before bread Dunce holdeth that if there were no transubstantiation graunted yet the presence might well stande and the adoration to as Maister Rastel saith but he taketh parte with Thomas But if the reason of Thomas be good for the presence of the bread because it is a creature why not also for the accidents of bread which are creatures also â–ª To the saying of Augustine In sermo ad Infantes That whiche you see on the table is breade Maister Rastel sayeth it is a reason of Tinkers Taylers and Coblers O learned Clearke and not of learned Schollers to say it is bread because it is called bread But learned Maister Rastel Saint Augustine doeth not say it is called breade but he saith it is bread and moreouer he maketh their senses Iudges thereof Quid-etiam oculi vestri renunciant Which also your eyes do tell you And that your learned penne hath set downe out of Prosper which is not to be found in Augustines workes yet maketh it nothing against the remayning of bread but only saith that vnder the visible kindes of breade and wine we honour the bodie and bloud of Christ. To the saying of Gelasius that the substance and nature of bread and wine doth not ceasse to be he aunswereth that Gelasius doth expound him selfe straight after where he saith But they remaine in the propertie of their nature as though nothing remained but whitensse thicknesse c. O impudent falsifier Is substance and properties of nature all one Againe I aske what are they that remaine in their propertie of nature but the breade and wine Finally the very argument whiche he vseth against Eutiches most plainely confuteth Rastell for a moste shamefull and shamelesse peruerter of this Doctours meaning for he concludeth that as the substance of bread wine remaine in the sacrament so the bodie in Christ after the assumption of the Diuine nature The like beastly racking he vseth of the wordes of Theodoret which vseth the same argument against the Eutichians But in the end he saith it must not be considered what one or two haue saide but what the whole consent of the Church is and if it were graunted that Gelasius and Theodoret denied transubstantiation yet they graunting the carnall presence it were a small matter and nothing at all against the Catholikes which hold of the generall councell of Laterane What say you learned M. Rastel is it not to be regarded nor maketh it any thing against you what Gelasius the Bishop of Rome hath written whiche you holde can not erre But where he sayeth that they bothe graunt the carnall presence I must sende the Reader to mine aunswere vnto the 60. Chapter of the 3. booke of Hesk. Parlea for Gelasius and to the 52. and 56. chapters of the same booke for Theodoret How vnlearnedly he affirmeth Cyprians errour of rebaptization to be no heresie because the church had not determined the contrarye I passe ouer when on the one side the bishoppe of Rome was against it on the other side a whole councell in Affrica was for it SECTIO 31. in the 98. leafe The bishop shewed out of the schoole men that if a man worship the accidents of breade Idolatrie may bee done to the sacrament M. Rastell saith not to the sacrament but to the accidents But do not you papists call the accidents the sacrament else what difference make you betweene sacramentum rem sacramenti in S. Augustine the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament Againe he saith the fault were not in the institution of Christ but in the silence of the priest and simplicitie of the people that were no better taught As though Christ did euer institute the sacrament to be worshipped after any maner of Latriâ— or Doulia of which he reasoneth brutishly with putting such cases if a man shoulde haue worshipped the only face of Christ as God which no man would euer haue done or his garment which had bene idolatry whosoeuer had done it SECTIO 32. From the 99. leafe to the 103. leafe Whereas the bishop lamenteth the miserable case of the people which are brought into idolatrie â–ª with these blinde distinctions M. Rast. deriding his needlesse and folish pitie lamenteth the state of the worlde when such things as are concluded in schooles should be opened in pulpets as though there were one doctrine of God for the schooles and another for the pulpets Yet he thinketh it not meete to teache the distinctions of the three persons in trinitie but onely to beleeue as the Churche doth beleeued as well in the trinitie as in al other articles and namely in this of the sacrament Which position of his if it may stand there needeth none other creed to be preached but onely this short curtall creed beleeue as the church beleeueth you cannot do amisse But in time of popishe tyrannye you woulde not haue bin satisfied if a man examined of his faith in the sacrament had answered I beleue as the church teacheth or I beleeue it to be the body of Christ as Christ said it and meant it to be his body but then you must grope him in fleshe blood and bones as he was borne of the virgine Mary c. Whether he beleeue the substance of breade to remaine after the wordes of consecration spoken by the priest c. Well howsoeuer it be all learning resteth in the brest of reuerende M. Rast. M of art student in diuinity who can with one breath condemne all the pedlers and pelting craftesmens arguments deuised in alehouses or shops and after recited in the protestants schooles as this Christ is ascended in body in to heauen and there sitteth vntill the end of the world therefore he is absent from the earth in bodie and consequently is not in the sacrament an vnlearned argument saith M. Ra. as this can a priest make God but learned sir who taught the people to call that which the priest maketh their maker or what or which of all the reuerend rabbins of poperie did reprooue the people for so speaking Againe can one bodie be in more places then one at one time An argumente of ignoraunte people O vnlearned Augustine whiche hath defined that the bodie of Christ can be but in one place at one time in Ioan. cap. 7. Tr. 30. If a mouse eat the hosâ— doth hee ease Christes bodie A peltinge craftesmans argument What M. Rast. are you so arrogant in opinion of your owne learning that you will condemne all the schoolemen for pedlers and tynkers that haue moued argued decided this question and a hundreth like vnto it came this question from protestants or from your owne popish schooles not from the schooles onely but euen the instructions that haue bene written for euery simple curate as Manupulus curatorum c. But if a lerned man expert in liberall sciences saith M. Rast. a great Master of liberal arts should vse this argument of the necessitie of Christs body
is inuisible Whereas the Papistes by their transubstantiation haue no visible sacrament but onely accidents of breade and wine which they nor none other can call a visible sacrament Moreouer the word diuine essence answering to the word flesh in the former sentence plainely expoundeth what he meaneth thereby namely the diuine power which the flesh of Christ hath to giue life and not the diuine nature or substance as M. Heskins translateth it and much lesse Christ God and Man as he expoundeth it For if we take the diuine essence for the diuine substaunce of Christes Godhead it will bee a grosse absurditie and a blasphemous heresie to make any infusion or powring of that into the visible sacrament which filleth all places Wherefore of necessitie it signifieth the propertie or efficacie euen as the worde nature in the former clause doth signifie For the former shape of the breade is not chaunged but the nature or propertie is altered namely to feede the soule and not the body only as before it was made a sacrament it serued to do But M. Hesk. liketh not this glose but wil haue nature to signifie substance and not propertie as it doth very often as when we say the nature of hearbs of stones of beastes we meane the properties But whether he will or no it must be so taken seing it may be so taken or else Cyprian should be contrarie to him selfe who distinguisheth the visible sacrament from the diuine essence who calleth that diuine essence a word more vsuall for substance which is but diuine efficacie or propertie who if he had meant that the bread had bene turned into the naturall body of Christe wold neither haue coÌ„pared it with the diuinitie of Christ hid vnder his humanitie nor haue said euen so the diuine essens infundeth it selfe in the sacrament but euen so the bodie of Christ is hid vnder the formes of bread wine But that there should be no doubt of his meaning thus he writeth in the same sermon a litle after Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syncera panem sanctum franginus partimur As often as we do these thinges we doe not sharpen our teeth to byte but with a sincere faith we breake and diuide this holy breade What can be more plaine to expresse the meaning of this doctour then that wee receiue not the body of Christe with our mouth but with our heart not with the instrument of our teeth but with the instrument of our faith In the same Sermon hee writeth Panis est esca sanguis vita caro substantia corpus Ecclesia Corpus propter membrorum in vnum conuenientium panis propter nutrimenti congruentiam sanguis propter vinificationis efficientiam caro propter assumptae humanitatis proprietatem The breade is foode bloud life flesh substaunce his body the Church his body for the agreement of the members in one bread for the aptnes of nourishment bloud for the efficiencie of quickening flesh for the propertie of his humanitie that he tooke on him These places do sufficiently expound the meaning of Cyprian howe the breade is chaunged into flesh not after any change of substance but of qualitie and propertie as in so many figuratiue termes is more theÌ„ manifest Let vs nowe come to Euthymius aduaunced by Maister Heskins into the higher house And he in deede seemeth to affirme the purpose of this Chapter that the Paschall lambe was a figure of the sacrament and yet not very plainely but rather it was a figure of the true Passeouer which the sacrament doth represent but that is no materiall point of our controuersie whether one sacrament did figure an other his wordes are Christe in the same table described the figuratiue and shadowing Passeouer and set before them the true and perfect Passeouer Herevpon hee inferreth that Christe was not truely and perfectly giuen to the Iewes in the Paschall Lambe as we teach but onely a figure and signe of him but in the sacrament he is giuen to vs truely and perfectly that is by a true and reall presence But it is pitie that hee seeth not that his authour compareth the thing signified by our sacrament with the outward signe of the Iewish sacrament as also the scripture doth oftentimes against them that depended vpon the outward ceremonies Not that a false or vnperfect Christ was figured and receiued of the faithfull by them but to shewe a difference betweene the shadowe and the trueth the figure and the thing figured when the Iewes so sticked in the figure that they considered not the thing signified The other place which was alledged out of Euthymius bicause hee referreth the handling of it vnto the second booke thether also will I referre the aunswere In the meane time it is a childish insultation that hee makes against the proclamer noting that hee hath found a plaine place for Maister Iewell when neither the place is so plaine nor the Authour within the compasse of his challenge The eighteenth Chapter treateth of the same matters by S. Hieronyme and Chrysostome In this Chapter Hieronyme is first brought foorth In Matth. 26. in these wordes After the figuratiue Passeouer was fulfilled and he had eaten the flesh of the Lambe with his Apostles hee taketh breade which comforteth the heart of man and passeth to the true sacrament of the Passeouer that as in prefiguration of him Melchisedech the Priest of the highest GOD had done offering breade and wine hee also might represent the trueth of his body and bloud Here Hieronyme doeth not affirme the Passeouer to bee a figure of the sacrament but of Christe the true Passeouer Calling the supper a true sacrament of that true and prefigured Passeouer Which wordes would bee noted that hee calleth the breade a true sacrament that is a liuely signe of the verie Passeouer Christ and a representation of the trueth of his body and bloud But here Maister Heskins fareth as hee were halfe madde sending vs to the Vocabularies Calepines and Dictionaries for the signification of this worde repreâ—ento That among learned men it is not so streighted as onely to signifie to shewe a thing by a figure or signe And therevpon we will not striue but that it is often taken to shewe by a figure or signe hee him selfe can not denie and that it must be so taken here in this place appeareth by this reason The comparison will not else stand betweene Melchisedech and Christe which all though it bee not grounded on scripture Hierome often maketh except Christe offered breade and wine in a figure or representation as Melchisedech did in a prefiguration M. Heskins enforceth the word Truth that he should not meane a figure for then he would haue saide as he imagineth that he also must represent his body and bloud and not that he also might represent the truth of his body But if you marke the force of this word quoque also you shall see that Melchisedech did
gone out of the parleament house where matters are grauely intreated of and hath betaken him selfe to the wilde forest where hee may disporte himselfe in his games with Robin hoode and his merie mates And verilie if he had not tolde vs him selfe of his lustie hunting wee might well haue thought he had not beene at home but wandering in the woodes so wilde when in his exhortation vnto faith in the sacrament hee will persuade vs that none can vnderstande the scriptures except they haue founde faith in the veritie of the Sacramente Which happeneth to all those that wil not be with Christ in the breaking of the breade as the two disciples were that went to Emans to whome Christe was a straunger vntill he came to the breaking of the breade But leaste this vaine allegorie shoulde seeme to bee founde out only in M. Heskins chase hee trauelleth to finde it in S. Augustin Theophylact but al in vaine For first to giue vs a tast what synceritie and trueth he will vse in the rest of this booke the verie first sentence he alleadgeth out of any Doctor is corruptly and vntruly rehearsed For thus hee maketh Augustine to speake in his treatise De consensu Euangelistarum not naming in what booke or Chapter whereas that which he writeth of this matter is Lib. 3. Cap. 25. Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum a Satana fuisse ne agnosceretur Iesus sed tantùm a Christo propter eorum fidem ambiguam facta est permissio vsque ad sacramentum panis vt vnitate corporis eius participata remoueri intelligatur impedimentum inimici vt Christus possit agnosci We doe not take it incongruently that this impediment in their eies was of Sathā that Iesus shold not be knowen but only it was permitted of Christ for their doubtfull faithes sake vntill they came to the sacrament of bread that the vnitie of Christs body being participated it might be perceiued that the impediment of the enimie was remoued that Christ might be knowen In this place beside that he turneth autem into enim and leaueth out factum after fuisse he addeth of his owne propter eorum fidem ambiguam for their doubtfull faiths sake Which words are not Augustins Wherby it appeareth that hee redde not this place out of Augustine himselfe but followed some other mans collection as he doth almost euerie where But Augustine in that place comparing the wordes of Marke and Luke together sheweth that there was no alteration in the shape of Christes bodie but onely that the two disciples eyes were helde that they could not knowe him but in breaking of the bread which signified the vnity of the Church For this he writeth Neque quisquam se Christum agnouisse arbitretur si eius corporis particeps non est id est ecclesię cuius vnitatem in sacramento panis commendat Apostolus dicens vnus pà nis vnum corpus multi sumus vt cum eis benedictum panem porrigeret apperirentur oculi eorum agnoscerent cum Neither let any man thinke that he hath knowen Christ if he bee not partaker of his body that is of the Church whose vnitie the Apostle cōmendeth in the sacrament of the bread saying One bread we being many are one bodie that when he reached vnto them the blessed bread their eyes were opened and they knew him This is Augustines collection of this matter nothing agreable with M. Heskins allegorie of the soūd faith in the veritie of the sacrament but much against it teaching the true participation of the body of Christ in the sacrament which is the mystical coniunction of him vnto his Church Moreouer euen in the place by him alledged I meruell M. Heskins cannot see that Augustine calleth it the sacramēt of bread which agreeth not with his transsubstantiation and if he think the participation of the vnitie of Christes bodie doth helpe him Augustine in the same place sheweth the contrarie vnderstanding the bodie of Christ to be his Church as is before shewed But what saith Theophylact of the same Another thing also is here insumated namely that that their eyes which take this blessed bread are opened that they may knowe him For the fleshe of our Lorde hath a great and vnspeakable strength What is there here in these authorities either for M. Heskins bil of the reall presence or for his fond allegorie It pleaseth him excedingly that Theophylact saith the flesh of Christ is of vnspeakeable power which we doe most willingly admitte euen in receiuing of the sacrament it worketh mightily but hee will not see at all that Theophylact with Augustine calleth the sacrament blessed bread by which they both do shew that the substance of bread remaineth although it be blessed consecrated vnto an other vse then for bodily food The second Cha. expoundeth the sixt of S. Ioh according to the letter The summe of this literal exposition is this that three sundry breades are mentioned by Christe in this sixte of Iohn that is the bread Manna the bread the sonne of God and the bread the flesh of Christ and that these three breads are distincted both in nature and in time in whiche they were giuen For Manna was a corporall food giuen of old time in the wildernes The second bread the godhead of Christ being an eternall and spirituall substance Christ saith his father doth giue in the present tence and that he is the bread of life and requireth beleefe in him which is proper to God onely The third breade is the fleshe of Christ which he will giue for the life of the world speaking in the future tence and is meant of the sacrament And this he dare auouch to be the natiue true vnderstanding of this scripture But sauing his authoritie there are but two breades spoken of in this Chapter namely Manna and the bread of life which is not the diuinitie of Christ separated from his flesh nor his flesh separated or distincted from his godhead but euen his quickening spiritual flesh which being vnited to his eternal spirit was by the same giuen for the life of the world not in the sacrament but in the sacrifice of his bodie bloud on the crosse and is daily sealed and testified vnto vs by the sacrament of his bodie and bloud ministred according to his holie institutiō And this I dare auouch to be the true natiue sense of this scripture both by the plain circumstances of the same and by the iudgement of the best approued ancient writers And first to take away as wel the vain supposed distinction of time in which the two later breads are said to be giuen as also to proue that they are but one bread our sauior Christ him selfe after he hath promised to giue the bread which is his flesh for the life of the world and declared what fruite commeth to them that eate his fleshe and drinke his bloude c. in
in thy holie hil He that is innocent of hands of a cleane hart These things we say most deare brethrē that you may al learn out of the new Testament not to cleane to earthly things but to obteine heauenly thinges The precepts therefore beeing discussed are found to be all the same or else scarse any in the Gospel which haue ben said of the prophets The precepts are the same the sacraments are not the same the premises are not the same Let vs see wherfore the praecepts are the same because that according to them we ought to serue god The sacramentes are not the same because they be other sacraments giuing saluation other promising the sauiour The sacramentes of the new Testament do giue saluation the sacramēts of the old Testament promised the sauiour Therefore now that thou holdest the thinges promised what seekest thou things promising the sauiour now hauing him I say holdest the things promised not that we haue already receiued eternall life but because Christe is already come which was foreshewed by the prophets The sacraments are changed they are made easier fewer holsomer Notwithstanding the vain exclamation of M. Hesk. vpon this place except we wil make S. August contrarie to him selfe in the places before alledged we may plainly see how he expoundeth himself in the latter end of this long passage whereof the greatest part might altogether haue ben spared Namely that there is no difference in the substance of our sacramēts frō theirs but the Christ is already come And our sacraments do not giue saluation as though we had eternal life deliuered by them in possession but because Christ the authour of eternal life that in the other was promised is now come Not that grace in them was only promised not giuen for them M. Hesk. own definition of a sacrament should be false wherin he wil not allow any thing that is superfluous much lesse vntrue But M.H. is not content with this interpretation saying that S. Augustine compareth the sacraments of the olde lawe to childrens trifles in the same place Numquid quiniam puero c. Because there are giuen to a childe certein childish playing trifles by which the childish minde is called away are they not therefore plucked out of his hands when he waxeth a great one No more therfore God because he hath plucked away those things as childrens trifles out of the handes of his sonnes by the new Testament that he might giue thē something more proprofitable they beeing now waxed greater is to be thought not to haue giuen those former things Gentle Reader I wish thee to turne ouer to this place in S. Augustine and except thou be too much blinded in affection toward M. Hesk. thou wilt confesse that he hath aduouched a manifest vntruth when thou shalt see that Augustine vttereth not these words of the sacraments of the olde Testament but of the promises of earthly benefites made vnto the Fathers of those times I can say no more conferre and iudge The sixteenth Chapter proceedeth to the next text of S. Paule which is Calix cui Benedi This text which he pretendeth to expound is written in 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which we breake is it not the cōmunion or partaking of the bodie of Christ This text he saith proueth the reall presence and sacrifice And first he will haue no trope or figure to be vnderstoode in this place but the very things themselues with how grosse absurditie it is I referre it to the iudgment of al reasonable Papists that know what a trope meaneth Secondly he saith it is an euil manner of disputation to go about to proue like effectes of vnlike causes Wherein I will agree with him But what vpon this Forsooth then it followeth that as the Iewes of whom S. Paule taketh example were partakers of the altar because they did eate the sacrifices so we are partakers of the bodie bloud of Christ because we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ corporally and not because we eate a peece of bread and drink a litle wine Againe as the Corinthians by eating meate offred to idols were made partakers of idols so the Christians because they did eate the bodie of Christ are made partakers thereof But to discusse this vaine cloude of sophistrie I wil reason vpon his own Maxime like causes haue not vnlike effectes S. Paule saith he would not haue the Corinthians partakers of Diuels by eating meate offered to idols which in effect was offred to diuels As they that were made partakers of Diuels bycause they did eate meat offred to diuels were not partakers of the substance and nature of diuels neither did they eate the substance of diuels no more doth it follow that we eating drinking the bread of thanksgiuing cup of thanksgiuing which are a cōmunication of the bodie and bloud of Christ do corporally eate and drink the bodie bloud of Christ or be made partakers corporally of the nature substance of the bodie bloud of christ The like I say of the altar Now concerning the sacrifice M. Hesk. saith that if S. Paule did not as well take the cup table of the Lord to be a sacrifice as the cup and table of diuels to be a sacrifice as the sacrifices of the Israelites he would not haue vsed like termes but shewed a difference I answer if the sacrament had ben a sacrifice he would haue so called it especially in this place or at least in some other place therefore it is no sacrifice he shewed a sufficient difference when he called the one a sacrifice and not the other Although if I shold grant it to be a sacrifice of thanksgiuing M. Hes. were neuer the neere of his propitiatorie sacrifice But the fathers of Christes Parleament house must be heard to establish this interpretation of M. Hes. and first Chrysost. In 1. Cor. 10. Maximè c. With these wordes he doeth get greatly to him selfe both credite and feare And the meaning of them is this That which is in the cup is the same which flowed one of his side and thereof we are partakers And he called it the cup of blessing because that when we haue it in our handes with admiration and a certeine horror of that vnspeakable gift we prayse him giuing thankes because he hath shed his bloud that we should not remaine in errour Neither hath he onely shed it but made vs all partakers of it Therefore saith he if thou desirest bloud do not sprinkle the altar of idols with the slaughter of bruite beasts but my altar with my bloud What is more maruelous then this Tell me I pray thee wha◠is more amiable This also louers when they see those whom they loue allured with desire of other mens things giue their owne vnto them and counsel them to absteine from these
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
mihi videris esse Non enim corpus solùm sed etiam panis vitae nominatur Ita enim Dominus ipse appellanit Porro autem ipsum corpus Diuinum corpus appellanus viuificum Dominicum docentes non esse commune alicuius hominis sed Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui est Deus homo Orthodoxus Say then the mysticall tokens which are offered to God by the Priestes of God of what thinges sayest thou they are tokens Eran. Of the body bloud of our Lorde Orth. Of that bodie which truely is Or of such a bodie as truely is not Eran. Which truly is Ortho. Very well For it behoueth the patterne to be example of the image For painters doe followe nature and do paint the images of those thinges which are seene Eran. It is true Orth. Then if the Diuine mysteries doe represent that bodie which is a bodie in deede therefore our Lordes bodie is euen nowe also a-bodie not beeing chaunged into his Diuine nature but filled with Diuine glorie Eran. It came well to passe that thou diddest speake of the Diuine mysteries For euen out of the fame will I shewe vnto thee that our Lordes bodie is chaunged into another nature Therefore aunswere vnto my questions Orth. I will answere Eran. What doest thou call the gifte which is offered before the inuocation of the Priest Orth. I may not speake it openly for it is like that some are present that are not admitted to the mysteries Eran. Then answere darkely Orth. That meate which is made of such kinde of seedes Eran. And how doe we cal the other signe Ortho. That is also a common name which signifieth a kinde of drinke Eran. But after sanctification how doest thou call them Ortho. The bodie and bloud of christ Eran. And doest thou beleeue that thou art made partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ Orth. So I beleeue Eran. Therefore euen as the tokens of the bodie and bloud of our Lord are other things before the inuocation of the priest and after the inuocation are changed and made other thinges euen so the Lordes bodie after the assumption is changed into his Diuine substance Orth. Thou art taken with thine owne nets which thou haste made For the mysticall signes after sanctification do not departe from their nature For they remain in their former substance figure and shape they may be both seene and handled euen as before But they are vnderstoode to be those thinges which they are made to be are beleeued reuerenced as those which are the same thinges that they are beleeued to be Compare therefore the image with the examples and thou shalt see the similitude For the figure ought to be like to the trueth For that same bodie hath the former shape and fashion circumscription and to speake at once the substance of a bodie But it is made immortall after his resurrection and more mightie then that any corruption or destruction can befall vnto it and it is made worthie to sit at the right hand of God and is worshipped of euerie creature as that which is called the naturall bodie of our Lorde Eran. But yet the mysticall token changeth the former name For it is no more called that it was called before but it is called the bodie Therefore the trueth also ought to be called God and not a bodie Orth. Thou seemest vnto me to be ignorant For it is not only called the body but also the bread of life For so our Lorde himselfe called it But his very bodie we call a Diuine bodie a quickening and our Lordes bodie teaching that it is not a common bodie of any man but of our Lord Iesus Christ which is both God and man By this discourse of Theodoretus you may see both howe syncerely Maister Heskins hath cited his authoritie and also what the writers minde was both concerning transubstantiation and the carnall manner of presence The authoritie of Anselmus Bishop of Canterburie I passe ouer as I haue done alwayes with Burgesses of the lower house But Maister Heskins affirmeth that the preparation we are commanded to make for the receipt of the sacrament the danger of vnworthie receiuing do argue the reall presence for such preparation and perill should not be for receiuing a peece of bread And if we aunswere that by faith we receiue Christs bodie bloud verily but yet spiritually he will confute vs by that wee affirme the fathers to haue receiued Christ as verily as we doe who yet had not like preparation nor like punishment for vnworthie receiuing For their preparation was onely in outwarde things their punishment onely bodily and temporall But who is so grosse of vnderstanding as M. Heskins that will not acknowledge that the fathers of the olde Testament by that purifying and preparation in bodily things were admonished that inward spiritually purenesse was more necessarie And wheras he sayeth the vnworthie receiuers of those auncient sacraments were punished only with temporal death how often doth those threatenings occurre in the lawe That soule shal be rooted out from my face that soule shall perish from his people he hath broken my couenant c Wil ye make vs beleeue that God threateneth onely a temporall and not an eternall death to the contemners of his ordinances Finally when the same punishment of condemnation remaineth to them that receiue baptisme vnworthily which abydeth them that receiue the Lordes supper vnworthily how will hee proue a reall presence more in the one sacrament then in the other The seuen and fiftieth Chapter expoundeth this text For this cause manie are weake and sicke c. by Origen Saint Ambrose Origen is cited in Psalm 37. Iudicium Dei parui pendis c. Settest thou little by the iudgement of God and despisest thou the church admonishing thee Thou are not afraide to communicate the bodie of Christ comming to the Eucharistie as cleane and pure as though nothing vnworthie were in thee and in all these thou thinkest that thou shalt escape the iudgement of god Thou doest not remember that which is written that for this cause many among you are weake sick many are fallen a sleepe Why are many sicke Because they iudge not them selues neither examine themselues neither do they vnderstand what it is to communicate with the church or what it is to come to so great and so excellent sacraments They suffer that which men that be sicke of agues are wont to suffer when they eat the meates of whole men and so cast away them selues Here Maister Heskins noteth firste that Origen calleth the sacrament in plaine wordes the bodye of Christe therefore it is no breade figure or signe of the bodie of christ Secondly he calleth it mysteries therefore it is two sacraments whole Christ bodie bloud is vnder eche kind Thirdly sicke men sometimes will eate whole mens meate therefore euil men receiue the bodie of christ These be all
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
elementes of our sacraments By which it is manifest that spirituall thinges and not carnall thinges are the substance of our sacraments Nowe to M. Heskins collections He saith that the old sacrifices of the lambe were not figures of the sacrament denying now in one word that he laboured to proue before in 7. Chapters but of the bloudie sacrifice of Christ offered vppon the crosse after the maner of Aaron Concerning the sence of Augustines words let the readers weigh my collection his by Augustines place and by the rest of the Epistle that is of the same matter But marke here once againe that hee maketh the sacrifice of Christs passion a sacrifice after the maner of Aaron and consequeÌ„tly Christ a priest after the maner of Aaron directly contrarie to the scriptures in expresse words Heb. 7. Secondly he vrgeth that which Augustine saith we nowe receiue bloud in the cup by which he wil exclude the distinction of spirituall receiuing But all in vaine except he can conclude that we receiue partem de agni immaculati corpore part of the vndefiled lambes bodie For if the one be spirituall so is the other I am sure the naturall bodie of Christ is not deuided into parts but wee do spiritually receiue nourishmeÌ„t al of one bodie To be short if that which Augustine addeth of spirituall newnes succeeding carnall oldnes were not a sufficient demonstration of a spirituall receiuing I woulde bring other places of Augustine to shewe the same most plainly But the thing being so apparant I will not mistrust the iudgement of any indifferent reader so much as to trouble him with more testimonies which shall better come in where more shewe is for M. Heskins bill But we must passe ouer to Isychius whose wordes are set downe at large in Cap. 24. Leui. The verie number of the loaues doth call vs to a contemplation of the coÌ„mandement So doth the setting forth of theÌ„ that he doth not coÌ„mand theÌ„ to be made a burnt offering as those things which be of the frying pan of the girdiron of the fornace but that they shold be set on the table one ouer against an other that it shold be lawful only for the priestes to eat of theÌ„ not for the Leuites so that they also must eate theÌ„ in a holy place And also that they are called holie of holies vnderstand what is said for the Lord shall giue thee vnderstanding remember the mysticall table of which it is commaunded that none should beginne except the intelligible Aaron that is Christe For he began it first excepte also his sonnes which by him are made Christes and haue put on him which yet they are commaunded to eate in a holie place And hee is that holy of holies that they may haue a principall and vndespised sanctification These loaues of two tenthes for they are of God and man of the same being perfect in both are set sixe ouer against sixe The mysticall supper is set here and it is set in the worlde to come Sixe loaues are one proposition or setting foorth as the mysterie it seâ—fe is perfecte and maketh them that enioye it perfecte And in sixe dayes this visible creature was made and the sixt day man was made for whome Christe prepared his mysticall table But yet altogether are rightlie twelue loaues because the Apostles that were twelue in number first supped at the Lordes table Here is an allegoricall interpretation of the shewe breade to signifie the Lordes supper but that proueth it not a prefiguration of the sacrament For there is great difference betweene an allegory and a figure of a thing to come But to the poynte of the bill here is nothing for the carnall presence but somewhat against it First where hee saith that the Christians whom allegorically he calleth the sonnes of the intelligible Aaron induti sunt eo haue put on him meaning they are baptised for as manie as are baptised in him haue put him on But they haue put on him onely spiritually therefore they are commaunded to eate him onely spiritually Secondly the twelue loaues whiche signifieth the bodie of Christ signifieth the twelue Apostles also which mystically were his bodie by which you may see hee speaketh of no carnall presence Thirdly he calleth it a mysterie and a mysticall supper which will not stande with M. Heskins corporal collectioÌ„s No more wil that which he addeth That it is a cleane table first as making cleane secondly as hauing no lies or infectioÌ„ such as are in the misteries of the pagaÌ„s Where it is to be laughed at that he will proue a corporal presence because it cleanseth sinnes for then shal we haue the same presence in baptisme and the Papistes in holie water which they affirme to clense sinnes also But it is a per se that Isychius addeth Moreouer extolling his glorie and aduauncing the dignitie of this mysterie into an height he addeth it is the holie of holies of the Lordes sacrifices for a perpetuall lawe Therefore prayer is holie the reading of holie scripture is holie and the hearing of the interpretation thereof to be short all things that are done and sayed in the Church of God according to the lawe are holie But the holie of holies of the Lordes sacrifice of all things that are offered and done to his glorie is the table which Christ setteth forth of his owne sacrifice Here is a great commendation of that mysticall Table which Christ hath set forth of the sacrifice of his death which no man doubteth to be moste holie in the right vse thereof and in respect of him that feedeth vs with his bodie and bloud at that table But what is all this to the corporall and carnall presence But M. Heskins woulde finde a contradiction in the wordes of Oecolampadius in that he sayeth the bread is sanctified and yet it hath no holinesse in it whereas that holie man speaketh plainly and distinctly that it is sanctified and doth sanctifie in the right vse of it not in the nature of it self The foure twentieth Chapter applying the continuall reseruation of the Shew bread to the reseruation of the sacrament proueth the same reseruatioÌ„ by the olde fathers by the perpetual practisâ— of the Church That the sacrament of some was reserued in the elder dayes of the Church it is not so great a controuersie as whether it ought to bee reserued by the institution of Christe Neither is the simple reseruation one of the proclaymers articles as M. Heskins saith but whether it should be hanged vp in a Canopie for an ydol as the Papistes vse it As for reseruation how slenderly it is proued by him we shall see by examination of his witnesses For as touching his application thereof vnto the reseruation of the shewe breade because it is but his owne iudgement I will not vouchsafe to aunswere it otherwise then to denye it to be of any force to proue his purpose His first witnesse
hee and the Counsell forgot his first rule For they doing as much as they had either example or commaundement of Christes institution by his owne rule were in this respect blamelesse But he addeth that they in the Counsell alledged the Masse of Saint Iames and Basil which is vtterly false for they alledged but the manner of celebration of the mysticall sacrifice set foorth by them and no Popish Masse Whether Saint Iames did set foorth any such forme of celebration I will not here dispute but I am sure there were many thinges intituled to the Apostles euen while they liued that were but counterfet and so I thinke was this for else it had bene Canonicall scripture and the Churche would not or should not haue chaÌ„ged S. Iames his Masse for Gregories Masse nor Basil nor Chrysostome should haue needed to haue made any newe liturgye if they had bene certaine that the olde had had the Apostles for their authours and inditers But M. Heskins triumpheth vpon the old vsage of the Primitiue Churche for mixing water with their wine which we in our celebration obserue not neither is it any matter that we striue for but against the necessitie of water in the wine TheÌ„ he cauelleth against M. Iewel For punishing a Minister of his Dyocesse that ministred the Communion with Ale whereas he him selfe doth worse like the high Priestes that made no conscience to condemne Christ but a great matter iâ— was with them to put the price of his betraying in the tresurie c. Where note that ministring with wine onely which was Christes institution is called of him our tradition The thirde manner of doing he diuideth into two kindes When the substaunce being kept some circumstance is altered or some ceremonie added for decencie But reseruatioÌ„ is no meare circumstance of time place or persons nor yet an indifferent ceremonie but contrarie to the substance of the institution and the coÌ„mandement of christ For the sacrament was ordeined only to be eaten and dronken wherevnto reseruation is contrarie so was it commaunded to be receiued therefore ought not to bee reserued hanged vp worshipped c. And as M. Heskins will ioyne issue so wil I demurre in law with him and all his fellowes that Popish reseruation is contrarie to the end of the institution and commaundement of Christe and nothing like those matters of circumstance wherewith he compareth it of morning euening fasting after supper number of persons or difference of sexe or any of those kindes Therefore he him selfe saith The Protestants argument of negatiue is eluded but neuer a whâ—t answered or auoyded The seuen and twentith Chapter answering other arguments obiections of the proclamer In the beginning of this Chapter whereas the Bishops challenge was of hanging vp the sacramente vnder a canopie meaning reseruation and setting it vp for idolatrous worshipping for which M. Heskins hath no color in antiquitie he woulde inforce him to vnderstande his challeng of simple reseruation or for other vses theÌ„ adoration as to be caried to the sicke or such as coulde not be present c. And first he pleadeth possession of nine hundreth yeares out of which hee shoulde not bee put without reason but as good a lawyer as hee is he muste know that nowe a writ of right being brought against him prescription of possession will not serue him But hee wil giue colour to the plaintife and apply the reason vsed agaynste priuate masse by the proclamer to see if it will serue against reseruation That it is the commaundement of Christ Doe this that is to say practise this that I haue here done and that in such forme and sorte as you haue sâ—ene mee doe it This exposition hee refuseth as false concerning the manner and forme Affirming that the commaundement extendeth no further but to the receiuing of his bodie and bloud as the substance wherevppon the memoriall shoulde be grounded without any charge giuen of the manner and the forme And for proofe of this exposition hee citeth S. Hieronyme Chrysostome Euthymius Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Cardinalis all whiche in deede affirme that wee are commaunded to celebrate the remembrance of his passion but none of them exclude the manner and forme of celebration from the commaundement Howe â—oudenly hath M. Heskins forgotten the strong clubbe of his Logike whereby hee did euen now beate downe the proclaymers negatiue argumentes but now againe they are the best he canne occupie him selfe Hieronyme Chrysostome and the rest speake not of the manner and forme of celebration therefore there is no necessarie forme to bee obserued as commaunded by Christ. But as the proclamer hath no authoritie for his expsition so M. Heskins will bring good reasoÌ„ against it to proue it false First he will graunt that the primitiue Church for fiue or sixe hâ—ndreth yeares after Christ did minister the sacramentes purely and without the breach of Christes commaundement Hee will grant for the substance but not that they continued so long without abuse The assumption of this proposition is that the Masses vsed in the primitiue Church varied from Christes institution As for example the Masses of S. Iames Basil Chrysostome Ambrose differed ech from other and all from Christes institution in forme and manner It pleaseth him to call the olde liturgies or formes of ministration vsed in diuerse Churches masses the diuersitie hee meaneth is in formes of prayers and circumstances concerning which Christe gaue no commandement and therfore they are contrarie to his institution The seconde reason is of the proclamers owne practise who in celebration of this sacrameÌ„t vseth other time other kinde of breade other garmentes other number of communicantes then Christe did But none of these are the forme or matter of the sacrament and so they touch not the substance But eating and drinking is of the substantiall forme of the sacrament and the end of the consecration of the creatures of breade and wine to the vse of that holy mysterie against which not eating is contradiction and so reseruation is a plaine contradiction of the commaundemente of Christ. An other reason hee hath of admitting an vnworthie person as Christ did Iudas which is for all that a matter of question and yet nothing to the purpose if hee were admitted For Christe knewe him by his diuine nature before he chose him to bee an Apostle but in as much as Iudas was an hypocrite before he was reueled to the iudgement of man hee was not to be refused To be short the substance of the sacrament is not only the heauenly matter thereof as M. Heskins dreameth but also the earthly matter and the fourme also As for circumstances and accidentes that touch neither the forme nor matter they are to bee applyed to edification order decencie Cyprian and the fathers in his time and long time after what reason did they vse to confute them that ministred with water mylke clusters of grapes dipping of bread and linnen cloathes in
the 58. verse he concludeth and sayeth plainly that it is the same breade that came downe from heauen and that who so eateth of this breade shall liue eternally Secondly that the promise of giuing his flesh is not to be restrayned to the giuing of the sacrament his wordes are plaine that he will giue his fleshe for the life of the worlde which all true Christians will acknowledge to haue beene perfourmed in the sacrifice of his death and not at his last supper Finally that his flesh must not bee separated from his spirit nor his spirit from his flesh he doth as plainly teach vs when he affirmeth that it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing that except we eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud we haue no life in vs For neither the flesh profiteth but as it is made quickening by the spirite neither do we participate the life of his spirite but as it is communicated vnto vs by his fleshe by which we are made fleshe of his fleshe and bone of his bone which holie mysterie is liuely represented vnto vs in the blessed sacrament And this your aduersaries confesse Maister Heskins not denying as you charge them that any one worde of that Chapter perteineth to the sacrament but affirming the sacrament to bee a seale of the doctrine which is deliuered in that Chapter and not otherwise The iudgement of the olde writers consonant to this vnderstanding shall followe afterwarde in confutation of M. Heskins vngodly and hereticall distinction not of the two natures in Christ but of participation of the one without the other which hee maketh by his two last breades The thirde Chapter proueth by the doctours that the sixt of S. Iohn speaketh as well of the bread Christes fleshe in the sacrament as of the bread his godhead Chrysostom is alledged in Ioan 6. Hom. 44. Iam in mysteriorum c. Nowe will he come to the setting forth of the mysteryes and first of his godhead he sayeth thus I am the breade of life this was not spoken of his bodie of which about the ende he sayeth The breade which I will giue is my flesh but as yet of his godhead for that is bread because of God the worde euen as this bread because of the spirite comming to it is made heauenly breade Maister Heskins asketh if we do not here plainely see a distinction of breades I answere no forsooth but a distinction of two natures in one breade Againe he asketh Doth not nowe the sixt of S. Iohn speake of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament I aunswere that no such thing appeareth by these wordes of Chrysostome otherwise then as the sacrament is a liuely representation of that his bodie which he gaue for the life of the world And that Chrysostome meaneth not to diuide Christe into two breades as M. Heskins doth he teacheth speaking of the same mysterie of his coniunction with vs by his fleshe Hom. 45. Vester ego frater esse volui communicaui carnem propter vos sanguinem per quae vobis coniunctus sum ea rursus vobis exhibui I would be your brother and so I tooke parte of fleshe and bloud for you and the same things I haue giuen you againe by which I was ioyned vnto you So that not the godhead of Christ alone nor his flesh alone is giuen vs as two breades but Christ by his flesh is ioyned vnto vs as one bread of life Let vs nowe see what S. Augustine sayeth who expounding the same text writeth thus Our Lorde determineth consequently howe he calleth him selfe bread not onely after his godhead which feedeth all things but also after his humaine nature which is assumpted of the worde of God when he sayeth afterwarde And the bread which I will giue is my flesh c. Once againe M. Heskins asketh whether Augustine teach not a plaine difference of the bread of the Godhead of Christe and the bread of his manhood And once againe I aunswer not so but he teacheth directly the contratie namely Christe God and man to be one breade and not two breades And that the doctrine of this Chapter is not to be restrained vnto the sacrament the same Augustine in the same place teacheth abundantly while hee maketh no mention of the Lordes supper vntill he come to the ende and then sheweth that the mysterie of this fleshe and bloud is represented in the supper when it is celebrated of the Church in remembrance of his death passiō Huius rei sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis sanguinis Christi alicubi quotidie alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Dominica mensa praeparatur de mensa Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit The sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ in some places euery day in other some at certeine space of dayes betweene is prepared in the Lordes table and is taken at the Lordes table of some vnto life of some vnto to destruction But the thing it selfe whose sacrament it is to all men is to life and to no man for destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker thereof Note here also the distinction betweene the sacrament and the thing wherof it is a sacrament and that the sacrament may be receiued to destruction but not the thing or matter of the sacrament which is the bodie and bloud of Christ. To these Barones he wil ioyne two Burgesses and the first shal be Theophylact one of them which he sayeth is well towarde a thousand yeare olde Hee woulde fayne get him credite by his antiquitie but he ouer reacheth too farre to make him so auncient which cometh nerer to fiue hundred then to a thousande yeares But let vs consider his speache in 6 Ioan. he writeth thus Manifestè c. He speaketh manifestly in this place of the communion of his bodie For the bread sayeth he which I will giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world And shewing his power that not as a seruant nor as one lesse them his father he should be crucified but voluntarily he sayeth I will giue my flesh for the life of the world Note sayth M. Hesk. that Christ spake manifestly of the communion of his bodie Who doubteth or denyeth that but that he spake not of the communion of his bodie which we receiue in the sacramēt Note saye I that Theophylact speaketh manifestly of his crucifying and nor of the communion in the sacrament After this he interlaceth a fond excourse of the authoritie of the later writers whome he affirmeth and wee confesse to haue written plainly of his side whereas hee sayeth the olde writers did write obscurely and then he taxeth Bullinger for alledging Zwinglius whome he slaundereth to haue
be shed for you vnto remission of sinnes This place is falsly truncatly cited by M. Hesk. thus Quem paneÌ„ etsi fractum coÌ„minutumque vidimus integer tamen cum ipso suo patre manet in coelis De quo pane dicit panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita Which he Englisheth thus which bread although we haue seen brokeÌ„ brused on the crosse yet it abideth with that his father whole in heauen of the which bread he saith c. Wheras the very wordes are quem panem etsi fractum comminunumque vidimus in passione integer tamen mansit in illa sua indiuidua vnitate De isto pane de isto calice dicebat ipse Dominus Panis quem ego dedero caro 〈◊〉 est pro saeculi vita c. Although this writer as it is manifest to any man that will reade his treatise speaketh onely of the vnitie of the Godhead of Christ with his Father and the holy Ghoste notwithstanding the breaking of his body in his passion which is represented in the sacrament yet M. Heskins vpon his owne falsification inferreth that the body of Christ was and is in three sundrie places on the Table or Altar on the Crosse and in heauen with his father Yea he appealeth to the grammarian for the nature of a Relatiue That the same bread is on the table which was broken on the crosse and that which was broken on the crosse is it which is whole sitting in heauen Which how vaine a reason it is when it is vrged of that thing which hath two natures vnited in one person as our Sauiour Christ hath I appeale from all grammarians to al Catholike diuines as in the saying of Christ no man hath ascended into heauen but he that came downe from heauen euen the sonne of man which is in heauen Ioan 9. Let M. Hesk. with the graÌ„marian vrge the relatiue in this place he shal proue him selfe both an Anabaptist a Marcionist For Christ coÌ„cerning his humanitie came not down out of heauen neither was he in heauen according to his humanity when he was on the earth But what stand we trifling about this testimonie Seeing Augustine both in the interpetation of this whole chapter is so copious vpon the Psal. 98. in exposition of this text is so plain direct against the carnal presens of Christs body in the sacrament Nisi quis c. acceperunt illud stulte carnâ—liter illud cogitauerunt putaâ—eruÌ„t quòd praecifurus esset Dominus particulas quas daÌ„ de corpore suo daturus illis c. I lle auteÌ„ instruxit eos ait illic spiritus est qui vinificat caro auteÌ„ nihil predest Verba quae loquatuâ— suÌ„ vobis spiritus est vita Spiritualiter intelligite quae loquatus sum Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent sacramentum aliquod vobis commendati spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos â–ª â—t si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen inuisibiliter intelligi Except a man eate the flesh c. They tooke it folishly they imagined it carnally and thought that our Lorde would haue cut off certaine peeces of his 〈◊〉 and haue giuen them c. But he instructed them and 〈◊〉 vnto them It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life Vnderstand you spiritually that which I haue spoken You shall not eate this body which you see and drinke this bloud which they shall shed which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a certaine sacrament or mysterie which beeing spiritually vnderstoode shall quicken you Although it is necessarie that the same be celebrated visibly yet must it be vnderstood inuisibly Likewise In 6. Ioan. Tr. 27. Illi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille autem dixit se ascensurum in Coelum vtique integrum Cum videatis filium hominis ascendentem vbi erat priùs certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum certè vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus He speaketh plainely if they will vnderstand him For they thought that he would giue his body but he said that he wold ascend whole into heauen WheÌ„ you shal see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was before surely then at the least you shall see that hee giueth not his body after that maner that you think surely then at the length you shall vnderstand that his grace is not coÌ„sumed with bitings If these places were not most manifest euen to the first eye that looketh vpon them I might spend time in obseruing and noting out of them We come nowe to Chrysostome who in his 45. Hom. in Ioan. vpon those wordes The bread which I will giue is my flesh saith The Iewes that time tooke no profite of those sayings but we haue taken the profite of the benefite Wherefore it is necessarily to be saide howe woonderfull the mysteries be and wherefore they were giuen and what profite there is of them And immediatly after We are one body and members of his flesh and of his bones and yet more plainely And that we might be conuerted into that flesh not onely by loue but also in deede it is brought to passe by the meat which he hath graunted vnto vs. He addeth also an other cause of the giuing of this mysterie When hee would shewe foorth his loue toward vs hee ioyned him selfe 〈…〉 his body and brought him selfe into one with vs that the 〈◊〉 might be vnited with the head Finally he adioyneth a plaine place for the proclamer I would be your brother and for your sakes I tooke flesh and bloud with you and by what things I was conioyned vnto you those things againe I haue giuen vnto you Here he triumpheth as though the game were his when in deede there is nothing for his purpose but much against it For no one word of all these sentences proueth that the sixt of Iohn must be vnderstoode of the supper otherwise then as it is a sacrament of that feeding and coniunction of vs with Christ which is therein described And wheras he argueth vpoÌ„ the last sentence Christ gaue vs that flesh by which he was ioined to vs but he was ioyned to vs by very substantiall flesh therfore he gaue vs his very substantiall flesh I confesse it to bee most true for he gaue his very substantiall flesh to be crucified for vs If he vrge that he gaue his flesh in that sacrament although Chrysostome saith not so in this place directly yet the manner of the participation of his flesh must be such as is the maner of his coniunction with vs but that is spiritual by which he is the head and we the members and yet vnited
is my fleshe which I will giue for the life of the worlde Thou seest howe by little and little he more and more openeth him selfe and doeth set foorth this wonderfull mysterie Hee saide hee was the liuing and quickening breade which shoulde make the partakers of it without corruption and giue them immortalitie Nowe he saith his fleshe is that breade which hee will giue for the life of the worlde and by which hee will quicken vs that are partakers of the same for truely the quickening nature of the WORD beeing ioyned to it by that vnspeakeable manner of vnion maketh it quickening and therefore this flesh doth quicken them that are partakers of it For it casteth foorth death from them and vtterly expelleth destruction Maister Heskins alledgeth two reasons to proue that Cyrillus speaketh of the sacrament and neither of both worth a strawe First bicause he calleth it a woonderfull mysterie as though the incarnation of Christ whereof he speaketh expresly were not a woonderfull mysterie Secondly By that he saith the flesh of Christe giueth life to the partakers For the proper partaking of Christes flesh is in the receiuing of this holy sacrament As though we are not partakers of Christes flesh by faith according to that saying of Augustine vpon the same place Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie Beleeue and thou hast eaten c. you see it is a poore helpe that he hath out of Cyrillus when hee speaketh neuer a woorde for his cause nor of his cause The seuenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact and Lyra. A short aunswere shall serue this Chapter these two Burgesses of the lower house being late writers speake fauourably for Maister Heskins bill But their authoritie is so small that wee make none account of their speach seeing not onely many in the lower house haue spoken against it but all the whole vpper house is manifestly contrarie vnto it And whereas hee chargeth Oecolampadius for adding this worde tantùm onely in his translation of Theophylact I doubt not but Oecolampadius followed either a truer copie or a better reason then Maister Heskins in so many additions detractions and falsifications of Doctors which hee hath vsed in this worke Finally where he chargeth the aduersaries with cauilling and slaundering when they say that Popish Priestes make God he himselfe slaundereth his aduersaries for we haue learned of their owne writers namely of S. Bonauentura that a Priest is creator sui creatori◠the creator of his creator and that Christ is his prisoner on the altar The eyght Chapter declareth by whose authoritie and power the sacrament is consecrated Christes bodie made present As though such blasphemous speaches as I haue touched imediatly before had neuer ben vttered by Papists M. Heskins stomaketh the matter rayleth throughout this Chapter against his aduersarie for charging the priests with such arrogancie as though they tooke vpon them to make god Nowe concerning the purpose of the Chapter we agree that God no man Christ and not the minister doth consecrate the sacrament and make Christes bodie and bloud to be present I might therefore passe ouer his authorities but that out of some of them he gathereth also his corporall presence transubstantiation The first is Damascen De Orth. Fid. Lib. 4. Ca. 14. If thou aske now how the bread is made the bodie of Christ and the wine and water the bloud of Christ I also answere thee The holy Ghost euer shadoweth and worketh these things aboue speech and vnderstanding The bread and wine are transsumed This place Maister Heskins noteth for a plaine place both for the presence and for transubstantiation If it were as plain as he would haue it yet is Damascen but a Burgesse of the lower house out of the compasse of the challenge But whatsoeuer his opinion was of the presence certaine it is that he knew not transubstantiation which the Greekes long after did not acknowledge And though we take the word of transuming for changing turning transmuting or transelementing which wordes the olde writers doe sometimes vse yet meane they not chaunge of one substance into another but of the nature and propertie of the foode to be chaunged from corporall to spirituall and not otherwise Next followeth Chrysostome in 2 Tim. Ho. 2. Volo quiddam c. I will adde a certeine thing plainely wonderfull and maruell ye not neither be you troubled And what is this The holy oblation whether Peter or Paul or a Priest of any maner of life do offer it is euen the same which Christ gaue vnto his disciples and which the priestes do now make This hath nothing lesse then that Why so because men do not sanctifie it but Christ which had hallowed it before For as the wordes which Christ spake are the same which the priests do now pronoūce so also is the oblation Here M. Hesk. cutteth of the taile of this sentence for Chrysostoms wordes are Ita oblatio eadem est eademque baptismi ratio est adoe omnia in fide consistunt So the oblation is the same and the same reason is of baptisme so all thinges consist in faith Marke here that M. Heskins conceleth that the change and consecration is the same that is in baptisme and the thing is receiued onely by faith as in baptisme And nothing else meaneth Chrysostome in the seconde place by M. Heskins cited Hom. 30. de prod The same Christ is nowe present which did beutifie that table hee doth also consecrate this For it is not man which by consecration doeth make the thinges set foorth on the table the bodie and bloude of our Lorde but euen Christ which was crucified for vs The wordes are spoken by the mouth of the Prieste but by the power grace of God they are consecrated This is saith hee my bodye with this worde the thinges set foorth are consecrated Here we must note that Christ maketh the bread and wine his bodie and bloude Wee acknowledge he doth so for the faith of the worthy receiuer as in the former sentence it is manifest Nowe commeth S. Ambrose De benedict Patr. c. 9. Who is then rische but he in whome is the depth of wisdome and knowledge This rich man then is the treasure of this fatte breade which who shall eate he cannot hunger This breade he gaue to his Apostles that they should deuide it to the beleeuing people And now hee giueth the same to vs which hee beeing the Priest doeth consecrate with his owne wordes This bread then is made the meate of the Sainctes Here againe M. Heskins cutteth off that which liketh him not for it followeth Possumus ipsium Dominum accipere qui suā carnem nobis dedit Sicut ipse ait ego sunt panis vitae Ille enim accipit qui scipsum probat qui autem accipit non moritur peccatoris morte quia
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
the body of Christe by Origens owne wordes and therefore the proclamer sayde truely that wee receiue Christe none otherwise in the sacrament then the Iewes did in Manna concerning the substaunce of the spirituall meat And Maister Heskins saith falsely That we excell the Iewes for our incorporation in Christ and therefore receiue him corporally as though the Iewes also were not incorporated into Christe and were not liuely members of his body in as great excellencie as we yea and with a prerogatiue of the first begotten and of the naturall oliue wherein wee are inferiour The place of Ambrose hee cyteth Lib. 9. cap. 1. De sacramentis Sicus verus est Deifilius Dominus noster Iesus Christus c. As our Lorde Iesus Christe is the true sonne of God not as men by grace but as a sonne of the substance of his father euen so it is true flesh which we receiue as he him selfe saith and very drinke This is noted for an other plaine place for the proclamer as though the proclamer did not graunt that we receiue the true flesh and bloud of Christe in the sacrament but spiritually and by faith not carnally nor transubstantiated But Ambrose is the best expounder of him selfe who in the 6. booke and Chap. 1. De sacramentis hath these wordes Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis sacramentum sed verae naturae gratiam virtutémque consequeris Therefore least more should say this as though there were a certaine horrour of bloud but that the grace of redemption might remaine therefore thou receiuest the sacrament truely for a similitude but thou obtainest the grace and vertue of his true nature By which Ambrose expresseth the whole substaunce of the sacrament that it is a similitude of the body and bloud of Christe but not a similitude onely but such a one as by which we receiue the grace and power of that true nature which is resembled by it This place would satisfie a sober minde but a froward heart will admit no wisedome The nineteenth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Eusebius Emiss and S. Augustine Eusebius is cyted out of Hom. 5. pasch Quia corpus assumptum c. Bicause hee would take his assumpted body from our eyes and bring it into heauen it was necessarie that in the day of his supper he should consecraâ—â— vnto vs a sacrament of his body and bloud that it might be celebrated continually by a mysterie which was offered for our price that bicause the daily and vnwearied redemption did runne for the health of all men the oblation of the redemption might be perpetuall and that eternall sacrifice should liue in memorie and that true onely and perfect sacrifice should be present in grace to be esteemed by faith not by shewe neither to be iudged by outward sight but by inward affection Wherevpon the heauenly authoritie confirmeth that my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede This sentence being directly against him as euery man that readeth it may easily perceiue he is neither ashamed to alledge it hauing nothing to gather out of it for his purpose nor yet that is worse most breastly to corrupt it by false translation and wrong distinction or pointing committing that childish sophisticatioÌ„ which is called ab accentu For where the Latine is Et perennis victima illa viueret in memoria semper prÄ™sens esset in gratia vera vnica perfecta hostia fide aestimanda non specie c. hee hath dismembred it by this translation And that perpetuall sacrifice should liue in memorie and alway be present in grace A TRVE ONE ONLY AND PERFECT SACRIFICE to be esteemed by faith and not by outward forme c. And al bicause he would not acknowledge the presence of Christ that onely true sacrifice by grace which is absent in the bodie as the purpose of Eusebius is to shewe And therfore those words that follow are to be vnderstoode by them that goe before Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie therefore departe seeing hee that is the Authour of the gift is also witnesse of the trueth For the inuisible priest with his worde by secrete power conuerteth the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie and bloud The former sentence sufficiently declareth that he speaketh of a spiritual and not a carnall conuersion because his body which is absent from vs and carried into heauen is present with vs by grace and not otherwise Saint Augustine is cyted Tr. 26. in Ioan Cum enim cibo potu c. For as much as men by meate and drinke do this desire â–ª that they should neither hunger nor thirst nothing perfourmeth this truely but this meate and drinke which maketh them of whom it is receiued immortall and incoâ—â—uptible that is the fellowship of the Saints where peace shal be full and perfect vnitie For therefore truely as the men of God haue vnderstoode it before vs our Lord Iesus Christ commended his bodie and bloud in those thinges which of many are brought to one certein thing For the one is made into one of many graynes so consisteth the other coÌ„meth into one of many grapes Because this sentence is clean contrarie to the carnal presence transubstantiation you must cal to remeÌ„brance the glose of a certeine blind Authour that there be three things in the sacrament to be considered The first the sacrament only which is a signe of an holy thing and that is the forme of bread The second the thing signified conteined that is the very bodie of christ The third is signified but not conteined that is the mysticall bodie of christ But this balde distinction is so farre of Augustines minde that he cleane ouerthroweth two partes of it First the carnall presence of Christes bodie conteined when he affirmeth that this meate maketh them of whome it is receiued immortall and incorruptible whiche are onely them that receiue it by faith for if it were conteined wicked men should also receiue it but they receiue it not therefore it is not conteined Secondly he ouerthroweth transubstantiation when he saith that Christe commended his bodie in such thinges as are made one of many as one bread of many graines and one wine of many grapes For the fourme by which Heskins meaneth the accidents of bread is made neither of graynes nor of grapes Therfore the fourme of Bread is none of those things in which Christ commended his body and bloud But when nothing is in Augustine then the collections of Prosper must helpe on this manner Hoc est quod dicimus c. This it is which we say which by al meanes we labour to approue that the sacrifice of the Church is made by two meanes and consisteth of two thinges the visible kinde of the elementes and the inuisible fleshe and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe
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
and Sauiour doe worke For this sacrament which thou reciuest is made with the worde of Christ. And againe Thou hast read of all the workes of the worlde that he saide they were made be commanded and they were created Therefore the worde of Christ which could of nothing make that which was not can it not change those thinges that are into that they are not For it is no lesse thing to giue newe natures to thinges then to chaunge natures Hitherto you haue heard Ambrose speaking earnestly for a change of nature in the sacrament now heare him expound it in the same place for a spirituall change Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus moâ—m ante benedictionem verborum coelestium aliâ— species nominatur post consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aâ—ud dicitur post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur It was the verie fleshe of Christ which was crucified which was buried therefore this is truely a sacrament of that flesh our Lord Iesus crieth out saying This is my bodie Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after the consecration the bodie of Christ is signified He himselfe saith it is his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud And in the same place againe In illo sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritualiâ— est In that sacrament Christ is because the bodie of Christe is Therefore it is not corporall meate but spirituall meate Wel then the bread is chaunged from the nature of coÌ„mon bread to be a true sacrament of the bodie of Christ wherby Christ his bodie is signified and to be spiritual meate and this is the change and conuersion he speaketh of and nor the Popish transubstantiatioÌ„ Next is alledged Chrysostome Hom. 83. in Matth. Non sunt c. These are not the works of mans power he that then in that supper made these things he also now worketh he performeth them We holde the order of ministers but it is he which doth sanctifie and change these things Here is a change or transmutatioÌ„ but no word of the maner of the chaunge therfore it maketh nothing for Popish transubstantiation and this place hath beene more then once answered before by Chrysost. authoritie After him he citeth Cyrillus ad Colosirium in these words Vâ—uificatiâ—â—em c. The quickening WORDE of God vniting himselfe to his own flesh made that also quickning How when the life of God is in vs the WORD of God being in vs shall our bodie also be able to giue life But it is an other thing for vs to haue the sonne of God in vs after the manner of participation and an other thing the same to haue beene made flesh that is to haue made the bodie which he tooke of the blessed virgin his owne bodie Therefore it was meete that he should be after a certeine manner vnited to our bodies by his holie flesh precious bloud which we receiue in the quickening blessing in bread and wine For least we should abhorre fleshe and bloud set vpon the holie altars God condescending to our fragilities inspireth to the thinges offered the powre of life turning them into the trueth of his owne flesh that the bodie of life may be found in vs all certeine seede giuing life Here Maister Heskins in his translation cleane leaueth out Quodammodo after a certeine manner Christe is vnited to our bodies by the sacrament and so is this chaunge made after a spirituall manner for otherwise this place is directly against transubstantiation where he saith we receiue the flesh and bloud of Christ in bread and wine Euthymius is the next In Matth 26. Quemadmodum c. As he did supernaturally Deifie as I may so say his assumpted flesh so he doeth also vnspeakably chaunge these thinges into his quickening bodie and his precious bloud and into the grace of them When he saith the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of his bodie and bloud it is easie to vnderstand that he meaneth a spirituall chaunge and the last clause is an exposition of the former they are chaunged into the bodie and bloud of CHRISTE that is into the grace of them Remugius followeth 1. Cor. Cap. 10. The fleshe whiche the worde of God the father tooke vpon him in the wombe of the virgin in vnitie of his person and the breade which is consecrated in the Church are one bodie of Christe for as that flesh is the body of Christ so this bread passeth into the bodie of Christe neither are they two bodies but one bodie He meaneth that the bread is a sacrament of the very and onely true bodie of Christ otherwise his antiquitie is not so great to purchase him authoritie but as a Burgesse of the lower house what so euer he speake The rest that remaine although I might well expound their sayings so as they should not make for Popish transubstantiation which the Greeke Church did not receiue yet beeing late writers out of the compasse as Damascen Theophylact Paschasius I omit them But of all these doctors M. Heskins gathereth that it is a maruelous and wonderfull worke that is wrought in this chaunge of the sacramentall bread and wine therefore he would proue it caÌ„ not be into a bare token or figure but it may well be into a spirituall meate to feede vs into eternall life which is a wonderful and great work of God as likewise that the washing of the bodie in baptisme should be the washing of the soule from sinne And therfore be saith very lewdly that the institution of sacramental signes as the Pascall lambe and such like is no wonderfull worke of God and as fondly compareth he the institution of sacramentes with bare signes and tokens of remembrance as the twelue stones in Iordane c. And yet more lewdly with the superstitious bread vsed to be giuen to the Cathechumeni in Saint Augustines time that had no institution of god Finally touching the determination and authoritie of the late Laterane counsell for transubstantiation as we doe not esteeme it beeing contrarie to the worde of God so I haue in the first booke shewed what a grosse errour it committed in falsification of a text of scripture out of Saint Iohns Gospell The two and fiftieth Chapter openeth the minds of S. Basil S. Ambrose vpon the wordes of Christ. Basil is cited Quaest. comp explic qu. 17â— In aunswere to this question with what feate what faith or assured certeintie and with what affection the bodie and bloud of of Christ should be receiued Timorem docet c. The Apostle teacheth vs the feare saying He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his own damnation but the credite
be all of one body which is true so wee vnderstand a spirituall kinde of coniunction by which wee are not only ioyned to Christ as Chrysostome saith but also one to an other in one body Secondly that it is the body of Christ by the eating whereof we are made one body and this also is true for we contend not for the eating of Christes body but for the manner of eating The third note I thinke hee maketh that by Chrysostomes iudgement Saint Paule meant not materiall breade but the body of Christe which is proued to bee false and absurde by these two reasons First if Saint Chrysostome by breade meant not the sacramentall breade but the body of Christe then his question is nothing else in effect but what is the body of Christe And then he answereth the body of Christe which is very absurde and ridiculous Secondly that he meaneth materiall breade vsed in the sacrament it is manifest in that hee saith it is made of many graines but the body of Christe it not made of graines therefore hee can not meane the body of Christe but the sacramentall breade which signifieth the body of Christe But here Maister Heskins as though hee were the first that espied the matter insulteth vpon him that translateth this part of Chrysostome which was Franciscus Aretinus whom either of ignoraÌ„ce or of malice he chargeth to haue falsified Chrysostome and in steede of his wordes which according to the Greeke are What is the bread to haue turned it What doth the bread signifie For my part although the Greeke copies coÌ„monly extant in print are not as he hath translated it yet I suppose that he followed either some other copy that I haue not seene peraduenture printed peraduenturâ— written For vndoutedly although he were ignorantly or willfully deceiued yet the sense of Chrysostomes words must needes be what doth the bread signifie which M. Heskins can not altogether dissemble but then he will haue it not materiall bread but the word bread But how friuolous that is I haue shewed before for this worde Breade is not made of cornes but the materiall bread giuen in the sacrament Neither doth the other worde hee citeth any thing helpe him Non enim simpliciter c. For hee hath not simplie giuen his body but when the former nature of the flesh formed out of the earth by sinne being made mortall was forsaken of life he brought in an other as I might so say lumpe or leauen that is his flesh in nature truely the same but free from sinne and ful of life which he giueth to all that they might be made partakers of it that being nourished with it and the first that was dead being cast away we might be ioyned together by this liuing immortall table Loe saith M. Heskins this is not a peece of dead breade but a liuing and immortall meate hee dare not say table as Chrysostome doth for feare of a figure But is he so blinde that he seeth not the partaking and nourishing of the newe flesh to be such as the casting away of the olde is which no man doubteth to be spirituall But seeing he braggeth so much of Chrysostome and is such an enimie to signes and figures let him heare what he writeth in Math. Hom. 83. Sed ficut in veteri eodem hâ—c modo in beneficio reliquit memoriam mysteriorum colligendo hinc haereticorum ora frenando Nam quando dicunt vnde patet immolatum Christum fuisse alia multa mysteriae Haec enim adferentes eorum ora consuimus Si enim mortuus Iesus non est cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est Vides quancum ei studium fuerit vt semper memoria tentamus pro nobis ipsum mortuum fuisse But as in the olde Paschal â–ª euen likewise here in this benefite hee hath left the memorie of the mysteries by gathering and hereof bridling the mouthes of heretikes For when they say howe is it knowne that Christ was sacrificed and many other mysteries For when we bring foorth those things we soe vp their mouthes For if Iesus be not dead of whom is this sacrifice a token and signe Thou seest howe great care he had that we might alwayes keepe in remembrance that he dyed for vs. There can nothing be spoken more plainly to declare either what the sacrament is or for what end it was ordained or finally what manner of sacrifice it is accounted of Chrysostome and the auncient Fathers But nowe followeth S. Augustine Ser. 2. Pasc. Quia Christus passus est c. Bicause Christ hath suffered for vs he hath commended vnto vs his body and his bloud in this sacrament which also he hath made our owne selues For we also are made his body and by his mercy we are that which we receiue I like this saying very well it maketh altogether for the truth on our side Yet M. Heskins noteth that he saith not he hath commended a figure or memoriall but his body and his bloud I agree well but hee saith that hee hath commended his body and bloud in a sacrament hee doth not say the sacrament is his naturall body present vnder the formes of bread and wine corporally that I may followe M. Heskins negatiue argument But especially let vs note what he saith and not what hee saith not He saith we are the same that we receiue but we are not his naturall body after a corporall manner therfore wee receiue not his naturall body after a corporall manner The rest that followeth to moue vs to abide in this body of Christ confirmeth the same Dic mihi quid est c. Tell me what is it whereof thou liuest Doth thy spirite liue by thy body or thy body by thy spirite Euery one that liueth aunswereth I liue by my spirite And he that can not answere this I knowe not whether he liueth What answereth euery one that liueth My body truely liueth by my spirite Wilt thou therefore liue by the spirite of Christ Be thou in the body of christ For whether doth my body liue of thy spirite Mine liueth of my spirit and thine liueth of thy spirit The bodie of Christ can not liue but by the spirit of christ Hereof it is that the Apostle Paul expounding this bread One bread saith he we are one body All men see that this writer speaketh of our mysticall and spirituall coniunction with Christe neither can M. Heskins him selfe make any other thing of it The fiue and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Damascene and Haimo Maister Heskins store is farre spent and therefore he maketh much of the remnants Damascene and Haimo we haue before diuers times excepted against as vnlawful witnesses and therefore we will spend no time in examining their sayings But whereas Maister Heskins maketh great ado in this Chapter of our coniunction with Christ both in soule and body we knowe it and doe reioyce in it but for any
thing that he saith or all the Papistes in the world it is not necessarie that Christs body should be eaten with our mouth after a corporall manner that we may haue coniunction with his body For then infants which eate not the sacrament should want a necessarie manner of the coniunction of their bodies with the body of Christe and so be out of hope of resurrection The places of Cyrill that hee citeth in 6. Ioan. Cap. 14. be cited before the one Lib. 2. Cap. 17. the other Lib. 2. Cap. 34. where they are answered Then followeth a discourse to proue that communion or fellowship ought not to be had with heretiques which is very true and therefore not to bee had with Papistes the greatest heretiques that are After the saying of Haimo rehearsed hee is angrie with vs that we will reiect his authoritie being as he saith neare a thousand yeares of age but surely in some Chronicles that I haue read he is an English man generall or prouinciall of Friers preachers and I am sure there was neuer a Dominike Frier in the world one thousand yeares after Christe and they that make him oldest make him to be 840. yeares since christ The parcell of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. wherevnto he would compare his Haimo is rehearsed more at large Lib. 1. Cap. 18. and that of Cyrill Cap. 15. in 6. Ioan. The sixe and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by S. Cyrill and S. Thomas Cyrill whom vnfitly he matcheth with Thomas of Aquine is cited in 17. Ioan. Cum trinitas vnum natura sit c. For as much as the Trinitie in nature is one let vs consider how we our selues also among our selues corporally and with God spiritually are one The only begotten sonne comming out of the substance of God his father and possessing in his nature the whole father was made flesh according to the scriptures and hath vnspeakably ioyned and vnited himselfe to our nature For he that is God by nature is made man in deede not Theophorus that is hauing God in him by grace as they that are ignorant of the mysterie do contend but he is both very God and very man So he hath ioyned together in him selfe that is one those things which according to nature differ very much among them selues and hath made vs partakers of the diuine nature For the communication of the spirite and as I may say the dwelling was first in Christ and from him hath perced into vs when being made man he him selfe annoynted and sanctified his temple with his owne spirite The beginning therefore and the way by which we are made partakers of the holy spirite and are vnited to God is the mysterie of christ For we are all sanctified in him Therfore that he might vnite euery one beetwene our selues God although we be asunder both in body and soul yet he hath found out ae meane agreeable to the counsel of his father his own wisdom For blessing the beleuers by the mystical communion by his body he hath made vs one body both with himself and also among our selues For who shall thinke them straunge from this naturall vnion which by the vnion of one holy body are vnited in one Christe For if we all eate one bread we are all made one body For Christe suffereth vs not to be diuided and disioyned Therefore all the Church is made the body of Christ and euery one of vs the members of Christe after S. Paule for being conioyned to one Christ by his body bicause wee haue receiued him in vs which is indiuisible our members be rather appropriated to him then to vs. Concerning the vnitie of God the father with the sonne of the two natures of God and man in Christ and of the vnitie of the members of Christ with their head which M. Hesk. noteth out of this place of Cyril it shall be no neede to speake seeing there is no controuersie betweene vs but that these three vnities be there Only of the maner how we be vnited is the difference We are vnited to the body of Christ but whether by eating the same with our mouthes or by faith through the vnspeakable working of Gods spirite is all the question All the holde he catcheth of this place is that Cyrill calleth it a naturall vnion as he doth also in the same place a corporall vnion by which he meaneth not that we are vnited after a naturall manner or after a bodily manner but that we are vnited vnto the very humane nature and body of Christ but after an heauenly and diuine manner For thus it followeth in the same place I meane in Lib. 11. Cap. 26. of Cyrill vpon the 17. of Iohn which M. Hesk. note booke belike did not serue him to set downe Quod autem corporalis haec vnio ad Christum participatione carnis eius acquiritur ipse rursus Paulus de mysterio pietatis differens testatur quod alijs inquit generationibus non est agnitum filijs hominum sicut nunc reuelatum est sanctis apostolis eius prophetis in spiritu esse gentes cohaeredes concorpores comparticipes promissionis in Christo. Si autem omnes inter nos in Christo vnum sumus corpus nec inter nos solùm verùum etiam cum eo qui per carnem suam ad nos transiuit quomodo vniuersi inter nos in Christ vnum non erimus And that this corporall vnion vnto Christ is obtained by participation of his flesh Paule him selfe againe doth testifie disputing of the mysterie of godlinesse which in other ages saith he was not knowen to the sonnes of men as it is nowe reuealed to his holy Apostles and Prophetes in the spirite that the Gentiles should be coheires and of the same body and compartners of the promise in Christe If then we be all one body among our selues in Christe and not among our selues only but also with him which by his flesh is come vnto vs howe shall we not be all one both among our selues and in Christe This place of Paule by which the faithfull of the Gentiles are saide to be made one body with the faithfull of the Iewes speaketh nothing of eating of the body of Christe in the sacrament but of the spirituall incorporation by faith in the promises of the Gospell nowe made common vnto the Gentiles with the Iewes whereof the sacrament is not a bare signe but a liuely and effectuall seale and confirmation Moreouer the same Cyrill in the same booke Cap. 22. in 17. IoaÌ„ writeth thus Nihil ergo mali accidere vobis potest aiâ— si carne alfueâ—o cum deitatis incae potestas quÄ™e vos huc vsque seruauit in posterum etiam seruatura fit HÄ™c non ideo dicimus quia Domini corpuâ— non magni aestimemus sed quia mirabiles hos effectus gloriae denoâ—is attribuendos pat amus Nam ipsum etiam Domini corpus coniuâ—cti virtue
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
the Papistes say that men may eat Christ which doe not beleeue at all And it is a very childish sophisme out of which M. Heskins woulde gather that if to eate be to beleeue and it be not lawfull for the Iewes to eate Christe it is not lawfull for them to beleeue in christ For continuing in Iudaisme they can no more beleeue in Christ then they can eate the flesh of Christe But contrariwise by their doctrine if the sacrament be giuen to a Iewe that is no Christian yet he eateth the body of Christ as he that beleeueth in Christe The testimonie of Theophylact although it make little for M. Hesk. yet as alwayes before so nowe at the last I will refuse to examine bicause I will not yeeld to his authoritie he being a late writer But M. Hesk. noteth vpon the Apostles words We haue an altar that the Church hath but one altar which is the body of Christ and that is very true of the true Catholique Church but the hereticall and schismaticall Church of Rome hath many thousand altars which they can not say are all one altar although they cauill that their infinite multitudes of hostes are one sacrifice of Christes body Therefore the Church of Rome is not the Catholique Church of Christe by his owne reason And the saying of Hierome which he citeth Lib 2. in Hose Cap. 8. and wresteth against vs doth very aptly condemne him selfe and his felow Papistes for heretiques Vnum esse altare c. The Apostle teacheth that there is in the Church but one altar and one faith one baptisme which the heretiques forsaking haue set vp to themselues many altars not to appease God but to increase the multitude of sinnes therefore they are not worthie to receiue the lawes of God seeing they haue despised them which they haue receiued before And if they shall speake any thing out of the scriptures it is not to be compared to the words of God but to the senses of Ethnikes These men do offer many sacrifices and eate the flesh of them forsaking the only sacrifice of Christ nor eating his flesh â–ª whose flesh is the meat of the beleeuers whatsoeuer they do counterfeting the order and custom of the sacrifices whether they giue almes whether they promise chastitie whether they counterfet humilitie and with feigned flatterings deceiue simple persons the Lord will receiue nothing of such sacrifices We forsake not the only sacrifice of Christ once offred but our whole trust is in the merits of that sacrifice therefore we set vp no newe altars The Papistes set vp an other sacrifice and therefore other altars If our allegation interpretation of the scriptures may not be warranted by the spirite of God iudging in the same scriptures by other textes that are plaine and euident we desire not that any man shall receiue them as the Papistes doe whatsoeuer the Popish Church doth define though it be contrarie to the expresse word of god And although wee admitte not that grosse and carnall manner of Christes body in that sacrament that they doe hold yet do we eate the flesh of Christ verily after that maner which the Papistes themselues do confesse to be the only profitable eating thereof namely that which is spirituall What our workes be I referre them to the iudgement of God wee boast not of them And although fasting for merite bee iustly punishable by statute yet godly and Christian fasting is not cleane exiled out of our Church though not so often perhaps vsed as meere it were it should Our doctrine of fasting is sound and agreeable to the word of God and therefore we dare iustifie it our doing wee will not iustifie nor excuse our faultes but humbly submitte our selues to his iudgement who knoweth our hearts of whome we craue pardon for our offences and grace to keepe his commandements But now to conclude this matter I will produce one testimonie of Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome which I thinke shuld be of great weight with al Papists if they giue in deed such reuerence either to that See or to antiquitie as they pretend And thus he writeth Cont. Eusychet Certè sacrameÌ„ta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi diuina res est propter quod per eadeÌ„ diuinÄ™ efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia natura panis vini â–ª Et certè imago vel similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysterioruÌ„ celebratur Satis ergo nobis euidenter osteÌ„ditur hoc in ipso Domino Christo sentienduÌ„ quod in eius imagine ê“fitemur celebramus sumimê° vt sicut hÄ™c in diuinaÌ„ traÌ„ feuÌ„t spiritu sancto ê‘ficiente substantiaÌ„ ê‘manent tamen in suÄ™ ê“prietate naturae sic illud ipsuÌ„ mysteriuÌ„ principale cuius nobis officientiaÌ„ veritatemque veraciter reprÄ™sentat ex ijs quibus conflat propriè permanentibus vnuÌ„ ChristuÌ„ quoniam integruÌ„ veruÌ„que permanere demonstret Certainly the sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing therefore by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet the substance nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be And surely an image or similitude of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries Therfore it is shewed vnto vs euidently ynough that we must iudge the same thing euen in our Lord Christ him selfe which we professe celebrate receiue in that which is an image of him that as by the working of the holy Ghost they passe into a diuine substance yet abide stil in the propertie of their owne nature euen so the same principal mysterie doth shew that one Christ abideth whole and true whose efficiencie truth it doth truly represent vnto vs those thinges of which he consisteth properly still remaining Thou seest gentle reader that this auncient Bishop of Rome first doth vtterly ouerthrowe transubstantiation when he saith that the substance nature of the bread wine do remaine still in the sacraments although they be a diuine thing Secondly that he excludeth the carnall maner of presence when he saith we celebrate receiue an image and similitude of the body bloud of Christ in the sacraments lastly that he aduoucheth the spiritual diuine maner of presence of Christ when he saith that the sacrameÌ„ts are turned into a diuine substance which he meaneth not of the substance of the deitie but of the heauenly wonderful manner of presence by which Christ vouchsafeth to giue vnto his faithfull members his very body and bloud in a mysterie And that the Church of Rome in much later times did not acknowledge this carnall presence it shal appeare euen out of the Popes own Canon law euen in the decrees De Consecrat distinct 2. Cap. Hoc est Coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo nominatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentuÌ„
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
seconde faultes are falsly found for he nameth neither Idoluâ— nor Latria but this compound worde idolatrie and maketh this proposition To honour a creature in that forte c. is idolatrie Meaning whether the creature be an image or no image As to worship the Sunne or the Moone is idolatrie which be creatures and so tearmed by all learned men and euen by the Papistes themselues which call the worshipping of an vnconsecrated host idolatrie The third fault is also a forged quarrell for he doeth not presuppose that we may set vp no creature to be worshipped but he saith to honour a creature in that sorte that is with religious worship as it is set vp to be worshipped is idolatrie And therefore M. Sanders imagination of a king set vp in his throne to be honoured of certeine men that had rebelled against him is foolishe and ridiculous For the Bishop in his proposition speaketh of religious worship which is proper onely to God and not of ciuill honour The fourth fault also is a fonde quarrelling or rather an vngodly denying of an image to be a creature For by this meanes he maketh a thirde thing existent in the world that is neither God the creator nor a creature but he saith it is a manufacture and not a creature like as he said before that their worshipping of Images is not idolatrie but image douly that is seruing of images whiche is all one as if a man would say a horse is a beast therefore it is not a substance So he may deny a man to be a creature because he is a geniture that is a thing begotten But perhaps he will allowe all thinges made of God or nature to be creatures but nothing made of man so that a table or chaire a sword c. are no creatures because they are made with mens handes What then wil he cal a tree that is graffed with mens handes and groweth by nature also Those he highe pointes of Diuinitie I promise you But to the purpose there is neither substance nor forme of any thing in the worlde but it is a creature therefore both in respect of the matter and fashion an Image is a creature except you will say with the Master of the sentences Lib. 3. dist 37. that the forme of an Image in that it is set vp to be worshipped is no creature but a peruersion of a creature as all sinne is And least you shoulde take exceptions to my traÌ„slating of Idolum for an Image he speaketh of the forme of a man in Idolo which is no faigned thing but a thing of trueth But to cut of all this vaine babling that an Image is no creature the Apostle S. Paule speaking of the Images of the Gentiles by which they turned the glory of God into the similitude of the Image of a mortal man c. calleth Images creaturs And they serued the creature more then the Creator which is to be blessed for euer Rom. 1. vers 23. 25. But hee faineth an obiection of M. Iewelles that an Image is lesse then a creature and therefore it deserueth lesse honour then a creature Whereas M. Iewell said an Image is a creature But he answereth his owne obiection that because an Image is able to stir vs vp to a vertuous and good remembraunce and to prouoke vs to vertue it is worthie of greater honour then a creature As though we ought not by any immediate creature of god to be stirred vp to good remembraunces and prouoked to vertue rather then by an vnprofitable dead and dumbe Image And who will graunt him that an Image is able to stirre vs vp to goodnesse or to prouoke vs to vertue wheÌ„ an Image as the scripture saith is good for nothing Abacuc 2. But admitte that men by the sight of an Image take occasion of good remembraunce the Image in this case is no agent and therefore worthie of no honour A man seeinge the gallowes which is a signe of execution of Iustice is mooued to remember Iustice which is a good remembraunce and is thereby prouoked to absteine from vice and to liue vertuously is the gallowes therefore worthie of honour I thinke not because the gallowes is no agent or doer in those good things but onely the minde of man that taketh occasion of that he seeth No more doeth an image and therefore no more worthy of honor But Augustine saith De verb. Dom. Ser. 58 Si quis nostrum c. If anye of vs should finde the kings purple or crowne lying a side woulde he go about to worship them But when the king hath them on him he runneth in danger of death if any man contemne to worship them together with the king So saieth M.S. the Image is to be honored in respect of the truth whose similitude it beareth A wise similitude First he compareth ciuil worship with religious worshippe as he doeth euery where Secondly that which is reuerenced necessarily because it is annexed with an honourable thinge with that which is not annexed for God may be worshipped without images the king caÌ„not be worshipped with out his robes reseruing humane naturall honestye Thirdly that which is accidentally worshipped as the kings crowne his purple c. Because the king wearinge them is worshipped is alledged to prooue that a proper worship is due to images distinct from the worship due to the paterne or sampler But of religious worship Augustine saith Nihil omnino colendum est totumque abijciendum quicquid mortalibus â—culis cernitur quicquid vllus sensus attingit Nothing is to be worshipped at all and all that is to be cast away whatsoeuer is seene with mortall eyes what soeuer any sense doth atteine And to take away all cauilling he addeth in his RetractatioÌ„s quicquid mortalis corporis vllus sensus attingit â–ª est enim sensus mensis Whatsoeuer any sense of the mortall body doth atteine for there is a sense of the minde lib. Retr 1. cap. I. Likewise that the signes are to bee worshipped for that they signifie he saith it is a madnesse in ps 101. Talis est enim dementia hominum quasi adorandum aliquid dicatur cum decitur Sol-Christum significaâ— Adora ergo petram quia Christum significat Such is the madnesse of men as though it were saide that any such thinge were to be worshipped when it is saide The sunne signifieth Christ then worshippe a rocke also because the rocke signifieth christ Last of all M. Sander â—aith supposinge an image to be lesse then a creature the baser it is the lesse daunger there is that it shoulde bee worshipped as God as Chrysostome saith therefore men are called in scripture the sonnes and Images of God and not Angels because there is lesse daunger in worshipping men for their basenes thaÌ„ Angels for their excellency But he might conclude the baseâ— Images are the more horrible sinne is the worshippinge of them For the basenesse of men hath not kept them from
is so truely honourable as those who continued to the end of their life according to that image of GOD wherevnto they were first made such are all the Saintes Setting the question of images aside see howe he honoureth the Saintes with the dishonour of the redemption of Christ which was needlesse to them if they continued in the image of God in which they were first made The Apostle witnesseth that by Christe we are restored vnto the image of God from whom by sinne we are fallen Coll. 3. ver 10. For to say that any man hath cōtinued according to the image of God to his liues end is to say that he neuer sinned Furthermore he saith their images are made in the faith of Gods church A wholsome faith which is cōtrarie to Gods word yea he concludeth there is no doubt but by the force of Gods word we are bound to honour Saints images bicause thei are made according to the shape of them in that behalfe as they were most like vnto god First where is that worde of God M. San by whose force we are bound You seeme to be an anthropomorphite when you say that Saintes images are made according to the shape of them in that behalfe as they were most like vnto god For the images of Saints when they are best made are made but according to the shape of their bodies And were the Saints most like to God in the shape of their bodies O brutish heretique But let vs see an other conclusion in this Popish proportion Our Ladies image approcheth neerer to hir in nature then she doth approch to God therefore her image must be more honored for her sake then she her selfe for Gods sake By the former proposition we must learne that the man which made our Ladies image is able to make a truer image thē God who made our Ladie to his image For to compare the substances of the images is nothing to the purpose to shew the excellencie of the images as you your selfe M. San. in your Metaphysicall abstractions haue taught vs For an image of stone being like to a man is a better image then one of golde being not like to him I say a better image not a better matter And will you now compare the matter of our Ladies image for so you cal her as liker in nature to her substance then her substance is to God to proue her image in it more to be honoured then the image of God in her Truly if you be so insensible that you see not that grosnesse of this falshod I am ashamed in respect of that Vniuersitie which gaue you the title of a Doctour not worthie with these arguments to step out of the schooles of the sophisters Last of al you reason thus the image of God in vs may be dimned darkned insomuch that men haue ben worshipped as Gods but our Ladies artificial image being onely knowne or called by the name of her shape and image can neuer be principally worshipped as our Lady her selfe You play the sophister too foolishly for no more can a man so long as hee is knowne and called by the name of the image similitude of God b◠principally worshipped as God him selfe But that name forgotten man hath bene worshipped as God so hath the image of our Ladie bearing the name of our Ladie bene worshipped as her selfe or rather as GOd him selfe neither hath the insensiblenesse of images defended them from daunger of being worshipped as God. An other testimonie of scripture that Pope Adrian citeth is Gen. 28. of the stone which Iacob set vp right for a monument or standing image saith M. San. and powred oyle vpon it and called the name of the place Bethel that is the house of god Therefore we may set vp images and honour them a substantial reason For make as mysticall interpretations as you can of the stone to signifie Christe the oyle the spirituall vnction of the holy Ghost yet was it no image but a signe or monument erected in remembrance of the vision by a speciall instinct of Gods spirite which when the Israelites would drawe into an example of wilworship erecting a temple there and setting vp an image thereon the place was called of the Prophetes Bethauen that is the house of vanitie and not Bethel the house of god O see the 4.5 10. Chapter And whereas Augustine noteth that although he called the stone Gods house yet hee worshipped not the stone neither sacrificed to the stone nor called it God You thinke to escape by aunswering that no more doe you adore images of stone with godly honour or with any honour for the stones sake But Augustine denyeth that he resorted afterward to it that he adored the stone with any honor at al or in any respect or that he did any thing like to idolatrie but you adore the image of Christ cal it Christe and goe a pilgrimage to it therefore Iacobs example can not shrowd you from idolatrie For although the annoynting of the stone were a consecration of it to be a holy monument by a speciall direction of Gods spirite yet it followeth not that it was any adoration of the stone or that euery man may set vp and annoynt stones after that manner which hath no such warrant of Gods worde or his spirite And that God chose one place aboue another for his honour it proueth not that men may choose one stocke aboue another to make an idoll thereof or an image to worship as you had rather call it The thirde text of scripture is that Iacob adored the toppe of Iosephs rodde or scepter Heb. 11. Which Sedulius saith did mystically betoken the kingdome of Christ to be honoured in the end of the worlde as he adored the rodde or scepter of his sonne Yet is there here no image honoured Nay here is not the toppe of Iosephe◠scepter honoured out of the scripture For the Hebrue text is He worshipped toward the bedshead Gene. 47. vers 31. And the Greeke text Heb. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he worshipped toward the end of his staffe or leaning vppon the end of his staffe So that neither in the Hebrue nor Greeke there is any worshipping of the staffe or scepter of Ioseph The 4. text of scripture God appearing to Moses bad him pull off his shooes for the place where he stoode was holy ground The presence of God made the ground-holie What then Therefore an image appointed to bring vs to the remembraunce of holie thinges may be holy honoured I denie the argument where is the presence of God in the image to make it holie The 5. Dauid honoured the Arke and daunced before it The Arke was a holie sacrament ordeined by God therefore hath he nothing to do with images forbidden of God. The 6. God cōmandeth the brasen serpent to be made Nu. 21. Shewe the like speciall commaundement to dispense with the general lawe Thou shalt not make
to be in on place thē it were time to proue the contrarie Howe I praye you Because of the nature of a substance which occupieth no place Is this the philosophie of Louaine No maruaile if Ramus reproue Aristotle in Logike when Rastell will set not him onely but all the phylosophers that euer were and nature it self to schole and tell them that it is the nature of a substance to occupie no place whiche is as muche to saye as to bee no where and as Augustine saith that which is no where is nothing at all and so by Master Rastels profound physical philosophie it is the nature of a substaunce which al other men affirme to containe all thinges to be nothing at all But for a further resolution he sayeth Christe is in the sacrament not as in a place locally but as vnder forme of breade substantially For before hee hath defined a substaunce to bee in no place I woulde hee coulde holde him at this definition of Christes presence If I shoulde reason with him of the nine maners of inesse or beinge in a thinge and aske him after whiche of them Christe is in the sacramente perhappes hee woulde reiect that distribution as sophistical and vnworthy of his learned answere But Christe sayeth hee is in the Sacrament not as in place locally then saye I a man poyntinge to the pyxe hanginge ouer the altar in whiche the consecrated cake is muste saye if hee saye truely Christe is not there lykewise poyntinge to the same holden vppe at the sacringe carryed in procession or wheresoeuer hee seeth it muste likewise beleeue and saye Christ is not there For I am sure he being a Master in all the seuen liberall Arts is not so ignorant in grammer but he will confesse this word there to be an aduerb of place not so forgetful of logike but that he remembreth what the Predicament Vbi meaneth And to say the trueth if the papistes coulde be content with such modest termes as the scripture teacheth that the bodie of Christ is receiued of the faithfull in the sacrament after a wonderfull and mysticall maner there needed neither these fond questions nor any so bitter contention about the sacrament of vnitie But that they will make an idoll of the Lords supper and a bayte to satisfie their ambition couetousnes ▪ licentiousnesse by the sale of their masses applying of their merites these grosse and monstrous absurdities had neuer beene defended The contentions of the schoole doctours he forceth not vpon so long as the Church agreeth But can your church agree M. Rast. when the doctours thereof dissent If any difference of opinion be betweene Luther and Zuinglius you crye out of our dissention If your Church may agree within it selfe notwithstanding the infinite brawlings between the Thomists and Scotists Albertists Occanists about smal matters as you say because all those agree in the chiefest pointes of poperie I pray you let there be vnitie in our churche notwithstan-the teachers vary in some matters not of greatest momēt agreeing in all necessarie articles of Christian religion And if Holcot lye in saying a man may merite by worshipping the deuil and yet be a popish catholike Let Luther erre in defending the carnall presence and yet bee good christian catholike And if your churche bee not chargeable with Holcots lye why shoulde our churche beare the blame of Luthers error As for your excuse of Holcots lye by the schoole distinction of a thing done materially formally wherein you shew a high point of learning with your example of worshippinge of Luther being a diuell in forme of a doctor I say it is wholesome diuinitie to iustifie all superstition Mahometrie and Idolatrie in the world not onely to be excusable but also to be meritorious SECTIO 33. From the first face of the 103. leafe to the 104. leafe Where the Bishop saide hee was vnwilling to spende time in discouering the misteries of Popish learning but that the importunitie of Papistes boasting as though all learning were on their side enforceth him Maister Rastell more like a parasite to prouoke his popishe readers to laugh then a man either of wisedome or honestie scoffeth rayleth on him calling him a bench wistler rather thē a preacher But of both their learnings let the worlde iudge SECTIO 34. From the 104. leafe to the 111. in which he taketh on him to defende the vanitie of Popish arguments vsed by papists vnder colour of similitudes and allusions The Bishop discouereth this reason of Pope Innocent the thirde God made two lightes the Sunne and the Moone therefore the Pope is so much aboue the Emperour as the Sunne is aboue the Moone Maister Rastell being angrie at this discouery saith it is no mystery nor argument of strength yet was it vsed by the Popes holynes which cannot erre But the Church hath stronger arguments for proofe of this conclusion First saith Maister Rastell that there be two states spirituall and temperall it is proued by other reasons and the first reason he vseth to proue the state spirituall is much like that of the Popes whiche hee excuseth Psal. 44 ▪ and In steede of thy fathers there are sonnes borne vnto thee meaning saith he the Apostles and bishopps and their successours them shalt thou appoint princes and rulers ouer all the whole earth As though none were the sonnes of the Church but the Apostles Bishoppes and their successors and as though the Prophete spake of temperall rule in this life and not of a spiritual kingdome and inheritance of all the worlde which is common to all the faithfull after this life But to omitte that which is not in controuersie of two states in the worlde and the excellencye in spirituall thinges of the ministery of the Churche aboue the office of princes yet who will either graunt that the ministery is simply superiour to the King or Emperour so that the ministers are not his subiectes or that the Pope in any respect ought to haue any dignitie as a minister of the gospell whiche hee disdaineth to preach Another defence of this pontificall argument is that it was a sweete and misticall allusion in his familiare letters to the Emperour In deede greate familyaritie hee had with the Emperours of his time with whome hee was in continuall discorde Last of all like a blasphemous Dogge hee compareth it with the argument vsed by S. Paule for the couering of womens heades taken of nature it selfe whiche though it will not satisfie a contentious person whome nothing will satisfie yet is it sufficient and stronge ynough to proue what naturall comlynesse requireth in that case where as this of the Pope hath no shadowe of reason in it For all the rest of those argumentes rehearsed by the Bishop he maketh that generall reason that their Church hath no custome to contende for them yet haue they a custome to burne men for refusing such thinges as they are not able to contende