therefore no figure nor spiritual receit only which are not wonderfull This argument is false for sacramentall figures and spirituall things are great wonders thought not sensible myracles As for eating the Lamb the Sheepe and such other are so plaine figures that impudencie her selfe would not deny them to be figures Finally he noteth that sinners receiue the bodye of Christe in the sacrament which hee saith the Protestantes denye which is as grossely for except sinners should receiue Christe in the sacrament no men should receiue him But the Protestantes say that wicked men or reprobate men vngodly men vnpenitent sinners receiue not the body of Christe which though it haue bene sufficiently proued before yet I will adde one more testimony out of Saint Augustine De ciuitate Dei. Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi Denique ipse dicens Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in eo ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus sed reuera corpus Christi manducare eius sanguinem bibere Neyther is it to be saide that these men meaning heretiques other wicked men doe eate the bodie of Christ bicause they are not to bee accounted among the members of christ Finally he himself saying He that eateth my flesh drinketh my blud abideth in me I in him sheweth what it is not touching the sacramēt only but indeed to eat the body of Christ drink his bloud But now let vs returne to Chrys. who Hom. 83. in 26. Math. hath these words Praecipuā He dissolueth their chiefe solemnitie and calleth thē to another table ful of horror saying Take ye and eat ye this is my body How then wer they not troubled hearing this bicause they had heard many great things of these before Here M. Hes. troubleth him self very much his readers more to proue that by the doctrin which they heard before vttered in the sixt of Iohn they were so instructed as they were not troubled which we confes to be true although that doctrine doth none otherwise pertaine vnto the sacrament then as the sacrament is a seale of the doctrine But Chrysostome saith further in the same Homely Hac de causa c. For this cause with desire I haue desired to eate this passeouer with you that I might make you spirituall He him self also dranke thereof least when they had heard his wordes they should say what then do we drinke bloud and eate flesh and so should haue bene troubled For when he spake before of those things many were offended only for his wordes Therefore least the same thing should happen nowe also he him selfe did it first that he might induce them with quiet minde to the communication of the mysteries Here M. Heskins falleth into a sound sleepe and then dreameth a long dreame of the reall presence and the trouble of the Apostles and lothsomnesse of bloud the contradiction of Chrysostomes wordes and I wote not what beside ▪ But to a man that is awake Chrysostom speaketh plaine ynough He saith this was the cause why Christ desired to eate the Passeouer with them which he taketh to be that hee did first drinke before them c. that hee might make thē spirituall that is that they might not haue carnall imaginations of eating his body and his bloud as the Capernaites had but vnderstande those thinges spiritually the rather when they sawe him eate and drinke of them which if he had eaten his owne naturall body and drunk his owne natural bloud would haue troubled them more then if he had not tasted of them And how so euer M. Heskins drumbleth and dreameth of this matter Cranmer saith truely that if Christ had turned the breade into his body as the Papistes affirme so great and woonderfull a chaunge should haue bene more plainely setfoorth in the scripture by some of the Euangelistes Sedulius for varietie of names is cyted In 11. pri ad Cor. Accipite hoc est corpus meum c. Take ye this my body as though Paule had saide take heede ye eate not the body vnworthily seeing it is the body of Christ. What is there here that the proclamer will not confesse and yet is there nothing to binde him to subscribe for the proclamer would neuer denye that the sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ though after an other sort then it is affirmed by the Papistes The sixe and fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Theophylus and Leo. Theophylus Alexandrinus is brought on the stage in this shewe cyted Lib. 2. Pasch. Consequens est c. It is consequent that he that receiueth the former things should also receiue those things that follow And he that shall say that Christ was crucified for diuels must allowe also that it is to be saide vnto them This is my body and take ye this is my bloud For if he be crucified for diuels as the author of new doctrine doth affirme what priuiledge shall there be or what reason that onely men should communicate with his body and bloud and not diuels also for whome he shed his bloud in his passion Hee saith here is no mention of tropes and figures A substantiall reason therefore none are vsed It is a good reason that Theophylus vseth that Christ died not for the diuels bicause he giueth them no participation of his body and bloud but it hangeth on a rush that M. Hes. concludeth Such as are partakers of his reall body may be made partakers of his spirituall body but diuels can not of his reall body therefore not of his spirituall body be partakers See how this peruerse man maketh the sacrament to be the reall body of Christ and that which was crucified his spirituall body By which he doth not only make Christe haue two bodies but also ouerthroweth the truth of the one to establish the falshod of the other But the same writer in the first booke doth more certainly auouch the real presence deny the figures in these wordes Dicit spiritum sanctum c. Origen saith that the holy Ghost doth not worke vpon those things which are without life nor commeth to vnreasonable things Which when he saith he thinketh not that the mysticall waters in baptisme by the comming of the holy Ghost to them are consecrated and that the Lords bread by which our sauiours body is shewed and which we breake for sanctification of vs and the holy cup which are set on the table and be things without life are sanctified by inuocation and comming of the holy Ghost to them M. Hes. translateth quo saluaioris corpus ostenditur in which the body of our Sauiour is shewed but it is plaine ynough Theophylus meaneth that by the breade the body of Christe is shewed that is signified or figured or represented As for consecration
Christ none but Christ is to be followed we must then obey and doe that whiche Christ did and which he commanded to be done Here Maister Heskins noteth that Christ is the sacrifice I answere euen as the bread is his bodie the wine his bloud But that Christ commaunded the Church to offer this sacrifice in remembrance of him he teacheth plainely saith M. Heskins Yea sir but where doth he teach either plainely or obscurely that the Masse is a sacrifice propitiatorie for the quicke and the dead which is the matter in question And not the name of sacrifice vsed by Cyprian vnproperly figuratiuely meaning a remembrance and thankesgiuing for the onely once offered sacrifice of Christe But let vs heare his words Quod si nec minimia c. If it be not lawful to breake the least of the Lordes commaundements how much more is it not lawful to infringe or breake things so greate so weightie so apperteining to the very sacrament of the Lords passion and our redemption or by mans tradition to chaunge it into any other thing then is ordeined of God For if Iesus Christ our Lord and God be himselfe the high Priest of God the father and he himselfe first did offer sacrifice and commanded this to be done in his remembrance that Priest supplyeth the roome of Christ truly which followeth that which Christ did And then he offereth a true full sacrifice in the Church to God the father if he so begin to offer as he hath seene Christ him selfe to haue offered Here M. Hesk. reproueth our ministration in two points First for that we minister with wine alone contrarie to Christes institution But when he can proue that Christ added water to his cup of wine we will grant it to be a breach of his institution and not before Secondly he reasoneth if it be so greate a matter to take away wine or water from the ministratioÌ„ it is much greater to take away Christes body there fro but it is as false that we take away his bodie as it is true that they take away his bloud Now concerning the tearme sacrifice vsed by S. Cyprian his wordes in the same Epistle declare plainely that he vsed it as I said before vnproperly Et quia passionis eius mentionem insacrificijs omnibus facimus passio est enim Domini sacrificiumâ— quod offerimus nihil aliud quà m quod ille fecit facere debemus And because we make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices for the sacrifice which we offer is the passion of our Lord we ought to do nothing but that he hath done By this you see that the sacrifice is Christe euen as it is the passion of Christe that is to say a sacramentall memoriall of Christes body and of his passion not otherwise But Maister Heskins taking occasion of the former saying of Cyprian by him cited rayleth at his pleasure vpon the author of the apologie for saying the contention betweene Luther and Zwinglius was about a small matter And so it was in deede in comparison of these cheefe and necessarie pointes of religion in whiche they did agree And if you make the moste of it yet was it no greater then the matter of rebaptising wherein Cyprian his authour dissented from Cornelius Bishop of Rome Neuerthelesse Maister Heskins returning to vrge the image of the sacrifice set foorth in Melchisedeches feast of bread and wine bringeth in Tertullian Contra Marcion Ita nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecrauit qui sunc viâ—â—um in sanguine figurauit So now he hath consecrated his bloud in wine which then figured wine in bloud He quoteth not the place least his falsification might appeare For first he applyeth this figure to Melchisedech which Tertullian doth to Iuda and translateth Vinum in sanguine figurauit He figured wine in his bloud whereas Tertullian speaking of the blessing that Iacob gaue to Iuda that he should wash his garment in the bloud of the grape sayeth he figured wine by bloud that is by the name of bloud of the grape he meant figuratiuely wine As for the name of consecration in the true sense thereof we neither abhorre nor refuse to vse But he hath neuer done with Melchisedeches bread wine when all commeth to all Christ offred neither bread nor wine as they say Yet M. Heskins affirmeth if he wold abide by it that Christ offred bread wine in verity But if you aske him whether he mean bread and wine in truth and veritie he will say no verily so M. Hesk. veritie is contradictorie to truth To draw to an end he citeth Ambrose In praefatione Missae in coena Do. Christus formam sacrificij perennis instituens hostiam se primus obtulit primus docuit offerri c. Christ instituting a fourme of perpetuall sacrifice first offered himselfe for a sacrifice and first taught it to be offered But where Maister Heskins founde this authority I leaue to all learned men to consider when there is not such a title in all the workes of Saint Ambrose that are printed new or olde Therefore whether he fayned it him selfe or followed some other forger he sheweth his honest and faithfull dealing But if we should admitte this testimonie as lawfull whereas it is but a counterfete yet vnderstanding howe the auncient wryters abused the name of sacrifice for a memoriall of a sacrifice and not for a propitiatorie sacrifice it helpeth Maister Heskins nothing at all Saint Ambrose himselfe very improperly vseth the name of Hostia or sacrifice as De Virgine Lib. 1. Virgo matris hostia est cuius quotidiano sacrificio vis diuina placatur A Virgine is the hoste or sacrifice of her mother by whose daily sacrifice the wrath of God is pacified If Maister Heskins coulde finde thus muche in Saint Ambrose for the sacrifice of the Masse he would triumph out of measure that he had found it a propitiatorie sacrifice euen for the quicke and the dead and that those wordes of Christe doe this in rememembraunce of me were expounded of the Fathers for offer a sacrifice propitiatorie But who so listeth to heare the trueth neede not to bee deceiued in the word of sacrifice and phrase of offring vsed by the olde writers which was not properly but figuratiuely c sometimes abusiuely For further instruction of consecration and oblation he sendeth his Reader backe to the 2. book 41. Chapter to the end of the book For the rest vnto the 1. booke 33. Chapter to the end of that booke And euen in the same places shall the Reader finde mine answere The foure and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the vse of the Masse vsed and practised by the Apostles It is maruell the Apostles were such great sayers of Masse and yet neuer make one worde mention of it in all their writinges But we must see what Maister Heskins can picke out of them And first he maketh another diuision of his Masse into inward
is inuisible Whereas the Papistes by their transubstantiation haue no visible sacrament but onely accidents of breade and wine which they nor none other can call a visible sacrament Moreouer the word diuine essence answering to the word flesh in the former sentence plainely expoundeth what he meaneth thereby namely the diuine power which the flesh of Christ hath to giue life and not the diuine nature or substance as M. Heskins translateth it and much lesse Christ God and Man as he expoundeth it For if we take the diuine essence for the diuine substaunce of Christes Godhead it will bee a grosse absurditie and a blasphemous heresie to make any infusion or powring of that into the visible sacrament which filleth all places Wherefore of necessitie it signifieth the propertie or efficacie euen as the worde nature in the former clause doth signifie For the former shape of the breade is not chaunged but the nature or propertie is altered namely to feede the soule and not the body only as before it was made a sacrament it serued to do But M. Hesk. liketh not this glose but wil haue nature to signifie substance and not propertie as it doth very often as when we say the nature of hearbs of stones of beastes we meane the properties But whether he will or no it must be so taken seing it may be so taken or else Cyprian should be contrarie to him selfe who distinguisheth the visible sacrament from the diuine essence who calleth that diuine essence a word more vsuall for substance which is but diuine efficacie or propertie who if he had meant that the bread had bene turned into the naturall body of Christe wold neither haue coÌ„pared it with the diuinitie of Christ hid vnder his humanitie nor haue said euen so the diuine essens infundeth it selfe in the sacrament but euen so the bodie of Christ is hid vnder the formes of bread wine But that there should be no doubt of his meaning thus he writeth in the same sermon a litle after Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syncera panem sanctum franginus partimur As often as we do these thinges we doe not sharpen our teeth to byte but with a sincere faith we breake and diuide this holy breade What can be more plaine to expresse the meaning of this doctour then that wee receiue not the body of Christe with our mouth but with our heart not with the instrument of our teeth but with the instrument of our faith In the same Sermon hee writeth Panis est esca sanguis vita caro substantia corpus Ecclesia Corpus propter membrorum in vnum conuenientium panis propter nutrimenti congruentiam sanguis propter vinificationis efficientiam caro propter assumptae humanitatis proprietatem The breade is foode bloud life flesh substaunce his body the Church his body for the agreement of the members in one bread for the aptnes of nourishment bloud for the efficiencie of quickening flesh for the propertie of his humanitie that he tooke on him These places do sufficiently expound the meaning of Cyprian howe the breade is chaunged into flesh not after any change of substance but of qualitie and propertie as in so many figuratiue termes is more theÌ„ manifest Let vs nowe come to Euthymius aduaunced by Maister Heskins into the higher house And he in deede seemeth to affirme the purpose of this Chapter that the Paschall lambe was a figure of the sacrament and yet not very plainely but rather it was a figure of the true Passeouer which the sacrament doth represent but that is no materiall point of our controuersie whether one sacrament did figure an other his wordes are Christe in the same table described the figuratiue and shadowing Passeouer and set before them the true and perfect Passeouer Herevpon hee inferreth that Christe was not truely and perfectly giuen to the Iewes in the Paschall Lambe as we teach but onely a figure and signe of him but in the sacrament he is giuen to vs truely and perfectly that is by a true and reall presence But it is pitie that hee seeth not that his authour compareth the thing signified by our sacrament with the outward signe of the Iewish sacrament as also the scripture doth oftentimes against them that depended vpon the outward ceremonies Not that a false or vnperfect Christ was figured and receiued of the faithfull by them but to shewe a difference betweene the shadowe and the trueth the figure and the thing figured when the Iewes so sticked in the figure that they considered not the thing signified The other place which was alledged out of Euthymius bicause hee referreth the handling of it vnto the second booke thether also will I referre the aunswere In the meane time it is a childish insultation that hee makes against the proclamer noting that hee hath found a plaine place for Maister Iewell when neither the place is so plaine nor the Authour within the compasse of his challenge The eighteenth Chapter treateth of the same matters by S. Hieronyme and Chrysostome In this Chapter Hieronyme is first brought foorth In Matth. 26. in these wordes After the figuratiue Passeouer was fulfilled and he had eaten the flesh of the Lambe with his Apostles hee taketh breade which comforteth the heart of man and passeth to the true sacrament of the Passeouer that as in prefiguration of him Melchisedech the Priest of the highest GOD had done offering breade and wine hee also might represent the trueth of his body and bloud Here Hieronyme doeth not affirme the Passeouer to bee a figure of the sacrament but of Christe the true Passeouer Calling the supper a true sacrament of that true and prefigured Passeouer Which wordes would bee noted that hee calleth the breade a true sacrament that is a liuely signe of the verie Passeouer Christ and a representation of the trueth of his body and bloud But here Maister Heskins fareth as hee were halfe madde sending vs to the Vocabularies Calepines and Dictionaries for the signification of this worde repreâ—ento That among learned men it is not so streighted as onely to signifie to shewe a thing by a figure or signe And therevpon we will not striue but that it is often taken to shewe by a figure or signe hee him selfe can not denie and that it must be so taken here in this place appeareth by this reason The comparison will not else stand betweene Melchisedech and Christe which all though it bee not grounded on scripture Hierome often maketh except Christe offered breade and wine in a figure or representation as Melchisedech did in a prefiguration M. Heskins enforceth the word Truth that he should not meane a figure for then he would haue saide as he imagineth that he also must represent his body and bloud and not that he also might represent the truth of his body But if you marke the force of this word quoque also you shall see that Melchisedech did
any part vntill the next moâ—ning therefore he saith in Leuit. 7. Ho. 5. Nam Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat dicebat eis accipite manducate non distulit nec seruari iussit in erastiâ—um For that bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples and said vnto them take ye eate ye he deferred not neither commanded it to be reserued vntill the next day By which wordes it is manifest that as he disallowed the reseruation so was it not in vse in the East Church in his time And that M. Heskins may be snarled in his owne coarde he must call to minde what paines he tooke to proue the Pascall Lambe to be a figure of this sacrament and how earnestly he vrgeth that the trueth must answere the figure in all things iustly inso much that he alledgeth this text that not a iote or apricke of the law shall passe vntill all be fulfilled Nowe of the Pascal lambe there was an expresse coÌ„mandement that no part of it should be reserued vntill the next day therfore by his owne figures textes manner of reasoning I conclude that the sacrament may not be reserued at all The fiue and twentith Chapter proueth the same by Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time For Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time then sixe hundreth yeares after Christ we doe not admit their authoritie But M. Heskins promising Counsells beginneth with the institution of Iustinian That Monasteries of Virgines should haue libertie to choose a Priest which should bring vnto them the holy Communion Herevpon he will build reseruation for they did not celebrate to them saith he but they brought it As though he that bringeth the worde of God to theÌ„ doth not preach before them but bringeth a Sermon in his bosome But for as much as that decree speaketh not onely of a Priest but also of a Deacon I can be content to thinke that he brought the sacrament with him and did not consecrate there but what maketh this for reseruation to the vse of adoration which is the matter in question â–ª Or else for an ordinarie custome of reseruation if the sacrament were brought from the next Church where and when it was celebrated to the Monasterie not to be hanged vp in a cannopie but to be receiued presently But it is a proper reason that M. Heskins vseth for may be reserued for a short time why not for a long time For answere of this I will referre him to his owne Popish decrees that forbid such reseruation for feare of putrifaction and rottennesse At last commeth the Counsels of Wormes and Remes in which times it is certaine that great corruptions preuailed in the church then followeth the Counsell of Laterane commended for generall held Anno. 1215. speaking of the diligent reseruation of the sacrament with much adoe about the authoritie of Counsels But all not worth a rush The generall Counsell of Laterane falsified the text of scripture tract to both in wordes and sense alledging it thus in their second Canon or Chapter against Ioachim Abbas Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus that which the father hath giuen me is greater then all Whereas the trueth of the text is the father which hath giueÌ„ them to me is greter then all A wise and worshipfull Counsel that can not confute an errour but by falsifying of the scripture And this is the Counsell that first decreed transubstantiation Last of all commeth the Counsel of Trent in our days and that not so vainely alledgeth of The age of the Nicen Counsell to haue acknowledged reseruation as M. Heskins impudently affirmeth therevpon that The Nicen Counsell did agâ—â—se reseruation Next he iangleth of the authoritie of the Church as though what so euer the synagogue of Antichrist doth affirme were the difinition of the Church of christ And in the end he ioyneth an other issue with the proclamer That if he can bring any plaine scripture catholique doctour or counsel that by expresse wordes forbiddeth reseruation he will subscribe For scripture the institution do ye this in remembrance of me proueth the sacrament to be an action and not a name of a thing that may be reserued for euery action is in mouing Secondly all Catholique doctours in a manner and all Counsels generall and prouinciall that speake of this sacrament call it Eucharistia whiche is a giuing of thankes which name can not be rightly applyed to the bread and wine only but to the whole vse of them according to Christes institution Thirdly the expresse decree of Clemens his owne Doctour is against reseruation alledged in the Chapter next before Fourthly Origen in Leuit. Chap. 7. Hom. 6. the place also cyted in the latter end of the 24. Chapter The sixe and twentith Chapter answereth the cheefe obiection of the aduerâ—aries Our cheefe argument hee saith against the reseruation and our very Achilles against all other rites vsed in the sacraments is that in the institution thereof there is no mention made of reseruation But there he belyeth vs For we say it is directly against the commaundement of the institution take and eate and do this in remembrance of me I would aske this question of him Was it lawfull for the Apostles to haue reserued it when Christ coÌ„manded it to be eaten If he say no let him shewe me why it is more lawfull nowe to reserue it then it was then seeing we haue the same commaundement continued doe this in remembrance of me that is take and eate it Moreouer we say it is cleane contrarie to the end and forme of the sacrament that it should be reserued and caried about to be worshipped For it is spirituall meate whose end vse and fruit is in eating not in keeping and carying about or worshipping But nowe let vs see Maister Heskins profound Diuinitie in solution of our argument There be three manner of doings as concerning the scripture One is to do so much as the scripture biddeth An other to do against that the scripture biddeth The third to do something besides that the scripture biddeth Concerning the first hee saith that As Christ tooke breade and wine made it his body and bloud commaunded it to be eaten and dronken in remembrance of him so he that taketh bread and wine and doth consecrate it eat it and drinke it in remembraunce of his death c. doth as much as the scripture biddeth him and is blamelesse in this respect This is true and all this doe we in our Church therefore are we blamelesse by his owne conclusion But they that being commaunded to eate and minister to bee eaten doe not eate it nor giue it to be eaten but keepe it and hang it vp doe manifestly breake this commaundement and so doe the Papisteâ— For they doe against that the scripture biddeth And whereas he alledgeth the sixt Counsell of Constantinople reprouing the Armenians for ministring with wine without water it seemeth that both
beene slaine in a sedition raysed by him where as the worlde knoweth it was in warre that was helde in defence of his countrie The like foolish quarell he hath for putting out of Polycarpus out of the Calender placing Thomas Hutten in his stood all which as vnworthie any aunswer I passe ouer it is sufficiently knowen what Bullinger esteemed of mâ—ns authoritie what Fox if he meane him iudged of the old Martyrs diuinitie The other reasons following I could scarse read without loathsomnesse that preachers must ceasse if writers may not be receiued vnder 1000 yeres antiquitie more that speaking writing are of like authority and such like blockish stuffe The elder writers are allowed not for their age but for their agreement with the worde of God the later preachers are beleeued not for that their speaking is better then Papistes writing but because they speake thinges consonant to the word of God the touchstone and triall of trueth And therefore we receiue not the testimonie of Nicholaus de Lyra the second Burgesse because it is contrarie to the word of God and the consent of the elder Doctours that Christ speaketh of the sacrament when he saith the bread which I will giue is my fleshe which wordes Theophylacte euen nowe affirmed to be spoken of the passion of Christ. The fourth Chapter beginneth a further proofe of the former master by S. Cyprian and Euthymius For proof of the two breads that the text The bread which I will giue is my flesh c. is ment of the sacrament Cyprian is alledged although the place be not quoted but it is in the sermon vpoÌ„ the Lords prayer in these words Panis vitae Christus est c. Christ is the bread of life and he is not the bread of all men but our bread And as we say our father because he is the father of theÌ„ that vnderstand beleeue so we call it our bread because Christ is our bread which touche his body And this bread we pray to be giuen vs daily least we that are in Christe and daily receiue the Eucharistie to the meate of health some greeuous offence comming betweene while beeing separated and not communicating we be forbidden from that heauenly bread we be separated from the body of Christ he himselfe openly saying and warning I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and the bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde Howsoeuer M. Hesk. would falsly gather out of this place Cyprian maketh not two breades but one bread of life Christ God man as for the two respects of his Godhead manhoode that he prateth of cannot make Christ to be two breads but one true foode of our soules And that Cyprian doth apply this text to the sacrament only it is utterly false in that he saith we must pray for this daily bread Christ to feede vs although for some greeuous offence we be restrained from the sacrament as is also euident by these words that follow Quando ergo dicit in aeternum viuere si quis ederit de tius pane vt manifestum est cos vinera qui corpus eius 〈◊〉 Eucharistitum â—â—re coÌ„municationis accipiunt ita contrae timenduÌ„ est erandum ne dam quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore procul remaneat a salute comminante ipso dicente Nist ederitis carnem fâ—ij hominis biberiâ—is sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis Et ideo panem nostrium id est Christum dari nobis quoâ—idie petimus vt qui in Christo manemus vinimus a sanctificatione corpore eius non recedamus Therefore when he saith that he liueth for euer whosoeuer shal eate of his bread as it is manifest that they do liue which touch or come neare vnto his body and by the right of communication receiue the sacrament of thankesgiuing so contrariwise it is to be feared and to be prayed for lest while any being sequestred is separated from the body of Christe he remaine farre from health he himselfe threatening saying except ye shal eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you And therefore we pray daily that our bread that is to say Christ may be giuen to vs daily that we which remaine liue in Christ go not away from sanctification and his bodie In these wordes as in the former Cyprian directly referreth that text to our spirituall communication with the body of Christ by right of which communication we receiue the sacrament thereof And this participation of Christ he calleth Contingere attingere corpus Christi not to touch his body with our teeth or mouth in that sacrameÌ„t as M. Heskins dreameth Here followeth Euthymius of whose antiquitie we haue spoken in the first booke Neuerthelesse we wil examine his saying which is this In 6. Ioan. Duobus modis c. Christ is saide to be bread two wayes that is after his godhead and after his manhood therefore when he had taught the manner which is after his godhead now doeth he also teach the manner which is after his manhoode For he did not say which I do giue but which I will giue for he would giue it in his last supper when thankes being giuen he tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and saide take eate this is my body M. Heskins maruelleth that the aduersaries cheekes waxe not redd for shame to see so plaine a sentence against them But if we knew not that Maister Heskins had beene as impudent as a frier we might maruell that he was not ashamed first to alledge Euthymius as a writer within 6. hundreth yeares after Christ who liued about the yeare of our Lorde 1180. And secondly to make two breads of that which Euthymius saith to be one bread after two manners Finally although Euthymius referred this text to the sacrament yet saith he nothing for the carnall presence in as much as it is manifest that Christ spake there of a spiritual communication of his fleshe or else all infantes are damned that receiue not the sacrament The fift Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by S. Augustine and Chrysostome S. Augustine is alledged De Agricultura agri Dominici a treatise of no account for the authoritie being falsely intituled to Augustine which was the worke of a farre later writer The wordes neuerthelesse are these The table of thy spouse hath whole bread and a holy cuppe which bread although we haue seene broken and brused in his passion yet he remained whole in that his indiuided vnity with his father Of this bread and of this cup our Lorde himselfe saide The bread which I will giue is my fleshe for the life of the world and the cuppe which I wil sanctifie is my bloud which shal
Iesus entered in the doores being shut when he shewed his handes to bee felt and his side to be considered and shewed both flesh and bones least the trueth of his body should be thought to be a fantasie And I will aunswere howe Saint Marie is both mother and a Virgine a Virgine before birth a mother before she was knowne of man. Vpon these places Maister Heskins doth inferre that if the doores did open as the going in of Christ which hee saith is a shaddowing of the miracle and a falsifying of the scriptures as though it were not miraculous ynough except it tooke away the trueth of Christes body and ouerthrewe the immutable decree of GOD then his entering In could not proue that the clausures of the virginitie I vse his owne wordes of the mother of Christ notwithstanding his birth remained alwayes closed which the Doctours intended to proue I would not for shamefastnesse enter into discourse of the secrets of virginitie last of all the high mysteries of the incarnation and natiuitie of our sauiour Christe of the immaculate Virgine Marie in any such Physicall questions but that I am driuen vnto it by this shamelesse aduersarie And yet will I onely alledge the authoritie of the scripture referring the collection to the reuerent shamefast consideration of the honest reader Saint Luke writeth of his presentation at Hierusalem As it is written in the lawe of the Lorde euery manchilde that first openeth the matrice shall bee called holy to the Lorde Luke 2. According to this text the miracle of his natiuitie preseruing her virginitie and of his entering in the doores beeing shut are verie like in deede and agreeable to the Doctours meaning But hee proceedeth with Chrysostomes authoritie Hom. 86. in Ioan. Dignum autem dubitatione est c. It is woorthie of doubt howe the incorruptible body did receiue the fourme of the nayles and could be touched with mortall hande But let not this trouble thee For this was of permission For that body being so subtile and light that it might enter in the doores being shut was voyde of all grossenesse or thicknesse but that his resurrection might be beleeued he shewed him selfe such a one And that thou mightest vnderstand that it was euen he that was crucified that none other did rise for him therefore he roase againe with the tokens of the crosse Except wee vnderstand Chrysostome fauourably in this place where hee denyeth the glorified body of Christe to haue any thicknesse but that it might pearce through all thinges as a spirite wee shall make him author of a great heresie both concerning the body of Christe and concerning our bodyes which after the resurrection must bee made conformable to his glorious body Philip. 3. But in an other place as wee shall heare afterwarde hee doeth eyther expound or correct him selfe in this matter And yet this that hee saith here helpeth not Maister Heskins one whit and that for two causes one for that hee speaketh heere of the glorified bodye of Christe who instituted his sacrament before his bodye was glorified An other cause for that hee doeth not heere make two bodyes in one place or one bodye in an other but to auoyde that absurditie doeth transfourme the bodye of Christe into the subtiltie and thinnesse of a spirite But in an other sentence De resurrect Hom. 9. he is of an other minde concerning the bodye of Christe Non est meum ludificare phantasmate vanam imaginem visus si timet veritatem corporis manus digitus exploret Potest fortassis aliqua oculos caligo decipere palpatio corporalis verum corpus agnoscat Spiritus inquit carnem ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere Quod Ostia clausa a penetrani sola est virtus Diuini spiritus non sola carnis substantia It is not my propertie to delude my disciples with a fantasie if your sight feare a vaine image let your hand and fingers trie out the trueth of my body Some myste peraduenture may deceiue the eyes let bodily handling acknowledge a true body A spirite saith he hath neither flesh nor bones as you see mee to haue That I pearced through the doores beeing shut it is the onely power of the diuine spirite not the onely substaunce of the flesh In these wordes hee ascribeth it to the onely power of his diuine spirite that he passed through when the doores were shut and not to the subtiltie of his glorified body as in the former sentence Likewise in Ioan. Hom. 90. Qui intrauit per ostia clausa non erat phantasma non erat spiritus verè corpus erat Hee that entered in by the doores beeing shut was no fantasie hee was no spirite hee was a body truely and in deede But wee must passe ouer vnto Saint Ambrose in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 4. Habuit admirandi causam Thomas c. Thomas had a cause to maruell when hee sawe all thinges being shut vp and closed the body of Christe by clausures without all wayes for body to enter the ioyntes beeing vnbroken to bee entered in amongest them And therefore it was a woonder howe the corporall nature passed through the impenetrable body with an inuisible comming but with inuisible beholding easie to be touched hard to bee iudged In these woordes of Saint Ambrose nothing can bee certainely gathered bycause hee doth not him selfe determine after what manner the body of Christe came in but onely sheweth what cause Thomas had to doubt and maruell sauing that in an other place I finde him write suspitiously of the trueth of the body of Christe and of the true properties thereof For in his booke De mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9. hee hath these woordes speaking of the body of Christ Corpus enim Dei corpus est spirituale Corpus Christi corpus est diuini spiritus The body of GOD is a spirituall body The body of Christe is the body of a diuine spirite These sayinges for reuerence of the Authours may haue a gentle construction but otherwise they are not directly consonant to the Catholique confession of the trueth of Christes body and the properties thereof remayning euen after his Assention as hath bene discussed by the scriptures especially after the Church was troubled with the heresies of the Eutychians and Monotholites Nowe followeth Saint Augustine De agone Christiano Cap. 24. Nec eos audiamus c. Neither let vs giue eare to them that denye that the body of Christe is risen againe of such qualitie as it was put into the graue Neither let is moue vs that it is written that hee appeared soudenly to his disciples after the doores were shut that therefore we should denye it to bee an humane body bicause wee see that contrarie to the nature of this body it entered by the doores that were shut for all thinges are possible to god For if hee could before his passion make it as cleare as the brightnesse of the Sunne wherefore could he not after his
but by gifte it may be euerie where or in as many places as hee will and then bringeth many examples to shewe that CHRISTES body hath many properties by gifte which it hath not by nature And in this distinction he triumpheth out of measure But the lewde sophister will not see that Saint Augustine denieth to Christes body his imagined gift and affirmeth his denied nature to remaine Cui saith he profectò immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstudit to which fleshe he hath giuen immortalitie but not taken away the nature of it Doeth not Augustine here plainely deny the gift of vbiquitie affirming the nature to remaine concerning the circum scription of place You see this very place to ouerthrow his blinde distinction Nowe followeth another place out of this Epistle to Dardanus in which he beeing such an impudent falsarie as we haue so often discouered yet blusheth not to accuse Oecolampadius for falsifying of Aug. by a subtile addition Spacia locorum tolle corporibus nusquaem erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum non erit vbi fint ideo non alibi quà m in caelo corpore fateâ—â—r Christum Take the spaces of places from bodies and they shall be no where and because they shal be no where they shal not be at al. Take the same bodies from the qualities of bodies and there shal no place be found where they may be therfore we confesse Christ in body to be no where else but in heaueÌ„ These last words therfore we confesse Christ in body to be no where but in heauen as he saith truly they be not in Augustine so he saith falsly thei were added by Oecolampadius otherwise then as a conclusion of his owne gathered out of Augustines wordes But he must haue some cauill to shift of the matter For his answere is so impudent that I maruell the beast was not ashamed once to rehearse this obiection which he could no more colourably auoide He saith these wordes of Augustine are not spoken of the body of Christe but of natural bodies vpon the earth whereas the only purpose of Augustine is to shewe the naturall propertie of the bodie of Christ to be conteined in one place according to the nature of al other bodies either in heauen or in earth But because this olde foole playeth the boy so kindely let me pose him in his aunswere like a childe Speaketh Augustine of all bodies or of some If of all then of the bodie of Christ If of some then of particulars followeth nothing But speaketh he of all naturall bodies of the earth Then aunswere me whether Christes body be vpon the earth Yes or else it could not be in the sacrament Well admitte it be vpon the earth is it a naturall bodie or no Take heede what you aunswere Yea it is a naturall bodie why then sir if Christes body be a naturall body vpon earth and Augustine speaketh of naturall bodies vpon earth then Augustine speaketh of Christes bodie also This childishe kinde of reasoning were good inough for such childish aunsweres as he maketh to so graue authorities But let vs see another obiection whiche is out of Augustine also In Ioan. tract 30. Sursum est Domimus sed etiam hîc veritas Dominus Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit vno loco esse potest Veritas eius vbique diffusa est Our Lorde is aboue hiâ— also he is here and our Lord is the trueth For the bodie of our Lorde in which he rose againe can be but in one place his truth is diffused euerie where This place is corruptly cited by Maister Heskins for he setteth it downe thus Sed etiam hîc est veritas Domini His translation I wil not deale with because it is the matter in controuersie He aunswereth that Augustine saith no more but that he may be in one onely place at one time if it please him A goodly saying as though euer any man would thinke otherwise then that it were possible for his bodie to be in one place at one time But that one place in these wordes is an exclusiue of all other places if the opposition of one place and all other places will not serue at least wise let the Canon law it selfe beare some sway with Papistes to expound it for in the decrees De contract Dist. 2. prima quidem Thiâ— place of Augustine is thus cited Corpus enim in quo resurrexit in vno loco esse oportet veritas autem eius vbique disfusa est For his body in which he rose againe must needes be in one place but his trueth is diffused in all places By this it is euident that Augustines worde Potest esse vno loco assigneth his body to one onely place Nowe as though there were no more obiections out of Augustine or any other writer against the vbiquitie of Christes bodie he endeth with this concluding after his maner that faith must ouer rule reason which is true where Gods worde hath promised any thing but we denie that Christ hath promised the presence of his bodie in moe places then one therefore there is no place for faith where the word hath not gone before But left the reader should thinke M. Heskins hath answered all obiections out of Augustine I thinke good to set downe one or two more first In Ioan. Tract 31. Christus homo secundum corpus in loco est de loco migrat 〈◊〉 ad alium locum venerit in eo loco vnde venit non est Deus autem implet omnia vbique totuâ— est non secundùm spacia tenetur locis c. Christe the man according to his bodie is in a place goeth from a place and when he is come vnto another place he is not in that place from whence he came but God filleth all thinges and is whole in euerie place he is not helde in places according to spaces or distances And Tr. 50. Respondent quem tenebo absentem Quomodo in coelum maman mittam vt ibi sedentem teneam Fidem mitte tenuisti Parentes tuitenuerunt carne no tene corde quoniam Christus absens etiam presens est Nisi praesens esset a nobis ipsit toneri non posset sed quoniam verum est quod ait Ecce ego vobiscum sum vsque ad consumnationem saeculi abijs his est redijt nos non deseruit Corpus enim suâ—n intulit caelo maiestatem non abstulis mundo They answere meaning the vnbeleeuing Iewes whom shall I holde Him that is absent How shall I send vp my hand into heauen that I may holde him which sitteth there Send vp faith and thou hast held him Thy parentes held him in flesh holde thou him in heart For Christ being absent is also present For except he were present he could not be held of ourselues but because it is true which he saith Beholde I am with you
non aspernanter sed sapienter audiamur Euen as we knowe though against these mens will two in one fleshe Christe and his Church without any filthinesse euen as with faithfull heart and mouth wee receiue the Mediatour of God and man Iesus Christe giuing vs his fleshe to bee eaten and his bloud to be drunken although it seemeth a more horrible thing to eate the fleshe of man then to kill him and to drinke the bloud of man then to shed it And in all the holie scriptures if any thing figuratiuely spoken or done be expounded according to the rule of sounde faith of any things or wordes which are conteyned in the holie scriptures let not the exposition be taken contemptuously but let vs heare wisely Where is nowe that should pinche the proclaimer by the conscience of receiuing the bodie of Christ with the mouth Where is that lewd insultation against Maister Horne whome he sayeth he heard in Cambridge abuse the figuratiue speach and place it there where it should not be placed c. When S. Augustine maketh this whole text a figuratiue speache And if Maister Horne as he sayeth did not place the figuratiue speach as Augustine doeth why did not such a doubtie doctour as Maister Heskins is either in another sermon openly confute him or in priuate conference admonishe him of it But such hedgecreapers as he is that dare not ioyne with a much weaker aduersarie then that reuerend father is in any conference or open disputation can shoote out their slaunderous boltes against them when they are a farre of and prate of placing and displacing of Augustine when he himselfe as I haue shewed most impudently peruerted and displaced the wordes and sense of Augustine euen in this verie sentence whereuppon he thus taketh occasion to iangle Out of Cyrill are alledged two places neither of both any thing to his purpose but directly against him the former In 1â— Ioan. Non poterat c. This corruptible nature of the bodie could not otherwise be brought to vncorruptiblenesse and life except the bodie of naturall life were ioyned to it Doest thou not beleeue mee saying these thinges I pray thee beleeue Christ saying Verily verily I saye vnto you except you shall eaâ—e the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you Thou hearest him openly saying that wee shall not haue life except wee drinke his bloude and eate his fleshe He sayeth in your selues that is in your bodie The same fleshe of life by right may be vnderstanded life What is there here for the sacrament or that euery Christian man of our side will not graunt But belike the second place maketh all playne Non negamus c. Wee do not denye that with right faith and syncere loue wee are spiritually ioyned to Christe but that wee haue no manner of coniunction with him after the fleshe that truely wee do vtterly denye and that wee saye to be altogether contrarie to the holye Scriptures For who hath doubted that Christe is euen so the vine and wee the braunches that wee receiue life from thence into vs Heare Saynt Paule saying that we all are one bodye in Christ For although wee be many yet we are one in him for wee all take parte of one breade Or peraduenture doth hee thinke that the power of the mysticall blessing is vnknowen to vs which when it is done in vs doeth it not make Christe to dwell in vs corporally by the participation of the fleshe of Christe For why are the members of the faithfull the members of Christ Knowe ye not sayeth he that the members of the faithfull are the members of Christe Shall I then make the members of Christ the members of an harlott In this place Cyrill sayeth that Christe doth dwell corporally in vs but howe by participation of the fleshe of Christe which as he tooke of our nature so hath he againe giuen the same vnto vs to bee in deede our nourishment vnto eternall life which thing is testified vnto vs by the sacrament euen as the vnitie wee haue one with another and all of vs with Christe is testified in that we all take part of one breade Otherwise I see nothing in this place that may help Maister Heskins For such as our vnitie is such is our participation of his flesh and as we are members of his body so doe we eate his body This M. Heskins must graunt if he will allowe Cyrills authoritie but our vnitie participation and coniunction of members though it be in his body of his flesh and vnto him as our head yet is not after a carnall manner no more is the eating of his flesh nor the corporall dwelling of him in vs after a carnall or corporall manner but after a diuine and spirituall manner The place of Chrysostome hee cyteth hath bene once or twice considered already The fifteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Leo and Euthymius The place of Leo is cyted out of Serm. 6. de Ieiu sep mens Hanc confessionem c. This confession most welbeloued vttering foorth with all your heart forsake ye the vngodly deuises of heretiques that your fastings and almes may be defiled with the infection of no errour For then the offering of sacrifice is cleane and the giuing of almes is holy when they which performe these things vnderstand what they worke For as our Lord saith except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you you ought so to be partakers of the holy table that you doubt nothing of the trueth of the body of Christe and of his bloud For that is taken with the mouth which is beleeued by faith and in vaine doe they answere Amen which dispute against that which is receiued Leo in these words as Maister Heskins is enforced to confesse speaketh against the Eutychian heresie which denyed the trueth of Christes body after the adunation therof to the Diuinitie as the papistes do indeed though not in words by their vbiquitie traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ saith thei cannot be partakers rightly of the sacrameÌ„t of his body bloud which do not acknowlege that he had a very body bloud Therfore it is intollerable impudencie in M. Hes. to note a place for M. Iewel wheÌ„ he him selfe after confesseth that he spake not of the trueth of his body in the sacrament And whereas he saith the mouth receiueth that which is by faith beleeued it helpeth him nothing for he meaneth nothing else but that those men cannot receiue with their mouth the sacrament of his flesh and bloud which deny him to haue true flesh bloud for the sacrament is a seale and confirmation of faith Nowe how far Leo was from transubstantiation or vbiquitie we haue shewed before in the 11. Chapter of this booke where his saying may be read The testimonie of Euthymius is cyted In 6. Ioan. Nisi comederitis
the body of Christe by Origens owne wordes and therefore the proclamer sayde truely that wee receiue Christe none otherwise in the sacrament then the Iewes did in Manna concerning the substaunce of the spirituall meat And Maister Heskins saith falsely That we excell the Iewes for our incorporation in Christ and therefore receiue him corporally as though the Iewes also were not incorporated into Christe and were not liuely members of his body in as great excellencie as we yea and with a prerogatiue of the first begotten and of the naturall oliue wherein wee are inferiour The place of Ambrose hee cyteth Lib. 9. cap. 1. De sacramentis Sicus verus est Deifilius Dominus noster Iesus Christus c. As our Lorde Iesus Christe is the true sonne of God not as men by grace but as a sonne of the substance of his father euen so it is true flesh which we receiue as he him selfe saith and very drinke This is noted for an other plaine place for the proclamer as though the proclamer did not graunt that we receiue the true flesh and bloud of Christe in the sacrament but spiritually and by faith not carnally nor transubstantiated But Ambrose is the best expounder of him selfe who in the 6. booke and Chap. 1. De sacramentis hath these wordes Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis sacramentum sed verae naturae gratiam virtutémque consequeris Therefore least more should say this as though there were a certaine horrour of bloud but that the grace of redemption might remaine therefore thou receiuest the sacrament truely for a similitude but thou obtainest the grace and vertue of his true nature By which Ambrose expresseth the whole substaunce of the sacrament that it is a similitude of the body and bloud of Christe but not a similitude onely but such a one as by which we receiue the grace and power of that true nature which is resembled by it This place would satisfie a sober minde but a froward heart will admit no wisedome The nineteenth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Eusebius Emiss and S. Augustine Eusebius is cyted out of Hom. 5. pasch Quia corpus assumptum c. Bicause hee would take his assumpted body from our eyes and bring it into heauen it was necessarie that in the day of his supper he should consecraâ—â— vnto vs a sacrament of his body and bloud that it might be celebrated continually by a mysterie which was offered for our price that bicause the daily and vnwearied redemption did runne for the health of all men the oblation of the redemption might be perpetuall and that eternall sacrifice should liue in memorie and that true onely and perfect sacrifice should be present in grace to be esteemed by faith not by shewe neither to be iudged by outward sight but by inward affection Wherevpon the heauenly authoritie confirmeth that my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede This sentence being directly against him as euery man that readeth it may easily perceiue he is neither ashamed to alledge it hauing nothing to gather out of it for his purpose nor yet that is worse most breastly to corrupt it by false translation and wrong distinction or pointing committing that childish sophisticatioÌ„ which is called ab accentu For where the Latine is Et perennis victima illa viueret in memoria semper prÄ™sens esset in gratia vera vnica perfecta hostia fide aestimanda non specie c. hee hath dismembred it by this translation And that perpetuall sacrifice should liue in memorie and alway be present in grace A TRVE ONE ONLY AND PERFECT SACRIFICE to be esteemed by faith and not by outward forme c. And al bicause he would not acknowledge the presence of Christ that onely true sacrifice by grace which is absent in the bodie as the purpose of Eusebius is to shewe And therfore those words that follow are to be vnderstoode by them that goe before Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie therefore departe seeing hee that is the Authour of the gift is also witnesse of the trueth For the inuisible priest with his worde by secrete power conuerteth the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie and bloud The former sentence sufficiently declareth that he speaketh of a spiritual and not a carnall conuersion because his body which is absent from vs and carried into heauen is present with vs by grace and not otherwise Saint Augustine is cyted Tr. 26. in Ioan Cum enim cibo potu c. For as much as men by meate and drinke do this desire â–ª that they should neither hunger nor thirst nothing perfourmeth this truely but this meate and drinke which maketh them of whom it is receiued immortall and incoâ—â—uptible that is the fellowship of the Saints where peace shal be full and perfect vnitie For therefore truely as the men of God haue vnderstoode it before vs our Lord Iesus Christ commended his bodie and bloud in those thinges which of many are brought to one certein thing For the one is made into one of many graynes so consisteth the other coÌ„meth into one of many grapes Because this sentence is clean contrarie to the carnal presence transubstantiation you must cal to remeÌ„brance the glose of a certeine blind Authour that there be three things in the sacrament to be considered The first the sacrament only which is a signe of an holy thing and that is the forme of bread The second the thing signified conteined that is the very bodie of christ The third is signified but not conteined that is the mysticall bodie of christ But this balde distinction is so farre of Augustines minde that he cleane ouerthroweth two partes of it First the carnall presence of Christes bodie conteined when he affirmeth that this meate maketh them of whome it is receiued immortall and incorruptible whiche are onely them that receiue it by faith for if it were conteined wicked men should also receiue it but they receiue it not therefore it is not conteined Secondly he ouerthroweth transubstantiation when he saith that Christe commended his bodie in such thinges as are made one of many as one bread of many graines and one wine of many grapes For the fourme by which Heskins meaneth the accidents of bread is made neither of graynes nor of grapes Therfore the fourme of Bread is none of those things in which Christ commended his body and bloud But when nothing is in Augustine then the collections of Prosper must helpe on this manner Hoc est quod dicimus c. This it is which we say which by al meanes we labour to approue that the sacrifice of the Church is made by two meanes and consisteth of two thinges the visible kinde of the elementes and the inuisible fleshe and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe
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
and life He sheweth that his whole bodie is full of quickening vertue of the spirite For here he called his very fleshe spirite not because it lost the nature of flesh is changed into the spirite but because beeing perfectly ioyned with it it hath receiued the whole power to quicken Neither let any man think this to be spoken vndecently for he that is surely ioyned to the Lorde is one spirite with him How then shal not his flesh be called one with him It is after this manner therefore which is saide you thinke I said this earthly and mortall bodie of his owne nature to be quickening or giuing life but I spake of the spirit life For the nature of the flesh of it self caÌ„not quicken but the power of the spirite hath made the fleshe quickening Therefore the words which I haue spokeÌ„ that is those things which I spoke vnto you are spirite and life by which my fleshe also liueth and is quickening Cyrill hauing his minde still bent against the Nestorians earnestly auoucheth the trueth of Christes flesh vnited to his Diuinitie but for M. Hesk. purpose he saith nothing at all I meane for the carnal maner of receiuing Christes fleshe in the sacrament The name of Capernaites M. Hesk. so much misliketh that he would turne it ouer to vs if he could inuent any balde reason to proue it agreeing to our doctrine The sacramentaries he saith are carnal and grosse because they say that Papistes receiue nothing but bare flesh and not the flesh of Christe which is vnited to the Deitie and giueth life But indeed the Papistes say as much when they say that the flesh of Christ is receiued where it giueth no life As for those whome he calleth sacramentaries they wil not graunt that the Papistes although they prate so grossely of flesh bloud yet receiue any thing but a wafer cake a draught of wine The fortieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text and so of the processe of the sixt of S. Iohn by Euthymius and Lyra. Euthymius to end this long and tedious processe is cited as before In. 6. Ioan. Verba quae c. The wordes which I speake vnto you are spirite and life they are spirituall and quickening For we must not looke vpon them simply that is vnderstand them carnally But imagine a certeine other thing and to beholde them with inward eyes as mysteries for this is spiritually to vnderstand Euthymius affirmeth the same that Chrysostome doeth Hom. 46. In Ioan. and almoste in the same wordes neither can M. Hesk. drawe any thing out of theÌ„ to serue his humor but that the sacramentes are mysteries and therefore some other thing must be present then is seene with the outward eye which is true so it be such a thing as may be seene onely with the eyes of the mind of which the authour speaketh But the bodie of Christ as Aug. saith euen immortall and glorified is stil visible Ep. 85. Consentio To wrangle about the sentence of Lyra it were losse of time who although he wil haue a real presence yet he wil haue The flesh of Christ to be eaten in the sacrament after a spirituall maner because the spirite by the power of God vnited to the flesh is refreshed Wherevpon M. Hesk. reiecting the true spirituall manner of eating Christes fleshe in the sacrament by faith as hereticall which he hath so often before allowed as onely profitable setteth vp three other spirituall manners of Christes presence in the sacrament for three causes First because it is wrought by the spirite of god Secondly because although it be verily present it is not knowen by corporall sence but by spirituall knowledge of faith Thirdly because our spirite by the power of God is vnited to the fleshe of these deuises he maketh Lyra the author and he may bee well ynough For such blinde teachers while they wrangled about words they became altogether vaine in their imaginations and lost the true sence and meaning both of the worde of God and of the sacraments The rayling stuffe wherewith he concludeth this Chapter and this worthie expositioÌ„ continued in 36. Chapters I passe ouer as vnworthie of any answere The one and fortieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of these wordes of Christ this is my bodie after the minde of the aduersaries The first part of this Chapter conteyneth a fonde and lewde comparison of the doctrine of the Sacramentaries with the temptation of the diuell vsed to our firste parents â–ª which because it sheweth nothing but M. Hesk. witt and stomake I omitt It hath more colour of reason that he bringeth in afterward namely that there are two things which ought to moue men to resist the temtation of the sacramentaries their contrarietie to the worde of God and their contrarietie among them selues Their contrarietie to the worde of God he sayeth to bee where Christ sayde This is my bodie Sathan sayth it is not his bodie In verie deede if after Christe hath sayde the bread and wine are his bodie bloude any man shuld rise vp saye they are not his bodie bloud at al we might well iudge that he spake by the spirite of Sathan as when Christe sayeth drinke ye all of this the Pope sayth to the people there shall none of you all drink of this we may easely acknowlege the spirit of Antichrist But we whome he calleth sacramentaries doe with all reuerence humilitie confesse that the bread the wine ministred according to Christes institution are the body bloud of Christ in such sence as he saide they were And we say with S. Augustine Per similitudinem Christus multa est quae per proprietatem non est Per similitudinem petrae est Christus ostium est Christus lapis angularis est Christus c. By similitude Christ is manie things which he is not by propertie By similitude the rocke is Christ the dore is Christ the corner stone is Christ c. Wherfore we affirme nothing contrarie to the words of Christ but altogether agreeable to his meaning For contrarietie of Sacramentaries among them selues he citeth a saying of Luther written in his frowardnesse that there shoulde be eyght seuerall disagreeing spirites among the Sacramentaries from which if you take away Carolostadius Swenkfeldius Campanus and the eight without name which is belike H. N. opinion that euery man may think of it what he list whose opinions the godly whome hee calleth sacramentaries did euer more detest as wicked vngodly there remaineth the interpretation of Zwinglius of the wordes of Christ This signifieth my bodie of Oecolampadius This is a token of my bodâ—e two other Receiue the benefits of my passion and Take this as a monument or remembrance of my bodie crucified for you which differ in forme of wordes and are all one in deede and meaning So is the iudgement of Melancthon this is the participation of my bodie
God to which purpose he sayth in the 57. Chapter of that fourth booke Quomodo autem iustè Dominus si alterius patris existens huius conditionis quae est secundiòm nos accipiens panem fuum corpus confisebatur temperamentum calicis sui sanguinem confirmanit How did our Lorde iustly if being sonne of another father taking bread which is of this creation that we are ▪ confesse it to be his bodie and the temperament of the cuppe he confirmed to be his bloud Thus you see neither in the one place nor in the other he reasoneth of the diuine power of Christe to make a reall presence or transubstantiation but of the inconuenience that Christ shoulde ordeine his sacrament in the creatures of another god The seconde heresie he impugneth in deede by the receipt of the bodie and bloude of Christe in the sacrament by which our fleshe is nourished vnto immortalitie which nourishing M. Heskins in no wise will haue to be vnderstoode spiritually but corporally and sayeth it doth inuincibly proue the reall presence I will not rippe vp what absurdities do followe if wee say that Christes fleshe doth nourish our flesh corporally or after a carnall manner as of the concoction and digestion thereof to be turned into our nature where he sayed before that our flesh is turned into his fleshe but I will proue out of Irenaeus that he meant nourishing spiritually and not corporally For lib. 5. he hath these wordes Quando ergo mixtus calix factus panis percipit verbum Dei fit eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna quae sanguine corpore Christi nutritur membrum eius est When therefore the cuppe that is mixed and the bread that is made receiueth the worde of God it is made the Eucharistie of the bloud bodie of Christe of which the substance of our fleshe is increased and consisteth howe do they denye that the flesh is capable of the gift of God which is eternall life which is nourished with the bodie and bloud of Christ and is a member of him Here you see plainly that our fleshe is so nourished of the bodie and bloud of Christ that it is increased of the same and so consisteth of them that wee are his members but our bodies are not increased c. but spiritually therefore they are not nourished but spiritually after an heauenly manner But moste plainly for impugning of both the heresies aforesaide and other heresies more of transubstantiation and the carnall presence and the sacrifice propitiatorie of the masse he writeth lib. 4. Cap. 34. Nostra autem consonans est sententia Eucharistiae Eucharistia rursus confirmat sententiam nostram Offerimus enim ei quę sunt eius congruenter communicationem vnitatem praedicantes carnis spiritus Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena caelesti sic corpora nostra percipientia Euchaeristiam iam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Offerimus autem ei non quasi indigenti sed gratias agentes donationi eius sanctificantes creaturam But our sentence is agreeable to the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing and the Eucharistie againe doth confirme our sentence For wee offer vnto him those things that be his owne agreeably setting foorth the communication and vnitie of the fleshe and the spirite For as the breade which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God is not nowe common bread but the Eucharistie consisting of two things an earthly thing an heauenly thing euen so our bodies also receiuing the Eucharistie are not nowe corruptible hauing hope of resurrection And wee offer to him not as to one hauing neede but giuing thankes for his gifte and sanctifying the creature By this place is transubstantiation ouerthrowen where he sayth the sacrament consisteth of two things an earthly and an heauenly the carnall presence when hee defineth it to be a heauenly thing that is a diuine and spiritual communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ the propitiatorie sacrifice when he sayeth that the creatures of breade and wine were offered for a thankes giuing c. That Melancton defending the popish presence abused the authoritie of Irenaeus against Oecolampadius it ought to be no preiudice to vs especially seeing as M. Heskins before confessed that Melancthon him selfe forsooke that opinion in the end Now come we to Tertullian whose testimonie though it bee flatly against him yet hee hath laboured if it were possible by wrestling and wrangling to make it serue his turne or a least to auoyde it that it should not hurt his cause Lib. 4. contra Marcionem Professus itaque c. When therefore he had professed that with desire he desired to eate the Passeouer as his owne for it was vnmeete that God shuld desire any thing pertayning to an other the breade that was taken and distributed to his disciples he made it his body saying This is my body that is to say a figure of my body But it had bene no figure except his body had bene of trueth Here M. Heskins cutteth off but it followeth in Tertullian Caeterum c. For a vaine thing which is a fantasie could receiue no figure Or if therefore he feigned the bread to be his body bicause he lacked the trueth of a body then ought hee to haue giuen the breade for vs It would haue made for Marcions vanitie that the breade should haue bene crucified The alteration falsification and truncation of Tertullians wordes which Maister Heskins vseth was noted in the first booke partly and it wearieth me to note these faultes so often as he committeth them But here he turneth these wordes Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus But it had not bene a figure except it were a body of trueth As though the breade were both a figure and a body of trueth which cleane peruerteth the sense of Tertullian and is contrarie to his purpose as you may see by that which followeth For Marcion agreed with Valentinus against whome Irenęus writte that Christ was not the GOD of the olde Testament and moreouer affirmed that Christe had not a true body but a fantasticall body Against both these hereticall opinions hee reasoneth in this sentence First he saith Christe desired to eat the Passeouer therefore it was of his owne institution for it was vnmeete that God should desire any thing of an other Gods institution And that Christe had a true bodye hee proueth by the institution of the sacrament which was a figure of his body for a fantasticall body or a vaine thing can haue no figure for a figure hath a necessarie relation to a thing of trueth whereof it is a
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.
saintes in heauen what the rest be he doth not determine he meaneth Siluester Isodore Innocentius Betram Durand Holcot Dunce c. Which if they haue written any thing that is ridiculous in defence of Poperie it were better men should laugh at their follie then be still deceiued with their errours But whereas M. Hesk. will set a player on a stage and a boy in the Paâ—â—is to answere the Bishop I weene it be more then the reuerend M. Doctor Heskins reuested in Doctoralibus and inthronized in his Doctours chayer dare well take vpon him to doe That whiche followeth in this Chapter is consumed in cyting and vrging of the forenamed wryters whose authoritie we doe not admitte appealing alwayes from the lower house of punys Burgesses to the higher house of auncient Barons The sixtieth Chapter proceedeth in exposition of the same text by Theophylacte and Paschasius Although we might demurre vpon the vnderstanding of those wordes of Theophylact In 14. Matth. That the bread wine are transelementated into the vertue of his flesh bloud yet considering the corrupt time in which he liued his authoritie is not worth the striuing for And whereas Maister Heskins would make him so say no more then the olde fathers Hilar. Iren. Cyril Chrysost. c. Seeing we haue already considered their testimonies it were superfluous to repeate them againe in this place and as often as it pleaseth Maister Heskins to abuse their names The one and sixtieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of the same wordes by Oecumenius and Anselmus Oecumenius saith litle to the purpose too or fro But Anselmus goeth more roundly to the matter as one that was the scholler of LanfraÌ„cus which wrote against Berengarius Neuerthelesse vpon these wordes of his riseth some other matter Neque eminet For we do neither altogether exclude a figure froÌ„ this sacrament nor admit an only figure This place M. Hesk. would haue to expound Tertullians figure but we haue shewed before it will not serue Vnto this he addeth Augustine cited in the Popes decrees but not to be found in his workes in these wordes The bodie of Christ is both the trueth and a figure The trueth whyle the bodie and bloud of Christ in the vertue of the holie Ghost is made of the substance of bread and wine but that is the figure which is outwardly perceiued De cons. Dist. 2. Cap vtrum When these wordes are found in any worke of S. Augustines we will make aunswere to them otherwise we may not receiue them of the onely credit of the Popes law Vnlesse they haue such meaning as the saying of Hilarius B. of Rome which followeth Corpus Christi c. The bodie of Christ which is takeÌ„ at the altar is a figure whyle the bread wine are seene outwardly and a truth while the bodie and bloud of Christ inwardly are beleeued It seemeth to me this saying to be playne ynough that the sacrament is an outward figure of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is inwardly receiued spiritually by faith As Gratian also reporteth the wordes of the same Hilarie De Cons. Dist. 2. Vbi pars est Non enim est quantitas visibilis in hoc aestimanda mysterio sed virtus sacramenti spiritualis The visible quantitie is not to be regarded in this mysterie but the spirituall vertue of the sacrament But M. Heskins proceedeth and by Anselmus authoritie he will auoide the trifling sophysticall argument made by Maister Pilkinton in the open disputation holden in Cambridge By like Maister Heskins had not learned the solution at that time and therefore nowe he sendeth it ouer the sea to him The argument was this Christe tooke bread he blessed bread he brake bread wherfore he gaue bread to his disciples if he gaue bread then not his bodie M. Heskins saith he so vseth the words as though by the actes which the verbes expresse nothing had beene done Yes M. Heskins he chaunged the vse but not the substance But by the like sophisme saith Maister Heskins he might proue that he gaue no sacrament of his bodie For that he deliuered which he tooke but he tooke bread no sacrament therfore he deliuered bread no sacrament But by his patience this sophisme of his is nothing like Maister Pilkintons argument For in one proposition he speaketh of the substance in the other of another qualitie or affection beside the substance as in this example that which you bought in the shambles you haue eaten but you bought cowe fleshe therefore you haue eaten caulfes fleshe Euerie childe seeth this followeth not But if I speake of the substance in both alike it followeth as thus That which you bought in the market you haue eaten but you bought mutton therfore you haue eaten mutton Vpon the premises graunted this argument followeth of necessitie and such is the argument of Maister Pilkinton which all the Papistes in Louayne can not answere The tâ—o and sixtieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Rupertus and Nicholaus Methonen In this whole Chapter is nothing worth the reading and much lesse the aunswering for he doeth nothing but cite and vrge the sayings of these two late writers of whose authoritie he knoweth we make none account as there is no reason why we should they being members of the Popish Church For the auncient writers whome he nameth their sayinges haue beene already weyghed and aunswered The three and sixtieth Chapter taryeth in the exposition of the same wordes by Innocentius Germanus The authoritie of Pope Innocent the third which called the Laterane Counsell in which transubstantiation was first decreede must needes be of great credite with vs But Germanus bishop of Constantinople the Popes sworne enimie I marueile why hee is ioyned with the Pope For that he saith is small to M. Heskins purpose and therefore he helpeth him out with Damascen yet he confesseth his saying subiect to cauilling For where he writeth that in the sacrament Dominus conspicitur c. Our Lorde is both seene and suffereth him selfe to be touched by the feâ—â—full and holy mysteries c. and so sayeth Chrysostome thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him c. Maister Heskins sayeth we reason and so wee maye in deede that we eat him as we see him which is onely by faith But M. Heskins with profound Logike wil aunswere this argument that a thing is sayde to bee seene when the outwarde formes are seene and so Christe is seene when the formes of bread and wine are seene But by his fauour a thing is seene when the proper formes accidents thereof are seene but the forme or accidents of bread and wine are not the proper formes of Christes bodie therefore Christes bodie is not seene by them no more then I see a man when I see the house wherein he is or then I see a knife when I see the close case or sheath wherein it is And
downe from heauen to giue eternall life to all them that did receiue him in all ages past and to come The seuenth Chapter proceedeth to declare the same by Saint Hierome and Saint Cyrill In the beginning of this Chapter Maister Heskins maruelleth that we whom he counteth the aduersaries of the truth would leaue a doctrine so vniuersally taught and receiued as though he had prooued their doctrine of the sacrament to be such comparing the protestantes to Esopes dogge that snatching for a shadowe lost the bone out of his mouth neuerthelesse he will proceede on his matter if there be any hope to reclayme vs And first he will choke vs with the authoritie of Saint Hieronyme In 1. Cor. 10. expounding that saying They did eate the same spirituall meate c. Manna figura corporis Christi suit Manna was a figure of the bodie of Christe It is very true we neuer saide the contrarie But the same Hierome in the same place vpon that saying The rocke was Christe Saith that the rocke was a figure of Christe which Maister Heskins vtterly denyeth Quia Christus erat postmoduÌ„ sequnturus cuius figuram tunc Petra gerebat idco pulchrè dixit consequente eos Petra Because Christe was afterward to followe of whom the rocke was a figure therfore he saide very fitly of the rocke that followed them By which wordes it is most manifest that by his iudgement they dranke of Christes bloud who was to come and consequently did eate his bodie whereof Manna was a figure But it followeth after in Hieronyme which Maister Heskins rehearseth at large and to no purpose Omnia enim quae in populo c. For all thinges which at that time were done in the people of Israell in a figure now among vs are celebrated in truth for euen as they by Moses were deliuered out of Egypt so are we by euerie priest or teacher deliuered out of the worlde And then beeing made Christians we are ledde through the wildernesse that by exercise of contempt of the worlde and abstinence we may forget the pleasures of Egypt so that we knowe not to go backe againe into the worlde But when we passe the sea of Baptisme the diuell is drowned for our sake with all his armie euen as Pharao was Then wee are fedde with Manna and receiue drinke out of the side of christ Also the clearenesse of knowledge as a piller of fire is shewed in the night of the worlde and in the heate of tribulation we are couered with the clowde of Diuine consolation In these wordes Maister Heskins noteth two thinges the applications of the truthes to the figures and the drinke flowing out of the side of Christe concerning the first it is cleare that he maketh their temporall benefites figures of our spirituall benefites and in that sense he vseth the tearmes of figures and trueth for otherwise hee confesseth that those thinges were truely done among them and in a figure were the same that ours are immediately before these wordes before rehearsed by Maister Heskins Ipsis verè facta sunt quae in figura erant nostra vt â—imeamus talia agere ne talia incurramus Those thinges were truely done vnto them whiche in figure were ours that we might feare to doe suche thinges least we incurre such thinges As for the drinke flowing out of his side we confesse to be the bloud of Christe as I haue shewed a hundreth times receiued after a spirituall manner But Maister Heskins reasoneth wittily as he thinketh when he sayeth as the Iewes did verily eate Manna so we doe verily eate the bodie of Christ. But he marketh not howe Hieronyme saith We are fedde with Manna and we receiue drinke flowing out of the side of Christ. Wherevpon I will inferre as we are fedde with Manna so we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe but are not fedde with Manna corporally but spiritually so we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ not corporally but spiritually After this least we should doubt of this authoritie as falsly ascribed to Hierome he returneth to Hierome Ad Hedibiam qu. 2. which we cannot refuse to be S. Hierome But seeing that place is sufficiently answered in the 53. Chapter of the second booke I wil not trouble the Reader with the repetition Likewise the place of Cyprian De Coena Dom. in the 17. Chapter of the first Booke Likewise the other parcels of Chrysostome he citeth In Matth. 25. Hom. 83. In the 55. Chapter of the second Booke The other named and not rehearsed be oftentimes answered throughout the Booke and none of them all haue any thing in them for his purpose Now commeth Cyrill In 6. Ioan. Cap. 19. Non enim prudenter c. Those thinges that suffice but for a shorte time shall not wisely be called by this name neither was that bread of God which the elders of the Iewes did eate are dead for if it had bene from heauen and of God it had deliuered the partakers of it from death But contrariwise the bodie of Christe is bread from heauen because it giueth eternall life to them that receued it Here saith M. Heskins is a breefe and plaine testimonie that manna was a figure and the bodie of Christ is the thing figured This is graunted but that Cyrill meant to make it only a figure or a bare figure it is vtterly false as appeareth in his commentarie vpon the same Chapter Lib. 3. Cap. 34. Manna verò figura quaedam vniuersalis Dei liberalicatis loco arrhae hominibus concessa Manna truely was a certeine figure of the vniuersall liberalitie of God granted to men in place of a pledge or earnest By these words you see that Manna was not a bare figure but an earnest or assurance of all the bountifulnes of god And in the same place he saith Sic enim planè videbitur quod verum Manna Christus erat qui per figuram Mannâ— priscis illis a Deo dabatur For so it shall plainely be seene that Christ was the true Manna which was giuen of God to those auncient fathers by the figure of Manna Thus it is moste euident that Manna was not a figure onely of Christe but that Christe in deede was giuen by that figure as hee is by our sacrament and so no corporall presence by his iudgement Neuerthelesse M. Heskins harpeth on his old string really and substantially and that by this authoritie of Cyrillus Cap. 14. in 6. Ioan. Quoniam c. Because the flesh of our sauiour is ioyned in the WORDE of God which is naturally life it is made able to giue life when we eate it then haue we life in vs beeing ioyned to him which is made life These wordes indeede doe declare that whosoeuer eateth the fleshe of Christ is partaker of eternall life which M. Heskins will not graunt but with his distinction spiritually therefore this place maketh nothing for him for Cyril speaketh generally So that no man
nothing of the institution of the sacrament bicause hee spake of it most plentifully in this Chapter by Augustines iudgement Ioannes c. Iohn saide nothing in this place of the body and bloud of our Lord but plainely in an other place he testifieth that our Lord spake of them most plentifully Here he will haue vs note that Augustine calleth it not a signe or figure but plainly the body and bloud of Christ therefore it is not a figure or signe By the same reason he may say Augustine calleth it not a sacrament therefore it is no sacrament But Christ him selfe saith Not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer In which wordes M. Heskins noteth two thinges The first that Manna is a figure of Christe in the sacrament for proofe of which he sendeth vs backe to the 4.5.6.7.8.9 10. Chapters of this booke The second is the excellencie of the body of Christ in the sacrament aboue Manna the eaters whereof are dead but the eaters of the body of Christe in the sacrament shall liue for euer M. Heskins saith he wot not what for if you aske him whether all they that eat the body of Christ in the sacrament shall liue eternally he will say no. For wicked men as he saith eate it which shall not liue eternally Againe if you aske him whether al they that did eat Manna are dead he will say no. For though they be dead in body yet bicause many did eate Christ spiritually by faith they shall liue for euer You see what pith is in his reason and substance in his doctrine But in very deede Christe compareth his flesh with Manna as it was a corporall foode only and so all that did eate it are dead but all they that eat the flesh of Christe which is eternall life shall liue eternally for though they dye corporally yet will be raise them vp in the last day And whereas Maister Heskins voucheth S. Augustine to warrant De vtilita poenit Manna de coelo c. I must send the reader to the eight Chapter of this booke where that authoritie is cited and answered to be flat contrarie to M. Heskins Likewise the sentence of Cyprian de Coen Dom. Coena disposita c. is handled in the first booke Chapter 17. and the other beginning Significata in Lib. 1. Cap. 39. The saying of Ambrose Lib. 4. de sacra Cap. 5. is also against Maister Heskins as we shall plainely see Ipse Dominus c. The Lorde Iesus him selfe testifieth vnto vs that wee receiue his body and bloud ought we to doubt of his fidelitie and testification Nowe returne with me to my proposition It was truely a great and a venerable thing that he rayned Manna to the Iewes from heauen But vnderstand which is the greater Manna from heauen or the body of Christe The body of Christe truely who is the maker of heauen Further he that hath eaten Manna hath dyed but he that shall eate this body it shall be made to him remission of sinnes and he shall not dye for euer By the effectes of the sacrament which are remissioÌ„ of sinnes eternal life M. Hes. saith the excellencie thereof is proued aboue Manna I answere Ambrose folowing our sauiour Christ doth not compare Manna the sacrament with our sacrament but Manna the corporall foode with the body of Christ the heauenly substance of our sacrament so it is more excellent without comparison But Maister Heskins skippeth ouer with a drye foote that Ambrose saith Whosoeuer shall eate of this body it shall be made to him remission of sinnes and he shall not not die for euer by which words it is euident that no wicked man eateth this body but they only which eat it spiritually by faith An other place of Ambrose hee citeth De myster initiand Cap. 9. Considera nunc c. Consider nowe whether is better the bread of Angels or the flesh of Christ which truly is the body of life That Manna was from heauen this aboue heauen that of heauen this of the Lorde of heauens that subiect to corruption if it were kept vntill the next day this farre from all corruption which who so euer shall taste religiously he can feele no corruption The water did satisfie them for an houre the bloud doth wash thee for euer The Iewe drank and thirsteth when thou hast drâ—nke thou canst not thirst And that was in a shaddowe this in the trueth And after a fewe wordes he saith Thou hast knowne better thinges for light is better then a shaddowe the trueth then a figure the body of the Authour then Manna from heauen This place of Ambrose vtterly denieth the body of Christ to be receiued of the wicked which perish and so consequently denyeth it to be corporally present But least we should obiect that Ambrose speaketh not of the sacrament he addeth a long discourse following immediatly Forte dicaâ— c. which bicause it is contained in the 51. Chapter of the second booke I will send the reader thither where he shall see it aunswered by Ambrose him selfe and in the same place and in the tenth Chapter of the second booke where some part of it is touched For it were in vaine to trouble the reader with one thing so often as M. Heskins listeth to repeat it The fifteenth Chapter prouing all our sacraments generally to be more excellent then the sacraments of Moses First baptisme in respect of The noble presence of God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost must bring with it some more noble gift then a bare signe or token See howe this impudent beast would make Popish fooles beleeue that we teach baptisme to be nothing else but a bare signe or token We thinke and speake of it as honourably as the scripture teacheth vs Let the forme of baptisme vsed in the Church of England testifie whether we make it nothing but a bare signe or token Let our catechismies of al sorts beare witnesse of the same But nothing will stop a slanderous mouth Yet to aunswere the title of that Chapter S. Augustine is cited contra Faust. lib. 19. cap. 13. Prima sacrameÌ„ta c. The first sacraments which were obserued celebrated by the lawe were the foreshewing of Christ that was to come which when he had fulfilled by his coÌ„ming they were taken away therfore they were taken away bicause they were fulfilled For he came not to breake the law but to fulfill it And other are instituted greater in power better in profite easier to be done fewer in number Maister Heskins asketh wherein bee they greater in power but in this that the sacramenets of the olde lawe had no power but to signifie onely oures not onely to signifie but also to giue that they signifie And I will aske him seeing he maketh the sacraments instruments of Gods grace by what instrument did they receiue the grace of
consecrate the quickening body or else it can not be called a Masse which is nothing like to Maister Heskins seruice Lib. 4. dist 13. In the end he will ioyne issue with the proclamer that no Catholique euer thought that Christes body was caried into heauen by an Angell And it seemeth plainly that they are all ashamed of the grosse absurdities and blasphemies of their Masse and therefore are forced to feigne meanings and interpretations which are cleane contrarie to the wordes thereof The trueth is that these and some other prayers of their Canon were vsed in the Romane Church before the opinion of transubstantiation carnall presence or propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse were receiued and this is the cause that being nowe applyed to these monstruous errours they imploy such detestable blashemies as all the Papistes in the world are ashamed to heare of and not able to defend whereas before these errours receiued some of them were good prayers some were tolerable The nine thirtieth Chapter treateth of the value of the Masâ—â— to the quicke and the dead Prayer for the dead beeing an auncient errour Maister Heskins triumpheth out of measure that he findeth some spottes thereof in the auncient writers bookes But there is great difference betweene praying for the dead which is an errour rising of superstition and infidelitie and offring the bodie of Christe in sacrifice for the dead which is a most horrible blaspheming Therefore he doeth maliciously wrest such thinges as are spoken of prayer for the dead or the sacrifice of prayer for the dead yea and sometimes the sacrifice of thanksgiuing for the dead to the oblation of CHRISTE for the dead Thus he abuseth first all the liturgies falsely ascribed to Saint Iame Basil Chrysostome Which as we haue proued before pretended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice and therfore offred it not for the dead although they offer prayers for the dead And here it is to be noted that Clementes liturgie forsaketh him for prayer for the dead or else we should surely haue heard of him as we did before He would get credite to that whiche is vntruely ascribed to Saint Iames by the proclaymers testimonie because he saide it was full of knowledge and full of errours also When Dionysius can say nothing for him concerning the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable for the dead he bringeth him in speaking of prayers made for the partie deceassed at his buriall Concerning the antiquitie of this Dionysius we haue shewed before that he cannot be so olde by sixe hundreth yeares as the Papistes would make him That the Apostles taught not prayer for the dead in their writinges he saith the cause was that they needed not for that the Iewes vsed both prayer sacrifice for the dead before Christes comming â–ª by testimonie of the Booke of Machabees which he sayeth S. Augustine alloweth canonicall and by witnesse of one Antonie Margarita a late conuerted Iewe to Papistrie Touching the veritie of that historie of the Machabees though Augustine allowe it to be read so it be soberly yet doeth not he take it for Canonicall and Hierome vtterly denieth it for Canonicall Expreâ—at in Prouerb But for as much as this controuersie of praying for the dead is vnpertinent to this cause and requireth a larger discourse then the answere to this Chapter may conteine also that Maister Heskins in the end ioyneth issue and maketh a newe challenge I thinke it best to referre the Readers to mine answere against Maister Allens Booke of Purgatorie where he shall finde all those and a number more of places alledged and answered both touching prayers for the dead and the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable to the dead in the same also is some treatie of prayer vnto dead Saintes In the meane season this is sufficient against all mans authoritie that the worde of God prescribeth neither the one nor the other but condemneth them both for what so euer is not of faith is sin and whatsoeuer is not of the word of God is not of faith therfore prayers for the dead and to the dead beeing not of the worde of God are sinne Neither were they vsed in the Church more then an hundreth yeres after christ And the first that maketh mention of any praiers for the dead which is the elder errour by two or three hundreth yeres is Tertullian wheÌ„ he was an heretike who had receiued it with other heresies of the Montanistes who were two hundreth yeares after Christ notwithstanding that Epiphanius Augustine number it among the errours of Arrius that he denied prayers for the dead yet they both do also number it for one of the heresies of the Heracleonites to redeeme their dead with inuocations and other ceremonies vsed at their buriall How M. Heskins falsifieth the councel of Carthage which made a decree that such as denied to pay the oblations of the dead should be excommunicated as murtherers of the poore I shall not neede to rehearse vnderstanding dead mens legacies for the vse of the poore for Masses saide for the dead The same doeth M. Allen with this and other councels Likewise M. Heskins falsifieth Cyprian De Cerna Dom In huius praesentia non superuacuè in endicant lachrymae veniam nec vnquam patitur contriti cordis holocaustum repulsam In presence of him teares do neuer begge pardon in vain neither doeth the sacrifice of a contrite heart euer suffer repulse Here doth he translate Huius of this sacrifice and applyeth it to the sacrifice of the Masse for the dead whereas there is not one worde in all that sermon either of prayer or sacrifice for the dead But leauing this argument of praying and offering for the dead M. Heskins chargeth the the proclaimer with three vntrueths in one sentence where he saide that Saint Iames in his Masse preached and set foorth the death of Christ but the Papistes in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe geastures and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstande not and make no manner mention of Christes death To the first he answereth that they haue all thinges that S. Iames had in his Masse by the proclaymers confessioÌ„ who diuideth their Masse into holie prayer holie doctrine holy consecration holy receiuing See the impudent quarrelling of this froward sophister The Bishop saith the Papistes diuide their Masse into these partes therfore he acknowledgeth their Masse to consist of these partes and yet all these are but dumbe gestures and ceremonies because the people vnderstand none of them were they neuer so good as a great parte of them is starke naught To the second he saith that they them selues vnderstand not their owne gestures and ceremonies he sayeth that diuerse writers haue expounded euerie parcell of them as Isidorus Rabanus Hugo Hoffnester Garetius and others he leaueth out Bonauentur and Durandus the cheefe belike beeing ashamed of their ridiculous interpretations But admitte these things to be set foorth in bookes doth
it therefore followe that all or the moste priestes doe vnderstand them whereof a great number can neither conster the Latine of their masse nor of those bookes And generally it may be said that they all vnderstand them not because these writers themselues doe not agree in the interpretation of them The thirde he saith is A plaine lie that in the Masse they make no mention of Christes death whereas the Masse setteth forth the death of Christe more liuely then the new communion For with great outcries he saith that there is mention of his death where it is saide The day before he suffred and The bloud of the new Testament that it shed for you and beeing mindfull of his passion resurrection c. and do this in remembrance of me Here is all the preaching of Christes death that he can finde in the Masse But seeing he grateth vpon the wordes No mention of his death Which was not the Bishops meaning but no profitable mention to the institution of the people who vnderstand nothing although there were neuer so long a sermon of Christes death in Latine yet I say he hath not shewed the death of Christe once mentioned in the Masse I say not by implication but in fourme of wordes whereof he taketh aduauntage to charge the Bishop of a lie But how open plaine lowd impudent a lie it is that The Masse setteth foorth the death of Christ more liuely then the new communion as he termeth it I will not in one worde goe about to confute least I should acknowledge any neuer so small shew of trueth to be in it The fortieth Chapter treateth of priuate Masses as the proclaymer termeth them and solueth his arguments Maister Heskins first rehearsing the Bishoppes Arguments against the priuate Masse first maketh this generall aunswere to them al that they proue it is lawfull for the people to receiue with the Priest but not that it is necessarie And first he chargeth him with falsifying of Hierome In 1. Cor. 11. That the supper of the Lorde must be common to all the people for Christ gaue his sacraments to all his disciples that were present Where saith Maister Heskins he hath left out this worde equally by whiche is meant that poore men haue as good right to the sacrament as riche men but not that it is necessarie that all men present at Masse should receiue with the priest In deed the words of Hierome are these Conuenientibus c. Iam non est Dominica sed humana quando vnâ—s quis quae tanquam caenam propriam solus inuadis alij qui non obtulerit non impereit Ita vt magis propter saturitatem quà m propter mysterium videamini conuenire Caeterùm coena Dominica omniâ—us debes esse communis quia ille omnibus discipulis suis qui aderant Ä™qualiter tradidit sacramenta Coena auteÌ„ ideo dicitur quia Dominuâ— in coena tradidit sacramentum Item hoc ideo dicit quia in ecclesia conuenientes oblationes suas separatim offerabant post communionem quae cunque eis de sacrificijs supersuissent illic in Ecclesia communem coenam coÌ„medentes pariter consumebant Et alius quidem esurit c. Quicumque non obtulisset non communicabat quira omnia soli qui obtulerunt insumebant When you come together c. Nowe is it not the LORDES supper but a mannes supper when euerie one falleth to it alone as it were his owne supper and giueth no parte to another which hath offered nothing so that you seeme to come together rather to fill your bellies then for the mysteries sake But the Lordes supper ought to be common to al men because he deliuered his sacramentes to all his disciples that were present equally And it is therefore called a supper because the Lorde at supper deliuered the sacramente Also he saith this therfore for that when they came together in the Church they offered their oblations seuerally and after the communion whatsoeuer was left to them of the sacrifice euen there in the Church eating a common supper they consumed it together And one truely is a hungred whosoeuer had not offred did not communicate because they that had offred consumed all alone By this let the Reader iudge what falsifying the proclaymer vsed and whether Hierome that condemned seuerall communions of riche men would allowe a singular partaking of the priest alone An other reason he hath of baptisme whiche though it be common to all men and that two speciall times in the yeare were appointed for the ministration thereof yet it may be ministred alone But the example is nothing like for it was alwayes lawfull and often vsed to baptise singuler persons at all times so was it neuer of the Lordes supper because the mysterie that S. Paul speaketh of 1. Cor. 10. Many partaking of one bread cannot bee expressed when one priest receiueth alone The third reason he bringeth is a counterfet decree ascribed to Fabianus of Rome 242. yeres after Christe that people should receiue thryse in the yere which had beene needlesse if they receiued so often as the priest saide Masse In deede the impudent forgerie of this decree is manifest when two hundred yeares after Fabianus the people of Rome as both Saint Augustine and Saint Hierome do write and Maister Heskins cannot denye receiued the communion euery day As for the decree of once a yere receiuing I knowe not when it was made but wicked it was whensoeuer it was made But Chrysostome I wene doth make much for priuate Masses for he writeth but Maister Heskins dare not tell where for shame Nonne per singulos dies offerimus offerimus quidem sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius Do wee not euery day sayth hee make oblation we offer in deede but doing it to the remembrance of his death This question of Chrysos is but an obiection of the vsual phrase of offering which he expoundeth to be nothing else but a celebration of the remembraunce of Christs death and therfore in the end of that discourse for a full resolution he setteth down Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex sed id ipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur Wee offer not another sacrifice as the holie priest but the same alwayes but rather wee make the remembraunce of that sacrifice This correction sheweth what he meaneth by the name of sacrifice And whereas Maister Heskins vrgeth that they ministred dayly none were bound but priests to communicate aboue thrise in the yere he concludeth the priest receiued oftentimes alone But he playeth the papist notably in taking rather then begging two principles one that the people were not bounde which hee is not able to proue another that there was but one Priest in a church whereas at that time commonly there was but one church in a citie in which were many priestes which by his owne confession were bound to receiue as often as
corporis Christi Vocaturque ipsa īmolario carnis que sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio nō rei veritate sed significāte mysterio The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a peculiar maner is called the body of Christe when as in very deed it is the sacramēt of the body of christ And euen the oblation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysteri Those words which are borrowed out of August into the decrees the glose doth thus vnderstand Coeleste sacraementū quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè Vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio◠Vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but vnproperly Therefore it is saide to be after a peculiar manner but not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the body of Christe that is it doth signifie the body of Christe If these testimonies that are taken out of the Romish Bishops owne writings decrees and gloses that are so plaine will not satisfie the Papistes that their doctrine of transubstantiation and carnall presence is neither true ancient nor Catholike it is in vaine to spend more wordes with them as with men that are obstinate and will not be satisfied with any truth contrarie to their presumed heresie The one and sixtieth Chapter maketh a recapitulation of that that is done in this worke Seeing this Chapter containeth no argument or authoritie to defend his cause but only rehearseth what he fantasieth that he hath brought in other places throughout all his booke for the maintenance of the same I referre it to the indifferent readers iudgement what I haue done in this breefe confutation of the same And here I conclude this acte of repeale that notwithstanding this bill offered to the Parleament by Tho. Hesk. in the lower house hath many friends so that the greater part of voyces if the house were diuided might seeme to ouercome the better yet for as much as in the higher house the greatest number haue spoken directly against his bill and no one lord of that house which liued within the compasse of 600. yeres of the challenge hath giuen his voyce to allowe it not only the pretensed acte of Parleament set forth by the said Tho. Hesk. is proued to be false forged counterfet but also the bill that he hath put in to be considered is vtterly reiected condemned spurned out of the house GOD BE PRAYSED A CONFVTATION OF AN IDOLATROVS TREATISE OF NICOLAS SANDER Doctor in Diuinitie which mainteyneth the making and honouring of Images by W.F. Doctour in Diuinitie ECCLESIASTIC 45. The memoriall of the beloued of God is blessed that is to say any thing that maketh vs to remember him that is beloued of God is worthie of praise and honour A Doctour like interpretation and a pithy argument whereupon I may conclude The idols that Salomon made are things that make vs remember Salomon who was the beloued of God and so called of God him selfe therefore the idols were worthie of prayse and honour The preface conteining a breefe declaration which is the true Churche Maister Sander taking in hand so absurde and wicked an argument as is the defence of idolatrie or honouring of Images thought good to present it in the best vessel that he had which is the painted boxe of the Churche which that he might the rather commend to his countrimen he hath taken vpon him to describe it both inside and outside as he saith by certeine knowen truethes in number no lesse then 112. which after they haue been all well vewed and sufficiently considered I doubt not but to the reasonable and indifferent Reader shall appeare nothing else but a faire coloured but yet an empty vessell I will followe his diuisions and where I finde any trueth I will confesse it without wrangling where in steede of trueth he offereth falshode I will breefely confute it 1 The first I graunt that Christe hath alwayes had and alwayes shall haue a Church on earth out of which there is no saluation This Churche consisteth of men whiche beleeue in him haue their faith sealed and confirmed by outward sacramentes 2 The Church is the kindome of Christe the Citie of God and the kingdome of heauen wherein Christ shall reigne for euer 3 The kingdome is spread more largely and gouerned more prudently then any earthly kingdome euer was euen to the endes of the worlde to continue world without end 4 Notwithstanding all this to say that the Churche or this kingdome of Christe was hidden any one houre from the eyes of the worlde is not to make it more obscure then any earthly kingdome euer was as Maister Sander doeth affirme for the glorie of this Kingdome whiche is spirituall neuer did nor shall appeare to the wicked of this worlde The Churche is an article of our faith and faith is of those thinges whiche are not seene Hebru 11. but with spirituall eyes Therfore the exaltation of the Lordes hill that Esaie 2. and Micheas 4. doe speake of is of a spirituall aduauncement and a citie built vpon an hill is euerie true minister of Gods worde Matthewe 5. and not the whole Churche Finally the glorie and ioye that Esaie 60. promiseth vnto the Church and her happie enlargement among the nations Cap. 61. proue no worldly pompe or greatnesse to be seene with carnall eyes but is ment of the ioyfull and comfortable addition of the Churche of the Gentiles vnto the Churche of the Iewes For otherwise these wordes could not be verified of all wicked men All that see them shall knowe them that they are the blessed seede which the Lorde hath blessed 5 The cheefe meane whereby the Church is so clearely seene and so glorious in the sight of men is that Christ being the true light hath cōmunicated his brightnesse to his Apostles sayng you are the light of the worlde A citie built vpon an hill can not be hidden Neither do men light a candel and put it vnder a bushel but vpon a candlestick that it may giue light to al them that are in the house But this brightnesse is heauenly and spirituall not worldly and carnall to be seene of the children of light not of the blind bussards of the worlde 6 The Churche dyed not when the Apostles dyed for Bishops and Pastours succeeded in their place as lightes set vpon the candlestickes which are the seuerall Churches Apoc. 1. 7 The light and glorie of Gods Churche commeth chiefely from the Bishops and Pastours thereof I meane from their heauenly doctrine not from their persons as Maister
his deuorse from his first vnlawfull mariage gaue him occasion to enquire and finde out what weake foundation the vsurped power of the See of Rome was buylded vppon 76 King Henrie departed not out of the societie of the churche of Rome onely for the vices of the men thereof but for their false and Antichristian heresies which they obstinately mainteined and ioyned him selfe to the true auncient and vniuersall Church of Christe when hee departed out of that false newe sett vp schismaticall and particuler Synagogue of Rome as Saint Augustine went from the Manichees to the Catholicke church And as King Henrie the eyght knewe whence hee went so knewe hee also whither he went euen from Rome with seuen hilles to Ierusalem which is aboue and is the mother of vs all 77 Hee that goeth out of an hereticall church as King Henrie did must goe to the Catholike church of Christe as hee did without making any newe church or being without a church I knowe not the age of Maister Sander but if hee bee not much aboue fourtie yeares olde hee was borne and baptized as manye other Papistes were in that which hee calleth a newe church or no church which howe hee will aunswere let him and them aduise which holde it necessarie that a man must tarrie in that church in which hee is baptized 78 King Henrie the eight was not without a churche but in the church of Englande a member of the Catholike church of Christe neither did hee call him the supreme head of the church of Englande before that title was giuen him by the Popish Clergie in their submission after they were cast in the premunire Edw. Hall. 79 That hee receiued not fully the true doctrine of Christ as he banished the false vsurped power of the Pope is to bee imputed to the trayterous practises of his dissembling Clergie which although they durste not withstande him in mainteining the Popes authoritie yet they laboured all that they coulde to reteine the Popes doctrine in as many poyntes as they might hereof came the lawe of the sixe articles which mainteined the sacrifice of the Masse transubstantiation communion in one kynde and such other heresies Neuerthelesse the authoritie of Antichrist much Idolatrie superstition and false doctrine was abolished Iustification by faith in Christe was preached the scripture was read in the vulgar tongue which was a beginning of a reformation and returning vnto the true church of Christe and not a setting vp of a newe churche Except Maister Sander will saye that those Kinges of Iuda which refourmed some parte of religion and yet left the hill altares other abuses did set vp a newe church because they made not a perfect reformation Finally where he sayth that King Henrie adioyned himselfe to no companie of faithfull men in earth which had from Christes time liued after that profession of faith which he allowed proueth not that hee set vp a newe church For he ioyned to the Catholike church in so many pointes of true doctrine as hee acknowledged from which the Popish church was departed although he was not rightly instructed in all 80 The church of Englande in King Henries time was a true church although all the doctrine which was then mainteined by publique authoritie through the subtile practises of popish hypocrites was not true And the church of England at this daye is the same that it was then but nowe by publike authoritie embraceing all true doctrine which by the true members of the church in King Henries dayes was mainteined and withstoode by hypocrites or other not yet rightly instructed 81 The church vnto which King Henrie went and brought the realme when he departed from Rome was the same church which began at Ierusalem and so increased into all nations and continueth in the world for euer though not among all nations 82 King Henry went out of the Antichristian church of Rome into the Catholike church of Christe embracing some part of the doctrine therof therefore hee needed no reconciliation to the Romish church but a more perfect information of the church of Christ. 83 In King Edwardes time the reformation began and hindred in his fathers time was perfected and accomplished for all pointes of Christian doctrine neither was there any reconciliation vsed to the churche of Rome but the Church of Englande by publike authoritie perfectly vnyted to the Catholike Churche of Christe ioyning in profession of faith with the best refourmed Christian churches in the worlde 84 The abolishing of forrein power hindred not the ioyning in faith and doctrine with all the Churches of God that were without the realme of England The propitiatorie sacrifices of the Masse was in King Edwardes time abolished by publique authoritie out of the Church of England as it was in King Henries time abhorred of all true members of the Church that were then rightly instructed as much as the supremacie of the Pope 85 The power of being the sonnes of God the power of preaching and forgiuing of sinnes in the Church of Christe is no forreigne power neither was any such power euer excluded but the false and vsurped tyrannie of Antichrist of Rome 86 We beleeue and professe a Catholique or vniuersall Church of Christe whereof we are members and therefore we detest the hereticall schismaticall and particular Church of Rome 87 The Church of England vnder King Edward did professe her selfe to be a member of the most auncient Catholike and Apostolique Church of Christe which is the piller of trueth to bee iudged by the worde of GOD which is the trueth it selfe Iohn 17. being not so ignoraunt but that she could distinguish the worde of GOD from the Church of GOD as the lawe of GOD from the houshold of GOD which is gouerned by that lawe And not as Maister Sanders similitude is as the statutes of England differ from the men of England which make them but the Church maketh not the worde of God but contrariwise the word of God maketh the Church 88 It is not necessarie to shewe a companie of men in a peculiar place as Geneua or any such like for them that will ioyne them selues with the Catholike Church of all the world although it were easie to name diuers companies of men in seuerall places which continued in the true Church out of the Church of Rome both in Fraunce and Italie beside Bohemia which long before was returned out of the Popish Church into the Church of Christ and all the East Churches which neuer ioyned with the Church of Rome 89 The Churches of Zurich and Saxonie be members of the Catholique Church of Christe which is fifteene hundreth yeares olde and vpward although the same Churches were gathered and returned in those places within these three score yeares 90 There needed no embassages to goe to and fro to the Churches of God beyond the seas for reconciliation bicause there was no debate betweene the Church of England and them Although for conference and aduise
it might not be deceiued by vncerteine traditions and inuentions of man in steeede of the doctrine of God. 104 The Popishe Church hath not kept the worde of God faithfully but in a corrupt and false Latine translation The certeintie therfore of the scriptures was not receiued from them but from the Iewes concerning the olde Testament in Hebrue and from the Gręcians concerning the new Testament in Greek Although the very common Latine translation of the Bible is sufficient to conuince the Popish Church of horrible heresies and blasphemies 105 To refourme the Church according to the doctrine of the holie scripture and the example of the Primitiue Church is not like as if one reading of the olde lawes of England in an other Ilande would say it were England and that the countrie whiche is so called is departed from olde England For chaunge of Lawes cannot change places and regions but departing from the trueth of Gods worde is a departing from the Churche of Christe and the returning to that trueth is a returning to the Church of Christ notwithstanding Maister Sanders wise similitude The Prophetes in deede Esaie Ieremie c. by the lawe of Moses shewed the errours of the Church of Ierusalem and by it sought the reformation thereof But they renounced not the lawful gouernement of the high Priest because it was established by the lawe whereas the tyrannicall vsurpation of the Pope is contrarie to the lawe of Christ and therefore is moste iustly renounced 106 It is graunted that the Church of Rome was once a principall parte of the Churche of Christe But the successions of Popes since Popes were hath not continued so without interruption as the successions of the highe Priestes at Ierusalem by meanes of so many Schismes Antipapes and translation of the See from Rome to Auinion with so many and so long variations of the See. And the succession of Christians except in a fewe hath vtterly failed as Esaie saith of Ierusalem how is the faithfull citie become an harlot Esaie 1. 107 It is graunted that of olde time the Romane faith was accounted the catholike faith while it was so in deed euen as the Britanne faith the French faith the Germane faith was likewise But that whiche he inferreth is vtterly denied namely that the Pope and his citie haue continued in the profession of that faith to this day For the contrarie beeing proued it is not onely the euill manners of the Pope and that citie that haue moued vs to departe from the Churche but the false religion therof Although it is nothing like that where suche a sinke of all abhominations is and hath beene openly and generally seene aswel in the Popes as in the people of his citie there should be a true and sincere faith and religion whiche bringeth foorth wicked and vngodly fruites 108 The glorie of Christes Church and kingdome is not like to the kingdome and glorie of an earthly Empire but contrarie to it namely it is spirituall and not carnal inwarde and not outwarde in appearance of weaknesse pouertie foolishnesse and not of strength riches and wisedome 1. Cor. 1. 109 The wayes to see and heare the Church of God is to heare the worde of God whereof commeth faith by the eyes whereof the Church of God is seene and not by bodily eyes to be painted out loe here loe there for the kingdome of God is within vs Luc. 17. vers 21. 110 Notwithstanding any thing repeated in this article conteined in seuerall articles before 19.20.64.18.22.24.25.26.31.46.27.41.42.56.43.45.48.36.39.67.65.68.20 the Popish Church is the Church of Antichrist therefore we haue iustly departed from it to the Churche of Christ. 111 In the Church of Christ is the word of God the sacramentes forgiuenesse of sinnes the holie Ghost the communion of Saintes and Christ himselfe which is the onely head and sauiour thereof But whether the Papistes holde this Church or we let them proue as S. Augustine vrgeth the Donatistes by none of these fonde and carnall reasons but only by the authoritie of the scriptures De vnitate Eccles. Cap. 16. 112 The rest of the preface is consumed in dissuading the Papists of England frō dissembling their professiō of Papistrie exhorting them to make open confessiō therof which next vnto their conuersion I wish as much as M. Sander that if they may not be conuerted to become true Christians and good subiectes they might be knowen as they are for open heretikes enimies of their Prince and Realme ¶ A TREATISE OF IMAGES OF Christe and of his Saintes and that it is vnlawfull to breake them and lawfull to honour them c. THE FIRST CHAPTER THe Argument of the treatise following In which he noteth especially The storie of the spoyle of Images in the lowe countries The diuersitie of sectes there The holie Bible burnt Hermannus a preacher capteine of the spoyle THE defence of idolatrie whiche he taketh in hand beeing so abhominable to be heard among Christians after he hath first sought to dasell mens eyes with the vaine glitering glorie of the Romish Church now he goeth about to tickle their eares with a plausible tale of some disorderly doinges in breaking of Images in the lowe countries As though the inconsiderate zeale of a fewe image breakers or perhaps the licentious riot of some pilfering spoylers beeing either Papistes or of no religion that were mixed with them were sufficient to excuse such horrible Idolatrie as the Papistes daily commit and M. Sander is not ashamed to defend He pretendeth as though his purpose were no more but to answere an obiection of I cannot tell what Protestants nor he him selfe is able to name any of credite which affirmed that the casting downe of idolatrie in the lowe countries and liberty of preaching the gospel procured by a few naked base men against an armed Prince and so many wealthy persons as were enimies to it must come of the mightie hand of God and that it was a great miracle Whiche thing might well and truely be saide without allowing of any thing that was done beside order For there is no doubt but God directed all things to his glory although men sought not the same by lawfull ordinarie meanes It was no miracle saith M. Sander because they were not resisted in suche places where the spoyle was made But so much the greater was the miracle that in so many places the heartes of the magistrates with the people were so daunted that they durst make no resistance The storie as M. Sander reporteth it is that the Lordes of the low countries dissenting from king Philip about the Spanish inquisition the king lyke to be assaulted by the Turkes in Naples and Malta resorte was made to a certaine preacher not called by anye auctoritie in the woods and fieldes neere to Antwerpe The first quarrell he picketh is to the preachers callinge whiche in suche times as religion is in a manner ouerthrowne and defaced by Idolatrie as
comprehendeth it not Ioan. 1. and the natural man vnderstandeth not those things that be of the spirite of God. 1. Cor. 2. ver 14. and where shal we finde the practise of all nations according to the lawe of nature when they haue all declined and gone astray there is not one that doth good no not one Ro. 3. Psal. 13. Wherefore there are other two most certeine infallible rules wherby the law of nature in any case may be found out and knowen namely the word of God and the spirite of God whiche giue mutuall testimonie one to the other the worde and spirite of God beeing contrarie to the worshipping of Images The Lord saying in the first table of religion Thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worship them it is manifest that worshipping of images is contrarie to the Lawe of nature So that you see the foundation of this building already subuerted by which you may coniecture how long it is possible for the house to stande after it For what soeuer he iangleth of the internall conceptions of the minde vnproperly and metaphorically called images and comparing artificiall images vnto them it is nothing els but vain deceiptfulnesse to be contemned and hissed out not onely of all Christian Churches of euery faithfull man but also out of all schooles of Diuinitie by all them that are learned as well in the scriptures of God as in humaine phylosophie But that you may see what soundnesse there is in his doctrine thus he weaueth his copwebbe One telleth him that Christ died onely to saue man from euerlastinge paines he hearing and beleeuing this straight conceiueth Christ dying for him and is mooued to loue him Secondly he is much delighted with the Image which he conceiued in his minde of Christ dying for him and loueth that also Thirdly he loueth and honoureth him that tolde him this matter as a bringer of good tydinges So here bee three kindes of honour the cheefe to Christe the thinge it selfe the second to the inward conception or Image of him in his minde the last is to the reporter And here you haue a paterne of popishe prophane diuinitie for here is no loue nor honour due to the spirite of God who onely must open his heart to receiue suche tydings profitably nor to the worde of God which must be the warrant of this tydinges to be true nor to fayth which applying these tydinges to his owne saluation is the roote of all vertuous obedience loue honour and thankefulnesse in him But euen as he considereth of any prophane report so doeth he consider of this glad tydings of the gospell and not otherwise But to proceede of this wise distribution of three fold honour hee inferreth seuen causes of honouring artificiall Images The first is that it beareth the office of a reporter and therefore it must needes haue a rewarde of honour A slowe messenger a dumbe reporter which can neither go of this errande nor tell his tale But what skilleth it saieth Master Sander whether I learne by hearing or by seeing For Basill sayeth that both eloquent orators and cunninge paynters the one with their tongue the other with theiâ— pensil haue set forth valiant acts done in warre and stirred vp many to fortitude Hom. in 40. martyr But it skilleth vs to learne by hearing of Gods word because faith coÌ„meth by hearing Rom. 10. vers 17. and they are blessed which beleeue without seeing Ioh. 20. vers 29. Howsoeuer it skilleth papists howsoeuer all other things except religioÌ„ faith may be learned As for the reporter of the glad tydings of the gospel he is in deed worthy of honor if he do his message truly willingly diligeÌ„tly but it is honor of the second table not of the first that perteineth to him And except there be in him loue to God his neighbor he is worthy of no honor althogh he do the message Therefore if the Image were as a reporter â–ª he could haue but honor of the second table which is of charity not of religion But seeing there is in an image neither loue will diligence truth for which causes a reporter is loued cherished neither is an image cause of anye thinge there is no loue honour or worshippe due â—nto it The second cause of honoring artificial images is for that it doth speedily and most coÌ„ueniently informe our inward imagination and therefore is more to be honored theÌ„ any orator For the eye being the principal sense is most ready to instruct the minde and therfore a painted image is a more easie and liuely way to enstruct vs then any orator In deed if faith were a register of visible things as it is of inuisible thinges Heb. 11. vers 1.7 the sense of seing were a more easie speedy coÌ„uenient way of instructing then by hearing but yet images were no more to be honored then the sound of words is nowe to be worshipped when we heare the gospell preached But God saith he hath ioyned visible signes to his worde as in the proclaiming of the lawe yea sir but God shewed not there the image of any thing to teach them thereby but expressely forbad the vse of them in his religion and seruice But if God gaue visible wordes as he doeth his sacramentes it is not therefore lawfull for men to make images as visible teachers which God hath forefended There is therefore hitherto no naturall cause of the honouring of images The thirde cause of honouring of Images is because they be naturally knit and ioyned to the trueth concerning their shape and representation as the reporter if he be an Ethnike or Iewe he is ioyned to Christ in morall honestie and naturall loue of trueth if he be baptized much more as a member of Christ if he be a bishop c. as a minister of Gods worde if he be a Prophete by a more special grace if an Apostle as one nerest to Christ if it be Christ himselfe as the chiefe and God himselfe So Images as they be neerer to Christ they are more to be honoured and Christs Image most of all which speaketh alwayes and yet saith neuer a worde to them that haue spirituall eares of vnderstanding Nay carnall eyes of blinded and hardened heartes But this difference he maketh the former reporters deserue honour beeing reasonable creatures freely and voluntarily reportinge the trueth but letters and Images deserue no honour and yet it is due to them whiche is a straunge matter a due without desert yea necessarily due to them in respect of that whose image it beareth But admitte that the image were a true reporter as he is nothing but a false dumb stocke without any action yet seeinge he compareth an image to the written letters of the gospell which be figures of that trueth which is represented and learned by them I pray you what honour is due to the written letters of the Byble more then to the written letters of any other
in M. Iewell thinking the signe of the crosse not to be an image or that to haue the signe of the crosse in great regarde for Christes sake is not to worship the same signe and consequently to worship an Image Also the materiall word of Christes crosse is holy as a signe and as a relique A miracle wrought by the woode of Christes crosse The bishop of Ierusalem brought forth the crosse to be adored euerye Easter The Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian made a lawe in the honour of the crosse By M. Iewels confession the signe of the crosse was had in great regarde among the Christians S. Stephens image painted and hanged before his sepulchre with a crosse on his shoulder Probianus was accompted no perfect Christian because he would not adore the holy crosse of Christ. M. Iewell is conuinced by words of his owne alledging The writers of hymnes S. Chrysostome did set forth some parcell of Christs crosse to be adored and kissed Maister Sander telleth vs that when he speaketh of the worshipping of the crosse he meaneth either the materiall crosse whereon Christ suffred or els the signe and image thereof The material crosse he saith is not onely holy as the signe of him that died on it but also as sanctified with the blood of christ As though the blood of Christ was a sanctification vnto an vnsensible blocke of wood It was the aulter whereon the sacrifice of our redemption was offred Although it be sometimes so called vnproperly because it seemed so in the eyes of men yet our Sauiour Christ himselfe was both the priest and the sacrifice the temple the altar of our redemption whereof Augustine saith De fide ad Petrum Dia. ca. 2. Iste igitur est qui in se vno totum exhibuit quod esse necessarium ad redemptionis nostrae sciebat effectum idem scilicet sacerdos sacrificium idem Deus templum This is he that in himselfe onely exhibited all whatsoeuer he knewe to be necessarie for the effecte of our redemption the same being both the prieste and the sacrifice the same beeinge God and his temple But a temple he could not be except an altar were within him and not without him Christ is therefore the holy altar and not the cursed crosse But he addeth that it is an holy relique and not onely an Image If there were so great holinesse in that materiall crosse it is maruaile none of the Apostles made any acounte of it nor any of the faithfull not Ioseph and Nicodemus which with muche lesse suite might haue obteyned it of Pilate then the body of Iesus Nor the church by the space of three hundreth yeares vntill the time that Helena is saide to haue founde it with the two crosses of the two theeues whiche I take to bee but a fable and an imposture of some that after Helena was dead forged a crosse nailes affirminge that they were founde by Helena For it soundeth like no trueth that Eusebius whiche knewe the same Helena the mother of Constantine the great and writeth of her deuotion and of her doinges in the holy lande woulde haue omitted suche a noble inuention of the crosse with so manie miracles about the same eyther in his storie or in the life of Constantine I knowe there is a shorte note of it in his Chronicles but that seemeth to be added by some other since his time whiche he would not haue omitted to declare at large in his storie where hee setteth out in many words matter of muche lesse importaunce then that supposed inuention was Againe they that in latter times write of it as Ambrose Ruffinus Socrates Theodoretus and Sosomenus seeme to haue receyued that matter onely of reporte and of no written monument for scarce one of them agreeth with another For to omitte how incredible it is that the Iewes woulde haue buried that crosse to keepe it from the Christians whiche they more safely might haue burned Wherefore should they burie with it the two other crosses of the theeues And admitte there were suche holinesse in Christes crosse that it coulde not corrupt yet howe were not the other two crosses rotten in three hundreth yeares lyinge in the earth But admitting that storie to be true as I promise you it is no article of my beliefe what meaneth M. Sander to saye the materiall crosse is not onely an Image by which he meaneth that it is an Image whereof I praye you shoulde it bee an Image Will you nowe confounde the thinge with the image thereof as you doe offer the Image with the thing â—f that materiall crosse were an image then the images thereof be images of an Image which is nothinge of it selfe and then by your owne rule they be Idoles But you saye it was an instrument of our redemption and therefore holy If that be a good reason Pilate Annas Cayphas Iudas the souldiers which crucified Christ were holy for they were instruments of our redemption But Ambrose De obitu Theodosiâ— calleth it the standerde of saluation the worde of trueth yea life it selfe I praye you giue Ambrose in his eloquente oration leaue to vse rethoricall figures of amplification and let him expounde him selfe in the same Habeat Helena quae legat vnde crucem domini recognoscat inuenit ergo titulum regem adorauit non lignum vtique quia hic gentilis est error vanitas impiorum sed adorauit illum qui pependit in ligâ—o Let Helena haue somewhat that shee may reade whereby she may know the lordes crosse Therefore she founde the title shee worshipped the kinge not the wood verilye for this is an heathnishe errour and a vanitie of vngodly men but shee worshipped him that hath hanged on the wood Thus Ambrose although he credited this inuention yet he affirmeth it is an heathnishe errour and a vanitye of wicked menne to woorshippe the tree that Christ dyed on much more the signe or Image thereof seeing al worshippe belongeth to God. But Master Sander replyeth that he saieth Non insolentia ista sed pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni this is no insolencie but godlinesse when honour is giuen to the holy redemption Speakinge of honour due to the woode in respectâ— that it belongeth to Christ. But Ambrose speaketh not one worde of honour due to the wood of the crosse but defendeth the estimation of the crosse of Christ which iâ— our redemption For speaking of the nayle which Helena caused to bee forged into the diademe of her sonne the Emperour he saith Sapienter HelenÄ™ egis quae crucem in capite regum leuauit locauit vt crux Christi in regibus adoretur Non insolentia ista c. Helena did wisely that lifted vp the crosse in the heade of kinges and so placed it that the crosse of Christ might be worshipped in the kinges This is no insolencie c. as aboue So that he speaketh not of the woode of the crosse but of the iron
that we are so free and strong in our faith that we neede not to be kept from conuenient worshipping of lawdable images as the weake Iewes were Nay you impudently and moste arrogantly contemne GOD and his lawe and moste blasphemously affirme that GOD kept the Iewes from conuenient worshipping of lawdable images whiche haue so many commodities or else you lie moste damnablye 12 We professe the trueth of the Gospell and of the lawe of nature which requireth conuenient honour to be giuen to the images of honorable personages Because you professe another Gospell then that we haue receiued out of the worde of God if Nicholas Sander were as great as Michael the archangell Gods great curse light on him Anathema to a new Manachee that maketh the truth of the Gospell and the lawe of nature contrarie to the trueth of the lawe of God giuen by Moses Yea Anathema Maranatha be he that defendeth that to bee good whiche God so manifestly condemneth for abhominable You haue heard what authorities he bringeth to proue the honouring and worshipping of images conuenient Videlicet neuer a one Now shal you heare some sentences of the auncient writers to the contrarie Augustine Ad Deogratias Epi. 49. Et idola quidem omnè sensu carere quis dubitat Veruntamen cum his locantur sedibus honorabili sublimitate vt a precantibus atque immolantibus attendantur ipsa similitudine animatorum membrorum atque sensuum quamuis insensata atque exanima afficiunt infirmos animos vt viuere ac spirare videantur accedente praesertim veneratione multitudinis quae tantus eis Dei cultus impenditur And who doubteth but that idolles are voide of all sense Yet when they are sette vppe in those places in honorable height so that they bee looked vppon by them that pray and sacrifice by the very similitude of the members and senses of liuing creatures although they be insensible and without life they affecte the weak mindes of men so that they seeme to liue and breathe especially when the worshipping of the multitude commeth to them by which so great honor of God is bestowed vpon them The same Augustine in Leuit. Qu. 68. writeth thus Nam quid isto praecepto absolutius non mentiemini Sic enim dictum est quomodo non facies tibi idolum quod factum non potest aliquando iuctum esse quomodo dictum est non maechaberis For what can be more absolute then this commaundement You shall not lye For it is euen so saide as that Thou shalt not make to thy self any grauē image which fact can neuer bee righteous and euen as it is saide Thou shalt not commit adulterie If M. Sander cauill at the worde Idoll yet the commandement is generall for all images and similitudes to be made by mans deuise as he himselfe confesseth Therefore it is as lawfull to haue images in religion as to lye or to commit adulterie by Saint Augustines iudgement Other places of Augustine in psal 96. 113. which I haue cited before I omitte Yet this one short sentence I will adde to shewe how farre S. Augustins iudgement was from M. Sanders assertion that in worshippinge of images is small or no danger of idolatrie at all in psal 113. Quis autem adorat vel orat intuens simulachrum qui non sic affuitur vt ab eo se exaudiri putet ac ab eo sibi prestari quod desiderat speret For who doeth worshippe or pray beholding an image which is not so affected that he thinketh himselfe to be hearde of it and hopeth that that thing shal be performed of it which he desireth Hierome in Ezechiell lib. 4. cap. 16. hath these wordes Nos autem vnum habemus virum vnam veneramur imaginem quae est imago inuisibilis omnipotentis Dei. We saith he of the Christians haue but one husbande and worship but one image which is the image of the inuisible and Almightie god Meaning Christ and speakinge against the image worshippers and spirituall fornicators of the Gentiles Iewes and heretikes Likewise vpon Daniel lib. 1. cap. 3. Siue statuā vt Symmachus sue imaginem auream vt caeteri transtulerunt voluerimus legere cultores Dei eam adorare non debent Ergo Iudices principes saeculi qui imperatorum statuas adorant imagines hoc se facere intelligant quòd tres pueri facere nolentes placuerint Deo. Et notanda proprietas Deos coli imaginem adorari dicunt quod vtrunque seruis Dei non conuenit Whether we will reade it a standing image as Symmachus or a golden image as the rest haue translated the worshippers of God ought not to adore it Therefore the Iudges and Princes of the worlde which worship the statues and images of the Emperours let them vnderstand that they do that which the three children would not doe and pleased god And that the propertie of speech is to be marked they cal the worshippinge of the image the worshippinge of God both which is vnmeete for the seruauntes of God. If Hierome will not allowe the worshipping of the Emperours Image which is but ciuill much lesse the worshippinge of the image of Christ or his saintes which is religious Chrysostom in Math. Hom. 51. counteth it a meere mockery of God and the saints to set vp their image in golde or siluer and to suffer the true images and their members to dye for famine or colde as they doe in all places where Idols are hanged with chaines and brooches Quid porro si frigore congeluum hominem aspiceres nec vestem aliquam ei preparares si aureas statuas ad laudē eius erigeres nonne contemnere videreris What if thou shouldest see a man frozen with colde and didst not prepare him any garment but didst set vp golden images to his praise shuldest thou not seeme to dispise him And the God reiecteth al such honour as is imagined to be done to him by images or other inuentions of men he saith Qui honoratur eo maxime honore laetatur quem ipse vult non quem optamus He whiche is honoured delighteth chiefly in that honour which he himselfe will haue not which we wishe to him Ambrose Ep. 31. derideth them Qui Deum loquntur simulachrum adorant which speake of God and worshippe an image In Rom. cap. 9. he saith that Christ would not suffer him selfe to be worshipped but that he is god Nec Dominus vbique se adorari pateretur nisi quia Deus After the councell of Eliberis that forbad all pictures in the Church the councell of Carth. 5. willed such altars as were set vp in the countrie and high wayes as memories of the martyrs should be abolished ouerthrowen although they were pretended to be set vp by reuelations or visions woulde they then haue permitted images in memorie of the martyrs When also they decreed to intreate the Emperour that all reliques and monumentes of idolatrie might be destroyed CHAP. XVIII OR XVII
all Councels is and ought to be by the authoritie of the holy scriptures The Apostles thēselues in the Councel of Hierusalem decided the controuersie of circumcision by the scriptures Act. 15. A worthy paterne for al godly Councels to folow Constantine also in the Councel of Nice charged the Bishops there assembled by his commandement to determine the matter by the authoritie of the holy scriptures Euangelici enim Apostolici libri necnon antiquorum Prophetarum oracula planè instruunt nos inqui sensu numinis Proinde hostici posua discordia sumamus ex dictis diuini spiritus explicatione◠The bookes of the Gospels and the Apostles and also the Oracles of the auncient Prophetes do plainly instruct vs saith he in the vnderstanding of god Therefore laying away hatefull discord let vs take explications out of the sayings of the holy Ghoste Therdor lib. cap. 7. By this charge it is manifest how truely M. Rastel faith that the decree of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equalitie of the Sonne in substance with the Father was made only by tradition and not by the authoritie of the scriptures For the Councel examining by scriptures the tradition and receiued opinion of the Fathers and finding it agreeable to them did confirme the same And whereas the Arrians quarrelled that this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not found in the scriptures and therefore would refuse it it helpeth nothing M. Rastels vnwritten verities for the trueth of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proued by an hundreth textes of scriptures as the truth of the Trinitie is although neither of both words are found in the scriptures We quarell not as those heretiques did and M. Rastel a Popish heritique doth of letters syllables words and sounds but we stand vpon the sense meaning vnderstanding doctrine which we affirme to be perfectly contained in scripture what so euer is necessarie to saluation as S. Paul saith Al scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to improue to correct and to instruct in righteousnes that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect to al good workes 2. Tim. 3. And therefore olde customes being referred vnto the custome of the Church of God in the time of the Patriarches Prophetes Apostles and Doctours that followed the same vnitie of Gods wordes is the thing wee desire might preuaile in all our controuersies of religion and so the sentence is wel inough placed if Momus could let any thing alone SECTIO 2. Frō the second face of the 12. leafe to the first face of the 19. leafe When any order giuen by God is broken or abused saith the Bishop the best redresse thereof is to restore it againe into the state that it was first in the beginning M. Rastel saith the Bishop can not tell where of he speaketh For whereas he affirmed that S. Paule had appointed an order touching the ministration of the sacramentes vnto the Corinthians M. Rastell will not simplie graunt that this order was appointed by God although S. Paule himself say he receiued it of christ which he deliuered to thē For this difference hee maketh That an order giuen by God must be obserued without exception and yet he addeth an exception of reuelation and especial licence from god But what so euer order S. Paule did giue he saith is subiect vnto the Church to remoue or pull vp as it shall please her Thus the blasphemous dog barketh against the spirit of god But I trust al sober Christian minds will rather beleue S. Paul then Rastel who saith of such orders as were giuen by him 1. Cor. 14. If any man seem to be a prophet or spirituall let him know the things that I write to you that they be the cōmandements of god But now M. Ra. will take vpon him to teach vs the order giuē that Paul speaketh of namely That the Christians had certein charitable suppers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after which as August saith before which as Chrysost. saith they did vse to receiue the sacramēt Note here that M. Rast. which wil haue old customes tried by the fathers bringeth in here two Doctors one contrarie to the other To the purpose This order was taken away by cōtention disdaine of the rich against the poore therfore Paule purposed to bring them againe to that order of sitting eating their supper altogether that rich with the pore by saying That which I receiued of the Lord I deliuered to you And not to reforme any abuse of the sacramēt by reducing it to the first institution This iudgement of M. Rastell is partly by him proued by the authoritie of Theophylact but chiefly it standeth vpon his owne authoritie without further reason Howbeit it is manifest by the scripture that Paule reproued that mingling of prophane suppers with the Lordes supper appointing their priuate houses for their bodily refreshings of eating and drinking Haue you not houses saith he to eate and drinke in By which saying it is manifest he would haue no eating and drinking in the Church as M. Rastell dreameth but onely the eating and drinking of the Lordes supper And therefore that abuse of mingling their bodily suppers with the spirituall supper of the Lorde whereof came so many abuses and especiall the seuering and sundering of the congregation into diuers partes which ought to haue receiued altogether he laboureth to reforme by bringing it to the first institution of the Lord him selfe But M. Rast. following his owne dreame asketh what there was in the institution for sitting together or a sunder for eating at Church or at home Yes forsooth Christe did institute his supper to be a foode of the soule and not of the body and therefore to be celebrated in the congregation and in common as the saluation is common and not to bee mingled with prophane banquets of bellie cheare for which priuat houses and companies are meet and not the Church of god And wheras M. Rastel chargeth M. Iewel with not vnderstanding this place which he alledgeth namely therefore when you come together to eate tarie one for an other which he saith pertaineth no more to the institution of the sacrament then a pot full of plumbs doth to the highway to London he sheweth all his wit honestie at once For he denyeth that any thing that Saint Paule there rehearseth namely these wordes take eate this is my body c. is the institution of the sacrament or the originall paterne of reforming the Corinthians disorder bicause time place vesture number of communicants and such other accidentall and variable circumstà nces be not therein expressed So that by his diuinitie either the institution of the sacrament is not at all contained in the scriptures or else there is an other first paterne to reforme abuses by then this that is set downe in the scriptures I would maruel at these monstrous assertions but that I see the obstinate Papists cannot otherwise defend their Popish Masse
to be in on place thē it were time to proue the contrarie Howe I praye you Because of the nature of a substance which occupieth no place Is this the philosophie of Louaine No maruaile if Ramus reproue Aristotle in Logike when Rastell will set not him onely but all the phylosophers that euer were and nature it self to schole and tell them that it is the nature of a substance to occupie no place whiche is as muche to saye as to bee no where and as Augustine saith that which is no where is nothing at all and so by Master Rastels profound physical philosophie it is the nature of a substaunce which al other men affirme to containe all thinges to be nothing at all But for a further resolution he sayeth Christe is in the sacrament not as in a place locally but as vnder forme of breade substantially For before hee hath defined a substaunce to bee in no place I woulde hee coulde holde him at this definition of Christes presence If I shoulde reason with him of the nine maners of inesse or beinge in a thinge and aske him after whiche of them Christe is in the sacramente perhappes hee woulde reiect that distribution as sophistical and vnworthy of his learned answere But Christe sayeth hee is in the Sacrament not as in place locally then saye I a man poyntinge to the pyxe hanginge ouer the altar in whiche the consecrated cake is muste saye if hee saye truely Christe is not there lykewise poyntinge to the same holden vppe at the sacringe carryed in procession or wheresoeuer hee seeth it muste likewise beleeue and saye Christ is not there For I am sure he being a Master in all the seuen liberall Arts is not so ignorant in grammer but he will confesse this word there to be an aduerb of place not so forgetful of logike but that he remembreth what the Predicament Vbi meaneth And to say the trueth if the papistes coulde be content with such modest termes as the scripture teacheth that the bodie of Christ is receiued of the faithfull in the sacrament after a wonderfull and mysticall maner there needed neither these fond questions nor any so bitter contention about the sacrament of vnitie But that they will make an idoll of the Lords supper and a bayte to satisfie their ambition couetousnes ▪ licentiousnesse by the sale of their masses applying of their merites these grosse and monstrous absurdities had neuer beene defended The contentions of the schoole doctours he forceth not vpon so long as the Church agreeth But can your church agree M. Rast. when the doctours thereof dissent If any difference of opinion be betweene Luther and Zuinglius you crye out of our dissention If your Church may agree within it selfe notwithstanding the infinite brawlings between the Thomists and Scotists Albertists Occanists about smal matters as you say because all those agree in the chiefest pointes of poperie I pray you let there be vnitie in our churche notwithstan-the teachers vary in some matters not of greatest momēt agreeing in all necessarie articles of Christian religion And if Holcot lye in saying a man may merite by worshipping the deuil and yet be a popish catholike Let Luther erre in defending the carnall presence and yet bee good christian catholike And if your churche bee not chargeable with Holcots lye why shoulde our churche beare the blame of Luthers error As for your excuse of Holcots lye by the schoole distinction of a thing done materially formally wherein you shew a high point of learning with your example of worshippinge of Luther being a diuell in forme of a doctor I say it is wholesome diuinitie to iustifie all superstition Mahometrie and Idolatrie in the world not onely to be excusable but also to be meritorious SECTIO 33. From the first face of the 103. leafe to the 104. leafe Where the Bishop saide hee was vnwilling to spende time in discouering the misteries of Popish learning but that the importunitie of Papistes boasting as though all learning were on their side enforceth him Maister Rastell more like a parasite to prouoke his popishe readers to laugh then a man either of wisedome or honestie scoffeth rayleth on him calling him a bench wistler rather thē a preacher But of both their learnings let the worlde iudge SECTIO 34. From the 104. leafe to the 111. in which he taketh on him to defende the vanitie of Popish arguments vsed by papists vnder colour of similitudes and allusions The Bishop discouereth this reason of Pope Innocent the thirde God made two lightes the Sunne and the Moone therefore the Pope is so much aboue the Emperour as the Sunne is aboue the Moone Maister Rastell being angrie at this discouery saith it is no mystery nor argument of strength yet was it vsed by the Popes holynes which cannot erre But the Church hath stronger arguments for proofe of this conclusion First saith Maister Rastell that there be two states spirituall and temperall it is proued by other reasons and the first reason he vseth to proue the state spirituall is much like that of the Popes whiche hee excuseth Psal. 44 ▪ and In steede of thy fathers there are sonnes borne vnto thee meaning saith he the Apostles and bishopps and their successours them shalt thou appoint princes and rulers ouer all the whole earth As though none were the sonnes of the Church but the Apostles Bishoppes and their successors and as though the Prophete spake of temperall rule in this life and not of a spiritual kingdome and inheritance of all the worlde which is common to all the faithfull after this life But to omitte that which is not in controuersie of two states in the worlde and the excellencye in spirituall thinges of the ministery of the Churche aboue the office of princes yet who will either graunt that the ministery is simply superiour to the King or Emperour so that the ministers are not his subiectes or that the Pope in any respect ought to haue any dignitie as a minister of the gospell whiche hee disdaineth to preach Another defence of this pontificall argument is that it was a sweete and misticall allusion in his familiare letters to the Emperour In deede greate familyaritie hee had with the Emperours of his time with whome hee was in continuall discorde Last of all like a blasphemous Dogge hee compareth it with the argument vsed by S. Paule for the couering of womens heades taken of nature it selfe whiche though it will not satisfie a contentious person whome nothing will satisfie yet is it sufficient and stronge ynough to proue what naturall comlynesse requireth in that case where as this of the Pope hath no shadowe of reason in it For all the rest of those argumentes rehearsed by the Bishop he maketh that generall reason that their Church hath no custome to contende for them yet haue they a custome to burne men for refusing such thinges as they are not able to contende
prefigurate the truth of his body likewise For it importeth an equalitie of both their doings Melchisedech by breade and wine did represent or prefigurate the truth of his body and Christ also by breade and wine did represent the truth of his body For Christ could not doe also that which an other had not done Therefore very foolish are M. Heskins oppositions of typicall passeouer and true passeouer and figure and truth where the argument is a consentaneis and not a dissentaneis The other friuolous interpretation that he maketh of the bread comforting mans heart being both out of the minde of Hieronyme and out of his purpose I omit At length hee commeth to an other place of Hieronyme ad Heliodorum Ep. 1. Absit vt de ijs quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt God forbid that I shuld speake any euil of thē which succeeding the apostolike degree doe make the body of Christ with their holy mouth M. Heskins translateth it which do consecrate bicause in the word make which Hieronyme vseth hee should be enforced to acknowledge a figuratiue speach But let him turne ouer all his vocabularies Calepines and dictionaries vnto which he sent vs ere while and he shall not finde this Verbe conficio signifying to consecrate but to make to dispatch or to kill Likewise he leaueth out these wordes which folowe immediatly Per quos nos Christiani sumus by whome wee also are Christians It is euident that Hieronyme speaketh hyperbolically of the dignitie of priestes for as to speake properly we are not made Christians by them no more is the bodie of Christ made by them But where he speaketh properly he vseth proper tearmes as Contra Iouin lib. 2. In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum In the figure of his bloud he offered not water but wine Here he calleth the sacrament the type of his bloude and saith it is wine And in the same booke he saith of Christ that although it be written of him that he hungred and thristed and went often to diner yet excepto mysterio quod in typum suae passionis expressit probandi corporis veritate nec gulae scribitur seruisse nec ventri Excepting the mysterie whiche he expressed in figure of his passion and in prouing the trueth of his bodie it is not written that he did serue his throte or bellie Meaning that it is not saide expressedly what he did eate and drinke but onely a◠his last supper and after his resurrection to proue the trueth of his body The other collection that hee maketh that because priestes doe consecrate with their mouthe therefore the faith of the receiuer maketh not the presence of Christ in the sacrament beside that it is not Hieronymes word yet it proueth nothing because as there be causes that worke altogether alone so there be causes which be helping and concurre with other of which sorte is the faith of the receiuer necessarilie to conceyue with the ministerie of the Minister that Christ may bee present That Christian Priestes should not be contemned if they be good it is easily graunted if they be naught the ministerie is to bee honoured but not the person Out of Chrysostom are alledged two long testimonies the one out of his homilies de prodit Iudae But by that also an other greater benefit was shewed that that lamb was a signe of the lambe to come and that bloude shewed the comming of the Lordes bloude and that sheepe was an example of the spirituall sheepe That lambe was a shadowe this lambe the trueth But after the sunne of righteousnesse shined the shadowe was put away by the light And therefore on the same table both the passeouers were celebrated both that of the figure and that of the trueth For as painters are wont to shadowe the table that is to be painted with certayne lineamentes and so with varietie of colours to make it perfecte Euen so Christ did in the table Hee did both describe the figure of the Passeouer and shewed the passeouer of trueth Where wilt thou that wee prepare for thee to eate the passouer That was the Iewish passouer but let the passouer giue place to the light and the image be ouercome of the trueth If this place be well considered it maketh altogether against the Bill of transubstantiation For the similitude of the Painters Table hauing in it shadowes and colors applyed vnto the pascal lambe and the sacrament declareth that they both together make a perfect image to shew and represent the true lambe Christ which was offered for vs the olde pascall being the shadowing the new sacramēt which he calleth also a passouer being the varietie of colors by which the passouer of trueth is discribed and plainely shewed Therfore M. Heskins collections are vaine and from the authors meaning For his purpose is not to make the pascall lamb a figure of the sacramēt but of christ and both the lamb the sacrament figures of Christ but yet the lambe a shadowing figure like the first draught of a painter the sacrament a cleare demonstration like an image in colors It is therfore verie babish that he groūdeth vpon the word of the Passeouer shewed in the table that the bodie of Christ was really present on the table in the sacrament wheras it is plain that Chrysostom speaketh of shewing by signes as by colours an image is set forth in a painted table As childish it is that he will oppresse the proclamer to tell him why Hierome and Chrisostom call not the Iewish pascal light trueth veritie as they doe our pascall seeing by it they receiued Christ◠as well as wee in our sacramente A sore matter The Iewishe pascall represented if I may vse that tearme vnder correction of M. Heskins dictionarie the true pascal Christ as our sacrament doeth who is the light trueth and veritie the sacramente they call not the pascall lambe light nor trueth but by a figure as they call it manye other thinges But when they speake properlie they vse other tearmes so doth Chrysostome Homi. Ex. Psal. 22. 116. Sapientia ędificauit sibi Domum supposuit columnas septem parauit mensam suam misit seruos suos conuocans omnes dicens venite edite de panibus meis bibite vinum quod miscui vobis quia istam mensam preparauit seruis ancillis in conspectu eorum vt quotidie in similitudinem corporis sanguinis Christi panem vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sacramento ideo dicit parasti in conspectu meo mensam aduersus eos qui tribulant me Wisedome hath builded hir an house shee hath set vnder seauen pillers shee hath prepared hir table shee hath sent foorth her seruantes calling all men to hir and saying come and eate of my breade and drinke of the wine that I haue powred foorth for you and because