesse procure his death but if the challenge had beene of Gods aduersaries I would haue aunswered otherwise For if in 600. yeares none of Gods aduersaries was or ought to haue beene put to death by procurement of Bishops by what ground of antiquitie doe Popish Bishops procure so many to be put to death yea murther them selues in their prisons and inquisitions vnder pretence that they be Gods aduersaries The 17. that no Bishoppe did gather beneuolence of his Cleargie to marrie his daughter c. We aunswere this no way concerneth religion no more then putting of the ring on the womans left hande which is the 18. or calling the people by ringing of a bell whiche is the 21. Now concerning the rest as the seconde that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper except there be a good number to communicate three or foure at the least
105. After all these iollie questions he confesseth he should do vs wrong to require the probation of these articles bicause many of them containe indifferent ceremonies in many he sticketh vpoÌ„ such termes as he thinketh are not found in the auncient Fathers in some he presseth vs with particular wordes leauing the generall principle and in some with priuate mens opinions he might haue added in some with his own impudent lyes and forgeries which none of vs do holde and such he would make the Bishopâ— challenge to be but the world hath sufficiently seene the contrarie proued that most of the matters contained in that challenge be of the greatest mysteries of Poperie whereas these of M.Ra. witlesse and shamelesse deuising for the most part are not maintained at all in manner and forme as he propoundeth them and such as be materiall are sufficiently proued But nowe that he hath played the foole as he confesseth all this while he promiseth to play the wise man in propounding matters of weight substance in which you shall see that euen as before he chargeth vs to proue many things which we do not hold and therefore he playeth not the wise man but the craftie marchant to make the ignorant beleeue that wee maintaine that we are not able to iustifie He diuideth his challenge into foure partes the first hath three Articles To the first that it is vnlawful to make a vowe to God of chastitie obedience or pouertie I answere it is vnlawfull to make a vowe of that which is not in a mans power to performe as is the vowe of Virginitie which is a gift not giuen to all as our sauiour Christ testifieth Matt. 19. Also ConciliuÌ„ ArasicanuÌ„ 2. decreed ca. 11. De obligatione votoruÌ„ Nemo quicquam Domino rectè vouerit nisi ab ipso acceperit sicut legitur Quae de manu tua accepimus damus tibi Of the bonde of vowes No man shall rightly vowe any thing to the Lord except he haue receiued it of him as it is read Such things as we haue receiued of thy hand we giue to thee That breakers of such vowes were esteemed aboue others as singular witnesses of the libertie of the Gospell is no part of our assertion But that their meaning is honest is proued by Leo B. of Rome Ep. 90. speaking of a Monke Vnde qui relicta singularitatis professione ad militiam vel ad nuptial dâ—uolutus est publicae paenitentiae satisfactione purgandus est quia etsi innocens militia honestum potest esse coniâ—gium electionem tamen meliorem deseruisse transgressio est Wherefore he which hath forsaken the profession of sole life and fallen to warfare or marriage must be purged by satisfaction of open repentance bicause that although his warfare may be harmelesse and his marriage honest yet it is a transgression to haue forsaken his better choyse To the second that it was abhominable to make any sacrifice to God beside the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in words the figures for his benefites with remembrance of his passion c. I proue by the authoritie of Iustinus which affirmeth that these were the only sacrifices deliuered vnto the Christians therefore it was abhominable to vse any other His wordes are in his Dialogue with Tryphon against the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I my selfe doe affirme that prayers and thankesgiuings made by worthie persons are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to god For these are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make to be put in mind by their drie and moyst nourishment of the passion which God the sonne of God is recorded to haue suffered for them Here note that he calleth the sacrament drie and moyst nourishment To the third that there was no Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech but onely the Priesthoode of our Sauiour Christ it is manifest by the 110. Psalme that the Priesthood pertaineth to him that sitteth at the right hand of God euen to the Lord Iesus Christe also by the Apostle to the Hebrues 5. 7. Chapter in which it is saide that he hath that Priesthoode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is so peculiar to him as it passeth not by succession Neither was there euer any greater blasphemie then that euery Popish Priest should bee a Priest after the order of Melchisedech to offer Christe to his Father And that Priestes haue not a singular sacrifice to offer for the sinnes of the people is proued by S. Augustine â— Contra aduersar leg prophe who calleth the death of Christ Vâ—um singulare solum verum sacrificium that one singular and onely true sacrifice in which the bloud of Christe was shed for vs But the Papistes call their blasphemous sacrifice an vnbloudie sacrifice therefore they haue not any singular sacrifice for the sinnes of the people The second part containeth 12. Articles in which he falsly chargeth Caluine in his institutions with diuers Articles which neither he nor any of vs doe holde The first that the sacrament of baptisme instituted by Christ is no better then the circumcision of the old lawe is proued by Saint Augustine which saith in Ioan. Tr. 26. speaking of the sacraments of the old law that they were in fignis diuersa in re quae significatur paria diuers in signes equall in the thing signified The second that baptisme is a signe onely of our profession and that our sinnes are not truly forgiuen in it is no doctrine of ours but of the Anabaptistes mightily confuted by Caluine whome he slaundereth to hold it The 3. that confirmation ought to be a sacrament is an inuention of man plaine for that it is not taught in the scriptures to be an institution of christ IrenÄ™us testifieth that the annointing with sweete oyle came first of the Valentinian heretiques Lib. 1. cap. 18. Also in S. Hieromes time the Priestes made the oyle of Chrisme and laide on their handes and not the Bishop only In Sophon cap. 3 â–ª For a Bishop did nothing more then a Priest but only in ordeining of ministers Hier. Euagrio Wherevpon it followeth that the Popish confirmation was not then a sacrament which they hold can be ministred of none but of a Bishop The fourth that Christ deliuered in his last supper a figure only of his body to be eaten of his Apostles is none of our assertions for we affirme that he deliuered breade and wine not as a figure onely but as his very body and bloud spiritually to be eaten and dronken The 5. that the power of forgiuing and reteyning sinnes which Christ gaue to his Apostles is nothing else but a comforting or fearing of mens consciences by the promises or menaces of the scripture c. is not affirmed of vs but that Christ hath giuen power to his ministers to assure the penitent of forgiuenesse in his name to pronounce his iudgment to the vnrepentant so that man followeth the sentence of God and not God of man.
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
broken downe thine altares While hee sayth thine he sheweth that the thing is Gods where any thing is offered of any man to God. Vppon pretence of this place Maister Hesk. chargeth vs with great sacriledge for pulling downe their popish altares on which they committed idolatrie and moste horrible sacriledge And therefore wee are commaunded to ouerthrowe such altares to breake downe their pillers burne their images with fire Deut. 7. And whereas he compareth vs to one Iulianus an heathen man that pissed against the altare and therfore was horribly punished hee sheweth his wisedome For there an idolater did vilanously contemne the Christians religion therfore was iustly plaged of God but we as Christians haue obeyed the lawe of God in ouerthrowing their antichristian idolatrous altars And yet I thinke the fact of Iulianus was not worse then the filthinesse of Pope Iohn that lay with his whores vppon your altares In the conclusion of this chapter he affirmeth that the altar sacrifice are correlatiues therefore there coulde be none altars but there was also sacrifice I haue shewed sufficiently howe the old writers called the communion table an altare and the sacrament a sacrifice namely a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation and yet more must I saye vpon M. Heskins discourses that followe The two and thirtieth Chapter vpon occasion that it is proued that the primitiue Church vsed the altare and reputed the bodie and bloud of Christ to be a sacrifice beginneth to treate of the same sacrifice which we commonly call the Masse Because the names of altar sacrifice haue beene vnproperly vsed by auncient writers for wee haue shewed that their altar was a table and their sacrifice a thankesgiuing therefore M. Hesk. will treat of the sacrifice of the Masse And first of the name of Masse which he saith we abhorre and iustly because it hath been vsed of many yeres to signifie a most blasphemous and idolatrous seruice The name he will deriue in all the haste out of the Hebrue tongue from a word that is called Mas from whence the Latines haue deriued their worde Missa being the same that the Greekes called Liturgia and the Latines officium which is in English a seruice To this I aunswere first that if Missa or Masse be nothing but a seruice then Euen song may be called Masse because it is a seruice Secondly it carryeth no shewe of trueth that the Latines would borrowe their name of the Hebrues rather then of the Greekes Thirdly that there is no such Hebrue worde as Maister Heskins affirmeth to bee Mas signifying a seruice as I report mee to all that haue but meane knowledge in the tongue Fourthly that although the name of Missa bee of some antiquitie in the Romane church yet is it neither so auncient as he maketh it and that which is chiefely to be regarded it is neuer founde in the holie scripture But nowe let vs consider his authoritie First Leo bishop of Rome Epist. 79. sayeth thus Necesse est vt quaedam pars populi sua deuotione priuetur si vniut tantùm Missae more seruato sacrificium offerre non possunt nisi qui prima diei parte conuenerint It must needes be that some parte of the people bee depriued of their deuotion if the manner or custome of our onely masse being obserued they cannot offer sacrifice except such as came together the first part of the day Vppon coulour of this place Maister Heskins will not onely prooue that the name of Missa is auncient but also that it is lawfull to saye more then one Masse in one church in one day if two then three if three then tenne if tenne then fifteene and so twentie which the proclaimer sayed could not be proued But you shall see howe lewdly hee abuseth his reader The proclaimers challenge was of tenne or twentie priuate Masses sayed in one church and commonly at one time Maister Heskins bringeth in authoritie of Leo which proueth that when one communion coulde no serue any more then so manie as the church woulde holde at one time it was meete it should be celebrated twise or as often as the same was filled with people vntill all had receiued which as wee confesse to be true so maketh it nothing in the worlde for the priuate Masse but altogether against it as is plaine by the whole treatie going before which Maister Heskins according to his accustomed synceritie hath cleane left out Vt autem in omnibus obseruantia nostra Concordet illud quoque volumus custodiri vt quum solennior festiuitas conuentum populi numerosioris indixerit ad eam tanta multitudo conuenerit quam recipere Basilica simul vna non possit sacrificij oblatio indubitanter iteretur ne his tantùm admissis ad hanc deuotionem qui primi aduenerint videantur hi qui posimodum confluxerint non recepti cum plenum pietatis atque rationis fit vt quoties Basilicā pręsentia nonae plebis impleuerit toties sacrificiū subsequēs offeratur And that our obseruation may agree in al things this also we will haue to be kept that when a more solemne festiuitie shall call together a greater assembly of people and so great a multitude is gathered vnto it that one great Church can not receiue them altogether the oblation of the sacrifice without doubt may be done againe least those only being admitted which came first they which came together afterward might seeme not to be receiued whereas it is a matter full of godlinesse and reason that how often so euer the presence of a newe people shall fill the Church so often the sacrifice following should be offered But M. Heskins vrgeth in the place by him cited that the word missa is vsed which is not denyed but this was almost 500. yeres after Christ about the yere 480. Secondly that the Masse is a sacrifice But he will not see that it is such a sacrifice as all the people offer which can not be a sacrifice propitiatorie but of thankesgiuing Howbeit he saith The Masse is a sacrifice that is or ought by ioyne affection and deuotion of the people to the Priest to be offered of them all What affection or deuotion he would haue to the Priest I do not well vnderstand but let him shadowe him selfe in what fond phrase of word he will yet can he not auoyde but that the people by the wordes of Leo did offer sacrifice in as ample manner as the Priestes and then they were all Priestes Besides this in the words of Leo he obserueth not that it was a custome of the Church before his time to haue but one Masse or Communion in a day so straightly kept that vpon necessitie they would not relent therein vntill he tooke this order with them But Maister Heskins asketh what scripture the proclamer hath to the contrarie for twentie Masses in one Church in one day I aunswere Saint Paule willeth the Corinthians to