in one very substantiall flesh therefore the manner of participation of his flesh in the sacrament is also spirituall and not carnall Maister Heskins reiecteth this participation to bee the fruition of the benefites of his body and bloud crucified bycause that saith hee is common to all the sacraments and not proper to this But that the substaunce of all sacramentes is one and the difference is in the manner of dispensation of them wee haue shewed sufficiently in the first booke which were tedious nowe to repeate Wherefore we must now set downe what Chrysostome speaketh of the bloud of Christe This bloud maketh that the kinges image doth flourish in vs This bloud doth neuer suffer the beautie and nobilitie of the soule which it doth alwayes water and nourish to fade or waxe faint For bloud is not made of meate soudenly but first it is a certaine other thing But this bloud at the first doth water the soule and indue it with a certaine great strength This mysticall bloud driueth diuelles farre off and allureth Angels and the Lorde of Angels vnto vs For when the diuelles see the Lordes bloud in vs they are turned to flight but the Angels runne foorth vnto vs This bloud being shed did wash the whole world whereof Paule to the Hebrues doth make a long proces This bloud did purge the secrete places and the most holy place of all If then the figure of it had so great power in the temple of the Hebrues and in Aegypt beeing sprinkled vpon the vpper postes of the doores much more the veritie This bloud did signifie the golden altar Without this bloud the chiefe priest durst not goe into the inward secret places This bloud made the priestes This bloud in the figure purged sinnes in which if it had so great force if death so feared the shadowe how much I pray thee will it feare the truth it selfe This bloud is the health of our soules with this bloud our soule is washed with it she is decked with it she is kindled This bloud maketh our minde cleerer then the fire more shining then golde The effusion of this bloud made heauen open Truely the mysteries of the Church are woonderfull the holy treasure house is woonderfull From Paradise a spring did runne from thence sensible waters did flowe from this table commeth out a spring which powreth foorth spirituall flouds Chrysostome in these wordes doth extoll the excellencie of the bloud of Christe shed vpon the crosse the mysterie whereof is celebrated and giuen to vs in the sacrament and therefore hee saith it is Mysticus sanguis mysticall bloud which wee receiue in the sacrament which word Mysticall M. Heskins a common falsarie hath left out in his translation to deceiue the vnlearned reader Hee laboureth much to proue that Chrysostome spake in this long sentence of that sacrament which is needlesse for as he spake of the sacrament so spake he of the passion of Christe and of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the olde lawe and all vnder one name of bloud By which it is more then manifest that hee vseth the name of bloud figuratiuely and ambiguously therefore nothing can bee gathered thereout to fortifie M. Heskins bill of the naturall bloud of Christ to be in the challice The honourable titles of the sacrament proue no transubstantiation nor carnal presence in this sacramēt more then in the other The same Chrysostome vpon Cap. 9. ad Heb. Hom. 16. sheweth howe the bloud of Christ that purged the old sacrifices is the same which is giuen vs in the sacrament of the new testament Non enim corporalis erat mundatio sed spiritualis sanguis spiritualis Quomodo hoc Noune ex corpore manauis Ex corpore quidem sed a spiritu sancto Hoc vos sanguine non Moses sed Christus aspersit per verbum quod dictum est Hic est sanguis noui testamenti in remissionem peccarorum For that was no corporall cleansing but spirituall and it was spirituall bloud Howe so Did it not flowe out of his body It did in deede flowe out of his body but from the holy spirit Not Moses but Christe did sprinkle you with this bloud by that worde which was spoken This is the bloud of the newe testament for the remission of sinnes Thus let Chrysostome expound him selfe touching the mysticall or spirituall bloud of Christe which both was offered in the old sacrifices and nowe feedeth vs in the sacrament if it were in the olde sacrifices naturally present then is it so nowe if the vertue onely was effectuall so is it also to vs and no neede of transubstantiation or carnall presence The sixt Chapter proceedeth in the opening of the vnderstāding of the same text of S. Iohn by Beda and Cyrillus Although Beda our countriman were far out of the compasse of 600. yeres and so vnfitly matched with Cyrillus a Lord of the higher house yet speaketh he nothing for the corporal presence of Christes body in the sacrament but directly against it His words vpon this text of Saint Iohn are these Hunc panem Dominus dedit c. This bread our Lord gaue when he deliuered the ministerie of his body and bloud vnto his disciples when he offered him selfe to his father on the altar of the crosse And where he saith for the life of the world we may not vnderstand it for the elementes but for men that are signified by the name of the worlde In these wordes Beda according to the custome of the olde writers and the doctrine of the Church of Englande in his time and long after calleth the sacrament the mysterie of the body bloud of Christ and not otherwise Yet M. Heskins pythely doth gather that as he calleth the flesh of Christ on the crosse breade and yet it is verie flesh so the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament is called bread yet it is verie flesh Alas this is such a poore begginge of that in question videlicet that the fleshe of Christ is in the sacrament according to his grosse meaning that I am ashamed to heare it Why might he not rather reason thus the fleshe of Christe on the crosse is called bread and yet it is not naturally bread euen so the bread of the sacrament is called flesh yet it is not naturall fleshe It is plaine that breade in that texte of Iohn is taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode and so the flesh and bloud of Christ on the crosse is our food and the same is communicated to our faith in the sacrament Cyrillus in 6. Ioan. by M. Heskins alledged speaketh neuer a worde either of the sacrament or of Christes corporall presence therein Antiquus ille panis c. The old bread was onely a figure an image and a shadowe neither did it giue to the corruptible bodie any thing but a corruptible nutriment for a little time But I am that liuing and quickening breade for euer And the breade which I will giue
in the beginning of the sentence that it is a meate to nourish the soule and not for the bodie to receiue neither receiued but where it nourisheth the soule And that ouerthroweth the corporall manner of eating The one and twentieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by Chrysostome and Lyra. Chrysostome is cited Hom. 46. in Ioan. The same wordes almoste that were before ascribed to Euthymius who borrowed them of Chrysostome Quid autem c. But what meaneth this saying my fleshe is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede Either that he is the true meate whiche saueth the soule or that he might confirme them in that he said before least they should thinke he spake darkely in parables If this be spoken of the fleshe of Christe in the sacrament then none receiue the flesh of Christ in the sacrament but they whose soules are saued but many receiue the sacrament whose soules are not saued therefore this is not spoken of the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament Ye but are ye aduised that this is a plaine place for M Iewel that these words My fleshe is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in is no figuratiue speeche Let it be as plaine as you will it must be meate in deede and drinke in deede to feede our soules and that must needes be spiritually for our soules cannot eate carnally As for Lyra a late Popishe writer I haue often protested that I will not stay vpon his authoritie let him be on M. Heskins side The two and twentieth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by S. Cyrill and Dionyse S. Cyrill is alledged Lib. 4. Cap. 16. in Ioan. Vmbram figuram nosti c. Knowest thou the shadowe and the figure Learne the very truth of the thing For my flesh saith he is meate indeed and my bloud is drinke in deede Againe he maketh a distinction betweene the mystical benediction and manna the streames of water out of the rocke and the communication of the holie cuppe that they should not more esteeme the miracle of manna but rather receiue him which is the giuer of the heauenly bread and of eternall life For the nourishment of Manna brought not eternall life but a short remedie of hunger Therefore it was not the true meate But the holie bodie of Christ is a meate nourishing vnto immortalitie eternall life Also that water out of the rocke easied bodily thirst for a short time neither brought it any thing beside Therfore it was not that true drinke but the bloud of Christ by which death is vtterly ouerthrowen and destroyed is the true drinke For it is not the bloud of a man simply but of him which being ioyned vnto a natural life is become life Because M. Heskins cannot tell what to gather out of this place for his purpose he taketh vp yesterdayes colde ashes of the authorities cited before by light of them to wrest this place to his purpose but all remaineth still darke and dyme for his intent Of the excellencie of the fleshe and bloud of Christe aboue Manna the water as they were corporal foode there is neither doubt nor question nor yet that the same is eaten in the sacrament of the faithfull but whether it be eaten corporally or spiritually is all the question And Dionyse the Charterhouse Monke whome he matcheth vndiscretely with Cyrill denieth also that the body of Christ is receiued corporally in the sacrament Verè est cibus animae non corporis quia non visibiliter nec corporaliter sumitur quamuis verum corpus sumatur It is meate in deede but of the soule not of the bodie because it is not receiued visibly nor corporally although the very body be receiued So that the Papistes them selues do not al agree of the maner of receiuing In this Chapter beside these two expositors are also cited Augustine Chrysostome Augustine in Saint Prosper to auouch the phrase of formes of bread and wine Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in sacramento accipimus sanguis eius est quem sub vini specie sapore potamus It is his flesh which we receiue in the sacrament couered with the fourme of bread and it is his bloud which we drinke vnder the kinde and taste of wine Beside that this collection of Prosper is not to be found in any of Augustines owne workes I denie the names of Forma and Species to be taken for accidentes in that sense the Papistes doe but for a figure or signification as by the wordes immediately following it is most manifest which M. Heskins hath moste lewdly suppressed Caro videlicèt carnis sanguis sacramentum est sanguinis carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili spirituali intelligibili signatur spirituale Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile plenum gratia omnium virtutū diuina Maiestate That is the flesh is a sacrament of the flesh and the bloud is a sacrament of the bloud by both of them beeing inuisible spirituall intelligible is signified the spirituall bodie of our Lord Iesus Christe which is palpable ful of the grace of all vertues and diuine Maiestie In these wordes he calleth the elementes of bread wine flesh and bloud which are sacramentes of his true glorious palpable bodie which is in heauen as it is yet more plaine by that whiche followeth Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui caro Christi est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile quod mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus sit Christi passiō mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significāte mysterio sic sacramentum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As that heauēly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a certeine manner is called the body of Christ when in very deede it is the sacrament of the bodie of Christ which beeing visible which beeing palpable which beeing mortall was put on the crosse the very offring of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstood to be baptisme is faith In these words he affirmeth the elements to be the bodie bloud of Christ as the action of the Priest is his passion death crucifying as baptisme is faith not in trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Chrysostome is alledged to proue that the whole bodie of Christe is in the sacrament Hom. 24. in 10. ad Cor. 1. Et quando c. And when thou seest that thing set foorth say with thy selfe for this bodie I am no more earth and ashes this bodie being crucified and beaten was not ouercome by death This same bodie being
prelates in their lyfe yet in this accompt of Master Heskins they are burgesses of the lower house and liued much about a time To fill vp the chapter he citeth certaine miracles reported by Sainte Cyprian Sermone 5. De lapsis to shewe howe God punisheth the vnworthie receiuing of the sacrament although they doe not all shewe it for the first example is of an infante that coulde not brooke the sacramentall wyne after it had tasted of breade and wine offred to Idolles where the negligence of the parentes was rather punished then the vnworthinesse of the child The whole story is at large set downe in the last chapiter of the second booke The seconde example is of a woman who receiuinge vnworthily was striken with sodaine death The third of a woman who kept the sacrament in her coffer and when she woulde with vnworthie handes open the coffer in which was the holy thing of the Lorde there sprange out a fire by which she was so terryfied that she durst not touche it A iust punishment for her reseruing of that which should haue bene receiued The fourth miracle is of a man who presuming to receiue the sacrament vnworthily coulde neuer eate the holy thing of God nor handle it For when he had opened his hand he sawe nothing in it but ashes This is a marueilous thing saith Master Heskins Whereby is declared that God is not willing that his holy sacrament shoulde be receiued of a filthie sinner for so muche as sodeinly it pleaseth him to chaunge it into ashes he himselfe departinge from it In deede this is a straunge and miraculous transubstantiation But if I might be so bolde to aske M. Heskins what is that which is chaunged if there be no bread in the sacrament God he saieth is departed from it there remaineth the aceidentes onely of breade and wine and so belike the accidentes are chaunged into ashes O monstrous mutation But why doeth not M. Hes. gather by this miracle that if the sacrament could not be receiued of a wicked man much lesse the body of Christ and so doeth Cyprian gather of it Documento vnius ostensum est Dominum recedere cum negatur nec immerentibus prodesse ad salutem quod sumitur cum gratia salutaris in cinerem sanctitate fugiente mutetur By example of this one it is shewed that the Lorde doeth depart when he is denyed neither doeth that which is receiued profit to saluation the vnworthie persons seeinge the wholsome giftes the holinesse departing from it is chaunged into ashes Cyprian gathereth by the chaunge of the outwarde sacramente before it was receyued that Christ departeth from them that denye him and is not receyued at all But M. Hes. would learne forsoth what one thing is in the sacrament receiued that profiteth hurteth he aunswereth it cānot be the bread wine for they profit alike to al men therfore it must needes be the body of Christ a wholsome conlusion by whiche the bodye of Christe is made a hurtefull thing but if it please him to vnderstand our aunswere we deny that there is any thing included in the bread or wine that either profiteth or hurteth to saluation It is the grace and spirite of God which worketh as well by this sacrament our spirituall nourishing as by baptisme our spirituall regeneration And that which hurteth the wicked man is in him selfe and not in the sacrament euen his owne wickednesse and detestable presumption to defile the holy sacraments of god Wherefore it is diuelish and blasphemous that M. Heskins affirmeth the body of Christ to be hurtful to any bicause the vnworthy receiuing of the sacrament hurteth him that receiueth by his owne acte and not by any thing that is receiued The nine and fiftieth Chapter treateth of these wordes of Saint Paul. We are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones by Irenaeus and Hilarius Irenaeus is cited Lib. 5. Quomodo carnem negant esse capacem c. Howe doe they deny that the flesh is able to receiue the gift of God that is eternall life which is nourished with the bloud and body of Christ and is made a member of him euen as the Apostle saith in that Epistle which is to the Ephesians Bicause we are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones speaking this not of any spirituall and inuisible man for a spirite hath neither flesh nor bones but of that disposition which is after the nature of man which consisteth of flesh and sinewes and bones which is nourished of the cup which is his bloud and is increased of the bread which is his body That both our bodies and soules are nourished vnto eternall life by eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christe we doe most willingly confesse and acknowledge But withall we affirme that as our bodyes are not naturally nourished and increased with the body of Christ but spiritually after a diuine manner so onely spiritually and after a diuine manner we doe eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ and not after a carnall naturall or papisticall manner And this is the plaine sense and meaning of Irenaeus his wordes As our bodyes are naturally nourished and increased with the bread and wine of the sacrament so are our bodyes and soules spiritually nourished and increased vnto eternall life For M. Heskins him selfe denyeth that our bodyes are naturally nourished and increased with the body and bloud of Christ when he saith The flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh which must needes be if we vnderstand that Irenaeus saith our flesh is nourished and increased of the body of Christ but he saith of the bread which is his body and of the cup which is his bloud our flesh is nourished and increased Therefore there is naturall and very bread in the sacrament for our flesh can not be nourished and increased by accidentes euen as certainely as there is the body and bloud of Christe after a spirituall manner dispensed vnto the faithfull which are the members of Christ flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Therefore also the wicked receiue not the body and bloud of Christe bicause they are no members of his body That I haue not in this interpretation varied from the mynde of Irenaeus his plaine words shall testifie Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Quemadmodum enim qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam iam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Euen as that bread which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God is not now comon bread but the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing consisting of two thinges an earthly thing and an heauenly thing so also our bodyes receiuing the Eucharistie are not nowe corruptible hauing the hope of resurrection The place that Maister Heskins citeth out
his bodie This saying M. Heskins hath most vntollerably abused first by false translating and then by leauing out that which expoundeth the mind of Tertullian most clearely For the true vnderstanding of this place we must note two things firste that Marcion against whome he writeth affirmed that the God of the lawe was not the God of the Gospel secondly that Christ had not a true bodie but a fantasticall bodie Against both these errours he reasoneth in this sentence Against the first when he saith he desired to eate the Pascal lambe of the olde lawe which was his owne namely of his owne institution for it was absurd that Christ being God shoulde desire that which was another Gods institution as the heretike sayde the lawe and all ceremonies thereof were And this is directly contrarie to M. Heskins purpose who ioyning with the heretike denyeth that he did desire to eat the Pascall of the lawe and that it was not properly his owne and for this intent to make it serue his turne he translateth falsly vt suum as his owne Passouer alienum any strange thing Against the seconde Tertullian reasoneth in the same sentence which words because M. Heskins could not abyde he hath cleane cut off The wordes are these Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit quia corporis caâ—ebas veritate ergo panem dibuit tradere pro nobis Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis crucifigeretur The bread which he tooke distributed to his disciples he made his bodie saying this is my bodie that is to saye a figure of my bodie And it could haue bene no figure except his bodie had bene of trueth But a vaine thing which is a phantasie cannot receiue a figure Or else if therefore he made breade his bodie because he lacked the trueth of a bodie therefore he should haue giuen bread for vs It made wel for the vanitie of Marcion that bread should haue beene crucified There can nothing bee more euident then that Tertullian by this place ouerthroweth both the transubstantiation and also the carnall presence maintained by the Papistes This M. Heskins because he coulde not brooke he brake off the sentence and commeth out of the matter also to raile against Cranmer of holy memorie first doubting whether the booke set forth in his name were made by him as though Cranmer was not wel enough knowen to be as well able to write a booke as Heskins then that he affirmeth the Papistes vnable to shewe one article of faith so directly contrarie to our senses that all our senses shall by daily experience affirme a thing to be and yet our faith shall teach vs the contrarie Maister Heskins like a wilie Pye obiecteth the article of the resurrection where our senses teacheth vs that mens bodyes be dead and faith teacheth that they shall rise againe But the subtile sophister doth not see I weene a difference betweene it is in M. Cranmers assertioÌ„ is and shal be in his balde obiection Faith teacheth that shal be which our sense teacheth nowe not to be But faith teacheth not that to be white which our sense teacheth to be blacke But he hath another wise instance The senses taught that the wounde which Christe had in his side after his resurrection was verie sore but faith taught the contrarie because his bodie was glorified Seeing the wounde was made after his death reason would iudge that it was insensible especially when he was risen againe froÌ„ death by his diuine power And Thomas was not so rude that he would haue thrust in his hand if he thought it shold haue hurt him and when he did thrust in his hande he perceiued by his senses that it did not hurt But it is pittie to spende any time about so vaine a matter sorenesse being not the thing but a certeine affection of the thing which cannot alwayes be knowen by another mans senses but by his onely that feeleth it as in him that hath the Palsey if his legge were cut off he feeleth nothing yet some such wise man as M. Heskins would thinke it were verie sore But he woulde-faine excuse the matter why he cutteth off Tertulian by the waste promising in another place to do it and willeth you in the meane time to consider that Christes bodie is giuen in the sacrament and further alledgeth out of Tertullian in another place which is in his booke De resurrectione carnis That the fleshe doth eate the bodie and bloud of Christ that the soule may be fedd of God. Where hee meaneth none otherwise then in the former place calling the sacrament a figure of Christes bodie and so an ende with Tertullian Then commeth Isychius disciple of Gregorie Nazianzene who firste dissuading men from vsing of the Iewes ceremonies affirmeth that which M. Heskins denyed that Christe did eat the legall Passouer in his last supper His wordes that are materiall are these Christus primùm celebrauit figuratum Pasca Post canam auem intelligibidem tradit Christ did first celebrate the figuratiue Passeouer but after supper he deliuered the intelligible supper Then followe diuers places to shew that by intelligible he meaneth figured But being graunted that the supper was figured by the pascall Lambe which is the egge that he is so long in brooding yet he is neuer the neerer for the carnall presence and corporall manner of eating no not with that whiche Isychius saith That he tooke the intelligible bloud first in the mysticall supper and afterward gaue the cuppe to his Apostles and that he dranke himselfe and giuing to his Apostles to drinke then he powred the intelligible bloud vpon the altar that is to say his body Now the body of Christ is the Church and all his people He that seeth not that this Father doeth vse figuratiuely these wordes bloud body altar powre drinke c. is worthy to weare a cockes combe a bell Yet Maister Heskins noteth in the margent Christ dranke his owne bloud and gaue it to his Apostles Which if it be true in the litterall sense as he meaneth then it is as true that he powred his owne bloud vpon his owne body in the literall sense For the same bloud which he dranke and gaue he powred on his body But he powred not his natural bloud vpon his body therefore he neither gaue nor dranke his naturall bloud in the litterall sense But you will say his body signifieth his Church and people for whom he powred forth his naturall bloud Well beside that you are inforced to acknowledge a figuratiue speeche you are neuer the neere For although he powred out his bloud for them yet he powred it not vpon them
she hath prepared this table for hir seruauntes and maides in the sight of them that she might dayly shew vs in the sacrament after the order of Melchisedech breade and wine in similitude of the bodie and bloude of Christe therefore she saith thou hast prepared a table in my sight againste them that trouble mee What Papistes holding transubstantiation would thus write that breade and wine is shewed in the Sacrament in the similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ The seconde testimonie that M. Heskins alleageth out of Chrisostome is vpon the 1. Cor. 10. This table is the strength of our soule the sinewes of our minde the bonde of our trust our foundation hope healpe light our life if we depart hence defended with this sacrifice with most greate confidence wee shall ascende into the holy entrie as couered with certaine golden garmentes But what speake I of thinges to come For while wee be in this life this mysterie maketh earth to be heauen vnto vs Ascende vnto the gates of heauen marke diligently or rather not of heaueÌ„ but of heauen of heauens theÌ„ thou shalt behold that we say For that which is worthy of highest honor I will shew thee in earth For as in kings houses not the walles not the golden roofe but the kinges body sitting in the throne is most excellent so also in heauen the kinges body which nowe is set foorth to be seene of thee in earthe I shewe thee neither Angels nor Archangels nor the heauens nor the heauens of heauens but the Lorde himselfe of all these thinges Thou perceiuest how that which is greatest and cheifest of all things thou doest not onely see it on earth but also touche it and not onely touch it but eate also and when thou haste receiued it returnest home wherefore wipe thy soule from all filthinesse prepare thy minde to the receyuing of these mysteries For if the Kinges childe being decked with purple and diademe were deliuered to thee to bee carried wouldest thou not cast all downe to the grounde and receiue him But nowe when thou receiuest not the childe of a kinge beeing a man but the onely begotten sonne of God tell mee I praye thee doest thou not tremble and caste awaye the loue of all seculer thinges This testimonie so necessarily muste bee vnderstood of a figuratiue and spirituall receyuing of Christe by faith that nothing in the worlde can bee more plaine For euen as earth is made heauen vnto vs so is Christe made present And euen as wee see the Lorde vppon earth so we handle and eate him and that is onely with the eye hand and mouth of faith But let vs see M. Heskins collections First hee is enforced to confesse that the sentence beginneth with a figure The table for the meate therevppon Secondely hauing such honourable tearmes it can not bee a peece of breade but Christe himselfe This shall bee graunted also Thirdly that Christe is verily on the table which he calleth Altars As verilie as earth is made heauen Fourthly that it is Christ whiche is worthie of highest honour verily present in the Sacramente As verily present as hee is seene but hee is seene onely by faith therefore present onely to faith But this obiection hee taketh vppon him to aunswere If we saye the bodie of Christ can not be sene in the sacrament No more saith he can the substance of man be seene but his garmentes or outward formes accidentes This is such a boyish sophisme as I am ashamed to aunswere it By which I maye as well proue that Christes body was neuer seene and therefore not seene in the sacrament contrarie to that whiche Chrysostome saith FroÌ„ this obiection he falleth into an other that if christ in the Sacrament be worthie all honour then of sacrifice also and the sacrifice being Christ Christ shal be offered to him selfe This he calleth an ignorant obiection But there is more knowledge in it then he hath witt to answere He alledgeth the words of Augustine lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 14. Christ abideth one with him to whome he offereth and maketh him selfe one with them for whom he offereth himself and is one with them that offer one with that which is offered Here are diuerse kindes of vnitie and yet not Christ offered vnto him selfe vnlesse M. Heskins will be a Sabellian and a Patripassian to confound the persons of the Godhead and say that God the father yea the whole Trinitie is likewise transubstantiated in the Sacrament Though Christe be one with his father yet did he not offer him selfe to him selfe but himselfe to his father As for the other saying of Augustine that he bringeth it is altogether against him De ciuitate Dei. lib. 10. c. 20. He is the Priest him selfe he is the offerer he is the oblation whereof he would haue the daily sacrifice of the Church to be a sacrament seeing that of her bodie he is the head and of his head shee is the bodie as well shee by him as he by her being accustomed to be offered First Christ is the offerer and the oblation but not he to whome it is made Secondly that which he calleth the sacrifice of the Church is a sacrament that is a holie memoriall of that propitiatorie saâ—â—â—fice which he offered Thirdly this sacrifice of the Church is of the Churche her selfe offered by Christ and of Christe offered by the Church which must needes be spirituall as the coniunction of Christ and his Church is spirituall therefore it is not the natural bodie of Christ offered by the priest but his mystical bodie offered by the Church by himselfe and so a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation After these obiections he returneth to his collections out of the authoritie of Chrysostome There neede no such preparation nor trembling if the Sacrament were but a peece of bread He hath neuer done with this slaunder as though any Christian man did saye it was but a peece of bread which Christe vouchsafed to call his bodie Wee saye truely it is bread but wee say not it is but a peece of bread The ninteenth Chapter continueth the proofe of the same matter by S. Augustine S. Cyrill M. Heskins promiseth in his Epistle and gloryeth often in his worke that he doth not alledge the doctors wordes truncately by peece meale as heretikes do But you shal see how well he handleth him selfe He would haue S. Augustine speake for his bil and alledgeth his words out of his worke contrae literas Petiliani quoting neither what booke nor what Chapter of the same by which it seemeth that either he red not the place him self out of Augustine but receiued it of some gatherer or else hee would cloake his vnhonest dealing Hee citeth it thus Aliud est Pascha quod adhuc Iudaei celebrant de Oue Aliud auteÌ„ quod nos in corpore sanguine domini celebranus It is another Passouer that the Iewes do yet
is offred to my name a pure sacrifice Wherefore our sacrifice to the most high God is the sacrifice of praise Wee sacrifice to God a full 〈◊〉 holie sacrifice We sacrifice after a newe maner according to the new testament a pure sacrifice c. M. Heskins asketh vs if we do not see that Eusebius expoundeth the Prophet of the sacrifice of Christes bodie but wee may well bid him shore vp his eyes see if he do not in plain words expound him of the sacrifice of praise But because he calleth this sacrifice horrorem adferens bringing horror meaning not a slauish but a reuerent feare as is meant to be in all matters of religion which ought to be handled with feare and reuerence of Gods Maiestie vnto whom they apperteine he will needes haue it the body of Christ and first he alledgeth a saying of Dionysius whom he falsely calleth the disciple of Saint Paule although he be a writer of good antiquitie Eccle. Hier. part 1. cap. 3. Neither is it almost lawfull for any mysterie of the priestly office to be done except that his diuine and most noble sacrament of thankesgiuing doe fulfil is What he picketh out of this saying as he noteth not so I am not of his counsell to knowe neither why after his accustomed boldenesse he translateth Sacramentum Eucharistiae the sacrament of Christe From Dionyse he flitteth to the hyperbolicall amplifications of Chrysostom which Lib. 6. De Sacerdotio calleth the sacrament That sacrifice most full of horror and reuerence where the vniuersall Lorde of all thinges is daily felt with handes And de prod Iud. Hom. 30. The holy and terrible sacrifice where Christ that was slaine is set foorth He that will not acknowledge these and such like to be figuratiue speeches must enter action against Chrysostom for many heresies or rather Chrysostome may enter action against him of slaunder and defamation In the same treatise De Sacerdotio Lib. 3. speaking of the same sacrifice he sayeth You may see the whole multitude of people died and made redde with the precious bloud of Christ. But to shewe that all this is spirituall he demaundeth if you thinke your selfe to stand vpon the earth when you see these thinges and not rather that you are translated into heauen and casting away all cogitations of the flesh with a naked soule and pure minde you beholde those thinges that are in heauen Therefore to conclude neither Augustine nor Eusebius haue spoken any thing to the furtherance of Maister Heskins bill of the carnal presence The sixe and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of Malachie by Saint Hierome and Damascen S. Hierome vpon the Prophet Malachie writeth thus Ergo propriè nuÌ„c ad sacerdotes IndeoruÌ„ sermo sit domini qui offeruÌ„t caecuÌ„ clanduÌ„ languiduÌ„ ad immolanduÌ„ vt sciant carnalibê° victimis spirituales victimas successuras Et necquaquam tantorum hircerùmque sanguinem sed thymiana hoc est sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea nec in vna iudaea vrbe Hierusalem sed in omni loco offerri oblationem nequaquam immundam vt a populo Israel sed mundum vt in ceremonijs Christianorum Now therefore the word of the Lorde is properly spoken to the Priestes of the Iewes which offer the blinde and lamue and feeble to be sacrificed that they might knowe that spirituall sacrifices should succeede those carnall sacrifices And not the bloud of bulles and goates but an incense that is to say the prayers of the Sainctes should be offered to the Lord and that not in one prouince of the world Iewry neither in Ierusalem one citie of Iewry but in euery place an oblation is offered was vncleane as of the people of Israel but cleane as in the ceremonies of the Christians Doest thou not maruell Gentle Reader that Maister Heskins alledgeth this place which in euerie point is so directly contrarie to his purpose He saith that among the ceremonies of the Christians none can be properly called the cleane sacrifice but the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ. O shamelesse begger that craueth no lesse then the whole controuersie to be giuen him And that contrarie to Hierome whose name he abuseth which expoundeth this place of spirituall sacrifices and more expressely of the prayers of the saintes whiche are not vsed in one but in all the ceremonies of the Christians But to set some colour vpon the matter he bringeth in an other saying of Hierome which is written before this in exposition of another place perteining nothing to this prophecy of the pure sacrifice but wher by analogie or like reason as the prophet rebuketh the priestes of the Iewes he doeth reprehend also the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the Church for their negligence Offertis inquit c. You offer saith he vpon mine altar bread polluted We pollute the bread that is to say the body of Christ when we come vnworthily to the altar and we beeing filthie doe drinke cleane bloud and say the Lordes table is contemptible c. Here forsooth we vnderstand that the body of Christ is the sacrifice of the Christians yea but according to the former sentence so offered that it is a spirituall sacrifice But what else Here we are taught that we doe not take one thing videlicet bread and do iniurie to another thing that is the body and bloud of Christ as the sacramentaries say but receiuing the very body and bloud of Christ we do iniury to the same But vouchsafe to heare the same teacher speaking of the same matter and in the same place in fewe wordes to satisfie the reasonable and to stoppe the mouthes of quarrellers Dum enim sacramenta violantur ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur For while iniurie is done to the sacramentes iniurie is done to him whose sacraments they are He sheweth a reason against them that demaunded proudly wherein they had polluted God when they had but polluted his sacraments Leauing therefore Hierome at open warre with M. Heskins I will passe to Damascen who for lacke of a Greeke auncient Baron beeing an auncient burgesse of the lower house Maister Heskins is bolde to matche with Hironyme though farre inferiour to him in antiquitie and credite whose wordes are these This is that pure and vnbloudy sacrifice which our Lord speaketh by the Prophet to be offred to him from the rising of the sunne to the going downe of the same namely the body and bloud of Christ vnto the vnconsumed and vncorrupted establishment of our body and soule not going into secesse God forbid that any such imagination should be but it is a purgation of al manner filth and a reparation of all manner of hurt vnto our sustentation and conseruation This place saith Maister Heskins is so plaine that a childe may perceiue it for it is sufficient for him if he heare once body and bloud named Howbeit if either Damascens authoritie
Thumb their miracles should be more credited that such a one should be conteined in their cake rather then a tall man of perfect stature O impudent asses But it proueth wel the reall presence saith M. Hes. that Auerrois a Philosopher saith I haue walked ouer the world I haue found diuers sectes and yet haue I found none so foolish a sect is is the sect of the Christians For they deuour with their teeth their God whome they worship Hereof it is easie to perceiue saith he that the fame was that they did receiue and eate Christ whom they honoured But herein M. Hes. bewrayeth either his falshood or his ignoraunce For hee speaketh as though Auerrois were an ancient Philosopher that liued in the dayes of the primitiue Church whereas he was a Spanish Mahometist or rather Athist not past three or foure hundreth yeres ago when Poperie was in the greatest pride and Idolatrie couered the face of the earth His saying therfore proueth nothing but how great an offeÌ„ce the popish Idolatrie did giue to the Heathen Turkes and Iewes And whereas Iustinus in his Apollogie to the Emperour declareth whatsoeuer was done in the assemblies of the Christians he well dischargeth them of all slaunders that were raised against them but defendeth not the corporall eating of mans flesh by the commaundement of Christ although he confesse that they receiued that breade not as common bread nor as common drinke but as their flesh and bloud was nourirished by that foode so they were persuaded that it was the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ for the spiritual foode of their soules As for the curse that Rupertus threatneth to them that adde vnto the word of God â–ª pertaineth not to them that giue the true sense of the word of God whether it be in more wordes or fewer And whereas Rupertus saith these words of Christ I am a vine and this is my body be no like speaches I confesse they are not in euery respect bicause in the one he did institute a sacrameÌ„t in the other he taught as by a similitude the true end vse and signification of the sacrament Yet are they not altogether vnlike bicause they are both figuratiue and so iudged and compared together by the auncient Fathers But Rupertus will proue by two reasons that the latter is no figure First bicause in the former there is a continuation of the Allegorie which proueth it to be a figure in the other there is none such This is a fond reason for both we haue shewed a continuation of the trope where he saide this cup is the newe Testament and although there were none yet that can not exclude a figure no more then when baptisme is called regeneration when the lamb is called the Passeouer which be sacramentall speaches and such like where no continuation of the figure followeth The other reason of Rupertus M. Heskins diuideth into two parts The first is to note the enunciation of both scriptures for he doth not take a braunch of a vine and say I am this vine or this vine is my body but he saith of the bread this is my body A strong reason he saith as signanter by a certaine demonstration of substaunce and speaking of the same sacrament That rocke was Christe and in the time when it was a sacrament it was and might be truely said pointing to the rocke this is Christ and to the water issuing out of it this is the bloud of Christ and so no doubt Christ spake by his spiriâ—e in the consciences of the faithfull The second part of Rupertus reason is that the wordes which followe which is giuen for you c. can not be applied to the figure therefore the sense of that place is proper and not figuratiue But contrariwise these wordes can not be applied to the sacrament therefore the speach is not proper but figuratiue and shewe howe the breade and the cup are the body and bloud of Christe namely as his body is broken and his bloud shed for vs for the vertue of the sacrament standeth in his passion by which his body and bloud offered in sacrifice for our sinnes are made a spirituall foode of our soules The conference that Rupertus maketh betweene the words of Christ and the wordes of the serpent I passe ouer as containing no argument in them for the proofe of M. Heskins bill but onely shewing the corrupt iudgement of the authour whose reasons I am content to weigh but I esteeme not his authoritie as being a late prop of the Popish church The three and fortieth Chapter beginneth to proue the vnderstanding of Christes foresaid wordes not to be figuratiue by the authoritie of the Fathers And first by Alexander and Iustinus Iustine is alledged in this second Apologie in a corrupt Latine translation which he maketh worsse by falsifying the same in his English translation The place hath bene already considered in the first booke Chap. 27. according to the originall Greeke copie I will nowe rehearse the same after his Latine translation and afterward shewe M. Heskins falsification Cum autem c. When he that is ouerseer hath giuen thankes and all the people haue assented they which are called Deacons with vs do distribute to euery one that is present that they may take part in the breade in which thankes is giuen and of the wine and water and carie it to those which are not present And this foode which is called thankes giuing Of which it is not lawfull for any other to take part but he that beleeueth those things to be true which are taught by vs and which is washed in the lauer vnto remission of sinnes and regeneration and so liueth as Christ hath taught Neither do we take these thinges as common bread and a common cup but euen as by the word of God Iesus Christ our sauiour being incarnate had both flesh and bloud so we are taught that the foode through the prayer of his word being consecrated by thankesgiuing of which our flesh bloud by transmutation are nourished is the flesh bloud of Iesus Christ which was incarnate For the Apostles in their coÌ„mentaries which are called Gospels haue taught that he did so coÌ„maund them That when he had taken bread giuen thanks he said Do this in remembrance of me this is my body And likewise when he had taken the cup and giuen thankes that he said This is my bloud and gaue first to them alone M. Heskins hath falsified this author in his translation First where he turneth is qui prÄ™est the prieste as though there were Masse priestes in that time Secondly quae docentur a nobis that be taught of vs as though none should receiue the sacrament but they which beleue the real presence which he surmiseth to be taught to theÌ„ But more notably where he translateth these wordes Sie verbi sui oratione consecratum gratiarum actione alimentum ex quo caro nostra sanguis per
they 〈◊〉 hitherto that they would neither learne by hearing nor acknowledge by reading that which in the Church of God in the mouth of all men is so agreeably spoken That not as much as of the tongues of infantes the veritie of the bodie and bloud of Christ is vnspoken of among the sacraments of the common faith for in that mystical distribution of that spirituall foode this thing is giuen foorth this thing is receiued that receiuing the vertue of that heauenly meate we may goe into his fleshe which was made our fleshe First M. Heskins as his fashion is to make the matter more cleare on his side falsely translateth Hoc impertitur hoc sumitur this bodie is giuen forth this bodie is receiued Where as Hoc is either taken absolutely for this thing or else at the least must haue relation to Sacramentum which is the next substantiue of the neuter gender in any reasonable construction Secondly it is manifest that Leo speaking against the heretiques Eutycheâ— and Dioscorus setteth forth the truth of Christs bodie bloud as one of the common knowen sacraments or mysteries of Christian faith saith neuer a word of his carnall presence in the mysterie of his supper but contrariwise teacheth that it is a mystical distributioÌ„ a spiritual food an heaueÌ„ly meat which words import not a carnal maner but a spiritual maner of preseÌ„ce eating Thus real presence as he termeth it being not yet proued the adoration cannot follow as he pretendeth The seuen and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the proofe of the adoration of the Sacrament by doctors The first doctor named is Dionysius Areopagita disciple of S. Paule as he sayeth Eccles. Hierarch 3. parte Cap. 3. who maketh this prayer to the sacrament O verie godly holie mysterie opening fauourably the couerings of signifying signes wherewith thou art couered shine openly and apertly vnto vs fill our spiritual eyes with the singuler open brightnesse of thy light That this Dionyse although of some antiquitie yet is not that Dionyse that was conuerted by S. Paule nor any that liued 600. yeres after at the least it is plaine by this reason that neither Eusebius nor Hieronyme nor Gennadius which wrote the Catologs of all ecclesiasticall writers that were before them or were famous in the church in their time nor yet any other writer within the compasse of 600. yeres after Christe maketh any mention of any such Dionyse to be a writer of those bookes which are saide to be written by him Now touching his supposed prayer it is but an exclamatioÌ„ rethoricall named apostrophe not vnto the bread wine but to him that in that mysterie is represented which is Christ that he would vouchsafe to open him self shine in the hearts of the faithfull as the outward signes are seene with the outwarde eyes And that he allowed no transubstantiation it is manifest by that he saith in the same place that the Bishop doth after consecration cut in peeces the vndiuided bread speaking of the sacrament doth often affirme that by those symboles or signes wee are changed into God Christ meaning we are renewed by his spirite but neuer affirmeth the bread wine to bee turned into the bodie bloud of christ Howbeit what I iudge of his authorite antiquitie I haue declared before The next is Gregorie Nazianzen in Epitaph Gorgoniae sororis Quid igitur c. What then did the soule both great worthie of greatest things and what remedie had shee against her infirmitie For nowe the secreat is disclosed when shee had dispaired of all other shee flyeth to the Phisition of all men and taking the solitarinesse of the night when the disease had giuen her a little respite shee fell downe with faith before the altare and with a lowde voice and all her might shee called vppon him which is worshipped at is and vnto him shee rehearsed all the myracles that he had done of olde time M. Heskins immagineth that it was such an altare as they haue in the popish Churches which is vntrue for it was a table men stoode round about it as is to be proued by many testimonies of antiquitie Secondly he immagineth that the sacrament was hanged ouer the altare to be worshipped as it is among them but that is vtterly false for it was receiued at such time as it was consecrated except some remanents that were kept to be eaten Therfore though shee made her prayer at the altare shee made no prayer to any thing vppon the altare but to God whome shee did worship and reuerence and whose mysteries shee vsed to receiue at the same altare Therefore M. Heskins falsifieth Gregories words which are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but thus they are turned by him into latine ante altare cum fide procubuit illum quem super altare venerabatur c. Shee prostrated her selfe with faith before the altar and called vpon him whome shee worshipped vpon the altare But Gregorie sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it or at it meaning the altare where shee prayed And to put all out of doubt that shee worshipped not the sacrament vppon the altare it followeth afterwarde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if her hand had layde vp any where any parte of the figures of the precious bodie or of the bloud that shee mingled with teares O marueilous thing and immediatly departed feeling health By these wordes it appeareth that shee brought this remanent of the sacrament with her which Gregorie calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the signes or tokens or figures of the bodie and bloud of Christ and not the verie naturall bodie of Christe and those shee worshipped not but wett them with teares whether superstitiously let the Papistes iudge for they them selues will allowe no such fashions nor yet reseruation for such purposes but as for adoration of the sacrament which is the matter intended here is none spoken of in this place After this he toucheth the facte of Satyrus the brother of S. Ambrose which is aunswered before lib. 1. Cap. 24. whose hope was in God and not in the sacrament Although Satyrus as a young nouice not throughly instructed in Christian religion cannot simply be defended though he may be excused howsoeuer by his brother Ambrose he is highly commended Then followed Eusebius Emisserâ—us Hom. Pascal Because he woulde take away his assumpted bodie from our eyes and carrie it into heauen it was needefull that this day he should consecrate vnto vs the sacrament of his bodie and bloud vs coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in precium that it might be continually worshipped or exercised by a mysterie for colere signifieth both whiche was once offered for our price M. Heskins gathereth hereof that the same bodie should be honoured by mysterie whose visible presence not his bodie was taken away from the earth But Eusebius sayeth not onely that he would take his bodie
He calleth it a phantasie like to that which ioyned with auarice pulled downe all the Abbeys in England The like phantasie he sayth might moue vs not to honour Christ in heauen and much more the Apostles that honoured Christ in the flesh percase not sufficiently discerning the humanitie from the Deitie and so likewise others that worshipped Christ yet doe euen some of the proclaymers schollers vnderstand not these quiddities Shal they therefore fly the honor of Christ in heauen A wise comparison betweene Christe both God and man who no doubt is to be worshipped both as God as the mediator of God man and the accidents of breade wine or bread and wine when they are not consecrated Christ in the flesh is to be worshipped because he was incarnate and ioyned to the humanitie in a personall vnion but he is not to be worshipped in bread wine or in the accidents of bread wine because he is neither impanated nor inuinated nor inaccidentated that is not ioyned to any of them in a personall vnion To these doubtes that are moued by his owne schoolemen what if the Priest do not consecrate what if he speake not the wordes of consecration what if he had none intention to consecrate in all which cases the schoolemen define that the people committ idolatrie if they worship their hoste First hee sayeth he goeth about to shake the foundation of this sacrament as Brentius doth of baptisme Concerning Brentius although it were easie to defende his assertion euen by the schoolemen yet because it is no matter of our controuersie I will briefely passe it ouer Brentius helde that Christ hath not bound vs to baptise in certein forme of wordes to be pronounced by the minister so the meaning be obserued that he baptise into the name of the Father of the Sonne of the holie ghost Herevpon charitable M. Heskins rayleth on him that he impugneth the forme of baptisme and reiecteth the wordes of baptisme which is vtterly false and then he reasoneth that if the wordes of baptisme may be without daunger omitted why may not the words of consecratiō likewise as though Brentius sayeth they might be omitted where he speaketh of altering the forme of wordes when the same sense remaineth Next to this he farceth in another slaunder of vs that we agree not in the number of the sacraments some admitting three some two some foure and some neuer a one The world knoweth what we holde herein After this he sheweth out of Basil Damascen the necessitie of the forme of baptisme which wee confesse Brentius him self doth not denye At length he defineth contrarie to the scholemen that if consecration be omitted the danger is to the priest not to the people that worship an idol Finally he wil moue the like doubt of our ministration what if the minister of the communion doe neither speake the words of consecration nor haue intent to minister what do the people receiue I aunswer with his intentiō wee haue nothing to doe but for asmuch as nothing is whispered or mumbled in our Communion but so vttered that all men may heare and vnderstand if any thing be omitted that is necessarie to the consecration of the sacrament if the people communicate with him they are in as great fault as he As for Richerus whome he calleth a Caluenist that forbiddeth to pray to Christ and reiecteth the wordes of consecration if any such be let him aunswere for him self we haue nothing to do with him Although we acknowledge not any mumbling of wordes but the whole action according to Christes institution to be the forme of consecration of the sacrament The nine and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstanding of Christes wordes by Irenaeus Tertullian Irenęus is cited lib. 4. Cap. 32. Sed discipulus c. But also giuing counsell to his disciples to offer to God the first fruites of his owne creatures not as to one that hath neede but that they also should neither be vnfrutefull nor vnthankefull he tooke that bread which is of the creature gaue thankes saying this is my bodie likewise he confessed the cupp which is of the creature that is among vs to be his bloud taught the newe oblation of the newe testament which the church receiuing of the Apostles in all the worlde offereth to God. Here M. Hesk. choppeth off the taile for it followeth Euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs the first fruites of his giftes which words do both open the purpose of Irenaeus shewe that the oblation was of bread wine not the naturall bodie of Christ as M. Hesk. gathereth together with the reall presence But for clearer proofe he addeth another testimonie out of Irenęus which he quoteth lib. 5. but it is lib. 4. ca. 34 which it seemeth he redd not him selfe in the author both because he knewe not where it was writen also because he omitteth some wordes in it Quomodo autem constabit eis c. he leaueth out autem eis but thus the wordes are in english But how shall it be knowen vnto them that that bread in which thankes are giuen is the bodie of their Lorde and the cupp of his bloud if they say not that he him selfe is the sonne of the maker of the worlde c. And how againe do they say that the fleshe commeth to corruption receiueth not the life which is nourished of the bodie bloud of our Lord Out of these places he noteth that the sacrament is the bodie and bloud of Christ that our flesh is nourished by the same bodie bloud This we confesse so he meane spiritually but that he will not haue And therfore to drawe the places to his carnall presence nourishing he sayth that Irenaeus hereby impugned two heresies One that Christ was not the sonne of God that made the world but a man liuing in Iewrie which dissolued the law the Prophets all the works of God that made the world The other that the soule only should be saued not the bodie And therefore to confute the former he maketh an argument of the real presence How could a bare naturall man compasse that his bodie should so be if he were not the sonne of God that made the world c. This proceedeth of grosse ignorance or rather of intollerable mallice to deceiue the ignorant For the heresie against which he writeth was not that Christ was a bare man not the sonne of God but that he was the sonne of another God then he that made the world for they made two gods one the maker of the world which they sayd was God of the old testament another the father of Christ which they said was God of the newe testament Now Irenaeus proueth by institution of the sacrament in the creatures of bread wine that Christ is the sonne of God that created the world of none other
him take among his innoceÌ„t disciples that which the faithful know our price But when Augustine him selfe saith the sacraments beare the name of those thinges whereof they are sacraments it is no maruell if the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ be called our price whereof it is a figure or sacrament especially seeing Augustine flatly denyeth that Iudas did receiue the bread which was the Lorde but only the Lords bread This conference therefore maketh against him not for him As for Theophylactes authoritie which he calleth a plaine place for the proclamer wee refuse although it is not so plaine as he pretendeth for we also affirme that the sacrament is not a bare figuration of the flesh of Christ but his flesh in deede spiritually receiued Finally Tertullians place De resur Car. is nothing at all for him Caâ—o corpore c. The flesh eateth the body and bloud of Christ that the soule may be fed with God. For by the body and bloud of Christe he meaneth the sacrament of them which is called by the name of that is figured or signified by it As for the last shift that No Catholique Doctour saith that the sacrament is only a figure is too childish for a Doctour to vse for in these words of Tertullian Corpus meum id est â–ª figura corporis met my body that is to say a figure of my body there needeth not to be added the exclusiue onely for the latter part is a description of the former which must containe all that is in the thing described or else it is nothing worth as for example If I say M. Heskins is a man that is to say a soule it were fond and ridiculous but when I say he is a man that is to say a reasonable â—ight I neede not say he is onely so for I haue said before as much as he is and so hath Tertullian Meaning that the sacrament is a figure but not a common or bare figure but a diuine and mysticall token not only to signifie but also to assure vs of the spirituall feeding of vs with the body and bloud of Christ. The fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by S. Cyprian and Athanasius First he alledgeth Cyprian de cÄ™na Domini in these words Significata olim a tempore Melchisedech c. For vnderstaÌ„ding of which place seeing he referreth his reader to the first booke and 29. Chapter where he handleth it more at large thither also will I referre him for answer where the place is at large rehearsed and discussed But out of the same sermon of S. Cyprian he hath a plaine place for M. Iewel Which is this Nonâ— est â—uius sacramenti doctrina c The doctrine of this sacrament is newe and the Euangelicall schooles first brought foorth this manner of teaching and Christ beeing the teacher This learning was first made knowen to the worlde that Christian men should drinke bloud the eating whereof the authoritie of the olde lawe doeth most straitly forbidde For the lawe forbiddeth the eating of bloud the Gospell commandeth that it should be dronke In which commandemâ—â—tâ— this moste cheefely ought the Christian religion to discerne that the bloud of beastes differing in all thinges from the bloud of Christe hath onely the effect of temporall releefe and the life of them haâ—h an end appointed without reuocation Hereupon he noteth that the Christians drinke the bloud of Christ which I graunt but spiritually for so Cyprian expoundeth himselfe in the same sermon vt sciremus quòd mansio nostra in ipsâ— fit manducatio potus quasi quaedam incorporatio That we should knowe that our eating is our dwelling in him and ouâ— drinking it as it were a certeine incorporatioâ— in him And againe Esus igitur carnis huius quaedam auiditas est quoddem desiderium manendi in eo c. Therefore the eating of his flesh is a certeine desire to abide in him c. These and such like places doe proue a spirituall eating and drinking of his bloud and none other He noteth further that this is called of Cyprian a new doctrine and therefore it can not be the drinking of the figure of the bloud of Christ for that was olde I answere briefly it was so new as the gospel is the new Testament whiche yet was preached to Adam and Eue but not so clearely and distinctly as since the time of Christ and so was the eating of the bodie and bloud of Christe all one with that it is now differing but in manner of reuelatioÌ„ and not in substance of spirituall foode Athanasius is alledged as he is cited in Theodoret Dial. 2. in confus Corpus est c. It is therfore a bodie to whom he saith for them on my right hand Whereof the diuel was enimie with the euill powers and the Iewes and the Greekes By which bodie he was in deede and so was called an high priest and Apostle by that mysteria which he dâ—liuered to vs saying â–ª This is my bodie whiche is broken for you And the bloud of the new Testament not of the old which is shedd for you The Godhead hath neither bodie nor bloud but man which he did take of the virgine Marie He meaneth nothing lesse than that the sacrament was his natural body and bloud but that he could not haue instituted a mysterie of hiâ— bodie and bloud except he had ben a very man which hath bodie and bloud for the godhead hath none And therfore the rule that M. Heskins giueth that scriptures must be alledged in their literal sense in matters of faith is to litle purpose although it may stand well in this place For the mysterie of his bodie proueth his humanitie without any allegorie or other figure as I haue shewed before Athanasius is likewise alledged in the second Nicen counsell Serm. de 〈◊〉 Iesu in Berito How truly I will not say but thus he is reported to say of the bloud of Christ which was said to be in many places which he denietâ— to haue come froÌ„ Christ but from an image that was crucified Nec esse aliter 〈◊〉 a vere Catholicis praeâ—â—r id quod 〈◊〉 à nobis quasi ex carne sanguine Christi aliqâ—id pasâ—â— i◠〈◊〉 inuâ—â—iri nisi 〈◊〉 quod in aera altarit per manus sacerdanuâ— quotiâ—ie spiritualiter officitur Neither is it otherwise to be thought of true Catholiques then is written of vs as though any part of the flesh bloud of Christ may be found in the world but that which on the altar is euerie day made spiritually by the handes of the priestes I do not cite this as the vndoubted authoritie of Athanasius but thinke rather it was forged in his name as many other thinges were in that wicked idolatrous counsel yet it appeared that the maker of that sermon so the Church in such time as he liued had not receiued the Popish corporall presence The one and
which terme he giueth to the waters in baptisme Maister Heskins chattereth I wot not what about it nor to what purpose Certaine it is that he vseth not the terme as the Papistes doe for they apply it only to the sacrament of the altar as they call it Leo is cited Serm. 7. de pass dom Iesus confisij sui certus c. Iesus being at a point with him selfe and ready to doe his fathers disposition without feare finished the olde Testament and made the newe Passeouer For his disciples sitting with him to eate the mysticall supper while they in the house of Caiphas were treating howe Christ might be slaine he ordaining the sacrament of his body and bloud did teach what manner of sacrifice should be offered to God and from this mysterie remoued not the traytour This place being against Maister Heskins where hee calleth it the sacrament of his body and bloud c. hee would aunswere the matter by this principle that olde writers did so call the very naturall body of Christ in the sacrament which is all the matter in question But hee will proue it by an other saying in the same place Vt vmbrae c. That shaddowes might giue place to the body and images might ceasse vnder the presence of the trueth the olde obseruance is taken away with a newe sacrament the sacrifice passeth into the sacrifice bloud excludeth bloud and the festiuitie of the lawe while it is chaunged is fulfilled These wordes must needes bee referred to the passion of Christe whereof the sacrifice is a memoriall for the sacrifice of Christe and his bloud shedding on the crosse was the very fulfilling of the shaddowe and image of the Paschall Lambe in the olde lawe and not the institution of the sacrament whiche is a figure or sacrament thereof And so the groundwork of al M. Hes. building is quite ouerthrown The seuen and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same wordes by S. Cyrill and S. Gregorie Cyrillus is cited as he is often ad Colosyrium Non dubites an c. Doubt thou not whether this be true when hee saith manifestly This is my body but rather receiue the worde of our Sauiour in faith For seeing hee is the trueth hee doth not lye Maister Heskins inferreth that the wordes of Christe are manifest and so to be taken in the literall sense without figure bicause he vseth these wordes Christ saide manifestly this is my body but this is a childish mockerie Christe saide manifestly I am the doore Doeth it therefore followe that it is no figuratiue speach and that the woordes of Christe are manifest and therefore to bee taken in the literall sense And yet I beleeue bicause Christ saide manifestly I am the doore that he is in deede the doore though not literally but figuratiuely taken It greueth M. Hes. that the proclamer should play with Duns his indiuidâ—um vagum saying that by the like meanes hee might disgrace the faith of the trinitie to open the quiddities of distinctions and relations of persons that bee spoken thereof And I thinke the same if hee shoulde teach that holy mysterie after the schoole manner not after the word of god But he returneth to an other place of Cyrill Ne horreremus carnem sanguinem Bicause this place is already rehearsed more at large and answered in the 51. Chap. of this booke I will send the reader backe to consider it in that place Gregorie is cited Lib. 4. dialog cap. â—8 Debemus itaque praesens sÄ™culum c. We ought therfore seing we see this present world to be passed away with al our mind to contemne it to offer to god the daily sacrifices of teares the daily sacrifices of his body and bloud For this sacrifice doth singularly saue the soul from eternal destruction which repayreth to vs the death of the only begotten by a mysterie Who although since he arose from death he doth not now dy and death shal haue no more dominion of him yet liuing in him self immortally incorruptibly is sacrificed againe for vs in this mysterie of the holy oblation For his body is there receiued his flesh is diuided for the health of the people his bloud is shed not nowe vpon the hands of the Infidels but into the mouthes of the faithfull Hereof therefore let vs consider what sacrifice this is for vs which for our deliuerance doeth followe the passion of the onely begotten Sonne For which of the faithfull ought to haue any doubt that in the same houre of the immolation the heauens are opened at the Priestes voyce that the companies of Angels are present in the mysterie of Iesus Christ That the lowest things are coupled to the highest earthly things are ioyned to heauenly thinges and that one thing is made of thinges visible and inuisible Of these last wordes of ioyning high and lowe heauenly and earthly thinges he maketh a greate matter which is saith hee that Christe is ioyned to the earthly formes of breade and wine Where note I praye you that he nameth the accidents of things for the thinges them selues which is a toy to mocke an ape And yet he pleaseth him selfe so well therein that he would drawe Irenaeus which is cleane contrarie to transubstantiation to bee a great patrone thereof Irenaeus saith as wee haue shewed before more at large that Eucharistie consisteth of two thinges earthly and heauenly Nowe hee inquireth of vs what is the heauenly part of the sacrament And he reasoneth that it is neither the grace of God nor thanksgiuing nor the worde of God nor sanctification Well what is it then Gregorie saith it is the bodye of Christ and so say we spiritually receiued But if I shuld aske M. Hes. what is the earthly part of the sacrament hee wil say the accidents of bread wine but sauing his wisdome accidents be neither earthly not heauenly but the earthly thing must needs be a substantiall thing what other earthly substance can there be but the substance of bread and wine He saith that corporall receiuing is here auouched by Gregory Then must he tel me how in these words the sacrifice of teares is matched with the sacrifice of his flesh and bloud and how the death of Christe is repaired by a mysterie howe the fleshe of Christ is diuided or parted if this can not bee done but spiritually then Christes body can not be eaten but spiritually The iudgement of Barnard which followeth we leaue to be weighed according to the corruption of the age in which he liued The eigth and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition among the eldest Fathers by Euthymius and Isidorus Although neither of these writers are within the compasse of the challenge yet bicause Euthymius vseth much to followe auncient Doctours and Isidorus was neere the time of the challenge I will set downe their places and examine their wordes Euthymius is cyted In 26. Math. Sicut vetus testamentum c.
Euen as the olde Testament had sacrifices and bloud so hath the newe namely the body and bloud of our Lorde Nowe he did not say These are the signes of my body and my bloud but these thinges be my body and bloud Therefore we must not looke to the nature of those things that are set foorth but to the vertue of them For as he did supernaturally deifie if I may so speake his assumpted flesh so doth he also vnspeakably transmute these thinges into the same his quickening body and into his precious bloud and into the grace of them And the bread hath a certaine similitude vnto the body and wine to bloud For both the bread and body are earthly but the wine and the bloud are airie and hote And as bread doth comfort so the body of Christe doth the same and much more it sanctifieth both the body and the soule And as the wine doth make glad so the bloud of Christ doth the same and moreouer is made a defence Although the chiefest partes of this place are answered in the 17. Chapter of the first booke and in the 51. Chap. of this second booke yet as M. Hes. gathereth here two other matters so I wil make answere to them First he saith That the figuratiue glose of the sacrameÌ„taries is flatly denied But by what words I pray you â–ª Marrie where he saith Christ saide not these be signes of my body and bloud but these are my body and bloud if this be a flat deniall of a figure bicause Christe saide not so then is it likewise in these speaches he saide not the rocke was a signe of Christe but the rocke was Christe the Lambe is the Passeouer c. Euthymius meaneth not to exclude all figures from the saying of Christ but to shew that the sacrament is not a bare naked and vaine signe but a true signe of the very body and bloud of Christe giuen to the faythfull in the administration of the supper The second matter that Maister Heskins noteth is of the vnspeakable transmutation and that must needes bee meant of transubstantiation of the breade and wine into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christe by this reason there be foure thinges called the bodie of Christ. 1. The figure 2. The Church 3. The merite fruite or vertue of his passion 4. And his bodie naturall but it can not be into the figure nor into the Churche Nor into the spirituall bodie of Christe I meane the merite vertue and grace of Christes passion Ergo it must needes be spoken of the naturall bodie of Christ. But vouchsafe gentle Reader to runne ouer once againe these wordes of Euthymius which in Latine are these Ita hec ineffabiliter transmutaâ— in ipsum vinificâ—â—â— corpus in ipsius prÄ™ciosum sanguinem siâ—on in gratiam ipso 〈◊〉 Euen so he doth vnspeakably transmute and change thesâ— thinges into the same his quickening bodie and into his owne precious bloud and into the grace of them Now tell me whether M. Heskins doth flatly denie that which Euthymius doeth flatly affirme that the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of the bodie and bloud of Christ By whiche words he doth sufficiently expound what kind of change he meaneth of them into the bodie and bloud of Christ not a corporall but a spirituall transmutation To the rest of the sentence which is a good exposition of the former parte shewing both the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament and for what cause they are vsed to represent the bodie and bloud of Christe namely for the similitude they haue vnto the bodie and bloud of Christ Maister Heskins sayeth nothing But let the reader weigh it well and he shall see it cleane contrarie both to transubstantiation and the carnall presence Nowe we come to Isodorus whom he confesseth to be somewhat out of the compasse of the challenge and his wordes De Offi. Eccle. Lib. 18. are these Sacrificium c. The sacrifice that is offered of the Christians vnto God Christe our God and Maister did first institute when he commended to his Apostles his bodie and his bloud before he was betrayed as it is read in the Gospel Iesus tooke bread and the cuppe and blessing them gaue vnto them In this place is nothing for the carnall presence but that Isydore calleth the sacrament the bodie and bloud of Christ which we also do and acknowledg to be so rightly called And Maister Heskins can conclude nothing but vpon a negatiue he saith not he gaue a figure so may I conclude he saith not he gaue his naturall body and no figure After this he reasoneth as fondely of Christes blessing of the bread which although the Euangelistes do expound to be giuing of thanks yet admit blessing to signifie consecration and what hath he gayned Forsooth Christ wold not haue blessed it to make but a figure still he playeth the foole with that bable but a figure onely a figure a bare figure which we vtterly doe forsake But toward the ende of the Chapter he falleth to gathering his voyces and affirmeth that none of the olde fathers cal the sacrament a figure except Tertullian onely wherein he lyeth impudently for beside Ambrose and Augustine which both vse the very worde figure we haue shewed in due places that both they in a manner al the rest of the fathers haue either written plainely against the carnall presence or else nothing for it As for his last challenge that all the protestants must bring forth when any countrie did professe the same religion that is now preached is vaine and hath beene sufficiently aunswered in other treatises It is certein that all nations that were conuerted by the Apostles before they were corrupted by heresie and Antechristianitie professed the same religion that we doe As for the alterations in King Henries time King Edwardes and the Queenes Maiesties that now is it is easie to answere King Henrie began the worke whiche King Edwarde finished and the Queene repayred and vpholdeth in spight of the diuel and the Pope As for the consent and peace of the Popishe Church it proueth nothing but that the diuell had then all thinges at his will and therefore might sleepe on both sides but now hee is disturbed of possession of the house nowe he stormeth and of Robin good fellowe which he was in the Popishe time is become playne Sathan the Diuell The nine fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the same text by the fathers of the latter days first Damascen Haymo Before M. Heskins begin his pretended exposition he chargeth Luther to be a proude contemner of the fathers who reuerenced them as much as it was meet they should be reuerenced although he preferred one authoritie of scripture before a thouâ—â—nd Cyprians Augustines Next to Luther he rayleth on the bishop of Sarum whoÌ„ he calleth the proclaymer charging him with mocking of the holie fathers whereof some he saith be
to doe that which Christ commanded to be done and to receiue that which he deliuered vs to be receiued if the particular explication of our faith will not satisfie M. Hes. at least let him after his owne Popish Diuinitie holde vs excused for our implicite faith or if his own principles can hold him no longer then he listeth let him giue vs leaue to esteeme none otherwise of them then he giueth vs example to do The seuen and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the oblation and sacrifice of the Masse as it was vsed of the Apostles and Fathers When not one of the Apostles or Euangelistes make one word mention either of Masse or sacrifice therein M. Heskins taketh vpon him much more then al the Papistes in the world can proue Concerning the Fathers as they vse the terme of sacrifice so I haue often shewed that they meane a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of propitiation or else they vse the name of sacrifice vnproperly for a memorial of the onely sacrifice of Christ which he once offered neuer to be repeated Neither do any of these Liturgies which M. Heskins calleth Masses though they be falsly ascribed to Saint Iames Saint Clement Saint Basil Saint Chrysostome c. shewe any other thing but manifestly the same that I haue saide First that which is falsly ascribed to Saint Iames in these wordes Memores c. Therefore we sinners being mindfull of his quickening passions of his healthfull crosse and death his buriall and resurrection from death the third day of his ascension into heauen and sitting at the right hand of thee ô God the father and of his second glorious and fearefull comming when he shall come with glory to iudge the quicke and the dead when he shall render to euery one according to his workes we offer vnto thee ô Lord this reuerend vnbloudie sacrifice praying that thou wilt not deale with vs according to our sinnes No reasonable man can vnderstand here any other but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing or prayer or a memoriall of the sacrifice of christ For he saith not we offer the body and bloud of Christe but being mindfull of his sufferings c. we offer this reuerend and vnbloudy sacrifice for such is the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing The like and more plaine is that which is ascribed to Clemens by Nicholas Methon Memores igitur Therefore being mindfull of his passion death and resurrection returning into heauen and his second comming in which he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead and to render to euery man according to his workes we offer vnto thee our king and God according to his institution this bread and this cup giuing thankes vnto thee by him that thou hast vouchsafed vs to stand before thee and to sacrifice vnto thee This is so plaine against M. Heskins for the oblation of Christes body and bloud c. that he is enforced to flee to shamefull petitions of principles the end of which is that this bread is no bread this cup is no cup but as Christe called bread in the 6. of Iohn and S. Paule in the 1. Cor. 10. 11. in exposition whereof lyeth all the controuersie That Liturgie which is intituled to S. Basil is yet more plaine for a spirituall oblation of thankesgiuing Memores ergo c. Therefore being mindfull ô Lord of his healthsome passions of his quickening crosse three dayes buriall resurrection from death ascension into heauen sitting at thy right hand ô God the father and of his glorious and terrible second presence we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures M. Heskins saith he abhorreth not from the name of sacrifice as we do but he falsly belyeth vs for if he will looke in our Liturgie or communion booke he shall finde that we also offer a sacrifice of thankesgiuing euen our selues our soules and bodies as the Apostle exhorteth vs to be a holy liuely and acceptable sacrifice to god But he will not remember that the sacrifice he speaketh of is not the body and bloud of Christe but tua ex tuis thy creatures of thy giftes or thy gifts of thy creatures namely the bread and wine which also after consecration he prayeth to be sanctified by Gods holy spirite but the body of Christe hath no neede of such sanctification Secondly he noteth not that his Basil maketh but two presences of Christe in the worlde the first when hee liued in humilitie in the the world the second which shall be terrible and glorious by which he doth manifestly exclude the third imagined presence of Christ in the sacrament To the same effect prayeth the Priest in the other Liturgie ascribed to Chrysostome Memores c. Therefore being mindfull of this wholesome commaundement and of all those things which are done for vs of his crosse buriall resurrection ascension into heauen sitting at the right hand of his second and glorious comming againe we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures Maister Heskins saith he will not seeke the deapth of this matter but only declare that al these fathers did offer sacrifice In which words he mocketh his readers egregiously whereas he should proue that they offered the body and bloud of Christe to be a propitiatorie sacrifice and that he proueth neuer a whit Nowe that the meaning of that Liturgie was not to offer Christ in sacrifice this prayer therein vsed before the words of coÌ„secration as they terme it doth sufficieÌ„tly declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Lord receiue this sacrifice vnto thine heauenly altar So that it is manifest they called the bread wine a sacrifice not the body bloud of christ The like is that of Ambrose The Priest saith Therefore being mindfull of his most glorious passion resurrection from death and ascension into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudy sacrifice this holy bread and cup of eternall life This vndefiled sacrifice saith M. Heskins must needes be the body and bloud of Christe for else there is nothing vndefiled that a man can offer But why may it not be as Ambrose calleth it here the holy bread and cup of the communion or as he calleth it a little before in the same place the figure of the body bloud of Christ For the bread and the wine which vnproperly he calleth a sacrifice in steede of a memoriall of a sacrifice in that they be the holy sacraments of Christes body and bloud are holy vndefiled and the foode of eternal life The same Ambrose called the soule of his brother an innocent sacrifice and offered the same to God in his prayer De obiâ—â— fratris c. To conclude not one of all these Liturgies no not the Canon of the Masse it selfe saith that the body of Christe is the sacrifice that they do offer or that they offer a propitiatorie sacrifice or that they offer any other but a
death vntil he come How is he that is to come distinct from him that is present for Saint Paule maketh an exposition of this breade this cuppe which are present to shewe the Lordes death that is to come But let vs heare what Saint Ieronyme sayeth that may helpe him in 1. Cor. 11. Ideo hoc c. Therefore our Sauiour hath deliuered this sacrament that by it we might alwayes remember that he dyed for vs For therefore also when we receiue it wee are warned of the priestes that it is the bodie and bloud of Christ that we might not be thought vnthankefull for his benefites I like this saying verie well which teacheth that the sacramēt is therefore called the bodie bloud of Christ that thereby we might be put in minde of the benefite of Christes death to be thankfull for it And that his meaning is none otherwise his owne wordes shal declare going both before and after Vpon these wordes Gratias egit c. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus vltimam nobis commemorationem sine memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat vt quotiescunque illud viderit possit eius beneficia amicitias memorare quod ille si perfectè dilexit sine ingenti desiderio non potest videre vel fletu That is blessing or giuing thankes euen when hee was to suffer he left to vs his last commemoration or remembrance Euen as a man going into a farre countrey doth leaue some pledge to him whome he loueth that so often as he seeth it he may remember his benefites and frendship which pledge he if he loued perfectly cannot beholde without great desire or weeping In these words you see S. Hierom compareth the sacrament to a pledge which is left in remembrance of loue benefites receiued of him that in person is absent The same writer vpō the same words of our text donec venerit vntill he come thus writeth Tam diu memoria opus est donec ipse venire dignetur So long we haue neede of a remembraunce vntill he him selfe vouchesafe for to come Nothing can bee more plaine to shewe his meaning not to be of a carnall or bodilie presence although as Christ hath giuen vs the president he call the bread and cuppe by the name of the bodie and bloud of Christe The testimonie of Theophylact being a Greeke Gentleman of the lower house I haue hetherto refused to admitt and therefore in this place also will not trouble the reader with him The challenge was made of writers within sixe hundreth yeares after Christe this man liued about a thousande yeres after Christ yet if I would wrangle about his wordes he hath nothing that may not bee reasonably construed on our side without any wresting The fiue and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by S. Basil Rupert S. Basil is alledged de baptismo Oportet accedentem c. It behoueth him that commeth to the bodie and bloud of our Lord to the remembrance of him that was dead for vs and rose againe not onely to be pure from all vncleannesse of bodie and soule lest he eate and drinke to his owne condemnation but also to shewe euidently and to expresse the memorie of him that hath dyed for vs and risen againe And what sayeth Basil in these words that we do not graunt vnderstanding purenesse by faith and repentance Maister Hesk. sayeth in steede of that S. Paule sayde this bread and this cupp he sayeth the bodie and bloud of Christe although I might stande with him that this is no interpretation of Sainct Paules wordes but an exhortation which Basil maketh to the worthie receiuing of the sacrament what inconuenience is it to graunt that it is both bread and wine and also after a spirituall manner his verie bodie and bloud which is receiued of the faithfull But either Maister Heskins note booke serued him not or els his malice against the trueth would not suffer him to see what the same Basil writeth not many lines before these wordes which he citeth vpō the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ of the institution of this blessed sacrament and immediatly after the verie text of the Apostle now in hande As often as you eate of this bread and drinke of this cuppe you shewe the Lordes death vntill he come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then do these words profit vs that eating drinking we might always remember him which dyed for vs and is risen againe and so wee might bee instructed of necessitie to obserue before God and his Christe that lesson which is deliuered by the Apostle where hee sayeth for the loue of Christe doeth constreine vs iudging this that if one hath dyed for all then all are dead M. Heskins denyeth the sacrament to be a remembrance of Christe for feare he shoulde confesse Christ to be absent affirming it is a remembrance only of the death of christ But Basil saith that in eating and drinking we must remember Christe that is dead risen againe for vs and so be transformed into his image by mortification and newnesse of life This is all the profite that Basil gathereth of the institution of the supper of the Lorde Where is then the carnall presence the sacrifice propitiatorie the application of it according to the priestes intention and such like monsters of the Masse The testimonie of Rupertus a burgesse of the lower house I will not stand vpon notwithstanding it little helpeth Maister Heskins cause For he doth not say that the sacrament is so a remembrance of Christes death that it is not a remembrance of Christ him selfe But Maister Heskins sayeth all the rable of sacramentaries cannot bring one couple of catholike authors that saye Saint Paule spake here of materiall bread neither can Maister Heskins bring one single auncient writer within the compasse of the challenge which is 600. yeres after Christ that denyeth that S. Paule spake of materiall breade as the earthly part of the sacrament He hath named Hierome Basil but neither of them denie it as for Theophylact Rupertus although neyther of them also denye it in the places by him cited yet I knowe not why we might not as well produce Berengarius and Bertrame as auncient as they which affirme that Saint Paule spake here of bread But that there is materiall bread in the sacrament as the earthly part thereof we haue already cited Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Origen in 15. Matthaei Cyrill in Ioan. Lib. 4. Cap. 24. and many other Toward the end of this Chapter Maister Heskins taketh vpon him to aunswere an obiection of Oecolampadius who iustly chargeth the Papistes of wilfull ignorance in that they make the body of Christ both the exemplar and the thing exemplified the figure and the thing figured the signe and the thing signified whereas relation must be betwixt two thinges distincted and not of
in due examination vprightnesse of faith and puritie of life And this faith hee determineth to be the Apostolique and Catholique faith which must be learned of hearing as Saint Paule saith Faith commeth of hearing and as he saith it must bee learned of the Elders and so bee continued by tradition But Saint Paule saith Hearing must be of the worde of God for Elders may erre as well as youngers but the worde of GOD can not erre neither can he erre that followeth the doctrine of the worde of GOD in any thing Vnto purenesse of life he requireth confession alledging the confession of Augspurge for the confirmation thereof as though Christian confession and the Popish shrift were all one As fond it is that he saith the Apostles were instructed by Christe in the faith of the sacrament before the institution thereof by the miracle of the fiue loaues and in purenesse of life by washing of his disciples feete Where yet was neither contrition confession nor satisfaction After this he rayleth vpon Luther for saying that onely faith maketh men pure and worthie to receiue as though by so saying he did exclude the fruites of repentance and reformation of manners which necessarily do followe of a true and liuely faith which onely maketh vs righteous in the sight of God and worthie receiuers by reputation or acceptation which in the conclusion Maister Heskins himselfe confesseth to be all the worthines that any man hath or can haue to be partaker of the body and bloud of Christ. The foure and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the Fathers vpon the same text with Saint Hierome and Saint Chrysostome S. Hierome is alledged in 1. Cor. 11. Si in linteum vel vat sordidum non illud mittere audeat c. If a man dare not put that thing into a soule cloth or vessell howe much more in a defiled hart which vncleannesse God aboue all things detesteth and which is the only iniurie that can be done to his body For euen therefore did Ioseph that righteous man burie the Lordes body wrapped in a cleane linnen cloth in a newe tombe prefiguring that they which should receiue the Lords body should haue both a cleane minde and a new M. Heskins saith these wordes make plaine for the presence of Christ in that Hierome saith we receiue the body of Christe And who denyeth either the presence of Christ or that we receiue the body of Christ in the sacrament Only we differ whether Christ be present bodily and whether we receiue his body after a corporall manner or after a spirituall or heauenly manner It is pitie he can not see in Hieromes wordes that Christes body must be receiued in a cleane sort as in a cleane vessell And whereas Maister Heskins translateth mittere illud to put that body into a foule cloth or vessell it is maruell he considered not that which aunswereth in similitude to a foule vessell namely a foule heart He thought by that translation or rather falsification to make it seeme that wicked men receiue the body of Christe with the mouth but his authour saith with a filthie heart which is the only iniurie that can be done to the body of Christe therefore he speaketh of the wicked presuming to receiue the sacrament of his body and bloud not affirming that they do it in deede For vpon these wordes He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation he saith Dupliciter reus effectus presumptionis scilicet peccati Being made twise guiltie namely of presumption and sinne and vpon those words He shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde hee saith Quia tanti mysterij sacramentum pro vili despexerit bicause he hath despised the sacrament of so great a mysterie as nothing worth But Maister Heskins citeth another place of Saint Hierome against the licentious doctrine of Luther as he saith that would haue none other preparation but onely faith also to maintaine his carnall presence Lib. 1. Apoll. contra Iouinian Probet se vnusquisque c. Let euery man examine him self and so let him come to the Lords body He would not saith he call it the body of Christe if it were but bread Howe often shall I tell him that it is one thing to say it is breade an other thing to say it is but breade The former we say and also that it is Christes body the latter we vtterly deny But Saint Hierome more at large is cited in 1. Cor. 11. vpon these wordes of Saint Paule Who so euer shall eate of this breade and drinke of this cup of the Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde Sicut scriptum est Omnis mundus manducabit c. As it is written Euery cleane person shall eate it and againe The vncleane soule that shall eate it shall be rooted out from his people And our Lorde him selfe saith If before the altar thou shalt remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee leaue thy gifâ— before the altar and goe and be reconciled to thy brother Therefore the conscience must first be searched if it doe in nothing reprehend vs and so we ought either to offer or to communicate There be some that say he doth not here forbid an vnworthie person from the holy thing but him that receiueth vnworthily If therefore the worthie person comming vnworthily he drawne backe howe much more the vnworthy person which can not receiue worthily Wherfore it behoueth the idle person to cease from vices that he may holily receiue the holy body of our Lord. In these wordes Maister Heskins noteth the preparation required against Luthers onely faith and the thing receiued to be the holy body of our Lorde I haue aunswered before that Luthers onely faith doth not exclude but of necessitie drawe with it all things requisite to a due preparation And that the holy body of our Lorde is receiued of the faithfull wee doe willingly confesse but not of the vnfaithfull and wicked persons For the same Hierome in the Chapter before cited vpon this saying of the Apostle This is my body writeth thus Qui manducat corpus meum bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo Vnde agnoscere se debet quisquis Christi corpus edit aut sanguinem bibit ne quid indignum ei faciat cuius corpus effectus est Hee that eateth my body and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Wherefore hee ought to knowe him selfe who so euer either eateth the body of Christe or drinketh his bloud that hee doe nothing vnworthily to him whose body hee is made This sentence plainely declareth both howe the body and bloud of Christe are eaten and dronken and of whome namely they are so receiued as hee that receiued them is made the body of Christe that is of necessitie spiritually and they are receiued of them in whome Christe dwelleth and they in him therefore of
as good reasons as that ▪ comon iest The staffe standeth in the corner therefore the good man is not at home As for the saying of Origen we receiue it willingly for hee speaketh of such receiuers as Saint Paule doth that is not wicked and reprobate persons but such as for their offences were chastened of the Lord that they might not be condemned with the worlde But he will presse vs with a more vehement place of Origen Hom. 13. in 25. Exod. Volo vos admonere c. I will admonish you with the examples of our own religion You that are wont to be present at the diuine mysteries doe knowe howe you receiue the Lords bodie you giue heede with all warinesse and reuerence that no little portion of it should fall downe that no parte of the consecrated gift should fall away for you beleeue your selues to be guiltie and you beleeue rightly if any of it should fall from you through negligence If then you vse so great warinesse about the conseruing of his bodie and worthily do vse it howe do you thinke it is lesse offence to haue neglected the worde of God then his bodie Maister Heskins noteth two things in this sentence First a playne saying for the proclaimer that without mention of figure signe or sacramentall bread hee sayeth the people receiued the bodie of Christe Secondly that he commendeth the reuerend vsage of the same Concerning the first there is expresse mention of the Diuine mysteries and not that onely but then in that he calleth the sacrament the bodie of Christe it appeareth both that there is bread and that it is not so his bodie as the Papistes do deeme For whereof be those litle portions that may fall away partes of the breade or of the bodie of Christe I thinke he is not so madde to say that peeces may fall off from Christes holy and naturall bodie Then it remaineth that they bee peeces or crommes of breade that may fall away And seeing that whereof peeces may fall away is called the bodye of Christe it is manifest that hee meaneth not the naturall bodie of Christe to be corporally present from which no peeces can fall away Finally seeing Origen maketh it as great a fault to neglect the worde of God as to neglect the sacrament it followeth that Christe is none otherwise present in the sacrament then in his worde that is spiritually and after an heauenly manner As for the other matter that Origen alloweth the reuerence of the people in handling the sacrament we also do allowe the same so farre as neither idolatrie nor superstition be mainteined And whereas he raileth against vs for our vsage of that breade and wine which remaineth after the ministration of the communion he sheweth his wisedome and charitie For that which remaineth on the table when the ministration is ended is no more the sacrament then it was before the ministration began and therefore may be vsed as all other bread whatsoeuer the Popes decrees are to the contrarie Now let vs heare what he can say out of S. Ambrose against vs He citeth him in 1. Cor. 11. Vt verum probaret c. That he might proue that there is a iudgement to come of them which receiue the Lords bodie he doth nowe shewe a certeine image of the iudgement vppon them which vnaduisedly had receiued the bodie of our Lord while they were punished with feuers and infirmities and many dyed that by them the rest might learne and being terrified by the example of a fewe they might be reformed knowing that to receiue the bodie of our Lorde negligently is not left vnpunished but if his punishment be here deferred that he shal be more grieuously handled hereafter because he hath contemned the example Here againe M. Heskins chargeth Ambrose to saye that the sacrament is the naturall bodie of Christe and that it hath bene receiued of euil men when hee sayeth neither of both for he speaketh of them that were faithfull and that might bee reformed whereas the wicked reprobates be vncurable And as for the carnal manner of presence howe farre he was from it let his owne wordes in the same place declare Vppon this texte You shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quę pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lord being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking we do signifie his fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs And in the same place a little after Testamentum ergo sanguine constitutum est quia beneficij Diuini sanguis testis est in cuius typum nos calicem mysticum sanguinis ad tuitionem corporis animae nostrę percipimus The testament therefore is established by bloud because his bloud is a witnesse of the diuine benefite in figure of whose bloude wee doe receiue the mysticall cuppe to the preseruation both of our bodie and of our soule These sentences are plaine to declare to any man that wil be satisfied with reason that this writer acknowledged not a carnall but a spirituall manner of presence But Maister Heskins will vrge vs with another place that followeth Deuoto animo cum timore accedendum ad communionem docet vt sciat mens reuerentiam se debere ei ad cuius corpus sumendum accedit He teacheth vs to come to the communion with a deuoute minde and with feare that the minde may knowe that it oweth reuerence to him whose bodie it commeth to receiue Maister Heskins sayeth here be plaine termes for the proclaimer in deede I woulde wish no playner for the spirituall manner of presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament because this author sayeth the minde must yeeld reuerence to him whose body it cōmeth to receiue If the minde receiue the body of Christ it must needs be spiritually for the minde can receiue nothing corporally And there followe as plaine termes in the next sentence immediatly Hoc enim apud se debet iudicare quia Dominus est cuius in mysterio sanguinem petat qui est testis beneficij Dei. For this it ought to consider with it selfe that it is the Lorde whose blood it drinketh in a mysterie which blood is a witnesse of the benefite of God. In the former sentence the minde receiued the body of Christ now in this it drinketh the blood of Christ in a mystery which is a witnesse or assuraunce of the benefite of God namely the redemption of the world by the blood of his onely sonne our Lorde Iesus Christ. The eight and fiftie chapter endeth the exposition of the same text by Theophylact and Anselme Theophylact saith nothing but of the temporall punishment that God layeth vppon the contemners of his mysterie Anselme borrowed his wordes of Ambrose cited in the last chapter And both Theophylact and Anselme though great
deede be turned into his fleshe it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath giuen vnto vs. I will aske no better interpretation for this must either be a spirituall and vnspeakeable manner of conuersion or else it would be a monsterous and blasphemous transmutation of our flesh into the flesh of Christ as I haue diuerse times before noted of this place But what sayeth S. Gregorie in Iob. Cap. 6. Natus Dominus c. Our Lorde being borne is layd in the manger that it might be signified that the holie beaster which long vnder the lawe were founde fasting should be filled with the haye of his incarnation Being borne he filled the manger who gaue him selfe to be meate to mennes mindes saying he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in me and I in him What winneth M. Heskins by this place it is the meate of the soule therefore it must be spiritually receiued Or if hee will not haue it onely spiritually receiued wherefore serueth the text alledged which he affirmeth to be verified onely in them that receiue spiritually But we must heare further out of Gregorie in Hom. Pasc. Quid namque c. For what the bloud of the lambe is you haue not nowe learned by hearing but by drinking which it put vpon bothe the postes when it is not dronke onely with the mouth of the bodie but also with the mouth of the heart What newes haue we here forsooth Christes bloud dronke with mouth of bodie and mouth of heart I heare him say the bloud of the Pascall lambe which he sayth doth figure the sacrament is so dronke but not the naturall bloud of Christ. Why then marke what he sayeth soone after Qui sic c. Hee that so taketh the bloud of his redeemer that he will not yet followe his passion he hath put the bloud on the one post In this allegorie if he call the sacrament of Christes bloude the redeemers bloud as he calleth it the bloud of the lambe what great marueile is it or what great matter is it the whole speache being figuratiue both allegoricall and metonymicall The sixe and twentieth Chapter continueth this exposition by Saint Cyrill and Lyra. Cyrill is cited in Ioan. Cap. 15. Qui manducat c. Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee I in him Whereuppon it is to be considered that not by disposition onely which is vnderstoode by charitie Christ is in vs but also by a naturall participation For as if a man do so mingle waxe that is melted with fire vnto other waxe likewise melted that one thing seeme to be made of them both so by the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christe he is in vs and wee in him For this corruptible nature of our bodye coulde not otherwise bee brought to incorruptiblenesse and life except the bodie of naturall life were ioyned to it By these wordes Cyrill teacheth that wee are ioyned to the naturall fleshe of Christe so that by participation thereof wee are made one with him but wicked men are not made one with Christe nor partakers of incorruptiblenesse therefore wicked men are not ioyned to Christe by that naturall participation he speaketh of and consequently Christe is not corporally receiued of them nor of any other Yet Maister Heskins noteth as his manner is a plaine place for Maister Iewell when he saith we do partake the naturall flesh bloud of Christe Which wee alwayes confesse but wee partake it spiritually by faith and haue eternall life thereby therefore wicked men partake it not which want both the meane and the effect Thus Cyrill beeing aunswered wee force not vpon Lyra. As for that which followeth in the Chapter to shewe that by participation of Christes fleshe wee are not deliuered from temporall death but from eternall destruction being no matter of question I passe ouer as needelesse The seuen and twentieth Chapter abydeth in the same exposition by Theophylact and Ruperius Tuicen Although there is no greate matter in the speache of the two Burgesses to helpe maister Heskins purpose yet because they are too young to beare witnesse in this cause I will not trouble my selfe nor my reader either to rehearse them or to make aunswere to them The eyght and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Haimo Euthymius As for fryer Haimo I leaue him to M. Hesk. although in the words cited by him he sayeth nothing greatly to his intent But for as much as Euthymius Zigabonus â–ª doeth often borrowe his expositions of the old doctours though he him selfe be not so auncient a writer I will rehearse his testimonie in Math. 26. Si de vno c. If all we that are faithfull do partake of one bodie and bloud wee are all one by the participation of these mysteries and we are all in Christ and Christ is in vs all He sayth he that eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloude dwelleth in mee and I in him For the WORDE by assumption was vnited to flesh and againe the flesh is vnited to vs by participation Here M. Heskins noteth a plaine proofe of the presence against the proclaimer How so the naturall fleshe was vnited to the sonne of God and the sonne is vnited to vs by participation What else but this participation is by faith and causeth vs to bee one with Christe and Christe in vs all and is not in the wicked which thing Maister Heskins with a dry foote passeth ouer as also in translation he omitteth the word fideles all wee that are faithfull because he woulde haue the ignorant to thinke that the vnfaithfull do partake the same flesh as truely as the faithfull The nine and twentieth Chapter expoundeth the next texte that followeth in the sixt of Saint Iohn by Saint Augustine and S. Cyrill The text is this As the liuing father sent mee and I liue for the father and he that eateth mee shall liue also for mee or by the meanes of mee In exposition of this text he will onely declare by Saint Augustine Howe Christ liueth by the father which because it is no matter of controuersie betwixt vs I do altogether omitt come to Cyrillus whose wordes concerning anâ— thing our question are these for the rest as impertinent I passe ouer Quemaedmodum ego factus c. As I am made man by the will of my father and liue by the father because I haue naturally flowed out of that life which is so of nature perfectly do keepe the nature of my father so that I also am naturally life euen so he that eateth my fleshe shall liue for mee being wholly reformed vnto mee which am life and am able to giue life And he sayeth that he him selfe is eaten when his fleshe is â—aten Because the worde was made fleshe not by confusion of natures but by the unspeakable manner of vnion Here Maister Heskins noteth that Christe is
Ambrose following Vide c. See all those be the Euangelists words vnto these words Take either the bodie or the bloud from thence they be the wordes of christ Note euery thing Who saith he the day before he suffered tooke breade in his holie hands Before it be consecrated it is bread but after the wordes of Christe be come vnto it it is the bodie of christ Finally heare him saying Take ye eat ye all of it this is my bodie And before the wordes of Christ the cuppe is full of wine water after the wordes of Christ haue wrought there is made the bloud which redeemed the people To the like effect be the words taken out of his treatise de oration Dom. Memini c. I remember my saying when I entreated of the sacraments â–ª I told you that before the wordes of Christ that which is offered is called bread when the wordes of Christ are brought forth nowe it is not called bread but it is called his bodie Here M. Hesk. triumpheth in his consecration of the vertue therof But he must remember what Ambrose saith De ijs qui myster initiant Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus c. Our Lord Iesus him selfe doth speake alowde This is my bodie before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is named another kinde but after the consecration the bodie of Christ is signified And lib. de Sac. 4. Cap. 2. Ergo didicisti c. Then hast thou learned that of the bread is made the bodie of Christ that the wine water is put into the cup but by consecration of the heauenly word it is made his bloud But peraduenture thou sayest I see not the shew of bloud But it hath a similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud that there may bee no horror of bloud yet it may worke the price of redemption Here M. Hesk. for all his swelling brags hath not gained one patch of his popish Masse out of the auncient writers for none of them vnderstoode consecration to cause a transsubstantiation of the elements into the naturall bodie of Christe but only a separation of them from the common vse to become the sacraments of the bodie bloud of christ As for the foolish cauil he vseth against protestants refusing to follow the primitiue church for loue liking of innouation is not worthie of any reputation for in al things which thei followed Christ most willingly we folow theÌ„ but where the steps of Christs doctrin are not seene there dare we not follow them although otherwise we like neuer so well of them The sixe thirtieth Chapter declareth what was the intention of the Apostles fathers in about the consecratioÌ„ in the Mass. M. Hesk. will proue that their intention was to transsubstantiate the bread wine into the bodie bloud of christ And first the idol of S. Iames is brought forth on procession in his Liturgie which M. Hesk. had rather call his Masse Miserere c. Haue mercie vpon vs God almightie haue mercie vpoÌ„ vs God our Sauiour haue mercie vpon vs ô God according to thy great mercie send down vpon vs vpoÌ„ these gifts set forth thy most holy spirit the Lord of life which sitteth together with thee god the father the only begotteÌ„ sonne raigning together being consubstantiall coeternall which spake in the law the prophets in thy newe testament which discended in the likenesse of a doue vpon our lord Iesus Christ in the riuer of Iordan abode vpon him which descended vpon thy Apostles in the likenesse of fierie tongue in the parler of the holy glorious Sion in the day of Pentecost send down that thy most holy spirite now also ô lord vpon vs vpon these holie giftes set forth that comming vpoÌ„ theÌ„ with his holie good glorious presence he may saÌ„ctifie make this bread the holy body of thy Christe and this cup the precious bloud of thy Christ that it may be to all that receiue of it vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes and life euerlasting M. Heskins saith he would not haue prayed so earnestly that the holy Ghost might haue sanctified the bread and wine to be onely figures and tokens which they might be without the speciall sanctification of Gods spirite as many things were in the lawe As for only figures and tokens it is a slaunder confuted and denyed a hundreth times alreadie But what a shamelesse beast is he to affirme that the sacraments of the olde lawe which were figures of Christe had no speciall sanctification of the holy Ghost or that baptisme which is a figure of the bloud of Christ washing our souls may be a sacrament without the speciall sanctification of Gods spirite you see howe impudently he wresteth and wringeth the wordes of this Liturgie which if it were graunted vnto them to be authenticall yet hitherto maketh it nothing in the world for him But let vs heare how S. Clement came to the altar Rogamus vt mittere digneris c. We pray thee that thou wouldest vouchsafe to send thy holy spirite vpon this sacrifice a witnesse of the passions of our Lord Iesus Christ that he may make this breade the body of thy Christ and this cup the bloud of thy Christ. Here saith M. Heskins his intent was that the bread and wine should be made the body bloude of christ And so they be to them that receiue worthily But M. Heskins will not see that he calleth the bread and wine a sacrifice before it is made the body and bloud of Christ by which it is plaine that this Clemens intended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice as the Papistes pretend to do S. Basil in his Liturgie hath the same intention in consecration Te postulamus c. We pray and besech thee ô most holy of al holies that by thy wel pleasing goodness thy holy spirit may come vpon vs and vpon these proposed gifts to blesse and sanctifie them to shew this bread to be the very honourable body of our Lorde God Sauiour Iesus Christ and that which is in the cup to be the very bloud of our Lord god sauiour Iesus Christ which was shed for the life of the world Of this praier M. Hes. inferreth that Basil by the sanctification of the holy ghost beleeued the bread and wine to be made Christes body bloud he meaneth corporally traÌ„substantially But that is most false for this praier is vsed in that liturgie after the words of consecration when by the Popish doctrine the body and bloud of Christe must needes be present imediatly after the last sillable vm in hoc est corpuâ— meâ—um pronounced Wherefore seeing the Author of this Liturgie after the words of coÌ„secration pronounced praieth that God will sanctifie the breade and wine by his spirite and make it the body and bloud of
both of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament that is the bodie of Christ as the person of Christ consisteth of God man seeing Christ himselfe is very God ▪ and verie man Because euerie thing conteineth in it the nature and trueth of those thinges of which it is made but the sacrifice of the Church is made of two the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament that is the bodie of Christ therefore there is the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament This last sentence M. Hesk. hath not translated But he noteth three things in these words affirmed which the sacramentaries denie that is that the Church hath a sacrifice that therein is a sacrament which is the fourmes of bread and wine and that there is present the very body and bloud of Christ which he calleth the thing of the sacrament Concerning the tearme of sacrifice it is a stale quarrell whereby he meaneth the sacrifice of thankes giuing or the Eucharistie For the formes of bread wine that is as Maister Heskins meaneth the accidentes it is false he hath nothing tending to that end he saith Specie elementorum that is the kinde of elementes which is the substance and not the accidentes of bread and wine And for the presence heare his owne wordes in the same booke Escam vitae accepit poculum vitę bibit qui in Christo manet Cuius Christus habitator est Nam qui discordat a Chricto nec panem cius manducat nec sanguinem bibit etiamsi tanto rei sacramentum ad iudicium suę praesumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat He hath receiued the meat of life and drunke the cuppe of life which abideth in Christ in whom Christ dwelleth But he that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth his bread nor drinketh his bloud although he receiue euerie day indifferently the sacrament of so great a thing vnto the condemnation of his presumption This place is plaine against the corporall eating of Christe and M. Heskins wise distinction seeing the wicked by the iudgement of Prosper out of Augustine eate onely the sacrament that is bread and wine and not the bodie bloud of Christ which is not eaten but by faith The twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Saint Hilarie and Euthymius Hilarius is cited Lib. 8. de Trinitat Que scripta sunt c. Let vs reade those thinges that be written and let vs vnderstande those things that we shall read then shal we performe the dutie of perfect faith Such thinges as we learne of the naturall trueth of Christ in vs except we learne of him we learne foolishly and vngodly For he him selfe saith my flesh is meat in deed my bloud is drinke in deede He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him There is no place left to doubt of the trueth of his flesh and bloud For now by the profession of our Lord himselfe it is verily fleshe and verily bloud And this beeing taken and dronken bring this to passe that Christ is in vs and we in Christ. Out of these wordes he noteth three thinges The first that the text is spoken of the sacrament conteyning the bodie and bloud of Christe of the veritie whereof there should be no doubt The second is the corporall receiuing of Christ in the sacrament The third is that thereby Christ is in vs and we in him To the first note this text is none otherwise spoken of the sacramēt as we haue often shewed then as the sacrament is a seale of this eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud which is also without the sacrament And that we should not doubt of the trueth of his fleshe and bloud it is true we confesse he hath true flesh true bloud with the same doeth feede vs but that this flesh and bloud is conteined in the sacrament Hillarie saith not but Heskins Neither doeth he speake of any corporall receiuing of Christe in the sacrament which is the second note but seeing he dwelleth in all them that receiue him which is the thirde note there is no place for the corporal receiuing which the Papists confesse to be common to the wicked in whome Christ dwelleth not nor they in him But to proue the corporall receiuing he hath another place out of the same booke Si enim verè c. For if the WORDE was verily made flesh and we doe truely eate the worde made flesh in the Lordes meate how is he not to be thought to abide naturally in vs which being borne a man hath taken vpon him the nature of our flesh now inseparable hath admixed the nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder the sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated vnto vs. This with him is a plaine place and much adoe he maketh about this worde naturally by which he meaneth nothing else but truly for otherwise M. Heskins if he be in his right wittes wil confesse that the abiding of Christe in vs is not naturall nor after a naturall manner but spirituall and after a Diuine manner And although he spake plain ynough of the participation of his flesh vnder a sacramēt yet more euidently in the same booke in these wordes Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit verè homo ille qui ex Maria natus fuit Christus est nosque verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnum erimus quia Pater in eo est ille in nobis quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit vnitatis If therefore Christe did verily take vpon him the flesh of our bodie that man which was borne of Marie was verily Christ and we doe verily receiue the fleshe of his body vnder a mysterie and thereby shall be one because the Father is in him and he in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie Here he saith we do verily eate the flesh of his bodie but if you aske how He aunswereth vnder a mysterie as before he said vnder a sacrament Therfore to take that absolutely as M. Heskins doth which of him is spoken but after a certeine manner as vnder a sacrament or a mysterie is a grosse abusing both of the authour and of the readers Euthymius is cited In Ioan. Caro mea c. My fleshe is meate in deede It is true meate or moste conuenient meate as which nourisheth the soule which is the moste proper part of man And likewise of the bloud or else he saide this confirming that he spake not obscurely or parabolically I maruel what Maister Heskins gayneth by this place Forsooth that this is no figuratiue speech but a plain speech signifying none otherwise then the wordes sound Well yet we must not cast away that which Euthymius saide