bloudied and wounded with a speare hath sent foorth founteines of bloude and water wholesome to all the world Here is much a doe the same bodie is in the sacrament which was crucified Wee knowe Christ hath no more bodies but euen that one that was crucifyed the same is eaten in the sacrament as in a mysterie significatiuely as the same Chrysostome in the same place doth testifie Quid enim appello inquit communicationem id ipsium corpus sumus Quid significat panis Corpus Christi Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christi non multa sed vnum corpus For what do I call it saith he a participation We are the verie same bodie What doth the bread signifie the bodie of Christ. What are they made that receiue the bodie of Christ not many bodies but one bodie Lo here the breade signifyeth the bodie of Christe which was crucified And the faithfull that receiue it are made the same bodie of Christ that was crucified but all this in a mysterie not carnally or corporally What reader of Cambridge he girdeth at that alledged obiectiōs of Duns against the carnall presence I knowe not Duns might frame or reherse more arguments against it then with al his subtilties he could aunswere but my thinke M. Hesk. should not enuie this practise when he himselfe hath neuer an argument nor authoritie almost out of the doctors but such as he hath of other mens gathering and not of his own reading as his manifold mistakins do declare beside wilfull corruptions and falsifications The three and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact Beda Of these two being both of the lower house the testimonie of Theophylactus maketh nothing for him the saying of Beda maketh much against him Concerning Theophylact let them that list read his sentence for I compt it superfluous to rehearse their testimony whose authoritie in this matter I will not stand to But because the opinion of carnall presence was not receiued in this church of England in the age of Beda nor long after I thinke it not amisse to consider his authoritie He writeth therefore in Ioan. Dixerat superiùs c. He had sayde before he that eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloud hath life eternall And that he might shewe howe great a difference is betweene corporall meate and the spirituall mysterie of his bodie bloud he added my fleshe is meate in deede my bloud is drink in deede Here Beda calleth the sacrament a spiritual mysterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ which although it be playne against the carnall presence yet M. Heskins would cloke it with a fonde definition of a mysterie to be that I wot not what which conteyneth couertly a thing not to be perceiued by sences or common knowledge and so the sacrament is a mysterie conteyning the verie bodie of christ Besides that he remembreth not that Beda calleth it not onely a mysterie but a spirituall mysterie I would wit of him what it is that Beda calleth a spirituall mysterie if he say the sacrament I would further knowe what he calleth the sacrament he will aunswere the formes of breade wine for so they determine forsooth Well then Christ would not shewe the difference of the spirituall foode of his flesh bloud which is the thing conteined but of the accidents of bread and wine from the corporall foode O foolishe conclusion of Beda or rather O false definition counterfet exposition of Hesk For Beda sheweth the excellencie of the spirituall mysterie of Christes bodie and bloud which is our spirituall foode aboue the corporall foode and neuer dreamed of M. Heskins mysterie The foure and twentieth Chapter beginneth the ex-position of the next text in the sixt of S. Iohn by S. Hillarie S. Augustine The text is He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee and I in him For vnderstanding of this text he premiseth a destinction of two manners of abyding in Christ that is spiritually and naturally spiritually by right faith and sincere charitie as S. Cyrill doth teache and naturally by receiuing of Christes fleshe as S. Hillarie teacheth This distinction not being made by any doctour but deuised vpon occasion of termes vsed by the doctours to ouerthrowe the meaning of the doctours he pleaseth him verie much therein I haue shewed before that Hillarie by the worde naturally meaneth truelye that as Christ is truely ioyned vnto vs by taking on him our fleshe and we are truely ioyned to him by eating drinking his flesh vnder a sacrament and vnder a mysterie for both these termes of restreint he hath to shewe the manner of our eating to be sacramentall and mysticall not as M. Heskins would carnall and naturall so Christ is truely one with God not in vnitie of will only but in vnitie of Godhead in substance of diuinitie in essence of eternitie But let vs heare his owne wordes lib. 8. de Trinit Quod autem in eo c. But that we be in him by the sacrament or mysterie of his fleshe and bloud which is communicated vnto vs he testifieth him selfe saying And this world doth not nowe see mee but you shall see mee for I liue and ye also shall liue because I am in my father and you in mee and I in you c. But that this vnitie in vs is naturall he hath witnessed saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in mee I in him For there shall no man be in him but in whome he shal be hauing onely his assumpted flesh in him who hath taken his By this place out of which he would buyld his destinction of naturall and spirituall abyding the same is manifestly ouerthrowne For the drift of that distinction as he confesseth is to shewe that Christe may abyde naturally where he doth not abyde spiritually as in the wicked But the place of Hillarie is plain that where this naturall vnitie is Christe abydeth eternally therefore this naturall vnitie is not in the wicked Thus while Maister Heskins harpeth greedily vppon the terme naturally for the naturall presence of Christes bodie he looseth his distinction and with all his naturall presence also For if his bodie be not naturally receiued of the wicked it is not naturally present in the sacrament as all Papistes do confesse And further that this natural vnitie is after a spirituall manner it appeareth by the last wordes of the sentence That he in whome Christ dwelleth hath onely the assumpted flesh of Christ in him But this must needes be after a spirituall manner as the holie and innocent fleshe of Christe is made oures therefore this naturall vnitie he speaketh of is not in that sense naturall that Maister Heskins immagineth but after a diuine and vnspeakable manner For otherwise Godly men haue fleshe of their owne yea and sinfull fleshe which is not of the singular substance of the fleshe of Christe though
both of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament that is the bodie of Christ as the person of Christ consisteth of God man seeing Christ himselfe is very God ▪ and verie man Because euerie thing conteineth in it the nature and trueth of those thinges of which it is made but the sacrifice of the Church is made of two the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament that is the bodie of Christ therefore there is the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament This last sentence M. Hesk. hath not translated But he noteth three things in these words affirmed which the sacramentaries denie that is that the Church hath a sacrifice that therein is a sacrament which is the fourmes of bread and wine and that there is present the very body and bloud of Christ which he calleth the thing of the sacrament Concerning the tearme of sacrifice it is a stale quarrell whereby he meaneth the sacrifice of thankes giuing or the Eucharistie For the formes of bread wine that is as Maister Heskins meaneth the accidentes it is false he hath nothing tending to that end he saith Specie elementorum that is the kinde of elementes which is the substance and not the accidentes of bread and wine And for the presence heare his owne wordes in the same booke Escam vitae accepit poculum vitę bibit qui in Christo manet Cuius Christus habitator est Nam qui discordat a Chricto nec panem cius manducat nec sanguinem bibit etiamsi tanto rei sacramentum ad iudicium suę praesumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat He hath receiued the meat of life and drunke the cuppe of life which abideth in Christ in whom Christ dwelleth But he that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth his bread nor drinketh his bloud although he receiue euerie day indifferently the sacrament of so great a thing vnto the condemnation of his presumption This place is plaine against the corporall eating of Christe and M. Heskins wise distinction seeing the wicked by the iudgement of Prosper out of Augustine eate onely the sacrament that is bread and wine and not the bodie bloud of Christ which is not eaten but by faith The twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Saint Hilarie and Euthymius Hilarius is cited Lib. 8. de Trinitat Que scripta sunt c. Let vs reade those thinges that be written and let vs vnderstande those things that we shall read then shal we performe the dutie of perfect faith Such thinges as we learne of the naturall trueth of Christ in vs except we learne of him we learne foolishly and vngodly For he him selfe saith my flesh is meat in deed my bloud is drinke in deede He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him There is no place left to doubt of the trueth of his flesh and bloud For now by the profession of our Lord himselfe it is verily fleshe and verily bloud And this beeing taken and dronken bring this to passe that Christ is in vs and we in Christ. Out of these wordes he noteth three thinges The first that the text is spoken of the sacrament conteyning the bodie and bloud of Christe of the veritie whereof there should be no doubt The second is the corporall receiuing of Christ in the sacrament The third is that thereby Christ is in vs and we in him To the first note this text is none otherwise spoken of the sacramēt as we haue often shewed then as the sacrament is a seale of this eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud which is also without the sacrament And that we should not doubt of the trueth of his fleshe and bloud it is true we confesse he hath true flesh true bloud with the same doeth feede vs but that this flesh and bloud is conteined in the sacrament Hillarie saith not but Heskins Neither doeth he speake of any corporall receiuing of Christe in the sacrament which is the second note but seeing he dwelleth in all them that receiue him which is the thirde note there is no place for the corporal receiuing which the Papists confesse to be common to the wicked in whome Christ dwelleth not nor they in him But to proue the corporall receiuing he hath another place out of the same booke Si enim verè c. For if the WORDE was verily made flesh and we doe truely eate the worde made flesh in the Lordes meate how is he not to be thought to abide naturally in vs which being borne a man hath taken vpon him the nature of our flesh now inseparable hath admixed the nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder the sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated vnto vs. This with him is a plaine place and much adoe he maketh about this worde naturally by which he meaneth nothing else but truly for otherwise M. Heskins if he be in his right wittes wil confesse that the abiding of Christe in vs is not naturall nor after a naturall manner but spirituall and after a Diuine manner And although he spake plain ynough of the participation of his flesh vnder a sacramēt yet more euidently in the same booke in these wordes Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit verè homo ille qui ex Maria natus fuit Christus est nosque verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnum erimus quia Pater in eo est ille in nobis quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit vnitatis If therefore Christe did verily take vpon him the flesh of our bodie that man which was borne of Marie was verily Christ and we doe verily receiue the fleshe of his body vnder a mysterie and thereby shall be one because the Father is in him and he in vs howe is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie Here he saith we do verily eate the flesh of his bodie but if you aske how He aunswereth vnder a mysterie as before he said vnder a sacrament Therfore to take that absolutely as M. Heskins doth which of him is spoken but after a certeine manner as vnder a sacrament or a mysterie is a grosse abusing both of the authour and of the readers Euthymius is cited In Ioan. Caro mea c. My fleshe is meate in deede It is true meate or moste conuenient meate as which nourisheth the soule which is the moste proper part of man And likewise of the bloud or else he saide this confirming that he spake not obscurely or parabolically I maruel what Maister Heskins gayneth by this place Forsooth that this is no figuratiue speech but a plain speech signifying none otherwise then the wordes sound Well yet we must not cast away that which Euthymius saide
trueth whereof the Pascall lambe was the figure and shadowe Which trueth was no mysterie newly inuented but practised euer since Moses for not by the fleshe and bloud of the Lambe but by the flesh and bloud of Christ the people were deliuered from death The Lambe was then a sacrament Christe was then and euer shall be the trueth but what neede we more striue wheÌ„ M. Heskins confesseth That the faithfull of the olde Testament did eate the flesh drinke the bloud of Christ spiritually as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. They did all eate the same spirituall meate c. And Cyrill saith We haue no newe mysterie but euen the same that hath beene practised since the time of Moses The twentieth Chapter ioyneth Saint Gregorie and Damascen to confirme the same matter In the beginning of this Chapter he doeth honestly confesse that Gregorie was the last of the higher house Damascen the first and chiefest of the lower house he may make him Vantparlar if he will. But neither of theÌ„ haue any thing materiall for his purpose that he alledgeth them nor for the generall purpose of his bill For Gregories wordes are altogether alegoricall therefore cannot be taken in the Grammaticall sense Hom. 22. Pasch All which thinges do bring forth to vs great edifying if they be discussed by mystical or alegoricall interpretation For what the bloud of the lambe is you haue learned not now by hearing but by drinking which bloud is put vpon both the postes when it is dronke not only with the mouth of the body but also with the mouth of the heart For he that doeth so receiue the bloud of his redeemer that he will not as yet followe his passion hath put the bloud on a post Heare what a great thing is there But that he calleth the sacrament of the bloud the bloud of the redeemer speaking alegorically as he calleth it the bloud of the Lamb meaning the olde Paschal whiche doth signifie the bloud of christ Therfore if Maister Heskins will vrge the bloud of the redeemer dronke not only with the mouth of the body but with the mouth of the heart he may likewise vrge the bloud of the lamb if this be a figuratiue speech so is that But Gregorie proceedeth In the night saith he we eate the lambe because we do now receiue the Lordes body in a sacrament when as yet we do not see one anothers conscience Note here that Gregorie doth not say simply we eate the Lords body but we eate the Lordes body in a sacrament or mysterie comparing the night of the Iewish eating with the mysterie of the Lordes body And in neither of both his sayinges affirmeth the lambe to be a figure of the supper which is the purpose of the Chapter As for Damascen his chiefe words are these For it were too long to rehearse all he being but a knight of the lower house If God the word by willing was made man c. can he not make bread his owne body and wine with water his bloud God saide in the beginning let the earth bring forth greene hearbes and vnto this day beeing holpen strengthened by Gods coÌ„mandement the rayne comming it bringeth forth fruits God said this is my body this is my bloud and do ye this in remeÌ„brance of me by his almightie coÌ„mandement it is brought to passe vntill he come In this testimonie which M. Hesk. rehearseth more at large sauing that he nameth the old Passeouer that Christ did celebrate at his last supper there is no mentioÌ„ of any figure that it was of his supper SecoÌ„dly although the time in which Damascen liued was very corrupt yet there is nothing in these wordes whiche may not wel be referred to the spiritual presence of Christs body vnto the faith of the worthie receiuer M. Heskins maketh a needlesse digression of the coÌ„mandement of consecratioÌ„ which shal be granted to him if he wil not frame a new signification of consecration which none of his Calepines Vocabularies nor Dictionaries do acknowledge For to consecrate is to halow or to separat to an holy vse so we grant the bread and wine to be consecrated But the Papistes call consecrating to change the substances or to transubstaÌ„tiat And so neither Chrysostom nor any other learned man did euer vse that word His wordes as M. Heskins citeth theÌ„ Ho. de pro. Iud. be these And now the same Christ is present which did furnish that table he also consecrateth this For it is not man that maketh the thinges set foorth to be the body and bloud of Christ by consecration of the Lordes table but he that was crucified for vs euen Christ Wordes are spoken by the mouth of the priest but they are consecrated by the power and grace of god This is saith he my body By this worde the thinges set foorth are consecrated And as that voyce that said grow ye multiply ye was but once spoken but yet it feeleth alway effect nature working with it vnto generation so that voyce was but once spoken but through all the tables of the Church vnto this day and vntill the comming it giueth strength to the sacrifice In these wordes because M. Heskins bringeth them in for consecration note that Chrysostome affirmeth all consecration vnto the worldes end to be wrought by the voice of Christ once spoken by him selfe This is my body whereas the Papistes affirme consecration to be by the vertue of these words spoken by a priest So that there is great diuersitie betweene their iudgements of consecration The one twentieth Chapter concludeth the matter of the figure of the Pascall lambe by Haymo and Cabâ—sila There is no doubt but in the lower house M. Heskins may finde many that fauour his bill but seeing it is shut out of the higher house I will not trouble my selfe nor the Reader much to examine the voyces of the lower house Which if they should euery one allowe it yet it cannot be an enacted trueth without the consent of the higher house Onely this will I note that Maister Heskins maketh Haymo elder by 500. yeares then such chronicles as I haue read do account him But this thing in this Chapter must not be omitted that he saith that The sacramentaries cannot bring one father teaching the sacrament to be onely a figure And ioyneth issue with the proclaymer that if he can bring any scripture any catholique counsell or any one approued doctor that by expresse and plaine words doth denie the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament then he will giue ouer and subscribe to him Still he chargeth them whom he calleth the sacramentaries to make the sacrament only a figure or a bare signe which is false But for euidence to informe the men that shall go vpon this issue I will alledge first S. Augustine in plaine and expresse wordes denying that which Maister Heskins and the Papistes call the reall presence of Christes body
in one very substantiall flesh therefore the manner of participation of his flesh in the sacrament is also spirituall and not carnall Maister Heskins reiecteth this participation to bee the fruition of the benefites of his body and bloud crucified bycause that saith hee is common to all the sacraments and not proper to this But that the substaunce of all sacramentes is one and the difference is in the manner of dispensation of them wee haue shewed sufficiently in the first booke which were tedious nowe to repeate Wherefore we must now set downe what Chrysostome speaketh of the bloud of Christe This bloud maketh that the kinges image doth flourish in vs This bloud doth neuer suffer the beautie and nobilitie of the soule which it doth alwayes water and nourish to fade or waxe faint For bloud is not made of meate soudenly but first it is a certaine other thing But this bloud at the first doth water the soule and indue it with a certaine great strength This mysticall bloud driueth diuelles farre off and allureth Angels and the Lorde of Angels vnto vs For when the diuelles see the Lordes bloud in vs they are turned to flight but the Angels runne foorth vnto vs This bloud being shed did wash the whole world whereof Paule to the Hebrues doth make a long proces This bloud did purge the secrete places and the most holy place of all If then the figure of it had so great power in the temple of the Hebrues and in Aegypt beeing sprinkled vpon the vpper postes of the doores much more the veritie This bloud did signifie the golden altar Without this bloud the chiefe priest durst not goe into the inward secret places This bloud made the priestes This bloud in the figure purged sinnes in which if it had so great force if death so feared the shadowe how much I pray thee will it feare the truth it selfe This bloud is the health of our soules with this bloud our soule is washed with it she is decked with it she is kindled This bloud maketh our minde cleerer then the fire more shining then golde The effusion of this bloud made heauen open Truely the mysteries of the Church are woonderfull the holy treasure house is woonderfull From Paradise a spring did runne from thence sensible waters did flowe from this table commeth out a spring which powreth foorth spirituall flouds Chrysostome in these wordes doth extoll the excellencie of the bloud of Christe shed vpon the crosse the mysterie whereof is celebrated and giuen to vs in the sacrament and therefore hee saith it is Mysticus sanguis mysticall bloud which wee receiue in the sacrament which word Mysticall M. Heskins a common falsarie hath left out in his translation to deceiue the vnlearned reader Hee laboureth much to proue that Chrysostome spake in this long sentence of that sacrament which is needlesse for as he spake of the sacrament so spake he of the passion of Christe and of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the olde lawe and all vnder one name of bloud By which it is more then manifest that hee vseth the name of bloud figuratiuely and ambiguously therefore nothing can bee gathered thereout to fortifie M. Heskins bill of the naturall bloud of Christ to be in the challice The honourable titles of the sacrament proue no transubstantiation nor carnal presence in this sacramēt more then in the other The same Chrysostome vpon Cap. 9. ad Heb. Hom. 16. sheweth howe the bloud of Christ that purged the old sacrifices is the same which is giuen vs in the sacrament of the new testament Non enim corporalis erat mundatio sed spiritualis sanguis spiritualis Quomodo hoc Noune ex corpore manauis Ex corpore quidem sed a spiritu sancto Hoc vos sanguine non Moses sed Christus aspersit per verbum quod dictum est Hic est sanguis noui testamenti in remissionem peccarorum For that was no corporall cleansing but spirituall and it was spirituall bloud Howe so Did it not flowe out of his body It did in deede flowe out of his body but from the holy spirit Not Moses but Christe did sprinkle you with this bloud by that worde which was spoken This is the bloud of the newe testament for the remission of sinnes Thus let Chrysostome expound him selfe touching the mysticall or spirituall bloud of Christe which both was offered in the old sacrifices and nowe feedeth vs in the sacrament if it were in the olde sacrifices naturally present then is it so nowe if the vertue onely was effectuall so is it also to vs and no neede of transubstantiation or carnall presence The sixt Chapter proceedeth in the opening of the vnderstāding of the same text of S. Iohn by Beda and Cyrillus Although Beda our countriman were far out of the compasse of 600. yeres and so vnfitly matched with Cyrillus a Lord of the higher house yet speaketh he nothing for the corporal presence of Christes body in the sacrament but directly against it His words vpon this text of Saint Iohn are these Hunc panem Dominus dedit c. This bread our Lord gaue when he deliuered the ministerie of his body and bloud vnto his disciples when he offered him selfe to his father on the altar of the crosse And where he saith for the life of the world we may not vnderstand it for the elementes but for men that are signified by the name of the worlde In these wordes Beda according to the custome of the olde writers and the doctrine of the Church of Englande in his time and long after calleth the sacrament the mysterie of the body bloud of Christ and not otherwise Yet M. Heskins pythely doth gather that as he calleth the flesh of Christ on the crosse breade and yet it is verie flesh so the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament is called bread yet it is verie flesh Alas this is such a poore begginge of that in question videlicet that the fleshe of Christ is in the sacrament according to his grosse meaning that I am ashamed to heare it Why might he not rather reason thus the fleshe of Christe on the crosse is called bread and yet it is not naturally bread euen so the bread of the sacrament is called flesh yet it is not naturall fleshe It is plaine that breade in that texte of Iohn is taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode and so the flesh and bloud of Christ on the crosse is our food and the same is communicated to our faith in the sacrament Cyrillus in 6. Ioan. by M. Heskins alledged speaketh neuer a worde either of the sacrament or of Christes corporall presence therein Antiquus ille panis c. The old bread was onely a figure an image and a shadowe neither did it giue to the corruptible bodie any thing but a corruptible nutriment for a little time But I am that liuing and quickening breade for euer And the breade which I will giue
panis hic remissio peccatorum est Wee may receiue euen the Lorde himselfe which hath giuen vs his fleshe euen as he himselfe saith I am the bread of life For he receiueth him that examineth himselfe he which receiueth him dyeth not the death of a sinner for this bread is the remission of sinnes This place doth first ouerthrowe M. Heskins dreame of two breades Secondly the Papistes assertion that wicked men receiue the bodie of christ And thirdly teacheth that to eate Christ his fleshe is to receiue forgiuenesse of sinnes which M. Heskins and the Papistes denye Another place of Ambrose is alledged li. 4. de sacra Ca. 4. Let vs then teach this How can that which is bread be the bodie of Christ By consecration By what and whose wordes then is the consecration Of our Lorde Iesus For all the other things that be sayed praise is giuen to God petition is made in prayer for the people for Kings and for the rest but when it is come to that the honourable sacrament is made now the Priest vseth not his owne wordes but he vseth the wordes of Christe Therefore the worde of Christ maketh this sacrament This is noted to be a plaine place for M. Iuell but for what purpose I cannot tell except it be to proue that he will not denye that the sacrament is consecrated and made the bodie of Christ to the worthie receiuer by the wordes of Christe as before Eusebius Emissenus hath the next place in Hom. Pasc. The inuisible Priest with his worde by a secreat power turneth the visible cratures into the substance of his body bloud This place being more apparant for his transubstantiation then any that he hath alledged he vrgeth not nor gathereth of it but onely that Christ is the author of the consecration and conuersion As for the conuersion I thinke his conscience did tell him that it was not of the substance but of the vse of things a spirituall and not a corporall change as both Eusebius and other writers do sufficiently expound what maner of mutation it is The last man is Cyprian De Caen Dom. It were better for them a milstone to be tyed to their neckes and to be drowned in the Sea then with an vnwashed conscience to take the morsell at the hande of our Lorde who vntil this day doeth create and sanctifie and blesse and to the godly receiuers diuide this his most true and most holy bodie Here M. Heskins vrgeth that he createth not an imaginatiue bodie but his moste true bodie But the blinde man seeth not that either this creation is figuratiue or else it ouerthroweth transsubstantiation For to create is not to change one substance into another but to make a substance of nothing Secondly that Christ diuideth his bodie but to the godly receiuers Finally in the same Sermon he saith that all this mysterie is wrought by faith Haec quotie◠agimus c. So often as we do these things wee do not sharpen our teeth to byte but with a syncere faith we breake and deuide this holy breade To conclude this Chapter seeing M. Heskins hath laboured so well to proue that Christ onely not the priest doth consecrate and so often chargeth vs with slaundering them to make God the bodie of Christ I would demaunde wherefore the Bishop when he giueth them the order of Priesthood giueth them power to consecrate saying Accip◠potestatem consecrandi offerend◠pro vinit defunctis Take authoritie to consecrate to offer for the quick and the dead If the Priest cannot consecrat whereto serueth this power If the Priest take vpon him to consecrat Christ God and man howe are we charged with slaundering of them The ninth Chapter expoundeth the next text that followeth in Saint Iohn The text which he taketh vpon him to expound in this Chapter is this The Iewes stroue among them selues saying How can this fellowe giue vs his flesh to eat And first he sayth that they being carnall could not vnderstande the spirituall talke of Christe wherein as he saith truely so hee speaketh contrarie to him selfe For he will haue those words to be spokē carnally They could not vnderstand sayth he because they did not beleeue therefore they questioned how it might be euen as the Pseudochristians do How can the bodie of Christ be in the sacrament vnder so litle a peece of bread c. But the aunswere to all their questions is that they be don by the power of god And if you proceede to enquire of his will he hath declared it in these wordes the breade which I will giue is my fleshe not a fantasticall nor a mathematicall or figuratiue flesh but that same flesh◠that I will giue for the life of the worlde But if wee proceede to demaund further how he proueth that he will giue that flesh to be eaten with our mouth carnally in the sacrament then is he at a staye he can go no further Wee doubt not of the power of God we will extend his will no further then his worde For to eat the fleshe of Christe is not to eat it with our mouthes but with our hearts by faith as Augustine vppon the same text teacheth vs. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere ponum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit cius sanguinē licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christie sed magis tantę rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat bibit This is therefore to eate that meate to drinke that drinke to abide in Christe and to haue him abyding in them And by this he that abydeth not in Christ and in whome Christe abydeth not out of doubt doth neither spiritually eat his flesh nor drinke his bloud although carnally visibly he presse with his teeth the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his owne condemnation Thus Augustine teacheth how the flesh of Christe is eaten and by whome and what difference betweene the flesh bloud of Christ and the sacrament thereof in all those points directly contrarie to the Papistes which affirme that the flesh of Christ is eaten with the mouth and that it is eaten of the wicked and last of all that the sacrament of the flesh of Christ his flesh is all one The tenth Chapter prouing against the aduersaries that the bodie of Christ may be is in moe places then one as once M. Heskins taketh occasion of the doubtful how of the Iewes to answer the proclaimers how that is how Christs body may be in a thousand places moe at once first he trifleth of the number
it be of the nature and kinde thereof but corrupted with sinne as his neuer was Thus the shewe that Maister Heskins would make by snatching at one worde misunderstoode by a little diligence vsed in discussing the sentence is turned altogether against him both in shewe and purpose of the author The other place he citeth though he citeth it truncately contrarie to his promise in his preface I will cite it whole as I did before in the 20. Chap. of this book If the worde in deede be made flesh and we do verily eat the word made fleshe in the Lordes meate howe is he not to be esteemed to dwell naturally in vs which being borne a man hath taken vppon him the nature of our fleshe nowe inseparable and hath ioyned the nature of his fleshe vnto the nature of aeternitie vnder a sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated to vs For so wee are all one because the father is in Christ and Christ is in vs Therefore whosoeuer shall denye the father to be naturally in Christ let him first denye that either he is naturally in Christe or Christ is in him For the father being in Christ and Christ in vs do make vs to be one in them Therefore if Christ did verily take vppon him the fleshe of our bodie and that man which was borne of Marie is verely Christe and we do verily receiue the fleshe of Christe vnder a mysterie and by this shal be one because the father is in him and he in vs how is the vnitie of will affirmed when the naturall propertie by a sacrament is the sacrament of perfect vnitie In these wordes the fleshe of Christe is communicated vnto vs but vnder a sacrament wee eate the fleshe of his bodie but vnder a mysterie the naturall propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfecte vnitie And besides all this marke that this naturall vnitie is such as thereby we are vnited to the father and being vnited to the father by Christ it must needes followe that we are made partakers of eternitie which no wicked men are therefore wicked men receiue not Christ naturally nor spiritually and so the distinction remaineth without a difference But nowe we come to S. Augustine of whome he borroweth the other parte of his distinction Tract 26. in Ioan. Denique iam Nowe at the last he expoundeth how that may be done which he speaketh and what it is to eate his bodie and drinke his bloud He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloude abydeth in mee I in him This it is therefore to eat that meate and to drinke that bloude to abide in Christ and to haue him abyding in him And by this hee that abideth not in Christ and in whome Christe abydeth not out of all doubt neither eateth his fleshe spiritually nor drinketh his his bloude although carnally and visibly he presse with his teeth sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christe But rather hee eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation because he being vncleane presumed to come to the sacraments of Christe which no man receiueth worthily but hee which is cleane of whome it is sayed blessed are the cleane of hart for they shall see God. S. Augustine in these words maketh a distinctiō of eating the sacrament of the bodie bloud of Christ of eating the bodie and bloud of Christ and not onely of eating spiritually eating carnally shewing that spiritually the fleshe of Christ is eaten carnally the sacrament which were vaine if bothe were one And the whole discourse of that treatise is against that carnall eating of the bodie and bloud of Christ which M. Heskins himselfe confesseth to be vnprofitable yea damnable without the spirituall eating whereas the spirituall eating vndoubtedly causeth eternall life But better to vphold this distinction of Christes naturall spirituall abyding he citeth a testimonie out of the 11. Sermon de verbis Dom. in Euangelio vnder the name of Augustine which whether it be rightly intituled to him I will not contende The wordes are these Illud etiam c. This also that he sayeth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee I in him how shall we vnderstand Can wee take them here also of whome the Apostle sayth that they eate and drinke their owne damnation when they eat that fleshe and drinke that bloude Did Iudas also the seller and vngodly betrayer of his maister although he did eat and drinke that first sacrament of his flesh and his bloud made with his own hands with the rest of the disciples as Luke the Euangelist declareth more plainly did he abyde in Christ or Christ in him Finally many which either with fained heart do eat that fleshe and drinke that bloud or when they haue eaten and dronken they become Apostataes do they abyde in Christ or Christ in them But truely there is a certeine manner of eating that fleshe and drinking that bloude after which manner he that shall eate and drinke abydeth in Christ Christ in him We must receiue this authoritie so that it may stande with all the rest of the vndoubted workes of Augustine we must be as bold to distinguish the words fleshe and bloud as M. Heskins is the spirituall and naturall eating By flesh and bloud aequiuocally he vnderstandeth the sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christe as where he sayeth that Iudas did eate the sacrament of his flesh and bloud he doth him selfe declare And then he distinguisheth of the manner of eating for the sacrament as Augustine sayth is eaten of both wicked and godly but the matter of the sacrament is not eaten but to eternall life And that Iudas did not eate the breade that was the Lorde as we alledged before and Prosper in his collections out of Augustine plainly defineth He that disagreeth from Christe neither eateth his breade not drinketh his bloud although he dayly receiue the sacrament of so excellent a matter vnto condemnation of his presumption Wherefore although we shoulde receiue this authoritie yet it proueth not that wicked men receiue the fleshe of Christ but onely the sacrament thereof which is in some manner of speaking called the fleshe of Christ as Augustine euery where affirmeth Finally what a blasphemous absurditie is it to say that Christ dwelleth naturally in wicked men in whome he is not spiritually and that his flesh is there where his quickening spirite doth not worke The fiue twentieth Chapter proceadeth in the exposition of the same by Chrysostome S. Gregorie Chrysostome is cited Hom. 45. in Ioan. Qui manducat c. He that eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloud dwelleth in mee I in him which he sayeth that he may shewe him selfe to be ioyned vnto him M Heskins translateth mingled with him And what this mingling is he willeth vs to remember what this author sayeth in the same Homilye that wee should not onely by loue but in verie
deede be turned into his fleshe it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath giuen vnto vs. I will aske no better interpretation for this must either be a spirituall and vnspeakeable manner of conuersion or else it would be a monsterous and blasphemous transmutation of our flesh into the flesh of Christ as I haue diuerse times before noted of this place But what sayeth S. Gregorie in Iob. Cap. 6. Natus Dominus c. Our Lorde being borne is layd in the manger that it might be signified that the holie beaster which long vnder the lawe were founde fasting should be filled with the haye of his incarnation Being borne he filled the manger who gaue him selfe to be meate to mennes mindes saying he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in me and I in him What winneth M. Heskins by this place it is the meate of the soule therefore it must be spiritually receiued Or if hee will not haue it onely spiritually receiued wherefore serueth the text alledged which he affirmeth to be verified onely in them that receiue spiritually But we must heare further out of Gregorie in Hom. Pasc. Quid namque c. For what the bloud of the lambe is you haue not nowe learned by hearing but by drinking which it put vpon bothe the postes when it is not dronke onely with the mouth of the bodie but also with the mouth of the heart What newes haue we here forsooth Christes bloud dronke with mouth of bodie and mouth of heart I heare him say the bloud of the Pascall lambe which he sayth doth figure the sacrament is so dronke but not the naturall bloud of Christ. Why then marke what he sayeth soone after Qui sic c. Hee that so taketh the bloud of his redeemer that he will not yet followe his passion he hath put the bloud on the one post In this allegorie if he call the sacrament of Christes bloude the redeemers bloud as he calleth it the bloud of the lambe what great marueile is it or what great matter is it the whole speache being figuratiue both allegoricall and metonymicall The sixe and twentieth Chapter continueth this exposition by Saint Cyrill and Lyra. Cyrill is cited in Ioan. Cap. 15. Qui manducat c. Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee I in him Whereuppon it is to be considered that not by disposition onely which is vnderstoode by charitie Christ is in vs but also by a naturall participation For as if a man do so mingle waxe that is melted with fire vnto other waxe likewise melted that one thing seeme to be made of them both so by the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christe he is in vs and wee in him For this corruptible nature of our bodye coulde not otherwise bee brought to incorruptiblenesse and life except the bodie of naturall life were ioyned to it By these wordes Cyrill teacheth that wee are ioyned to the naturall fleshe of Christe so that by participation thereof wee are made one with him but wicked men are not made one with Christe nor partakers of incorruptiblenesse therefore wicked men are not ioyned to Christe by that naturall participation he speaketh of and consequently Christe is not corporally receiued of them nor of any other Yet Maister Heskins noteth as his manner is a plaine place for Maister Iewell when he saith we do partake the naturall flesh bloud of Christe Which wee alwayes confesse but wee partake it spiritually by faith and haue eternall life thereby therefore wicked men partake it not which want both the meane and the effect Thus Cyrill beeing aunswered wee force not vpon Lyra. As for that which followeth in the Chapter to shewe that by participation of Christes fleshe wee are not deliuered from temporall death but from eternall destruction being no matter of question I passe ouer as needelesse The seuen and twentieth Chapter abydeth in the same exposition by Theophylact and Ruperius Tuicen Although there is no greate matter in the speache of the two Burgesses to helpe maister Heskins purpose yet because they are too young to beare witnesse in this cause I will not trouble my selfe nor my reader either to rehearse them or to make aunswere to them The eyght and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Haimo Euthymius As for fryer Haimo I leaue him to M. Hesk. although in the words cited by him he sayeth nothing greatly to his intent But for as much as Euthymius Zigabonus â–ª doeth often borrowe his expositions of the old doctours though he him selfe be not so auncient a writer I will rehearse his testimonie in Math. 26. Si de vno c. If all we that are faithfull do partake of one bodie and bloud wee are all one by the participation of these mysteries and we are all in Christ and Christ is in vs all He sayth he that eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloude dwelleth in mee and I in him For the WORDE by assumption was vnited to flesh and againe the flesh is vnited to vs by participation Here M. Heskins noteth a plaine proofe of the presence against the proclaimer How so the naturall fleshe was vnited to the sonne of God and the sonne is vnited to vs by participation What else but this participation is by faith and causeth vs to bee one with Christe and Christe in vs all and is not in the wicked which thing Maister Heskins with a dry foote passeth ouer as also in translation he omitteth the word fideles all wee that are faithfull because he woulde haue the ignorant to thinke that the vnfaithfull do partake the same flesh as truely as the faithfull The nine and twentieth Chapter expoundeth the next texte that followeth in the sixt of Saint Iohn by Saint Augustine and S. Cyrill The text is this As the liuing father sent mee and I liue for the father and he that eateth mee shall liue also for mee or by the meanes of mee In exposition of this text he will onely declare by Saint Augustine Howe Christ liueth by the father which because it is no matter of controuersie betwixt vs I do altogether omitt come to Cyrillus whose wordes concerning anâ— thing our question are these for the rest as impertinent I passe ouer Quemaedmodum ego factus c. As I am made man by the will of my father and liue by the father because I haue naturally flowed out of that life which is so of nature perfectly do keepe the nature of my father so that I also am naturally life euen so he that eateth my fleshe shall liue for mee being wholly reformed vnto mee which am life and am able to giue life And he sayeth that he him selfe is eaten when his fleshe is â—aten Because the worde was made fleshe not by confusion of natures but by the unspeakable manner of vnion Here Maister Heskins noteth that Christe is
eaten when his fleshe is eaten as a man doth see when his eye or rather his soule by the eye doth see c. For the godhead is not eaten therefore it cannot be spiritually eaten but verily Still he maketh spirite and trueth contrarie as though what soeuer were done spiritually were not done verily But he remembreth not that Cyrill sayeth that he which eateth this fleshe is wholy refourmed or fashioned anewe into Christe Whereby hee doth not onely exclude wicked men but also teache a spirituall eating as the reformation is spirituall And as the worde was made fleshe by an vnspeakable vnion so wee by eating that fleshe are ioyned to him by an vnspeakable vnion Finally where Maister Heskins sayeth that Christs fleshe cannot be verily eaten but in the sacrament he excludeth all them from the benefites of his fleshe which are not partakers of the sacrament and so condemneth all children not come to yeares of discretion O cruell transsubstantiation The Thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the nexte text by Saint Ambrose and Chrysostome The text is This is that breade that came downe from heauen not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse and are dead He that eateth this bread shal liue for euer Saint Ambrose is alledged lib. 8. de initiandi but I thinke he should saye Capitâ— 8. de mysterijs initiandis Reuera mirabile c. Truely it was maruellous that God did rayne Manna to the fathers and that they were fedd with dayly foode from heauen Wherefore it is sayde man did eate the breade of Angels But yet they that did eate that breade in the wildernesse are dead But this breade which thou receiuest this breade of life which came downe from heauen giueth the substance of eternall life And whosoeuer shall eat this breade shall not dye for euer And it is the body of Christ. M. Heskins noteth that he calleth it the body of Christ as though any man doubted thereof But the same Ambrose reacheth that it must bee spiritually receiued in the same booke Chap. 9. In illo sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritualis est In that sacrament Christ is bicause it is the body of Christe therefore it is not corporall but spirituall meate If it be spirituall meate it must be spiritually receiued and not corporally as it is no corporall meate Now followeth a long sentence of Chrysostome Hom. 46. in Ioan. which Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth to make no great mention of the sacrament yet bycause he saith it followeth vpon his iudgement of the sacrament I will set it downe to be considered He saith therefore he that eateth my flesh shall not perish in death he shall not be damned But he doth not speake of the common resurrection for all shal riâ—e again but of that cleere and glorious which deserueth reward Your fathers haue eaten Manna in the wildernesse and be deade He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer He doeth oft repeate the same that it might be imprinted in the mindes of the hearers This was the last doctrine that he might confirme the faith of the resurrection and euerlasting life wherefore after the promise of eternall life he setteth foorth the resurrection after he hath shewed that shall be And howe is that knowne By the scriptures vnto which he doth alwayes send them to be instructed by them When he saith it giueth life to the world he prouoketh them to emulation that if they be moued with the benefite of other men they will not be excluded them selues And he doth often make mention of Manna comparing the difference allureth them to the faith For if it were possible that they liued fourtie yeares without haruest corne and other things necessarie to their liuing much more nowe when they are come to greater things For if in those figures they did gather without labour the things set foorth nowe truely much more where is no death and the fruition of true life And euery where he maketh mention of life For we are drawne with the desire there of and nothing is more pleasant then not to dye For in the olde Testament long life and many dayes were promised but nowe not simply length of life but life without end is promised Herevpon hee noteth that we are come to greater things in the sacrament then the Iewes did in Manna I graunt the faithfull come to greater thinges then the vnbeleeuing Iewes of whome and to whome our sauiour Christ speaketh Otherwise they that were faithfull did eate the same spirituall meate in Manna that we doe in the Sacrament 1. Cor. 10. But if the reall presence be not in the sacrament saith Maister Heskins Manna is greater then a bare peece of breade This comparison is topsi-turuie Chrysostome compareth bare Manna which the wicked receiued with the body of Christ which the godly take Maister Heskins compareth Manna to bare breade The one and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Hierome and S. Cyrill Hierome is cyted Ad Hedibiam quÄ™st 2. Si ergo panis c. Then if the bread which came downe from heauen is the body of our Lorde and the wine which he gaue to his disciples be his bloud of the newe Testament which was shed for many in remission of sinnes let vs cast away Iewish fables and let vs ascend with our Lorde into the great parler paued and made cleane and let vs take of him aboue the cuppe of the newe Testament and there holding the Passeouer with him let vs be made dronke by him with the wine of sobrietie for the kingdome of GOD is not meate and drinke but righteousnesse and ioye and peace in the holy Ghoste Neither did Moses giue vs the true bread but our Lord Iesus hee being the guest and the feast hee him selfe eating and which is euen S. Hierome proceedeth with that which M. Hes. omitteth His bloud we drinke and without him we can not drinke it and daily in his sacrifices we tread out new redd wine of the fruit of the true vine and of the vine of Sorech which is interpreted chosen and of these wee drinke the wine new in the kingdome of his father not in the oldenesse of the letter but in the newenesse of the spirit By these words more that foloweth it is most euident that Hieronyme speaketh of spirituall eating by faith as also by that he saith we ascend with Christ into the parler by which he meaneth heauen and there aboue we receiue the cup of the newe Testament Maister Heskins noteth that the bread which descended from heauen is the body of our Lorde But he must beware he say not that the naturall body of Christ descended out of heauen Againe he forgetteth not to repeat that that bread is the body of Christe but he will not see in Hieromes wordes that Christ gaue wine to his disciples Cyrillus
And of Caluine yet not as Heskins like a lewde lyer slaundereth him to say This is the verie substance of my bodie but it is not my bodily substance but agreeing in effect with all the rest that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued but not after a carnall or bodily manner but after a spirituall vnspeakable manner As for the fiue sectes numbred among the Lutherans which dissent from vs in this point we make none accompt of them Thus where M. Hesk hath gathered as he reckoneth sixteene seueral sectes foure of them being condemned of vs for hereticall with the authors of them fiue agreeing with the papistes in the carnall presence and Luthers owne secte if he dissent from them as Heskins maketh him to doe the sixt tenne are of vs generally refused The other sixe that remaine in Maister Heskins number are falsely forged to disagree when they holde all one thing in effect although they expresse the same thing in diuerse formes of wordes as it is not possible for diuerse interpreters though they agree in sense and interpretation to iump all in one forme of words for then all commentaries should be one But as God giueth his giftes diuersely some expound the scriptures briefely some more at large some more plainly some more obscurely so all these and fiue hundred more God be thanked learned men either in writing or in preaching haue shewed the vnderstanding of Christes wordes hardly fiue of them agreeing in all termes and phrases yet all moste sweetely consenting in one sense and meaning which consent and agreement is more notable when it is vttered in so many diuerse formes of wordes And yet to take away all cauels and flaunders all the churches for the moste parte in Fraunce Scotland Sauoy Heluetia Germanie Hungarie Piemont Polonia c. beside the persecuted Churches of Italians Spanyards and others haue subscribed to one forme of confession concerning not onely the sacrament but all other principall poyntes of religion which wee do likewise receiue in this Church of England And if disagreing of men among themselues were a matter of such importance it were no harde thing to shewe the battels of the schoole doctours among the Papists not onely about other matters but euen about the manner of the presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament transsubstantiation If you say all these whome you reiecte as the Lutherans in this poynt the Swinkefeldians Anabaptistes Libertines Henrinicolaites and such other do all disagree with you from the Catholike church of Rome therefore you are all together naught By this reason all Christianitie might bee condemned of the Iewes and Gentiles because so many sectes and heresies as be vnder the name of Christianitie together with the true Church of Christe be all against Iudaisme Gentilisme But agreeing or disagreeing of men among themselues is a weake argument to proue or disproue any thing onely agreeing with the trueth is a sure reason to allowe and disagreeing from the trueth is a certeine argument to refuse either men or matter propounded by them The two and fourtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the wordes of Christe after the Catholike manner with certein proues of the same First he setteth downe the sayings of the three Euangelistes Mathew Marke and Luke and of the Apostle Paule in which they describe the institution of the sacrament of which he sayeth not one maketh any mention of tropes figures or significations wherein hee vseth a shamelesse kinde of Sophistrie for although they name no tropes or figures or signification yet by the Papistes owne confession Saint Luke S. Paule vse manifest tropes figures and significations namely where they say This cupp is the newe testament in my bloud First it is a trope or figure to saye the cupp for that which is conteined in the cup vnlesse they will say that the cupp of what metall or matter so euer it was was likewise transubstantiated into the bloud of Christe Likewise where he sayeth this cuppe is the newe testament or couenant he must either acknowledge a signification this cuppe signifieth the newe testament or else he must make the newe testament to be nothing else but a cuppe Finally where he sayeth this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud except hee acknowledge a trope or figure he will vtterly denye that which is in the cup to be the bloud of Christe And out of all controuersie this manner of speache vsed by Saint Luke and Saint Paule is a manifest interpretation of the wordes vsed by S. Mathewe and Saint Marke this is my bloud which are all one in sence and meaning and teache vs howe the wordes spoken of the breade are to be interpreted this is my bodie this is the newe testament in my bloude which is as much to saye this is a seale and confirmation of the newe couenaunt which is remission of sinnes purchased by the breaking of my bodie and the shedding of my bloud for you This breade and this cuppe receiued of you shall assure you that you are truely incorporated into my bodie so made partakers of eternall life This interpretation hath in it nothing farre fetched or strange from the words of Christ the vsuall maner of speaking in the scripture But nowe M. Heskins will proue that the wordes of Christ are to be vnderstanded without trope or figure by the slaunders of the Infidels which defamed the Christians in the primitiue Church for eating the fleshe of men and of children as appeareth in Euseb. lib. 5 Cap. 2. 3. in the storie of Blandina and Attalus martyrs when they did eate the flesh of Christ. But none of them neither in Eusebius nor yet Iustine Origen Tertullian or any other that haue written Apollogies defended the Christians by the commaundement of Christ to eat his bodie but vtterly denyed and derided the slaunder that they were sayde to eat the fleshe of men or children as they did other slaunders which had no ground nor similitude of trueth as that they worshipped an Asses head that they companyed together in the dark like brute beastes and such like whereas if they had eaten the naturall fleshe of Christ as the Papists teache they woulde neither haue simply denyed the eating of a mans flesh nor yet haue spared to shewe how it was eaten vnder the formes of bread wine to auoide all crueltie and lothsomnes As for the legend of S. Andrewes passion which M. Heskins sayeth was written per Presbyteros diaconos Achaie is of as good credit as the booke of Beuis of Hampton the like I say of the fable of Amphilochius a newe found olde writer concerning the Iewe that sawe a childe diuided when the sacrament was broken The Legend and festiuall haue many such miracles But why did he not see a man diuided seeing Christe is not nowe a childe but a man Belike the authours of those miracles thought that if they feigned him to be a little child like Tom
they 〈◊〉 hitherto that they would neither learne by hearing nor acknowledge by reading that which in the Church of God in the mouth of all men is so agreeably spoken That not as much as of the tongues of infantes the veritie of the bodie and bloud of Christ is vnspoken of among the sacraments of the common faith for in that mystical distribution of that spirituall foode this thing is giuen foorth this thing is receiued that receiuing the vertue of that heauenly meate we may goe into his fleshe which was made our fleshe First M. Heskins as his fashion is to make the matter more cleare on his side falsely translateth Hoc impertitur hoc sumitur this bodie is giuen forth this bodie is receiued Where as Hoc is either taken absolutely for this thing or else at the least must haue relation to Sacramentum which is the next substantiue of the neuter gender in any reasonable construction Secondly it is manifest that Leo speaking against the heretiques Eutycheâ— and Dioscorus setteth forth the truth of Christs bodie bloud as one of the common knowen sacraments or mysteries of Christian faith saith neuer a word of his carnall presence in the mysterie of his supper but contrariwise teacheth that it is a mystical distributioÌ„ a spiritual food an heaueÌ„ly meat which words import not a carnal maner but a spiritual maner of preseÌ„ce eating Thus real presence as he termeth it being not yet proued the adoration cannot follow as he pretendeth The seuen and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the proofe of the adoration of the Sacrament by doctors The first doctor named is Dionysius Areopagita disciple of S. Paule as he sayeth Eccles. Hierarch 3. parte Cap. 3. who maketh this prayer to the sacrament O verie godly holie mysterie opening fauourably the couerings of signifying signes wherewith thou art couered shine openly and apertly vnto vs fill our spiritual eyes with the singuler open brightnesse of thy light That this Dionyse although of some antiquitie yet is not that Dionyse that was conuerted by S. Paule nor any that liued 600. yeres after at the least it is plaine by this reason that neither Eusebius nor Hieronyme nor Gennadius which wrote the Catologs of all ecclesiasticall writers that were before them or were famous in the church in their time nor yet any other writer within the compasse of 600. yeres after Christe maketh any mention of any such Dionyse to be a writer of those bookes which are saide to be written by him Now touching his supposed prayer it is but an exclamatioÌ„ rethoricall named apostrophe not vnto the bread wine but to him that in that mysterie is represented which is Christ that he would vouchsafe to open him self shine in the hearts of the faithfull as the outward signes are seene with the outwarde eyes And that he allowed no transubstantiation it is manifest by that he saith in the same place that the Bishop doth after consecration cut in peeces the vndiuided bread speaking of the sacrament doth often affirme that by those symboles or signes wee are changed into God Christ meaning we are renewed by his spirite but neuer affirmeth the bread wine to bee turned into the bodie bloud of christ Howbeit what I iudge of his authorite antiquitie I haue declared before The next is Gregorie Nazianzen in Epitaph Gorgoniae sororis Quid igitur c. What then did the soule both great worthie of greatest things and what remedie had shee against her infirmitie For nowe the secreat is disclosed when shee had dispaired of all other shee flyeth to the Phisition of all men and taking the solitarinesse of the night when the disease had giuen her a little respite shee fell downe with faith before the altare and with a lowde voice and all her might shee called vppon him which is worshipped at is and vnto him shee rehearsed all the myracles that he had done of olde time M. Heskins immagineth that it was such an altare as they haue in the popish Churches which is vntrue for it was a table men stoode round about it as is to be proued by many testimonies of antiquitie Secondly he immagineth that the sacrament was hanged ouer the altare to be worshipped as it is among them but that is vtterly false for it was receiued at such time as it was consecrated except some remanents that were kept to be eaten Therfore though shee made her prayer at the altare shee made no prayer to any thing vppon the altare but to God whome shee did worship and reuerence and whose mysteries shee vsed to receiue at the same altare Therefore M. Heskins falsifieth Gregories words which are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but thus they are turned by him into latine ante altare cum fide procubuit illum quem super altare venerabatur c. Shee prostrated her selfe with faith before the altar and called vpon him whome shee worshipped vpon the altare But Gregorie sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it or at it meaning the altare where shee prayed And to put all out of doubt that shee worshipped not the sacrament vppon the altare it followeth afterwarde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if her hand had layde vp any where any parte of the figures of the precious bodie or of the bloud that shee mingled with teares O marueilous thing and immediatly departed feeling health By these wordes it appeareth that shee brought this remanent of the sacrament with her which Gregorie calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the signes or tokens or figures of the bodie and bloud of Christ and not the verie naturall bodie of Christe and those shee worshipped not but wett them with teares whether superstitiously let the Papistes iudge for they them selues will allowe no such fashions nor yet reseruation for such purposes but as for adoration of the sacrament which is the matter intended here is none spoken of in this place After this he toucheth the facte of Satyrus the brother of S. Ambrose which is aunswered before lib. 1. Cap. 24. whose hope was in God and not in the sacrament Although Satyrus as a young nouice not throughly instructed in Christian religion cannot simply be defended though he may be excused howsoeuer by his brother Ambrose he is highly commended Then followed Eusebius Emisserâ—us Hom. Pascal Because he woulde take away his assumpted bodie from our eyes and carrie it into heauen it was needefull that this day he should consecrate vnto vs the sacrament of his bodie and bloud vs coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in precium that it might be continually worshipped or exercised by a mysterie for colere signifieth both whiche was once offered for our price M. Heskins gathereth hereof that the same bodie should be honoured by mysterie whose visible presence not his bodie was taken away from the earth But Eusebius sayeth not onely that he would take his bodie
haue no substantial grounde in scriptures as though an argument framed out of the scripture of the end vse of the sacrament were not a substantial ground And as for the popish counsell of Florens is a sorie ground without scripture Although 〈…〉 nor as he slaundereth vs that the power of consecration dependeth vpon the will of the receiuer but vpon the wonderfull worke of God with such practice as he requireth The second supposed heresie to be ouerthrowen is that the substance of bread wine do still remaine because Gregorie sayth it is changed into the bodie of Christe But this change is not of substance but of vse for as hee sayth it is changed into the bodie so he sayth it is chaunged into the diuine vertue which words though Maister Hesk. would racke to signifie the diuine flesh of Christ yet cannot he auoyde a manifest figure in the speache of Gregorie therfore it is nothing so plaine for him as he pretendeth To this he adioyneth a defence of the terme of transubstantiation which he confesseth to be but new as in deede the doctrine therof is but yet he compareth it with the terme vsed of olde by the fathers Homousion to signifie that Christe is of the substance of the father But to be short for termes we will not striue let him proue transubstantiation so olde as he pretendeth we will acknowledge the terme The thirde pretended heresie to be ouerthrowen is that he teacheth a reall presence and therefore the wordes This is my bodie are to be vnderstood without trope or figure But this is auoyded in aunswere to the seconde and so we leaue him discharged of M. Hesk. cauils Hierome is alledged ad Hedibiam qu. 2. the place hath bene alreadie handled proued to be against M. Hesk. in the 31. Chap. of this booke whither I referre the reader for breuities sake only in this place I wil deale with such points as were not spoken of there and rehearse the whole discourse of S. Herome together not in patches as M. Hesk. hath done interlacing his fond gloses Questio secunda Quomodo accipiendum sit c. The second question How that saying of our sauiour in Mathew is to be taken I say vnto you I will not drinke from hence forth of this fruite of the vine vntil that day in which I shal drinke it newe with you in the kingdome of my father Out of this place some men build the fable of a thousand yeres in which they contend that Christ shall raigne corporally drinke wine which hee hath not dronke from that time vnto the end of the world But let vs heare that the bread which our Lord brake gaue to his disciples is the bodie of our Lord sauiour as he saith vnto them Take eat ye this is my bodie that the cupp is that of whiche he spake againe drinke ye all of this this is my bloud of the new testament which shal be shed for many c. This is that cupp of which we read in the Prophet I will take the cupp of saluation And in another place Thy cup inebriaeting is verie noble If therfore the bread which came downe from heauen is the bodie of our Lord and the wine which he gaue to his disciples is his bloud of the new testament let vs reiect Iewish fables ascend with our Lord into the great parler prepared made clean let vs receiue of him aboue the cup of the new testament there holding passouer with him let vs be made dronke with the wine of sobrietie For the kingdome of God is not meat drinke but righteousnesse ioy peace in the holy ghost Neither did Moises giue vs the true bread but our Lord Iesus he being the guest the fest he himselfe eating which is eaten His bloud we drinke without him we cannot drinke it daily in his sacrifices wee tread out of the generation of the true vine the vine of Sorec which is interpreted chosen the redde newe wines and of them wee drinke newe wine of the kingdome of his father not in the oldnesse of the letter but in the newnesse of the spirite singing a newe song which none can sing but in the kingdome of the Churche which is the kingdome of the father This bread also did Iacob the Patriarch couet to eate saying if the Lord shal be with me giue me bread to eat and rayment to couer mee For as many of vs as are baptised in Christ haue put on Christ and do eat the breade of Angels and do heare our Lorde saying My meate is that I may do the will of him that sent mee my father that I may accomplish his worke Let vs therefore do the will of his father which sent vs and let vs accomplish his worke and Christ shall drinke with vs his bloud in the kingdome of the Church This is the whole discourse of Hierome and by the distinction of the letter you see what Maister Heskins hath left out both in the beginning and in the ende and yet he raileth at the proclaimer for snatching truncately a fewe wordes to make a shew to deceiue his auditorie But by this whole treatise you may see what the question is and howe it is answered namely that the promise of Christ must bee vnderstoode of a spirituall drinking in the Church which vtterly ouerthroweth the popish fantasie of real presence For Christ is so present at euery celebration of the supper in his church that he eateth his bodie and drinketh his bloud as Hierome sayth which no man except he bee mad wil say to be otherwise then after a spirituall manner and in the end Hierome openeth what is his meate and how he drinketh his bloud with vs and that wee so eat his bodie as we put him on for a garmēt in baptisme and as Iacob did eat it which must needes be spiritually More collections if any man desire let him resort to the 31. Chapter of this second booke The foure fiftieth Chapter testifyeth the vnderstanding of the same words by Isychius S. Augustine Isychius is alledged in Leuit. lib. 6. Cap. 2◠vpon this text He that eateth of the holie things vnwittingly shall put the fifth parte thereunto and giue vnto the Priest the hallowed thing Sancta sanctorum c. The most holie things properly are the mysteries of Christ because it is his bodie of whome Gabriell said vnto the virgin The holy ghost shall come vpō thee and the power of the moste highest shall ouershadowe thee therefore that holy one that shal be borne of thee shal be called the sonne of god And Esay also The Lord is holie dwelleth in the heightes that is to saye in the bosome of his father For from this sacrifice he hath forbidden not onely strangers and soiourners hyred seruaunts but hee commaunded also not to receiue it by ignorance And he taketh it by
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
pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis nec hoc probatum ex Euangelio testimonium receperunt vbi Apostolis corpus suum commendauit sanguinem Seorsim enim panis seorsim calicis commendatio memoratur Nam intinctū panem alijs Christum praebuisse non legimus excepto illo tantùm discipulo quem intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderet non quae sacramenti huius institutionem signaret That also is to be condemned that to make perfect the communion they deliuer to the people the sacrament dipped in the cupp neither haue they receiued this testimonie brought out of the Gospell where he deliuered to his Apostles both his bodie his bloud for seuerally of the breade and seuerally of the cupp the deliuerie is mentioned For we read not that Christ gaue dipped bread to others except that disciple only whome the dipped soppe shewed to be the traitour of his maister but did not set forth the institution of this sacrament Note here the iudgement of this Counsell that the institution of Christ is to be obserued Secondly that they are condemned that receiue not the testimonie of that first institution as an onely rule to followe in the ministration of the sacrament as the Papistes do Thirdly that the bloud must not be deliuered in the bread and the body in the cuppe but seuerally the breade and seuerally the cup must be deliuered Fourthly that the communion is not perfect without both kindes which euen they confessed that dipped the bread in the wine and so gaue it foorth Fiftly consider if this Counsel could not allowe the ioyning of both kinds in one soppe what would they haue thought of taking one kinde cleane away But to follow Maister Heskins The second obiection and that presseth him hardest is the saying of Gelasius bishop of Rome That the diuision of one and the same mysterie cannot be done without great sacriledge To auoyde this most manifest and cleare authoritie he thinketh it sufficient to shewe that the decree was made against other heretiques namely the Manichees Eutychians as though it were sacriledge in one kinde of heretiques and lawful in an other He saith the Manichees to cloake their heresie would dissemblingly receiue the breade and would not receiue the cup bicause they held that Christ had but a fantasticall body without bloud And the Eutychians ioyned with them which receiued the breade as a sacrament of the diuine body of Christe in which was no bloud Concerning the Eutychians there might bee some such fantasie if they ioyned with the Manichees in this point which presently I doe not remember that I haue read But concerning the Manichees it is certaine there was an other cause of their refusall of the cup bicause they condemned all drinking of wine And of them it seemeth that Leo spake Serm. 4. de quadra which M. Heskins rehearseth Abducunt se c. They withdrawe them selues from the sacrament of the health of man and as they deny Christe our Lorde to be borne in the veritie of our flesh so they doe not beleeue that he did verily die and rise againe and therefore they condemne the day of our health and of our gladnesse with the sadnesse of their fasting And when to couer their infidelitie they are so bold to be present at our mysteries they so temper them selues in the communion of the sacraments that sometimes they are more safely hidden With vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe but the bloud of our redemption they altogether refuse to drinke which thing we will your holinesse to vnderstand for this cause that suche kinde of men may be knowne to you and by these tokens and that they whose sacrilege and dissimulation shall be found out being noted and bewrayed by the Priestly authoritie may be banished the societie of the Saints This M. Hes. confesseth to be spoken against the Manichees And I wold he would further note that Leo chargeth them with dissimulation ioyned with sacriledge which yet is more tollerable then the Papistes open impudencie and violent sacriledge But here he noteth a plaine place for the proclamer in that Leo saith with vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe but that Leo so calleth the sacrament of the body of Christ which after a certaine manner is the body of Christe and not simply or absolutely it appeareth by that which followeth imediatly that those heretiques refuse to receiue the bloud of our redemption whereby hee meaneth the cup and the sacrament of his bloud for if hee should not meane the outward sacramentes but the body and bloud of Christ indeed how could his body be receiued without his bloud Therefore it is manifest hee speaketh of the signes and not of the things signified euen by their owne rule of concomitance And nowe followeth the whole saying of Gelasius Comperimus autem c. We haue found out of a certaintie that certaine men after they haue receiued a portion of the holy body do abstaine from the cup of the holy bloud who bicause I knowe not by what superstition they are taught to be withholden let them without all doubt receiue the whole sacramentes or else let them bee forbidden from the whole For the diuision of one and the same mysterie can not be done without great sacriledge Maister Heskins to shift off this place saith it was written against the Manichees But that is altogether vnlike for then Gelasius would not haue saide he knewe not by what superstition they were led for he knewe well the blasphemies of the Manichees Wherefore it is certaine they were other such superstitious people as the Papistes be nowe But if it were written against the Manichees the Papistes following their steppes shall gaine nothing but proue them selues to ioyne with the Manichees Secondly Maister Heskins saith the diuision of one mysterie is not the diuiding of the cuppe from the breade but of the body of Christ from his bloud which the Manichees did Although hee bee worthie to be knocked in the head with a mall that will not vnderstand Gelasius to speake of the sacrament yet there is no shadowe of reason to shrowde him most impudently affirming the contrarie For the Manichees did not diuide the body of Christe from his bloud but vtterly denyed him to haue either body or bloud Againe when hee saide immediately before that they should eyther receiue the whole sacramentes or abstaine from the whole hee addeth this for a reason For the diuision sayth hee of one and the same mysterie can not bee done without greate sacriledge Hee therefore that denyeth him to speake one title of diuiding the one kinde from the other is woorthie to bee diuided in peeces and to haue his partes with hypocrites where shall bee weeping and gnashing of teeth But as though he had not passed impudencie her selfe alreadie hee falleth on rayling against the proclamer that had not brought foorth past halfe a score wordes of this place
suppressing the rest for very shame they make so much against him Surely in all reasonable mens consciences what so euer hee left out of this place hee left the aduauntage of his owne cause and no title againste him But let vs see here what Maister Heskins a man of inuention passing Sinon the GrÄ™cian hath gathered out of it There bee two thinges in this place plainely taught The first is the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in that he so reuerently calleth the sacrament vnder one kinde the portion of the Lords body and the other he calleth the cup of the holy bloud For the spiritual bloud is not contained in external or material vessels No syr but the sacrameÌ„t of his natural bloud is wherof he speaketh as it is manifest by the words immediatly before the portion of the Lords body for his natural body is not broken into portions but the bread which is a sacrament thereof is broken and therby is shewed what wicked men receiue both in this saying of Gelasius in the other of Leo not the naturall body of Christe which cannot be receiued in portions but a portion of the sacramental bread which is therfore called the body of Christ bicause it is so indeed to them that receiue it worthily is consecrated to that vse that it may be the coÌ„munication of the body of christ And as it hath ben often shewed sacraments beare the names of the very things wherof they are sacrameÌ„ts The second thing that he teacheth saith M. Hes. is that he calleth not these two kindes Sacramentum a sacrament but Sacramenta sacramentes in the plural number signifying therby that each of them is a whole sacrament O new Diuinitie theÌ„ ye Papistes haue eight sacraments But are you such a prudent gatherer M. Hes it appeareth you wil lease none aduantage for the taking vp I commend you But for all that doth not your Authour Leo call both kindes sacramentum a sacrament and that is more for it is too too childish to reason of the singular number doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kindes Vnum idémque mysterium one and the same mysterie And when he vseth the plural number the ground of your Achillean argument doth he not say Integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur Let them take the whole sacramentes or else let them be kept from the whole signifying that they which tooke the bread onely tooke but halfe the sacramentes and none took the whole but they that tooke the cup also But nowe for the practise of the Primitiue Church to haue receiued in one kinde he saith that in time of persecution the Priest deliuered them of the sacrament wrapped in fine linnen clothes to carie home with them and to receiue it secretly by them selues and this could bee none other but the sacrament vnder the foâ—ne of breade Admit it were so that they caried home the sacrament yet it followeth not but they might as well carie the wine in a faire pot as they caried the breade in a faire cloth And although TertulliaÌ„ writing to his wife name bread only yet doth it not followe but that he comprehendeth the cup also The wordes of Tertullian are before rehearsed and answered Lib. 1. cap. 24. 27. Next is brought in Basil. Episto ad Caesareant patriciam Illud autem c. As for that to be a grieuous thing in the times of persecution any man to be inforced to receiue the communion with his owne hand the Priest or Deacon not being present it is more then nedeth to proue for bicause the same thing is by a long custome and by the very vse of things established For all they that in the wildernesse lead a solitarie life where there is no Priest keeping the communion at home communicate of them selues But in Alexandria and Aeâ—ypt euery one of the people for the most part haue the communion in their owne house For when the Priest doth consecrate the sacrifice and distribute it we must well beleeue to participate and receiue it For in the Church the Priest giueth part and he that taketh it receiueth it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand It is therfore the same thing in vertue whether a man take one part of the Priest or many parts together Of the credite and authoritie of this Epistle which being cited in the name of Saint Basil is not to be found in all his workes I haue spoken before sufficiently as also of the reseruation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first booke cap. 27. But for the communion in one kinde I see nothing that he saith sauing that Maister Heskins gathereth that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hote countries conueniently in their own kind such long time as they were forced to reserue the sacrament in the wildernes and else where But I aunswere him that such strong wine as they haue in those hote countries will bee kept longer from sowring then the breade will bee from moulding and therefore his gathering is altogether fond ridiculous But now you shall heare a more plaine testimoine for this receipt vnder one kinde if you will hearken to S. Cyprian He is cited In sermone de Lapsis a long saying to litle yea to no purpose at all Praesente ac teste meipso c. Heare what came to passe my selfe beeing present and witnesse The parentes of a childe flying by chaunce while for feare they tooke no good aduisement leaft their young daughter vnder the cherishing of a nource the nource brought her so left vnto the Magistrates They before an Idole where the people were gathered because for her age she could yet eate no flesh gaue vnto her bread mixed with wine which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish Afterwarde the mother receiued her daughter But the litle mayde could no more speake and declare the offence that was committed then vnderstand it before and forbidde it Through ignorance therfore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her whyle we were sacrificing But truely the girle beeing among the Saintes not abiding our prayer and supplication sometime was constrained to crie out sometime with vehement greefe of minde was tossed here and there euen as though a tormentor compelled her the ignorant soule by such tokens as she could acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those yong and tender yeres But after the solemnities beeing accomplished the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present and when the rest had receiued and her place was next the little one by the instinct of Gods Maiestie turned away her face pressed her mouth with her lippes stopped refused the cuppe Yet the Deacon persisted and though it were against her will powred in somewhat of the sacrament of the cuppe Then followed belking and vomite In a bodie and a mouth that was defiled the Eucharistie
could not remaine The drinke sanctified in the bloud of our Lord brake out of her polluted bowels c. Out of this Historie Maister Heskins gathereth two thinges First that the sacrament in that time was ministred to infantes which was in deede a great abuse contrarie to the worde of god Secondly that this childe receiued onely the cup which is false for though she was not so troubled at the receipt of the bread yet it followeth not that she receiued no bread but contrariwise Cyprian saith the Eucharistie by whiche wordes the fathers alwayes vnderstand the whole sacrament could not remaine in her bodie And whereas he reasoneth foolishly that if she had receiued the bread she should like wise haue beene troubled he must vnderstand that when God worketh a miracle he taketh times and occasions at his pleasure And it is like he would not discouer her pollution that come by bread and wine before she had receiued both bread and wine as the sacrament If I should vrge vpon this place as the scoole men doe whether this that was vomited was the bloud of Christ and what should be done with it or what was done with it in this storie I should trouble him more then he could easily answere Another tale he telleth out of Sozomenus Eccl. hist. lib. 8. Cap. 5. Ioanne Constantinopolitanum c. When Iohn Chrysostome did very well gouerne the Church of Constantinople a certeine man of the Macedonian heresie had a wife of the same opinion When this man had heard Iohn teaching what was to bee thought of God he praysed his doctrine and exhorted his wife to be of the same minde with him But when she did more obey the words of noble women then his conuersation and after many admonitions her husband had profited nothing Except quod he thou be a cōpaniō with me in Diuine matters thou shalt not be hereafter a partaker of liuing with me When the woman heard this promised her consent dissemblingly she cōmunicated the matter with a certeyne maide seruant which shee iudged to be trustie vnto her and vseth her seruice to deceiue her husband And about the time of the mysteries they that be receiued to them know what I say she keping that she had receiued fell downe as though she would pray Her maide standing by giueth her priuily that which she brought in her hand with her which thing when it was put to her teeth it congeled into a stone The woman beeing astonnied fearing least any euil should happen to her for that thing whiche came to passe from God made hast to the Bishop and bewraying her selfe sheweth the stone hauing yet vpon it the markes of her bit and shewing an vnknowen matter and a wonderful colour and also desiring pardon with teares promised that she would agree with her husband And if this matter seeme to any man to be incredible this stone is a witnesse which is kept to this day among the Iewels of the Churche of Constantinople If this storie be true as it is no article of our beleefe yet proueth it not that the communion was ministred in bread only to all the rest that would receiue the cuppe although I wote not what was turned into a stone before the time came she should receiue the cuppe If M. Heskins will vrge she could not haue any thing to conuey into her mouth in steede of the wine I answere she might easily counterfet the drinking by kissing the cuppe and so letting it passe from her without tasting thereof Wherefore this is but a blind and vnreasonable coniecture of Maister Heskins that the sacrament was ministred in one kinde because she that had dissembled in the receipt of one kinde was punished with depriuation from both kindes The last reason he vseth Is that it is testified by learned men that the manner of receiuing vnder one kinde which is vsed in all the Latine Church vpon good Friday on which day the priest receiueth the hoste consecrated vpon maundie Thursday hath been so vsed from the primitiue Church But what learned men they be except such as him selfe and what proofes they haue of this vsage he sayeth not so much as halfe a word The whole matter standeth vpon his owne credite But if he and all the learned of that side should fast from good Friday vntill they haue shewed proofe of such an vse in the primitiue church not as they vse to fast in Lent but from all manner of nourishment there would not one learned Papist be left aliue on gang Monday to shew what proofes they haue found Thou hast seene Reader what his reasons and authorities are iudge of the answers according to thy discretion ¶ The end of the second Booke THE THIRD BOOKE OF MAISTER HESKINS PARLEAment repealed by W. Fulke The first Chapter entereth by Preface into the first text of S. Paule that toucheth the sacrament and expoundeth it according to the letter TThe Preface is out of Didymus that diuine matters are to be handled with reuerence and considering the difficultie of the scriptures by Hierome that in matters of doubt recourse must be had by Irenęus his aduise vnto the most auncient Churches in which the Apostles were conuersant In so much that Irenaeus saith Libro 3. Cap. 4. Quid autem c. And what if the Apostles had left vs no writinges ought we not to haue followed the order of tradition which they deliuered to them to whome they had committed the Churches Wherevpon Maister Heskins gathereth that not onely for matters conteined in scripture but also for traditions vnwritten in the holie scriptures the fathers are to be credited But he goeth farre from Irenaeus minde who confuted the heretiques both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the moste auncient Churches whose traditions must haue beene all our institution if there had ben no scriptures But seeing that scriptures inspired of God by his gratious prouidence are left vnto vs al traditions are to be examined by them that is twise proued after Irenaeus minde whiche is proued both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the Churches Otherwise the scriptures are sufficient of them selues 2. Tim. 3. And no tradition or authoritie is to be receiued which is repugnant or contrarie vnto them The text of Saint Paule that he speaketh is written 1. Cor. 10. Brethren I would not haue you ignorant that all our fathers were vnder the cloude and all passed through the sea and were all baptised by Moses in the cloude and in the sea and did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the same spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christe Where it is to be noted that Maister Heskins in steede of the same spirituall meate and the same spirituall drinke translateth one spiritual meate and one spirituall drinke as though the sense were that the Fathers did all eate drinke of one spiritual kind
Prosper Hoc est quod dicimus c. This is that we say that by all meanes we labour to proue that the sacrifice of the Church is made of two thinges consisteth of two thinges the visible forme or kinde of the elementes and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe both of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament that is the body of Christe c. This visible forme Maister Heskins will haue to be the accidentes onely then hee will haue a sacrifice whereof one part by his owne interpretation is bare accidentes without a subiect and thirdly that it is the body of Christe corporally receiued But let vs heare not Prosper an vncertaine Authour but Augustine him selfe declare these thinges vnto vs in Ioan. Tr. 26. Huius rei sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis sanguinis Christi alicubi quotidie alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Dominica mensa prÄ™paratur de mensa Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps suerie The sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christe in some places daily in some places with certaine distaunces of dayes is prepared in the Lordes table and from the Lordes table is receiued of some persons to life and of some to destruction But the thing it selfe whereof it is a sacrament is life to euery man and destruction to no man who so euer shall bee partaker of it Nowe iudge whether S. Augustine esteemeth the sacrament to bee onely accidentes and the thing of the sacrament to bee a bodily presence whiche the wicked can not bee partakers of or whether the wicked receiue nothing but the accidents to their destruction seeing they receiue the sacrament but not the thing of the sacrament Chrysostome the second barron named in this Chapter is cited in dictum Apost Nolo vos igno Dixi enim quod c. For I saide that the trueth must haue a certaine excellencie aboue the figure Thou hast seene concerning baptisme what is the figure and what the trueth Go to I will shewe thee also the tables and the communion of the sacramentes to be described there if thou wilt not againe require of me the whole but so requirest these things that are done as it is meete to seâ— in shadowes and figures Therefore bicause he had spoken of the sea and of the cloâ—d and of Moses he added moreouer And they all did eate the same spirituall meate As thou saith he comming vp out of the lâ—uer of the waters camest to the table so they also coÌ„ming vp out of the sea came to a newe and wonderfull table I speake of Manna And againe as thou hast a wonderfull drinke the wholesome bloud so had they also a wonderfull nature of drinke Here Maister Heskins gathereth that our drinke is the wholesome bloud of Christe which we confesse spiritually receiued as it was of the Fathers likewise to proue that by the table he meant the body of Christ he citeth an other place Sicut autem c. Euen as he saide that they all passed through the sea so he prefigured the nobilitie of the Church when he saide They did all eate the same spirituall meat He hath insinuated the same againe for so in the Church the rich man receiueth not one body the poore man an other nor this man one bloud and that man an other Euen so then the rich man receiued not one Manna and the poore man an other neither was this man partaker of one spring and that man of a lesse plentifull Not content with this he addeth another sentence out of the same Homely Sed cuius gratia c. But for what cause doth S. Paule make mention of these thinges For that cause which I tolde you at the first that thou mayest learne that neither baptisme nor remission of sinnes nor knowledge nor the communion of the sacraments nor the holy table nor the fruition of the body nor the participation of the bloud nor any other such thing can profite vs except we haue a right life and a wonderfull and free from all sinne Heere Maister Heskins gathereth that Christes bodye and bloud may bee receiued of wicked men but eyther hee must vnderstand Sainte Chrysostome speaking of the sacramentes by the name of the thinges whereof they be sacramentes or else hee will fall into a great absurditie for he saith forgiuenesse of sinnes shall not profite by which he meaneth the ceremonie of absolution and not the forgiuenesse of God in deede Againe he must note an hyperbole or ouerreaching speach in this sentence or else whom shal the body and bloud of Christ profite when no man is free from sinne But we yet must heare a sentence or two more out of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 23. Quae autem c. Those thinges that followe doe signifie the holy table For as thou eatest the Lordes body so did they eate Manna And as thou drinkest his bloud so did they drinke water out of the rocke But here Maister Heskins playes his old part for he leaueth out that which following immediately expoundeth Chrysostome contrarie to his purpose Quamuis in sensu quae dabantur perciperentur spiritualiter tamen dabantur non secundùm naturae consequentiam sed secundùm muneris gratiam cum corpore etiam animam in fidem adducentem nutriuit Although those thinges that were giuen were perceiued by sense yet were they giuen spiritually not according to the consequence of nature but according to the grace of the gift bringing into faith he nourished the soule also with the body By these words it is most euident that Manna and the water were not bare figures or corporall foode onely but also foode of the soule through fayth howe so euer Chrysostome in other places speaketh of them as figures and as corporall food and in those respectes preferreth our sacramentes before them But let vs heare the last sentence Qui enim illa illis c. For he which gaue those things vnto them euen he hath prepared this table And euen he him selfe brought them through the sea and thee through baptisme And to them gaue Manna and water and to thee his body and bloud Vpon all these places of Chrysostome Maister Heskins reasoneth that the Fathers onely receiued a figure and we the veritie or else there were no difference if we both receiue a veritie spiritually and a figure outwardly I haue shewed the difference before to be not in the substance or vertue but in the manner of reuelation which was to them obscure to vs cleere to them in expectation of that which was to come to vs in assuraunce of that which is fulfilled namely the redemption by Christes death For Iesus Christe was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde and the onely foode that came
nothing of the institution of the sacrament bicause hee spake of it most plentifully in this Chapter by Augustines iudgement Ioannes c. Iohn saide nothing in this place of the body and bloud of our Lord but plainely in an other place he testifieth that our Lord spake of them most plentifully Here he will haue vs note that Augustine calleth it not a signe or figure but plainly the body and bloud of Christ therefore it is not a figure or signe By the same reason he may say Augustine calleth it not a sacrament therefore it is no sacrament But Christ him selfe saith Not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer In which wordes M. Heskins noteth two thinges The first that Manna is a figure of Christe in the sacrament for proofe of which he sendeth vs backe to the 4.5.6.7.8.9 10. Chapters of this booke The second is the excellencie of the body of Christ in the sacrament aboue Manna the eaters whereof are dead but the eaters of the body of Christe in the sacrament shall liue for euer M. Heskins saith he wot not what for if you aske him whether all they that eat the body of Christ in the sacrament shall liue eternally he will say no. For wicked men as he saith eate it which shall not liue eternally Againe if you aske him whether al they that did eat Manna are dead he will say no. For though they be dead in body yet bicause many did eate Christ spiritually by faith they shall liue for euer You see what pith is in his reason and substance in his doctrine But in very deede Christe compareth his flesh with Manna as it was a corporall foode only and so all that did eate it are dead but all they that eat the flesh of Christe which is eternall life shall liue eternally for though they dye corporally yet will be raise them vp in the last day And whereas Maister Heskins voucheth S. Augustine to warrant De vtilita poenit Manna de coelo c. I must send the reader to the eight Chapter of this booke where that authoritie is cited and answered to be flat contrarie to M. Heskins Likewise the sentence of Cyprian de Coen Dom. Coena disposita c. is handled in the first booke Chapter 17. and the other beginning Significata in Lib. 1. Cap. 39. The saying of Ambrose Lib. 4. de sacra Cap. 5. is also against Maister Heskins as we shall plainely see Ipse Dominus c. The Lorde Iesus him selfe testifieth vnto vs that wee receiue his body and bloud ought we to doubt of his fidelitie and testification Nowe returne with me to my proposition It was truely a great and a venerable thing that he rayned Manna to the Iewes from heauen But vnderstand which is the greater Manna from heauen or the body of Christe The body of Christe truely who is the maker of heauen Further he that hath eaten Manna hath dyed but he that shall eate this body it shall be made to him remission of sinnes and he shall not dye for euer By the effectes of the sacrament which are remissioÌ„ of sinnes eternal life M. Hes. saith the excellencie thereof is proued aboue Manna I answere Ambrose folowing our sauiour Christ doth not compare Manna the sacrament with our sacrament but Manna the corporall foode with the body of Christ the heauenly substance of our sacrament so it is more excellent without comparison But Maister Heskins skippeth ouer with a drye foote that Ambrose saith Whosoeuer shall eate of this body it shall be made to him remission of sinnes and he shall not not die for euer by which words it is euident that no wicked man eateth this body but they only which eat it spiritually by faith An other place of Ambrose hee citeth De myster initiand Cap. 9. Considera nunc c. Consider nowe whether is better the bread of Angels or the flesh of Christ which truly is the body of life That Manna was from heauen this aboue heauen that of heauen this of the Lorde of heauens that subiect to corruption if it were kept vntill the next day this farre from all corruption which who so euer shall taste religiously he can feele no corruption The water did satisfie them for an houre the bloud doth wash thee for euer The Iewe drank and thirsteth when thou hast drâ—nke thou canst not thirst And that was in a shaddowe this in the trueth And after a fewe wordes he saith Thou hast knowne better thinges for light is better then a shaddowe the trueth then a figure the body of the Authour then Manna from heauen This place of Ambrose vtterly denieth the body of Christ to be receiued of the wicked which perish and so consequently denyeth it to be corporally present But least we should obiect that Ambrose speaketh not of the sacrament he addeth a long discourse following immediatly Forte dicaâ— c. which bicause it is contained in the 51. Chapter of the second booke I will send the reader thither where he shall see it aunswered by Ambrose him selfe and in the same place and in the tenth Chapter of the second booke where some part of it is touched For it were in vaine to trouble the reader with one thing so often as M. Heskins listeth to repeat it The fifteenth Chapter prouing all our sacraments generally to be more excellent then the sacraments of Moses First baptisme in respect of The noble presence of God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost must bring with it some more noble gift then a bare signe or token See howe this impudent beast would make Popish fooles beleeue that we teach baptisme to be nothing else but a bare signe or token We thinke and speake of it as honourably as the scripture teacheth vs Let the forme of baptisme vsed in the Church of England testifie whether we make it nothing but a bare signe or token Let our catechismies of al sorts beare witnesse of the same But nothing will stop a slanderous mouth Yet to aunswere the title of that Chapter S. Augustine is cited contra Faust. lib. 19. cap. 13. Prima sacrameÌ„ta c. The first sacraments which were obserued celebrated by the lawe were the foreshewing of Christ that was to come which when he had fulfilled by his coÌ„ming they were taken away therfore they were taken away bicause they were fulfilled For he came not to breake the law but to fulfill it And other are instituted greater in power better in profite easier to be done fewer in number Maister Heskins asketh wherein bee they greater in power but in this that the sacramenets of the olde lawe had no power but to signifie onely oures not onely to signifie but also to giue that they signifie And I will aske him seeing he maketh the sacraments instruments of Gods grace by what instrument did they receiue the grace of
more for we do not communicate only in participation and receiuing but in vnitie for as that bodie is vnited to Christ so are we by this bread ioyned together in an vnion But why doth he adde Which we breake This may we see in the Eucharisty but in the crosse not so but altogether contrariwise There shall no bone of his be broken saith he but that he suffred not in the crosse he suffereth in the oblation and permitteth for thee to be broken Here first he misliketh the translation of the English Bible that calleth it participation A simple quarrel I would see the Bible perfectly translated into English by the Papists And yet the vulgar Popish Latine hath Participatio M. Heskins himselfe translateth it the partaking But beside the communion whiche hee passeth ouer M. Heskins gathereth his reall presence and sacrifice I will adde none other place of Chrysostome to explane his meaning this is so manifest of it selfe against both First whereas M. Heskins reasoneth for the reall presence of the communion which is such with vs Christ as is with Christ and his bodie and that is substantially and not spiritually I answer he vtterly falsifieth Chrysostoms meaning for he speaketh of our coniunction one with another which is spiritually not of Christe with vs we communicate saith he in vnitie that we might be ioyned one with an other in an vnion Therefore M. Heskins argument holdeth not Secondly that he speaketh of breaking of Christ in the sacrifice is so manifest to be vnderstood spiritually that it ouerthroweth both the presence and the sacrifice for Christ is not broken but spiritually therefore he is not present but spiritually M. Heskins â—ombleth out the matter with a foolish caueat that though Christ suffer be broken in the sacrament yet he suffreth no violence nor paine But let him speake plainely if he dare for his eares that Christe is really and substantially broken though without pain for that breaking of his body which Christ speaketh of in the institution of the sacrameÌ„t was perfourmed really and substantially vpon the crosse Wherefore vpon Chrysost. authoritie I will conclude against all the Papistes in the world Christ is so present in the sacrament that he is broken therin but he is not broken corporally but spiritually therefore he is not present corporally but spiritually Beside this it is to be noted in that saying of Chrysost. that he compareth that bodie with this bread As that bodie is vnited to Christ so are we by this bread ioyned together in an vnitie or vnion Hoc ilâ—ud be spoken of diuers things else he wold haue said so by the same body we are ioyned in an vnion but he saith by this bread therfore the body is one thing this bread another thing in corporal substance S. Hierom is cited 1. Cor. 10. Calix benedictionis c. The cup of blessing c. Therefore he named the cup first that he might dispute more at large of the bread Is it not the coÌ„munication of the bloud of Christ as our sauiour himselfe saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in me I in him Here is nothing but that we do all confesse sauing that M. Hes. will denie the bread that S. Hierome speaketh of to al men the cup to all lay men The other place of Hierome that he interlaceth after his maner In Psal. 110. is answered before Lib. 1. Ca. 30. The third place followeth in Hierome immediatly after the first Et panis quem frangimus noÌ„ne participatio corporis Domini est Ita panis idolatrie daemonuÌ„ participatio esse monstratur And is not the bread which we breake a participation of the bodie of our Lord Euen so also the bread of idolatrie is a participation of diuels Here M.H. to mainteine his fond quarrel against the translation of the English Bible hath falsified S. Hier. in steede of Participatio set downe CoÌ„municatio corporis c. a coÌ„munication of the body c. The place it self is directly against M. Hesk. bil because the participation of the Lords bodie is coÌ„pared with the participation of diuels which cannot be a corporal maner of partaking And it foloweth Omnes quideÌ„ de vno pane de vno Calice participamus Ita si cuÌ„ idololatris de vno pane comedimus vnuÌ„ cuÌ„illis corpus efficimur videte Israel secunduÌ„ carneÌ„ Carnalis Israel carnales hostias offerebat sicut spiritualis sacrificia spiritualia offert Christo We al truly are partakers of one bread of one cup so if we eat of one bread with idolaters we are made one body with them Behold Israel according to the fleshe The carnal Israel did offer carnal sacrifices euen as the spiritual Israel doth offer spirituall sacrifices to Christe In these wordes obserue that we are so made one bodie by partaking of one bread and cup as by eating one bread with idolaters which can not be after a corporall manner Secondly that we offer not Christ in sacrifice but offer spiritual sacrifice to Christ. Finally he saith vpon the same Chapter Non potestis calicem Domini bibere calicem Daemoniorum Non potestis Dei Daemonum esse participâ—s You can not drinke of the cup of our Lorde and the cup of diuels you can not be partakers of God and of Diuels See nowe by S. Hieromes iudgement that to be partaker of the cup of the Lord is to be partaker of God not of the bloud of Christ after a corporal but after a spiritual maner For if the bloud of Christ were conteined locally substantially in the cup that wicked men might drink the bloud of Christ as Papistes holde then a man might be partaker both of the cup of the Lord of the cup of diuels yea of the bodie of the Lord of the table of diuels which Saint Paul doth so expresly denie As touching his bald reason of the sacrifice it is answered before and out of Hierome euen now and his real presence being taken away it passeth away with it The eighteenth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Augustine and Damascen He citeth S. Augustine Contra Inimic Leg. prophet naming neither what booke nor Chapter to cloake his shamefull corruption and falsification For in the very middes he leaueth out a sentence or two beside that he cutteth off the later parte which doth clearely open Saint Augustines mind thus he citeth it Nolâ— vos socies Daemorum c. I will not that ye be made fellowes of Diuels He did truely forbid them from idolatrie For the which thing he would declare to them that they should euen so be made fellowes of diuels if they did eate Idolathytes of the sacrifice as the carnall Israel whiche did eate of the sacrifices in the Temple â–ª was fellow of the altar By occasion of that he began that he would say this wherefore my most
beloued flye from the honouring of Idols Afterward following he sheweth to what sacrifice they ought to appertein saying I speak as vnto wise men iudge what I say is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communication of the bloud of Christ and is not the bread which we breake a communication of the bodie of our Lord In this saying after the worde altar he hath gelded out thus much Ideo quippe addidit carnaliter vel secundùm carnem quia est Israel spiritualiter vel secundùm spiritum qui veteres vmbras iam non sequitur sed eam consequentem quae his vmbris praecedentibus significata est veritatem For therfore he added carnally or after the flesh because there is a Israel spiritually or according to the spirite which doth not now followe the olde shadowes but the trueth following which was signified by those shadowes All this is left out of the very middest From the end he cutteth of these wordes following Quia vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus omnes enim de vno pane participamus Et propter hoc subiunxit videte Israel secundùm carnem nonne qui de sacrificijs manducant socij sunt altaris vt intelligerent ita se iam socios esse corporis Christi quemadmodum illi socij sunt altaris Because there is one bread and we beeing many are one bodie for we are all partakers of one bread And for this cause he added Behold Israel according to the flesh are not they which eate of the sacrifices fellowes or partakers of the altar That they might vnderstand that they are now so fellowes or partakers of the bodie of Christe as those are partakers of the altar What can be saide more playne for the spirituall manner of participation of the bodie of Christe Except M. Heskins will say that the Iewes were really corporally and substantially partakers of the altar And this is conteined in the first booke Cap. 19. And wheras M. Hesk. iangleth of the sacrifice mentioned in this place heare what sacrifice it may be by Augustines owne wordes in the 18. Chapter of the same booke Sed nec laudibus nostris eget c. But neither hath he need of our prayses but as it is profitable for vs and not for him that we offer sacrifice to God and because the bloud of Christe is shed for vs in that singular and onely true sacrifice therefore in those first times God commanded the sacrifices of immaculate beastes to be offered vnto him to prophecie this sacrifice by such significations that as they were imaculate from faults of their bodies so he should be hoped to be offered for vs who alone was immaculate frō sins Here the sacrifice of death is the singular sacrifice the only true sacrifice propitiatorie of the Church otherwise for the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing or for the sacrament to be called vnproperly a sacrifice of the auncient fathers I haue often confessed before As for Damascenes authoritie li. 4. Ca. 14. it is not worth the aunswering being a late writer more then 100. yeares out of the compasse and full of grosse absurdities and in the place by M. Hesk. alledged denyeth that Basill calleth breade wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exemplaria exemplaries of the bodie and bloud of Christ after the consecration which is an impudent lye for before the consecration they are no sacraments and so no exemplars of the bodie and bloud of Christe therefore if he called them exemplars it must needs be when they are sacraments that is after consecration but such lippes such lettyce he is a sufficient author for M. Heskins and yet hee is directly against transubstantiation For he saith cum sit mos hominum edere panem bibere vinum ijs rebus adiunxit suam diuinitatem whereas it is the manner of men to eate beead and drinke wine hee hath ioyned his diuinitie to these things In these words he acknowledgeth the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament the diuinitie of Christ to bee ioyned to them The nynteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Isidore Oecumenius M. Hesk. hath many friends in the lower house as hee hath neuer a one in the vpper house that fauoureth his bil Yet Isidorus saith litle for him but rather against him He citeth him lib. 1. offic Cap. 18. Panis c. The bread which we breake is the bodie of Christ which sayth I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen and the wine is his bloud and this is it that is written I am the true vine M. Hesk. saith truely that Isidore is the rather to be credited because he alledgeth the scripture and therefore according to these two textes of scripture he must be vnderstoode but neither of both these texts is to be vnderstood litterally but figuratiuely therefore his saying the breade is the bodie and the wine is his bloud must be vnderstood figuratiuely not litterally which M. Heskins perceiuing would help him out by foysting in a place of Cyrillus in Ioan. Annon conuenienter c May it not be conueniently sayde that his humanitie is the vine we the branches because wee be all of the same nature For the vine the branches be of the same nature So both spiritually corporally wee are the braunches and Christ is the vine In these wordes Cyrill reasoneth against an Arrian as is more at large declared in the sixth Chapter of this third booke that would interpret this place only of the diuinitie of Christe to make him lesse then his father as the vine is subiect to the husbandman But Cyrill contendeth that it may well be vnderstoode also of his humanitie because we are not onely ioyned to the diuinitie of Christ but also to his flesh which is testifyed vnto vs by the sacrament wherin we are spiritually fedd with the verie bodie bloud of Christe and so Christe is the vine both spiritually corporally that is both after his godhead after his manhod But Cyrillus would neuer denie that this saying I am the true vine is a figuratiue speach which is the matter in controuersie betweene M. Hesk. and vs. Oecumenius is alledged to as litle purpose as Isidorus in 1. Cor. 10. Poculum vocat c. He calleth the cupp of the bloud of Christ the cupp of blessing which we blesse which hauing in our hands we blesse him which hath giuen vs his bloude Here is neuer a worde but I will willingly subscribe vnto it yet M. Hesk. sayth it is a common manner of speache that the vessel is named by the thing that it conteineth hee dare not say it is a figuratiue speach lest while he would haue the bloud of Christ locally conteined in the cupp he might be pressed with the figure in the worde bloud which he cannot denye though he dissemble in the word cupp In the end he braggeth of an euident
verbi sanctificatur ad benedictionem mysticaâ— adeâ— actiuum fit vt possit sanctificationem nobis fuam imâ—â—ttere Therefore saith he none euill can happen vnto you though I shall be absent in flesh seeing the power of my Godhead which hath saued you hitherto shall also preserue you hereafter We speake not these thinges therefore bicause we doe not greatly esteeme the Lordes bodie but bicause wee thinke that these maruellous effectes are to be attributed to the glorie of his Godhead For euen the same body of our Lorde is sanctified by the vertue of the Worde that is ioyned with it and made so effectuall vnto the mysticall blessing that it can send in to vs the sanctification thereof Note here gentle reader that the flesh of Christ though it be absent yet by the diuine power is able to make vs partakers of his sanctification Absent I say as concerning locall presence after which it is in heauen and not vpon earth yet hath it these maruellous effectes by the glory of his Godhead as Cyrill saith that ioyning vs vnto it by faith in the participation of the holy mysteries it feedeth vs vnto eternall life The place of Cyrill in 15. Ioan. Cap. is contained and aunswered in the 6. Chapter of this third booke where you shall see that the proclamer denyeth nothing that Cyrill in that place affirmeth As for the saying of Thomas of Aquine one of the scholasticall sophisters in Diuinitie I passe ouer hee is cocke sure of M. Heskins side The seuen and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Euthym. and Hugo Concerning the antiquitie of Euthymius I haue often testified before that he is no Lorde of the higher house Notwithstanding bicause he borroweth most of his matter of the elder writers I will set downe his wordes which make nothing for M. Heskins purpose In Math. 6. Quemadmodâ—m c. As breade doâ—h comfort so the body of Christ doth the same and more also it sanctifieth both the body and the soule And as wine doth make glad so the bloud of Christe doth the same and moreouer is made a defence And if all we that are faithfull doe partake of one body and bloud we are all one by the participation of these mysteries both all in Christe and Christe in us all He that eateth saith he my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him For the wordâ— truely by assumption is vnited to the flesh and this flesh again is vnited to vs by participation This place seemeth to M. Heskins to be very plaine and so thinke I for there is nothing in it but I graunt to bee true being rightly vnderstoode M. Heskins saith he expoundeth the breade and the cuppe to be the body and bloud of Christ or else the text were cleerer then the exposition in which fantasie he pleaseth him selfe exceedingly We graunt that the breade and cup in S. Paule signifie the body and bloud of Christe which we receiue in the sacrament after a spirituall and diuine manner Thirdly he noteth that we are vnited by participation into the flesh of Christe which he saith we deny but hee lieth impudently for we constantly affirme that except we be partakers of the flesh and bloud of Christe we can not be partakers of eternall life But that this partaking is after a corporall manner or only in the sacrament that we deny And that also doth Euthymius deny in effect where he teacheth that whereas we are vnited to Christe Christe to vs so are we vnited together but this is after a spiritual ineffable manner so is the other We graunt that Cyril saith we could not be partakers of eternal life except we were ioyned to the body of natural or true life that is to the body of Christ in Ioan. 6. li. 15. but we are ioyned otherwise then by the Lords supper or els no infants shuld be partakers of eternall life Finally where M. Hes. affirmeth that the words of Euthymius by no engin â–ª can be wrested from his carnal maner of preseÌ„ce bicause he speaketh before of the transmutation of the bread wine into the body bloud of Christ I answere he speaketh of no such transmutation but that we do graunt the same namely a sacramental change such as is of the water in baptisme of which also he taketh a similitude Siquidem in baptismo sensibilis quidem est aqua sed donum intelligibile est regeneratio QuoniaÌ„ enim in nobis anima coÌ„serta est corpori in sensibilibus intelligibilia tradidit nobis Deus For in baptisme also the water truely is a sensible thing but regeneratioÌ„ is an intelligible gift For bicause our soule is inclosed in our body God hath deliuered vnto vs intelligible things in sensible things The water in baptisme is not chaunged into regeneration nor regeneration included in the water and speaking of the same transmutation hee saith the breade and wine are transmuted into the body and bloud of Christe and into the grace of them But the substance of the bread wine is not turned into the grace of the body and bloud therfore neither into the body and bloud And this is the great helpe he hath out of Euthymius As for Cardinall Hugh I will not trouble the reader with his saying whose authoritie I vtterly refuse In the latter end of this Chap. as he vseth to deale when he hath such single witnesses in hand he patcheth in a piece or two of his old stuffe serued before as that of Dionyse falsly called the Areopagite Eccle. Hierach 1. part cap. 3 answered before Li. 1. Ca. 35. That of Ambrose de mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9. lib. 2. cap. 10. ser. 2. and else where oftentimes He nameth also Irenaeus Lib. 5. aduers. haer but he setteth not downe his wordes The eight and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Oecumenius and Anselmus In the beginning of this Chapter he glorieth vainly of the multitude of writers of his side but then they must be such as he nameth in the title that is late writers although Oecumenius hath nothing that maketh strongly for him the place that is here alledged in 1. Cor. 10. is in a maner the very words of Chry. which we had euen now in the cap. 24. Vnus panis c. We are one bread one body For we are al partakers of one breade He addeth a reason howe we are made the body of Christe For what is the bread saith he forsooth the body of Christe And what are they made which partake it Surely the body of Christe For that maketh vs also partakers of the body of Christe For one breade is Christe For of many graines as for example we may speake one breade is made and we being many partaking of that one are made one body of Christe For bicause our olde flesh is corrupted vnder sinne we had neede of a newe flesh I had not thought to
haue noted Maister Heskins falsification in this place translating Corpus nempe Christi Verily the body of Christe but that hee would delude the ignoraunt reader afterwarde and say if it bee verily the body of Christe it is not figuratiuely his body as though nempe were the same that verè or propriè But herein I will leaue him to children in the Grammer schoole to be derided and boyes that neuer read three leaues of Aristotles Logike in the Vniuersities The like follie hee sheweth in preuenting our aunswere that Oecumenius speaketh of the mysticall body of Christe bycause hee speaketh first of the breade that wee receiue and after of vs that receiue it But doeth hee not say wee are made the same body that wee receiue Wherefore I will thus inferre wee are made the same body that wee receiue but wee are not made the same naturall body corporally therefore we receiue not the same natural body corporally Nowe let Maister Heskins make as much as hee can of Oecumenius authoritie and rayâ—e as long as hee list against the disagreement of Luther Zuinglius and Oecolampadius they shall bee found to agree better where they most disagree then the Pope and al his cleargie agree with Christ and the trueth when they all agree to persecute and oppresse And as concerning these properties of a true Prieste that hee gathereth out of Malachie the lawe of trueth in their mouth peace and equitie in their wayes and conuersion of men from iniquitie notwithstanding Maister Heskins slanderous pen shal be found in them and in al the true preachers of our church in the iudgment of Christ when the Pope and his Popish shauelings shal be condemned of false doctrine crueltie abhominable life in them selues and teaching the doctrine of licentiousnesse vnto others I meane the doctrine of merites satisfactions purgatorie pardoning and such like The authoritie of Anselme a professed enimie of Berengarius I resigne to M. Hes. with ten thousand such as he is not comparable in credite with one of the higher house who only are meâ—te to determine this controuersie of the manner of Christes presence in the sacrament The nine and twentieth Chapter treateth of the same text by Theophylact and Dionyse and endeth with Remigius The last couple saith M. Heskins make vp a ful Iewrie to passe for life and death but we may lawfully chalenge the aray being enpanelled by M. Heskins a partial shirif and also we haue excepted against many of the Iewrors and now do except against both these namely Theophylact of Bulgarie as a late writer and an heretique and Dionyse of the Charterhouse as one of the feeid and fed seruants of the Pope Although Theophylact being reasonably expounded according to his owne sayings in other places saith nothing directly against vs But in default of these here is a third man taken belike de circunstantibus that is Remigius whome M. Heskins to make him a lawfull Iewrie man affirmeth to haue liued Anno Dom. 511. and so within the compasse of the challenge But if he deale so wee must haue a writ against him de identitate nominis For as we finde that there was in deede one Remigius bishop of Remes about that time so likewise we finde that the authour of this commentarie in 1. Cor. 10. was bishop Antisiodocensis almost 400. yeres after namely about the yere of Christ. 894. Notwithstanding bicause his words are almost the same which are before ascribed to Hierom Cap. 17. I will not spare to set them downe Calix benedictionis c. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christe Therefore he named the cup first because he would afterward treate more at large of the bread It is called the cup of blessing which is blessed of the priestes in the altar the cuppe it selfe is called a communication as it were a participation because all do communicate of it and receiue parte of the Lordes bloud which it conteineth in it And the bread whiche we breake in the altar is it not the participation of the Lordes body Surely it is first consecrated and blessed of the priests and of the holie Ghost and afterward is broken when as now although bread be seene in trueth it is the bodie of Christ â–ª Of which bread whosoeuer do communicate they doe eate the bodie of christ Because we being many which eate that bread are one bread vnderstand of Christ and one bodie of Christ. Maister Heskins noteth that the cup conteyneth the bloud of Christ which speech may be allowed because the cup conteineth the wine which is the bloud of Christ after a certeine manner as S. Augustine saith Secondly that though it seem bread yet indeed is the body of Christ he saith Lices panis videatur Though bread be seene yet Christ his bodie is present after a spirituall and incomprehensible manner But M. Heskins wil note that all men did drinke the bloud of Christe out of the cup. And that he saith the bread is broken when it is the bodie of Christe by which wordes he denyeth transubstantiation as in the former the communion vnder one kinde Finally in affirming vs that eate that bread to be the same bodie of Christ which we do eate he doth clearly ouerthrowe the carnall manner of eating Christes body in the sacrament as he doeth establish the spirituall manner of coniunction that we haue with the bodie and bloud of Christ. The thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Ye cannot drinke of the cup of our Lorde and of the cup of diuels by S. Cyprian and Chrysostome This text saith M. Heskins is a conclusion therefore it must include sacrifice that was in the premisses But I denie that sacrifice was any of the termes in the premisses of that argument wherof this is the conclusion although it were named in the sacrifices of the Iewes and of the Gentiles euen as Israel Gentiles altar temple were likewise named and yet not to be found in this conclusion because that although they were spoken of in the discourse yet they were not in the premisses of this argument for this it is Who so euer is made one bodie with CHRISTE can not drinke of the Lordes cuppe and of the cuppe of Diuels but you are made one bodie with Christe therefore you cannot drinke the Lordes cuppe and the cuppe of diuels Now therefore to Saint Cyprian Ser. 5. de Lapsis Contra Euangelij vigorem c. Against the force of the Gospel against the law of our Lord and of God by the rashnesse of some communication is set as libertie to them that are vnprouided Which is a vaine and a false peace perillous to the giuers and nothing profitable to the receiuers They seeke not the patience of health nor the true medicine by satisfaction Repentance is shut vp from sinners The remembrance of a moste greeuous and extreeme offence is taken away The woundes of
in alcari Dei c. This that you see on the altare of God you sawe the night last past But what it was what i◠mean◠of howe great a thing it conteined the sacrament you haue not yet heard therefore that which you sawe is bread and a cuppe which thing also your eyes doe tell you ▪ But that your faith requireth to be instructed The breade is the bodie of Christe the cuppe is his bloud Our Lorde Iesus Christe wee knowe whence he receiued fleshe 〈◊〉 of the virgine Marie Hee was suckled being an infant he was norished he grewe he came to the age of a young man he suffered persecution of the Iewes hee was hanged on the tree he was killed on the tree he was buryed he rose againe the thirde day That day he woulde ascende into heauen thither he lifted vp his bodie from whence he shall come to iudge both the quicke and the dead There he is nowe sitting at the right hand of the father Howe is the breade his bodie and the cuppe or that which the cupp containeth how is it his bloud Brethren these things are therefore called sacraments because one thing in them it seene another thing is vnderstoode that which is seene hath a corporall shewe that which is vnderstoode hath a spirituall fruite I doubt not but euery Christian man that readeth this saying vnderstandeth it to be verie cleere against both transubstantiation and the carnall presence as is shewed before lib. 2. Cap. 37. which that Maister Heskins might obscure he maketh a smoke to bleare mens eyes that they might not see any thing therin but the altar Wherefore he rayleth like him selfe against the proclaimer charging him bothe to haue falsified S. Augustine and also truncately to haue alledged him because saith he he citeth him thus Quod videtis in mensa panis est that ye see in the table is bread whereas Augustine sayeth in the altar and not on the table which he durst not name for shame But with what shame Heskins can so reuile and slaunder that godly learned father you shall see by that which followeth immediately where he leaueth in Augustine and iudge whether Master Heskins left out the wordes for shame or else because his note booke serued him no further Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelligere audi Apostolum dicentem fidelibus vos estis corpus Christi membra Si ergo vot estis corpus Christi membra mysterium vestrum in MENSA positum est Mysteria Domini accipitis ad quod estis Amen respondetis respondendo subscribitis Audis ergo corpus Christi respondes Amen Esto membrum corporis Christi vt verum sit Amen tuum quare ergo in pane nihil hic de nostro affiramus Ipsum Apostolum item audiamus Cum ergo de isto sacramento loqueretur ait vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus Intelligite gaudete Therefore if thou wilt vnderstande the bodie of Christ heare the Apostle saying to the faithfull you are the bodie of Christ and his members If you therefore be the bodie of Christ and his members your mysterie is set on the TABLE you receiue the Lords mysterie wherunto you are you aunswere Amen and in aunswering you subscribe Thou hearest therfore the bodie of Christ and thou aunswerest Amen bee thou a member of the bodie of Christe that thy Amen may bee true Why then in bread let vs here bring nothing of our owne Let vs likewise heare the Apostle Therefore when hee spake of this sacrament he sayeth There is one bread wee being many are one bodie vnderstand ye reioyce ye I trust you see by this that the altar he spake of was a table as you see also how the sacrament is the bodie of Christ. But lest hee might replye that the table was an altar I must further alledge Saint Augustines authoritie that it was a table for it was made of boordes and was remouable For speaking of the Deacons of Rome in Quaest. vet non test q. 101 he sayth Vt antem non omnia ministeria obsequiorum per ordinem agant multitudo fecit clericorum nam vtique altare portarem vasa euis aquam in manus sunderent sacerdoti ficut videmus per omnes ecclesias But that they doe not perfourme all the ministeries of their seruice in order the multitude of Clerkes hath caused for surely they shoulde both carrie the altar and the vessels thereof and powre water on the Priestes handes as wee see it in all churches That they were of boordes and tymber and not of stone lest the Papistes should dreame of their Altare portatiue that their hedge priestes carrie in their sleeues to say Masse in corners the same Augustine writing to Bonifacius Ep. 50. sheweth in these wordes speaking of the insurrection of the Donatistes against Maximianus a catholike bishop of Sagium Stantem ad altare irruente◠horrendo impetu furore crudeli fustibus huiusmodi telis lignis denique eiusdem altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt Rushing in with an horrible violence and cruell furie they stroke him moste outragiously standing at the altare with staues and such like weapons yea euen with the boordes of the same altare which they brake in peeces The like complaint maketh Optatus in his booke against the Donatistes sauing that he nameth not wood or bordes yet it is plaine by the circumstance that hee spake of none other The place as Maister Heskins citeth it is this Quid est tam sacrilegum c. What is so great sacriledge as to breake scrape or shaue and remoue the altares of God in which you also sometimes haue offered on which the prayers of the people and the members of Christ haue been borne at which God almightie hath beene called vppon where the holie Ghost being desired hath come downe from which the pledge of aeternall life and the sauegarde of faith and the hope of resurrection hath beene receiued of many the altares I say vpon which our Sauiour hath commaunded the giftes of the fraternitie not to be layde but such as are made of peace Lay downe saith hee thy gifte before the altare and returne and firste agree with thy brother that the Priest may offer for thee For what is the altar but the seat of the bodie and bloud of Christe All these your furie hath either scraped or broken or remoued What hath God done to you which was wont to be called vpon there What had Christe offended you whose bodie and bloud dwelleth there at certeine momentes And what doe you offende your selues to breake the altars on which long time before vs as you thinke you haue offered holily Thus haue you followed the Iewes They layde handes vppon Christe on the crosse of you he was striken in the altar of whome the Prophet Helias complaineth to the Lorde speaking in the same wordes with which you among other haue deserued to bee accused Lorde sayeth he they haue
or of any mans meanly learned and therfore I will not vouchsafe such a grosse counterfet of any answere The rest of the Chapter beeing spent in rayling I will answere with silence concluding that as here is little for sole receiuing conteined in this Chapter so for priuate Masse here is nothing at all The two and fortieth Chapter proueth the trueth of those matters of the sacrament by that it hath pleased God to confirme the same with miracles First M. Hesk. compareth himselfe with Helias which challenged the Priests of Baal to shewe a miracle so he challengeth the Lutherans and sacramentaries to bring forth first some miracle But he could neuer heare of any sauing one and that was of Luther which he reporteth of himselfe as he saith in his Booke of the priuate Masse and as Prateolus sayeth in his Booke De Missa Angulari but where it is written I could neuer yet finde though I haue made some searche for it Luther reporteth that the Diuell awaked him out of his sleepe at midnight and disputed with him that the priuate Masse is horrible idolatrie c. For any thing that I can perceiue by the wordes cited by Maister Heskins there is no miracle at al spoken of by Luther but only he confesseth what inward temptations of Sathan he susteined for saying priuate Masse by the space of 15. yeares together Which the Papistes after their accustomed synceritie doe interprete as though he boasted of a miracle as though he were persuaded by the diuell to forsake the priuate Masse as a thing abominable But Luther in deede in this booke written against the priuate Masse vtterly reiecteth all miracles that are alledged to mainteine false doctrine contrarie to the worde of God and namely those miracles that are reported to haue beene done to confirme the credite of the priuate Masse which either were feigned as a great number were or else wrought by the sleight of Sathan to establish idolatrie as in all Heathen nations the diuell hath thus wrought miracles to confirme the people in their errours Thus therefore we are to iudge of miracles that they are euen as the doctrine for which they are alledged so that if Maister Heskins can not proue his priuate Masse and other heresies by scripture they will be made neuerthelesse by miracles But let vs heare in order what worshipful miracles he alledgeth First a feigned fable out of a counterfet writer called Amphilochius that a Iewe sawe in Saint Basils hand a childe diuided Then a tale out of Vituspatium of as good authoritie as Legenda Aurea that the sacramente was turned into bloudie fleshe to a doubting olde man Next out of Optatus Libro 2. Contra Donat. That dogges after they had eaten the sacrament caste vnto them by the Donatistes ranne madde and werried their Maisters Which last might be a true iust punishment of God against the Donatistes for their heresie yet proueth it not that the dogges did eate the body of Christe which God forbid that any Christian man should thinke Another miracle is reported by S. Augustine Lib. 22. De ciuitate Dei Cap. 8. That one of his priestes saying Masse in a house that was molested with the power of the diuell deliuered the house from such disquietnesse This belike is alledged for the priuate Masse But that proueth nothing For Augustine in that place nameth no Masse he saith he offered there the sacrifice of the bodie of Christe praying that the house might be deliuered from that molestatioÌ„ and so it came to passe Now it is nothing credible that he offerâ—d that sacrifice alone but that the owner of the house and all his familie did there communicate with him and therefore here is nothing to helpe the priuate Masse in this miracle Next vnto this interlacing certeine sentences of Bernarde of the vertue of the sacrament he returneth to miracles and then telleth a tale out of Paule the Deacon of a noble woman of Rome for whom S. Gregorie by prayer turned the sacramental bread into the fourme of A very bloudie fleshly litle finger A faire miracle I promise you but if it had beene true Gregorie that was so light of credite to beleeue and report so many miracles would haue written it him selfe But Gregorie though otherwise full of superstition was not yet come to the carnall manner of presence Two miracles are rehearsed of his reporte one of a prisoner that was deliuered out of his chaynes when Masse was saide for him by his wiues procurement supposing he had ben dead Gregorie in deede speaketh of sacrifices whiche perhaps were prayers and not the Masse But if he speake of that prophanation of the sacrament that in his time tooke some strength to offer it for the dead yet he speaketh of another maner of offring then the Papistes vse For thereof he saith in the same place as Maister Heskins confesseth Hinc ergo c. Of this decree brethren gather you certeinely how great a band of conscience in vs the holie sacrifice offered by our owne selues is able to loose if beeing offered for another it could in another loose the bandes of the body These wordes declare the sacrifice was such as euerie one might offer for himselfe which coulde not be the sacrifice of the Masse which only the priest offereth The last miracle is of Agapetus that by giuing the sacrament to a dumb man restored him to his speech Admitting this to be true it maketh nothing for the carnal manner of presence which the Church of Rome at that time had not receiued And although such miracles might now be wrought by Papistes we would giue no more credite vnto them then they could winne by Gods worde for so we are taught by God him sefe Irenaeus a moste auncient writer of great credite testifieth Lib. Cap. 9. that Marcus the heretike by his sorcerie caused the wine in the cup at his ministration to appeare purple and redde like bloud that the people might thinke that Christ dropped his bloud into his cup through his prayer likewise he wrought so cunningly that he multiplied the wine so that out of a litle cruse he filled a great pot so ful that it ranne ouer But the Church of God was not moued by these lying miracles to giue credite to his false doctrine or to think that he had the bloud of Christ in his challice for all that counterfet shewe of bloud which he made no more wil we beleue the Papistes pretending miracles coÌ„trarie to the word of god And as for diuers of these miracles which he alledgeth to confirme the dignitie of the Masse they were done or at least said to be done before the Masse was throughly shapen and therfore if they be true yet they confirme not the doctrin of the Masse which was afterward inuented Finally wheras he vrgeth the proclaymer to bring one miracle for the confirmation of his religioÌ„ although it were an easie matter to bring foorth many signes of
in due examination vprightnesse of faith and puritie of life And this faith hee determineth to be the Apostolique and Catholique faith which must be learned of hearing as Saint Paule saith Faith commeth of hearing and as he saith it must bee learned of the Elders and so bee continued by tradition But Saint Paule saith Hearing must be of the worde of God for Elders may erre as well as youngers but the worde of GOD can not erre neither can he erre that followeth the doctrine of the worde of GOD in any thing Vnto purenesse of life he requireth confession alledging the confession of Augspurge for the confirmation thereof as though Christian confession and the Popish shrift were all one As fond it is that he saith the Apostles were instructed by Christe in the faith of the sacrament before the institution thereof by the miracle of the fiue loaues and in purenesse of life by washing of his disciples feete Where yet was neither contrition confession nor satisfaction After this he rayleth vpon Luther for saying that onely faith maketh men pure and worthie to receiue as though by so saying he did exclude the fruites of repentance and reformation of manners which necessarily do followe of a true and liuely faith which onely maketh vs righteous in the sight of God and worthie receiuers by reputation or acceptation which in the conclusion Maister Heskins himselfe confesseth to be all the worthines that any man hath or can haue to be partaker of the body and bloud of Christ. The foure and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the Fathers vpon the same text with Saint Hierome and Saint Chrysostome S. Hierome is alledged in 1. Cor. 11. Si in linteum vel vat sordidum non illud mittere audeat c. If a man dare not put that thing into a soule cloth or vessell howe much more in a defiled hart which vncleannesse God aboue all things detesteth and which is the only iniurie that can be done to his body For euen therefore did Ioseph that righteous man burie the Lordes body wrapped in a cleane linnen cloth in a newe tombe prefiguring that they which should receiue the Lords body should haue both a cleane minde and a new M. Heskins saith these wordes make plaine for the presence of Christ in that Hierome saith we receiue the body of Christe And who denyeth either the presence of Christ or that we receiue the body of Christ in the sacrament Only we differ whether Christ be present bodily and whether we receiue his body after a corporall manner or after a spirituall or heauenly manner It is pitie he can not see in Hieromes wordes that Christes body must be receiued in a cleane sort as in a cleane vessell And whereas Maister Heskins translateth mittere illud to put that body into a foule cloth or vessell it is maruell he considered not that which aunswereth in similitude to a foule vessell namely a foule heart He thought by that translation or rather falsification to make it seeme that wicked men receiue the body of Christe with the mouth but his authour saith with a filthie heart which is the only iniurie that can be done to the body of Christe therefore he speaketh of the wicked presuming to receiue the sacrament of his body and bloud not affirming that they do it in deede For vpon these wordes He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation he saith Dupliciter reus effectus presumptionis scilicet peccati Being made twise guiltie namely of presumption and sinne and vpon those words He shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde hee saith Quia tanti mysterij sacramentum pro vili despexerit bicause he hath despised the sacrament of so great a mysterie as nothing worth But Maister Heskins citeth another place of Saint Hierome against the licentious doctrine of Luther as he saith that would haue none other preparation but onely faith also to maintaine his carnall presence Lib. 1. Apoll. contra Iouinian Probet se vnusquisque c. Let euery man examine him self and so let him come to the Lords body He would not saith he call it the body of Christe if it were but bread Howe often shall I tell him that it is one thing to say it is breade an other thing to say it is but breade The former we say and also that it is Christes body the latter we vtterly deny But Saint Hierome more at large is cited in 1. Cor. 11. vpon these wordes of Saint Paule Who so euer shall eate of this breade and drinke of this cup of the Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde Sicut scriptum est Omnis mundus manducabit c. As it is written Euery cleane person shall eate it and againe The vncleane soule that shall eate it shall be rooted out from his people And our Lorde him selfe saith If before the altar thou shalt remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee leaue thy gifâ— before the altar and goe and be reconciled to thy brother Therefore the conscience must first be searched if it doe in nothing reprehend vs and so we ought either to offer or to communicate There be some that say he doth not here forbid an vnworthie person from the holy thing but him that receiueth vnworthily If therefore the worthie person comming vnworthily he drawne backe howe much more the vnworthy person which can not receiue worthily Wherfore it behoueth the idle person to cease from vices that he may holily receiue the holy body of our Lord. In these wordes Maister Heskins noteth the preparation required against Luthers onely faith and the thing receiued to be the holy body of our Lorde I haue aunswered before that Luthers onely faith doth not exclude but of necessitie drawe with it all things requisite to a due preparation And that the holy body of our Lorde is receiued of the faithfull wee doe willingly confesse but not of the vnfaithfull and wicked persons For the same Hierome in the Chapter before cited vpon this saying of the Apostle This is my body writeth thus Qui manducat corpus meum bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo Vnde agnoscere se debet quisquis Christi corpus edit aut sanguinem bibit ne quid indignum ei faciat cuius corpus effectus est Hee that eateth my body and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Wherefore hee ought to knowe him selfe who so euer either eateth the body of Christe or drinketh his bloud that hee doe nothing vnworthily to him whose body hee is made This sentence plainely declareth both howe the body and bloud of Christe are eaten and dronken and of whome namely they are so receiued as hee that receiued them is made the body of Christe that is of necessitie spiritually and they are receiued of them in whome Christe dwelleth and they in him therefore of
celebration of the communion an oblation or sacrifice of the bodie and blood of christ It is great leudenesse and deceiptfulnes to vrge the termes vsed by the doctors and to refuse their meaning sufficiently expressed in diuers places of their writings SECTIO 17. in the 64. leafe Whereas the bishop saith it is Christ which presenteth â—s and maketh vs a sweet oblation in the sight of his father M. Rastell denyeth that it followeth not that the priest offereth not Christ because Saint Augustine saith de ciuit dei lib. 10. cap. 20. that as the church is offered by Christ so Christ is offered by the Church But that which Augustine maketh here common to al the Church maister Rastel restreineth to his popish priests And although Augustine in the same place expounde himselfe sufficiently when he saith the daily sacrifice of the church is a sacrament of the oblation of Christ yet in Cap. 5. of the same book he speaketh most plainely Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum id est sacrum signum est Therefore the visible sacrifice is a sacrament that is to say an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifie What can bee saide more plainly concerning his meaning by the terme of sacrifice SECTIO 18. From the first face of the 65. leafe to the ende of the 67. leafe The blasphemous prayers of the Popishe Canon which desireth God to accept the body of his sonne as he did accept the sacrifice of Abel and of Melchisedech he excuseth by vehemency of deuotion and by the vnworthines of the offerer as though either of both should be the cause why Christs body should not be acceptable of it selfe Last of all he flyeth to the example of the figuratiue speaches vsed by the holy ghost in the Psalmes and canticles as where God is saide to sleepe to awake as giant refreshed from his wine yea to the rethoricall figures vsed by men as he saith by Bernard Bonauentur Gregorie in the hymmes of the church which he matcheth vnfitly with the holy scriptures But how will he make this prayer a figuratiue speach that it may be excused by any such example For seeing he will admit no figure in the word body or oblation the other wordes are plaine without figure God to accept the sacrifice of Abel c. SECTIO 19. From the 68. leafe to the seconde face of the 69. leafe The foolish prayer of the Canon that an Angel should carie away the body of Christ he defendeth to be meant after a spirituall manner caueleth of the bishops translating of perferri to be caried away which signifieth to be caried vp which is a toy to mocke an Ape for neither doth the bishop talke of Angels backes such other bables as M. Rastel deliteth to prate of but of the fond absurditie of the Papistes which imagine the ministerie of Angels necessarie for the carying of Christs body or as he saith excusing the matter for the acceptacioÌ„ of their sacrifice But in very deede this prayer being taken out of the old liturgies wherein they desired not the sacrament but their sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing to be presented to God by the ministery of Angels is so absurde when it is applyed to the transubstantiated body that it can haue no reasonable sense as it had in the liturgie cited by S. Ambrose and other old liturgies where the like prayer is made for their sacrifice but they beleued not their sacrifice to be the very natural body of Christ as the Papists say they doe SECTIO 20. in the 69 leafe Where the bishop giueth ouer to speak further of the Canon maister Rastel saith it was because he had no mater against it but his owne misunderstanding But what matter he had howe well hee hath mainteined it his aunsweres to maister Harding sufficiently declare SECTIO 21. in the 70. leafe Against adoration of the sacrament he saith we haue no arguments at al but such as may serue for ouerthrow of all orders in the Church In deede these argumentes may well and worthily serue to ouerthrow all plantes not planted by christ For why may not one hatchet serue to cut downe an hundreth fruitlesse and hurtfull trees SECTIO 22. in the same leafe to the second face of the 71. leafe That Christ gaue no commaundement of adoration he saith it is no sufficient reason first because we must not condemne all voluntary seruice of God which is without his commaundement Then belike S. Paul was not well aduised when he condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is voluntarie worshippe of God without his commaundement Coll. 2. vers 23. And where as he cauilleth of them that worshipped our sauiour Christ in the fleshe I aunswere as many as acknowledged him to be the sonne of god knewe they had an expresse coÌ„mandemeÌ„t to worship him The rest reuerenced him as the prophet of god And whereas he saith like a protestant that an argument of authority negatiue is naught and protestant like I aunswere an argument of mans authoritie negatiue is naught but an argument of Gods authority negatiue I am content it be counted protestant like in as much as God hath expresly forbidden what so euer he hath not commaunded in his worship Deuter. 12. vers 32. Contrariwise to reason from the authoritie of men negatiuely is Papistlike and the best argument they haue for many things as if they be asked why say they not masse in englishe they will answere because the Church hath not commanded them Why doe you not giue the communion to Infants Maister Rastel saith in this booke because the Church doth not commaund it Why doth not the priest weare his chisible other vestments at euen song Because the church hath not commaunded it But maister Rastel saith Christ hauing said the sacrament to be his body needed not to commaunde the same to bee worshippid no more then the king when he speaketh to the Lords in the darke needeth to bid theÌ„ put of their caps A dark example for such an obscure argumeÌ„t But when will he proue that Christ is the same in the sacrament that the king is in the darke for remoue the darke the king is seene but take away the accidentes of breade and wine by your owne schoolâ— doctrine and where is the bodie of Christ SECTIO 23. From the seconde face of the 71. leafe to the 2. face of the 72. leafe He decideth the argument taken out of the authoritie of saint Paule negatiuely who declareth the whole institution of Christ and neuer willed adoration to be vsed to the sacrament And asketh whether S. Paul command vs to stand kneele lye or fit to tumble leane vpon brest or elbowes I aunswere whatsoeuer of these gestures is decent orderly he hath appointed the other he hath forbidden And yet the protestantes logike which hee doth so delicately contemne is not so simple
in spite of your heart for I will be at masse as soone as you and then will I receiue at my Masse when you receiue at your Masse and so by our owne principle whereby wee defend our priuate Masses to be communions I will communicate with you whether you will or no yea I can not choose but communicate with you if I say Masse when you doe And if you will say to me that I ought not to say Masse being excommunicate I tell you you can not excommunicate me so long as I can say Masse For though you count me excōmunicate yet you knowe by our owne diuinitie that if I doe say Masse notwithstanding your censure I doe consecrate as well as the proudest of you and after I haue consecrated I will receiue and then I communicate and so your excommunication is no excommunication at all SECTIO 48. in the 155. leafe Whereas the Bishop said that the Masse had nether her name nor her partes vntill foure hundreth yeares after Christe he aunswereth that she had the essentiall and necessarie partes but not the garnishing and decking parts So that by his owne confession it was a namelesse and naked Masse which they had in the church for foure hundreth yeares after Christes So that the later times with him were alwayes more wise and more religious then the former newe deuises better then olde customes And where then is there the proud challenge of antiquitie vniuersalitie consent Apostolike tradition And if the Church might be without the Popish Masse so long after Christe why should they teach that nowe it is so necessarie as there ought to be none other forme of communion vsed in the Church of God but it SECTIO 49. M. Rastel protesting once or twise that he was wearie will now conclude with onely confuting these conclusions of M. Iewels comparison S. Iames Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well neere nothing else but mans inuention To disproue this he saith the epistle and Gospell the collets of the Sunday the Hymne of the Angell the confession of faith the saying of Agnus Dei c. are translated out of their Masse into our communion therefore we take them for parte of Christes institution I answere we take them as Christes institution and not as commended by the Masse and yet are they no parte of the communion though they be vsed in our liturgie some before and some after the communion Secondly he would seeme to confute the Bishops saying that Saint Iames Masse had Christes institution because if we had thought so in deede we would haue translated it into English and so haue vsed it in steede of the Popish Masse and then it would haue seemed more superstitious and full of ceremonies then the Popish Masse And so he rehearseth a number of superstitious ceremonies gestures and prayers that are in it I answere the Bishop said truely as he thought that the liturgie falsely ascribed to Saint Iames hath Christes institution concerning the Lorde Supper notwithstanding it be ful fraught with idle ceremonies and some superstitious and erronious prayers whereas the Popish Masse hath cleane ouerturned the institution of Christ touching the ende of the Lordes supper reteyning well neere nothing of Christes institution except you will say it hath bread and wine which it most horribly abuseth to the prophanation of Christes death and most filthie idolatrie Finally the saluation of the virgine Marie whiche was then aliue although it were more meere to be vsed to her person beeing aliue then after she was departed out of this worlde the prayer made for them that liued in monasteries the tearme of consubstantiall not heard of in the Church before the Nicene councell and many other argumentes doe sufficiently proue that the saide liturgie was not written by Saint Iames the Apostle nor by any that liued many hundreth yeares after him to the iudgements of al men that haue either knowledge to discerne trueth from falshoode or conscience to acknowledge that which they can not choose but know And euen Bartholomew Garanza a Papist that gathered the abridgement of councels affirmeth that the liturgie which Saint Iames vsed is not extant at this day O Lord bring into the way of trueth all such as erre of simplicitie and be not mercifull to those that sinne of malicious wickednesse After this clearkly confutation followeth a counterfet challenge as he pretendeth to shew the Bishops follie but in deede to shewe his owne follie and the weaknesse of his cause which he learned not as he saith of Salomon to answere a foole according to his follie but of Menalcas one of Virgils sheepheardes in his thirde Eglogue which when he could not answer the ridle propounded vnto him by his aduersarie he putteth for than other as harde as he thinketh Dic quibus in terris c. His first section conteineth 21. articles whereof the greatest parte are not helde at all by any of vs therefore there is no cause why we should proue them the rest be matters of meere indifferencie which may be vsed or left vndon without any hurt of our religion some perhaps may be proued which he litle thinketh of to his shame Of the first sort are these 1. that there was no drie communion and we say there ought to be none although the Papistes make a drie communion when they robbe the people of the cuppe of the Lordes bloud The thirde that Bishops did not sweare by their honour we affirme they ought not to sweare nor yet by God as I heard Boner sweare being conuented before the Bishop of Winchester his Chauncelour and a great number of persons beeing present The 4. that bagpipers horscoursers gailers alebasters were not admitted into the Cleargie without sufficient triall We affirme they ought not nor yet any of the scullerie or blacke garde as some yet liuing were made Priestes in Queene Maries time The 6. that no Bishoppe not content with prisoning his aduersaries call vppon Princes to put them to cruell death We holde that no Bishop should imprison his aduersary much lesse procure his death but if the challenge had beene of Gods aduersaries I would haue aunswered otherwise For if in 600. yeares none of Gods aduersaries was or ought to haue beene put to death by procurement of Bishops by what ground of antiquitie doe Popish Bishops procure so many to be put to death yea murther them selues in their prisons and inquisitions vnder pretence that they be Gods aduersaries The 17. that no Bishoppe did gather beneuolence of his Cleargie to marrie his daughter c. We aunswere this no way concerneth religion no more then putting of the ring on the womans left hande which is the 18. or calling the people by ringing of a bell whiche is the 21. Now concerning the rest as the seconde that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper except there be a good number to communicate three or foure at the least