gather that Augustine doth acknowledge both spiritual and corporal receiuing by like bicause he saith that many euil men do eat and drinke the body bloud of Christ in a sacrament but what he meaneth is plain by his owne words in the same treatise Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere potum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio nec maÌ„ducat spiritualiter carnem eiuâ— nec bibit eius sanguinem licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus saecramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat bibit This it is therefore to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke to abide in Christ to haue him abiding in him And by this he that abideth not in Christe and in whome Christ abideth not out of dout neither eateth spiritually his flesh nor drinketh his bloud although carnally and visibly hee presse with his teeth the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ but rather eateth and drinketh to his owne damnation the sacrament of so excellent a thing And that the wicked receiue not Christ at all neither spiritually nor corporally he writeth in the 59. Tr. in Ioan. Illi manducabant panem Dominum ille panem Domini contra dominum illi vitam ille poenam They meaning the Apostles did eat the bread which was our Lorde but he meaning Iudas did eat the Lords bread against the Lord they did eate life hee did eat punishment Here he denyeth that Iudas did eat Christe who did only eat the bread which Christ gaue him and not that bread which was Christe as the rest did But nowe let vs see howe Cyrillus doth expound this text of the sacrament In 15. Ioan. Mariet enim c. Both the natures abide inuiolated and of them both Christâ— is one but vnspeakably and beyonde that mans mynde can vnderstand The woorde conioyned to the manhoode hath so reduced it wholy into him selfe that it is able to giue life to thinges lacking life So hath it expelled destruction from the nature of man and death which by sinne was very strong it hath destroyed Wherefore he that eateth the flesh of Christ hath euerlasting life For this flesh hath the word of God which is naturally life Therefore he saith and I will raise him againe in the last day He said I that is my body that shall be eaten shall raise him again For he is none other then his flesh I say not that bicause he is none other by nature but bicause after his incarnation he suffereth not him selfe to be diuided into two sonnes I therefore saith he which am made man by my flesh in the last day will raise them vp which do eat it But yet an other place of Cyrill In 6. Ioan. Cap. 14 Oportet c. Truely it must needes so haue bene that not only the soule by the holy Ghost should ascend into blessed life but also that this rude and earthly body by a like natured taste touching and meate should be brought to immortalitie In neither of both these sentences is one worde of the sacrament and thereforâ— they fauour M. Hesk. exposition as much as nothing at al. The eighteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text in the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn by Origen and S. Ambrose The text is My flesh is verily meat and my bloud is verily drinke And here hee maketh a fond and childish discourse of the difference of verus cibus true meate and verè cibus meate in deede or verily meate Which distinction is confounded by Origen one of his pretended expositors in the very text by him alledged and in many other places of his workes where he speaketh of this text But to the exposition before he commeth to Origen hee toucheth a place of Chrysostome That reipsa conuertimur in â—arnem Christi in very deede we are turned into the flesh of Christ. Which wordes if they be not vnderstoode of a spirituall conuersion good Lord what a monstrous transubstantion shall we haue of our flesh into the flesh of Christ But Papistes had rather mingle heauen and earth together then they will depart from their prodigious absurdities But to Origen in Num. Hom. 7. Lex Dei c. The lawe of God is not nowe knowen in figures and images as before but euen in plaine trueth and such things as were before set forth in a dark speache are nowe fulfilled in plaine maner trueth Of which things these that followe are some Antea in aenigmate fuit baptismus in nube in mari nunc autem in specie regeneratio est in aqua Spiritu sancto Tunc in aenigmate erat Manna cibus nunc autem in specie caro verbi Dei verus cibus sicut ipse dicit Caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potur Before Baptisme was in a darke manner in the clowde and in the sâ—â— but nowe regeneration is in plaine manner in water and the holie Ghost Then Manna was the meate in a darke manner But nowe the fleshe of the worde of God is the true meate in a plaine maner as he him selfe sayth my fleshe is meat in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede In these wordes Origen teacheth that the sacramentes of the Gospell are cleare and plaine whereas in the lawe they were obscure and darke Neither doth he denye that the Gospell hath figures but affirmeth it hath none other figures but such as serue to open and set forth the mysteries more plainly whereas the ceremonies of the olde lawe did rather hide and couer them And if it be true as M. Heskins sayeth that the Gospell hath no figures I woulde knowe what be all the ceremonies of the Popish Church figures of the Gospell or false inuentions of men But if wee will beleeue him our onely spirituall receiuing is impugned by Origen In what wordes good sir he answereth The fleshe of the sonne of God is eaten in verie plaine manner And may not this be spiritually as well as regeneration is spiritually wrought in baptisme and yet in the same playne manner that this eating is spoken of But let vs heare what Origâ—n him selfe will say in the same booke Hom. 16. Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem Christi non solùm sacramentorum ritu sed cum sermones eius recipimuâ— in quibus vita consistit sicut ipse dicit c. We are sayde to drinke the bloud of Christe not onely in the ceremonie of the sacramentes but also when wee receiue his sayings in which life consisteth as he him selfe saith In these wordes hee teacheth such a drinking in the sacramentes as in beleeuing his woorde and therefore it must needes bee spirituall and not carnall And as the cloud and Sea was baptisme so was Manna
be his owne substaunce as it is not appearing which is altogether vnchangeable and more inwardly and secretly higher then all the spirites which he hath created He rayleth vpon Oecolampadius for leauing out of S. Augustine that which maketh against him as though hee him selfe hath not an hundreth times done so as he chargeth him Although it is not to be thought that Oecolampadius vsed any fraud when he tooke as much as serued his purpose for which he alledged it and nothing folowed that was contrarie to it for all M. Heskins lowde crying out For Paule preached Christe by signifying in the sacrament which is called the body bloud of Christ bicause it is a sacrament thereof whereas his tong nor his parchment nor ynke nor sound of words nor figures of letters were no sacraments and yet he preached the same Christ by signifying in speaking writing and ministring the sacrament But besides this M. Heskins would haue vs note two things That the bread is sanctified and made a great sacrament and that it is sanctified and made by the inuisible worke of the holy Ghost The first he saith is against Oecolampadius Cranmer that say the creatures receiue no sanctification but the soules of men They meane that holinesse is not included in the creatures but consisteth in the whole action and so Augustine addeth to the consecration the due receiuing in remembrance of Christes death without which the bread is no sacrament But M. Heskins would learne what he meaneth by calling it a great sacrament and what the worke of the holy Ghost is in it If it please him to vnderstand the holy Ghost working inuisibly maketh it a greate mysterie of our saluation assuring our consciences that we are fed spiritually with the body and bloud of Christ as our bodies are corporally with bread and wine As for S. Iames his Masse and other such maâ—king disguisings I will not vouchsafe to aunswere being meere forgeries and counterfetings But howe S. Augustine did expound these wordes M. Heskins if he durst might haue cyted this place Contra Adimantum Nam ex eo quod scriptum est sanguinem pecoris animam eius esse prÄ™ter id quod supra dixi non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris anima possum etiam interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim Dominus dubitanit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui For of that which is written that the bloud of a beast is the life thereof beside that which I said before that it pertaineth not to me what becommeth of the life of a beast I may interprete that commandement to be giuen in a signe for our Lord doubted not to say this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body This place is plaine and will not suffer M. Heskins glose that the accidents are called a signe of his body for then it is nothing like to the text which he compareth to this bloud is the life of the beast Let this place expound Augustine when so euer he nameth the sacrament the body of Christ. The fiue and fiftieth Chapter tarieth in the exposition of the same wordes by Chrysostome and Sedulius Chrysostome is cyted In 26. Math. Hom. 83. Credamus vbique c. Let vs beleeue in euery place neither let vs resist him although it seemeth to be an absurde thing to our sense and to our cogitation which is saide Let his word I beseech you ouercome both our sense and our reason which thing let vs do in all matters and specially in mysteries not looking vpon those things only which lye before vs but also holding fast his wordes For we can not be deceiued by his wordes but our sense is most easie to be deceiued they can not be false but this our sense is often and often deceiued Therefore bicause he hath saide This is my body let vs be held with no doutfulnesse but let vs beleeue and throughly see it with the eyes of vnderstanding Here M. Heskins noteth that it passeth not reason to make present a figure of his body as though the mysterie of the sacrament were nothing but a figure of his body Secondly that Chrysostome willeth Christes wordes to be vnderstanded as they be spoken No doubt but he would haue them to be vnderstoode as they were meant by Christe and that is spiritually for which cause he willeth vs to beholde the matter with the eyes of our vnderstanding and by faith And whereas M. Heskins doth further alledge this Doctours wordes In Marc. 14. Hom. 51. Qui dixis c. He that saide This is my body did bring to passe the thing also with his worde We confesse he did so but thereof it doth not followe that al figure is wiped away as he saith neither is there any plaine place for the proclamer or in any thing that followeth in the same Homely Quando igitur c. When then thou seest the Priest giue the body thinke not the hand of the Priest but the hand of Christe is put foorth vnto thee Surely in these wordes we must either say that the Priestes hande is transubstantiated into the hande of Christ or else we must acknowledge a figuratiue speach It followeth in Chrysostome for more persuasion Qui enim maius c. For he that hath giuen a greater thing for thee that is to say his life why will he disdaine to deliuer his body to thee Let vs therefore heare both Priestes and other howe great and how woonderfull a thing is graunted to vs Let vs heare I pray you and let vs tremble he hath deliuered his flesh vnto vs him selfe offered hath he set before vs What satisfaction therefore shall we offer when after we are nourished with such a foode we doe offend When eating a lambe we are turned into woolues when beeing satisfied with sheepes flesh we rauine as lyons M. H. noteth that here be termes to plaine for figuratiue speaches yet in spite of his nose he must coÌ„fesse al this speach to be figuratiue or else he must make Chrysost. Authour of grosse absurdities I will only speak of one which is most apparant Chrysost. saith it is a greater matter that Christ gaue his life then that he giueth his body Let me aske him this question Doth hee giue a dead body in the sacrament or a liuing If hee giue a liuing body hee giueth his life in the sacrament and then howe is it lesse when hee giueth both his life and his body But Chrysostome meaneth that he suffered death which is a greater matter then that he giueth vs his body in the sacrament for that is a memoriall of his death and receiueth all the vertue from his death so the giuing of his life is a greater matter then the giuing of his body in the sacrament for the was in acte this in mysterie But let vs followe M. Hes. The sacrament is a wonderful thing
celebrate with a sheepe another that wee do celebrate in the bodie bloud of Christ. But Augustines wordes not truncately and by peece meale rehearsed nor altered are these Contrae literas Petiliani lib. 2. Cap. â—7 Sed sicut aliud est carnis circumcisio Iudeorum aliud autem quod octauo die baptizatorum nos celebratius et aliud est Pascha quod adhuc illi de Oue celebrant aliud autem quod nos in corpore sanguine domini accipimus sic alius fuit baptismus Ioannis alius est baptismus Christi illis enim ventura ista praemanciabantur istis completa illa praedicantur But euen as the circumcision of the fleshe of the Iewes is one thing and that which wee do celebrate the eyght day of them that are baptized is another thing and the Passeouer whiche they do yet celebrate of a sheepe is one thing and that which wee receiue in the bodie and bloud of the Lorde is another thing So the baptisme of Iohn was one and the baptisme of Christe is another for by those things these things were foreshewed to come by these those things are preached to be accomplished First the supper is not made here another Passeouer but another thing that is an other sacrament Secondly here is declared howe the sacraments of the old lawe differ from ours of the newe Testament not in substance which is all one in both but that they were signes of things to come ours are signes of things accomplished Which thing hee teacheth often and in this Chapter moste plainly Lex Prophetae c. The lawe and the Prophetes had Sacraments foreshewing the things to come but the Sacraments of oure time do testifie that to bee come which they did preache that it should come And in Ioan. Tract 28. hee sayeth that the Sacraments of the olde testament and the newe in signis diuersa sunt in re quae significatur paria In visible kindes diuerse but aequall in spirituall vertue By which and a hundreth such places it is manifest to be ouerthrowen which M. Heskins would buylde that Christ spiritually receiued is not our Pascall lambe but that we receiue another substance of Christe then the faithfull did in the olde Testament The seconde place he citeth out of Augustine I marueile he could not see it to be as plaine against him as the first cont Faust. man lib. 20. Cap. 18. The Hebrues in the sacrifices of beastes which they did offer to God many and diuerse wayes as for so great a matter it was meete did celebrate a Prophesie of the sacrifice to come which Christ hath offered Wherefore nowe the Christians do celebrate the memorie of the same sacrifice being accomplished by the holie oblation and by the participation of the bodie and bloud of Christ. In this sentence is manifestly declared the same difference we spake of before of the Iewishe sacraments and of our sacraments the one being a Prophesie of Christes sacrifice to come the other a remembrance of the same beeing past and fulfilled And whereas M. Heskins vrgeth the worde oblation to exclude the spirituall eating he doth verie ridiculously as though there might not be as wel a spiritual oblation as a spirituall participation especially when the author shewing what we do in oblation and participatioÌ„ sayeth we so celebrate the memorie of Christes sacrifice alredie fulfilled Therefore this oblation is another from that namely a spirituall oblation and thanksgiuing for that whose memorie it celebrateth as Augustine most plainly teacheth in the same booke Cap. 21. Sed quid agam tantae caecitati istorum HÄ™reticorum quando demonstrabo quam vim habeat quod in Psalmis canitur Sacrificium laudis glorificabit me illie via est vbi ostendam salutare meum Huius sacrificij caro sanguis ante aduentum Christi per victimas similitudinâ—m promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsum veritatem reddâ—batur post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur But what shall I do or when shall I shewe vnto so great blindnesse of these heretikes what force that hath which is soung in the Psalmes The sacrifice of praise shall glorifie mee and there is the way where I will shewe my saluation The fleshe and bloud of this sacrifice before the comming of Christ was promised by sacrifices of similitudes in the passion of Christ by the verie trueth it selfe it was giuen vp after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance Iudge by this place whether Christes bodie be really offered or whether it be a mathematicall sacrifice as it pleaseth M. Heskins in his merie vaine to call it Augustine maketh three kindes of oblation of the fleshe and bloud of Christ In promise by sacrifices of similitudes in truth by Christ in his passion in the sacrament of remeÌ„brance after his death Now followeth a long speache of Cyrill directly against M. Heskins the alledger of it lib. 4. in Ioan. 6. ca. 14. Nec putet c. Neither let the Iewe of the dullnesse of his whiche thinke that we haue inuented mysteries neuer heard of before For he shall see if he will seeke more diligently that the verie selfe same thing hath beene done since the times of Moses For what deliuered their Elders from death and the destruction of Aegypt when death raigned vpon the first borne of Aegypt Is it not euident to all men that because they being taught by Gods institution did eat the flesh of the Lambe and oynted the postes and vpper doore postes with the bloud of the Lambe therfore death departed from them for destruction that is death of this fleshe raged against mankinde for the transgression of the first man For because of sinne we haue heard Earth thou art and into earth thou shalt returne but for asmuch as Christ by his flesh would ouerthrow that cruell tyrant therefore that was shadowed by a mystery among the auncient fathers and they beeing sanctified by the sheepes fleshe and bloud God so willing escaped destruction Therefore ô Iewe why art thou so troubled seeing the trueth prefigured long before Wherefore I say art thou troubled if Christe saith except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you whereas it behoued thee beeing instructed in the lawes of Moses and well taught by the olde shadowes to beleeue to be most ready to vnderstand these mysteries The shadowe and the figure thou knowest therefore learne the very trueth of the thing My fleshe saith he is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede In these wordes beside that there is nothing to proue the Pascall Lambe to be a figure of the Lordes Supper it is directly said that the selfe same mysterie of eating the fleshe of Christ hath ben obserued since the time of Moses and that there is no cause why the Iewe should be offended at the saying of Christe if he would vnderstand the
then he should haue suffered oftentimes since the beginning of the world And Heb. 10. He offered but one sacrifice for sinnes and is set downe at the right hand of God for euer c. For by one only oblation he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified And in the same Chapter where there is forgiuenesse of sinnes there is no more sacrifice for sinne Whervpon it followeth that if Christes sacrifice at his supper tooke away sinnes he offered no sacrifice vpon the crosse Secondly he affirmeth that Christe was a priest after the order of Aaron which he denied before and is in plaine wordes denied by the holy Ghost Heb. 7. which place M. Heskins himselfe setteth downe in this Chapter if perfection had beene by the Priesthoode of the Leuites for vnder it the law was established to the people what needed it further that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedech c not to be called after the order of Aaron Thirdly he affirmeth that the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse was after the order of Aaron Wherevpon it wil follow that it was not an eternall redemption purchased by it but transitorie as the priesthoode of Aaron was Whereas the holy Ghost saith that by his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place and found eternall redemption which could neuer be obteined by any sacrifice after the order of Aaron Fourthly he affirmeth that Christ altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God except he did offer sacrifice in his supper of bread and wine By which he denieth that the once offring vp of himselfe by his eternall spirite on the crosse was any parte of his priesthoode appointed him by God then the which there can be no more diuelish blasphemie And yet the beast is not ashamed to challenge and write If not then ◠let the aduersary shewe when and where Christ did sacrifice after the order of Mechizedech Euen then and there thou enimie of the crosse of Christ when and where he was made obedient to the death of the crosse and hauing learned obedience by the thinges he suffered he was consecrated and made the authour of eternall saluation vnto all them that obey him and is called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedech Heb. 5. Hauing an euerlasting priesthod by which he is able perfectly to saue them that come vnto God by him seeing he euer liueth to make intercession for them For such an high priest it became vs to haue which is holy harmelesse vndefiled separated frō sinners and made higher then the heauens which needed not daily as these high Priestes to offer vp sacrifice first for his owne sinnes and then for the peoples for that he did once when he offred vp himself Heb. 7. But beside his detestable blasphemies see his ridiculous vanitie If the priesthoode of Melchizedech standeth in his offering of bread and wine then Christ also offered bread and wine as he saide before Christ offered in bread and wine as Aaron did in bloud If bread wine be Christes offring or any part of it then there is bread and wine in the sacrament what is becomme of transubstantiation If there was no bread wine in the sacrifice of Christe then where is Melchisedeches priesthoode by his owne diuinitie Againe if he say there be the shewes or accidents of bread wine then Melchizedeches bread and wine was a figure of the accidents of bread and Wine then the figure was better then the thing figured contrarie to his worshipfull rule giuen in the 15. Chapter If he say that Melchizedeches bread wine figured not the Accidents but the bread wine before it be consecrated then he breaketh his rule once againe for Melchizedeches bread if it were not hallowed was as good if it were hallowed as it was if it were offred it was better then the vncōsecrated bread wine Finally if he say it figured neither the vncōsecrated bread wine nor the accidents of the same consecrated but the body and bloud of Christ vnder these accidēts beside that he makes it a figure of a figure or signe which he said could not be he denieth that Christ did that wherein he affirmed the priesthoode of Melchizedech to stand namely that he offred bread and wine And so thou seest M. Heskins hanged in his owne halter The nine and twentieth Chapter proceedeth to prooue the same by S. Cyprian and Isychius I confessed before that diuers of the olde fathers were of opinion that the bread and wine which Melchisedech brought forth was sacrificed by him and that it was a figure of the sacramēt which they vnproperly called a sacrifice meaning nothing else but that it was a holy signe and a thankesgiuing offered to God for the passion of Christe as it is manifest by diuers places in their writings But they were farre from those blasphemies which M. Heskins hath vttered in the Chapter before as to make Christes passion a sacrifice after the order of Aaron to make Christ offer two sacrifices and the better sacrifice that was after the order of Melchizedech in the sacrament c. But now let vs consider the places of Cyprian whether such poyson may be drawen out of them as M. Heskins hath sucked out of his own poysoned brayne The words of the first place are these The sacraments signified of old since the time that Melchisedech came forth to the sonnes of Abraham that do his workes the high priest bringeth foorth bread and wine This sayth he is my body They had eaten and dronken of the same bread according to the visible fourme but before those wordes that common meate was profitable only to nourish the body But after it was saide by the Lorde do this in remembrance This is my flesh this is my bloud As oftē as it is done with these wordes and with this faith that substantiall bread and cuppe consecrated with a solemne blessing profiteth vnto the life and health of the whole man being both a medicine Et Holocaustum and a burnt offering to heale infirmities and purge iniquities There is also declared the difference betweene spirituall meate and corporall meate namely that it was one thing that was first set before them another thing which was giuē distributed by their Maister First it is graunted that Cyprian thought the bread wine brought foorth by Melchizedech to be a figure of the sacrament and that herein also he resembled the priesthoode of Christ which we are neither afraide nor abashed to denie because the Apostle an older doctor then Cyprian such an one as in his writings could not erre could finde no such resemblance betweene Melchizedech and christ Concerning the sacrifice of bread and wine I wil speake hereafter in answere to the other places of Cyprian But now let vs examine M. Heskins two notes for the reall presence as he calleth it The first is that this
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
he vseth this reason All things forbidden vs to do as the aduersarie sayth be conteyned in the scripture priuate Masse sole receiuing are not forbidden in scripture therefore they may be done His Maior is grounded vpon the authoritie of his aduersaries But which of his aduersaries sayeth that all things forbidden are forbidden by name In deede we say that all things that are contrarie to Gods commaundment are forbidden so are priuate Masse sole receiuing therefore they are forbiddeÌ„ That priuate Masse sole receiuing are contrary to Gods commaundement it is manifest by the institution of Christ which is of a communion not of a priuate Masse or sole receiuing Vnus panis c. One bread we being many are one bodie c. After this fond argument which is returned vpon his own neck he cauilleth at the proclaimers words because he saith he knoweth they haue such replyes that as there be many things spoken in the old doctors of that communion so as many things or mo are spoken by them of the priuate Masse but this latter part saith M. Hesk. he passeth ouer will not rehearse one I cannot blame M. Hesk. if he would faine haue the Bishop find something for him in the doctors that soundeth for the priuate Masse because hee can finde nothing him self But when the bishop sayeth hee knoweth they haue such replyes he doth not graunt that their reply is true but denyeth it as false and if it were so that any thing were in the old Doctours that might seeme to fauour the priuat Masse yet what obligation hath M. Hes. of the bishop wherein he is bound to shewe it forth in a sermon I vse more words about this cauil then the matter needeth â–ª only to shew the foolish frowardnes peruerse foolishnes of this man that wil seek a knot in a rush to take occasion to rayle and slander But to the purpose M. Hes. confessing that in the Primitiue Church the people did often coÌ„municat addresseth him self to proue that the sacrament may lawfully be receiued of one alone and that by Iustinus whom both Cranmer the proclamer he saith doth pitifully abuse and truncatly alledge but he him selfe doth falsifie and truncatly alledge as we haue shewed before But first I wish the reader to consider that he hath forsaken his priuat Masse for which is no shew in the Doctours and fleeth to sole receiuing in cases of necessitie or in superstitious abuse which proue not that any priuat Masse was said Iustinê° he citeth thus Diaconi distribuunt c. The Deacons deliuer of the consecrated bread and wine and water to euerie one that is present and if there be any away they carie it home to them In this translation he leaueth out ad participandum to be receiued which is in his Latine text and only maketh mention of the deliuerie omitting for what vse it was deliuered In deede the Greek is otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The distribution and participation of those thinges for which thanks hath ben giuen is made to euery one to them that are not present by the Deacons there is sent First I say as there is a communion confessed of them that are present so it was not cleare that that which was caried to theÌ„ that were absent was caried as the sacrament but as almes but admit it were caried as the sacrament yet it foloweth not that it was receiued of euery man alone but of euery family which vpon necessarie cause was absent from the whole congregation or of diuers families meting in one which could not meete in the common assembly so that here is no priuat Masse said but a communion ministred neither is there so much as any sole receiuing proued which if it were yet proueth it not the priuat Masse And therefore all M. Heskins babbling of the sacrament to be one that is ministred or receiued in diuers places and at diuers times is vaine and to no purpose and most fond it is that he compareth it to the sacrament of baptisme which is but one to all men For of that I may thus reason though euery mans baptisme is not a diuers baptisme but all is one baptisme as there is one faith and one God yet as no man is baptized by other mens baptisme but by his owne so no man communicateth with other communions but onely in that action wherein he is a communicant him selfe Therfore M. Heskins fantasie of one Priest communicating with all Priestes in all places is ouerthrowne by his owne argument and similitude But he wil proue sole receiuing by Tertullian S. Cyprian Basil and Hierome by whom he saith it may be gathered that the godly brought with them a fine linnen cloth or a pretie boxe to carie it home I finde the sacramentall breade in some old writers of credite caried in a cloth or a wicker basket but I remember not any pretie boxe For they had not such pretie cakes sixe hundreth yeres after Christ as M. Heskins imagineth the pretie boxe serued to carie them in In the superstitious Dialogues of Pope Gregorie Lib. 4. Cap. 56. we reade of two cakes called Coronae which should haue bene giuen to a poore man in almes for his seruice done in the Bathe but this supposed poore man being a ghost desiered that the same might be offered in Masse to redeeme him out of that his purgatorie Out of this fable which Gregorie rehearseth this truth is proued that the breade they saide Masse withall at that time was so great the two of these cakes wold giue a poore man his dinner at the least for two of the Popish singing cakes would haue done him small pleasure for his bodily reliefe for which at the first it was meant to be bestowed But let vs heare Tertullian who writing to his wife and dissuading her from marrying with an Infidel after his death saith thus Non sciet maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustes Et si sciuerit panem non illum credet esse qui dicitur Shall not thy husband knowe what thou doest secretely eate before all meate And if he knowe it to bee breade hee will not beleeue it to bee that breade which it is saide to bee I passe ouer howe M. Heskins hath corrupted Tertullian by false pointing howe be it he can gather nothing of this place but the superstitious receiuing of women in corners and that in time of persecution But their superstition proueth neither sole receiuing to be good much lesse priuate Masse to be lawfull That this custome was superstitious and naught M. Heskins can not deny for it was abolished by ancient councels and the Papistes them selues do not obserue it nor suffer it to be vsed else why send they not ouer their consecrated cakes to their frends as they doe their Agnus Dei their graines of the Trinitie and such other gaudes and bables But Saint Basil hee weeneth giueth a notable testimonie who writing to
close Maister Heskins aunswereth this is a small fault and from the Masse of S. Iames flyeth to S. Basils Masse Where it is said the Bishop prayeth secretly yet he spake the wordes as they call them of consecration openly The thirde comparison S. Iames in his Masse ministred the communion to the people The Papists in their Masse receiue them selues alone To this he aunswereth denying that S. Iames did always minister the communion to the people which is an impudent shift except he will denie the fourme of that liturgie which prescribeth the ministration to the people after the consecration His reason is because in Chrysostomes liturgie which was written more then a thousand yeares after S. Iames and falsely beareth the name of Chrysostome there is a rule what the priest shall doe when there are no communicants The fourth comparison S. Iames ministred the communion to the people vnder both kindes The Papists in their Masse in one kinde onely Here hath he none other refuge but to say that S. Iames did not alwayes minister vnder both kindes Then let him denie the credite of the liturgie which prescribeth the cōmunion to be ministred in both kindes The fift comparison Saint Iames preached and set foorth the death of Christ They in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe gestures and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstand not and make no manner of mention of Christes death M. Hes. complayneth of the Bishops repetitions imputing them to want of stuffe when he himselfe moste absurdly repeateth his three vntruthes surmised to be in this assertion which he set downe before in the 39. Chapter whither I referre the Reader for the answere Only this I wil note that he can finde no other preaching to the people but the Aulbe to signifie the white garment that Christe was sent in from Herode the vestiment the garment that he was mocked in in the house of Pilate the Crosse vpon the vestiment signifieth the crosse of Christe which he did beare as the priest doth on his backe the eleuation signifieth the lifting vp of Christe on the crosse he might say by as good reason the Priests hands signified the two theeues the Priest himselfe the tormentors that did lift him vp to the crosse Beholde this is the preaching of Christes death in the Masse whether it be an impudent vntruth as Maister Heskins tearmeth it to call these dumbe gestures and ceremonies or M. Heskins an impudent beast to defend these dombe signes for preaching of Christes death let the reader in Gods name consider and iudge The sixth comparison S. Iames Masse was full of knowledge their Masse is full of ignorance M. Heskins aunswereth that there is as much knowledge in their Masse as in S. Iames Masse because in substance it is all one which if it were true as it is most false yet what knowledge can be when al is done in a strange language and no preaching but by dombe signes as we heard before The seuenth S. Iames Masse was full of consolation their Masse is full of superstition To this he aunswereth they haue as much consolation which cannot be when they haue no preaching of the Gospel how can he say that they haue no superstition when they haue an hundred idle ceremonies and gestures which Christ neuer instituted and therfore are meere will worship and superstition The eyghth comparison he saith is all one with the third that the people resorted to receiue the communion when S. Iames sayed Masse Although it followe of the thirde yet is it not all one with it for as S. Iames was readie to minister so the people ordinarily were readie to receiue which is not looked for of the popish priestes because they reach them that it is needelesse so to doe The last comparison Saint Iames in his Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well more nothing else but mans inuention To this he aunswereth that they haue Christes institution for their Masse which is an impudent falshood either for their carnall maner of presence or for their sacrifice or for their priuate receiuing or for their depriuing the people of all doctrine but such as is by dombe signes which he is not afrayde to ascribe to the inuention of the holy Ghost as though the spirite of God in ceremonies would be contrary to him selfe in the scriptures After this he reporteth the substantiall differences betweene the Masse and the newe communion as he calleth it which because they be all set foorth and aunswered before in the 34.35.36 Chapters of this booke I will leefe no time about his vaine recapitulation or repetition of them contayning nothing but rayling and slaundering The foure and fortieth Chapter returning to the exposition of S. Paul expoundeth this text As often as ye shal eat of this bread c. by S. Hierom Theophylact. M Heskins hauing wandred abroad to seek the Masse in auncient writers nowe is come home againe to his text and that is this As often as you shall eat of this bread drinke of this cupp ▪ you shall shewe forth the Lordes death vntill be come Vpon this text saith he the ministers of Sathan for so it pleaseth him to call vs haue grounded two arguments against the reall presence One that the sacrament is a memoriall of Christe and therefore Christ is absent because a memoriall is of a thing absent the other that it is bread for so the Apostles called it not the bodie of christ The solution of the first argument is that the receipt of the sacrament is not a memoriall of Christes bodie but of his death and passion This is a noble distinction but when Christ sayeth do this in remēbrance of mee whether is the remembrance of Christe the remembrance of his bodie or onely of the temporall act of his dying and suffering which is past I think all Christian men will confesse that the communion is a memoriall of Christ that was crucified and not of his crucifying onely But when Saint Paul sayeth vntill he come how can he say that he is present in bodie which is yet to come in bodie To the seconde argument he aunswereth that Saint Paule calleth it breade as Christ calleth bread his flesh and therfore he calleth it this bread signifying a speciall bread No man sayeth the contrarie but that it is a speciall bread and as Saint Augustine sayeth after a certeine manner the bodie of Christe But if Maister Heskins in this place may denye breade to bee taken in the proper sence for breade why doth hee exclame against them that in these wordes This is my body denye the worde body to be taken in the proper signification thereof for a naturall bodie But let vs take Maister Heskins interpretation of bread to signifie the bodie of Christe then the sense of Saint Paules wordes shal be this As often as ye eat of the bodie of Christ and drinke his bloud you shall shewe the Lordes
diuel contemned the body of Christ that he entred immediatly after the bodie of Christ receiued but he saith he contemned not the body of Christ for Iudas was so full of wickednes that the bodie of Christ entred not into him but the diuel before had possessed him And that this is more agreable to the mind of Chryso his wordes in the Hom. 45. In Ioan. doe declare Daemones cum Dominicum sanguinem in nobis vident in fugam vertuntur When the diuels doe see the bloud of our Lorde in vs they are put to flight This proueth that Iudas receiued not the bloud of Christ seeing immediately after the receipt of the sacrament as he sayeth the Diuel entred into him Therefore the other place which Maister Heskins alledgeth out of Chrysost. Ho. 83. In Mat. is likewise answered Caenantibus c. When they were a◠Supper Iesus tooke bread blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples O the blindnesse of that traitor which when he had bene partaker of the vnspeakable mysteries he remained the same man and being admitted to Gods table would not be changed into better which Luke signified saying that after this Satan entred into him not because he despised the Lordes bodie but because he laughed to scorne the folly of the traytor These vnspeakeable mysteries M. Hesk. saith can not be a bare piece of bread and a cup of wine but must needes be the bodie and bloud of Christ. But sauing his authoritie is not the baptisme wherewith wicked men are baptised an vnspekable mysterie and yet no wicked man in baptisme receiueth the spirite of regeneration But Chrysostome proceedeth in the sentence before alledged Maius enim peccatum vtraque ratione fiebat quia tali animo mysterijs susceptis nec timore nec beneficio nec honore melior factus est For his offence was made greater both wayes because that hauing receiued the mysteries with such a minde neither with feare nor with the benefite nor with the honour he was made better Chrysostome saith he receiued the mysteries he doth not say he receiued the bodie of christ Now iudge whether Chrysostome doth plainely affirme that Iudas receiued the bodie of Christ with the other Apostles or whether M. Heskins doth lye that so affirmeth of Chrysostome and can no better proue it then you haue heard Now followeth S. Aug. In Ep. contra Donatist post Collat. Quisquis autem c. Who so euer shall liue wel in this church other mens sinnes do nothing hinder him for in it euerie one shall beare his owne burthen as the Apostle saith and whosoeuer shall eate the bodie of Christ vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe for the Apostle him selfe hath written this In these wordes Augustine calleth the sacrament of the bodie of Christe the bodie of Christ as it followeth immediately after Cum autem dicit iudicium sibi manducat satis oftendit quia non alteri iudicium manducat sed sibi Hoc nos egimus ostendimus obtinuimus quia communio malorum non maculat aliquem participatione sacramentorum sed consensione factorum And when he saith he eateth iudgement to himselfe he sheweth sufficiently that he eateth not iudgement to another but to himselfe This haue we treated shewed and proued that the fellowship of euill men doth not defile any man by participation of the sacramentes with them but by consent of their deedes Likewise he tearmeth the sacrament by the name of the bodie of Christ. Cont. Donat. Lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sicut enim c. As Iudas to whom our Lord gaue the morsel gaue place himselfe to the diuell not by receiuing an euill thing but by receiuing is amisse so any man receiuing vnworthily the Lordes sacrament causeth not because he himselfe is euill that it should be euil or because he receiueth it not to saluation that he receiueth nothing For it was neuerthelesse the bodie and bloud of our Lord euen to them whom the Apostle saide He that eateth drinketh vnworthily eateth drinketh iudgement to himselfe In these wordes he reasoneth against the Donatistes that saide that baptisme ministred by heretikes was no sacrament which he confuteth by example of the other sacrament of Christes bodie bloud which Iudas and other wicked men receiued So that in these wordes the bodie and bloud of the Lorde are to be taken for the sacrament of the bodie bloud of christ Which sacrament as Augu. saith Tract 26. in Ioan. is receyued of some to destruction Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit But the thing it selfe whereof it is sacrament is vnto life to euerie man to destruction to no man whosoeuer shall be partaker therof But M. Heskins flyeth to his distinction of receiuing spiritually and corporally as though Augustine euer saide that the bodie of Christe was receiued corporally of any man. But let vs heare his owne wordes whiche M. Heskins hath cited in the same treatise Quantum pertinet ad illam mortem c. As touching that death of which the Lorde saide that their fathers be dead Moses also did eate Manna Aaron did eate Manna Phinees did eate Manna many did eate which pleased the Lord died not Wherfore Because they vnderstoode the visible meate spiritually they hūgred spiritually they tasted spiritually that they might be filled spiritually For we also at this day haue receiued a visible meate But the sacrament is one thing the vertue of the sacrament another thing which many do receiue of the altar doe die in receiuing doe die Wherefore the Apostle saith he eateth drinketh his owne iudgement In these words Augustine teacheth that the visible meate which is the sacrament may be eaten to condēnation which is the thing we affirme as for eating the body of Christe otherwise then spiritually he speaketh not one worde But M. Heskins would learne of the aduersarie what Augustine meaneth by this word Vertue which many do dye in receiuing it and therefore it cannot be the vertue of his passion so it must needs be his very bodie So that by this conclusion Christs bodie may be receiued without the vertue of his passion But if it please him to learne what Aug. meaneth by this word Vertue in that place I answere he meaneth force or efficacie which is either to life or to death as the receiuer is affected that taketh the sacrament for immediatly after he saith Nam bucella Dominica venenum suit Iudae tamen accepit For the Lords morsel was poyson to Iudas yet he receiued it You see therefore a double vertue in the sacramēt one to saluation another to condemnation no bodily presence necessarie for either of them Another place he citeth In Ioan. Tr. 6. Recordamini vnde sit scriptū Remember frō whence it is written Whoso euer shal eat the bread and drinke the cup of
mihi videris esse Non enim corpus solùm sed etiam panis vitae nominatur Ita enim Dominus ipse appellanit Porro autem ipsum corpus Diuinum corpus appellanus viuificum Dominicum docentes non esse commune alicuius hominis sed Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui est Deus homo Orthodoxus Say then the mysticall tokens which are offered to God by the Priestes of God of what thinges sayest thou they are tokens Eran. Of the body bloud of our Lorde Orth. Of that bodie which truely is Or of such a bodie as truely is not Eran. Which truly is Ortho. Very well For it behoueth the patterne to be example of the image For painters doe followe nature and do paint the images of those thinges which are seene Eran. It is true Orth. Then if the Diuine mysteries doe represent that bodie which is a bodie in deede therefore our Lordes bodie is euen nowe also a-bodie not beeing chaunged into his Diuine nature but filled with Diuine glorie Eran. It came well to passe that thou diddest speake of the Diuine mysteries For euen out of the fame will I shewe vnto thee that our Lordes bodie is chaunged into another nature Therefore aunswere vnto my questions Orth. I will answere Eran. What doest thou call the gifte which is offered before the inuocation of the Priest Orth. I may not speake it openly for it is like that some are present that are not admitted to the mysteries Eran. Then answere darkely Orth. That meate which is made of such kinde of seedes Eran. And how doe we cal the other signe Ortho. That is also a common name which signifieth a kinde of drinke Eran. But after sanctification how doest thou call them Ortho. The bodie and bloud of christ Eran. And doest thou beleeue that thou art made partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ Orth. So I beleeue Eran. Therefore euen as the tokens of the bodie and bloud of our Lord are other things before the inuocation of the priest and after the inuocation are changed and made other thinges euen so the Lordes bodie after the assumption is changed into his Diuine substance Orth. Thou art taken with thine owne nets which thou haste made For the mysticall signes after sanctification do not departe from their nature For they remain in their former substance figure and shape they may be both seene and handled euen as before But they are vnderstoode to be those thinges which they are made to be are beleeued reuerenced as those which are the same thinges that they are beleeued to be Compare therefore the image with the examples and thou shalt see the similitude For the figure ought to be like to the trueth For that same bodie hath the former shape and fashion circumscription and to speake at once the substance of a bodie But it is made immortall after his resurrection and more mightie then that any corruption or destruction can befall vnto it and it is made worthie to sit at the right hand of God and is worshipped of euerie creature as that which is called the naturall bodie of our Lorde Eran. But yet the mysticall token changeth the former name For it is no more called that it was called before but it is called the bodie Therefore the trueth also ought to be called God and not a bodie Orth. Thou seemest vnto me to be ignorant For it is not only called the body but also the bread of life For so our Lorde himselfe called it But his very bodie we call a Diuine bodie a quickening and our Lordes bodie teaching that it is not a common bodie of any man but of our Lord Iesus Christ which is both God and man By this discourse of Theodoretus you may see both howe syncerely Maister Heskins hath cited his authoritie and also what the writers minde was both concerning transubstantiation and the carnall manner of presence The authoritie of Anselmus Bishop of Canterburie I passe ouer as I haue done alwayes with Burgesses of the lower house But Maister Heskins affirmeth that the preparation we are commanded to make for the receipt of the sacrament the danger of vnworthie receiuing do argue the reall presence for such preparation and perill should not be for receiuing a peece of bread And if we aunswere that by faith we receiue Christs bodie bloud verily but yet spiritually he will confute vs by that wee affirme the fathers to haue receiued Christ as verily as we doe who yet had not like preparation nor like punishment for vnworthie receiuing For their preparation was onely in outwarde things their punishment onely bodily and temporall But who is so grosse of vnderstanding as M. Heskins that will not acknowledge that the fathers of the olde Testament by that purifying and preparation in bodily things were admonished that inward spiritually purenesse was more necessarie And wheras he sayeth the vnworthie receiuers of those auncient sacraments were punished only with temporal death how often doth those threatenings occurre in the lawe That soule shal be rooted out from my face that soule shall perish from his people he hath broken my couenant c Wil ye make vs beleeue that God threateneth onely a temporall and not an eternall death to the contemners of his ordinances Finally when the same punishment of condemnation remaineth to them that receiue baptisme vnworthily which abydeth them that receiue the Lordes supper vnworthily how will hee proue a reall presence more in the one sacrament then in the other The seuen and fiftieth Chapter expoundeth this text For this cause manie are weake and sicke c. by Origen Saint Ambrose Origen is cited in Psalm 37. Iudicium Dei parui pendis c. Settest thou little by the iudgement of God and despisest thou the church admonishing thee Thou are not afraide to communicate the bodie of Christ comming to the Eucharistie as cleane and pure as though nothing vnworthie were in thee and in all these thou thinkest that thou shalt escape the iudgement of god Thou doest not remember that which is written that for this cause many among you are weake sick many are fallen a sleepe Why are many sicke Because they iudge not them selues neither examine themselues neither do they vnderstand what it is to communicate with the church or what it is to come to so great and so excellent sacraments They suffer that which men that be sicke of agues are wont to suffer when they eat the meates of whole men and so cast away them selues Here Maister Heskins noteth firste that Origen calleth the sacrament in plaine wordes the bodye of Christe therefore it is no breade figure or signe of the bodie of christ Secondly he calleth it mysteries therefore it is two sacraments whole Christ bodie bloud is vnder eche kind Thirdly sicke men sometimes will eate whole mens meate therefore euil men receiue the bodie of christ These be all
as good reasons as that ▪ comon iest The staffe standeth in the corner therefore the good man is not at home As for the saying of Origen we receiue it willingly for hee speaketh of such receiuers as Saint Paule doth that is not wicked and reprobate persons but such as for their offences were chastened of the Lord that they might not be condemned with the worlde But he will presse vs with a more vehement place of Origen Hom. 13. in 25. Exod. Volo vos admonere c. I will admonish you with the examples of our own religion You that are wont to be present at the diuine mysteries doe knowe howe you receiue the Lords bodie you giue heede with all warinesse and reuerence that no little portion of it should fall downe that no parte of the consecrated gift should fall away for you beleeue your selues to be guiltie and you beleeue rightly if any of it should fall from you through negligence If then you vse so great warinesse about the conseruing of his bodie and worthily do vse it howe do you thinke it is lesse offence to haue neglected the worde of God then his bodie Maister Heskins noteth two things in this sentence First a playne saying for the proclaimer that without mention of figure signe or sacramentall bread hee sayeth the people receiued the bodie of Christe Secondly that he commendeth the reuerend vsage of the same Concerning the first there is expresse mention of the Diuine mysteries and not that onely but then in that he calleth the sacrament the bodie of Christe it appeareth both that there is bread and that it is not so his bodie as the Papistes do deeme For whereof be those litle portions that may fall away partes of the breade or of the bodie of Christe I thinke he is not so madde to say that peeces may fall off from Christes holy and naturall bodie Then it remaineth that they bee peeces or crommes of breade that may fall away And seeing that whereof peeces may fall away is called the bodye of Christe it is manifest that hee meaneth not the naturall bodie of Christe to be corporally present from which no peeces can fall away Finally seeing Origen maketh it as great a fault to neglect the worde of God as to neglect the sacrament it followeth that Christe is none otherwise present in the sacrament then in his worde that is spiritually and after an heauenly manner As for the other matter that Origen alloweth the reuerence of the people in handling the sacrament we also do allowe the same so farre as neither idolatrie nor superstition be mainteined And whereas he raileth against vs for our vsage of that breade and wine which remaineth after the ministration of the communion he sheweth his wisedome and charitie For that which remaineth on the table when the ministration is ended is no more the sacrament then it was before the ministration began and therefore may be vsed as all other bread whatsoeuer the Popes decrees are to the contrarie Now let vs heare what he can say out of S. Ambrose against vs He citeth him in 1. Cor. 11. Vt verum probaret c. That he might proue that there is a iudgement to come of them which receiue the Lords bodie he doth nowe shewe a certeine image of the iudgement vppon them which vnaduisedly had receiued the bodie of our Lord while they were punished with feuers and infirmities and many dyed that by them the rest might learne and being terrified by the example of a fewe they might be reformed knowing that to receiue the bodie of our Lorde negligently is not left vnpunished but if his punishment be here deferred that he shal be more grieuously handled hereafter because he hath contemned the example Here againe M. Heskins chargeth Ambrose to saye that the sacrament is the naturall bodie of Christe and that it hath bene receiued of euil men when hee sayeth neither of both for he speaketh of them that were faithfull and that might bee reformed whereas the wicked reprobates be vncurable And as for the carnal manner of presence howe farre he was from it let his owne wordes in the same place declare Vppon this texte You shewe the Lordes death vntill he come Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quę pro nobis oblata sunt significamus Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lord being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking we do signifie his fleshe and bloud which were offered for vs And in the same place a little after Testamentum ergo sanguine constitutum est quia beneficij Diuini sanguis testis est in cuius typum nos calicem mysticum sanguinis ad tuitionem corporis animae nostrę percipimus The testament therefore is established by bloud because his bloud is a witnesse of the diuine benefite in figure of whose bloude wee doe receiue the mysticall cuppe to the preseruation both of our bodie and of our soule These sentences are plaine to declare to any man that wil be satisfied with reason that this writer acknowledged not a carnall but a spirituall manner of presence But Maister Heskins will vrge vs with another place that followeth Deuoto animo cum timore accedendum ad communionem docet vt sciat mens reuerentiam se debere ei ad cuius corpus sumendum accedit He teacheth vs to come to the communion with a deuoute minde and with feare that the minde may knowe that it oweth reuerence to him whose bodie it commeth to receiue Maister Heskins sayeth here be plaine termes for the proclaimer in deede I woulde wish no playner for the spirituall manner of presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament because this author sayeth the minde must yeeld reuerence to him whose body it cōmeth to receiue If the minde receiue the body of Christ it must needs be spiritually for the minde can receiue nothing corporally And there followe as plaine termes in the next sentence immediatly Hoc enim apud se debet iudicare quia Dominus est cuius in mysterio sanguinem petat qui est testis beneficij Dei. For this it ought to consider with it selfe that it is the Lorde whose blood it drinketh in a mysterie which blood is a witnesse of the benefite of God. In the former sentence the minde receiued the body of Christ now in this it drinketh the blood of Christ in a mystery which is a witnesse or assuraunce of the benefite of God namely the redemption of the world by the blood of his onely sonne our Lorde Iesus Christ. The eight and fiftie chapter endeth the exposition of the same text by Theophylact and Anselme Theophylact saith nothing but of the temporall punishment that God layeth vppon the contemners of his mysterie Anselme borrowed his wordes of Ambrose cited in the last chapter And both Theophylact and Anselme though great
this be true of the image of the Trinitie why do you Papistes suffer and defende such horrible idols and monsters of a man with three faces or with three bodies to expresse the blessed Trinitie If Angels cannot bee represented by image and if three persons be infinite how doth your Idolatrous councell of Nice the seconde not onely determine that their images may bee made but also that they haue bodies and be circumscriptible Actione 5. But you will not long holde this conclusion Furthermore I woulde knowe what diuinitie yea or Phylosophie this is that you saye the persons of Angels are infinite I thought there had beene nothing actually infinite but God onely and that all creatures are definite though they be spirituall inuisible and incircumscriptible But to let you goe with that inconsiderate terme and not to vrge it so farre as to make you an vpholder of tenne thousands of Gods your conclusion is that visions which were of bodily formes may as well be paynted as preached whether they were of the Trinitie or of Angels as the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the shape of men The vision of Daniel 7. of the sonne of man that came to him was auncient of dayes The historie of the father speaking to Christe ▪ and the holie Ghost appearing in the shape of a Doue Admit that these visions may be painted ▪ for so much as was seene yet must they be painted as those visions onely and not otherwise for if God to shewe the distinction of the persons in Trinitie hath appeared in the shape of three men yet is it not lawfull to paint the Trinitie so and although the father in a vision appeared like an olde man and the holie Ghoste like a Doue yet is it not lawfull to paint God the father so alwayes nor the holie Ghoste much lesse to make such monsters as neuer appeared in any vision And therefore God him selfe warned the people to remember that he did not appeare to them in the mounteyne when he gaue the lawe in any forme or shape because they shoulde not bee deceiued to make an image thereafter to represent him withall Deuteronom 4. vers 15. Also Saint Paule preaching to the Athenienses sayeth that seeing wee are the generation of God wee ought not to thinke that the Godhead is like to golde siluer or stone grauen by arte and the inuention of man Act. 17. vers 29. And if you should paint the storie of the baptisme of Christe howe woulde you paint the person of the father which appeared not in any shape but onely a voice from him was hearde But knowing that you haue to doe with wranglers you say you would haue no image of the Trinitie but only to shewe that there bee three seuerall persons in one godhead this you thinke S. Augustine de fide symbolo would beare Ca. 7. but you shal heare his words Non ideo tamen quasi humana forma circumscriptū c. Yet must we not therefore thinke that God that father is circumscribed as it were with an humane shape that when we think of him a right side or a left side shoulde come into our mind or euen that which is sayde that the father doth sit we must not thinke to be done with bowing of his legges that we fall not into that sacrilege wherewith the Apostle curseth them that haue changed the glorie of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corrupble man For it is extreme wickednes that a Christian man shoulde place such an image for God in the temple much more is it wicked in his heart where the temple of God is in deede if it be clensed from earthly desire and errour This saying of Augustine woulde suffice any sober man to see what is his iudgement for such images of God or the Trinitie which yet Maister Sander though not simply yet in some respect wil defende And the Angels he sayeth may be painted or grauen with wings as they were made in the tabernacle or as they appeared to the Prophets and the Apostles And so you may paint the diuels in such shape as they haue appeared to men but what is this to make images of them for any vse of religion which God hath forbidden But now followeth another metaphysicall abstraction of the image which is an accident from the matter or substance thereof being stone wodde c. which is a hard lesson for the common people to learne and when it is learned it is not worth a strawe for any helpe of religion The grosse image of stone being made thus a subtile fantasticall image by abstraction is ioyned with the trueth when the fantasie considereth whose image it is and then it is not possible but that it must partake some parte of the honour of that whereof it is a signe being an honourable thing To passe ouer this fond abstracting and ioyning which is a toy to mocke with an ape I will come to the conclusion of honour dewe to the signe I pray you Maister Sander what impossibilitie is this that you talke of vs Must euery signe of an honourable thing needes partake some of the honour dewe to the thing The print of a mans foote in the snowe is the signe of a man that hath trod there which is an honourable thing and perhaps was a King is this signe worthie of any honour due to a King Yea the Kinges picture is on his coyne or else where to be seen is that picture worthie of any parte of the Kings honour You sayed before you woulde not haue any parte of Gods honour giuen to his image and howe agreeth that saying with this your principle it is not possible but euerie signe of an honorable thing must partake some of the honour which is in it But you will shewe vs the order howe the image commeth to be partaker of honour but it were more necessarie you should shew vs the reason why it should haue honour then the order howe it commeth But let vs see the order The painting of Christes death moueth the eye the eye aduertiseth our common-sense our common sense informeth our fantasie reason draweth out of fantasie this deepe consideration that this image is true and profitable to saluation and worthie of all honour This may well be an idolaters reason but surely a Christian man faith is instructed by hearing and not by seeing blessed are they saith Christ which haue beleeued and not seene Ioan. 20 A Christian man learneth of the Lord by his Prophet Abacuc Cap. 2. vers 18. 19. that a grauen image is profitable for nothing that it is a teacher of lyes and curseth him that saith an image shall teach him and much more him that shall say it is worthie of all honour By which saying you may see the impudencie of idolaters which though at the first they seeme modest in giuing but an other kinde of honour to images and not that which is giuen to God
it might be no supersticious abuse Next to this he citeth Chrisostome Or. 1. De adorat cruâ—is that not onely the Crosse it selfe whereon Christe dyed but also the signe and shape of it ought to be worshiped and adored And againe he citeth afterward in this Chapter either the same or such an other Hom. de adoratione crucis But in all Chrisostomes workes there is no book oration homily sermon or treatise of any such title There be in the second tome two homilies de cruce latrone and a third de cruce dominica but in none of them is any such words as he citeth eius figuram effigiem coledam adorandamque or any thing to such purpose Wherefore I can not otherwise thinke but this is some blinde forgerie vnder the name of Chrisostome which is not extant in all his authenticall writings But Chrisostome in deede calleth the crosse whereon Christ dyed which was so much esteemed and whereof euery man desired to haue a peece inclosed it in golde hanged it about their neckes c. lignum condemnationis the woode of condemnation and the signe thereof so much vsed and esteemed Simbolum mortis the signe of death in demost ad gent. quod Chr. sit Deus But M. Sander will proue the worshipping of the signe of the crosse by lawe if it will not stande with diuinitie hee citeth Cod. Iust. tit 11. tom l. Vnica but it is Cod. Iust. lib. 1. tit 8. le nemini licere c. The Emperours Theodosius and Valentinianus made a law in these words Cum sit nobis cura diligens per omnia superni numinda religionem tueri signum Saluatoris Christi nemini licere vel in solo vel in silice vel in marmoribus humi positis insculpere vel pingere sed quocunque reperitur tolli granissima paena mulctandis â–ª si qui contrarium statutis nostris tentauerint specialiter imperamus Where as we haue diligent care to defend the religion of the highest God in all thinges wee specially commaunde that it shal be lawfull for no man to graue or paint the signe of our sauiour Christ either in the ground or in flint or marble stones lying on the ground but whersouer it is found to be taken away vnder a most greuous forfet to be paid of theÌ„ that attempt that which is contrary to our statuts Cod. Iust. Ti. 11. vnica This was a kinde of honoring the signe of the Crosse saith he when it was forbidden to be grauen on the ground least it should be dishonored if it were troden on euen as Helena S. Ambrose witnessing feared to tread vpon the crosse of Christ which he calleth the sacrament of saluation Of Helena we heard before that shee worshipped not the crosse howe much soeuer she made thereof And if this lawe were to be vnderstood as M. San. would haue it yet here is no worshipping of the crosse spoken of But touching the vnderstanding of this lawe M. Iewel is reproued first in citing it out of Petrus Crinitus who leaueth out these wordes humi positis lying on the ground which Iustinians Code addeth then in false translation wherof he wil speake afterward But concerning the first for as much as Petrus Crinitus was a learned man about that time when bookes beganne to be printed before this coÌ„trouersie of images was moued his report is more to bee credited then the Printers presse for the auncient reading of this lawe how so euer M. Sander fondly compareth him with Iustinian corrupted Moreouer to proue this corruption probable those wordes humi positis are altogether superfluous for when he had saide before in solo on the ground â–ª what neede he add afterward lying on the ground Also the disiunctiue vel or set before these words in solo which M. Sander hath cleane left out in his translation doth sufficiently declare that the Emperours meaning was to prohibite all grauing and painting of the signe of Christe whether it were of the crosse or of the image of Christ either on the ground or else where bicause it is against the religion of the high God to make any images or signes of him to any purpose As for the daunger of treading vpon the signe of the crosse is not in any one word of this lawe touched Neither was it a thing regarded in the deepest dungeon of Poperie for crosses images of Christ and of the Trinitie are yet to be seene of their making vpon a great number of graue stones in England to this day which argue that either the Papistes did against this lawe or else that this lawe had no such meaning as M. Sander feigneth it to haue But M. Iewell confesseth that the signe of the crosse was had in great regard among the Christians for that most worthie price that was offered vpon it and yet hee confesseth not that either they worshipped the signe of the crosse or that their regard was no greater theÌ„ it ought to haue bene For if any such regard had bene due to the signe of the crosse by Gods ordinaunce the Apostles that deliuered to vs all the counsell of God would not haue omited it in their writings Eph. 20. vers 20. 27. And M. Sander him selfe after he hath iangled a while confusely of regarding and worshipping at length confesseth that euery regard is not commonly taken for a worshipping but some is as the couetous mans regarding of money So that his argument and his conclusion is nothing else but a sophisticall conuersion of particulars which nothing toucheth the matter in controuersie Some worshipping is a regarding therefore some regarding is worshipping Both these are true and yet the regarding of the signe of the crosse is not thereby proued a worshipping thereof And yet he is not ashamed to proceede as though he had proued all regarding to be worshipping For hee saith If M. Iewell had a piece of that crosse that Christe dyed on he would preferre it before golde and siluer c. and this regard should be a worshipping or honouring of it I beleeue if M. Iewell had a piece that had bene worshipped hee would haue burned it and so would I. And yet if I had but a pibble stone that came out of the land of promise I would keepe it and make much of it so would I doe of the crosse if it were free from idolatrie but I would worshippe the one no more then the other How long will this sophisticall Doctour walke vnder a cloud of ambiguitie of words Let him either proue such honoring worshipping as the Papistes vse vnto the crosse or signe therof which is the thing we impugne to haue bene vsed in the eldest Primitiue Church or else let him striue about termes and words among sophisters children But if M. Iewel should take the crosse for no better then a common piece of wood hee should saith hee be blasphemous against the death of Christ. O grieuous accusation Ezechias tooke the brasen Serpent for no
Pope Leo saide at his death that this one thing he should gayne by dying that he shoulde be resolued concerning the question of the immortalitie of the soule Wherein all the learned men in the worlde before could not satisfie him Last of all what an impudent lyer Maister Rastell is you may plainely perceiue when he chargeth the Bishop with this confession That these nine hundreth yeres and more none did euer take this way which he doth follow For although the Bishop made his chalenge of sixe hundreth yeares after Christe â–ª yet did he neuer confesse that in the nine hundreth yeres following none did euer reteine or imbrace the Gospell whiche he teacheth when God be praised there was a number euen in the moste blindest times that sawe the light thereof although they were fewe and persecuted by Antichriste SECTIO 4. From the second face of the 23. leafe to the first of the 38. leafe In which he taketh vpon him to proue that the English communion and seruice doth not followe Christe and his Apostles in taking into their handâ— and blessing the cuppe and the challice nor the primitiue Church in praying toward the East mingling water with the wine signe of the crosse altars incense tapern praying to Saintes and praying for the dead The â— in his sermon affirmed as R. saith 1. The holy coÌ„munion to be restored to the use form of the primitiue Church 2. To the same order that was deliuered appointed by Christ 3. and after practised by the Apostles 4. and continued by the holy doctours and fathers by the space of fiue or sixe hundreth yeares throughout all the catholike Churche of Christ 5. without exception or anye sufficient example to be shewed to the contrarie Al these Master Rast. saith be lyes which is his short aunswere And I coulde aunswere as shortly that then they be lyes of Master Rastells forging For the bishoppe affirmed no such thing of the ceremoniall forme of our Communion but of the doctrine thereof But let vs see his answere at large He woulde know how this Communion of ours doth agree with that which Christ deliuered and theÌ„ rehearseth the institution of Christ beginning at the eating of the Pascall Lambe and the washing of his disciples feete as though either of these perteined to the sacrament and forsoothe we must tell him how many thinges more how many things lesse our order in the coÌ„munion booke hath And firste what scripture we haue for the linnen clothe for the priestes standing on the North side of the table for our prayers confessions collects other ceremonies and seeing wee haue no scripture for these the Communion is not restored to the order appointed by Christ. I aunswere that forasmuch as those matters perteine to order and decencie we haue scripture sufficient to authorize them although as I saide before the bishop speaketh not of the ceremoniall forme of ministration but of the substaunce and doctrine which is the essential forme of the Communion concerning which we haue neyther more nor lesse then Christ vsed and deliuered Yet saith Master Rast. we haue many pointes lesse then was done by Christ at his last supper First he will not presse vs with that question why we do not Communicate after supper which peraduenture yet some doth with the sicke as a thing not vnlawfull nor tyed to any time but by the generall rule of order and decencie but he demandeth why we take not the bread into our handes before we consecrate it as Christ did A profounde question As though we doe not both take it breake it receiue it and deliuer it with our handes as Christ did Or as though Christ appointed at what moment we should touch it or that M. Rastel is able to say that Christ spake nothing of his institution before he touched the breade or as though we did not vse ordinarily before we make the exhortation vnto the Communion to take the bread and breake it and with the cup to set it before vs not to let it stand at the ende of the table as he belyeth vs as though we werâ— ashamed to folow Christ. The seconde thing that we haue lesse then Christ did as he saith is blessinge of the breade which is vtterly false for we blesse it as Christ did not with the signe of the crosse as ye would haue vs but with thanksgiuinge and prayer as the Euangelistes doe testifie that Christe did and as the primitiue and Apostolike Church did practise And therefore Iustinus martyâ— speaking of the sanctified or blessed nourishment of the sacrament calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that nourishement for which thankes is giuen by the worde of prayer receiued of him And touching the reuerende gestures vsed by Christ at his supper as we doubt nothing but that he vsed them alwayes so can M. Rastell with all his prating prooue none other then the Euangelists haue set downe And therefore for his loking on the bread separating it from the rest of the bread on the table blessing it by some special signe as the signe of the crosse c. when he can prooue out of the scriptures we shall bee content to refourme our Communion accordinge to those supposed gestures In the meane time notwithstanding his ruffian like raylinge our order of celebration hath all things instituted and deliuered by Christ to be obserued in the reuerent ministration of this most holy sacrament The seconde lye he chargeth Master Iewell with all is that he saith we haue the same order that was practiâ—ed by the Apostles where as we reade of none order practised by them For Actes the 2. we read saith he that they did breake breade in houses And yet it may be doubted whether that was the communion and actes 13. saith he when the Apostles had fasted and sacrificed they sent forth Paule and Barnabas But where finde you that translation Master Rastell that they sacrificed will you now forsake your owne Latine translation Ministrantibus illis Domino when they ministred vnto the Lorde and so wilfully runne into the curse of the Tridentine councell or will you appeale to the Greeke text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which worde signifieth any publike Ministerie by the iudgement of all learned Graetians and Erasmus himselfe whom you folowe in this translation though you count him an heretike and forsake your Catholike translation confirmed by generall Councelles Well then I see that papists iangle of general councels and catholike interpretations vnto other but they themselues will be holden of none anye longer then they liste But to the matter he saith that S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. testifieth of the veritie of the sacrament but not of the order referringe that to his owne comming As though he doeth not manifestly reforme a disorder or as though other thinges which he saith he woulde set in order at his comminge could be taken for the same thinges that he wrote of in his Epistle But what of al
death vntil he come How is he that is to come distinct from him that is present for Saint Paule maketh an exposition of this breade this cuppe which are present to shewe the Lordes death that is to come But let vs heare what Saint Ieronyme sayeth that may helpe him in 1. Cor. 11. Ideo hoc c. Therefore our Sauiour hath deliuered this sacrament that by it we might alwayes remember that he dyed for vs For therefore also when we receiue it wee are warned of the priestes that it is the bodie and bloud of Christ that we might not be thought vnthankefull for his benefites I like this saying verie well which teacheth that the sacramēt is therefore called the bodie bloud of Christ that thereby we might be put in minde of the benefite of Christes death to be thankfull for it And that his meaning is none otherwise his owne wordes shal declare going both before and after Vpon these wordes Gratias egit c. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus vltimam nobis commemorationem sine memoriam dereliquit Quemadmodum si quis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat vt quotiescunque illud viderit possit eius beneficia amicitias memorare quod ille si perfectè dilexit sine ingenti desiderio non potest videre vel fletu That is blessing or giuing thankes euen when hee was to suffer he left to vs his last commemoration or remembrance Euen as a man going into a farre countrey doth leaue some pledge to him whome he loueth that so often as he seeth it he may remember his benefites and frendship which pledge he if he loued perfectly cannot beholde without great desire or weeping In these words you see S. Hierom compareth the sacrament to a pledge which is left in remembrance of loue benefites receiued of him that in person is absent The same writer vpō the same words of our text donec venerit vntill he come thus writeth Tam diu memoria opus est donec ipse venire dignetur So long we haue neede of a remembraunce vntill he him selfe vouchesafe for to come Nothing can bee more plaine to shewe his meaning not to be of a carnall or bodilie presence although as Christ hath giuen vs the president he call the bread and cuppe by the name of the bodie and bloud of Christe The testimonie of Theophylact being a Greeke Gentleman of the lower house I haue hetherto refused to admitt and therefore in this place also will not trouble the reader with him The challenge was made of writers within sixe hundreth yeares after Christe this man liued about a thousande yeres after Christ yet if I would wrangle about his wordes he hath nothing that may not bee reasonably construed on our side without any wresting The fiue and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by S. Basil Rupert S. Basil is alledged de baptismo Oportet accedentem c. It behoueth him that commeth to the bodie and bloud of our Lord to the remembrance of him that was dead for vs and rose againe not onely to be pure from all vncleannesse of bodie and soule lest he eate and drinke to his owne condemnation but also to shewe euidently and to expresse the memorie of him that hath dyed for vs and risen againe And what sayeth Basil in these words that we do not graunt vnderstanding purenesse by faith and repentance Maister Hesk. sayeth in steede of that S. Paule sayde this bread and this cupp he sayeth the bodie and bloud of Christe although I might stande with him that this is no interpretation of Sainct Paules wordes but an exhortation which Basil maketh to the worthie receiuing of the sacrament what inconuenience is it to graunt that it is both bread and wine and also after a spirituall manner his verie bodie and bloud which is receiued of the faithfull But either Maister Heskins note booke serued him not or els his malice against the trueth would not suffer him to see what the same Basil writeth not many lines before these wordes which he citeth vpō the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ of the institution of this blessed sacrament and immediatly after the verie text of the Apostle now in hande As often as you eate of this bread and drinke of this cuppe you shewe the Lordes death vntill he come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What then do these words profit vs that eating drinking we might always remember him which dyed for vs and is risen againe and so wee might bee instructed of necessitie to obserue before God and his Christe that lesson which is deliuered by the Apostle where hee sayeth for the loue of Christe doeth constreine vs iudging this that if one hath dyed for all then all are dead M. Heskins denyeth the sacrament to be a remembrance of Christe for feare he shoulde confesse Christ to be absent affirming it is a remembrance only of the death of christ But Basil saith that in eating and drinking we must remember Christe that is dead risen againe for vs and so be transformed into his image by mortification and newnesse of life This is all the profite that Basil gathereth of the institution of the supper of the Lorde Where is then the carnall presence the sacrifice propitiatorie the application of it according to the priestes intention and such like monsters of the Masse The testimonie of Rupertus a burgesse of the lower house I will not stand vpon notwithstanding it little helpeth Maister Heskins cause For he doth not say that the sacrament is so a remembrance of Christes death that it is not a remembrance of Christ him selfe But Maister Heskins sayeth all the rable of sacramentaries cannot bring one couple of catholike authors that saye Saint Paule spake here of materiall bread neither can Maister Heskins bring one single auncient writer within the compasse of the challenge which is 600. yeres after Christ that denyeth that S. Paule spake of materiall breade as the earthly part of the sacrament He hath named Hierome Basil but neither of them denie it as for Theophylact Rupertus although neyther of them also denye it in the places by him cited yet I knowe not why we might not as well produce Berengarius and Bertrame as auncient as they which affirme that Saint Paule spake here of bread But that there is materiall bread in the sacrament as the earthly part thereof we haue already cited Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Origen in 15. Matthaei Cyrill in Ioan. Lib. 4. Cap. 24. and many other Toward the end of this Chapter Maister Heskins taketh vpon him to aunswere an obiection of Oecolampadius who iustly chargeth the Papistes of wilfull ignorance in that they make the body of Christ both the exemplar and the thing exemplified the figure and the thing figured the signe and the thing signified whereas relation must be betwixt two thinges distincted and not of