Deus c. That God onely might be truely worshipped What can be reasonably gathered of these wordes but that al honour is due to God and therfore none to idols which are forbidden to be made If Philo a Iewe will not serue Augustine a Christian is alledged who Super Exod. 9.71 allowing that diuision of the tenne commandementes by which three onely are saide to apperteine to God saith Et reuera c. And truely that which is saide Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me is more perfectly expounded when forged things are forbidden to be worshipped First for the diuision of the coÌ„mandements Aug. is not constant with him selfe For In Quaesti Nou. Vet. Test. Quest. 7. he writeth thus Non sint tibi Dij alij praeter me primum verbum hoc est Es subiecit secundum Non facies tibi vllam similitudineuâ— â–ª Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me this is the first worde or commandement and he addeth the second Thou shalt not make to thy self any similitude By which it is manifest that to worship images is not all one with hauing other Gods. But M. Sander will answer our obiection that God forbiddeth all honour of images thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worship them Adoration saith he is a doubtfull worde For Abraham adored the people of the lande Gen. 23. Very true but with a ciuill worship whereof we speake not nowe He made obeysans to them or as we say he made courtesie to them And the Angel refused to be adored saying adore god Therefore there is an adoration proper to God for Angels sometime haue beene adored Nay M. Sander therefore all religious worshippe perteineth to god For S. Iohn was not so madde to worship the Angel as God but as the messenger of God with a religious and not a ciuill worshippe And when you say Angels haue beene adored as Gen. 18. and Iudicum 13. I answere in both places they were adored with ciuill worship supposed by Abraham and Manohah to be honourable men and not to be Angels But when you cite Augustine to fortifie your distinction of Latria and Doulia you hurt your cause by his iudgement more then you further it by his authoritie For whereas he in Exod. 94. saith that Latria is due to God as he is God Doulia is due to God as he is our Lorde it followeth that that worship which is called Doulia as well as that which is called Latria is due onely to God who is our onely Lord and wil not giue his glorie to grauen Images Es. 42.8 1. Cor. 8.6 Theodoret saying that God calleth his people from the worshipping of diuels euen as Saint Paule 1. Cor. 10. sheweth that worshipping of images is the worshipping of diuels And whereas Maister Sander saith it can not possibly be saide that Christes images is dedicated to the diuell I say plainely with Theodoret and Paule it is dedicated to the diuell when it is worshipped For the Images of the Gentiles were not by the intente of the makers and worshippers dedicated to deuils but to God and godly men and women but when they were honored with religious honour which appertaineth onely to God the spirit of God saith they were dedicated to deuils And euen the same reason is of the Image of christ of the Trinitie of Peter or any other honoured with religious worshippe Thus Augustine and Theodoret cited by him are both against him Well yet he will disproue the comparison that M. Iewell maketh betweene Gods wordes and M. Hardings Iewell God saith thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen Images M. Hardinge saieth thou shalt make to thy selfe grauen Images But M. Sander saieth neither God nor M. Harding say so that is they do not meane so for God expounding his meaning added thou shalt not adore them nor giue them the honor due to God aboue therefore M. Iewell did euill to deuide Gods saying and by that diuision hee is sure that hee hath condemned his owne conscience So that by M. Sanders interpretation to make Images and to adore them is all one But M. Iewell seeinge them to be distincte matters to make and to worshippe without condemning his conscience did speak first of making and then of worshippinge of Images And although M. Sander be either so blind or so wilful that he cannot see or will not acknowledge the distinction of the two tables of the Lawe the matter of one being religion the other charitie yet M. Iewell did well inough consider that the Queenes Maiesties Image grauen in her coyne and such like pictures as nothing at all concerned religion nor nothinge at all forbidden were made by a commandement of the first table Now followeth another comparison Iewell God saith thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worshippe them M. Harding saith thou shalt fall downe to them and worshippe them But M. Sander answereth that M. Harding defendeth that another degree of honour incomparably inferiour to that which is due to God may be giueÌ„ to images not that which is due to god Wel then is M. Hard. Sander to contrary to other papists as great doctors as they But yet M. Iewels comparison doth stand For God forbiddeth al worship of Images Master Hard. aloweth some worship of Images Again how wil you distinguish the falling downe to God from falling downe to Images And therfore M. Iewel is no wrangler for meane Harding what he can meane his saying and meaning is contradiction to the saying and meaning of god But you wil affâ—rme saith M. Sander that al maner of honour is forbiddeÌ„ to be giuen to any kind of Image You haue against you the opinion of the law of nature the word of God the iudgement of the ancient fathers the decrees of general councels the practise of the whole church as hereafter shal be declared Verily M. Sander if you can bring al these authorities to vphold the worshipping of Images you shal do more then any man was euer able to do before you but hitherto you haue brought nothing worth the hearing But in the meane time you wil proue that there are two kindes of honour the one due to God alone the other to his creatures so to Images But you must proue that there be two kindes of religious honor or els you proue nothing for your purpose For ciuil honor wil not helpe you one iote for worshipping of Images except you be of that minde as Boniface a gentleman about Stamford was that would salute the sacrament of the altar with curtesie these words God giue you good morrow good Lord. And what haue you to proue this your distinction Nothing in the world but a saying of Augustine lib. 10. cap. 1. De ciuit Dei. that Latria by a certaine consent of ecclesiasticall writers hath bene taken for that seruice which is due to God that there is another seruice due to men according to which the Apostle coÌ„mandeth seruants to be
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
iustice that Dauid doeth promise to execute against al the wicked of the land Psalm 101. to incourage men to cruelty and contention but all in vaine like as his purpose for which he alledgeth them was wicked namely to ouerthrowe the true and naturall sense of the scripture But yet the same Origen is directly against maister Heskins in that cause for which he is alledged as appeareth plainely in Leuitici cap. 16. Hom. 9. An tu putas qui vix diebus fectis ad Ecclesiam venis c. Thinkest thou whiche scarcely commest to the Church vpon the holy dayes giuest no heede to heare the wordes of God nor takest any paines to fulfill his commandements that the Lordes lot can come vppon thee Yet we wish that after you haue heard these things you would take paines not only in the Church to heare the wordes of God but also at home in your houses to be exercised and to meditate in the Lawe of the Lorde day and night Go your wayes now and boaste of Origens authoritie that the scriptures are not to be read of all men when in a publique Sermon he exhorteth all the people to the diligent reading of them and sharply reproueth them for their negligence in this behalfe The third Chapter to declare the newe Testament not to be easie to be vnderstanded â–ª bringeth diuers obscure places of the same As I said before there was neuer man yet so foolish to affirme the scriptures to be so easie that there was no obscure place in them but that nothing needful to saluation is so obscure in them but that it may be easily vnderstoode by conference of other places where the fame is most plainely set foorth But let vs see his wise reasons to proue the new Testament to be hard bicause some places therein be hard to be vnderstanded The Euangelistes Matthewe and Luke seeme to varrie in the Genealogie of Christ therefore all is not easie What then They both doe manifestly agree in that which is materiall for our faith â—hat Christe was the seede of Abraham and the sonne of Dauid In the rest what straunge matter is it if one pedegree be brought from one principall ancester by seuerall discents lineall and collaterall natural and legall by the male and by the female â–ª For the second obscure place Chrysostome is alledged who Numbereth it among the hid thinges howe Elizabeth being of the tribe of Leuie may be called the cousen of Marie A perillous doubt in solution whereof though a number be ignoraunt yet I doubt not but they may be saued And yet by conference of the stories of scripture it is easie to finde that men of the tribe of Iuda might marrie of the Priestes daughters and the Priestes did marrie euen of the Kings daughters of Iuda By which mariages cousenage might easily be vnderstoode to growe betweene the two tribes â–ª notwithstanding the lawe of Num 36. Which did forbid only those marriages by which the inheritances might be confounded The third doubtfull place is in Marke 13. Where it is said that Of that day and houre knoweth no man no not the Angels in heauen nor the sonne him selfe but the father And Chrysostome is againe alledged to shewe that this is a doubtful place and yet a simple Christian that knoweth the two diuers natures in Christ humane and diuine can easily solute it and say that although Christe by his godhead knoweth all things yet as he was man he knewe not all things The fourth proofe is taken out of the example of Algasia and Hedibia two godly women and studious of the scriptures whereof the one found twelue the other eleuen doubtes in the newe Testament and sent to S. Hieronyme for resolution of them I maruell M. Heskins hath so small discretion to alledge these examples which do quight ouerthrowe his purpose If not onely men but women also may read the scriptures and profite so well in the studie of them that they can finde but eleuen or twelue doubts in the whole newe Testament for resolution whereof they did as became good schollers send so farre for the iudgement of their learned maister But M. Heskins not content to shewe that they douted will also set downe some of their douts namely this one moued by Algasia Why Iohn the Baptist should send his disciples to Christ to aske this question Art thou he that shalt come or do we looke for an other seeing he both knewe openly pointed at Christ with his finger before Although this good woman doubted of this matter yet it is easie to answer that theÌ„ he sought the instructioÌ„ of his disciples rather then the confirmation of his owne knowledge An other was moued by Hedibia Howe Christ in Iohn 20. forbad Marie to touch him when Matthew 28. affirmeth that the women held his feete It seemeth to M. Heskins that one of these must be vntrue I dare say it seemed not so to Hedibia although she could not perfectly reconcile these places But seeing that both these reports are true it is plaine ynough that he suffered Marie Magdalene to holde his feete so much as was sufficient to confirme the certeintie of his resurrection forbad her not vntil she shewed her self too much addicted to his bodily preseÌ„ce Another doubt is howe Marke saith the women came to the sepulchre when the Sunne was rysen and then saith Marie Magdalene came early in the morning when it was yet darke A woman sitting at her distaffe woulde easily solue this doubt and say that it was darke when they set foorth of their dores but the Sunne was risen by that time they came to the Sepulchre Yet another doubt of Hedibia whether Christ breathing on his Apostles gaue them the holie Ghost when he promised to send him after his ascension There is no doubt but he did then in some small measure but afterwardes sent him with most plentifull vertue and power To conclude what needed Austen to haue written a great volume De consensu Euangelistarum what needed the comentaries of Hieronyme Ambrose vpon the Euangelistes or the Homilies of Chrysostome Augustine and the expositions of so manie learned men c. if the Scriptures be so plaine easie O foolish conclusion as though the Scriptures may not planely set foorth vnto vs all things necessarie for vs to learne and yet the same things with all other things conteined in them be set forth more plainly largely to the instruction increase of our faith hope comfort obedience c. by Comentaries Homelies expositions yea admonitions and exhortations The fourth Chapter conteineth certeine hard places of the Epistles M. Heskins taketh great paines in those Chapters to proue that which no man doubteth of that there be some hard and darke places in the Scriptures and yet it followeth not but that the Scriptures are a light vnto our steppes a lanterne vnto our feete the worde of the Lord giueth wisedome vnto
exercise of patience confirmation of faith Then the Epistle to the Hebrues hath two sore sentences Heb. 6. 10. For it is not possible that they which were once lightened and haue tasted of the heauenly gift and were made partakers of the holie Ghoste and haue tasted of the good worde of God and of the power of the world to come if they fall away should be renewed againe by repentance seeing they crucifie againe to them selues the Sonne of God and make a mocke of him And againe For if we sinne wilfully after we haue receiued the knowledge of the trueth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinnes but a fearefull looking for of iudgement and violent fire which shall deuour the aduersaries The difficultie of these places resteth in one point and in a manner in one worde in eche of the sentences For the Apostle excludeth not from repentance euery one that falleth and sinneth but him onely which sinneth so wilfully that he falleth cleane away from christ For then there is no repentance nor remission because he sinneth against the holie Ghost as did Iudas Alexander the coppersmith Iulian the Apostata such like The contention of Hieronyme Augustine about Peters dissimulation is the last example of difficultie which did not arise of any obscuritie of the place but of Hieronymes immoderate and ouer great zeale to defend Peter where the holie Ghost saith plainly he was worthie to be reprehended But for as much as these two great doctors could not agree about the exposition of this place it doth not so much declare the hardnesse of the Scriptures as it doth discourage vs to finde the certeine exposition of them at all times in the iudgement of the doctours which both in this place and many other are not onely diuers but oftentimes contrarie one to another The conclusion of the Chapter is not all amisse wherein he dissuadeth not men from reading the scriptures but from rashnesse of iudgement and exhorteth the readers of them to humilitie and modestie that so the spirite of GOD may rest vppon them which will leade them into all trueth The first Chapter declareth the mindes and iudgements of the Fathers and Doctours vpon the difficultie of the scriptures It is not ynough for this bold Burgesse to trouble the house in prouing that which no man doth gainesay but he wil also charge men with impudencie and arrogancie which giue him no occasion of this his long and vaine speache But herein he sheweth his witt more then his honestie For bicause he can not disproue that which they say he laboureth to proue that which they do not denie And nowe of the doctours substantially no doubt Origen must beginne who saith That these wordes of Paule Brethren you are called into libertie Gal 5. is an hard place and that the holy Ghost must be found in the scriptures with much labour and sweat c. We say likewise with Dauid that the godly mans studie must be in the lawe of the Lorde day and night But that Origen would not for the difficultie of the scriptures dissuade any Lay man from reading of them is manifest by this place in Gen. Capit. 26. Hom. 12. Tenta ergo tu ô auditor habere proprium puteum proprium fontem vt tu cum apprehenderis librum scripturarum incipias etiam ex proprio sensu proferre aliquem intellectum secundum ea quae in Ecclesia didicisti tenta tu bibere de fonte ingenij tui Assay therefore thou ô hearer to haue a pit of thine own a spring of thine owne that euen thou also when thou takest in hand the booke of the scriptures maiest beginne to bring foorth some vnderstanding of thine owne wit and according to those thinges which thou hast learned in the Churche assay thou also to drinke of the spring of thine owne witte Here Origen will not only haue men to reade the scripture but also incourageth them to seeke out the interpretation by their owne studie But Hieronyme next to Origen in his Epistle to Paulinus both noteth diuerse obscure places in the scripture and also counselleth Paulinus to vse the helpe of interpreters And who is it that mislyketh his councel especially if it be to exhort one that meant to be a teacher in the Church as Paulinus was Yet neuerthelesse we shewed before that Hieronyme would haue euen infantes brought vppe in the knowledge of the scriptures and exhorteth not onely men but women also to the studie of them and commendeth husband men and labourers for their knowledge of the scriptures And although he confesse the questions of Algasia to be full of difficulties yet he both commendeth her studie in the scriptures and desire to be resolued in her doubtes Yet Basill teacheth that all the scriptures are not to be published and made common For there are poyntes of learning or of doctrine that are to be kept close and the obscuritie which the scripture vseth is a kinde of silence so framing those points of learning that a man may hardly vnderstand them The wordes of Basil are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is according to Erasmus translation exercising a minde vnapte for the contemplation of this doctrine and that for the profite of them that exercise them selues in the scriptures Which last wordes M. Heskins hath fraudulently left out and so he is cleane contrarie to M. Heskins purpose Although Basill speaketh not expressely of reading the Scriptures by the faithfull but of publishing the mysteries of Christian religion that were receiued by tradition without Scripture For in his short definitions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this question whether it be expedient that they which are new come to the faith should be instructed in the holie Scriptures he aunswereth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This question may be dissolued by those things that were sayde before For it is both conuenient necessarie that euery man for his neede should learne out of the diuine Scriptures both for the certeine persuasion of godlinesse also that he be not accustomed vnto mans traditions But S. Ambrose also in fewe words saith much to this matter calling the Scripture of God the great sea hauing in it a deepenesse without bottome of deepe senses vnderstandings into the which many floods do enter But this letteth not S. Ambrose vpon 118. Psal. Serm. 1. to exhort the laye people to read the Scriptures Et tu lege prophetam vt videat lege vt apperiat os tutum And thou also read the Prophet that thou mayst see read that he may open thine eyes And againe Quod sisugias lectionem propheticam si domi non legas in ecclesia audire nolis c. But if thou flye from the reading of the Prophetes if thou read not at home thou wilt not heare in the Church but while thou feinest to heare those things that are read c. And if in your iudgement
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
celebrate with a sheepe another that wee do celebrate in the bodie bloud of Christ. But Augustines wordes not truncately and by peece meale rehearsed nor altered are these Contrae literas Petiliani lib. 2. Cap. â—7 Sed sicut aliud est carnis circumcisio Iudeorum aliud autem quod octauo die baptizatorum nos celebratius et aliud est Pascha quod adhuc illi de Oue celebrant aliud autem quod nos in corpore sanguine domini accipimus sic alius fuit baptismus Ioannis alius est baptismus Christi illis enim ventura ista praemanciabantur istis completa illa praedicantur But euen as the circumcision of the fleshe of the Iewes is one thing and that which wee do celebrate the eyght day of them that are baptized is another thing and the Passeouer whiche they do yet celebrate of a sheepe is one thing and that which wee receiue in the bodie and bloud of the Lorde is another thing So the baptisme of Iohn was one and the baptisme of Christe is another for by those things these things were foreshewed to come by these those things are preached to be accomplished First the supper is not made here another Passeouer but another thing that is an other sacrament Secondly here is declared howe the sacraments of the old lawe differ from ours of the newe Testament not in substance which is all one in both but that they were signes of things to come ours are signes of things accomplished Which thing hee teacheth often and in this Chapter moste plainly Lex Prophetae c. The lawe and the Prophetes had Sacraments foreshewing the things to come but the Sacraments of oure time do testifie that to bee come which they did preache that it should come And in Ioan. Tract 28. hee sayeth that the Sacraments of the olde testament and the newe in signis diuersa sunt in re quae significatur paria In visible kindes diuerse but aequall in spirituall vertue By which and a hundreth such places it is manifest to be ouerthrowen which M. Heskins would buylde that Christ spiritually receiued is not our Pascall lambe but that we receiue another substance of Christe then the faithfull did in the olde Testament The seconde place he citeth out of Augustine I marueile he could not see it to be as plaine against him as the first cont Faust. man lib. 20. Cap. 18. The Hebrues in the sacrifices of beastes which they did offer to God many and diuerse wayes as for so great a matter it was meete did celebrate a Prophesie of the sacrifice to come which Christ hath offered Wherefore nowe the Christians do celebrate the memorie of the same sacrifice being accomplished by the holie oblation and by the participation of the bodie and bloud of Christ. In this sentence is manifestly declared the same difference we spake of before of the Iewishe sacraments and of our sacraments the one being a Prophesie of Christes sacrifice to come the other a remembrance of the same beeing past and fulfilled And whereas M. Heskins vrgeth the worde oblation to exclude the spirituall eating he doth verie ridiculously as though there might not be as wel a spiritual oblation as a spirituall participation especially when the author shewing what we do in oblation and participatioÌ„ sayeth we so celebrate the memorie of Christes sacrifice alredie fulfilled Therefore this oblation is another from that namely a spirituall oblation and thanksgiuing for that whose memorie it celebrateth as Augustine most plainly teacheth in the same booke Cap. 21. Sed quid agam tantae caecitati istorum HÄ™reticorum quando demonstrabo quam vim habeat quod in Psalmis canitur Sacrificium laudis glorificabit me illie via est vbi ostendam salutare meum Huius sacrificij caro sanguis ante aduentum Christi per victimas similitudinâ—m promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsum veritatem reddâ—batur post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur But what shall I do or when shall I shewe vnto so great blindnesse of these heretikes what force that hath which is soung in the Psalmes The sacrifice of praise shall glorifie mee and there is the way where I will shewe my saluation The fleshe and bloud of this sacrifice before the comming of Christ was promised by sacrifices of similitudes in the passion of Christ by the verie trueth it selfe it was giuen vp after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance Iudge by this place whether Christes bodie be really offered or whether it be a mathematicall sacrifice as it pleaseth M. Heskins in his merie vaine to call it Augustine maketh three kindes of oblation of the fleshe and bloud of Christ In promise by sacrifices of similitudes in truth by Christ in his passion in the sacrament of remeÌ„brance after his death Now followeth a long speache of Cyrill directly against M. Heskins the alledger of it lib. 4. in Ioan. 6. ca. 14. Nec putet c. Neither let the Iewe of the dullnesse of his whiche thinke that we haue inuented mysteries neuer heard of before For he shall see if he will seeke more diligently that the verie selfe same thing hath beene done since the times of Moses For what deliuered their Elders from death and the destruction of Aegypt when death raigned vpon the first borne of Aegypt Is it not euident to all men that because they being taught by Gods institution did eat the flesh of the Lambe and oynted the postes and vpper doore postes with the bloud of the Lambe therfore death departed from them for destruction that is death of this fleshe raged against mankinde for the transgression of the first man For because of sinne we haue heard Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt returne but for asmuch as Christ by his flesh would ouerthrow that cruell tyrant therefore that was shadowed by a mystery among the auncient fathers and they beeing sanctified by the sheepes fleshe and bloud God so willing escaped destruction Therefore ô Iewe why art thou so troubled seeing the trueth prefigured long before Wherefore I say art thou troubled if Christe saith except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you whereas it behoued thee beeing instructed in the lawes of Moses and well taught by the olde shadowes to beleeue to be most ready to vnderstand these mysteries The shadowe and the figure thou knowest therefore learne the very trueth of the thing My fleshe saith he is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede In these wordes beside that there is nothing to proue the Pascall Lambe to be a figure of the Lordes Supper it is directly said that the selfe same mysterie of eating the fleshe of Christ hath ben obserued since the time of Moses and that there is no cause why the Iewe should be offended at the saying of Christe if he would vnderstand the
pixe to be adored And Tertullian in his Booke De Corona militis doeth rehearse this custome among those thinges that had no ground of scripture for them The liks is to be saide to the place of Cyprian where a woman kept it in her chest as for the miracle whether it reproued her vnworthinesse or her reseruation it is not plaine by the authour The story of Satyrus out of Ambrose proueth not directly reseruation for it is like the Christians being in daunger of shipwrack did minister the communion in the shippe not bring it with them from the shore consecrated And Satyrus being then but a nouice or Catechumein and not baptised desired the sacrament of them meaning to receiue it before his death if he sawe present daunger of drowning otherwise to tarry vntill he were admitted to it by order of the Church But this proueth nothing at all the Popishe reseruation although the fact of Satyrus was not without imperfection as greatly as it is commended of Ambrose and much lesse the Carnal presence For Satyrus did not so put his affiaunce in the sacrament that he thought it to be God but that he desired it as an helpe of his faith that he might not depart this life without the communion of the body of Christ in the sacrament The place of Chrysostome is nothing at all for reseruation where he saith that in a tumult the souldiers rushing into the Churches The most holy bloud of Christ was shed vpō their clothes For he must remēber it was on Easter day when all the people did communicate and such as came were baptised And where he saith it was Ad vesperū diei that they did enter that is in the afternoone he must wit that Chrysostome after the maner of the scripture calleth the morning before day light Vespere Sabbati therfore his collection is vaine But although it were in the afternoone what inconuenience is it if we say they spent al the forenoone in prayer fasting and hearing the worde of God and ministring baptisme which then was ministred twise a yeare at Easter at Pentecost and then in the afternoone towarde euening went to the communion Hierome reporteth of Exuperius that he caried the Lords body in a wicker basket and his bloud in a glasse What reseruation is here M. Heskins saith he did beare it about with him but Hieronyme saith not so except you meane about the Churche when he ministred the communion But here Maister Iewel hath a double blow O cunning Maister of defence For here is not onely reseruation bu◠also he calleth it in plaine wordes the body and bloud of our Lorde Maister Iewel shal not greatly feele these blowes To the reseruation I haue saide before and to the plaine calling of it body and bloud I say what other thing is it then as Maister Iewel himselfe will call it and worthily yet no transubstantiation meant by him But how will Maister Heskins warde these blowes Exuperius had no hallowed pixes nor chalices of Golde and siluer as the Papistes must haue And Exuperius ministred to the lay people in both kindes as the Papistes will not do What hath M. Heskins gayned by Exuperius But then Eusebius shall help him for in his 6. booke and 36. Chapter is declared that a certeine priest sent to Serapion beeing at the point of death a litle portiō of the Eucharistie in the night season by which it appeareth that it was reserued In deed Dionysius bishop of Alexandria writeth so vnto Fabianus Bishop of Rome But withall he sheweth that it was no publique order of the vniuersall Church but his own commandement vnto his owne Church that he might not seeme in any point to resemble the Nouatians which denied reconciliation to them that had fallen in persecution wherfore he saith that although the priest was sicke and could not come Tamen quia pręceptum fuerat a me vt lapsis in exitu nemo recōciliationis solatia denegaret maximè ijs quos priùs id rogasse constaret parum c. Yet because it had beene commanded by me that no man should denie to them that had fallen the comfort of reconciliation at their departure especially to those who were known to haue desired it before he gaue a litle of the Eucharistie c. Whiche wordes M. Heskins hath cleane left out of the text wherby the particular commandemēt of Dionyse is expressed and yet it is not proued that the Priest had the sacrament reserued but it might well be that he did then consecrate and send him parte as he should haue done if he could haue come to the sicke man himselfe for his owne weakenes Last of all he rehearseth the wordes of Cyril Ad Colosyrium I heare that they say that the mystical blessing if any remnants thereof remaine vnto the next day following is vnprofitable to sanctification But they are madd in so saying for Christe is not made an other neither shal his holy body be chaunged but the vertue of blessing and the liuely grace do alwayes remaine in him M. Heskins translateth in illo in it as though the vertue quickening grace were included in the sacrament which the author saith to remain in Christ. But touching the authoritie of this Cyrillus ad Colosyrium I must admonish the Reader that these wordes are not to be found in all the workes of Cyrillus that are extant but is only a patch cited by other men the whole epistle is not to be found So that we can neither tel whether it were writē by the ancient Cyrillus of Alexandria or by some late writer of that name nor yet what was the argumēt scope of that Epistle Neuertheles it semeth to some that he wrote against the Anthropomorphits which thought that the body of Christ was corrupted if the remnants of the sacrament were corrupted but that Cyrillus denieth because Christ is eternall incorruptible He saith not that the remnantes of the sacrament are so for that the Papistes confesse to be otherwise affirming that they ceasse to be the body bloud of Christ when the species or kinds of bread and wine are putrified or rotten But Cyril saith that vertue grace do alwayes remaine in him not in that sacrament reserued which doeth corrupt Finally he speaketh but of reseruatiō for one day to the vse of eating and not of adoration therefore he speaketh nothing against the challenge which was not simply of reseruation but of reseruing the sacramēt to be worshipped But whereas M. Heskins mainteyneth reseruation by dipping of stoales and linnen clothes in the cup he must remēber that Iulius in his decretal epistles forbiddeth that dipping as diuers counsels also do which in due place are alledged Finally Origen doth vtterly condemne that abuse of reseruation of the sacrament affirming that it is in the same case that the sacrifice of the passeouer and the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing were of which it was not lawfull to reserue
then he should haue suffered oftentimes since the beginning of the world And Heb. 10. He offered but one sacrifice for sinnes and is set downe at the right hand of God for euer c. For by one only oblation he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified And in the same Chapter where there is forgiuenesse of sinnes there is no more sacrifice for sinne Whervpon it followeth that if Christes sacrifice at his supper tooke away sinnes he offered no sacrifice vpon the crosse Secondly he affirmeth that Christe was a priest after the order of Aaron which he denied before and is in plaine wordes denied by the holy Ghost Heb. 7. which place M. Heskins himselfe setteth downe in this Chapter if perfection had beene by the Priesthoode of the Leuites for vnder it the law was established to the people what needed it further that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedech c not to be called after the order of Aaron Thirdly he affirmeth that the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse was after the order of Aaron Wherevpon it wil follow that it was not an eternall redemption purchased by it but transitorie as the priesthoode of Aaron was Whereas the holy Ghost saith that by his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place and found eternall redemption which could neuer be obteined by any sacrifice after the order of Aaron Fourthly he affirmeth that Christ altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God except he did offer sacrifice in his supper of bread and wine By which he denieth that the once offring vp of himselfe by his eternall spirite on the crosse was any parte of his priesthoode appointed him by God then the which there can be no more diuelish blasphemie And yet the beast is not ashamed to challenge and write If not then ◠let the aduersary shewe when and where Christ did sacrifice after the order of Mechizedech Euen then and there thou enimie of the crosse of Christ when and where he was made obedient to the death of the crosse and hauing learned obedience by the thinges he suffered he was consecrated and made the authour of eternall saluation vnto all them that obey him and is called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedech Heb. 5. Hauing an euerlasting priesthod by which he is able perfectly to saue them that come vnto God by him seeing he euer liueth to make intercession for them For such an high priest it became vs to haue which is holy harmelesse vndefiled separated frō sinners and made higher then the heauens which needed not daily as these high Priestes to offer vp sacrifice first for his owne sinnes and then for the peoples for that he did once when he offred vp himself Heb. 7. But beside his detestable blasphemies see his ridiculous vanitie If the priesthoode of Melchizedech standeth in his offering of bread and wine then Christ also offered bread and wine as he saide before Christ offered in bread and wine as Aaron did in bloud If bread wine be Christes offring or any part of it then there is bread and wine in the sacrament what is becomme of transubstantiation If there was no bread wine in the sacrifice of Christe then where is Melchisedeches priesthoode by his owne diuinitie Againe if he say there be the shewes or accidents of bread wine then Melchizedeches bread and wine was a figure of the accidents of bread and Wine then the figure was better then the thing figured contrarie to his worshipfull rule giuen in the 15. Chapter If he say that Melchizedeches bread wine figured not the Accidents but the bread wine before it be consecrated then he breaketh his rule once againe for Melchizedeches bread if it were not hallowed was as good if it were hallowed as it was if it were offred it was better then the vncōsecrated bread wine Finally if he say it figured neither the vncōsecrated bread wine nor the accidents of the same consecrated but the body and bloud of Christ vnder these accidēts beside that he makes it a figure of a figure or signe which he said could not be he denieth that Christ did that wherein he affirmed the priesthoode of Melchizedech to stand namely that he offred bread and wine And so thou seest M. Heskins hanged in his owne halter The nine and twentieth Chapter proceedeth to prooue the same by S. Cyprian and Isychius I confessed before that diuers of the olde fathers were of opinion that the bread and wine which Melchisedech brought forth was sacrificed by him and that it was a figure of the sacramēt which they vnproperly called a sacrifice meaning nothing else but that it was a holy signe and a thankesgiuing offered to God for the passion of Christe as it is manifest by diuers places in their writings But they were farre from those blasphemies which M. Heskins hath vttered in the Chapter before as to make Christes passion a sacrifice after the order of Aaron to make Christ offer two sacrifices and the better sacrifice that was after the order of Melchizedech in the sacrament c. But now let vs consider the places of Cyprian whether such poyson may be drawen out of them as M. Heskins hath sucked out of his own poysoned brayne The words of the first place are these The sacraments signified of old since the time that Melchisedech came forth to the sonnes of Abraham that do his workes the high priest bringeth foorth bread and wine This sayth he is my body They had eaten and dronken of the same bread according to the visible fourme but before those wordes that common meate was profitable only to nourish the body But after it was saide by the Lorde do this in remembrance This is my flesh this is my bloud As oftē as it is done with these wordes and with this faith that substantiall bread and cuppe consecrated with a solemne blessing profiteth vnto the life and health of the whole man being both a medicine Et Holocaustum and a burnt offering to heale infirmities and purge iniquities There is also declared the difference betweene spirituall meate and corporall meate namely that it was one thing that was first set before them another thing which was giuē distributed by their Maister First it is graunted that Cyprian thought the bread wine brought foorth by Melchizedech to be a figure of the sacrament and that herein also he resembled the priesthoode of Christ which we are neither afraide nor abashed to denie because the Apostle an older doctor then Cyprian such an one as in his writings could not erre could finde no such resemblance betweene Melchizedech and christ Concerning the sacrifice of bread and wine I wil speake hereafter in answere to the other places of Cyprian But now let vs examine M. Heskins two notes for the reall presence as he calleth it The first is that this
offering bread and wine as he before saide most blasphemously that the execution of that Priesthoode lay onely therein But now let vs looke to his collectioÌ„s out of this place First that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ. That shall easily â–ª he graunted Secondly that Melchisâ—dech was a figure of Chrisâ— in three pointeâ— and theâ— the Authour doth applie them all to Christ namely a Priest of the highest GOD in offering sacrifice to his father and that he offered the very same that Melchisedech did which was bread and wine But these two Master Heskins â–ª you would make all one when you expound the sacrifice that he offered to his father to bee the bread and wine that he offered in the supper and so there shall not be three pointes Besides that you are enforced to confesse that Christ offered bread and wine to his father the very same that Melchisedech did offer which I am sure was no accidents and so you doe flatly ouerthrowe your owne dearling transubstantiation Your next cauil is of obiâ—â—lie protulie whereas both the text and Cyprian haue protiliâ— he broughâ— foorth although he seemeth to thinke that he brought it out eo offer And therefore to the impudencie that you charge your aduersaries withall will sit still in your owne brasen forehead For although he thinketh that Melchisedech offered the bread and wine which he brought foorth yet he cyteth the scripture truly And Melchisedech brought foorth bread and wine and he was a priest of the highest GOD which you haue most impudently falsified as I shewed before saying for he was a Priest. Your third glose you bring to proue that the sacrifice which Christ offered was but on the crosse but at the supper is that the image of the sacrifice went before which the Lord perfected and fulfilled offering bread and the cup mixed with wine Anâ— though that sacrifice may not be referred to his sacrifice on the crosse bicause the image thereof was ordeined in bread and wine and yet he fulfilled the trueth of the prefigured image when hee offered bread and wine in the supper as a sacrament of that sacrifice which he offered on the crosse as Cyprian in the first senteÌ„ce of this place doth cal it And for most cleare demonstratioÌ„ that Cyprian by sacrifice meaneth a sacrament signe and memorial of the passion of Christ not a sacrifice properly consider his owne wordes in the same Epistle Et quia passionis eius mentioneÌ„ in sacrifioijs omnibus facinous pastio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus And because wee make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices for the sacrifice which wee offer is the Lordes passion wee ought to doe nothing but that he did him selfe This one place will aunswere all that can bee brought out of Cyprian or any olde doctour for the sacrifice of the Lords supper The sacrifice which wee offer is the Lordes passion sayth Cyprian what was Christe crucified in their sacrifices or were their sacrifices nothing els but a sacrameÌ„t of thankes giuing for the passion of Christe You see by this place howe vnproperly they spake but yet so as of reasonable men they might well inough bee vnderstoode and they them selues do often expounde them selues Wherfore thou seest reader what iniurie the papistes doe vnto the doctors when they faine such monsters to be begotten by them while they interprete literally which the doctors did write figuratiuely But to the testimonie of Isychius which is a curious allegorie of sacrifices wherin no merueyle if he vse the name of sacrifice figuratiuely or vnproperly his wordes are these And what is this sacrifice Two tenth deales of fine flower sprinkeled with oyle For wâ—e must knowe to contemper the perfect manhoode and the perfecte Godhood that it to come together into one in oyle that is by that comparison which hee hath towarde vs For so the sacrifice is founde a sweete sauour to our lord when wee vnderstande of him thinges that bee worthie In what thinges the sacrifice whiche is the oblation of the intelligible lambe is and by whome it is done howe it is celebrated that whiche followeth declareth For neither by vnreasonable beastes doth God receiue sacrifice of vs as the wordes that followe-doe plainely shewe â—or hee saith and the drinke offering of it shall bee of wine the fourth part of an Hiâ— bread Polentant M. Heskins calleth it parched corne Because peraduenture it might haue been doubtfull by whome the mysterie of the sacrifice whiche is by Christs that wee spake of before is celebrated behold thou hast the oblation of intelligible Melchisedech which is perfourmed in breade and wine in which the fourth parte of an Him is offered in drinke offeringes of wine that by the fourth part hee might signifie the tradition or deliuerie of the Gospell which is in foure bookes â–ª by the drinke offering the Lordes worde when hee saith This is my bloude which shall bee shedde for you for it seemed good to the lawe giuer without diminishing to signifie the mysterie of Christe And then againe hee saith The oblation of these present giftes which we haue shewed to bee the mysterie of the onely begotten sonne hath reconciled vs to God and giuen vs the meate of the newe parched corne Nowe to M. Heskins collections Wee must learne here that Melchisedech did not only bring forth but also offer bread and wine In deed wee learne that Isychius thought so And that Christ the intelligible Melchisedech did sacrifice in breade and wine Yea but this sacrifice was a mysterie of that sacrifice whiche hath reconciled vs to God for so saith Isychius also and that no man offered this sacrifice but hee himselfe for that hee saith also Reade ouer the place if you doubte of my collection By which it is plaine it was not the sacrifice of the masse that euerie hedge priest may offer But that wee shoulde not say that it was bare breade that hee sacrificed he sheweth what breade it was saying by the drinke offering hee woulde signifie that of which hee saide this is my bloude See this impudent falsarie the writer saith hee woulde signifie Dominician sermonem the Lordes worde and hee saith that of which he saide c. Where is then the breade that the mysterie might bee fullie signified Is it not that which he calleth the tradition of the Gospell which is in foure bookes I dispute not howe well he applyeth these thinges but it is more then manifest that he speaketh so figuratiuely that no argument can be fastened of his wordes for the carnal presence And whereas M. Heskins shrinketh in his hornes about the oblation of bread and wine saying it was not bare breade but he sheweth what bread it was Let him aunswere me plainly if he dare for his eares Was it verie bread and wine which Christ did sacrifice or no If he say it was verie bread and wine then
an ende of his life Euen so also he sayth of Seth and Enos with other As for the beginning of the generation of Melchizedech and the ende of his life he ouerpasseth it in silence Wherefore if the historie bee looked on he hath neither beginning of dayes nor end of life So in deede the sonne of God neither hath beginning of his being neither shall haue ending Therefore in these most great and verie diuine things was Melchizedech a figure of Christ our lord And in his priesthood which agreeth rather to man then to God our Lord Christ was an high Priest after the order of Melchizedech For Melchizedech was an high Priest of the Gentiles And our Lord Christ offered a holy and healthfull sacrifice for all men If I sayde neuer a word as I neede not to say many yet the indifferent reader would see that here is no comparison of Melchizedechs bread and wine with the sacrament of the Lordes supper Yea he would easily see that he speaketh of the sacrifice of his death which our sauiour offered for all men both Iewes and Gentiles And much more plainly by that place which M. Heskins addeth out of the first dialogue If therefore it appertaineth to Priestes to offer giftes and Christ concerning his humanitie is called a Priest he offered none other sacrifice but his owne bodie This speaketh Theodoret expressely of the true sacrifice of his death and not of the fained sacrifice of his supper nor yet of any sacrament or figure of his onely true sacrifice which the olde writers as I shewed before do often call a sacrifice oblation burnt offring c But that M. Heskins cannot gaine by the doctours wordes he will winne by reason First if wee denye that Melchizedech was a figure of Christe his Priesthood saying he was a figure onely of his eternitie then wee ioyne with Eutyches who graunted the diuinitie of Christe and denyed his humanitie vnto which his priesthood properly perteyned But who tolde M. Heskins that wee denye Melchizedech to be a figure of Christs Priesthood when wee most constantly affirme that he was a figure of his eternall Priesthood vnlesse Maister Heskins thinke the humanitie of Christe hauing once conquered death is not nowe euerlasting It is not our exposition that mainteineth the heresie of Eutyches that the nature of Christes bodie is absorpt into the diuinitie but it is your heresie of vbiquitie and carnall presence Maister Heskins that mayntaineth it most manifestly in verie deede though in wordes you will say the contrarie But Maister Heskins followeth his reason and vrgeth vs that it is the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice wherefore if Christe resemble Melchizedech in Priesthood he must resemble him in sacrifice and that is the sacrifice of breade and wine for other sacrifice wee reade none that Melchizedech offered I aunswere as wee reade of none other so wee read not in the Scripture one worde of that sacrifice of breade and wine as hath beene often declared at large And seeing the scripture expresseth not what sacrifice Melchizedech offered wee are content to be ignorant of it satisfying our selues with so much as the scripture affirmeth that Christ offering him selfe once for all on the Crosse was in the same called a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech as wee haue shewed at large before out of Hebr. 5. 7.9.10 But it is a sport to see how M Heskins skippeth to fro as it were one whipped at a stake when hee woulde reconcile his transubstantiation with this counterfet sacrifice of breade and wine Christe sacrificed in breade and wine In breade and wine I say a kinde of foode more excellent then the breade and wine that did figure it I meane with Theodoret and Hierome the true bread and wine that is the bodie and bloud of Christ that is to say no bread nor wine But if you giue him a lash on the other side and saye if Christ sacrificed not naturall bread wine then he answered not your figure he wil leap to the other side say with Cyprian Isychius that Christe offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech did and in one place he sayeth he occupyed bread and wine in his sacrifice so did he a table and a cuppe and other things but was any thing his sacrifice that he occupyed therein sauing onely that which he offered he will say no. Did he offer bread and wine hee dare not aunswer directly and so the poore man to vpholde two lyes the one contrarie to the other is miserably tormented The one and thirtieth Chapter concludeth this matter of Melchizedech by S. Augustine and Damascene S. Augustine is alledged vppon the 33 Psalme whose wordes are these The sacrifices of the Iewes were before time after the order of Aaron in offrings of beastes and that in a mysterie The sacrifice of the bodie and bloud of our Lord which the faithfull and they that haue read the Gospell do knowe was not yet which sacrifice is nowe diffused throughout all the worlde Set before your eyes therefore two sacrifices both that after the order of Aaron and this after the order of Melchizedech For it is writen the Lord hath sworne and it shall not repent him Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech Of whom is it saide thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech of our Lord Iesus christ For who was Melâ—hizedech The King of Salem And Salem was that Citie which afterward as the learned haue declared was called HierusaleÌ„ Therefore before the Iewes reigned there this Melchizedech was Priest there which is written of in Genesis the Priest of the high god He it was that mett Abraham when he deliuered Loth from the hande of his persecutors and ouerthrewe them of whom he was helde and deliuered his brother And after the deliuerie of his brother Melchizedech mett him so great was Melchizedech of whom Abraham was blessed he brought forth breade and wine and blessed Abraham And Abraham gaue him rythes See ye what he brought forth and whome he blessed And it is sayed afterwarde Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech Dauid sayed this in the spirite long after Abraham Nowe Melchizedech was in the time of Abraham Of whome sayeth he in anâ—â—her place â–ª Thou arâ— a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech 〈◊〉 of him whose sacrifice you knowe Here saith Maister Heskins is sacrifice auouched and the sacrifice of the body and bloud of our Lorde who saith nay But this is not the sacrifice of the masse but the sacrifice of CHRISTES death whereof the holy sacrament is a memoriall But Augustine saith farther The sacrifice of Aaron is taken away and them beganne the order of Melchizedech Very well but once againe this sacrifice is the sacrifice of Christes death the remembraunce whereof is celebrated in the Lordes Supper where let the Reader obserue that he doeth yet againe denie the
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 〈◊〉
is offred to my name a pure sacrifice Wherefore our sacrifice to the most high God is the sacrifice of praise Wee sacrifice to God a full 〈◊〉 holie sacrifice We sacrifice after a newe maner according to the new testament a pure sacrifice c. M. Heskins asketh vs if we do not see that Eusebius expoundeth the Prophet of the sacrifice of Christes bodie but wee may well bid him shore vp his eyes see if he do not in plain words expound him of the sacrifice of praise But because he calleth this sacrifice horrorem adferens bringing horror meaning not a slauish but a reuerent feare as is meant to be in all matters of religion which ought to be handled with feare and reuerence of Gods Maiestie vnto whom they apperteine he will needes haue it the body of Christ and first he alledgeth a saying of Dionysius whom he falsely calleth the disciple of Saint Paule although he be a writer of good antiquitie Eccle. Hier. part 1. cap. 3. Neither is it almost lawfull for any mysterie of the priestly office to be done except that his diuine and most noble sacrament of thankesgiuing doe fulfil is What he picketh out of this saying as he noteth not so I am not of his counsell to knowe neither why after his accustomed boldenesse he translateth Sacramentum Eucharistiae the sacrament of Christe From Dionyse he flitteth to the hyperbolicall amplifications of Chrysostom which Lib. 6. De Sacerdotio calleth the sacrament That sacrifice most full of horror and reuerence where the vniuersall Lorde of all thinges is daily felt with handes And de prod Iud. Hom. 30. The holy and terrible sacrifice where Christ that was slaine is set foorth He that will not acknowledge these and such like to be figuratiue speeches must enter action against Chrysostom for many heresies or rather Chrysostome may enter action against him of slaunder and defamation In the same treatise De Sacerdotio Lib. 3. speaking of the same sacrifice he sayeth You may see the whole multitude of people died and made redde with the precious bloud of Christ. But to shewe that all this is spirituall he demaundeth if you thinke your selfe to stand vpon the earth when you see these thinges and not rather that you are translated into heauen and casting away all cogitations of the flesh with a naked soule and pure minde you beholde those thinges that are in heauen Therefore to conclude neither Augustine nor Eusebius haue spoken any thing to the furtherance of Maister Heskins bill of the carnal presence The sixe and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of Malachie by Saint Hierome and Damascen S. Hierome vpon the Prophet Malachie writeth thus Ergo propriè nuÌ„c ad sacerdotes IndeoruÌ„ sermo sit domini qui offeruÌ„t caecuÌ„ clanduÌ„ languiduÌ„ ad immolanduÌ„ vt sciant carnalibê° victimis spirituales victimas successuras Et necquaquam tantorum hircerùmque sanguinem sed thymiana hoc est sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea nec in vna iudaea vrbe Hierusalem sed in omni loco offerri oblationem nequaquam immundam vt a populo Israel sed mundum vt in ceremonijs Christianorum Now therefore the word of the Lorde is properly spoken to the Priestes of the Iewes which offer the blinde and lamue and feeble to be sacrificed that they might knowe that spirituall sacrifices should succeede those carnall sacrifices And not the bloud of bulles and goates but an incense that is to say the prayers of the Sainctes should be offered to the Lord and that not in one prouince of the world Iewry neither in Ierusalem one citie of Iewry but in euery place an oblation is offered was vncleane as of the people of Israel but cleane as in the ceremonies of the Christians Doest thou not maruell Gentle Reader that Maister Heskins alledgeth this place which in euerie point is so directly contrarie to his purpose He saith that among the ceremonies of the Christians none can be properly called the cleane sacrifice but the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ. O shamelesse begger that craueth no lesse then the whole controuersie to be giuen him And that contrarie to Hierome whose name he abuseth which expoundeth this place of spirituall sacrifices and more expressely of the prayers of the saintes whiche are not vsed in one but in all the ceremonies of the Christians But to set some colour vpon the matter he bringeth in an other saying of Hierome which is written before this in exposition of another place perteining nothing to this prophecy of the pure sacrifice but wher by analogie or like reason as the prophet rebuketh the priestes of the Iewes he doeth reprehend also the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the Church for their negligence Offertis inquit c. You offer saith he vpon mine altar bread polluted We pollute the bread that is to say the body of Christ when we come vnworthily to the altar and we beeing filthie doe drinke cleane bloud and say the Lordes table is contemptible c. Here forsooth we vnderstand that the body of Christ is the sacrifice of the Christians yea but according to the former sentence so offered that it is a spirituall sacrifice But what else Here we are taught that we doe not take one thing videlicet bread and do iniurie to another thing that is the body and bloud of Christ as the sacramentaries say but receiuing the very body and bloud of Christ we do iniury to the same But vouchsafe to heare the same teacher speaking of the same matter and in the same place in fewe wordes to satisfie the reasonable and to stoppe the mouthes of quarrellers Dum enim sacramenta violantur ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur For while iniurie is done to the sacramentes iniurie is done to him whose sacraments they are He sheweth a reason against them that demaunded proudly wherein they had polluted God when they had but polluted his sacraments Leauing therefore Hierome at open warre with M. Heskins I will passe to Damascen who for lacke of a Greeke auncient Baron beeing an auncient burgesse of the lower house Maister Heskins is bolde to matche with Hironyme though farre inferiour to him in antiquitie and credite whose wordes are these This is that pure and vnbloudy sacrifice which our Lord speaketh by the Prophet to be offred to him from the rising of the sunne to the going downe of the same namely the body and bloud of Christ vnto the vnconsumed and vncorrupted establishment of our body and soule not going into secesse God forbid that any such imagination should be but it is a purgation of al manner filth and a reparation of all manner of hurt vnto our sustentation and conseruation This place saith Maister Heskins is so plaine that a childe may perceiue it for it is sufficient for him if he heare once body and bloud named Howbeit if either Damascens authoritie
were of weight or the corruption of the time in which he liued vnknowen there is nothing in this saying which might not easily and without any wresting be referred to the spirituall sacrifices to the spirituall manner of sacrificing the body and bloud of Christ which we haue learned out of the elder fathers The seuen and thirtieth Chapter maketh a brieefe recapitulation of thinges before written with the application of them to the proclamation of the aduersarie and so concludeth the first booke It were but vaine labour especially for me that professe such breuitie to repeate the answers and declarations made before that not one of these Lordes of the higher house whom he nameth fauoureth his bill of the carnall presence or the sacrifice of the masse in such sense as he and his fellowes take it But whereas he is so loftie once againe to ioyne issue with the proclaymer that as he hath done alwayes hitherto vpon the negatiue I will not refuse him And yet by the way I must admonish the Reader how vnreasonably he dealeth that ioyneth all his issues vpon the negatiue whiche sometime is harde sometime is vnpossible to be proued whereas the Bishop whom he calleth the proclaimer ioyneth issue with them vpon the affirmatiue which if euer it was holden is more probable to finde proofe in antiquitie Whereas if I might haue libertie to ioyne vpon the negatiue I would bring in fiue hundreth propositions that are false and yet neuer a one expressely denied of the olde writers because there neuer happened any controuersie aboute suche matters in their times But to his issue If he can bring any one sufficient authoritie that shall directly say that the Church may not offer the body of Christ in such sorte as it doeth I will giue him the victorie First here he reiecteth the authoritie of the Apostle to the Hebrues saying it is but wrested which is as direct as nothing in the worlde can be more direct that Christ offered himselfe and that but once and by that one oblation hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified But he shal heare Chrysostome vpon the same scripture Hebr. 10. Aufer◠primum vt sequens statuat c. He taketh away the former that he might establish that whiche followeth Beholde againe the aboundance This sacrifice sayeth he is but one but those sacrifices are many for therefore they were not strong because they were many But tell me what need is there of many when one is sufficient Therefore whereas they were many and alwayes offered he sheweth that they were neuer purged For as a medicine when it is strong and effectuall to giue health and able to driue away all sicknesse being but once laide to worketh the whole at once If therfore being but once laide to it hath wrought the whole it sheweth the vertue thereof in that it is not laid to any more this is the effect of it that it is laid on no more but once But if it be always laid to it is a manifest token that it preuailed nothing For this is the vertue of that medicine that it is but once laid on and not oftentimes euen so in this case By what meanes were they always healed by the same sacrifices For if they had ben deliuered from al their sins there should not haue bene offered sacrifice throughout euery day For they were appointed that they should be always offred for al the people both at euening in the day Therfore that was an accusation of sinns not a discharge for ther was made an accusatiō of weaknes not a shewing of strength For bicause the first sacrifice was of no force the second was likewise offered bicause that also profited nothing an other was offered also wherefore this is but a conuiction of sinnes For in that they were offered there is a conuiction of sinnes but in that they were always offred there is a conuiction of infirmitie But contrariwise in Christ the sacrifice was but once offered For what neede was there of medicines when there is no more wounds remaining For this cause you wil say he cōmanded that it should always be offered bicause of infirmitie that there might be also a remēbrance of sinnes What then do we◠Doe we not offer euery day we offer truely but for a remembraunce which we make of his death and this is but one sacrifice not many Howe is it one and not many Bicause it was offered but once and it was offered in the holy of holies but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that we offer the same alwayes For we do not nowe offer one lamb to morrowe an other but the same thing alwayes Therfore this sacrifice is but one For else by this reason bicause it is offred in many places are ther many Christs No but one Christ is euery where both here being perfect and there being perfect euen one body For as he which is euery where is one bodie and not many bodies so also it is one sacrifice And hee is our highe Priest which offered the sacrifice which purged vs the same do we also offer nowe which then truely being offered can not be consumed Howbeit that which we doe nowe is done truely in the remembraunce of that which was done then For this do ye saith he in remembraunce of me We make not an other sacrifice as the high Priest but alwayes the same but rather we worke the remembrance of the same This place of Chrysostome sheweth both that the Church neither doth nor may offer the body of Christ in such sort as the Papistes say that is really and carnally and for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead and also howe the Church is saide to offer the sacrifice of Christes body namely when she celebrateth the remembrance thereof After this holy issue ioyned M. Heskins rayleth vpon Cranmer which in his first booke hath not one Doctour or Counsel to alledge but only a litle false descant vpon a scripture or two as the proclamer in his Sermon What reading Cranmer and Iewell were able to shewe in the Doctours and Counsels is so well testified by their owne learned workes vnto the world that it can not by such an obscure doctour as M. Hesk. is be blemished or darkned But M. Heskins hath such store of testimonies for the sacrifice of the Masse to proue that Christ is offred therin that beside those which he hath alredy cited he wil ad three or foure to this recapitulation First he nameth Iustinus Martyr in his dialogue against the Iewes Where he alledgeth his wordes truncatly leauing out the beginning ▪ which declareth that Iustine maketh all Christians Priestes and offerers of the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the celebration of the Lordes supper His wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euen so we which by the name of Iesusas al shal be one man in God the maker of al things hauing put off our
filthy garments that is our sinnes by the name of his first begotten sonne and being set on fire by the word of his calling are a right kinde of high priests of God as God himself doth witnes That in al places among the Gentiles acceptable pure sacrifices are offred to him But God receiueth no sacrifice of any but of his Priestes Wherefore God before hand doth testifie that he doth accept all them that offer by this name the sacrifices which Iesus Christe hath deliuered to be made that is in the Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of the bread and the cuppe which are done in euery place of the Christians By these words it appeareth not that Christ was offered but thankesgiuing in the sacrament not of the priest alone but by all Christians And yet more plainely in the wordes of his that are in the same Dialogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as concerning those sacrifices which are offered to him of vs Gentiles in euery place that is of the breade of thankesgiuing and the cup likewise of thankesgiuing hee foresheweth saying that we do glorifie his name and that you do prophane it In which saying what can we see but the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the bread and cup And to proue that the Church hath none other sacrifice but of prayers and thankesgiuing he saith within few lines after the place cited by M. Heskins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I my selfe do affirme that prayers and thankesgiuing made by worthie persons are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to god For these are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make to be put in minde by their drie and moyst nourishment of the passion which God the son of God is recorded to haue suffered for them This place doth not onely shewe what the only sacrifice of Christians was in his time but also teacheth that in the sacrament is drie and moyst nourishment that is bread and drinke not bare accidents as the transubstantiators affirme How little Iustinus maketh for the sacrifice of the Masse these places doe sufficiently declare The second place hee citeth is out of Hierom in his booke of Hebrue questions Quod autem â—it c. whereas he saâ—th thou art a Priest for â—uer after the order of Melchisedech in the word order our mysterie is signified not in offering vnreasonable sacrifices by Aaron but in offering bread and wine that is the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ. We haue shewed sufficiently before howe the olde writers vsed the worde of sacrifice licentiously when there was no such heresie as fined is sprung vp of the sacrifice of the Masse for the memoriall of the sacrifice of Christes body and bloud in which was offered the spirituall sacrifice of prayers and thanksgiuing which reasonable men might wel ynough vnderstand though heretiques do nowe drawe it to their meaning As when Hierom calleth this offering of bread and wine a mysterie euery indifferent reader may vnderstand that he speaketh not properly in calling it the body and bloud of Christe and a sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe But as to a sicke man of the ague all drinkes seeme bitter so to a popish heretique all sayings of the Doctours seeme popish and hereticall The third place he alledgeth it is out of Ambrose his preparatiue prayer to Masse I will not vouchsafe to rehearse it bicause it is a meere bastard and counterfet writing out of which it is cyted hauing as much of S. Ambrose in it as M. Heskins hath witt and honestie in alledging it If any man will obiect that then I must bring arguments to disproue it or else I may likewise denye any authenticall writer I answere it were too long to do in this shortnesse that I must vse and not necessarie when they are notorious and well knowne already to euery man of meane reading in the Doctors and Erasmus in his censure doth plainly reiect it The fourth is Isydorus li. 1. ca 18. de off which althogh he be somwhat without the coÌ„passe of 600. yeares after Christ yet because he is an auncient writer nere that time I will consider his speach which is cited by M. Heskins in these wordes The sacrifice that is offered to God by the Christians our Lorde and maister Christ did first institute when hee commended to his Apostles his bodie and bloude before hee was betraied as it is redd in the Gospell Iesus tooke the bread and the cup and blessing them gaue the same vnto them Here beside the vsuall phrase of sacrifice which we haue often declared what it did signifie and whence it came is nothing to quarrell at For Isydore ment no doubt the spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing which is offered in the celebration of the Lords supper not the propitiatorie sacrifice of the popish masse of which scarce the foundations were begonne to be laide in his time of certaine odde stones of vnproper speach and licentious phrases of sacrifices and oblations As for Haymo and Cabasila I will neuer trouble my self to examine their speaches they are but late writers therefore of small credite in these causes And whereas M. Heskins glorieth that he hath aunswered foure members of the proclamation in this booke the scriptures in the vulgar tongue the reseruation of the sacrament the offering of Christe to his father and the presence of his bodie and bloude in the sacrament let the iudgement reste with the indifferent readers whether although hee hath some of the lower house to fauour his billes more might haue if hee woulde aske their voyces yet I haue proued by this short aunswere that of the higher house he hath not one that hath giuen a voyce with theÌ„ but many that haue spoken directly against them God be praysed THE SECOND BOOKE OF HESKINS PARLEAMENT repealed by W. Fulke The first Chapter declareth the offices of the olde lawe and the benefites of the newe lawe with an exhortation to submit our vnderstanding to the knowledge of faith and therewith to the beleefe of the sacrament HOW vnsauerly he discourseth vpon the two offices of the lawe it were too long to examine in euerie pointe Onely this let the reader obserue that when he hath made the first office of the lawe to giue them knowledge of sinne and to restrayne them from it The other office hee saith was by lineamentes of figures and shadowes to leade the people to Christe as S. Paule sayth the lawe was our scholemaister to Christ c. As though the lawe was not a Schoolemaister to bring vs to Christe by shewing vs our sinnes and condemnation but onely by shadowes and figures After this hee maketh him selfe a ioly hunter That with great trauell and some pleasure hath passed through the bushes and thickets of the lawe and nowe being come into the faire land of the Gospell forgetting his former trauels with freshe delight will followe on his game So that hee is nowe belike
beene slaine in a sedition raysed by him where as the worlde knoweth it was in warre that was helde in defence of his countrie The like foolish quarell he hath for putting out of Polycarpus out of the Calender placing Thomas Hutten in his stood all which as vnworthie any aunswer I passe ouer it is sufficiently knowen what Bullinger esteemed of mâ—ns authoritie what Fox if he meane him iudged of the old Martyrs diuinitie The other reasons following I could scarse read without loathsomnesse that preachers must ceasse if writers may not be receiued vnder 1000 yeres antiquitie more that speaking writing are of like authority and such like blockish stuffe The elder writers are allowed not for their age but for their agreement with the worde of God the later preachers are beleeued not for that their speaking is better then Papistes writing but because they speake thinges consonant to the word of God the touchstone and triall of trueth And therefore we receiue not the testimonie of Nicholaus de Lyra the second Burgesse because it is contrarie to the word of God and the consent of the elder Doctours that Christ speaketh of the sacrament when he saith the bread which I will giue is my fleshe which wordes Theophylacte euen nowe affirmed to be spoken of the passion of Christ. The fourth Chapter beginneth a further proofe of the former master by S. Cyprian and Euthymius For proof of the two breads that the text The bread which I will giue is my flesh c. is ment of the sacrament Cyprian is alledged although the place be not quoted but it is in the sermon vpoÌ„ the Lords prayer in these words Panis vitae Christus est c. Christ is the bread of life and he is not the bread of all men but our bread And as we say our father because he is the father of theÌ„ that vnderstand beleeue so we call it our bread because Christ is our bread which touche his body And this bread we pray to be giuen vs daily least we that are in Christe and daily receiue the Eucharistie to the meate of health some greeuous offence comming betweene while beeing separated and not communicating we be forbidden from that heauenly bread we be separated from the body of Christ he himselfe openly saying and warning I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and the bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde Howsoeuer M. Hesk. would falsly gather out of this place Cyprian maketh not two breades but one bread of life Christ God man as for the two respects of his Godhead manhoode that he prateth of cannot make Christ to be two breads but one true foode of our soules And that Cyprian doth apply this text to the sacrament only it is utterly false in that he saith we must pray for this daily bread Christ to feede vs although for some greeuous offence we be restrained from the sacrament as is also euident by these words that follow Quando ergo dicit in aeternum viuere si quis ederit de tius pane vt manifestum est cos vinera qui corpus eius 〈◊〉 Eucharistitum â—â—re coÌ„municationis accipiunt ita contrae timenduÌ„ est erandum ne dam quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore procul remaneat a salute comminante ipso dicente Nist ederitis carnem fâ—ij hominis biberiâ—is sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis Et ideo panem nostrium id est Christum dari nobis quoâ—idie petimus vt qui in Christo manemus vinimus a sanctificatione corpore eius non recedamus Therefore when he saith that he liueth for euer whosoeuer shal eate of his bread as it is manifest that they do liue which touch or come neare vnto his body and by the right of communication receiue the sacrament of thankesgiuing so contrariwise it is to be feared and to be prayed for lest while any being sequestred is separated from the body of Christe he remaine farre from health he himselfe threatening saying except ye shal eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you And therefore we pray daily that our bread that is to say Christ may be giuen to vs daily that we which remaine liue in Christ go not away from sanctification and his bodie In these wordes as in the former Cyprian directly referreth that text to our spirituall communication with the body of Christ by right of which communication we receiue the sacrament thereof And this participation of Christ he calleth Contingere attingere corpus Christi not to touch his body with our teeth or mouth in that sacrameÌ„t as M. Heskins dreameth Here followeth Euthymius of whose antiquitie we haue spoken in the first booke Neuerthelesse we wil examine his saying which is this In 6. Ioan. Duobus modis c. Christ is saide to be bread two wayes that is after his godhead and after his manhood therefore when he had taught the manner which is after his godhead now doeth he also teach the manner which is after his manhoode For he did not say which I do giue but which I will giue for he would giue it in his last supper when thankes being giuen he tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and saide take eate this is my body M. Heskins maruelleth that the aduersaries cheekes waxe not redd for shame to see so plaine a sentence against them But if we knew not that Maister Heskins had beene as impudent as a frier we might maruell that he was not ashamed first to alledge Euthymius as a writer within 6. hundreth yeares after Christ who liued about the yeare of our Lorde 1180. And secondly to make two breads of that which Euthymius saith to be one bread after two manners Finally although Euthymius referred this text to the sacrament yet saith he nothing for the carnall presence in as much as it is manifest that Christ spake there of a spiritual communication of his fleshe or else all infantes are damned that receiue not the sacrament The fift Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by S. Augustine and Chrysostome S. Augustine is alledged De Agricultura agri Dominici a treatise of no account for the authoritie being falsely intituled to Augustine which was the worke of a farre later writer The wordes neuerthelesse are these The table of thy spouse hath whole bread and a holy cuppe which bread although we haue seene broken and brused in his passion yet he remained whole in that his indiuided vnity with his father Of this bread and of this cup our Lorde himselfe saide The bread which I will giue is my fleshe for the life of the world and the cuppe which I wil sanctifie is my bloud which shal
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
panis hic remissio peccatorum est Wee may receiue euen the Lorde himselfe which hath giuen vs his fleshe euen as he himselfe saith I am the bread of life For he receiueth him that examineth himselfe he which receiueth him dyeth not the death of a sinner for this bread is the remission of sinnes This place doth first ouerthrowe M. Heskins dreame of two breades Secondly the Papistes assertion that wicked men receiue the bodie of christ And thirdly teacheth that to eate Christ his fleshe is to receiue forgiuenesse of sinnes which M. Heskins and the Papistes denye Another place of Ambrose is alledged li. 4. de sacra Ca. 4. Let vs then teach this How can that which is bread be the bodie of Christ By consecration By what and whose wordes then is the consecration Of our Lorde Iesus For all the other things that be sayed praise is giuen to God petition is made in prayer for the people for Kings and for the rest but when it is come to that the honourable sacrament is made now the Priest vseth not his owne wordes but he vseth the wordes of Christe Therefore the worde of Christ maketh this sacrament This is noted to be a plaine place for M. Iuell but for what purpose I cannot tell except it be to proue that he will not denye that the sacrament is consecrated and made the bodie of Christ to the worthie receiuer by the wordes of Christe as before Eusebius Emissenus hath the next place in Hom. Pasc. The inuisible Priest with his worde by a secreat power turneth the visible cratures into the substance of his body bloud This place being more apparant for his transubstantiation then any that he hath alledged he vrgeth not nor gathereth of it but onely that Christ is the author of the consecration and conuersion As for the conuersion I thinke his conscience did tell him that it was not of the substance but of the vse of things a spirituall and not a corporall change as both Eusebius and other writers do sufficiently expound what maner of mutation it is The last man is Cyprian De Caen Dom. It were better for them a milstone to be tyed to their neckes and to be drowned in the Sea then with an vnwashed conscience to take the morsell at the hande of our Lorde who vntil this day doeth create and sanctifie and blesse and to the godly receiuers diuide this his most true and most holy bodie Here M. Heskins vrgeth that he createth not an imaginatiue bodie but his moste true bodie But the blinde man seeth not that either this creation is figuratiue or else it ouerthroweth transsubstantiation For to create is not to change one substance into another but to make a substance of nothing Secondly that Christ diuideth his bodie but to the godly receiuers Finally in the same Sermon he saith that all this mysterie is wrought by faith Haec quotie◠agimus c. So often as we do these things wee do not sharpen our teeth to byte but with a syncere faith we breake and deuide this holy breade To conclude this Chapter seeing M. Heskins hath laboured so well to proue that Christ onely not the priest doth consecrate and so often chargeth vs with slaundering them to make God the bodie of Christ I would demaunde wherefore the Bishop when he giueth them the order of Priesthood giueth them power to consecrate saying Accip◠potestatem consecrandi offerend◠pro vinit defunctis Take authoritie to consecrate to offer for the quick and the dead If the Priest cannot consecrat whereto serueth this power If the Priest take vpon him to consecrat Christ God and man howe are we charged with slaundering of them The ninth Chapter expoundeth the next text that followeth in Saint Iohn The text which he taketh vpon him to expound in this Chapter is this The Iewes stroue among them selues saying How can this fellowe giue vs his flesh to eat And first he sayth that they being carnall could not vnderstande the spirituall talke of Christe wherein as he saith truely so hee speaketh contrarie to him selfe For he will haue those words to be spokē carnally They could not vnderstand sayth he because they did not beleeue therefore they questioned how it might be euen as the Pseudochristians do How can the bodie of Christ be in the sacrament vnder so litle a peece of bread c. But the aunswere to all their questions is that they be don by the power of god And if you proceede to enquire of his will he hath declared it in these wordes the breade which I will giue is my fleshe not a fantasticall nor a mathematicall or figuratiue flesh but that same flesh◠that I will giue for the life of the worlde But if wee proceede to demaund further how he proueth that he will giue that flesh to be eaten with our mouth carnally in the sacrament then is he at a staye he can go no further Wee doubt not of the power of God we will extend his will no further then his worde For to eat the fleshe of Christe is not to eat it with our mouthes but with our hearts by faith as Augustine vppon the same text teacheth vs. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere ponum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit cius sanguinē licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christie sed magis tantę rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat bibit This is therefore to eate that meate to drinke that drinke to abide in Christe and to haue him abyding in them And by this he that abydeth not in Christ and in whome Christe abydeth not out of doubt doth neither spiritually eat his flesh nor drinke his bloud although carnally visibly he presse with his teeth the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his owne condemnation Thus Augustine teacheth how the flesh of Christe is eaten and by whome and what difference betweene the flesh bloud of Christ and the sacrament thereof in all those points directly contrarie to the Papistes which affirme that the flesh of Christ is eaten with the mouth and that it is eaten of the wicked and last of all that the sacrament of the flesh of Christ his flesh is all one The tenth Chapter prouing against the aduersaries that the bodie of Christ may be is in moe places then one as once M. Heskins taketh occasion of the doubtful how of the Iewes to answer the proclaimers how that is how Christs body may be in a thousand places moe at once first he trifleth of the number
of places as though hee required no lesse then a thousand then he bableth against natural Philosophie as though our faith were buylded therevpon whereas the Papistes and especially the schoolmen euen to lothsomnesse do reason out of natural philosophie in the greatest mysteries of faith But to put him out of doubt we buyld vpon the Scripture our faith of the trueth of Christes bodie that it cannot bee in more places then one because the Apostle sayth that in respect of his humaine nature he was made like to his brethren in all things sinne excepted Heb. 2. And therefore where as he will aunswere vs first by Ambrose De inition Myst. Cap. Quid hic c. What seekest thou here the order of nature in Christes bodie seeing the selfe same our Lorde Iesus besides nature was borne of a virgin I say he aunswereth nothing to the purpose for neither doth Ambrose speak of the presence of his bodie in more places then one nor of any carnall presence in the sacrament but of a mysticall diuine and significatiue presence as is manifest by his wordes that followe immediatly which M. Heskins as his custome is hath craftely suppressed Vera vtique carâ— Christi que crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aliud dicitur post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur It was the true fleshe of Christ which was crucified which was buryed therefore it is truely the sacrament of that fleshe Our Lorde Iesus him selfe cryeth This is my bodie before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after the consecration the bodie of Christe is signified Hee him selfe sayth it is his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud By this place you see that the Lords supper is the sacrament of his true fleshe that was crucified and that the bodie of Christ is signified by it Here is no one worde sounding either to the carnall presence â–ª or to the presence in many places His second proofe is out of Augustine that Christ was both in his owne hands in his twelue Apostles hands in Psal. 33. And he was borne in his owne hands But brethren howe may this be done in man who can vnderstande who is borne in his owne hands A man may be carried in thè handes of other men in his owne handes no man is borne Howe it may be vnderstanded in Dauid according to the letter we find not But in Christ we finde it For Christ was borne in his owne hands when he commending his owne body sayd this is my bodie I passe ouer that he translateth comendans ipsum corpus giuing forth the selfe same bodie But howe fraudulently he abuseth the authoritie of Augustine it is manifest by that which followeth ipse se portabat quodam modo cum diceret hoc est corpus meum And he carried him selfe after a certein maner when he sayde this is my bodie These wordes declare that Augustine woulde not teach that Christe absolutely did beare him selfe in his hands as M. Heskins would beare vs in hand but after a certeine maner And no man writeth so plainly of the necessitie of Christes bodie to be in one place as he I will cite one onely short place to auoide tediousnesse In Ioan. Cap. 7. Tr. 30. Sursum est Dominus sed etiam hîc veritas Dominus Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit vno loco esse potesti veritas eius vbique diffusa est The Lord is aboue and he is also here and the Lorde is trueth For the Lordes bodie in which he rose againe can be but in one place but his truth is spread ouer all places This saying beside that it limitteth the bodie of Christe to one place will expound the other sayings which he bringeth out of Chrysostome Basil c. that Christ is both in heauen and on earth The next proofe is out of the Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostome which he calleth their masses although writen by neither of them The wordes in effect are all one and therefore it were vaine to rehearse them both Looke ô Lorde Iesu Christ our God from thy holie habitation and from the seat of the glorie of thy kingdome and come to sanctifie vs which sittest aboue with thy father and art present with vs beneath inuisibly vouchsafe with thy mightie hande to giue vnto vs thy immaculate bodie and precious bloud and by vs to all thy people The distinction of the two natures in Christ will soone aunswere this presence of Christe both in heauen and in earth as in the late rehearsed sentence of Augustine And Basil him selfe in his booke de Spiritu Sancto Cap. 22. prooueth the Holie Ghoste to be God because he is reported in Scripture to be present in diuerse places at once so that except wee will with Eutyches ouerthrowe the trueth of Christes bodie wee must holde that it is in one onely place at one time and not in many places or euery where But Chrysostome I trowe shall helpe him In 10. Heb. Hom. 17. This sacrifice is an exemplar of that we offer the selfe same alwayes Neither do we nowe offer one Lambe and tomorrow another but the selfe same thing alwayes Wherefore this sacrifice is one Or else by this reason because it is offered in many places there are many Christes Not so but one Christ is euery where both here being full and there full euen one bodie And as he that is euerie where offered is one bodie not many bodies Euen so also is it one sacrifice First M. Heskins here I knowe not for what cause peruerteth the order of Chrysostomes wordes for where he sayeth Alioqui hac ratione Heskins setteth them down vnâ—m est hoc sacrificium hac ratione Alicqui c. Secondly which is no newe thing in him he leaueth out that which is the resolution of all this doubtfull disputation namely that which followeth Hoc autem quod facimus in commemorationem quidem fit eius quod factum est Hoc enim sacite inquit in meam commemorationem Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex sed idipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur But this which we do is done truely in remembrance of that which was done before For do this sayeth he in remembrance of mee We do not offer another sacrifice as the high Priest but the selfe same alwayes but rather wee exercise the remembrance of the sacrifice Here is nowe that sacrifice which is offered euery where by a necessarie correction brought to the remembrance of that sacrifice which was once offered on the crosse but is celebrated euery where in the ministration of the sacrament And the same wordes
gather that Augustine doth acknowledge both spiritual and corporal receiuing by like bicause he saith that many euil men do eat and drinke the body bloud of Christ in a sacrament but what he meaneth is plain by his owne words in the same treatise Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio nec maÌ„ducat spiritualiter carnem eiuâ— nec bibit eius sanguinem licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus saecramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat bibit This it is therefore to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ to haue him abiding in him And by this he that abideth not in Christe and in whome Christ abideth not out of dout neither eateth spiritually his flesh nor drinketh his bloud although carnally and visibly hee presse with his teeth the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ but rather eateth and drinketh to his owne damnation the sacrament of so excellent a thing And that the wicked receiue not Christ at all neither spiritually nor corporally he writeth in the 59. Tr. in Ioan. Illi manducabant panem Dominum ille panem Domini contra dominum illi vitam ille poenam They meaning the Apostles did eat the bread which was our Lorde but he meaning Iudas did eat the Lords bread against the Lord they did eate life hee did eat punishment Here he denyeth that Iudas did eat Christe who did only eat the bread which Christ gaue him and not that bread which was Christe as the rest did But nowe let vs see howe Cyrillus doth expound this text of the sacrament In 15. Ioan. Mariet enim c. Both the natures abide inuiolated and of them both Christâ— is one but vnspeakably and beyonde that mans mynde can vnderstand The woorde conioyned to the manhoode hath so reduced it wholy into him selfe that it is able to giue life to thinges lacking life So hath it expelled destruction from the nature of man and death which by sinne was very strong it hath destroyed Wherefore he that eateth the flesh of Christ hath euerlasting life For this flesh hath the word of God which is naturally life Therefore he saith and I will raise him againe in the last day He said I that is my body that shall be eaten shall raise him again For he is none other then his flesh I say not that bicause he is none other by nature but bicause after his incarnation he suffereth not him selfe to be diuided into two sonnes I therefore saith he which am made man by my flesh in the last day will raise them vp which do eat it But yet an other place of Cyrill In 6. Ioan. Cap. 14 Oportet c. Truely it must needes so haue bene that not only the soule by the holy Ghost should ascend into blessed life but also that this rude and earthly body by a like natured taste touching and meate should be brought to immortalitie In neither of both these sentences is one worde of the sacrament and thereforâ— they fauour M. Hesk. exposition as much as nothing at al. The eighteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text in the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn by Origen and S. Ambrose The text is My flesh is verily meat and my bloud is verily drinke And here hee maketh a fond and childish discourse of the difference of verus cibus true meate and verè cibus meate in deede or verily meate Which distinction is confounded by Origen one of his pretended expositors in the very text by him alledged and in many other places of his workes where he speaketh of this text But to the exposition before he commeth to Origen hee toucheth a place of Chrysostome That reipsa conuertimur in â—arnem Christi in very deede we are turned into the flesh of Christ. Which wordes if they be not vnderstoode of a spirituall conuersion good Lord what a monstrous transubstantion shall we haue of our flesh into the flesh of Christ But Papistes had rather mingle heauen and earth together then they will depart from their prodigious absurdities But to Origen in Num. Hom. 7. Lex Dei c. The lawe of God is not nowe knowen in figures and images as before but euen in plaine trueth and such things as were before set forth in a dark speache are nowe fulfilled in plaine maner trueth Of which things these that followe are some Antea in aenigmate fuit baptismus in nube in mari nunc autem in specie regeneratio est in aqua Spiritu sancto Tunc in aenigmate erat Manna cibus nunc autem in specie caro verbi Dei verus cibus sicut ipse dicit Caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potur Before Baptisme was in a darke manner in the clowde and in the sâ—â— but nowe regeneration is in plaine manner in water and the holie Ghost Then Manna was the meate in a darke manner But nowe the fleshe of the worde of God is the true meate in a plaine maner as he him selfe sayth my fleshe is meat in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede In these wordes Origen teacheth that the sacramentes of the Gospell are cleare and plaine whereas in the lawe they were obscure and darke Neither doth he denye that the Gospell hath figures but affirmeth it hath none other figures but such as serue to open and set forth the mysteries more plainly whereas the ceremonies of the olde lawe did rather hide and couer them And if it be true as M. Heskins sayeth that the Gospell hath no figures I woulde knowe what be all the ceremonies of the Popish Church figures of the Gospell or false inuentions of men But if wee will beleeue him our onely spirituall receiuing is impugned by Origen In what wordes good sir he answereth The fleshe of the sonne of God is eaten in verie plaine manner And may not this be spiritually as well as regeneration is spiritually wrought in baptisme and yet in the same playne manner that this eating is spoken of But let vs heare what Origâ—n him selfe will say in the same booke Hom. 16. Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem Christi non solùm sacramentorum ritu sed cum sermones eius recipimuâ— in quibus vita consistit sicut ipse dicit c. We are sayde to drinke the bloud of Christe not onely in the ceremonie of the sacramentes but also when wee receiue his sayings in which life consisteth as he him selfe saith In these wordes hee teacheth such a drinking in the sacramentes as in beleeuing his woorde and therefore it must needes bee spirituall and not carnall And as the cloud and Sea was baptisme so was Manna
both of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament that is the bodie of Christ as the person of Christ consisteth of God man seeing Christ himselfe is very God ▪ and verie man Because euerie thing conteineth in it the nature and trueth of those thinges of which it is made but the sacrifice of the Church is made of two the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament that is the bodie of Christ therefore there is the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament This last sentence M. Hesk. hath not translated But he noteth three things in these words affirmed which the sacramentaries denie that is that the Church hath a sacrifice that therein is a sacrament which is the fourmes of bread and wine and that there is present the very body and bloud of Christ which he calleth the thing of the sacrament Concerning the tearme of sacrifice it is a stale quarrell whereby he meaneth the sacrifice of thankes giuing or the Eucharistie For the formes of bread wine that is as Maister Heskins meaneth the accidentes it is false he hath nothing tending to that end he saith Specie elementorum that is the kinde of elementes which is the substance and not the accidentes of bread and wine And for the presence heare his owne wordes in the same booke Escam vitae accepit poculum vitę bibit qui in Christo manet Cuius Christus habitator est Nam qui discordat a Chricto nec panem cius manducat nec sanguinem bibit etiamsi tanto rei sacramentum ad iudicium suę praesumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat He hath receiued the meat of life and drunke the cuppe of life which abideth in Christ in whom Christ dwelleth But he that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth his bread nor drinketh his bloud although he receiue euerie day indifferently the sacrament of so great a thing vnto the condemnation of his presumption This place is plaine against the corporall eating of Christe and M. Heskins wise distinction seeing the wicked by the iudgement of Prosper out of Augustine eate onely the sacrament that is bread and wine and not the bodie bloud of Christ which is not eaten but by faith The twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Saint Hilarie and Euthymius Hilarius is cited Lib. 8. de Trinitat Que scripta sunt c. Let vs reade those thinges that be written and let vs vnderstande those things that we shall read then shal we performe the dutie of perfect faith Such thinges as we learne of the naturall trueth of Christ in vs except we learne of him we learne foolishly and vngodly For he him selfe saith my flesh is meat in deed my bloud is drinke in deede He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him There is no place left to doubt of the trueth of his flesh and bloud For now by the profession of our Lord himselfe it is verily fleshe and verily bloud And this beeing taken and dronken bring this to passe that Christ is in vs and we in Christ. Out of these wordes he noteth three thinges The first that the text is spoken of the sacrament conteyning the bodie and bloud of Christe of the veritie whereof there should be no doubt The second is the corporall receiuing of Christ in the sacrament The third is that thereby Christ is in vs and we in him To the first note this text is none otherwise spoken of the sacramēt as we haue often shewed then as the sacrament is a seale of this eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud which is also without the sacrament And that we should not doubt of the trueth of his fleshe and bloud it is true we confesse he hath true flesh true bloud with the same doeth feede vs but that this flesh and bloud is conteined in the sacrament Hillarie saith not but Heskins Neither doeth he speake of any corporall receiuing of Christe in the sacrament which is the second note but seeing he dwelleth in all them that receiue him which is the thirde note there is no place for the corporal receiuing which the Papists confesse to be common to the wicked in whome Christ dwelleth not nor they in him But to proue the corporall receiuing he hath another place out of the same booke Si enim verè c. For if the WORDE was verily made flesh and we doe truely eate the worde made flesh in the Lordes meate how is he not to be thought to abide naturally in vs which being borne a man hath taken vpon him the nature of our flesh now inseparable hath admixed the nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder the sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated vnto vs. This with him is a plaine place and much adoe he maketh about this worde naturally by which he meaneth nothing else but truly for otherwise M. Heskins if he be in his right wittes wil confesse that the abiding of Christe in vs is not naturall nor after a naturall manner but spirituall and after a Diuine manner And although he spake plain ynough of the participation of his flesh vnder a sacramēt yet more euidently in the same booke in these wordes Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit verè homo ille qui ex Maria natus fuit Christus est nosque verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnum erimus quia Pater in eo est ille in nobis quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit vnitatis If therefore Christe did verily take vpon him the flesh of our bodie that man which was borne of Marie was verily Christ and we doe verily receiue the fleshe of his body vnder a mysterie and thereby shall be one because the Father is in him and he in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie Here he saith we do verily eate the flesh of his bodie but if you aske how He aunswereth vnder a mysterie as before he said vnder a sacrament Therfore to take that absolutely as M. Heskins doth which of him is spoken but after a certeine manner as vnder a sacrament or a mysterie is a grosse abusing both of the authour and of the readers Euthymius is cited In Ioan. Caro mea c. My fleshe is meate in deede It is true meate or moste conuenient meate as which nourisheth the soule which is the moste proper part of man And likewise of the bloud or else he saide this confirming that he spake not obscurely or parabolically I maruel what Maister Heskins gayneth by this place Forsooth that this is no figuratiue speech but a plain speech signifying none otherwise then the wordes sound Well yet we must not cast away that which Euthymius saide
it be of the nature and kinde thereof but corrupted with sinne as his neuer was Thus the shewe that Maister Heskins would make by snatching at one worde misunderstoode by a little diligence vsed in discussing the sentence is turned altogether against him both in shewe and purpose of the author The other place he citeth though he citeth it truncately contrarie to his promise in his preface I will cite it whole as I did before in the 20. Chap. of this book If the worde in deede be made flesh and we do verily eat the word made fleshe in the Lordes meate howe is he not to be esteemed to dwell naturally in vs which being borne a man hath taken vppon him the nature of our fleshe nowe inseparable and hath ioyned the nature of his fleshe vnto the nature of aeternitie vnder a sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated to vs For so wee are all one because the father is in Christ and Christ is in vs Therefore whosoeuer shall denye the father to be naturally in Christ let him first denye that either he is naturally in Christe or Christ is in him For the father being in Christ and Christ in vs do make vs to be one in them Therefore if Christ did verily take vppon him the fleshe of our bodie and that man which was borne of Marie is verely Christe and we do verily receiue the fleshe of Christe vnder a mysterie and by this shal be one because the father is in him and he in vs how is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by a sacrament is the sacrament of perfect vnitie In these wordes the fleshe of Christe is communicated vnto vs but vnder a sacrament wee eate the fleshe of his bodie but vnder a mysterie the naturall propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfecte vnitie And besides all this marke that this naturall vnitie is such as thereby we are vnited to the father and being vnited to the father by Christ it must needes followe that we are made partakers of eternitie which no wicked men are therefore wicked men receiue not Christ naturally nor spiritually and so the distinction remaineth without a difference But nowe we come to S. Augustine of whome he borroweth the other parte of his distinction Tract 26. in Ioan. Denique iam Nowe at the last he expoundeth how that may be done which he speaketh and what it is to eate his bodie and drinke his bloud He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloude abydeth in mee I in him This it is therefore to eat that meate and to drinke that bloude to abide in Christ and to haue him abyding in him And by this hee that abideth not in Christ and in whome Christe abydeth not out of all doubt neither eateth his fleshe spiritually nor drinketh his his bloude although carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christe But rather hee eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation because he being vncleane presumed to come to the sacraments of Christe which no man receiueth worthily but hee which is cleane of whome it is sayed blessed are the cleane of hart for they shall see God. S. Augustine in these words maketh a distinctiō of eating the sacrament of the bodie bloud of Christ of eating the bodie and bloud of Christ and not onely of eating spiritually eating carnally shewing that spiritually the fleshe of Christ is eaten carnally the sacrament which were vaine if bothe were one And the whole discourse of that treatise is against that carnall eating of the bodie and bloud of Christ which M. Heskins himselfe confesseth to be vnprofitable yea damnable without the spirituall eating whereas the spirituall eating vndoubtedly causeth eternall life But better to vphold this distinction of Christes naturall spirituall abyding he citeth a testimonie out of the 11. Sermon de verbis Dom. in Euangelio vnder the name of Augustine which whether it be rightly intituled to him I will not contende The wordes are these Illud etiam c. This also that he sayeth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee I in him how shall we vnderstand Can wee take them here also of whome the Apostle sayth that they eate and drinke their owne damnation when they eat that fleshe and drinke that bloude Did Iudas also the seller and vngodly betrayer of his maister although he did eat and drinke that first sacrament of his flesh and his bloud made with his own hands with the rest of the disciples as Luke the Euangelist declareth more plainly did he abyde in Christ or Christ in him Finally many which either with fained heart do eat that fleshe and drinke that bloud or when they haue eaten and dronken they become Apostataes do they abyde in Christ or Christ in them But truely there is a certeine manner of eating that fleshe and drinking that bloude after which manner he that shall eate and drinke abydeth in Christ Christ in him We must receiue this authoritie so that it may stande with all the rest of the vndoubted workes of Augustine we must be as bold to distinguish the words fleshe and bloud as M. Heskins is the spirituall and naturall eating By flesh and bloud aequiuocally he vnderstandeth the sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christe as where he sayeth that Iudas did eate the sacrament of his flesh and bloud he doth him selfe declare And then he distinguisheth of the manner of eating for the sacrament as Augustine sayth is eaten of both wicked and godly but the matter of the sacrament is not eaten but to eternall life And that Iudas did not eate the breade that was the Lorde as we alledged before and Prosper in his collections out of Augustine plainly defineth He that disagreeth from Christe neither eateth his breade not drinketh his bloud although he dayly receiue the sacrament of so excellent a matter vnto condemnation of his presumption Wherefore although we shoulde receiue this authoritie yet it proueth not that wicked men receiue the fleshe of Christ but onely the sacrament thereof which is in some manner of speaking called the fleshe of Christ as Augustine euery where affirmeth Finally what a blasphemous absurditie is it to say that Christ dwelleth naturally in wicked men in whome he is not spiritually and that his flesh is there where his quickening spirite doth not worke The fiue twentieth Chapter proceadeth in the exposition of the same by Chrysostome S. Gregorie Chrysostome is cited Hom. 45. in Ioan. Qui manducat c. He that eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloud dwelleth in mee I in him which he sayeth that he may shewe him selfe to be ioyned vnto him M Heskins translateth mingled with him And what this mingling is he willeth vs to remember what this author sayeth in the same Homilye that wee should not onely by loue but in verie
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
He calleth it a phantasie like to that which ioyned with auarice pulled downe all the Abbeys in England The like phantasie he sayth might moue vs not to honour Christ in heauen and much more the Apostles that honoured Christ in the flesh percase not sufficiently discerning the humanitie from the Deitie and so likewise others that worshipped Christ yet doe euen some of the proclaymers schollers vnderstand not these quiddities Shal they therefore fly the honor of Christ in heauen A wise comparison betweene Christe both God and man who no doubt is to be worshipped both as God as the mediator of God man and the accidents of breade wine or bread and wine when they are not consecrated Christ in the flesh is to be worshipped because he was incarnate and ioyned to the humanitie in a personall vnion but he is not to be worshipped in bread wine or in the accidents of bread wine because he is neither impanated nor inuinated nor inaccidentated that is not ioyned to any of them in a personall vnion To these doubtes that are moued by his owne schoolemen what if the Priest do not consecrate what if he speake not the wordes of consecration what if he had none intention to consecrate in all which cases the schoolemen define that the people committ idolatrie if they worship their hoste First hee sayeth he goeth about to shake the foundation of this sacrament as Brentius doth of baptisme Concerning Brentius although it were easie to defende his assertion euen by the schoolemen yet because it is no matter of our controuersie I will briefely passe it ouer Brentius helde that Christ hath not bound vs to baptise in certein forme of wordes to be pronounced by the minister so the meaning be obserued that he baptise into the name of the Father of the Sonne of the holie ghost Herevpon charitable M. Heskins rayleth on him that he impugneth the forme of baptisme and reiecteth the wordes of baptisme which is vtterly false and then he reasoneth that if the wordes of baptisme may be without daunger omitted why may not the words of consecratiō likewise as though Brentius sayeth they might be omitted where he speaketh of altering the forme of wordes when the same sense remaineth Next to this he farceth in another slaunder of vs that we agree not in the number of the sacraments some admitting three some two some foure and some neuer a one The world knoweth what we holde herein After this he sheweth out of Basil Damascen the necessitie of the forme of baptisme which wee confesse Brentius him self doth not denye At length he defineth contrarie to the scholemen that if consecration be omitted the danger is to the priest not to the people that worship an idol Finally he wil moue the like doubt of our ministration what if the minister of the communion doe neither speake the words of consecration nor haue intent to minister what do the people receiue I aunswer with his intentiō wee haue nothing to doe but for asmuch as nothing is whispered or mumbled in our Communion but so vttered that all men may heare and vnderstand if any thing be omitted that is necessarie to the consecration of the sacrament if the people communicate with him they are in as great fault as he As for Richerus whome he calleth a Caluenist that forbiddeth to pray to Christ and reiecteth the wordes of consecration if any such be let him aunswere for him self we haue nothing to do with him Although we acknowledge not any mumbling of wordes but the whole action according to Christes institution to be the forme of consecration of the sacrament The nine and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstanding of Christes wordes by Irenaeus Tertullian Irenęus is cited lib. 4. Cap. 32. Sed discipulus c. But also giuing counsell to his disciples to offer to God the first fruites of his owne creatures not as to one that hath neede but that they also should neither be vnfrutefull nor vnthankefull he tooke that bread which is of the creature gaue thankes saying this is my bodie likewise he confessed the cupp which is of the creature that is among vs to be his bloud taught the newe oblation of the newe testament which the church receiuing of the Apostles in all the worlde offereth to God. Here M. Hesk. choppeth off the taile for it followeth Euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs the first fruites of his giftes which words do both open the purpose of Irenaeus shewe that the oblation was of bread wine not the naturall bodie of Christ as M. Hesk. gathereth together with the reall presence But for clearer proofe he addeth another testimonie out of Irenęus which he quoteth lib. 5. but it is lib. 4. ca. 34 which it seemeth he redd not him selfe in the author both because he knewe not where it was writen also because he omitteth some wordes in it Quomodo autem constabit eis c. he leaueth out autem eis but thus the wordes are in english But how shall it be knowen vnto them that that bread in which thankes are giuen is the bodie of their Lorde and the cupp of his bloud if they say not that he him selfe is the sonne of the maker of the worlde c. And how againe do they say that the fleshe commeth to corruption receiueth not the life which is nourished of the bodie bloud of our Lord Out of these places he noteth that the sacrament is the bodie and bloud of Christ that our flesh is nourished by the same bodie bloud This we confesse so he meane spiritually but that he will not haue And therfore to drawe the places to his carnall presence nourishing he sayth that Irenaeus hereby impugned two heresies One that Christ was not the sonne of God that made the world but a man liuing in Iewrie which dissolued the law the Prophets all the works of God that made the world The other that the soule only should be saued not the bodie And therefore to confute the former he maketh an argument of the real presence How could a bare naturall man compasse that his bodie should so be if he were not the sonne of God that made the world c. This proceedeth of grosse ignorance or rather of intollerable mallice to deceiue the ignorant For the heresie against which he writeth was not that Christ was a bare man not the sonne of God but that he was the sonne of another God then he that made the world for they made two gods one the maker of the world which they sayd was God of the old testament another the father of Christ which they said was God of the newe testament Now Irenaeus proueth by institution of the sacrament in the creatures of bread wine that Christ is the sonne of God that created the world of none other
figure the sacrament is a figure of Christes body therefore Christe hath a true body That this is the true meaning of Tertullian it appeareth plainely by the wordes before alledged and by these that followe and by the whole discourse of his worke Lib. 5. hee saith Proinde panis calicis sacramento iam in Euangelio probauimus corporis sanguinis Dominici veritatem aduersus phantasma Marcionis Therefore by the sacrament of the breade and the cuppe nowe in the Gospell we haue proued the trueth of the body and bloud of our Lorde against the fantasie of Marcion But M. Hes. interpretation of Tertullians meaning is not onely false but also ridiculous He saith that Tertullian to proue that Christ had a true body bringeth in the institution of the sacrament saying that Christ made the breade his true body therefore hee had a true body as though Marcion whiche woulde not beleeue that Christe had a true body when he liued on the earth would acknowledge that Christe had a true body in the sacrament But Marcion acknowledged the sacrament to be a figure of Christes body and therevpon Tertullian inferreth that hee had a true body whereof the sacrament was a figure But nowe it is a sport to see howe M. Heskins taketh vpon him To open Tertullian and to deliuer him from the sacramentaries His saying hath two partes the one that Christe made the breade his body the other that he saith This is my body that is to say a figure of my body Nowe hee will require of the aduersarie whether of these two parts he will receiue and he is certaine they wil not receiue the former part bicause Zuinglius OecolaÌ„padius Bullinger with the rest denieth the bread to be the naturall body of Christ. But he is fouly beguiled for al these we with theÌ„ will neither receiue the first part by it selfe nor the latter part by it selfe but both parts together as they are vttered by Tertullian that Christ so made the bread his body that hee made it a figure of his body That is to say that hee made it a sure vndoubted pledge of his body And we agree with Cyprian De caeâ— Deuâ— that The bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples to be eaten being not chaâ—nged in shape but in nature by the almightie power of the word was made flesh and with S. Ambrose li. 4. de sacr cae 4. That this bread before the wordes of the sacrament is bread but when the consecration commeth to it of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Places often answered before by interpretation of the same Authours And we do so vnderstand Tertullian as he is not contrarie to him selfe nor to any Catholique writer of his time in this matter which is Maister Heskins rule to vnderstand a Catholique Authour And we so vnderstand the sacrament to bee a figure as it is not a bare figure But nowe bicause Maister Heskins must needes acknowledge the sacrament to be a figure he maketh two kindes of figures A figure of a thing absent and a figure of a thing present Bicause there is no doubt of the former I will touch onely the latter An example of a figure of a thing present he maketh in these wordes As the spouse beholding her very husband and seeth the scarres and tokens of wounds that he suffered for her defence and safegard and of his children and hers is brought in remembrance of his louing kindnesse and of the dangers sustained for her sake In which case although the substance of the man be present yet to his wife he is a figure and token of remembraunce of him selfe absent in condition of a man nowe in fight dangered with sore and deepe woundes For nowe he is no such man but whole sound a perfect man. Haue you not heard a wise similitude thinke you Is the substance of the man present a figure of his actioÌ„s passions absent or rather the scarres present a token of his wounds suffered and actes passed If hee be so grosse that he cannot distinguish betweene substance and accidents and the properties and effectes of them both yet very children can plainely see that the substance of the man occasioneth no such remeÌ„brance as he speaketh of but the scarres of the woundes neither do they bring the substance of the man in remeÌ„brance but the actions and passions of the man And therfore this is too blockish an example that a figure may be of a thing present in substance But Augustine Lib. sentent Prosperi doth helpe this matter as he weeneth Caro carnis c. The flesh is a sacrament of the flesh and the bloud is a sacrament of the bloud By both which being inuisible spirituall and intelligible is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues and diuine Maiestie M. Hes. noteth that the inuisible body of Christ in the sacrament is a figure of the same visible Very good But let me goe with him Although S. Augustine or Prosper speake not of an inuiâ—ible body But he saith directly that the flesh and the bloud in the sacrament are both spirituall and intelligible flesh and bloud which is as much as I aske Then the spirituall flesh of Christe which is in the sacrament doth signifie that visible and palpable body of Christ then the which nothing can be said more plainly against the corporall presence nor for the spiritual presence But he obiecteth further that the scriptures also vse such speaches saying that Christe was made in the likenesse of a man Ph. 2. When he was a man in deede and so Tertullian might well cal it a figure although it be the body it self As though S. Paule in that place speaketh of the substance of his humanitie not rather of the base shewe and condition that he tooke vpon him in his humanitie whereas he might haue behaued him self as God being both God and man Yet Augustine hath two places by conference whereof this thing shall appeare that the sacrament is both a figure and the very thing it selfe The first place is in Psal. 3. speaking of Iudas the traytour which place M. Heskins read not in Augustine but in some other mans collections for both he cyteth it truncately also addeth wordes both in the Latine and the English which are not in Augustine although he do not alter the sense But Augustines wordes in deede are these Et in historia c. And in the historie of the newe Testament the patience of our Lord was so great and woonderfull that he suffered him so long as though he had bene good Whereas he was not ignorant of his thoughtes when he had him present at the feast in which he commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his body and his bloâ—d The other place is cyted Ep. 162. Our Lorde him selfe doth suffer Iudas a diuill a theefe and his seller He letteth
fiftieth Chapter sheweth the minde of Iunencus Euseb. Emissen vpon the wordes of Christ. Iuuencus a Christian Poet is cited Lib. 4. Euang. Histor. Haec vbi dicta dedit palmis sibi frangere panem c. When he had thus said he tooke bread in his handes and when he had giuen thankes he diuided it to his disciples and taught them that he deliuered vnto them his owne bodie And after that our Lorde tooke the cuppe filled with wine he sanctified it with thankesgiuing and giueth it to them to drinke and teacheth them that he hath diuided to them his bloud and saith this bloud shall remitte the sinnes of the people Drinke you this my bloud Because this Poet doeth but onely rehearse the historie in verse without any exposition and interpretation and saith no more then the Euangelistes say I will not stand vpon him onely I will note the vanitie of Maister Heskins which like a young child that findeth miracles in euerie thing he seeth still noteth a plain place for Maister Iewel a plaine place for the proclaymer when either there is in it nothing for his purpose or as it falleth out oftentimes much against him Euseb. Emissen is cited Hom. 5. Pasc. Recedat omne c. Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie depart For truely he which is the auctour of the gifte is also the witnes of the trueth For the inuisible priest by secrete power doth with his worde conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie bloud saying thus This is my bodie And the sanctification repeated take and drinke saith he this is my bloud This place hath beene often answered to be ment of a spirituall and not a carnall conuersion as diuerse other places out of the same homilie alledged by M. Hesk. himself doe proue First it foloweth immediately Ergo vt c. Therfore as at the will of our Lord sodenly commanding of nothing the height of the heauens the depths of the waters the wide places of the earth were in substantiall beeing euen so by like power in the spirituall sacramentes vertue is giuen to the word and effect to the thing Therefore how great and notable thinges the power of the Diuine blessing doeth worke and how 〈◊〉 ought not seeme to the too strange and impossible that earthly and mortall thinges are chaunged into the substance of Christ aske of thy selfe which now art borne againe into Christe Here saith M. Heskins he proueth the chaunge possible I graunt and with all sheweth what manner a chaunge it is euen such a one as is in regeneration namely spirituall The same is shewed in the other places following Non dubites quispiâ—â— c Neither let any man dout that by the wil of the Diuine power by the presence of his high maiestie the former creatures may passe into the nature of the Lordes bodie when he may see man himselfe by the workmanship of the heauenly mercie made the bodie of christ And as any man comming to the faith of Christ before the wordes of baptisme is yet in the band of the olde debt but when they are rehearsed he is forthwith deliuered from all dregges of sinnes So when the creatures are set vpon the holie altars to be blessed with heauenly wordes before they be consecrated by inuocation of the highest name there is the substance of bread and wine but after the wordes of Christe the bodie and bloud of christ And what maruell is it if those things which he could create with his word beeing created he can conuerte by his worde Yea rather it seemeth to be a lesse miracle if that which he is knowne to haue made of nothing he can now when it is made chaunge into a better thing Vpon these sayings Maister Heskins vrgeth the chaunge I acknowledge the chaunge and vrge the kinde or manner of chaunge to be spirituall according to the examples of baptisme regeneration Vnto these authorities hee annexeth a large discourse of transubstantiation and citeth for it diuers testimonies olde and newe what the olde are we will take paynes to viewe as for the younger sorte we will not sticke to leaue vnto him First Gregorie Nicene is cited Serm. Catech. de Diuin Sacram. Sicut antem qui panem videt quodammodo corpus videt humanum c. And as he that seeth bread after a certeine manner seeth a mans bodie because bread beeing in the bodie becommeth a bodie so that diuine bodie receiuing the nourishment of bread was after a certeine manner the same thing with that meate as we haue said beeing turned into the nature of it For thâ—t which is proper to all flesh we confesse to haue apperteined to him For euen that bodie was susteined with bread but that bodie because God the WORDE dwelled in it obteined Diuine dignitie Wherefore we doe nowe also rightly belieue that the bread sanctified by the worde of God is chaunged into the bodie of God the WORDE Maister Heskins after his vsuall manner translateth Quodammodo in a manner if not falsely at the least obscurely But that worde Quodammodo that is after a certeine manner looseth all the knotte of this doubt For euen as the bodie of CHRISTE was bread after a certeine manner because it was nourished with bread and bread was after a certeine manner the bodie of Christ euen so we beleeue that the sacramentall bread is after a certeine manner chaunged into the bodie of Christ that it may be the spirituall foode of our soules Ambrose is cited De his qui initian Cap. 9. Where Maister Heskins beheadeth the sentence for it is thus Prior enim â—ux quà m vmbra veritas quà m figura corpus authoris quà m manna de coelo For light is before the shadowe the trueth before the figure the bodie of the authour before manna from heauen Which wordes we may vnderstand howe he taketh the bodie of Christe that sayeth it was before manna namely for the effecte of his death and sacrifice perfourmed by his bodie But M. Heskins beginneth at these wordes Forte dicat c. Peraduenture thou mayst say I see another thing How doest thou assure me that I take the bodie of Christ And this remaineth for vs to proue Howe many examples therefore doe we vse that we may proue this not to be that which nature hath formed it but which the blessing hath consecrated and that there is greater force of blessing then of nature for by blessing nature it selfe is chaunged Moses helde a rodde hee cast it doâ—ne and it was made a serpent Againe he tooke the serpent by the tayle and it reâ—â—rueth into the nature of the rodde Thou seest therefore by the prophets grace the nature of the serpent and of the rodde to 〈◊〉 beene twise changed And after many exaÌ„ples Quod si c. If then the benediction of man was of so great power that is chaunged nature what say we of the very diuine consecration where the very wordes of our Lorde
ignorance which knoweth not the vertue and dignitie thereof which knoweth not that this bodie and bloud is according to the trueth but receiueth the mysteries and knoweth not the vertue of the mysteries Vnto whome Salomon sayth or rather the spirite which is in him When thou sittest to eat with a Prince attende diligently what things are set before thee He also compelling openly and constraining him that is ignorant to adde a fifth parte For this fifth parte being added maketh vs to vnderstande the diuine mysteries intelligibly Nowe what the fifth parte is the wordes of the Law giuer may teache thee For he sayth he shall add a fifth parte with that he hath eaten And howe can a man adde a fifth parte of that which he hath alreadie eaten and consumed For he biddeth not another thing or from any other where But a fifth parte to be added of it or with it or as the 70. interprete vpon it Then the fifth parte of it vpon it is the worde which was vttered by Christ him selfe vpon the Lordes mysterie For that being added deliuereth and remoueth vs from ignorance as to thinke any thing carnall or earthly of those holie things but decreeth that those thinges shoulde bee taken diuinely spiritually which is properly called the fifth part for the diuine spirite which is in vs and the worde which he deliuered doth sett in order the senses that are in vs and doth not onely bring foorth our taste vnto mysterie but also our hearing sight and touching smelling so that of these things which are verie high we do suspect nothing that is neare to lesse reason or weake vnderstanding This place M. Hesk. noteth that the mysteries are called a most holy thing and a sacrifice We confesse it is a most holy thing a sacrifice of thanksgiuing for so the fathers meant and not a propitiatorie sacrifice Moreouer he noteth that it is called the verie bodie and bloud in verie deede Although the wordes of the author sounde not so roundly yet let that be graunted also what is then the conclusion Marie then haue ye a plaine place for the proclaimer issue ioyned thereupon that no one writer of like auncientie sayth it is not the verie bodie For thè plainesse of the place I wish always that the author may be his own expositor First where he sayth that the fifth part added maketh vs to vnderstand the mysteries intelligibly that is as he vseth the terme spiritually mystically although M. Hesk. translate intelligibiliter easily Secondly where he sayth wee must thinke nothing carnally or earthly of the holy things and that the worde of God decreeth that they should be taken diuinely and spiritually As for the issue it was ioyned tryed in the one and twentieth Chapter of the first booke But wee must heare what Hesychius sayth further Quicunque ergo sanctificata c. Whosoeuer therfore shal eat of the things sanctified by ignorance not knowing their vertue at we haue saide shall adde a fifth parte of it vpon it and giue it to the Priest into the sanctuarie For it behoueth the sanctification of the mysticall sacrifice and the translation or commutation from thinges sensible to things intelligible to be giuen to Christ which is the true Priest that is to graunt and impute to him the miracle of them because that by his power and the worde vttered by him those things that are seene are as surely sanctified as they exceede all sense of the flesh Out of these words M. Hesk. would proue transubstantiation because he saith there is a translation or cōmutation from things sensible to intelligible that is from bread which is perceiued by the senses to the body of Christ which in this manner is not perceiued by senses But M. Hesk. must proue the bodie of Christe to bee no sensible thing but a thing which may be perceiued by vnderstanding only or else his exposition wil not stand for here is a diuision exposition of things sensible intelligible which is a plaine ouerthrow of popish transubstantiatiō carnall presence for that wherunto the things sensible are changed is not a sensible thing as the naturall bodie of Christ is but they are changed into things intelligible ▪ that is which may only by vnderstanding be conceiued so is the spiritual feeding of our soules by faith with the verie body bloud of christ Next Augustin is cited in Ps. 33 a place which hath ben cited answered more then once alreadie Et ferebatur c. And he was carried in his own bāds Brethren how could this be true in a man c. I will remit the reader to the 10. Chap. of this second book where it is answered by Aug. him self in the same exposition Christ caried himself saith Aug. in his hands quodam modo after a certaine manner but not simply Maister Hesk. iangling of an onely figure hath bene often reproued wee make not the sacrament such an onely figure as Dauid might carrie in his handes of him selfe for Dauid could make no sacrament of him selfe but such a figure as is a diuine and heauenly worke to giue in deede that it representeth in signe An other place of Augustine is cyted De Trin. lib. 3. cap. 4. but truncately as he termeth it for he neither alledgeth the heade nor the feete by which the scope of Augustines wordes might be perceiued But the whole sentence is this Si ergo Apostolus Paulus c. If therefore the Apostle Paule although hee did yet carrie the burthen of his body which is corrupted and presseth downe the soule although he did as yet see but in part and in a darke speach desiring to be dissolued and to bee with Christ groning in himself for the adoption wayting for the redēption of his body Could neuerthelesse preach our Lord Iesus Christ by signifying otherwise by his tong otherwise by his Epistle otherwise by the sacrament of his body bloud for neither his tong nor the parchments nor the ynke nor the signifying sounds vttered with his tong nor the signes of the letters written in skinnes do we call the body and bloud of Christ but only that which being taken of the fruits of the earth being consecrated with mysticall prayer we do rightly receiue vnto spiritual health in remembrance of our Lords suffring for vs which when it is brought by the hands of mē to that visible forme it is not sanctified that it shuld be so great a sacramēt but by the spirit of god working inuisibly whē God worketh al these things which in that work are done by corporall motions mouing first the inuisible parts of his ministers either the soules of men or of secret spirits that are subiectes seruing him what maruel is it if also in the creature of heauen earth the sea al the ayre God maketh what he wil both sensible and inuisible things to set forth him selfe in them as he him selfe knoweth it shuld
suppressing the rest for very shame they make so much against him Surely in all reasonable mens consciences what so euer hee left out of this place hee left the aduauntage of his owne cause and no title againste him But let vs see here what Maister Heskins a man of inuention passing Sinon the GrÄ™cian hath gathered out of it There bee two thinges in this place plainely taught The first is the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in that he so reuerently calleth the sacrament vnder one kinde the portion of the Lords body and the other he calleth the cup of the holy bloud For the spiritual bloud is not contained in external or material vessels No syr but the sacrameÌ„t of his natural bloud is wherof he speaketh as it is manifest by the words immediatly before the portion of the Lords body for his natural body is not broken into portions but the bread which is a sacrament thereof is broken and therby is shewed what wicked men receiue both in this saying of Gelasius in the other of Leo not the naturall body of Christe which cannot be receiued in portions but a portion of the sacramental bread which is therfore called the body of Christ bicause it is so indeed to them that receiue it worthily is consecrated to that vse that it may be the coÌ„munication of the body of christ And as it hath ben often shewed sacraments beare the names of the very things wherof they are sacrameÌ„ts The second thing that he teacheth saith M. Hes. is that he calleth not these two kindes Sacramentum a sacrament but Sacramenta sacramentes in the plural number signifying therby that each of them is a whole sacrament O new Diuinitie theÌ„ ye Papistes haue eight sacraments But are you such a prudent gatherer M. Hes it appeareth you wil lease none aduantage for the taking vp I commend you But for all that doth not your Authour Leo call both kindes sacramentum a sacrament and that is more for it is too too childish to reason of the singular number doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kindes Vnum idémque mysterium one and the same mysterie And when he vseth the plural number the ground of your Achillean argument doth he not say Integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur Let them take the whole sacramentes or else let them be kept from the whole signifying that they which tooke the bread onely tooke but halfe the sacramentes and none took the whole but they that tooke the cup also But nowe for the practise of the Primitiue Church to haue receiued in one kinde he saith that in time of persecution the Priest deliuered them of the sacrament wrapped in fine linnen clothes to carie home with them and to receiue it secretly by them selues and this could bee none other but the sacrament vnder the foâ—ne of breade Admit it were so that they caried home the sacrament yet it followeth not but they might as well carie the wine in a faire pot as they caried the breade in a faire cloth And although TertulliaÌ„ writing to his wife name bread only yet doth it not followe but that he comprehendeth the cup also The wordes of Tertullian are before rehearsed and answered Lib. 1. cap. 24. 27. Next is brought in Basil. Episto ad Caesareant patriciam Illud autem c. As for that to be a grieuous thing in the times of persecution any man to be inforced to receiue the communion with his owne hand the Priest or Deacon not being present it is more then nedeth to proue for bicause the same thing is by a long custome and by the very vse of things established For all they that in the wildernesse lead a solitarie life where there is no Priest keeping the communion at home communicate of them selues But in Alexandria and Aeâ—ypt euery one of the people for the most part haue the communion in their owne house For when the Priest doth consecrate the sacrifice and distribute it we must well beleeue to participate and receiue it For in the Church the Priest giueth part and he that taketh it receiueth it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand It is therfore the same thing in vertue whether a man take one part of the Priest or many parts together Of the credite and authoritie of this Epistle which being cited in the name of Saint Basil is not to be found in all his workes I haue spoken before sufficiently as also of the reseruation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first booke cap. 27. But for the communion in one kinde I see nothing that he saith sauing that Maister Heskins gathereth that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hote countries conueniently in their own kind such long time as they were forced to reserue the sacrament in the wildernes and else where But I aunswere him that such strong wine as they haue in those hote countries will bee kept longer from sowring then the breade will bee from moulding and therefore his gathering is altogether fond ridiculous But now you shall heare a more plaine testimoine for this receipt vnder one kinde if you will hearken to S. Cyprian He is cited In sermone de Lapsis a long saying to litle yea to no purpose at all Praesente ac teste meipso c. Heare what came to passe my selfe beeing present and witnesse The parentes of a childe flying by chaunce while for feare they tooke no good aduisement leaft their young daughter vnder the cherishing of a nource the nource brought her so left vnto the Magistrates They before an Idole where the people were gathered because for her age she could yet eate no flesh gaue vnto her bread mixed with wine which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish Afterwarde the mother receiued her daughter But the litle mayde could no more speake and declare the offence that was committed then vnderstand it before and forbidde it Through ignorance therfore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her whyle we were sacrificing But truely the girle beeing among the Saintes not abiding our prayer and supplication sometime was constrained to crie out sometime with vehement greefe of minde was tossed here and there euen as though a tormentor compelled her the ignorant soule by such tokens as she could acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those yong and tender yeres But after the solemnities beeing accomplished the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present and when the rest had receiued and her place was next the little one by the instinct of Gods Maiestie turned away her face pressed her mouth with her lippes stopped refused the cuppe Yet the Deacon persisted and though it were against her will powred in somewhat of the sacrament of the cuppe Then followed belking and vomite In a bodie and a mouth that was defiled the Eucharistie
all matters perteining to aeternall life but here is no prophesie spoken of neither doeth Maister Heskins gather one worde out of it for that intent The like is to be sayde of Saint Augustine vppon the 77. Psalme Quid enim c. For he which commanded the clowdes aboue and opened the gates of heauen and rayned to them Manna to eate and gaue them the bread of heauen so that man did eate the breade of Angels Hee which sent vnto them meate in aboundaunce that he might fill the vnbeleeuers is not vnable to geeue to the beleeuers the verie true breade from heauen which Manna did signifie which is in deede the meate of Angels which WORDE of God feedeth them that are corruptible incorruptibly which that man might eate was made flesh and dwelled among vs. Here is no worde of Prophesie neither can Maister Heskins himselfe finde any and the wordes which doe immediately followe do plainly shewe that Augustine spake neither of corporall presence nor corporall maner of eating Ipse enim panis per nubes Euangelicas vniuerso orbi pluitur apertis praedicatorum cordibus tanquam coelestibâ—â—â— ianuis non murmur anti tentanti synagogae sed credenti in illo spem ponenti ecclesiae praedicatur For this bread thorough the cloudes of the Gospell is rayned vnto all the worlde and the hearts of the preachers as it were the heauenly gates being opened is preached not to the murmuring and tempting synagogue but to the church beleeuing and putting her trust in him Here Augustine sayth that the VVORDE which became fleshe is rayned from heauen by the preaching of the Gospell and eaten by faith Vnto Augustine he ioyneth Cassiodorus as he sayeth and truely nothing dissenting from the former writers but altogether from M. Hesk. purpose he is cited in Psalm 77. Et pluit illis c. And he rayned to them Manna to eate he sayeth he rayned that he might shewe the great plentie of the meat which like vnto rayne came down from heauen And lest thou shouldest doubt what rayne that was it followeth To eate Manna Manna is interpreted what is this which we verie fuly applye to the holie Communion for while this meat is sought by wandring the giftes of the Lordes bodie are declared He hath added He gaue them the breade of heauen What other breade of heauen is there but Christe our Lorde of whome the heauenly things receiue spirituall foode and doe enioy inestimable delight Finally thus it followeth Man hath eaten the breade of Angels Therefore Christ is saide to be the breade of Angels because they are fedde with his eternall praise For the Angels are not to be thought to eate corporall breade but with that contemplation of our Lorde with the which that high crâ—ature is fedd they are fedd but this breade filleth the Angels in heauen and feedeth vs on earth In this exposition it is worthie to be noted that Cassiodorus affirmeth that Christe our Lorde was the breade from heauen which God gaue to the fathers in the sacrament of Manna Also that the Angels in heauen and we vppon earth are fedde with the same bread which must needes be a spirituall foode For as he saith the Angels eate no corporall bread so doe they not eate any corporall thing or after any corporall manner The last authoritie hee citeth out of fryer Titelman I will not trouble the reader withall although if he neuer had spoken worse then in this sentence he were not greatly to be reprehended But to M. Heskins all is fishe that commeth to the nett The twelfth Chapter proueth by occasion of that that is sayde with further authoritie that the sacraments of the newe lawe are more excellent then the sacraments of the olde lawe The first reason is taken out of S. Augustines rule cited in the firste booke That all good things figured are more excellent then the figures which wee graunt for Christ figured by Manna was more excellent then Manna as he is more excellent then the breade wine by which he is likewise represented The second reason he vseth is this that if the bodie of Christe were not so present in the sacrament as they imagine Manna shoulde be better then the sacrament for Manna hath twelue wonders declared by Roffens lib. 1. Chap. 12. The firste that he that gathered moste had but his measure The seconde that he that gathered least had his measure full also The thirde that which was kepte vntill the next day putrified except on the Saboth day The fourth it was kept many yeres in the Arke vnprutrified The fift it would melt in the Sonne and be harde in the fire The sixth it fell all dayes sauing vppon the Sabboth day The seuenth that on the daye before the Saboth day they had two gomers full and all other days but one The eyght that whether they gathered more or lesse they had that day two gomers full The ninth that measure sufficed all stomackes and appetites The tenth that to them that were good it tasted to euery one according to his desire The eleuenth although to the godly it was a most pleasant taste yet to the vngodly it waâ— lothsome The twelfth the children of Israel were fedd with it fortie yeres in the Wildernesse Of some of these speaketh Chrysostom in dict Apost Nolo vos which because it is long and conteineth nothing more then is collected by Fisher I will not set downe Augustine also witnesseth for one miracle that Manna tasted to euery man as hee woulde Hereuppon he concludeth that Manna farre excelleth the sacramentaries sacramentall bread which shal be graunted and so it doeth the Papists consecrated host which is subiect to putrifaction and in none of the twelue miracles comparable to Manna But Manna for all this doth not excell the bodie and bloud of Christe which is giuen vs that are faithfull with our sacramentall bread and wine He sayeth the Iewes receiuing Manna receiued Christe spiritually Nowe at the length he sayth trueth And we also receiuing the sacramentall bread and wine receiue Christ spiritually Neither are our sacraments as I haue sayde concerning the spirituall or heauenly substance more excellent then theirs as our saluation is the same with theirs but in clearnesse of signification more excellent as the doctrine of our saluation is more plainly reuealed vnto vs But M. Hesk. replyeth that if our sacrameÌ„ts excel not theirs then their sacraments and figures farre excell ours and that in three things The first In excellencie of the thing signified The second in the fulnesse liuelinesse of the signification The third in the worke of God about the same figures But I aunswer concerning the first they are aequall concerning the second ours are superior more excellent and concerning the thirde I distinguish of outward working of God inwarde Concerning the outward work of God about their sacraments figures it was meete it should be more notable because the doctrine was more obscure
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
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
taketh to be ordeined of him for as much as it is not by any diuersitie of maners varied or altered But if it were as he fableth that S. Paul ordeined the ceremonial part of the Masse that was vsed in Augustines time the Popish Masse being not the same in ceremoniall partes as he will confesse that it was in Augustines time it foloweth that the Popish Masse is not that which was ordeined of S. Paule for it is well known it was patched peeced together by many peeces long since August time And as certein it is that almost euerie Church in his time had a seuerall forme of liturgie and therefore by his owne words they cannot be that which S. Paule set in order at the Church of that Corinthians The like impudeÌ„cie he sheweth in the next saying of Aug. which he citeth Et ideo non proecipit c. And therfore he coÌ„manded not in what order it should be receiued afterward that he might reserue this place to the Apostles by whoÌ„ he would set the Churches in order It followeth which M. Hesk. hath omitted Etiamsi hoc ille monuisset vt post cibos alios semper acciperetur credo quòd eum moreÌ„ nemo variasset For if he had charged this that it should always be receiued after other meats I beleeue that no man would haue varied froÌ„ that maner When August speketh so expresly of that one order of receiuing the communioÌ„ before meat what boldness is it to say that crouching kneeling other dumb ceremonies although they were not instituted by Christ yet were ordeined by S. Paul vpoÌ„ colour of Aug. authority who in the same epistle wished al such idle ceremonies vtterly to be abolished The next Massemonger he maketh is S. Andrew out of whose legend written by I knowe not what priestes deacons of Achaia he wil proue that S. Andrew did both say Masse and also therin offer in sacrifice the bodie bloud of Christ. But he is too much deceiued if he thinke any man of reasonable vnderstanding will in these dayes giue credite to such fabulous legends after S. Andrew coÌ„meth in S. Iames with his Masse said at IerusaleÌ„ which is in print but not heard of in the Church 600. yeres after Christ yet M. Hesk. saith it is allowed praysed by the proclaymer which is vtterly false for he proueth by a manifest argumeÌ„t that the liturgie which is in print vnder the name of S. Iames is a counâ—erfet because therein is a special prayer conteyned for such as liue in Monasteries whereas there was neuer a monasterie in the world many hundreth yeres after the death of S. Iames. And for a further proofe of the false inscription of that liturgie to S. Iames I will adde this argument that he vseth the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or consubstantial which as the learned knowe was neuer heard of in the Church before the heresie of Arrius was condemned in the Nicene counsell although the Catholike Church did alwayes confesse that Christ was God of the same substance equal with the father and the holy Ghost In deede the B. of Sarum confesseth that there is more in those liturgies against the Papistes then for them as by examining these parcels which M. Heskins citeth we shall easily perceiue First the liturgie of Iames hath these wordes Dominus c. Our Lord Iesus the same right in which he was betrayed or rather in which night he deliuered himselfe for the life of saluation of the world taking bread into his holie vndefiled innocent immortall hands looking vp into heauen shewing it to the God father giuing thankes sanctifying breaking he gaue it to vs his disciples saying Take ye eate ye this is my bodie which is broken for you and giuen vnto remission of sinnes Likewise after he had supped he tooke the cup and mingling it with wine and water looking vp into heauen and shewing it to the God and father giuing thankes sanctifying blessing filling it with the holy Ghost he gaue it to vs his disciples saying Drinke ye all of this this is my bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you and many and giuen for remission of sinnes This saith Maister Heskins was his maner of consecration vnlike the manner of the newe ministers in their communion which only rehearse the words of Christ historically not directing theÌ„ to God as a prayer wherein he lyeth most impudently as euerie man that heareth or readeth the praier immediately before the receiuing of the sacrament can testifie Concerning the tearme of consecration I haue often shewed that in the true sense thereof we both allow vse it although he wold make ignorant obstinat papists that wil neither heare our preachings nor read our writings to beleeue the contrarie only because he saith it Another ridiculous cauil he hath that we take not the bread into our handes before we consecrate it But let it lie on the table as though we had nothing to do with it Surely we do not acknowledge such holines in our hands that it can consecrate the bread but we pray to God to blesse those his creatures of bread wine that they may be vnto vs the bodie and bloud of Christ his sonne our lord If the Papists haue such holy vndefiled and immortal hands as this Iames speaketh of it is more then we knowe or will confesse before they can proue it In the consecration of the wine he chargeth vs that we mingle no water with the wine But when he can proue by the word of God that our sauiour Christ did so we will confesse our errour otherwise we see no necessitie of the water so their own schoolemen do confesse We acknowledge that in the primitiue Church it was an ancient custome to mingle water with the wine but not as a ceremonie at the first but as the coÌ„mon vsage of al men that drank the hotte wines of the East countries but afterward it grewe to be counted a ceremonie including some mysterie and at length with some it excluded the wine altogether as with those that were called Aquarij so daungerous a matter it is to vse any thing in Gods seruice more then is prescribed by himselfe But M. Heskins caÌ„not be persuaded that after al this sanctifying blessing and filling of the cup with the holy Ghost there should bee nothing else but a bare hungrie figure As though there were no choyce but either transubstantiation or a bare hungrie figure In baptisme there is sanctification blessing and filling with the holie Ghost as much as in the communion is there therefore transubstantiation in baptisme because there is not a bare hungrie figure But if I might be so bold as to examine him in his own fained Masse of S. Iames I would aske him how the cuppe is filled with the holie Ghost essentially so that the holie Ghost or any parte of him is conteined in the cupp I dare say he will say
no. And why then may not the bodie of Christ be present and yet not corporally nor locally conteyned in pixe corporax cupp hand or mouth but after a spirituall manner as the holy Ghost is in the cuppe by his owne Iames his saying The last quarrell he picketh is to our ministers who sayeth he haue none authoritie to consecrate because they receiue it not from the catholike succession As for that authoritie which we haue receiued of God by the outwarde calling of the church wee minde not to exchange with the Popes triple crowne and much lesse with Maister Hesk. shauen crowne But to shape him an answere according to his lewde obiection seeing many are suffered to minister in our church which were made priestes after the Popish order of antichrist why should he denye any of them them at the least to haue power to consecrate according to the Popish diuinitie though the wordes be spoken in English so long as he hath intentionē consecrandi before he be of them disgraded and hath his indebeble character scraped out of his handes and fingers endes I aunswere he is not able to defend his opinion that thei cannot consecrate neither in Sorbona of Paris nor in the schoole of Louain To shutt vp this Chapter he flappeth vs in the mouth with S. Mathewes Masse testified by Abdias in the diuels name a disciple of the Apostles as hee saith but one that sawe Christ him selfe as M. Harding sayeth in verie deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more then Caunterburie tales And thinketh he that such fables will nowe bee credited except it bee of such as wilfully will be deceiued The fiue and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the manner of consecration vsed and practised by the disciples of the Apostles and the fathers of the primitiue and auncient church His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian but a late writer who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgie which Peter Paule and the Apostles vsed Although that which he rehearseth of Clemens his Liturgie be to small purpose litle or nothing differing from that hee had before of Iames yet Nicolaus Methon is too yong a witnesse to bee credited in this case For he was not of yeres of discretion to discerne that for the authenticall writing of Clemens which the more auncient church by a thousand yeres could not haue perfect knowledge to be his Neither doth the testimonie of Proclus help him any whit For as it is not to be doubted but S. Iames the other Apostles Clemens also appointed some forme of Liturgie for the churches by them planted instructed which is all that Proclus saith yet how proueth M. Hesk. that those which we haue were the same which were written by Iames Clemens or any other of lawful antiquitie when wee bring manifest demonstrations for the contrarie Againe where he saith that Peter vsed the Liturgie of Clemens he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which sayth that Peter vsed a Liturgie of his own cōsisting of three praiers only The next witnesse should be Dionysius falsly surnamed Areopagita but that he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstantiation carnal presēce priuate Masse or sole cōmunion therefore vnder pretence of his obscuritie he dare cite neuer a sentence out of him Then follow the Liturgies vnder the names of Basil Chrysost. verie litle in words nothing at al in matter differing from that former Liturgie ascribed to S. Iames which because M. Hesk. knoweth we cannot receiue as the lawful writings of Basil Chrysost. he would vnderprop them by the authoritie of Proclus B. of Constantinople as he did S. Clem. S. Iames masse euen now The reason alledged by Proclus will cleane ouerturne his ground worke proue that none of these Liturgies were writen by thē to whom they be ascribed For Proclus sayeth that Basil and Chrysostom made the auncient Liturgies receiued from the Apostles shorter cutting many things away frō them because they were too long for the peoples colde deuotion to abide First this is a colde reason to alter the tradition of the Apostles so many yeres continued in the church for want of the peoples deuotion But be it that they followed this reason then doth it followe moste manifestly that this Liturgie which is ascribed to S. Iames is none of his because it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But if M. Hesk. will defende that of S. Iames then hee must needes refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it therfore none abridgements of it After these Liturgies hee addeth the testimonie of the sixt counsell of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretike wherein it is reported the S. Iames Basil Chrysostome ministred in their Liturgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water But this proueth not that these Liturgies which we haue are the same that were set forth by those fathers as for the water they striue not for it but for wine to be vsed not water onely Finally where the fathers of that counsell call the celebration of the communion an oblation and an vnbloudie sacrifice they speake in the same sence that the elder fathers vse the same termes otherwise that counsell being an hundreth yeres without the compasse of the challenge hath no place but in the lower house among the Burgesses whose speaches may be hearde but they haue none authoritie to determine in this cause by M. Heskins order according to the challenge Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latine church as though Clemens if he were bishop of Rome and wrote a Liturgie as he affirmeth before that of his making might not serue the Latine church But Ambrose is cited lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca. 5. Vis scire c. Wouldest thou knowe that the sacrament is consecrated with heauenly wordes Marke what the wordes be The Priest sayth Make vnto vs faith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ which the day before he suffred tooke bread in his holie hands looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thanks blessed it brake it being broken gaue it to his Apostles and disciples saying Take ye eat ye all of this for this is my bodie which shal be broken for many Likewise also he tooke the cupp after he had supped the day before he suffered looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thankes he blessed it deliuered it to his Apostles disciples saying Take ye and drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud M. Hesk. passeth ouer that the oblation of the church is the figure of the body bloud of Christ for feare he should be espied taken with such an assertion he flyeth in all the haste to other words of
Christ it is euident that he neither beleeued transubstantiation nor the carnall presence nor consecration nor intention after the manner of the Papistes as also by this that hee calleth the bread and wine after consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplaries or figures You see therefore howe with patches and peeces rent off here and there he goeth about to deceiue the simple readers which either haue no leasure or no boookes or no skill to trie out his falsifications and malicious corruptions The like sinceritie hee vseth in citing Chrysostomes Masse for so he calleth his Liturgie in which is a prayer for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius which was seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostomes death and therfore could not possibly be written by him Besides this there be diuers copies in the Greeke tong one that Erasmus translated which is very vnlike that copie which is printed in Greeke since that time as the learned sort doe knowe The wordes he citeth be in a manner the same that were in Basils Liturgie sauing that in the end he addeth Permutans ea sancto spiritu tuo changing them by the spirt This change may well be without transubstantiation as hath bene often shewed before The saying of Ambrose is more at large in the Chapter next before As for the praier of the Popish Masse that the oblation may be made the body and bloud of Christ as it is vnderstoode of them is nothing like the prayers of the elder Liturgies although in sound of some words it seeme to agree And as foolishly as vniustly he findeth fault with our praier in the communion that wee receiuing the creatures of breade and wine in remembrance of Christes death according to his institution may be made partakers of his most blessed body bloud S. Iames S. Clement and the rest saith he prayed not that they might receiue bread and wine No more doe we thou foolish sophister But that receiuing bread and wine we might be partakers of Christes body and bloud and this did all the Apostolike and Primitiue Church pray as we pray in baptisme not that we may receiue water but that receiuing water we may be borne a newe Neither did they euer pray that the breade and wine might be transubstantiated into the body bloud of Christ but that they might be made the body bloud of Christ to theÌ„ after a spirtual sacrameÌ„tal maner But I am much to blame to vouchsafe these childish sophismes of any answere Next to this he would knowe what authoritie the Protestants can shewe that the eating and drinking of bread wine is of Christes institution That it is a part of his institution the Euangelists S. Paul do shewe most euidently But though he tooke breade and wine in his hands saith M. Heskins he changed it before he gaue them so that it was no more bread and wine but his body and bloud and therefore we charge Christ with an vntrueth to say that receiuing of bread and wine is of Christes institution O Maister of impietie and follie Christ made no such change in his handes but that which was in the cup was still the fruit of the vine as he himself testified saying I wil no more drinke of this fruit of the vine vntill the day come when I shall drinke it a newe with you in the kingdome of my father Math. 26. As for the praier of those Liturgies of Iames and Basil That God would make them worthie to receiue the body and bloud of Christe without condemnation proueth not that they meant to receiue the body of Christ after a corporall maner nor that the very body of Christe may be receiued to damnation The thirde Liturgie of Chrysostome which Erasmus expoundeth hath it otherwise Dignos nos redde potenti manu â—ua vt participes simuâ— immaculati tui corporis preciosi tui sanguinis per nos omnis populus Make vs worthy by thy mightie hand that we may be partakers of thy vndefiled body and of thy precious bloud and so may al the people by vs This prayer is godly sound and so are the other being rightly vnderstoode namely that they which eate of that bread drinke of that cup of the Lord vnworthily as S. Paule saith do eat and drinke their owne damnation not considering the Lords body But M. Heskins vrgeth that the spiritual body of Christ or Christ spiritually cannot be deliuered by the Priestes to the people but the real body may Yes verily much rather then the body of Christ corporally euen as the holy Ghost may be deliuered in baptisme and as eternal life and forgiuesse of sinnes may be giuen in preaching the Gospell and none of these feinedly but truly yet otherwise are they giuen by God otherwise by this Ministers But in this distinction of M. Hes â–ª it is good to note that he maketh Christ to haue a reall body which is not spirituall a spirituall body which is not reall Christ hath in deede a mysticall body which is his Church and that is not his natural body but by spiritual coniunction vnited to his only true naturall body But of this mystical body M. Hes. speaketh not Further he taketh exceptions to our prayer affirmeth that It is not the institution of Christe to receiue the creatures of breade and wine in the remembrance of his death But notwithstanding all his childish blockish quarels our prayer is waranted by the Apostles words 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat of this bread drinke of this cup ye shewe the Lords death till he come In the last part of this Chap. he will determine of the intention of the ministers of the new Church And that is that Desiring to receiue the creatures of bread wine they exclude the body and bloud of Christ. Who euer heard a more shamelesse lye or a more inconsequent argument But seing there be two sorts of ministers in this new founded Church he wil speake of them both one sort were made Popish Priestes so haue authoritie to consecrate but they lacke intention now they be fallen to heresie there is a second sort which thought they could not haue intention to consecrate yet being none of the greasie and blasphemous order they lack authoritie But I wold there were not a third sort of whom I spake in the last chap. that wer made popish Priestes and so continue but in outward dissimulation ioyne with vs if these intend to consecrate when they minister the coÌ„munion how can M. Hes. dissuade the Papists from receiuing of them or count their sacrameÌ„t nothing but bare bread And wheras M. He. seemeth in the end to inueigh against such I will willingly confesse that they are worse then he is or such as professe what they are but not worse then hee hath beene in King Henries King Edwards dayes when he dissembled and swaâ—e as deepely as any of them all As for our intention seeing it is
to doe that which Christ commanded to be done and to receiue that which he deliuered vs to be receiued if the particular explication of our faith will not satisfie M. Hes. at least let him after his owne Popish Diuinitie holde vs excused for our implicite faith or if his own principles can hold him no longer then he listeth let him giue vs leaue to esteeme none otherwise of them then he giueth vs example to do The seuen and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the oblation and sacrifice of the Masse as it was vsed of the Apostles and Fathers When not one of the Apostles or Euangelistes make one word mention either of Masse or sacrifice therein M. Heskins taketh vpon him much more then al the Papistes in the world can proue Concerning the Fathers as they vse the terme of sacrifice so I haue often shewed that they meane a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of propitiation or else they vse the name of sacrifice vnproperly for a memorial of the onely sacrifice of Christ which he once offered neuer to be repeated Neither do any of these Liturgies which M. Heskins calleth Masses though they be falsly ascribed to Saint Iames Saint Clement Saint Basil Saint Chrysostome c. shewe any other thing but manifestly the same that I haue saide First that which is falsly ascribed to Saint Iames in these wordes Memores c. Therefore we sinners being mindfull of his quickening passions of his healthfull crosse and death his buriall and resurrection from death the third day of his ascension into heauen and sitting at the right hand of thee ô God the father and of his second glorious and fearefull comming when he shall come with glory to iudge the quicke and the dead when he shall render to euery one according to his workes we offer vnto thee ô Lord this reuerend vnbloudie sacrifice praying that thou wilt not deale with vs according to our sinnes No reasonable man can vnderstand here any other but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing or prayer or a memoriall of the sacrifice of christ For he saith not we offer the body and bloud of Christe but being mindfull of his sufferings c. we offer this reuerend and vnbloudy sacrifice for such is the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing The like and more plaine is that which is ascribed to Clemens by Nicholas Methon Memores igitur Therefore being mindfull of his passion death and resurrection returning into heauen and his second comming in which he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead and to render to euery man according to his workes we offer vnto thee our king and God according to his institution this bread and this cup giuing thankes vnto thee by him that thou hast vouchsafed vs to stand before thee and to sacrifice vnto thee This is so plaine against M. Heskins for the oblation of Christes body and bloud c. that he is enforced to flee to shamefull petitions of principles the end of which is that this bread is no bread this cup is no cup but as Christe called bread in the 6. of Iohn and S. Paule in the 1. Cor. 10. 11. in exposition whereof lyeth all the controuersie That Liturgie which is intituled to S. Basil is yet more plaine for a spirituall oblation of thankesgiuing Memores ergo c. Therefore being mindfull ô Lord of his healthsome passions of his quickening crosse three dayes buriall resurrection from death ascension into heauen sitting at thy right hand ô God the father and of his glorious and terrible second presence we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures M. Heskins saith he abhorreth not from the name of sacrifice as we do but he falsly belyeth vs for if he will looke in our Liturgie or communion booke he shall finde that we also offer a sacrifice of thankesgiuing euen our selues our soules and bodies as the Apostle exhorteth vs to be a holy liuely and acceptable sacrifice to god But he will not remember that the sacrifice he speaketh of is not the body and bloud of Christe but tua ex tuis thy creatures of thy giftes or thy gifts of thy creatures namely the bread and wine which also after consecration he prayeth to be sanctified by Gods holy spirite but the body of Christe hath no neede of such sanctification Secondly he noteth not that his Basil maketh but two presences of Christe in the worlde the first when hee liued in humilitie in the the world the second which shall be terrible and glorious by which he doth manifestly exclude the third imagined presence of Christ in the sacrament To the same effect prayeth the Priest in the other Liturgie ascribed to Chrysostome Memores c. Therefore being mindfull of this wholesome commaundement and of all those things which are done for vs of his crosse buriall resurrection ascension into heauen sitting at the right hand of his second and glorious comming againe we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures Maister Heskins saith he will not seeke the deapth of this matter but only declare that al these fathers did offer sacrifice In which words he mocketh his readers egregiously whereas he should proue that they offered the body and bloud of Christe to be a propitiatorie sacrifice and that he proueth neuer a whit Nowe that the meaning of that Liturgie was not to offer Christ in sacrifice this prayer therein vsed before the words of coÌ„secration as they terme it doth sufficieÌ„tly declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Lord receiue this sacrifice vnto thine heauenly altar So that it is manifest they called the bread wine a sacrifice not the body bloud of christ The like is that of Ambrose The Priest saith Therefore being mindfull of his most glorious passion resurrection from death and ascension into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudy sacrifice this holy bread and cup of eternall life This vndefiled sacrifice saith M. Heskins must needes be the body and bloud of Christe for else there is nothing vndefiled that a man can offer But why may it not be as Ambrose calleth it here the holy bread and cup of the communion or as he calleth it a little before in the same place the figure of the body bloud of Christ For the bread and the wine which vnproperly he calleth a sacrifice in steede of a memoriall of a sacrifice in that they be the holy sacraments of Christes body and bloud are holy vndefiled and the foode of eternal life The same Ambrose called the soule of his brother an innocent sacrifice and offered the same to God in his prayer De obiâ—â— fratris c. To conclude not one of all these Liturgies no not the Canon of the Masse it selfe saith that the body of Christe is the sacrifice that they do offer or that they offer a propitiatorie sacrifice or that they offer any other but a
sacrifice of thankesgiuing or a memoriall of the sacrifice of Christ by which it is easie to iudge howe the doctrine that the Papistes do nowe holde of the propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse doth agree with the auncient Liturgies ascribed to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church The eight and twentieth Chapter treateth of the prayer for acceptation of the oblation or sacrifice made in the Masse and vsed as well by the Apostles as the Fathers That the Apostles and Fathers commended to God by prayers the sacrifice which thei offered it is a manifest argument that they offered not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe for that needeth no commendation of our prayers They prayed therefore that their sacrifice of thankes giuing and duetifull seruice celebrated in the memorie of Christes death might be acceptable to God as you shal see by al their prayers First the Liturgie vntruly ascribed to Iames praieth thus Pro oblatis c. For these offred and sanctified precious heauenly vnspeakable immaculate glorious feareful horrible diuine gifts let vs pray to our Lord God that our Lord God accepting them into his holy heauenly mentall and spirituall altar for a sauour of spiritual sweet smell may giue vs againe and send vnto vs the diuine grace and gift of the most holy spirite These sanctified giftes can not be the body and bloud of Christe which are holy of them selue but the bread and wine sanctified to be a memoriall of the death of Christe in a spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing Saint Clement if wee beleeue Nicholas Methon prayed thus Rogamus c. We pray thee that with mercifull and cheerefull countenaunce thou wilt looke vpon these giftes set before thee thou God which hast no neede of any thing and that thou mayest be pleased with them to the honour of thy Christ. These wordes are plaine that he offered not Christe but the breade and wine to bee sanctified to the honour of Christe namely that they might be made the body and bloud of Christe to as many as receiue them worthily In the Liturgie imputed to Basil the Priest prayeth thus Dominum postulemus c. Let vs desire the Lorde for these offered and sanctified the most honourable giftes of our Lorde God and for the profite of the goods of our soules that the most mercifull God which hath receiued them in his holy heauenly intelligible altar for a sauour of sweete smelling would send vnto vs the grace and communion of his holy spirite The same wordes in a manner be in the Liturgie fathered vppon Saint Chrysostome though it be manifest that it was written seuen hundreth yeares after his death as is shewed before Pro oblatis c. For the offered and sanctified precious giftes let vs pray the Lorde that our mercifull God who hath receiued theÌ„ in his holy heauenly intelligible altar may send vs therfore grace the gift of the holy Ghost Maister Heskins would haue vs note that these Fathers seeme to pray for their sacrifice which we note very willingly for thereby is proued that their sacrifice was not the very body of Christ for that nedeth no commendation of our prayers Wel S. Ambrose followeth Lib. de Sacr. 4. Cap. 6. Petimus c. We pray and desire that thou wilt receiue this oblation in thy high altar by the handes of the Angels as thou hast vouchsafed to receiue the gifts of thy seruant righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that which thy high Priest Melchisedech offered to thee The very name of gods heauenly mental intelligible holy high altar do argue a spirituall sacrifice and not a reall oblation of the naturall body and bloud of christ Next to these Liturgies Maister Heskins adioyneth the wordes of the Canon of the Popish Masse agreeing in effect with these of Ambrose but nothing at all in vnderstanding For that the Papistes esteeme their sacrifice to be very Christ God and Man which none of the auncient fathers did For which cause the Bishop of Sarum iustly reproued those three blasphemies in their Canon not in respect of the words but in respect of their vnderstanding of them The first that they seeme to make Christ in his fathers displeasure that he needeth a mortall man to be his spokesman The second that the body of Christe should in no better wise bee receiued of his father then a Lambe at the handes of Abel The third that they desire an Angel may come and carie away Christes body into heauen These three blasphemies M. Heskins taketh vpon him to auoyde or excuse To the first after many lowd outcries and beastly raylings against that godly learned father of blessed mâ—mory he answereth defending it first by example of these auncient Liturgies that they prayed for their sacrifice but this helpeth him not for they neither thought nor saide that their sacrifice was very Christe God and Man but a sacrament and memoriall of him Afterward hee saith the meaning of their Church is not to pray for Christe but by Christ to obtaine fauour bicause they say in the end of euery prayer per Christum Dominum nostrum by our Lord Christ. But this hole is too narrowe for him to creepe out at For he confesseth that he prayeth for his sacrifice and he affirmeth that his sacrifice is Christ therfore he praieth for Christ. To auoyde the second blasphemie hee saith that the meaning of their Church is not to pray that God will accept the sacrifice which is acceptable of it selfe but their deuotion and seruice and them selues the offerers as hee did accept Abell and his sacrifice c. and so flyeth to the example of the olde Liturgies but that will not serue him For their sacrifice was not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ but a seruice and duetie of thankesgiuing in remembrance of Christe And therefore they might well pray that their sacrifice might be accepted as Abell and his sacrifice as Noe and his burnt offering and so of the rest but this meaning will not stande with the wordes of their Canon which are that God will accept the sacrifices that is the body and bloud of Christ as hee accepted the giftes of his iust seruaunt Abell c. Therefore they must either chaunge the wordes of the Canon or his aunswere to the second accusation by the meaning of their Church can not stande howe so euer Hugo Heskins would seeme to salue or rather to daub vp the matter To the third and last hee aunswereth denying that the meaning of their Church is that the body of Christe should be caried by an Angel but that their prayers should bee offered by an Angel or Angels in the sight of GOD making a long and needlesse discourse of the ministerie of Angels and howe they offer our prayers to GOD which is nothing to the purpose For the Maister of the sentences affirmeth that an Angel must be sent to
for al that he foysteth in the name of his Masse yet can he not exclude the necessitie of receiuing the cōmunion of all the lay people which is the matter in question And therefore it is a verie shame to report what an absurde interpretation of the Canon he would make namely that it was not decreede against good Catholike people which ioyned in prayer and receiued when deuotion serued them but against licentious yet dissembling heretikes and schismatikes which being present in the churche would not communicate either in prayer or in receipt of the sacrament For confutatiō of which blind meaning first I woulde aske whether omnes fideles all the faithful as the Canon sayeth doth signifie all licentious and dissembling heretikes and scismatikes Secondly when the Canon is made expressely against them that after thei haue heard the scriptures depart when the prayer celebration of the communiō beginneth whether those that be present ioyne not in prayer participation can be vnderstood Thirdly if he knew what kind of Censure this was that is spoken of whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or separation were a sufficient punishment for men knowne to be licentious dissembling heretikes scismatikes But hee wil father his feyned vnderstanding vpon the councel of Antioch which saith he expoundeth it so almost word for word Omnes qui ingrediuntur c. All that come into the Church of God heare the holie scriptures communicate not in prayer with the people but of a certein wantonnesse turne them selues away from the receiuing of the holie communion let them be remoued from the church vntill by confession they shewe fruites of repentance and by prayers obteine pardon But with excommunicate persons it is not lawfull to communicate neither may we pray with such as go from house to house auoyding the prayers of the church But who will graunt to M. Heskins that this should be an interpretation of the former Canon contrarie to the wordes thereof Secondly when this Canon consisteth of two partes and in deede comprehendeth two of those Canons of the Apostles the former parte concerning all men that come into the churche the later onel◠excomunicate persons and scismatikes who is so deuoyde of reason to graunt that this Canon was made onely against heretikes scismatikes But in the ende as it were forsaking his holde he claspeth another rotten post that the Canon was made against the slacknesse of the people and not against the deuotion of the priest so that if none of the people would communicate the priest might receiue alone Surely that priuate Masse is such a monster as it is not credible that it once entred into any of their heads that decreede those Canons But seeing they would not suffer any smal number of Christians to withdrawe them selues from the communion is it like they would suffer all not to receiue And seeing the worde of God was the ground of their decree Tarrie one for another 1. Cor. 11. c. who doubteth but that if the peoples deuotion serued them not the priest was as well bound to tarrie for the people as one lay man for another So that all the congregation ought to communicate together and none to be left out but such as either be vnworthie or haue some necessarie impediment Finally if the Papistes were grieued at the seeldome receiuing communicating with the priest as they pretende why do they not execute the censures of these Canons against all that be present at their Masses and do not receiue with them But M. Heskins proceeding in confutation of the proclaimers arguments first chargeth him to father a decree vpon Calixtus which was decreede by Anacletus as though one thing might not be decreed by two bishops and as though in the Canon lawe and other like-recordes one lawe is not fathered vppon diuerse bishops And Gratian ascribeth it to both and namely to Calixtus dist 2. Cap. Peracta The words are these Peracta consecratione c. When the consecration is done let euery man receiue the communion vnlesse he wil be put from the vnitie of the church For this thing the Apostles haue ordeined and the holy churche of Rome continueth the same Two great faultes M. Hesk. findeth in this allegation First he doth detort abuse and wrest the place secondly he doth mutilate it and cutt it off by the knees Here be vehement accusations but in the tryall you shall see the bishop clearely discharged all the slaunder verified vpon the accusers owne dealing For first to reproue the bishops allegation which was brought out of a decree of Calixtus hee bringeth in an Epistle of Anacletus Secondly he will not alledge the wordes of the Epistle but the report of Bartholomewe Garanza a common falsifier of Canons decrees and thus he citeth it Sacerdotes quando c. The priestes when they do offer sacrifice vnto our Lorde they ought not to do it alone but let them take witnesses with them that they may be proued to sacrifice perfectly vnto the Lord in places dedicated to God according to that of Deutron 12. Take heede thou offer not sacrifice in all places that thou seest but in the place that thy Lord God hath chosen Let a bishop sacrificing to God haue witnesses with him more then another priest with whome when the consecration is done let all the ministers communicate which will not bee forbidden the entrie of the church Maister Heskins in his translation hath falsifyed the wordes for where the Latine is Non soli hoc agere debent The Priestes ought not to do it alone he hath turned it they shall not do it alone where the Latine is sed testes secum adhibeant he turneth it but they shall haue witnesses with them wheras hee should saye let them take witnesses with them His pollicie is easie to espye Hee would haue it seeme to the Englishe reader that witnesses are appoynted which if they faile to bee present the Priest might notwithstanding saye his priuate Masse alone whereas by the wordes of the decree the Priestes are commaunded to get witnesses and it is tolde them they ought not to do it alone But M. Hesk. to iustifie the falsification of his spanish Garanza which saith omnes ministri communicent let all the ministers communicate as though the commaundement were to them not to the people bringeth forth a patch or two out of the Epistle of Anacletus But that the trueth of the proclaimer the falshood of this exclaimer may be more manifest I will set downe all the discourse of this matter out of that Epistle set forth vnder the name of Anacletus by Peter Crabbe as errant a Papist as Bartholomew Garanza for his heart nothing therein by diuersitie of letter that which M. Hesk. hath rent out from the rest Ipsi autem quando Domino sacrificant non soli hoc agere debent sed testes secum adhibeāt vt Domino perfectè in sacratis Deo
close Maister Heskins aunswereth this is a small fault and from the Masse of S. Iames flyeth to S. Basils Masse Where it is said the Bishop prayeth secretly yet he spake the wordes as they call them of consecration openly The thirde comparison S. Iames in his Masse ministred the communion to the people The Papists in their Masse receiue them selues alone To this he aunswereth denying that S. Iames did always minister the communion to the people which is an impudent shift except he will denie the fourme of that liturgie which prescribeth the ministration to the people after the consecration His reason is because in Chrysostomes liturgie which was written more then a thousand yeares after S. Iames and falsely beareth the name of Chrysostome there is a rule what the priest shall doe when there are no communicants The fourth comparison S. Iames ministred the communion to the people vnder both kindes The Papists in their Masse in one kinde onely Here hath he none other refuge but to say that S. Iames did not alwayes minister vnder both kindes Then let him denie the credite of the liturgie which prescribeth the cōmunion to be ministred in both kindes The fift comparison Saint Iames preached and set foorth the death of Christ They in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe gestures and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstand not and make no manner of mention of Christes death M. Hes. complayneth of the Bishops repetitions imputing them to want of stuffe when he himselfe moste absurdly repeateth his three vntruthes surmised to be in this assertion which he set downe before in the 39. Chapter whither I referre the Reader for the answere Only this I wil note that he can finde no other preaching to the people but the Aulbe to signifie the white garment that Christe was sent in from Herode the vestiment the garment that he was mocked in in the house of Pilate the Crosse vpon the vestiment signifieth the crosse of Christe which he did beare as the priest doth on his backe the eleuation signifieth the lifting vp of Christe on the crosse he might say by as good reason the Priests hands signified the two theeues the Priest himselfe the tormentors that did lift him vp to the crosse Beholde this is the preaching of Christes death in the Masse whether it be an impudent vntruth as Maister Heskins tearmeth it to call these dumbe gestures and ceremonies or M. Heskins an impudent beast to defend these dombe signes for preaching of Christes death let the reader in Gods name consider and iudge The sixth comparison S. Iames Masse was full of knowledge their Masse is full of ignorance M. Heskins aunswereth that there is as much knowledge in their Masse as in S. Iames Masse because in substance it is all one which if it were true as it is most false yet what knowledge can be when al is done in a strange language and no preaching but by dombe signes as we heard before The seuenth S. Iames Masse was full of consolation their Masse is full of superstition To this he aunswereth they haue as much consolation which cannot be when they haue no preaching of the Gospel how can he say that they haue no superstition when they haue an hundred idle ceremonies and gestures which Christ neuer instituted and therfore are meere will worship and superstition The eyghth comparison he saith is all one with the third that the people resorted to receiue the communion when S. Iames sayed Masse Although it followe of the thirde yet is it not all one with it for as S. Iames was readie to minister so the people ordinarily were readie to receiue which is not looked for of the popish priestes because they reach them that it is needelesse so to doe The last comparison Saint Iames in his Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well more nothing else but mans inuention To this he aunswereth that they haue Christes institution for their Masse which is an impudent falshood either for their carnall maner of presence or for their sacrifice or for their priuate receiuing or for their depriuing the people of all doctrine but such as is by dombe signes which he is not afrayde to ascribe to the inuention of the holy Ghost as though the spirite of God in ceremonies would be contrary to him selfe in the scriptures After this he reporteth the substantiall differences betweene the Masse and the newe communion as he calleth it which because they be all set foorth and aunswered before in the 34.35.36 Chapters of this booke I will leefe no time about his vaine recapitulation or repetition of them contayning nothing but rayling and slaundering The foure and fortieth Chapter returning to the exposition of S. Paul expoundeth this text As often as ye shal eat of this bread c. by S. Hierom Theophylact. M Heskins hauing wandred abroad to seek the Masse in auncient writers nowe is come home againe to his text and that is this As often as you shall eat of this bread drinke of this cupp ▪ you shall shewe forth the Lordes death vntill be come Vpon this text saith he the ministers of Sathan for so it pleaseth him to call vs haue grounded two arguments against the reall presence One that the sacrament is a memoriall of Christe and therefore Christ is absent because a memoriall is of a thing absent the other that it is bread for so the Apostles called it not the bodie of christ The solution of the first argument is that the receipt of the sacrament is not a memoriall of Christes bodie but of his death and passion This is a noble distinction but when Christ sayeth do this in remēbrance of mee whether is the remembrance of Christe the remembrance of his bodie or onely of the temporall act of his dying and suffering which is past I think all Christian men will confesse that the communion is a memoriall of Christ that was crucified and not of his crucifying onely But when Saint Paul sayeth vntill he come how can he say that he is present in bodie which is yet to come in bodie To the seconde argument he aunswereth that Saint Paule calleth it breade as Christ calleth bread his flesh and therfore he calleth it this bread signifying a speciall bread No man sayeth the contrarie but that it is a speciall bread and as Saint Augustine sayeth after a certeine manner the bodie of Christe But if Maister Heskins in this place may denye breade to bee taken in the proper sence for breade why doth hee exclame against them that in these wordes This is my body denye the worde body to be taken in the proper signification thereof for a naturall bodie But let vs take Maister Heskins interpretation of bread to signifie the bodie of Christe then the sense of Saint Paules wordes shal be this As often as ye eat of the bodie of Christ and drinke his bloud you shall shewe the Lordes
death vntil he come How is he that is to come distinct from him that is present for Saint Paule maketh an exposition of this breade this cuppe which are present to shewe the Lordes death that is to come But let vs heare what Saint Ieronyme sayeth that may helpe him in 1. Cor. 11. Ideo hoc c. Therefore our Sauiour hath deliuered this sacrament that by it we might alwayes remember that he dyed for vs For therefore also when we receiue it wee are warned of the priestes that it is the bodie and bloud of Christ that we might not be thought vnthankefull for his benefites I like this saying verie well which teacheth that the sacramēt is therefore called the bodie bloud of Christ that thereby we might be put in minde of the benefite of Christes death to be thankfull for it And that his meaning is none otherwise his owne wordes shal declare going both before and after Vpon these wordes Gratias egit c. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus vltimam nobis commemorationem sine memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat vt quotiescunque illud viderit possit eius beneficia amicitias memorare quod ille si perfectè dilexit sine ingenti desiderio non potest videre vel fletu That is blessing or giuing thankes euen when hee was to suffer he left to vs his last commemoration or remembrance Euen as a man going into a farre countrey doth leaue some pledge to him whome he loueth that so often as he seeth it he may remember his benefites and frendship which pledge he if he loued perfectly cannot beholde without great desire or weeping In these words you see S. Hierom compareth the sacrament to a pledge which is left in remembrance of loue benefites receiued of him that in person is absent The same writer vpō the same words of our text donec venerit vntill he come thus writeth Tam diu memoria opus est donec ipse venire dignetur So long we haue neede of a remembraunce vntill he him selfe vouchesafe for to come Nothing can bee more plaine to shewe his meaning not to be of a carnall or bodilie presence although as Christ hath giuen vs the president he call the bread and cuppe by the name of the bodie and bloud of Christe The testimonie of Theophylact being a Greeke Gentleman of the lower house I haue hetherto refused to admitt and therefore in this place also will not trouble the reader with him The challenge was made of writers within sixe hundreth yeares after Christe this man liued about a thousande yeres after Christ yet if I would wrangle about his wordes he hath nothing that may not bee reasonably construed on our side without any wresting The fiue and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by S. Basil Rupert S. Basil is alledged de baptismo Oportet accedentem c. It behoueth him that commeth to the bodie and bloud of our Lord to the remembrance of him that was dead for vs and rose againe not onely to be pure from all vncleannesse of bodie and soule lest he eate and drinke to his owne condemnation but also to shewe euidently and to expresse the memorie of him that hath dyed for vs and risen againe And what sayeth Basil in these words that we do not graunt vnderstanding purenesse by faith and repentance Maister Hesk. sayeth in steede of that S. Paule sayde this bread and this cupp he sayeth the bodie and bloud of Christe although I might stande with him that this is no interpretation of Sainct Paules wordes but an exhortation which Basil maketh to the worthie receiuing of the sacrament what inconuenience is it to graunt that it is both bread and wine and also after a spirituall manner his verie bodie and bloud which is receiued of the faithfull But either Maister Heskins note booke serued him not or els his malice against the trueth would not suffer him to see what the same Basil writeth not many lines before these wordes which he citeth vpō the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ of the institution of this blessed sacrament and immediatly after the verie text of the Apostle now in hande As often as you eate of this bread and drinke of this cuppe you shewe the Lordes death vntill he come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then do these words profit vs that eating drinking we might always remember him which dyed for vs and is risen againe and so wee might bee instructed of necessitie to obserue before God and his Christe that lesson which is deliuered by the Apostle where hee sayeth for the loue of Christe doeth constreine vs iudging this that if one hath dyed for all then all are dead M. Heskins denyeth the sacrament to be a remembrance of Christe for feare he shoulde confesse Christ to be absent affirming it is a remembrance only of the death of christ But Basil saith that in eating and drinking we must remember Christe that is dead risen againe for vs and so be transformed into his image by mortification and newnesse of life This is all the profite that Basil gathereth of the institution of the supper of the Lorde Where is then the carnall presence the sacrifice propitiatorie the application of it according to the priestes intention and such like monsters of the Masse The testimonie of Rupertus a burgesse of the lower house I will not stand vpon notwithstanding it little helpeth Maister Heskins cause For he doth not say that the sacrament is so a remembrance of Christes death that it is not a remembrance of Christ him selfe But Maister Heskins sayeth all the rable of sacramentaries cannot bring one couple of catholike authors that saye Saint Paule spake here of materiall bread neither can Maister Heskins bring one single auncient writer within the compasse of the challenge which is 600. yeres after Christ that denyeth that S. Paule spake of materiall breade as the earthly part of the sacrament He hath named Hierome Basil but neither of them denie it as for Theophylact Rupertus although neyther of them also denye it in the places by him cited yet I knowe not why we might not as well produce Berengarius and Bertrame as auncient as they which affirme that Saint Paule spake here of bread But that there is materiall bread in the sacrament as the earthly part thereof we haue already cited Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Origen in 15. Matthaei Cyrill in Ioan. Lib. 4. Cap. 24. and many other Toward the end of this Chapter Maister Heskins taketh vpon him to aunswere an obiection of Oecolampadius who iustly chargeth the Papistes of wilfull ignorance in that they make the body of Christ both the exemplar and the thing exemplified the figure and the thing figured the signe and the thing signified whereas relation must be betwixt two thinges distincted and not of
one thing to it selfe bycause euery relatiue must haue a correlatiue For aunswere to this obiection hee saith hee will not vse the quiddities of the schooles but plaine examples but hee pretendeth quiddities where the matter is plaine his examples be mere sophistications The first is That in the diuine presence be sundrie relations grounded vpon the one nature of God. Therefore relation must not be of necessitie betwixt two things distinct A wise example as though the persons betweene which there is relation be not two distinct thinges though they be one vndiuided GOD There is relation betweene the person of the Father and the person of the Sonne therefore the Father is not the Sonne nor the Sonne is the Father yet are they both with the holy Ghost one God. The second example Christ being transfigured in the mount shewing him self in a glorious maner was an exemplar or figure of him selfe nowe in glory and of his glorious comming It is well that he fleeth out of the schooles before he vttereth these absurdities for surely euery boy in Cambridge that hath but once kept sophisme would hisse at him for this assertion wherein he confoundeth the substaunce with the accidents But to leaue the schoole termes which M. Heskins can not nowe abide bicause they bewray his follie I deny that Christes body then was a figure or exemplar of his body now but the glory of his body then was a figure of his glory now and wherewith he shall come and I am sure hee will confesse that they be two distinct thinges for his glory nowe is greater then the brightnesse of the Sunne wherevnto it was then compared Likewise to his third example I answere denying That his immortall body which he shewed to Thomas with the signes and tokens of his woundes was an exemplare of the same body both mortall and passible I say that his immortall body was no exemplar of his mortall body but euen the very same chaunged in qualitie not in substance and the signes of his woundes were signes of his passion and they were two distinct things It is all one that hee citeth out of Chrysostome that Christe shall come to iudgement with the signes of his passion wherevpon he gathereth That Christes body shall then be a signe memoriall or exemplar of it selfe The scripture saith they shall see him whome they haue perced but whether with signes of woundes I dare not say sauing Chrysostomes authoritie but admit he shall come with the same print of woundes yet I deny that his body shall be a figure exemplar or memoriall of it selfe but those signes should be an argument of their crueltie and vngodlinesse that crucified him You see the plainnesse of these examples howe they are plainely against him and that it still remaineth vnremouable that a signe and the thing signified be distinct things Therefore the sacrament being a signe figure exemplar and memoriall of the body and bloud of Christ is not the same after a corporall manner The sixe fourtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Whosoeuer therefore shall eate of this bread drinke of the cupp c. The text is this Whosoeuer shall eat of this bread drink of this cupp of the Lord vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde M. Heskins requireth to the worthie receiuing two things faith and charitie and therefore he concludeth that neither heretikes nor scismatikes can receiue worthily which we confesse to be true Afterward he chargeth vs with abusing this text in two points The one that we affirme material bread to remaine after consecration the other that we deny that wicked men can receiue the body and bloud of Christ and both these errors he promiseth to confute but in the end you shal see they be so assured truthes that all the smoake and mist of his confutation can not darken the light of their veritie The first witnesse he citeth for interpretation of the text is S. Cyprian Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra Euangelij legem c. They against the lawe of the Gospell and your honourable petition before repentance shewed before open confession made of a most grieuous and extreme offence before hands laid on by the Bishop and the cleargie vnto repentance are so bolde as to offer for them and giue them the Eucharistie that is to prophane the holy body of our Lord seeing it is written Whosoeuer shall eate of the bread and drinke of the cup of the Lord vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lord. Of these wordes M. Heskins gathereth that the body of Christe is deliuered and not materiall bread for if materiall bread and not the body is deliuered then the bread is prophaned and not the body A proper collection If the Kings seale for a benefite be deliuered to the Kings enimie or a traitour that receiueth it vnreuerently and vnthankfully is not the King iniuried and his fauour abused I thinke al wise men wil graunt and not say the waxe and parchment only is iniuried and abused bicause the Kings body is not deliuered but waxe and parchment Moreouer I maruell howe M. Heskins can auoyd blasphemie when he saith in the literall sense the body of Christe is prophaned or vnhallowed for to speake properly the body of Christe can not be prophaned or vnhallowed but the sacrament of his body which beareth the name thereof may and the abuse of the sacrament is iustly counted an iniurie vnto his body and bloud whereof it is a sacrament although his body in deed can suffer no iniurie or hurt But the Cyprian acknowledged bread and wine to remain in the sacrament many places of his writings do clearly shew namely lib. 1. ep 6. ad Magnum Denique vnanimitatē Christianam firma sibi atque insuperabili charitate connexam etiā ipsa domini sacrificia declarant Nam quando Dominus corpus suū panē vocat de multorū granorū adunatione congestū populū nostrū quem portabat indicat adunatū Et quando sanguinem suum vinum appelat de botris atque acinis plurimis expression atque in vnum coactum gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum Finally euen our Lords sacrifices doe declare the Christian vnanimitie which is knitted vnto him with an insuperable vnitie For when the Lorde calleth bread which is made one by the gathering together of many cornes his body hee declareth our people which he did beare to be vnited together And when he calleth wine which is pressed out of many clusters and grapes and so gathered into one his bloud hee doth likewise signifie our flocke coupled together by cōiunction of the multitude that is brought into one Here you see the bread which is now the sacrament and is called the body of Christe to be made of many graines likewise the wine to be pressed out of many grapes by which nothing can be vnderstoode but materiall
bread and wine The same Cyprian Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium thus writeth Sic verò calix Domini non est aqua sola aut vinum solum nisi vtrumque sibi misceatur quomodo nec corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi vtrumque adunatum fueris copulatum panis vnius compage sclidatum quo ipsâ— sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus So water onely or wine onely is not the Lordes cup vnlesse both be mingled together euen as onely meale or onely water can not be the body of Christe except both be ioyned and coupled and compacted together in one breade by which very sacrament our people is shewed to be vnited Here bread made of meale and water is called the body of Christ therefore material bread The next authoritie M. Hesk. citeth is Chrysostome Hom. 83. in 26. Matth. Non permittam c. I will not suffer these things to be done I will first deliuer vp my life before I wil deliuer the lords body to any person vnworthily and I will suffer my bloud to be shed rather then I will giue that most holy bloud to any other then to a worthie receiuer Out of this saying he gathereth that the body of Christ may be receiued of an vnworthie wicked person How be it no such thing followeth of these words for though Chrysostome deliuer the body of Christ it followeth not that they receiue it which receiue the sacrament vnworthily which is as much as to refuse it Chrysostome in the same Homely saith this sacrament to be a symbole and signe of Christ crucified and speaking of the cup he saith Sed cuius gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit Perniciosam quandam hÄ™resim radicitus euellere voluit eorum qui aqua in mysterijs vtuntur ita vt ostenderet quia quando hoc mysterium traderet vinuÌ„ tradidit iam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensa vino vsus est Ex germine autem ait vitis quae certè vinum non aquam producit But wherefore did hee not drinke water but wine after his resurrection Hee would plucke vppe by the rootes a certaine most pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the mysteries so that he would shew that both when he deliuered this mysterie he deliuered wine nowe after his resurrection in the bare table of the mysterie he vsed wine And he saith of the fruit of the vine which truly bringeth foorth wine not water Now compare these two sayings of Chrysost. in one sermon Christ deliuered wine Chrysost. would not deliuer the body bloud of Christ see whether the later proue any transubstantiation or carnall manner of presence Besides this it is good to note that Chrysostome saith that Christ vsed wine in the sacrament after his resurrection contrarie to all the Papistes which holde that he ministred to the two disciples at Emaus in bread only And bicause M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of Christes body to the wicked and thereby will gather that the wicâ—ed receiue the very body of Christe let him heare also what Chrysostome saith in the same place speaking of the vnworthy comming to the sacrament Illud enim pessimum est ficus Paulus ait Christum conculcare testamenti sanguinem ducere communem spiritus gratian contemnere For this is the worst thing that can be as Paule saith to tread Christe vnder feete and to esteeme the bloud of the couenaunt as vncleane and to contemne the grace of the spirite Will he say that very body of Christe is troden vnder the feete of the vnworthie receiuer And bicause he standeth so much of the word body and bloud Chrysostome saith further Nullus communicet nisi ex discipulis sit nullus impuro animo sicut Iudas panem assumat ne similia patiatur Corpus Christi etiam hÄ™c multitudo est quare cauendum tibi est qui hÄ™c mysteria ministras ne Dominum irrites corpus hoc non purgando ne acutum gladium pro cibo praebeas Let none communicate except he be of the disciples Let no man with an vnpure minde as Iudas receiue the bread least he suffer the like punishment Euen this multitude also is the body of Christe wherefore thou that doest minister these mysteries must take heede that thou prouoke not the Lorde by not purging this body least thou deliuer a sharpe sword in steed of meat In this saying let the indifferent reader obserue that Iudas receiued bread and wicked men receiue bread that the multitude of Christians is the body of Christe as the sacrament is finally that the minister to a wicked man deliuereth a sharpe sword in steede of spirituall meate and let him iudge howe honestly M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of the body and bloud of Christ to the wicked to exclude bread and to proue that they receiue the very body of Christ. His third witnesse is Origen Hom. 5. in diuorsos Quando sanctum cibum illudque incorruptum epulum accipis c. When thou receiuest that holy meat and the vncorrupt banquet when thou inioyest the bread and cup of life thou eatest and drinkest the body and bloud of the Lord then the Lord entreth vnder thy roofe and do thou then humbling thy selfe followe this Centurion and say Lorde I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe For where he entreth vnworthily there he entereth to the condemnation of the receiuer Here M. Heskins first noteth the presence of Christe secondly that the sacrament it not bare bread both which are graunted thirdly that the body of Christe may be receiued of euill men But all men will confesse that this is an Alegoricall and figuratiue maner of speaking that Origen vseth and may be wel vnderstoode according to the rule of sacraments which beare the names of those things whereof they be sacramentes And seeing Origen doth else where expresly affirme that euill men do not neither can eate the body of Christe in Matth. Cap. 15. it is great vnshamefastnesse to wrest his figuratiue saying in these wordes contrarie to his plaine meaning vttered in plaine wordes Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth this may be obiected and referreth vs to the thirtieth Chapter of this booke for the answere whither I also referre the reader both for the place it self and for the replie to M. Heskins answere The seuen and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstanding of the same by S. Basil and S. Hierome Saint Basil is alledged de baptism Li. 2. QuÄ™st 93. Quoniam Deus in lege c. For so much as God in the lawe hath ordained so great a paine against him that in his vncleannesse dare touch the holy things for it is written to them figuratiuely but for our aduertisement And the Lord saide vnto Moses say to Aaron and his sonnes that they take heede to the holy things of the children of Israel and they shall not
diuel contemned the body of Christ that he entred immediatly after the bodie of Christ receiued but he saith he contemned not the body of Christ for Iudas was so full of wickednes that the bodie of Christ entred not into him but the diuel before had possessed him And that this is more agreable to the mind of Chryso his wordes in the Hom. 45. In Ioan. doe declare Daemones cum Dominicum sanguinem in nobis vident in fugam vertuntur When the diuels doe see the bloud of our Lorde in vs they are put to flight This proueth that Iudas receiued not the bloud of Christ seeing immediately after the receipt of the sacrament as he sayeth the Diuel entred into him Therefore the other place which Maister Heskins alledgeth out of Chrysost. Ho. 83. In Mat. is likewise answered Caenantibus c. When they were a◠Supper Iesus tooke bread blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples O the blindnesse of that traitor which when he had bene partaker of the vnspeakable mysteries he remained the same man and being admitted to Gods table would not be changed into better which Luke signified saying that after this Satan entred into him not because he despised the Lordes bodie but because he laughed to scorne the folly of the traytor These vnspeakeable mysteries M. Hesk. saith can not be a bare piece of bread and a cup of wine but must needes be the bodie and bloud of Christ. But sauing his authoritie is not the baptisme wherewith wicked men are baptised an vnspekable mysterie and yet no wicked man in baptisme receiueth the spirite of regeneration But Chrysostome proceedeth in the sentence before alledged Maius enim peccatum vtraque ratione fiebat quia tali animo mysterijs susceptis nec timore nec beneficio nec honore melior factus est For his offence was made greater both wayes because that hauing receiued the mysteries with such a minde neither with feare nor with the benefite nor with the honour he was made better Chrysostome saith he receiued the mysteries he doth not say he receiued the bodie of christ Now iudge whether Chrysostome doth plainely affirme that Iudas receiued the bodie of Christ with the other Apostles or whether M. Heskins doth lye that so affirmeth of Chrysostome and can no better proue it then you haue heard Now followeth S. Aug. In Ep. contra Donatist post Collat. Quisquis autem c. Who so euer shall liue wel in this church other mens sinnes do nothing hinder him for in it euerie one shall beare his owne burthen as the Apostle saith and whosoeuer shall eate the bodie of Christ vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe for the Apostle him selfe hath written this In these wordes Augustine calleth the sacrament of the bodie of Christe the bodie of Christ as it followeth immediately after Cum autem dicit iudicium sibi manducat satis oftendit quia non alteri iudicium manducat sed sibi Hoc nos egimus ostendimus obtinuimus quia communio malorum non maculat aliquem participatione sacramentorum sed consensione factorum And when he saith he eateth iudgement to himselfe he sheweth sufficiently that he eateth not iudgement to another but to himselfe This haue we treated shewed and proued that the fellowship of euill men doth not defile any man by participation of the sacramentes with them but by consent of their deedes Likewise he tearmeth the sacrament by the name of the bodie of Christ. Cont. Donat. Lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sicut enim c. As Iudas to whom our Lord gaue the morsel gaue place himselfe to the diuell not by receiuing an euill thing but by receiuing is amisse so any man receiuing vnworthily the Lordes sacrament causeth not because he himselfe is euill that it should be euil or because he receiueth it not to saluation that he receiueth nothing For it was neuerthelesse the bodie and bloud of our Lord euen to them whom the Apostle saide He that eateth drinketh vnworthily eateth drinketh iudgement to himselfe In these wordes he reasoneth against the Donatistes that saide that baptisme ministred by heretikes was no sacrament which he confuteth by example of the other sacrament of Christes bodie bloud which Iudas and other wicked men receiued So that in these wordes the bodie and bloud of the Lorde are to be taken for the sacrament of the bodie bloud of christ Which sacrament as Augu. saith Tract 26. in Ioan. is receyued of some to destruction Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit But the thing it selfe whereof it is sacrament is vnto life to euerie man to destruction to no man whosoeuer shall be partaker therof But M. Heskins flyeth to his distinction of receiuing spiritually and corporally as though Augustine euer saide that the bodie of Christe was receiued corporally of any man. But let vs heare his owne wordes whiche M. Heskins hath cited in the same treatise Quantum pertinet ad illam mortem c. As touching that death of which the Lorde saide that their fathers be dead Moses also did eate Manna Aaron did eate Manna Phinees did eate Manna many did eate which pleased the Lord died not Wherfore Because they vnderstoode the visible meate spiritually they hūgred spiritually they tasted spiritually that they might be filled spiritually For we also at this day haue receiued a visible meate But the sacrament is one thing the vertue of the sacrament another thing which many do receiue of the altar doe die in receiuing doe die Wherefore the Apostle saith he eateth drinketh his owne iudgement In these words Augustine teacheth that the visible meate which is the sacrament may be eaten to condēnation which is the thing we affirme as for eating the body of Christe otherwise then spiritually he speaketh not one worde But M. Heskins would learne of the aduersarie what Augustine meaneth by this word Vertue which many do dye in receiuing it and therefore it cannot be the vertue of his passion so it must needs be his very bodie So that by this conclusion Christs bodie may be receiued without the vertue of his passion But if it please him to learne what Aug. meaneth by this word Vertue in that place I answere he meaneth force or efficacie which is either to life or to death as the receiuer is affected that taketh the sacrament for immediatly after he saith Nam bucella Dominica venenum suit Iudae tamen accepit For the Lords morsel was poyson to Iudas yet he receiued it You see therefore a double vertue in the sacramēt one to saluation another to condemnation no bodily presence necessarie for either of them Another place he citeth In Ioan. Tr. 6. Recordamini vnde sit scriptū Remember frō whence it is written Whoso euer shal eat the bread and drinke the cup of
and that the puritie of so greate grace shoulde not make a dwelling for it selfe in vnworthie persons I am verie wel content that this place shal determine the controuersie betweene vs Cyprian sayeth the maiestie of GOD doth neuer absent it selfe from the sacramentes but either hee worketh saluation or damnation by them as well in baptisme as in the Lords supper for hee speaketh of both in the plurall number And seeing infidels and wicked persons cannot bee partakers of the spirite of Christe it followeth they cannot bee partakers of the bodie of Christe for Christ his bodie is neuer separate from his spirite But Augustine contra Crescen is alledged the place is not quoted but it is lib. 1. Cap. 25. Quid de ipso corpore c. What shall wee saye euen of the bodie and bloude of our Lorde the onely sacrifice for our health Although the Lorde him selfe doeth saye Except a man doe eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud he shall haue no life in him doeth not the Apostle teache that the same is made hurtfull to them that vse it amisse For he sayeth whosoeuer shall eate the breade and drinke the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shal bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde But it followeth imediately Ecce quemadmodum obsint diuina sancta malè vtentibus Cur non eodem modo baptismus Behold how diuine and holy things do hurte them that vse them amisse why not baptisme after the same manner By which woordes it appeareth that Augustine speaketh of the sacrament and not of the thing signifyed by the sacrament For he compareth baptisme ministred by heretikes with the Lordes supper vnworthily receiued which comparison cannot stande except you vnderstande the outwarde parte of the sacrament in bothe Baptisme is ministred by heretikes that is to say the outwarde sacrament of baptisme the bodie of Christe is receiued vnworthily to destruction that is the outwarde sacrament of the bodie of Christe for as wee heard in the last Chapter Res ipsa sacramenti the thing it selfe of the sacrament is receiued of euery man to life of no man to destruction whosoeuer doth receiue it The fiftieth Chapter sheweth the vnderstanding of the same â—ext by Effrem Primasius Effrem is cited in tract de die Iudicij Si procul a nobis est Siloe c. If Siloe whither the blinde man was sent be farre from vs yet the precious cuppe of thy bloude full of light and life is neere vs beeing so much neerer as hee is purer that commeth vnto it This then remayneth vnto vs O mercifull Christ that being full of grace and the illumination of thy knowledge with faith and holinesse wee come to thy cuppe that it may profite vs vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes not to confusion in the day of iudgement For whosoeuer being vnworthie shall come to thy mysteries hee condemneth his owne soule not cleansing himselfe that hee might receiue the heauenly king and the immortall brydegrome into the moste pure chamber of his brest For our soule is the spouse of the immortall bridegrome and the heauenly sacramentes are the couple of the marriage For when wee eate his bodie and drinke his bloude both hee is in vs and wee in him Therefore take heede to thy selfe brother make speede to garnish continually the chamber of thine heart with vertues that hee may make his dwelling with thee with his blessed father And then thou shalt haue praise glorie and boasting before the Angels and Archangels with great ioy and gladnesse thou shalt enter into Paradise This saying being directly contrarie both to the corporall manner of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christe and also to that absurde opinion that the wicked receiue the body of Christe Maister Heskins is not ashamed not onely to alledge it as making for him but also tryfleth off the nearnesse of the bloud of Christe which hee sayeth wee denye when wee affirme Christe to bee alwayes in heauen As though the bloude of Christe cannot purge and clense vs except it come downe from heauen and bee powred in at our mouthes As though faith cannot make Christ him selfe to dwell in vs. But where Effrem sayeth his bloud is so much the neerer as hee is purer that commeth vnto it why cannot M. Hesk. vnderstand that the more vnpurer the receiuer of the cup is the further off the bloud of Christ is and so farthest of all from them that be most vnpure that is the wicked and the reprobate But hee woulde haue the bloud of Christ to be as neere the wicked as the godly Againe when Ephrem saith when wee eate and drinke his body and bloude hee is in vs and wee in him with what face can Maister Heskins or any papist in the worlde saye that the wicked receiue the bodye and bloud of Christe in whom Christe is not nor they in him The like syncerity hee vseth in racking the wordes of Primasius Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in mee and I in him As though he should saye they that so eaâ—â— as it is to bee eaten and so drinke as my bloud is to be dronken For many when they seeme to receiue this thing abide not in God nor God in them because thei are affirmed to eate their own damnation M. Hesk. hath so corrupted this place in translation that you may see hee ment nothing but falshood trechery The latine text he citeth thus Qui edit meane carneus bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo pro eo ac si diceret qui sic edent vs edenda est sic bibent vs bibendus est sanguis meus Multi enim cùm hoc videantur acciperâ— in Deo non manent nec Deus in ipsis quia sibi iudicium manducare perhibentur He translateth in English thus He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in mee and I in him As if he should say they that so shal eate my flesh as it is to be eaten and shall so drinke my bloud as it is to be dronken For many when they are seene to receiue this sacrament neither dwell they in God nor God in them because they are witnessed to eate and drinke their owne damnation Now let the reader though hee bee but a meane Latinist iudge whether he haue not corrupted Primasius in translation especially where hee sayeth Multi cùm hoc videantur accipere whiche is manye when they seeme to receiue this thing namely the body and bloud of Christe of whiche hee spake Maister Heskins turneth it into manye when they are seene to receiue this sacrament Many seeme to bee Christians that are not many seeme to bee baptized with the holy Ghoste which are not so many seeme to eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe which doe not because God dwelleth not in them nor they in god Therefore take awaye Maister Heskins false translation and this saying of Primasius
beatam noctem c. Hee calleth againe to memorie that holye and by all meanes blessed night in which hee both made an ende of the figuratiue passeouer and shewed the true paterne of the figure and also opened the gates of the wholesome sacrament and gaue not onely to the eleuen Apostles but also to Iudas the traytour his moste precious bodie and bloud To this I aunswere as before that hee calleth the sacrament which hee gaue the precious bodie and bloude of Christe not that hee meant that the bread and wine in the sacrament are turned into the bodie and bloude of Christe and so giuen to good and badd but that the signes beare the names of the thinges signifyed as shall moste plainly appeare by the woordes of Theodoret him selfe in his firste dialogue called Incommutabilis Orthodoxus Scis quòd Deus suum corpus appellauit panem Eranistes Scio. Orthodoxus Porro etiam alibi carnem tritieum nominauit Eran. Hoc etiam scio Audiui enim eum dicentem venit hora vt glorificetur filiut hominis Et nisi granum tritici quod cecidit in terram mortuum fuerit solum manet sin autem mortuums fuerit fert multum fructum Orth. In mysteriorum autem traditione corpus panem appellauit id quod in calito infusum commixtum est sanguinem Eran. Itae nominauit Orth. Atqui quod est secundùm naturam corpus corpus iure vocabitur itidem sanguis Eran. In confesio est Orth. Seruator ceriè noster nomina commutauit corpori quidem id quod erat symboli signi nomen imposuit symbolo autem quod erat corpuris Ita cùm se vitem nominasset sanguinem id quod erat symbolum appellauit Eran. Hoc quidem verè dixist◠Vellem autem scire causam mutationis-nominum Orth. Manifestum est institutum ijs qui sunt diuinis mysterijs initiati Volebat enim eot qui sunt Diuinorum mysteriorum participes non attendere naturam eorum quae videntur sed propter nominum permutationem mutationi quę fit ex gratia credere Qui enim quod natura est corpus triticum panem appellauit vitem se rursus nominauit is symbola quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens Eran. Et mysticè mystica dicta sunt apertè declarata quae non sunt nota omnibus Orth. Quoniam ergo in confesso est Patriarcham corpus Domini vestem indumentum nominasse ad dicendum autem de Diuinis mysterijs ingressi sumus dic per veritatem cuius symbolum figuram esse existimas alimentum sanstissimum Diuinitatis ne Domini Christi an corporis sanguinis Eran. Clarum quod illorum quorum appellationem susceperunt Orth. Corporis sanguinis dicis Eran. Ita dico Orth. Vi decet amicum veritatis dixisti Etenim Dominus cum accepisset symbolum aut signum non dixit Hoc est Deitas mea sed hoc est corpus meum Et rursus hic est sanguis meus Et alibi Panis autem quem ego dabo caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita Eran. Vera sunt haec Sunt enim diuina eloquia Orth. Si ergo vera corpus vtique habuit Dominus In English thus Orthodoxus Knowest thou that God called his body breade Eranistes I knowe it Orth. Moreouer in in one place he called his flesh wheate Eran. This also I knowe For I haue heard him saying The houre is come that the sonne of man shall be glorified And except the graine of wheate which is fallen into the earth do dye it remaineth alone but if it dye it bringeth forth much fruit Ortho. And in the deliuerie of the mysteries he called breade his body and that which is powred in the cup and mingled his bloud Eranistes He called it so in deede Orthodoxus Why then that which is a naturall body shall of right be called a body and likewise bloud Eranistes That is confessed Orthodoxus Certainely our Sauiour chaunged the names and gaue that name to his body which was the name of the token or signe and to the token that which was the name of his body So when he called him selfe a vine hee called his body that which was the token thereof Eranistes This thou hast saide truely But I would knowe the cause of the chaunge of the names Orthodoxus The purpose is manifest to them that are made partakers of the Diuine mysteries For hee would haue them which are partakers of the Diuine mysteries not to regard the nature of those things that are seene but in respect of the chaunging of the names to giue credite to that chaunge which is by grace For hee which called his naturall body wheate and breade and named him selfe againe a vine euen hee hath honoured the tokens that are seene with the name of his body and bloud not chaunging their nature but adding grace vnto the nature Eranistes Those mysticall things are both vttered mystically and those things are openly declared which are not knowen to all men Orthodoxus Therefore seeing it is confessed that the Patriarch called the Lordes body a vesture and a garment and we are entred to speake of the Diuine mysteries tell truely whereof doest thou thanke this most holy foode to be a token and figure of the Godhead of our Lorde Christe or of his body and bloud Eranistes It is cleare to be of them whose names they haue receiued Orthodoxus Thou saiest of his body and bloud Eranistes So I say Orthodoxus Thou hast saide as becommeth a louer of the trueth For when our Lord had taken the token or signe he saide not This is my Godhead but this is my body And againe This is my bloud and in an other place The breade which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Eranistes Those things are true For they are the word of god Orthodoxus Then if they be true our Lord had a body This discourse of Theodoret is so plaine as I neede to adde no exposition thereof to declare what his iudgement was As for the authoritie of Anselmus which hee adioyneth there is no more reason why we should admit it then why Maister Heskins will not receiue the authoritie of Cranmer which was Archbishop of Canterburie as well as Anselmus Hee anueth also a saying of Oecumenius but both bicause he is a late writer and his wordes in a manner are the same that he alledged out of Theodoret of whom it seemeth that Oecumenius borrowed them I omit them as already aunswered in aunswere to Theodoret. The three and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text of S. Paule which is Let euery man examine him selfe and so let him eate In this Chapter Maister Heskins promiseth to teach men howe to examine them selues that they may receiue worthily And two things he requireth
in due examination vprightnesse of faith and puritie of life And this faith hee determineth to be the Apostolique and Catholique faith which must be learned of hearing as Saint Paule saith Faith commeth of hearing and as he saith it must bee learned of the Elders and so bee continued by tradition But Saint Paule saith Hearing must be of the worde of God for Elders may erre as well as youngers but the worde of GOD can not erre neither can he erre that followeth the doctrine of the worde of GOD in any thing Vnto purenesse of life he requireth confession alledging the confession of Augspurge for the confirmation thereof as though Christian confession and the Popish shrift were all one As fond it is that he saith the Apostles were instructed by Christe in the faith of the sacrament before the institution thereof by the miracle of the fiue loaues and in purenesse of life by washing of his disciples feete Where yet was neither contrition confession nor satisfaction After this he rayleth vpon Luther for saying that onely faith maketh men pure and worthie to receiue as though by so saying he did exclude the fruites of repentance and reformation of manners which necessarily do followe of a true and liuely faith which onely maketh vs righteous in the sight of God and worthie receiuers by reputation or acceptation which in the conclusion Maister Heskins himselfe confesseth to be all the worthines that any man hath or can haue to be partaker of the body and bloud of Christ. The foure and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the Fathers vpon the same text with Saint Hierome and Saint Chrysostome S. Hierome is alledged in 1. Cor. 11. Si in linteum vel vat sordidum non illud mittere audeat c. If a man dare not put that thing into a soule cloth or vessell howe much more in a defiled hart which vncleannesse God aboue all things detesteth and which is the only iniurie that can be done to his body For euen therefore did Ioseph that righteous man burie the Lordes body wrapped in a cleane linnen cloth in a newe tombe prefiguring that they which should receiue the Lords body should haue both a cleane minde and a new M. Heskins saith these wordes make plaine for the presence of Christ in that Hierome saith we receiue the body of Christe And who denyeth either the presence of Christ or that we receiue the body of Christ in the sacrament Only we differ whether Christ be present bodily and whether we receiue his body after a corporall manner or after a spirituall or heauenly manner It is pitie he can not see in Hieromes wordes that Christes body must be receiued in a cleane sort as in a cleane vessell And whereas Maister Heskins translateth mittere illud to put that body into a foule cloth or vessell it is maruell he considered not that which aunswereth in similitude to a foule vessell namely a foule heart He thought by that translation or rather falsification to make it seeme that wicked men receiue the body of Christe with the mouth but his authour saith with a filthie heart which is the only iniurie that can be done to the body of Christe therefore he speaketh of the wicked presuming to receiue the sacrament of his body and bloud not affirming that they do it in deede For vpon these wordes He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation he saith Dupliciter reus effectus presumptionis scilicet peccati Being made twise guiltie namely of presumption and sinne and vpon those words He shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde hee saith Quia tanti mysterij sacramentum pro vili despexerit bicause he hath despised the sacrament of so great a mysterie as nothing worth But Maister Heskins citeth another place of Saint Hierome against the licentious doctrine of Luther as he saith that would haue none other preparation but onely faith also to maintaine his carnall presence Lib. 1. Apoll. contra Iouinian Probet se vnusquisque c. Let euery man examine him self and so let him come to the Lords body He would not saith he call it the body of Christe if it were but bread Howe often shall I tell him that it is one thing to say it is breade an other thing to say it is but breade The former we say and also that it is Christes body the latter we vtterly deny But Saint Hierome more at large is cited in 1. Cor. 11. vpon these wordes of Saint Paule Who so euer shall eate of this breade and drinke of this cup of the Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde Sicut scriptum est Omnis mundus manducabit c. As it is written Euery cleane person shall eate it and againe The vncleane soule that shall eate it shall be rooted out from his people And our Lorde him selfe saith If before the altar thou shalt remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee leaue thy gifâ— before the altar and goe and be reconciled to thy brother Therefore the conscience must first be searched if it doe in nothing reprehend vs and so we ought either to offer or to communicate There be some that say he doth not here forbid an vnworthie person from the holy thing but him that receiueth vnworthily If therefore the worthie person comming vnworthily he drawne backe howe much more the vnworthy person which can not receiue worthily Wherfore it behoueth the idle person to cease from vices that he may holily receiue the holy body of our Lord. In these wordes Maister Heskins noteth the preparation required against Luthers onely faith and the thing receiued to be the holy body of our Lorde I haue aunswered before that Luthers onely faith doth not exclude but of necessitie drawe with it all things requisite to a due preparation And that the holy body of our Lorde is receiued of the faithfull wee doe willingly confesse but not of the vnfaithfull and wicked persons For the same Hierome in the Chapter before cited vpon this saying of the Apostle This is my body writeth thus Qui manducat corpus meum bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo Vnde agnoscere se debet quisquis Christi corpus edit aut sanguinem bibit ne quid indignum ei faciat cuius corpus effectus est Hee that eateth my body and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Wherefore hee ought to knowe him selfe who so euer either eateth the body of Christe or drinketh his bloud that hee doe nothing vnworthily to him whose body hee is made This sentence plainely declareth both howe the body and bloud of Christe are eaten and dronken and of whome namely they are so receiued as hee that receiued them is made the body of Christe that is of necessitie spiritually and they are receiued of them in whome Christe dwelleth and they in him therefore of
nec festinantes nec accurrentes Tel me I pray thee If any King had commanded and said if any man haue done this or that let him not come to my table wouldest not thou haue done any thing for his sake God hath called vs into heauen vnto the table of the great and wonderfull King and doe we refuse and make delayes neither making haste nor comming to so great and excellent a matter This place of Chrysostome doth teach vs that Christes bodie commeth not downe corporally to vs but that we are called vp into heauen to receiue him there spiritually by faith This is in deede a great and wonderfull mysterie which Chrysostome doeth garnish with many figures as he was an eloquent preacher to make the people to haue due reuerence thereof Neither is Luthers doctrine one hayre breadth differing from Chrysostoms iudgement concerning the preparation necessarie for all them that shall receiue the sacrament worthily howsoeuer it pleaseth Maister Heskins neuer to haue done railing and reuiling him charging him with that which I thinke the holy man neuer thought certeine I am he neuer did teach but the contrarie And because this is the last testimonie he citeth out of Chrysostome I thought good to set downe one place also directly ouerthrowing his transubstantiation for which he striueth so egerly It is written Ad Caesa. monachum Et Deus homo est Christus Deus propter impassibilitatem homo propter passionem vnus filius vnus Dominus idem ipse procul dubio vnitarum naturarum vnam dominationem vnam potestatem possidens etiamsi non consubstantialiter existant vnaquaeque incommixta proprietatis conseruas agnitionem propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis panem nominamus Diuina autem illum sanctificante gratia mediante sacerdote liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in ipso remansit non duo corpora sed vnum filij corpus predicattâ—r sic haec Diuina inundante corporis natura vnum filium vnam personam vtraque haec secerunt Christe is both God and man God because of his impassibilitie man for his passion being one sonne and one Lord he himselfe doubtlesse possessing one domination one power of the two natures being vnited although they haue not their being consubstantially and either of them vnmingled doeth keepe the acknowledging of his propertie because they are two vnconfounded For euen as the bread before it be sanctified is called of vs bread but when the grace of God doth sanctifie it by meanes of the priest it is in deede deliuered from the name of bread and is compted worthie of the name of our Lordes bodie although the nature of the bread hath remained in it and it is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne so both these the diuine nature ouerflowing the body haue made one sonne one person I knowe Stephan Gardener when he can not aunswere this place denyeth it to bee written by Iohn Chrysostome ascribing it to an other Iohn of Constantinople but seeing it caÌ„ not be denied to be an ancient authoritie it is sufficient to proue the doctrine of transubstantiation to be newe and vnknowen to the Churche of God in the elder times The fiue and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same by Isichius and S. Augustine To garnishe his Booke with the name of Isichius he continueth his most vniust and slaunderous quarrell against Luther as though he denied all preparation requisite to the woorthie receiuing of this holie sacrament which is so impudent an vntruth that all the world doth see it And God in time will reuenge it Isichius is cited In 26. Leuit. Probet autem c. Let a man examine him selfe and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cuppe What manner of examination doeth he speake of It is this that in a cleane heart and conscience and to him that intendeth to repent those thinges wherein he hath offended men should participate of the holy things to the washing away of their sinnes M. Hesk. would make men beleeue that Luthers doctrine were contrarie to this saying and multiplieth his slaunders against him which seeing they be without al proofe yea and manifest proofe to the contrarie it shall suffice to denie them and so to consider what he will bring foorth of S. Augustine He citeth him Ad Iulianum Ep. 111. Whereas in deede ther is no such Epistle in any good edition of Augustine and the treatise he speaketh of may rather be called a Booke then an Epistle for the length of it But the stile of it is as like vnto the stile of Augustine as our Asse is to a Lyon. It hath no inscription to whom it should be directed and therefore some say to Iulianus some to Bonifacius It beginneth O mi frater c. and so continueth in such balde Latine that Erasmus hath not only reiected it out of the number of Augustines Epistles but also out of his authenticall workes such iudgement or honestie M. Heskins vseth in citing the fathers all is fishe that commeth to his nette I will set downe the wordes Ab ijs pietas c. From them let the pietie of our Lorde Iesus Christe deliuer vs and giue himselfe to be eaten who saide I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen he that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting life in him But let euerie man before he receiue the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ examine himself and so according to the commandement of the Apostle let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that vnworthily eateth the bodie and bloud of our Lord eateth and drinketh his owne condemnation making no difference of the bodie of our Lorde Therefore when we shall receiue we ought before to haue recourse to confession and repentance and curiously to searche out all our actions and if we finde in vs any punishable sinnes leâ— vs hasten quickely to washe them away by confession and true repentance least we with Iudas the traytor hyding the diuell within vs doe perish protracting and hyding our sinnes from day to day And if we haue thought any euill or naughtie thing let vs repent vs of it and let vs make hast to scrape that speedily out of our heart This is the saying of this counterfet and forged Augustine out of which Maister Heskins gathereth not only his manner of presence to be such as the wicked receiue the bodie bloud of Christ but also his auricular confession But what the iudgement of the true Augustine is you haue hearde before concerning the former as for the later question is neuer touched in all his owne workes De ciuit Dei Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Non dicendum eum manducare corpus Christi qui in corpore non est Christi It is not to
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
of Cyril in 15. Ioan. Non poterat aliter c. agreeth in effect with Irenaeus and is set downe and aunswered in the second Booke and foureteenth Chapter whither I remit the reader The places of Hilarius are also aunswered in the 20. and 24. Chapters of the second Booke yet bicause hee applyeth them to an other text I will set them downe here also They are in the eight Booke De trinitate though Maister Heskins quote not the place Eos qui inter patrem filium c. I aske them that bring in the vnitie of will betweene the Father and the Sonne whether Christe be nowe in vs by veritie of nature or by agreement of will For if the worde was verily made flesh and if we doe verily receiue the worde made flesh in the Lords meate howe is he not to be thought to abide in vs naturally who being borne man did both take our nature nowe inseparable vpon him and also hath admixed the nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder the sacrament of his flesh to be communicated vnto vs For so we be all one bicause the Father is in Christe and Christ is in vs Whosoeuer therfore shall deny the Father to be naturally in Christ let him first deny that he himself is not naturally in Christ as Christ in him bicause the Father being in Christe and Christe in vs make vs to be one in them Therefore if Christe haue truely taken vpon him the flesh of our body and that man which was borne of Marie was truely Christe and we doe truely vnder a mysterie receiue the flesh of his body and by this we shall be one bicause the Father is in him and he in vs. Here Maister Heskins cutteth off the conclusion which is this Quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit vnitatis Howe is the veritie of Will maintained when the naturall propertie by the sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie Hilarie reasoneth against the Arrians that saide God was not naturally or essentially in Christe but by vnitie of wil as God is in vs but he proueth that Christe is naturally ioyned to vs by his incarnation and doth also communicate his flesh vnto vs by the holy sacrament which as hee expoundeth him selfe in the last sentence that M. Hes. hath cut off is a sacramēt or mysterie of our perfect vnitie with christ Therefore he doth not simply say that we do naturally eat the flesh of Christ but vnder a mysterie vnder a sacrament by which he meaneth that we doe not eate the flesh of Christ carnally but spiritually not after a corporall manner but after a spirituall maner Finally he saith that Christe is so naturally in vs as we are naturally in Christ but we are onely spiritually in Christ therefore Christ is onely spiritually in vs For naturally as he vseth it for essentially is not contrarie to spiritually But he alledgeth another place of Hilarie where he affirmeth that Christ is in vs both carnally and corporally Haec idcirco a nobis commemorata sunt c. These thinges are for this cause spoken of vs bicause the heretiques falsely affirming an vnitie of Will onely to be betweene the Father and the Sonne did vse the example of our vnitie with GOD as though we being vnited to the Sonne and by the same to the Father onely by obedience and will of religion no propertie of naturall communion should be giuen by the sacrament of his naturall flesh and bloud seing that both by the honor of the sonne of God giuen to vs and by the sonne of God carnally abiding in vs and we being corporally and inseparably vnited in him the mysterie of the true and naturall vnitie is to be declared By the words of corporally and carnally he meaneth essentially as he did before by the word naturally both bicause Christe tooke our nature verily vpon him and also doth communicat vnto vs by the same his eternitie And that he meaneth not carnally and corporally as the Papistes doe it is manifest by that he saith we are not onely corporally but also inseparably vnited in him For there corporall coniunction maketh not an inseparable vnion bicause they say that Christ is as naturally carnally and corporally vnited to the wicked from whome he is separated as to the godly wherefore it is left of necessitie that this naturall carnall corporall or essentiall dwelling of Christe in vs is not after a naturall manner but after a wonderfull manner not after a fleshly but after a spirituall manner not after a bodily but after a diuine and heauenly manner To conclude howe plaine these places be for the proclamer and plaine against Maister Heskins the exclamer let the readers iudge The proclamer doth admit these sayings according to the minde of the writers and not according to Maister Heskins falsifications and gloses The Sixtieth Chapter treateth vpon this text of S. Paule to the Hebruer We haue an altar c. The text is written Heb. 13. We haue an altar of which is it not lawful for them to eat which serue in the tabernacle By which he meaneth that none can be partakers of the sacrifice of Christe that remaine in the ceremoniall obseruation of the Leuiticall lawe But Maister Heskins vnderstandeth it that we haue the body of Christe in the sacrament of which it is not lawfull for any Iewe abiding in Moses lawe to eate And this he wil proue by Isichius and Theophylact Isichius he citeth in Leuit. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Omnem sanguinem c. He commaunded all the rest of the bloud of the calfe to be powred out about the foote of the altar of the burnt offering which is in the tabernacle of witnesse Let vs againe vnderstand the altar of the burned sacrifice to be the body of christ For as he is the Priest and the sacrifice so he is the altar And knowe that S. Paule doth vnderstand the intelligible altar to be the body of Christ for he saith we haue an altar of which they haue no power to eate which doe serue in the tabernacle that is to say the body of christ For of that it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate M. Heskins would haue it plaine that he meaneth the reall presence of Christes body in the sacrament when neither the Apostle nor Isichius speake one worde of the sacrament but of the spirituall participation of the sacrifice of Christes death for he saith Christ is the Priest the sacrifice and the altar Therefore hee speaketh of that sacrifice that Christe him selfe did offer not of that sacrifice which the Papistes do imagine their blasphemous Priestes do offer And whereas M. Heskins trifleth of M. Hoopers glose of edere and credere that to eate is to beleeue although to eat the flesh of Christe be the effect of faith bicause that by faith we eate Christ yet may we more aptly say to eate is to beleeue then
corporis Christi Vocaturque ipsa īmolario carnis que sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio nō rei veritate sed significāte mysterio The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a peculiar maner is called the body of Christe when as in very deed it is the sacramēt of the body of christ And euen the oblation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysteri Those words which are borrowed out of August into the decrees the glose doth thus vnderstand Coeleste sacraementū quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè Vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio◠Vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but vnproperly Therefore it is saide to be after a peculiar manner but not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the body of Christe that is it doth signifie the body of Christe If these testimonies that are taken out of the Romish Bishops owne writings decrees and gloses that are so plaine will not satisfie the Papistes that their doctrine of transubstantiation and carnall presence is neither true ancient nor Catholike it is in vaine to spend more wordes with them as with men that are obstinate and will not be satisfied with any truth contrarie to their presumed heresie The one and sixtieth Chapter maketh a recapitulation of that that is done in this worke Seeing this Chapter containeth no argument or authoritie to defend his cause but only rehearseth what he fantasieth that he hath brought in other places throughout all his booke for the maintenance of the same I referre it to the indifferent readers iudgement what I haue done in this breefe confutation of the same And here I conclude this acte of repeale that notwithstanding this bill offered to the Parleament by Tho. Hesk. in the lower house hath many friends so that the greater part of voyces if the house were diuided might seeme to ouercome the better yet for as much as in the higher house the greatest number haue spoken directly against his bill and no one lord of that house which liued within the compasse of 600. yeres of the challenge hath giuen his voyce to allowe it not only the pretensed acte of Parleament set forth by the said Tho. Hesk. is proued to be false forged counterfet but also the bill that he hath put in to be considered is vtterly reiected condemned spurned out of the house GOD BE PRAYSED A CONFVTATION OF AN IDOLATROVS TREATISE OF NICOLAS SANDER Doctor in Diuinitie which mainteyneth the making and honouring of Images by W.F. Doctour in Diuinitie ECCLESIASTIC 45. The memoriall of the beloued of God is blessed that is to say any thing that maketh vs to remember him that is beloued of God is worthie of praise and honour A Doctour like interpretation and a pithy argument whereupon I may conclude The idols that Salomon made are things that make vs remember Salomon who was the beloued of God and so called of God him selfe therefore the idols were worthie of prayse and honour The preface conteining a breefe declaration which is the true Churche Maister Sander taking in hand so absurde and wicked an argument as is the defence of idolatrie or honouring of Images thought good to present it in the best vessel that he had which is the painted boxe of the Churche which that he might the rather commend to his countrimen he hath taken vpon him to describe it both inside and outside as he saith by certeine knowen truethes in number no lesse then 112. which after they haue been all well vewed and sufficiently considered I doubt not but to the reasonable and indifferent Reader shall appeare nothing else but a faire coloured but yet an empty vessell I will followe his diuisions and where I finde any trueth I will confesse it without wrangling where in steede of trueth he offereth falshode I will breefely confute it 1 The first I graunt that Christe hath alwayes had and alwayes shall haue a Church on earth out of which there is no saluation This Churche consisteth of men whiche beleeue in him haue their faith sealed and confirmed by outward sacramentes 2 The Church is the kindome of Christe the Citie of God and the kingdome of heauen wherein Christ shall reigne for euer 3 The kingdome is spread more largely and gouerned more prudently then any earthly kingdome euer was euen to the endes of the worlde to continue world without end 4 Notwithstanding all this to say that the Churche or this kingdome of Christe was hidden any one houre from the eyes of the worlde is not to make it more obscure then any earthly kingdome euer was as Maister Sander doeth affirme for the glorie of this Kingdome whiche is spirituall neuer did nor shall appeare to the wicked of this worlde The Churche is an article of our faith and faith is of those thinges whiche are not seene Hebru 11. but with spirituall eyes Therfore the exaltation of the Lordes hill that Esaie 2. and Micheas 4. doe speake of is of a spirituall aduauncement and a citie built vpon an hill is euerie true minister of Gods worde Matthewe 5. and not the whole Churche Finally the glorie and ioye that Esaie 60. promiseth vnto the Church and her happie enlargement among the nations Cap. 61. proue no worldly pompe or greatnesse to be seene with carnall eyes but is ment of the ioyfull and comfortable addition of the Churche of the Gentiles vnto the Churche of the Iewes For otherwise these wordes could not be verified of all wicked men All that see them shall knowe them that they are the blessed seede which the Lorde hath blessed 5 The cheefe meane whereby the Church is so clearely seene and so glorious in the sight of men is that Christ being the true light hath cōmunicated his brightnesse to his Apostles sayng you are the light of the worlde A citie built vpon an hill can not be hidden Neither do men light a candel and put it vnder a bushel but vpon a candlestick that it may giue light to al them that are in the house But this brightnesse is heauenly and spirituall not worldly and carnall to be seene of the children of light not of the blind bussards of the worlde 6 The Churche dyed not when the Apostles dyed for Bishops and Pastours succeeded in their place as lightes set vpon the candlestickes which are the seuerall Churches Apoc. 1. 7 The light and glorie of Gods Churche commeth chiefely from the Bishops and Pastours thereof I meane from their heauenly doctrine not from their persons as Maister
one question or two about this diffuse argument I would demaund Doeth God forbid by the second commaundement naturall or artificiall images If artificiall then they haue no comparison with naturall images Againe syr are our seeing and hearing from whome these images you speake of first doe come by your Philosophie actions or passions If they be passions howe are they compared with making of grauen images whiche are actions Finally where he saith this prohibition was not immutable but temporall to that people he passeth all bounds of reason and common vnderstanding as by the iudgment of God is become like vnto those Idols whome he defendeth For hauing graunted before that Idolatrie was forbidden by this precept nowe he restraineth the forbidding of idolatrie only to the Iewes of that time as though it were lawfull for Christians who more streightly then the Iewes must worship God in spirit and trueth Iohn 4. and are commaunded to keepe them selues pure from Idols 1. Iohn 5. THE VI. OR V. CHAP. That the word of God only forbiddeth Latria which is Gods own honour to be giuen to artificiall images leauing it to the lawe of nature and to the gouernors of his Church what other honour may be giuen to holy images Also the place of Exodus Thou shalt not adore images is expounded and that Christe by his incarnation taketh away all idolatrie that Maister Iewell vainely reproueth Doctour Harding condemneth his owne conscience and is proued a wrangler The difference in honour betweene Latria and Doulia As M.S. saith images are forbidden to be worshipped as they are forbidden to be made so say I but with a farre differing vnderstanding They may not be made to any vse of religion so they may not be worshipped with any religious worship which apperteineth to god For our religion is a seruice of God onely And where he saith as Images might be made by the authoritie of Moses or of the gouernours of Gods people so they wert not to be taken for Gods so they may be likewise worshipped by the authoritie of Gods church this only prouiso being made that Gods owne honour be not giuen vnto them I aunswere that as neither Moses nor any gouernour had authoritie to make any images in any vse of religion other then God commanded no more hath the Church any authoritie to allowe any worshipping of them whiche she hath none authoritie by God to make but an expresse commandement forbidding both the making the worshipping of them in the first table of the law which concerneth onely religion Nowe we haue saide both let vs consider M. Sanders reasons First he saith God forbidding his owne honour to be giuen to images left it to the lawe of nature and to the gouernors of his Churche what honour images should haue Concerning the lawe of nature he saith that God perceiued that when images of honourable personages are made honor was due vnto them What lawe of nature is this M. Sander that is distinct from the law of God Or what nature is that whose lawe alloweth the worshipping of images In deed the corruption of mans nature is to worship falshode in steed of trueth but the law of nature hath no such rule beeing al one with the lawe of God as nature is nothing else but the ordinaunce of god And where find you one title in the lawe that God hath leaft it to the gouernours of his Church to appoint a worship meete for images Worde you haue none letter you haue none nor pricke of a letter sounding that way But you haue collections First of the signification of Latria as though God had written his Lawe in Greeke and not in Hebrue and yet Latria according to the Graecians hath no such restraint to signifie the seruice of God only but euerie seruice of men also and is all one that Doulia and so vsed of Greeke writers excep◠we will say that Doulia which you will haue to be giuen to images is a more slauish seruile worship then that whiche you would haue vs to giue to God. But you will helpe your distinction with the confusion of the commandementes because God saith in the 1. precept Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me and then saith immediately Thou shalt not make nor worworship images but these cōmandementes are distinct or else you shall neuer make tenne And whereas you alledge that he saith immediatly after I the Lord thy God am a iealous God that maketh cleane against you For by those wordes the Lorde declareth that he can no more abide the vse of images in his religion then a iealous man can abide any tokēs of an adulterer to be about his wife therefore idolatrie in the scriptures is often called fornication So the circumstances helpe you nothing but is altogether against you But what an horrible monster of idolatrie is this that after you haue once confessed that Gods incomprehensible nature cannot be represented by any artificiall image you affirme that Christe by his incarnation hath taken away idolatrie that we should not lacke some corporall trueth wherein we might worship the Diuine substance Whereas Christ himselfe telleth vs that nowe the time is come that God shall not be worshipped as before in bodily seruice at Ierusalem or in the mountaine but in spirite and trueth Ioan. 4. The image of Christe you say is a similitude of an honourable trueth whereas no idol doth represent a trueth A worshipfull trueth I promise you Christe you say was man but I say he is both God and man a person consisting of those two natures Your image representeth onely a person consisting of one nature but suche a one is not Christe therefore your image representeth a falshoode and is by your owne distinction an Idol For the Diuine nature you confesse cannot be represented by an artificiall image Againe what an image is it of his humanitie It can not expresse his soule but his bodie onely Last of all why is it an image rather of Christ then of an other man Seeing in lineamentes and proportion of bodie it hath no more similitude vnto Christes bodie then to an other mans But that it pleased the caruer to say it is an image of Christ. O honourable blockes and stones But Philo the Iewe was cited for a fauourer of this interpretation that images are none otherwise forbidden to be made or worshipped then to be made or worshipped as GODS Howe vaine the authoritie of a Iewe is for a Christian man to leane vnto I shall not neede to say especially when it is well knowen that the Iewes also not considering in whether table this commandement is placed vnderstand by it that all images generally are forbidden And Philo saith nothing to helpe him For first in Decal he saith when God had spoken of his owne substance and honour order would that he should tell how his holy name was to be worshipped And againe De eo quis haer rer Diuin Vt solus
this be true of the image of the Trinitie why do you Papistes suffer and defende such horrible idols and monsters of a man with three faces or with three bodies to expresse the blessed Trinitie If Angels cannot bee represented by image and if three persons be infinite how doth your Idolatrous councell of Nice the seconde not onely determine that their images may bee made but also that they haue bodies and be circumscriptible Actione 5. But you will not long holde this conclusion Furthermore I woulde knowe what diuinitie yea or Phylosophie this is that you saye the persons of Angels are infinite I thought there had beene nothing actually infinite but God onely and that all creatures are definite though they be spirituall inuisible and incircumscriptible But to let you goe with that inconsiderate terme and not to vrge it so farre as to make you an vpholder of tenne thousands of Gods your conclusion is that visions which were of bodily formes may as well be paynted as preached whether they were of the Trinitie or of Angels as the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the shape of men The vision of Daniel 7. of the sonne of man that came to him was auncient of dayes The historie of the father speaking to Christe ▪ and the holie Ghost appearing in the shape of a Doue Admit that these visions may be painted ▪ for so much as was seene yet must they be painted as those visions onely and not otherwise for if God to shewe the distinction of the persons in Trinitie hath appeared in the shape of three men yet is it not lawfull to paint the Trinitie so and although the father in a vision appeared like an olde man and the holie Ghoste like a Doue yet is it not lawfull to paint God the father so alwayes nor the holie Ghoste much lesse to make such monsters as neuer appeared in any vision And therefore God him selfe warned the people to remember that he did not appeare to them in the mounteyne when he gaue the lawe in any forme or shape because they shoulde not bee deceiued to make an image thereafter to represent him withall Deuteronom 4. vers 15. Also Saint Paule preaching to the Athenienses sayeth that seeing wee are the generation of God wee ought not to thinke that the Godhead is like to golde siluer or stone grauen by arte and the inuention of man Act. 17. vers 29. And if you should paint the storie of the baptisme of Christe howe woulde you paint the person of the father which appeared not in any shape but onely a voice from him was hearde But knowing that you haue to doe with wranglers you say you would haue no image of the Trinitie but only to shewe that there bee three seuerall persons in one godhead this you thinke S. Augustine de fide symbolo would beare Ca. 7. but you shal heare his words Non ideo tamen quasi humana forma circumscriptū c. Yet must we not therefore thinke that God that father is circumscribed as it were with an humane shape that when we think of him a right side or a left side shoulde come into our mind or euen that which is sayde that the father doth sit we must not thinke to be done with bowing of his legges that we fall not into that sacrilege wherewith the Apostle curseth them that haue changed the glorie of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corrupble man For it is extreme wickednes that a Christian man shoulde place such an image for God in the temple much more is it wicked in his heart where the temple of God is in deede if it be clensed from earthly desire and errour This saying of Augustine woulde suffice any sober man to see what is his iudgement for such images of God or the Trinitie which yet Maister Sander though not simply yet in some respect wil defende And the Angels he sayeth may be painted or grauen with wings as they were made in the tabernacle or as they appeared to the Prophets and the Apostles And so you may paint the diuels in such shape as they haue appeared to men but what is this to make images of them for any vse of religion which God hath forbidden But now followeth another metaphysicall abstraction of the image which is an accident from the matter or substance thereof being stone wodde c. which is a hard lesson for the common people to learne and when it is learned it is not worth a strawe for any helpe of religion The grosse image of stone being made thus a subtile fantasticall image by abstraction is ioyned with the trueth when the fantasie considereth whose image it is and then it is not possible but that it must partake some parte of the honour of that whereof it is a signe being an honourable thing To passe ouer this fond abstracting and ioyning which is a toy to mocke with an ape I will come to the conclusion of honour dewe to the signe I pray you Maister Sander what impossibilitie is this that you talke of vs Must euery signe of an honourable thing needes partake some of the honour dewe to the thing The print of a mans foote in the snowe is the signe of a man that hath trod there which is an honourable thing and perhaps was a King is this signe worthie of any honour due to a King Yea the Kinges picture is on his coyne or else where to be seen is that picture worthie of any parte of the Kings honour You sayed before you woulde not haue any parte of Gods honour giuen to his image and howe agreeth that saying with this your principle it is not possible but euerie signe of an honorable thing must partake some of the honour which is in it But you will shewe vs the order howe the image commeth to be partaker of honour but it were more necessarie you should shew vs the reason why it should haue honour then the order howe it commeth But let vs see the order The painting of Christes death moueth the eye the eye aduertiseth our common-sense our common sense informeth our fantasie reason draweth out of fantasie this deepe consideration that this image is true and profitable to saluation and worthie of all honour This may well be an idolaters reason but surely a Christian man faith is instructed by hearing and not by seeing blessed are they saith Christ which haue beleeued and not seene Ioan. 20 A Christian man learneth of the Lord by his Prophet Abacuc Cap. 2. vers 18. 19. that a grauen image is profitable for nothing that it is a teacher of lyes and curseth him that saith an image shall teach him and much more him that shall say it is worthie of all honour By which saying you may see the impudencie of idolaters which though at the first they seeme modest in giuing but an other kinde of honour to images and not that which is giuen to God
what call you it but the trinitie Fie vppon this horrible idolatrie which is defended with such a sleueles excuse that you honour not the image for his owne sake no more did the Gentiles their images Chrisostom in Homi. 18. in Ep. ad Eph. writeth thus of them Cum illi dicimus quòd simulachrū adoret non inquit simulacrum sed Venerem sed Martem Et cum rogamui quae est ista Venus Qui grauiores inter eos sunt respondent voluptas quis est Mars Animus masculus vehemens When we say vnto him that he worshippeth an image No saith he not the image but Venus or Mars And when we aske what is this Venus the grauer sort among them aunswere pleasure And who is Mars A manlike and valiant corage Augustine in Psal. 96. which place I haue cited before sheweth that the Gentiles affirmed that they worshipped not the images for their owne sake but for the diuine powers which they did represent euen the same which the Christians called Angels So that the Papists are all one with the Gentiles in their excuse as they agree with them in Idolatrie worshipping of images FINIS God be praysed A REFVTATION OF MAITER IOHN RASTELS CONFVTATION AS HE CALLETH IT OF maister Iewels sermon by W. Fulk To the Preface TO giue the Reader a tast of such sinceritie as he must looke for in all M. Rastels booke of confutation hee sheweth in his preface where speaking of three maners of aunswering he declareth the same by an example taken out of the bishops sermon that sole receiuing is not to be suffered among Christians where as the bishoppe hath no such position in all his sermon but that priuate masse was not vsed for the space of sixe hundreth yeares after christ Thus admonishing the Reader that maister Rastell as his grand capteine M. doctour Harding not able to finde any thing either in scripture or antiquitie for the maintenance of their ordinary priuate Masse doth flie to extraordinarie vses and vnlawfull vsages of sole receiuing being all such as either some necessity might seeme to excuse or as all the Papists themselues do confesse to haue beene abuses I leaue his leude preface hasten to the book it self A refutation of maister Rastels confutation SECTIO PRIMA In which he speaketh of the councel of Nice of vnwritten verities TO passe ouer the two first leafes of his booke and halfe the third in which is much vaine babling but no point of confutatiō in the second face of the third leafe he beginneth to picke his iust quarel at the sentence set before the bishoppes printed sermon which is this Let old customes preuaile It greueth M. Rastel his fellowes which perswade the ignorant people that our relygion is all nouelty that M Iewell should make any such claime vnto antiquitie And first therfore he wil know whether the scriptures do not cōteine al things necessary to saluatiō Yes verely and Gods curse light on him that teacheth the contrarie Then he will knowe where we finde this saying in scriptures or if it be not in the scripture of god why we wil vse a sentēce of the coūcel of Nice which was but a cōgregatiō of mens Verily if we found not the matter of this sentence in Gods worde we durst not auouch it to be true that was vttered by men being applied to any point of doctrine But we finde the same doctrine in the sixt of Ieremy where the Lord saith Stand in the wayes and beholde and aske for the olde way which is the good way and walke therein and you shall finde rest for your soules Nowe this saying of the councell of Nice let olde customes preuaile being the same in effect and meaning though somewhat differing in sounde of wordes we embrace it as the worde of God and the holy scripture which we do not restraine vnto the letters and sillables but vnto the plaine and manifest sence and vnderstanding of them The seconde quarrell he picketh to the placing of this sentence before the bishoppes sermon because it is vttered by the Councell of Nice in a particuler case concerning the iurisdiction of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and therefore cannot serue for a generall sentence For all olde customes saith he must not be preferred before new customes example of washing of feete abstaining from eating of bloud which were olde customes But if the councell meant that olde customes should preuaile against newe writinges then all books of Luther such like are striken through which one foine Wherefore hee concludeth that the councell meant that olde customes shoulde preuaile against the pretensed alledging of the verye scripture it selfe and newe doctrine of men And so this sentence doth at once ouerthrow all maister Iewels religion But hauing compared this sentence to the text of scripture by which the true meaning therof may appeare I will not stand about this trifling cauils Cōcerning our iudgmēt of antiquitie this it is We wil not admit whatsoeuer is old but only the religiō which is eldest of al which hath god for the autor the Patriarches Prophetes and Apostles for the witnesses and all learning doctrine and religion which is vnder the age of these yeares we reiect as newe false and diuelish As for customes ceremonies and manners which are subiect to mutation we receiue them or refuse them as they be approuable or disprouable by the saide old auncient and Catholike doctrine And bicause M. Rastel hath not only touched the sixt Canon of the Councell of Nice where this sentence is written but also charged M. Iewell with ouerthrowe of his religion thereby I must let the reader vnderstand that he suppresseth one point thereof that vtterly ouerthroweth the piller of all Popish religion that is the Popes supremacie For that Canon maketh the Bishop of Alexandria equall in iurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome For the reason of the iurisdiction confirmed vnto the Bishops of Alexandria is this Quia vrbia Romę Episcop◠parilis mos est Bicause the Bishop of the citie of Rome hath the like or equall custome of iurisdiction But M. Rastell will proue by the storie of Arrius that the Councell meant by that sentence that it is onely tradition custome and manners which killeth the hearts of heretiques and defendeth the Catholike Church and not the authoritie of the Scriptures Bicause Arrius was such a proude heretique that he despised all the interpretations of the auncient Fathers that were before his time as Alexander Bishop of Alexandria writeth of him Yea he is not ashamed to say that although the Fathers of that Councell had scriptures against Arrius yet their chiefe stay was not in that scriptures but in the receiued tradition But this is a most impudent lye for although the consent of Catholike writers of all ages with the word of God is not to be contemned yet the only authoritie in determining of controuersies of faith in
is the order of Melchisedech and consisteth nothing at all in offering of breade and wine as is manifest by the Apostle to the Hebrewes who sheweth in what respect Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech As impudent as this is blasphemous is his next argument that by verye expresse commaundement of Christ in his last supper they must offer him vp saying Do this in rememberance of me As though Christ which neuer sacrificed himselfe but once that on the crosse had at his supper offered himselfe to his father in sacrifice As for the testimonies of the Fathers which he citeth are easily answered that they spake of sacrificing Christe figuratiuely and vnproperly as some of them confesse namely Chrysostome whome hee citeth ad Heb. Hom. 17. which when he had demaunded saying Doe we not offer Christ daily he answereth yes but rather wee celebrate the remembrance of his sacrifice the other which hee citeth out of Dionyse hath no word of offering Christ although Dionyse be no writer within the compasse of sixe hundreth yeares Neither do these words of the Liturgie intituled to S. Basil which he rehearseth speake more then of an vnbloudie sacrifice which is the sacrifice of thanksgiuing although the Liturgie is not of such antiquitie credit as it is pretended And of as little is that he citeth out of Ambrose in Psal. 38. which no man learned of sound and indifferent iudgement will receiue for the worke of S. Ambrose Such false principles must leane vpon counterfet Doctours SECTIO 46. From the 152. leafe to the 154. leafe in which he taketh in hand â—o shape a generall aunswere to the particular questions which M. Iewell moueth Hauing proued nothing hitherto but him selfe to be a lying marchant a blasphemous and vnlearned defender of the sacrifice of the Masse to all the rest of the questions of Indiuiduum vaegum merit ex opere operato applying of the sacrifice of the Masse accidents remaining the case of the mouse eating the sacrament c. He aunswereth that these termes for any thing he knoweth were neuer vsed within the compasse of 600. yeares but the matters were beleeued and that he will proue by consent of learned men and the voyce of the Church since those 600. yeares This is in deede as he saith merily but falsely to the Bishop in the beginning of his booke which way to Croydenâ— a poke ful of plumbs the Bishop asketh proofe within in 600. yeares of Christ and M. Rastell will bring proofe without those 600. yeares the Bishop requireth antiquitie whereof the Papistes haue so impudently bragged and Rastel will bring foorth noueltie But he hath a proper similitude to shewe that these Articles though they were not knowne to the auncient Church for 600. yeares after Christe yet are they not to be refused no more then the fruites of Autumne bicause they appeared not on the trees in Aprill are to be reiected Thus you see by this delicate similitude he denyeth the Church of Christe his Apostles Euangelistes Martyrs Confessours Pastours teachers for 600. yeares together to haue beene a season fruitfull of matters of trueth hauing nothing but greene ornaments and gay flowers promising the wholesome fruites of Poperie that haue appeared and waxed ripe in the latter time of the Church as in the Haruest or moneth of September If this similitude can be defended without contumely of Christ and the Primitiue Church let al the Papistes clap their hands at it and say O learned M. Rast. that with so short an answere hath satisfied all M. Iewels demaunds But he will choake the Bishop and vs all with the last question Where is it read saith he within 600. yeares after Christ that our blessed Lady was preached or named the mother of mercy the handmaiden of the Trinitie the spouse of the holy Ghost the Queene of heauen the Empresse of hell and yet if you beleeue in deed that she is the mother of God all these Articles do follow like as the rest of that veritie which saith this is my body It is well that M. Rastell confesseth these titles neuer to haue ben giuen to the Virgine Marie neither by Christ nor by his Apostles nor by any in al the Church for 600. yeres after christ Nowe syr I will answere your question I do as constantly beleeue with my heart and more effectually then I can expresse with wordes that the holy and blessed Virgine Marie is the mother of hers and our Sauiour Iesus Christ the sonne of God very God and very man Yet all those titles which you confesse to be neither read in any antiquitie of 600. yeâ—res after Christe I abhorre and protest to be wicked idolatrous and blasphemous And wheras you say that common sense teacheth that a Kings mother is a Queene and not of no place you trow which is tried false by common experience for King Dauidâ— mother was no Queene I trowe nor fiue hundreth more that haue beene in the world since his time I aunswere yet if it were graunted in earthly Princes it followeth not in the King of heauen For by the like reason and more probable I might argue the mother of a man is a woman therefore the mother of God is a Goddesse from which blasphemie Saint Bonauenture a Popish Saint is of no force if he doe not farre exceede it when he saith to the Virgine Marie Iure matris impera filio and againe Coge Deum c. By the authoritie of a mother commaunde thy sonne and compel God to be merciful to sinners c. SECTIO 47. in the 154. leafe The Bishop declareth the vanitie of the Papistes aunswere which is that no Masse is priuate bicause that euery Priest communicateth with all Priestes that say Masse for that by this reason there should be no excommunication whereas the partie excommunated would say hee would communicate with the Prieste that saith Masse in Calicute Maister Rastel saith he that is excommunicate from one Church is excommunicated from al Churches therefore he that is in the Communion doth communicate with all Priestes But hee vnderstandeth not the Bishops argument or at least he will not vnderstand it For the sophistrie of the Popish argument resteth in the ambiguitie of this worde Communicate which signifieth to receiue the Lordes supper at one time and in one place with others of their Church which the Papistes take for receiuing generally so that the Priest in Louaine receiuing at his Masse alone communicateth with the Priest that likewise receiueth at his Masse alone in Calicut Now if this receiuing wer a sufficient coÌ„munion a Priest being excoÌ„municated in Louane so that no Priest wold suffer him to receiue with him at his Masse if he would contemne their excoÌ„munication might say Masse him selfe say that although none of you Louane Priestes will communicate with me yet I wil communicate with the Priest that this day saith Masse in Calicut yea I will communicate with you
which terme he giueth to the waters in baptisme Maister Heskins chattereth I wot not what about it nor to what purpose Certaine it is that he vseth not the terme as the Papistes doe for they apply it only to the sacrament of the altar as they call it Leo is cited Serm. 7. de pass dom Iesus confisij sui certus c. Iesus being at a point with him selfe and ready to doe his fathers disposition without feare finished the olde Testament and made the newe Passeouer For his disciples sitting with him to eate the mysticall supper while they in the house of Caiphas were treating howe Christ might be slaine he ordaining the sacrament of his body and bloud did teach what manner of sacrifice should be offered to God and from this mysterie remoued not the traytour This place being against Maister Heskins where hee calleth it the sacrament of his body and bloud c. hee would aunswere the matter by this principle that olde writers did so call the very naturall body of Christ in the sacrament which is all the matter in question But hee will proue it by an other saying in the same place Vt vmbrae c. That shaddowes might giue place to the body and images might ceasse vnder the presence of the trueth the olde obseruance is taken away with a newe sacrament the sacrifice passeth into the sacrifice bloud excludeth bloud and the festiuitie of the lawe while it is chaunged is fulfilled These wordes must needes bee referred to the passion of Christe whereof the sacrifice is a memoriall for the sacrifice of Christe and his bloud shedding on the crosse was the very fulfilling of the shaddowe and image of the Paschall Lambe in the olde lawe and not the institution of the sacrament whiche is a figure or sacrament thereof And so the groundwork of al M. Hes. building is quite ouerthrown The seuen and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same wordes by S. Cyrill and S. Gregorie Cyrillus is cited as he is often ad Colosyrium Non dubites an c. Doubt thou not whether this be true when hee saith manifestly This is my body but rather receiue the worde of our Sauiour in faith For seeing hee is the trueth hee doth not lye Maister Heskins inferreth that the wordes of Christe are manifest and so to be taken in the literall sense without figure bicause he vseth these wordes Christ saide manifestly this is my body but this is a childish mockerie Christe saide manifestly I am the doore Doeth it therefore followe that it is no figuratiue speach and that the woordes of Christe are manifest and therefore to bee taken in the literall sense And yet I beleeue bicause Christ saide manifestly I am the doore that he is in deede the doore though not literally but figuratiuely taken It greueth M. Hes. that the proclamer should play with Duns his indiuidâ—um vagum saying that by the like meanes hee might disgrace the faith of the trinitie to open the quiddities of distinctions and relations of persons that bee spoken thereof And I thinke the same if hee shoulde teach that holy mysterie after the schoole manner not after the word of god But he returneth to an other place of Cyrill Ne horreremus carnem sanguinem Bicause this place is already rehearsed more at large and answered in the 51. Chap. of this booke I will send the reader backe to consider it in that place Gregorie is cited Lib. 4. dialog cap. â—8 Debemus itaque praesens sÄ™culum c. We ought therfore seing we see this present world to be passed away with al our mind to contemne it to offer to god the daily sacrifices of teares the daily sacrifices of his body and bloud For this sacrifice doth singularly saue the soul from eternal destruction which repayreth to vs the death of the only begotten by a mysterie Who although since he arose from death he doth not now dy and death shal haue no more dominion of him yet liuing in him self immortally incorruptibly is sacrificed againe for vs in this mysterie of the holy oblation For his body is there receiued his flesh is diuided for the health of the people his bloud is shed not nowe vpon the hands of the Infidels but into the mouthes of the faithfull Hereof therefore let vs consider what sacrifice this is for vs which for our deliuerance doeth followe the passion of the onely begotten Sonne For which of the faithfull ought to haue any doubt that in the same houre of the immolation the heauens are opened at the Priestes voyce that the companies of Angels are present in the mysterie of Iesus Christ That the lowest things are coupled to the highest earthly things are ioyned to heauenly thinges and that one thing is made of thinges visible and inuisible Of these last wordes of ioyning high and lowe heauenly and earthly thinges he maketh a greate matter which is saith hee that Christe is ioyned to the earthly formes of breade and wine Where note I praye you that he nameth the accidents of things for the thinges them selues which is a toy to mocke an ape And yet he pleaseth him selfe so well therein that he would drawe Irenaeus which is cleane contrarie to transubstantiation to bee a great patrone thereof Irenaeus saith as wee haue shewed before more at large that Eucharistie consisteth of two thinges earthly and heauenly Nowe hee inquireth of vs what is the heauenly part of the sacrament And he reasoneth that it is neither the grace of God nor thanksgiuing nor the worde of God nor sanctification Well what is it then Gregorie saith it is the bodye of Christ and so say we spiritually receiued But if I shuld aske M. Hes. what is the earthly part of the sacrament hee wil say the accidents of bread wine but sauing his wisdome accidents be neither earthly not heauenly but the earthly thing must needs be a substantiall thing what other earthly substance can there be but the substance of bread and wine He saith that corporall receiuing is here auouched by Gregory Then must he tel me how in these words the sacrifice of teares is matched with the sacrifice of his flesh and bloud and how the death of Christe is repaired by a mysterie howe the fleshe of Christ is diuided or parted if this can not bee done but spiritually then Christes body can not be eaten but spiritually The iudgement of Barnard which followeth we leaue to be weighed according to the corruption of the age in which he liued The eigth and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition among the eldest Fathers by Euthymius and Isidorus Although neither of these writers are within the compasse of the challenge yet bicause Euthymius vseth much to followe auncient Doctours and Isidorus was neere the time of the challenge I will set downe their places and examine their wordes Euthymius is cyted In 26. Math. Sicut vetus testamentum c.
Euen as the olde Testament had sacrifices and bloud so hath the newe namely the body and bloud of our Lorde Nowe he did not say These are the signes of my body and my bloud but these thinges be my body and bloud Therefore we must not looke to the nature of those things that are set foorth but to the vertue of them For as he did supernaturally deifie if I may so speake his assumpted flesh so doth he also vnspeakably transmute these thinges into the same his quickening body and into his precious bloud and into the grace of them And the bread hath a certaine similitude vnto the body and wine to bloud For both the bread and body are earthly but the wine and the bloud are airie and hote And as bread doth comfort so the body of Christe doth the same and much more it sanctifieth both the body and the soule And as the wine doth make glad so the bloud of Christ doth the same and moreouer is made a defence Although the chiefest partes of this place are answered in the 17. Chapter of the first booke and in the 51. Chap. of this second booke yet as M. Hes. gathereth here two other matters so I wil make answere to them First he saith That the figuratiue glose of the sacrameÌ„taries is flatly denied But by what words I pray you â–ª Marrie where he saith Christ saide not these be signes of my body and bloud but these are my body and bloud if this be a flat deniall of a figure bicause Christe saide not so then is it likewise in these speaches he saide not the rocke was a signe of Christe but the rocke was Christe the Lambe is the Passeouer c. Euthymius meaneth not to exclude all figures from the saying of Christ but to shew that the sacrament is not a bare naked and vaine signe but a true signe of the very body and bloud of Christe giuen to the faythfull in the administration of the supper The second matter that Maister Heskins noteth is of the vnspeakable transmutation and that must needes bee meant of transubstantiation of the breade and wine into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christe by this reason there be foure thinges called the bodie of Christ. 1. The figure 2. The Church 3. The merite fruite or vertue of his passion 4. And his bodie naturall but it can not be into the figure nor into the Churche Nor into the spirituall bodie of Christe I meane the merite vertue and grace of Christes passion Ergo it must needes be spoken of the naturall bodie of Christ. But vouchsafe gentle Reader to runne ouer once againe these wordes of Euthymius which in Latine are these Ita hec ineffabiliter transmutaâ— in ipsum vinificâ—â—â— corpus in ipsius prÄ™ciosum sanguinem siâ—on in gratiam ipso 〈◊〉 Euen so he doth vnspeakably transmute and change thesâ— thinges into the same his quickening bodie and into his owne precious bloud and into the grace of them Now tell me whether M. Heskins doth flatly denie that which Euthymius doeth flatly affirme that the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of the bodie and bloud of Christ By whiche words he doth sufficiently expound what kind of change he meaneth of them into the bodie and bloud of Christ not a corporall but a spirituall transmutation To the rest of the sentence which is a good exposition of the former parte shewing both the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament and for what cause they are vsed to represent the bodie and bloud of Christe namely for the similitude they haue vnto the bodie and bloud of Christ Maister Heskins sayeth nothing But let the reader weigh it well and he shall see it cleane contrarie both to transubstantiation and the carnall presence Nowe we come to Isodorus whom he confesseth to be somewhat out of the compasse of the challenge and his wordes De Offi. Eccle. Lib. 18. are these Sacrificium c. The sacrifice that is offered of the Christians vnto God Christe our God and Maister did first institute when he commended to his Apostles his bodie and his bloud before he was betrayed as it is read in the Gospel Iesus tooke bread and the cuppe and blessing them gaue vnto them In this place is nothing for the carnall presence but that Isydore calleth the sacrament the bodie and bloud of Christ which we also do and acknowledg to be so rightly called And Maister Heskins can conclude nothing but vpon a negatiue he saith not he gaue a figure so may I conclude he saith not he gaue his naturall body and no figure After this he reasoneth as fondely of Christes blessing of the bread which although the Euangelistes do expound to be giuing of thanks yet admit blessing to signifie consecration and what hath he gayned Forsooth Christ wold not haue blessed it to make but a figure still he playeth the foole with that bable but a figure onely a figure a bare figure which we vtterly doe forsake But toward the ende of the Chapter he falleth to gathering his voyces and affirmeth that none of the olde fathers cal the sacrament a figure except Tertullian onely wherein he lyeth impudently for beside Ambrose and Augustine which both vse the very worde figure we haue shewed in due places that both they in a manner al the rest of the fathers haue either written plainely against the carnall presence or else nothing for it As for his last challenge that all the protestants must bring forth when any countrie did professe the same religion that is now preached is vaine and hath beene sufficiently aunswered in other treatises It is certein that all nations that were conuerted by the Apostles before they were corrupted by heresie and Antechristianitie professed the same religion that we doe As for the alterations in King Henries time King Edwardes and the Queenes Maiesties that now is it is easie to answere King Henrie began the worke whiche King Edwarde finished and the Queene repayred and vpholdeth in spight of the diuel and the Pope As for the consent and peace of the Popishe Church it proueth nothing but that the diuell had then all thinges at his will and therefore might sleepe on both sides but now hee is disturbed of possession of the house nowe he stormeth and of Robin good fellowe which he was in the Popishe time is become playne Sathan the Diuell The nine fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the same text by the fathers of the latter days first Damascen Haymo Before M. Heskins begin his pretended exposition he chargeth Luther to be a proude contemner of the fathers who reuerenced them as much as it was meet they should be reuerenced although he preferred one authoritie of scripture before a thouâ—â—nd Cyprians Augustines Next to Luther he rayleth on the bishop of Sarum whoÌ„ he calleth the proclaymer charging him with mocking of the holie fathers whereof some he saith be