Sander perhaps would insinuate And the hystorie of the Church is described by Eusebius Socrates Theodore c. by the doctrine vttered in preaching writings and consent in councels and doings and sufferings of the Elders of the Churches and not altogether or cheefely by their knowen gouernement as Maister Sander affirmeth As for example Eusebius sheweth the doctrine of Clement out of his writing for the allowance of marriage who affirmeth that the Apostles were married begot children Lib. 3. Cap. 30. Socrates sheweth that Spiridion a Bishop of Cypres in time of his Bishopricke of great humilitie kept sheepe Lib. 4. Cap. 12. Sozomenus saith he had a wife and children and sheweth his iudgement for eating flesh on a fasting day accounting him no Christian that would refuse it Lib. 1. Cap 11. Finally although some Churches haue ben known by their Pastors and Bishops yet haue there bene infinite Churches known to be in the worlde whose Bishops Pastours are altogether vnknowen And although some heretical and Schismatical companies haue bene knowen by their heades yet not all for the Acephali were so called because they had no head the Anthropomorphites also were rustical Monkes or Eremites in Aegypt vnder no head of their owne but the Bishop of Alexandria which was a Catholike Niceph. Lib. 13. Cap 10. 8 Although the Churche of Christ ceassed not at the end of the first fiue or sixe hundreth yeares nor the glory of Christes kingdome was euer darkened yet a greate number of the Bishops and pastors of the visible Church began then to be dimme and some altogether darke because they lighted not their candels at the word of God the onely true light shyning in the darke but declined to the inuentions of men and doctrine of diuels according to the prophesie of Saint Paule 2. Thess. 2. of the apostasie and departing from the faith 1. Tim. 4. towarde the comming reuelation of Antichrist Neither is it true that M. Sander saith that after the first 600. yeares the Church was spread into mo countries then it was before but the contrarie For Mahomet soone after peruerted the greatest parte of the worlde whereas Affrica long before was ouerrunne and Christianitie spoyled by the Vandales which were either Heathens or Arrians Notwithstanding some small countries haue beene since that time turned to the Christian profession And as it is true that Pastors and Doctors must still be to the end of the worlde in the Church and Christ neuer forsaketh the same so is it false that Popish Bishops Priestes which either were ignorant or altogether negligent in feeding and teaching the Churche with the foode and doctrine of Gods worde whereof Saint Paule spake Ephesi 4. or taught the doctrine of Diuels in steede thereof be those Pastours and Doctours by whome the preaching of the Gospell is continued though they sitte in the same places where sometime the true teachers satt euen as Antichrist their head sitteth in the Temple of GOD which is the proper place of Christe Neither is the credite of such late writers as account them for successors of the Apostles and godly pastours and teachers sufficient to authorise them for such in deed when their whole life and doctrine is contrarie to the writings of the Apostles and those auncient godly Pastors Doctors 9 We say not that the Church of Christ was knowen for the first â—00 yeres after Christ only or chiefely by the Bishops Pastors therof but by their doctrine agreable to the word of god And therefore it is sufficient ground for vs to deny the later rout that professeth not the same doctrine to be the church of christ The succession of persons or places without the continuance of the same true doctrine can no more defende the Pope poperie then it could defend Caiphas Sadduceisme For Caiphas a Sadducei which denyed the resurrection coulde more certeinly declare his personall and locall successioÌ„ from Aaron then the Pope can from Peter 10 I haue proued before that it is false which Master Sander againe sayeth to be true that Eusebius and other writers point foorth the church of 500. yeres onely or chiefely by Bishops which ruled in Rome Antioche Alexandria c. The doctrine actes of those Bishops agreeable to the scriptures is their description not their personall or locall succession as it was accompted in the latter times when they had nothing else to commende their counterfet Bishops being in life and doctrine contrarie to the worde of God the testimonie of the primitiue church And where he sayeth noting in the margent August Ep. 165. that in olde time they were knowen to be heretikes which departed from the knowen companie of Bishops Pastors agreeing in one faith c. it is verie true but then this faith was proued to be true not onely by successions of Bishops but by the holye scriptures as the same Augustine sayeth in the same place Quanquam nos non tam de istis documentis praesumamus quà m de scripturis sanctis Although wee do not presume so much of those documentes as of the holie scriptures To conclude all practises and councels that are contrary to the holie Scriptures were then refused euen as they be nowe Cyprian refused the practise of ministring the communion with water because it was contrarie to the scripture Augustine refused the practise of Cyprian and the Councell of Carthage â–ª for rebaptizing them that were baptized by heretikes and for the same cause our church refuseth the Masse the Laterane and the Tridentin councels without daunger of schisme or heresie 11 The vniuersall church is a spiritual collection of many members into one bodie whereof Christe is the onely head both in heauen and earth as the Apostle sayeth Eph. 3. Cor. 15. The vnitie hereof is mainteyned by following the direction of his worde and his holye spirite The order of particuler churches is mainteined by the seuerall gouernement of them But their whole church although it be like an armie of men well sett in arraye yet can it haue no one chiefe Capteine in earth to direct it but hee that is omnipotent and fitteth in heauen not onely to ouerlooke it but to rule and order it For no mortall man can looke into all places knowe all cases prouide against all mischiefes nor giue ayde in all dangers 12 Therefore Peter was none such and although Pascere be both to feede and rule yet it is to rule like a Shepeheard and not like an Emperour Neither were the sheepe by Christe committed to Peter more then to the other because hee loued more then the other but Peter was charged as hee woulde by his forwardnesse shewe more zeale and loue then the rest so to employe the same to the feeding of Christes flocke And whereas Maister Sanders quoteth Chrysostome in Ioan Hom. 87. I knowe not wherefore except it were to shewe the prerogatiue of Peter aboue the rest You shall heare what his iudgement was
might not be ioyned really But M. Heskins a spirite is not contrarie to a thing except you will say it is nothing but to a body and therefore spiritually and bodily are opposite not spiritually and really For we are ioyned to Christe spiritually and yet really so that Christ dwelleth in vs by his spirite through faith but not bodily so in the sacrament we eate the body of Christ really that is in deede vnfeignedly but yet in a spirituall kinde of eating and not carnally or corporally But M. Heskins proceeding affirmeth that We are spiritually ioyned to Christ by charitie and faith and therefore incorporated into his mysticall body but really or substantially we are ioyned to him when by eating his very substantiall flesh in the sacrament THE SVBSTANCE OF OVR FLESH IS TVRNED INTO THE SVBSTAVNCE OF HIS FLESH and thereby so ioyned to him as we are made one flesh with him c. Note here good reader for thy learning that these wordes printed by M. Heskins in another letter that they might be seene as a speciall paradoxe ▪ teach thee a newe kinde of transubstantiation For he is not content to haue the breade turned into the body of Christe without all type or figure really substantially corporally c. but as really corporally and substantially he affirmeth that the substance of our flesh is turned into the substance of the flesh of Christ. O monstruous paradox as euer any was heard since the beginning of the world After this he noteth that Christes flesh is not digested in vs as other meates are which is needlesse to note if our fleshe be digested or turned into his adding this reason that As it is a celestiall meate beeing now a glorified bodie so it draweth vs vp to it conuerting and turning vs into it according to the nature of a celestiall thing Howe vayne this reason is by whiche hee would auoyde the digestion and proue his new transubstantiation and conuersion appeareth by this that the body of Christe in the Sacrament was as effectuall while hee liued in his passible bodie on earth in which he instituted this sacrament as it is nowe beeing a glorified bodie in heauen And whereas hee chargeth I knowe not what Stercoranites of our time to affirme that the fleshe of Christ passeth through the bodie as other meates I thinke verilie he lyeth most impudently For I neuer heard or read of any that so affirmed Although I woulde wishe men to speake reuerently of so high mysteries yet the importunitie of the Papistes with their matter of transubstantiation enforceth them not to affirme of them selues but to report what they reade in the fathers concerning the breade beeing the terrestriall or outwarde parte of the Sacrament that it is digested passeth through as all other naturall meates do whereof Origen writeth in Math. Chap. 15. Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os in ventrem abit in sesession eijcitur ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Deipérque obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale abit in sesessū eijcitur If what soeuer entereth into the mouth goeth into the bellie and is cast foorth into the draught euen that meate also which is sanctified by the worde of God and by prayer after that which it hath materiall goeth and is cast foorth into the draught This douteth not Origen to speake of the materiall parte of the Sacrament by which it is manifest that he knew no transubstantiation The cheefe thing that M. Heskins vrgeth vs to marke is that Whereas the Sacramentes woulde haue onely a spirituall receiuing this holy father teacheth that we are framed to Christ not onely spiritually by loue which may bee without receiuing of meate but re ipsa in deede by receyuing of meate But I praye you M. Heskins where saith Chrisostom that our coniunction vnto Christ is not onely spirituall In deede he saide not onely by loue but in deede but he opposeth not spiritually and really as you doe And where you vrge that this coniunction is by meate and this meate is his bodie and therevppon conclude that it is a corporall coniunction and Christ is ioyned corporally I aunswere that if Chrysostom may expound himselfe this meate and this body is a spirituall meate therefore a spirituall coniunction and Christ is eaten spiritually De prod Iud. Nemo sit Iudas in mensa hoc sacrificium cibus spiritualis est Nam sicut corporalis cibus c. Let no man be Iudas in this table this sacrifice is a spirituall meate For as corporall meat when it findeth a bellie possessed with humors contrarie to it it hurteth and offendeth more and helpeth nothing at all euen so this spirituall meate if it finde any man polluted with wickednes it destroyeth him the more not of it owne nature ▪ but through the fault of him that receiueth it Thus far Chrysostome for the meate to bee spirituall Finally the last obseruation that Christ doth giue vs in the sacrament is the same fleshe by which he was ioyned vnto vs therefore his verie substantiall body and bloude auayleth him nothing For wee contende not of the substance of the thing that is giuen but of the manner of the giuing the thing is the verie body and bloude of Christ but not after a corporall or naturall manner but after a spirituall and diuine maner or as the olde writers haue saide Modo ineffabili after an vnspeakeable manner as so many figuratiue speaches that are spoken therof do declare whiche to expound literally or grāmatically were little better then extreme madnesse The other place which you adde out of Ho. 24. in 10.1 Cor. helpe them nothing at all that Christ hath giuen vs his flesh c. That this body the wisemen did reuerence in the māger You might haue added out of the same place Quod est in calice id est quod a latere fluxit that which is in the cuppe is the same that flowed out of his side and thereof we are partakers But that all these are figuratiue speaches it is manifest by this interrogation that followeth in the same homilie Quid enim appello inquit communicationem id ipsum corpus sumus Quid significat panis corpus Christi Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christs non multa sed vnum corpus For what do I cal it saith he a participation We are the selfe same bodie What signifieth the bread The bodie of christ And what are they made which receiue the bodie of Christ Not many bodies but one body And in the same homilie Sed quare Addit quem frangimus hoc in Eucharistia videre licet in cruce autem minimè sed omnino contra Os enim eius non conteretur Sed quod in cruce passus nō est id in oblatione patitur propter te frangi permittit But why doth he adde speaking of the breade which wee breake that you may see in the sacrament of thankesgiuing but not on the
she hath prepared this table for hir seruauntes and maides in the sight of them that she might dayly shew vs in the sacrament after the order of Melchisedech breade and wine in similitude of the bodie and bloude of Christe therefore she saith thou hast prepared a table in my sight againste them that trouble mee What Papistes holding transubstantiation would thus write that breade and wine is shewed in the Sacrament in the similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ The seconde testimonie that M. Heskins alleageth out of Chrisostome is vpon the 1. Cor. 10. This table is the strength of our soule the sinewes of our minde the bonde of our trust our foundation hope healpe light our life if we depart hence defended with this sacrifice with most greate confidence wee shall ascende into the holy entrie as couered with certaine golden garmentes But what speake I of thinges to come For while wee be in this life this mysterie maketh earth to be heauen vnto vs Ascende vnto the gates of heauen marke diligently or rather not of heaueÌ„ but of heauen of heauens theÌ„ thou shalt behold that we say For that which is worthy of highest honor I will shew thee in earth For as in kings houses not the walles not the golden roofe but the kinges body sitting in the throne is most excellent so also in heauen the kinges body which nowe is set foorth to be seene of thee in earthe I shewe thee neither Angels nor Archangels nor the heauens nor the heauens of heauens but the Lorde himselfe of all these thinges Thou perceiuest how that which is greatest and cheifest of all things thou doest not onely see it on earth but also touche it and not onely touch it but eate also and when thou haste receiued it returnest home wherefore wipe thy soule from all filthinesse prepare thy minde to the receyuing of these mysteries For if the Kinges childe being decked with purple and diademe were deliuered to thee to bee carried wouldest thou not cast all downe to the grounde and receiue him But nowe when thou receiuest not the childe of a kinge beeing a man but the onely begotten sonne of God tell mee I praye thee doest thou not tremble and caste awaye the loue of all seculer thinges This testimonie so necessarily muste bee vnderstood of a figuratiue and spirituall receyuing of Christe by faith that nothing in the worlde can bee more plaine For euen as earth is made heauen vnto vs so is Christe made present And euen as wee see the Lorde vppon earth so we handle and eate him and that is onely with the eye hand and mouth of faith But let vs see M. Heskins collections First hee is enforced to confesse that the sentence beginneth with a figure The table for the meate therevppon Secondely hauing such honourable tearmes it can not bee a peece of breade but Christe himselfe This shall bee graunted also Thirdly that Christe is verily on the table which he calleth Altars As verilie as earth is made heauen Fourthly that it is Christ whiche is worthie of highest honour verily present in the Sacramente As verily present as hee is seene but hee is seene onely by faith therefore present onely to faith But this obiection hee taketh vppon him to aunswere If we saye the bodie of Christ can not be sene in the sacrament No more saith he can the substance of man be seene but his garmentes or outward formes accidentes This is such a boyish sophisme as I am ashamed to aunswere it By which I maye as well proue that Christes body was neuer seene and therefore not seene in the sacrament contrarie to that whiche Chrysostome saith FroÌ„ this obiection he falleth into an other that if christ in the Sacrament be worthie all honour then of sacrifice also and the sacrifice being Christ Christ shal be offered to him selfe This he calleth an ignorant obiection But there is more knowledge in it then he hath witt to answere He alledgeth the words of Augustine lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 14. Christ abideth one with him to whome he offereth and maketh him selfe one with them for whom he offereth himself and is one with them that offer one with that which is offered Here are diuerse kindes of vnitie and yet not Christ offered vnto him selfe vnlesse M. Heskins will be a Sabellian and a Patripassian to confound the persons of the Godhead and say that God the father yea the whole Trinitie is likewise transubstantiated in the Sacrament Though Christe be one with his father yet did he not offer him selfe to him selfe but himselfe to his father As for the other saying of Augustine that he bringeth it is altogether against him De ciuitate Dei. lib. 10. c. 20. He is the Priest him selfe he is the offerer he is the oblation whereof he would haue the daily sacrifice of the Church to be a sacrament seeing that of her bodie he is the head and of his head shee is the bodie as well shee by him as he by her being accustomed to be offered First Christ is the offerer and the oblation but not he to whome it is made Secondly that which he calleth the sacrifice of the Church is a sacrament that is a holie memoriall of that propitiatorie saâ—â—â—fice which he offered Thirdly this sacrifice of the Church is of the Churche her selfe offered by Christ and of Christe offered by the Church which must needes be spirituall as the coniunction of Christ and his Church is spirituall therefore it is not the natural bodie of Christ offered by the priest but his mystical bodie offered by the Church by himselfe and so a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation After these obiections he returneth to his collections out of the authoritie of Chrysostome There neede no such preparation nor trembling if the Sacrament were but a peece of bread He hath neuer done with this slaunder as though any Christian man did saye it was but a peece of bread which Christe vouchsafed to call his bodie Wee saye truely it is bread but wee say not it is but a peece of bread The ninteenth Chapter continueth the proofe of the same matter by S. Augustine S. Cyrill M. Heskins promiseth in his Epistle and gloryeth often in his worke that he doth not alledge the doctors wordes truncately by peece meale as heretikes do But you shal see how well he handleth him selfe He would haue S. Augustine speake for his bil and alledgeth his words out of his worke contrae literas Petiliani quoting neither what booke nor what Chapter of the same by which it seemeth that either he red not the place him self out of Augustine but receiued it of some gatherer or else hee would cloake his vnhonest dealing Hee citeth it thus Aliud est Pascha quod adhuc Iudaei celebrant de Oue Aliud auteÌ„ quod nos in corpore sanguine domini celebranus It is another Passouer that the Iewes do yet
afterward falsely ascribed to Ambrose haue the same interpretation The other place vpon the 38. Psalme differeth not in sense That Christ is offered on earth when his bodie is offered For he speaketh but of a remembrance or commemoration of the sacrifice of Christe euen as Chrysostome and as he him selfe teacheth lib. 4. Chap. 5. de Sacram The wordes of the Priest in the celebration Fac nobis inquit haenc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi Make sayeth he this oblation vnto vs ascribed reasonable acceptable which thing is the figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ. This was the Priest wont to say in the celebration of the supper in Saint Ambrose time And againe Chap. 6. Ergo memores gloriosissimae eius passionis ab inferis resurrectionis in Caelum ascensionis offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam rationabilem hostiam incruentam hostiam hunc panem sanctum calicem vitae aeternae c. Therefore being mindfull of his most glorious passion and resurrection from hell and ascention into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudie sacrifice this holie bread and cup of aeternall life Wee see therefore that the sacrifice was a remembrance and thanksgiuing for the onely true sacrifice of Christ once offered by him selfe for all To conclude because I will omitt Bernard a late writer not to be heard in this controuersie Chrysostome in his booke de Sacerdotio lib. 3. speaketh not contrarie to him selfe in other places saying O miracle O the goodnesse of God he that sitteth aboue with his father in the same point of time is handled with the handes of all and deliuereth himselfe to them that will receiue him and imbrace him Wherefore this hyperbolical exclamation proueth no more that Christes bodie is both in heauen on earth then these words of his proue that our bodies are both in heauen earth ad Pop. Antioch Hom. 55. Morduca me dixi bibe me te sarsum habeo deorsum tibi connector I sayde eate me drinke mee I haue thee both aboue and am knitt to thee also beneath Hitherto therefore nothing is brought to proue that Christes bodie may be in more places then one The eleuenth Chapter proueth that as two bodies may be in one place so the bodie of Christ being one may be in diuerse places M. Heskins in this Chapter like a monsterous Gyant cryeth open battel against naturall Philosophie reason and thinketh he hath a sure shield to fight vnder the omnipotencie of god But for as much as the lawe of nature is the lawe and ordinance of God he doeth nothing else but set the power of God against his will and decree in making whereof did concurre his power wisdome and goodnesse God hath decreede that one body can be but in one place at one time and that two bodies cannot occupie one proper place at once nor one body without comixtion of partes be in another bodye And therefore both Cranmer and Oecolampadius haue truely sayed that it is vnpossible those thinges should be otherwise then God hath decreed them Now riseth vp this Gargantua and will proue by scripture that one bodie may be in another and two bodies in one place alledgeth the text Ioan 20. that Iesus came the dores being shutt and stoode in the middest of them and saide peace be with you and this being testifyed for a miraculous comming in of Christ proueth that he so comming in passed through dore or wall as his pleasure was to do Although the wordes of the texte 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the dores were shutt doth not inforce vs to acknowledge any miracle but that he might be let in of the porter at euen after the dores were shutt vp for feare of the Iewes soudein breaking in vppon the Disciples that were gathered together in that place yet I will willingly acknowledge a miraculous comming in of Christe but no passing through the bordes of the dore or stones of the wall but that by his diuine power he did either open the dore and shutt it immediatly after he was passed through or else at the vttermost that the substance of the dore or wall gaue place to his diuine presence and immediatly returned to his naturall state and place And whereas M. Heskins no lesse impudently then vnlearnedly doth charge Cranmer with falsifying the Scripture where he affirmeth that Christ might as well come into the house when the dore was shutt as the Apostles coulde go out of prison the dore being shutt Act. 5. he doth nothing else but bewray his great folly ioyned with no lesse malice against the trueth Cranmer was not ignorant that the Angell opened the dore to the Apostles and yet shutt it againe so close that it could not be perceiued that it had beene opened euen â—o might the Angell doe at the passage of our Sauiour Christe What absurditie or repugnance is here but in such an absurde persons eare as Heskins is that ouerthroweth all lawe order of nature to establish his brutish and monstrous errour But nowe we shall heare these monsters brought forth of the doctours which Scripture hath not and nature abhorreth And firste shal be Chrysostome Hom. de Ioan. Bapt. Sancta Maria beata Maria c. Holy Maria blessed Marie both a mother and a virgine Shee was a virgine before birth a virgine after birth I marueile at this howe of a virgine a virgine should be borne and after the birth of a virgine â–ª the mother should be a virgine Will you knowe howe he was borne of a virgine and after the birth how shee was both a mother and a virgine The dores were shutt and Iesus entred in No man doubteth but that the dores were shutt he that entred by the dores that were shutt was no phantasie he was no spirite he was verily a body For what sayd he looke and see that a spirite hath no flesh and bones as ye see mee haue He had flesh he had bones and the dores were shutt How did fleshe and bones enter when the dores were shutt The dores are shutt and hee doth enter whome wee sawe not goe in How did he go in all things are close there is no place by the which he might go in and yet he is within which entered in Thou knowest in howe it was done and doest referre it to the omnipotencie of god Giue this also to the omnipotencie of God that he was borne of a virgine In these wordes Chrysostome saith that Christe might as well bee borne of a Virgine as hee entered into the house after the doores was shut this was not without a miracle and no more was that But for two bodies in one place at one instant hee speaketh nothing as yet No more doth Hieronyme In Apol. cont Iouin Respondeant mihi c. Let them aunswere me howe
beginning of this Chapter â–ª he saith there was neuer heretiques but had some shew of argumentes to auouche his heresie and bringeth in diuerse examples only the proclaymer made no argument in his 〈◊〉 for that he would haue the people receiue his bare proclamation What arguments he vsed let the world iudge the Papistes if they can study to answer him But Oecolampadius he saith hath heaped vp scriptures to proue the ascention of Christ which the Papistes doe graunt yet acknowledge his presence on the earth in the sacrament as though his departing out of the world and presence in the world concerning his bodily presence could stand together Then he flyeth to his diuine power by which he is able to be present in diuerse places as well as do such and such miracles as he rehearseth and wisheth that we should not be so streight and cruell to the body of Christ as to giue it no greater prerogatiue then vnto any other body Verily we do acknowledge as great prerogatiue thereof as he himselfe hath giuen it whereof we haue vnderstanding by his holy worde and otherwise it were madnesse in vs to take vpon vs to be liberall to him which giueth all thinges And if we found as good authoritie for the vbiquitie or pluralitie of placing of his body as we finde for the feeding vs thereby into eternall life we would as easily confesse the one as we doe the other But we finde not in deede as M. Heskins saith that he himselfe hath giuen or would giue his body that prerogatiue to be euery where or in more places then one at once As for the possibilitie we extend it no further then his will. We know he can do what soeuer he will. And many thinges we know he cannot do because he wil not But M. Heskins to assure vs of his will hath nothing to bring but that which is al the controuersie which most impudently he affirmeth that he hath proued both by scriptures and doctours that Christ hath caused his bodie to be in diuers places at one time which neither scripture nor any Doctour of antiquitie euer did affirme in proper manner of speaking otherwise in figuratiue speech we may truly say we eate in the sacrament the body of Christe which is in heauen when to speake properly and without figure we eate but the bread which to the faithfull receiuer is a sacrament and seale of our spirituall nourishment whiche we receiue of his flesh and bloud after a diuine and vnspeakable manner vnto eternall life saith rather lifting vs vp into heauen then bringing Christes body into the earth Maister Heskins saith the scriptures that say Christ is in heauen speake without exclusiues or exceptiues and therefore there is no denial imployed but that he may be beleeued to be also on the earth in the sacrament When Peter in the Actes 3. affirmeth that Christ must be conteined in heauen which is meant of his humanitie vntill the time of restoring of all thinges is not this an exclusion of all other places or beeings of his humanitie When Paule to the Colossians Colo. 3. willeth them to seeke those thinges that are aboue and where Christ is at the right hand of God to set their mindes on thinges aboue and not on things vpon the earth is not the reâ—son because Christ concerning his humanitie is aboue not vpon earth Is not this an exclusiue and exception When Christe sayeth not only I goe to my father but also I leaue the worlde Ioan. 16. Whiche saying the Apostles confessed to be plaine and without all parable Is not this a manifest exclusion of his bodily presence from the worlde So that it is manifest that this ascention and abiding in heauen concerning his humane nature in which he ascended is an excluding and shutting out and denying of all other places or presences of his bodie then to be in heauen only But now that he hath thus tombled vp the authorities of the scripture he wil take in hand to answer the obiections brought out of the Doctours And first shal be the saying of Augustine Ad Dardanum ep 57. Which place contrarie to his bragg in the beginning he alledgeth truncatly by halfe beginning at the middest thereof But this place is in Augustine Et sic venturus est illa angelica voce testante quemadmodum ire visus est in Coelum id est in eadem carnis forma atque substantia cui profectò immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstulis Secundùm hanc formam non est putandus vbique diffusus And he shall come euen so as that voyce of the Angel doth testifie euen as he was seene to go into heauen that is in the same fourme and substance of his fleshe to which truly he hath giuen immortalitie but he hath not taken the nature from it According to this fourme he is not thought to be diffused in all places All this hath Heskins left out and beginneth thus Cauendum est enim no ita veritatem astruâ—muâ— hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus Non est enim consequens vt quod no Deo est ita sit vbique vt Deus For we must beware that we doe not so affirme the Deitie of the man that we take away the trueth of his body For it is no consequent that that which is in God should so be euerie where as God is Note here that Saint Augustine doeth not onely flatly denie the vbiquitie of Christes body but also affirmeth that it reteineth still the nature of a bodie which is to be conteined in one onely place Againe he sayeth in the same Epistle Iesus vbique per id quod Deus est in coelo autem per id quod homo est Iesus by that he is God is euerie where by that he is man he is in heauen Nowe let vs heare howe wisely Maister Heskins will auoide this authoritie First he sayeth that Augustine in this epistle speaketh not of the sacrament and therefore these sentences make not against that matter But when Augustine speaketh generally of the bodie of Christ that it reteineth the nature of a body that it is not euerie where c. he doeth not except the sacrament Although it is false that Heskins saith for in the latter end of that Epistle he hath these wordes Huius corporis caput est Christus huius corporis vnitas nostro sacrificio commendatur The head of this bodie is Christ the vnitie of this bodie is commended in our sacrifice By sacrifice as Maister Heskins will confesse he meaneth the celebration of the sacrament Wherefore he forgate not the sacrament in that Epistle but that he might haue made exception thereof if he had thought good The seconde aunswere of Maister Heskins is a balde distinction that a thing may be at one time in many places two wayes the one is by nature the other by gifte By nature he confesseth that the body of Christe can not be in two places
but by gifte it may be euerie where or in as many places as hee will and then bringeth many examples to shewe that CHRISTES body hath many properties by gifte which it hath not by nature And in this distinction he triumpheth out of measure But the lewde sophister will not see that Saint Augustine denieth to Christes body his imagined gift and affirmeth his denied nature to remaine Cui saith he profectò immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstudit to which fleshe he hath giuen immortalitie but not taken away the nature of it Doeth not Augustine here plainely deny the gift of vbiquitie affirming the nature to remaine concerning the circum scription of place You see this very place to ouerthrow his blinde distinction Nowe followeth another place out of this Epistle to Dardanus in which he beeing such an impudent falsarie as we haue so often discouered yet blusheth not to accuse Oecolampadius for falsifying of Aug. by a subtile addition Spacia locorum tolle corporibus nusquaem erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum non erit vbi fint ideo non alibi quà m in caelo corpore fateâ—â—r Christum Take the spaces of places from bodies and they shall be no where and because they shal be no where they shal not be at al. Take the same bodies from the qualities of bodies and there shal no place be found where they may be therfore we confesse Christ in body to be no where else but in heaueÌ„ These last words therfore we confesse Christ in body to be no where but in heauen as he saith truly they be not in Augustine so he saith falsly thei were added by Oecolampadius otherwise then as a conclusion of his owne gathered out of Augustines wordes But he must haue some cauill to shift of the matter For his answere is so impudent that I maruell the beast was not ashamed once to rehearse this obiection which he could no more colourably auoide He saith these wordes of Augustine are not spoken of the body of Christe but of natural bodies vpon the earth whereas the only purpose of Augustine is to shewe the naturall propertie of the bodie of Christ to be conteined in one place according to the nature of al other bodies either in heauen or in earth But because this olde foole playeth the boy so kindely let me pose him in his aunswere like a childe Speaketh Augustine of all bodies or of some If of all then of the bodie of Christ If of some then of particulars followeth nothing But speaketh he of all naturall bodies of the earth Then aunswere me whether Christes body be vpon the earth Yes or else it could not be in the sacrament Well admitte it be vpon the earth is it a naturall bodie or no Take heede what you aunswere Yea it is a naturall bodie why then sir if Christes body be a naturall body vpon earth and Augustine speaketh of naturall bodies vpon earth then Augustine speaketh of Christes bodie also This childishe kinde of reasoning were good inough for such childish aunsweres as he maketh to so graue authorities But let vs see another obiection whiche is out of Augustine also In Ioan. tract 30. Sursum est Domimus sed etiam hîc veritas Dominus Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit vno loco esse potest Veritas eius vbique diffusa est Our Lorde is aboue hiâ— also he is here and our Lord is the trueth For the bodie of our Lorde in which he rose againe can be but in one place his truth is diffused euerie where This place is corruptly cited by Maister Heskins for he setteth it downe thus Sed etiam hîc est veritas Domini His translation I wil not deale with because it is the matter in controuersie He aunswereth that Augustine saith no more but that he may be in one onely place at one time if it please him A goodly saying as though euer any man would thinke otherwise then that it were possible for his bodie to be in one place at one time But that one place in these wordes is an exclusiue of all other places if the opposition of one place and all other places will not serue at least wise let the Canon law it selfe beare some sway with Papistes to expound it for in the decrees De contract Dist. 2. prima quidem Thiâ— place of Augustine is thus cited Corpus enim in quo resurrexit in vno loco esse oportet veritas autem eius vbique disfusa est For his body in which he rose againe must needes be in one place but his trueth is diffused in all places By this it is euident that Augustines worde Potest esse vno loco assigneth his body to one onely place Nowe as though there were no more obiections out of Augustine or any other writer against the vbiquitie of Christes bodie he endeth with this concluding after his maner that faith must ouer rule reason which is true where Gods worde hath promised any thing but we denie that Christ hath promised the presence of his bodie in moe places then one therefore there is no place for faith where the word hath not gone before But left the reader should thinke M. Heskins hath answered all obiections out of Augustine I thinke good to set downe one or two more first In Ioan. Tract 31. Christus homo secundum corpus in loco est de loco migrat 〈◊〉 ad alium locum venerit in eo loco vnde venit non est Deus autem implet omnia vbique totuâ— est non secundùm spacia tenetur locis c. Christe the man according to his bodie is in a place goeth from a place and when he is come vnto another place he is not in that place from whence he came but God filleth all thinges and is whole in euerie place he is not helde in places according to spaces or distances And Tr. 50. Respondent quem tenebo absentem Quomodo in coelum maman mittam vt ibi sedentem teneam Fidem mitte tenuisti Parentes tuitenuerunt carne no tene corde quoniam Christus absens etiam presens est Nisi praesens esset a nobis ipsit toneri non posset sed quoniam verum est quod ait Ecce ego vobiscum sum vsque ad consumnationem saeculi abijs his est redijt nos non deseruit Corpus enim suâ—n intulit caelo maiestatem non abstulis mundo They answere meaning the vnbeleeuing Iewes whom shall I holde Him that is absent How shall I send vp my hand into heauen that I may holde him which sitteth there Send vp faith and thou hast held him Thy parentes held him in flesh holde thou him in heart For Christ being absent is also present For except he were present he could not be held of ourselues but because it is true which he saith Beholde I am with you
they 〈◊〉 hitherto that they would neither learne by hearing nor acknowledge by reading that which in the Church of God in the mouth of all men is so agreeably spoken That not as much as of the tongues of infantes the veritie of the bodie and bloud of Christ is vnspoken of among the sacraments of the common faith for in that mystical distribution of that spirituall foode this thing is giuen foorth this thing is receiued that receiuing the vertue of that heauenly meate we may goe into his fleshe which was made our fleshe First M. Heskins as his fashion is to make the matter more cleare on his side falsely translateth Hoc impertitur hoc sumitur this bodie is giuen forth this bodie is receiued Where as Hoc is either taken absolutely for this thing or else at the least must haue relation to Sacramentum which is the next substantiue of the neuter gender in any reasonable construction Secondly it is manifest that Leo speaking against the heretiques Eutycheâ— and Dioscorus setteth forth the truth of Christs bodie bloud as one of the common knowen sacraments or mysteries of Christian faith saith neuer a word of his carnall presence in the mysterie of his supper but contrariwise teacheth that it is a mystical distributioÌ„ a spiritual food an heaueÌ„ly meat which words import not a carnal maner but a spiritual maner of preseÌ„ce eating Thus real presence as he termeth it being not yet proued the adoration cannot follow as he pretendeth The seuen and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the proofe of the adoration of the Sacrament by doctors The first doctor named is Dionysius Areopagita disciple of S. Paule as he sayeth Eccles. Hierarch 3. parte Cap. 3. who maketh this prayer to the sacrament O verie godly holie mysterie opening fauourably the couerings of signifying signes wherewith thou art couered shine openly and apertly vnto vs fill our spiritual eyes with the singuler open brightnesse of thy light That this Dionyse although of some antiquitie yet is not that Dionyse that was conuerted by S. Paule nor any that liued 600. yeres after at the least it is plaine by this reason that neither Eusebius nor Hieronyme nor Gennadius which wrote the Catologs of all ecclesiasticall writers that were before them or were famous in the church in their time nor yet any other writer within the compasse of 600. yeres after Christe maketh any mention of any such Dionyse to be a writer of those bookes which are saide to be written by him Now touching his supposed prayer it is but an exclamatioÌ„ rethoricall named apostrophe not vnto the bread wine but to him that in that mysterie is represented which is Christ that he would vouchsafe to open him self shine in the hearts of the faithfull as the outward signes are seene with the outwarde eyes And that he allowed no transubstantiation it is manifest by that he saith in the same place that the Bishop doth after consecration cut in peeces the vndiuided bread speaking of the sacrament doth often affirme that by those symboles or signes wee are changed into God Christ meaning we are renewed by his spirite but neuer affirmeth the bread wine to bee turned into the bodie bloud of christ Howbeit what I iudge of his authorite antiquitie I haue declared before The next is Gregorie Nazianzen in Epitaph Gorgoniae sororis Quid igitur c. What then did the soule both great worthie of greatest things and what remedie had shee against her infirmitie For nowe the secreat is disclosed when shee had dispaired of all other shee flyeth to the Phisition of all men and taking the solitarinesse of the night when the disease had giuen her a little respite shee fell downe with faith before the altare and with a lowde voice and all her might shee called vppon him which is worshipped at is and vnto him shee rehearsed all the myracles that he had done of olde time M. Heskins immagineth that it was such an altare as they haue in the popish Churches which is vntrue for it was a table men stoode round about it as is to be proued by many testimonies of antiquitie Secondly he immagineth that the sacrament was hanged ouer the altare to be worshipped as it is among them but that is vtterly false for it was receiued at such time as it was consecrated except some remanents that were kept to be eaten Therfore though shee made her prayer at the altare shee made no prayer to any thing vppon the altare but to God whome shee did worship and reuerence and whose mysteries shee vsed to receiue at the same altare Therefore M. Heskins falsifieth Gregories words which are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but thus they are turned by him into latine ante altare cum fide procubuit illum quem super altare venerabatur c. Shee prostrated her selfe with faith before the altar and called vpon him whome shee worshipped vpon the altare But Gregorie sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it or at it meaning the altare where shee prayed And to put all out of doubt that shee worshipped not the sacrament vppon the altare it followeth afterwarde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if her hand had layde vp any where any parte of the figures of the precious bodie or of the bloud that shee mingled with teares O marueilous thing and immediatly departed feeling health By these wordes it appeareth that shee brought this remanent of the sacrament with her which Gregorie calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the signes or tokens or figures of the bodie and bloud of Christ and not the verie naturall bodie of Christe and those shee worshipped not but wett them with teares whether superstitiously let the Papistes iudge for they them selues will allowe no such fashions nor yet reseruation for such purposes but as for adoration of the sacrament which is the matter intended here is none spoken of in this place After this he toucheth the facte of Satyrus the brother of S. Ambrose which is aunswered before lib. 1. Cap. 24. whose hope was in God and not in the sacrament Although Satyrus as a young nouice not throughly instructed in Christian religion cannot simply be defended though he may be excused howsoeuer by his brother Ambrose he is highly commended Then followed Eusebius Emisserâ—us Hom. Pascal Because he woulde take away his assumpted bodie from our eyes and carrie it into heauen it was needefull that this day he should consecrate vnto vs the sacrament of his bodie and bloud vs coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in precium that it might be continually worshipped or exercised by a mysterie for colere signifieth both whiche was once offered for our price M. Heskins gathereth hereof that the same bodie should be honoured by mysterie whose visible presence not his bodie was taken away from the earth But Eusebius sayeth not onely that he would take his bodie
But louers truely doe shewe this desire in mony garments possessions no man euer in his owne bloud But Christ in this hath shewed both his care and his vehement loue toward vs And in the olde Testament when they were more vnperfect that bloud which they offered to idolâ— he himselfe would accept that he might turne them away from idols which also was a signe of inspeakable loue But here he hath prepared a much more wonderfull and magnificall sacrifice both when he changed the sacrifice it selfe and for the slaughter of brute beaste commanded him selfe to be offered Although M. Hesk. hath disioyned this place to make shew of varietie I haue set it down whole and entire Here M. Hesk. triumpheth not a litle rayling against blessed Cranmer for abusing S. Paules words because Chrysostome saith that which is in the cup is that which flowed out of Christes side therfore it must needs be his bloud that corporaly receiued neither can he abide to heare tell of a trope or figure in these wordes Buâ— in spight of his heart Chrysostom must be vnderstood with a trope or figure because he saith immediatly after that Christ willeth the Corinthians to sprinkle his altar with his bloud I am sure M. Hesk. wold not dip his holiwater sprinkle in the challice and shake it ouer the altar Therefore the whole speech of Chrysostom is a continued trope and allegorie And therfore neither M. Hes his presence nor his sacrifice caÌ„ be proued out of this place Concerning the sacrifice I haue often shewed how the ancient fathers called the sacrament a sacrifice namely of thanksgiuing First not of propitiation so we grant that Christ did institute a sacrifice in the supper Secondly vnproperly as a remeÌ„brance of Christes sacrifice and so doth Chrysostome expound him selfe vpon the tenth to the Hebrues Non aliud c. We offer not another sacrifice as the high priest but the same we do always but rather we worke the remeÌ„brance of that sacrifice Another place of Chrysostome he citeth out of his Ser. de Eucharist in Enconija Reputate salutareÌ„ c. Esteeme that wholsome bloud to flowe as it were out of his Diuine and vnpolluted side and so comming to it receiue it with pure lippes This saith he must needes proue a reall presence because it is receiued with lipâ— as the spiritual receiuing is not And these words must be spoken in a plaine maner without all figure because he spake them in a sermon to the common people O blockish reasons surely he hath not read this place in Chrysostom but borowed it of some note book For immediatly before these wordes is a place that hath a great shewe of transubstantiation but in deede it cleane ouerthroweth both the corporal maner of receiuing M. Hesk. two doughtie reasons Num vides panem num viâ—um â–ª Noâ—â— ficut reliqui â—ibi in secessum vadunt Absit ne sic cogites queÌ„aedâ—oâ—â— enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimulatur nihil substantia vemanet nihil superfluit sic hic puâ—a mysteria consumi corporis praesentia Propâ—er quod accedentes ne putetis quod accipiatis Diuinum corpus ex homine sed ex ipsis Seraphim forcipe igneÌ„ quem scilices Esaias vidit vat accipere What doest thou see bread or wine Do they go into the drought like other meal God forbid that thou sholdest so thinke Foâ— as waxe if it be put to the fire is made like vnto it none of the substance remaineth nothing ouerfloweth so here think the mysteries to be consumed by the presence of the bodie Therfore you that come to it think not that you receiue the diuine bodie of a man but that you receiue the fier which Esaie saw with a paire of tongs of the Seraphims themselues If M. Hesk. will not allow any figures in this sermon because it was made to the common people that we receiue not the Lords bodie at the Priests hand but fire from the altar by an Angels hande and that Chrysostome allowed none but a spirituall receiuing of Christ not corporally present on the altar but in heauen he teacheth sufficieÌ„tly both by this place more plainely following the former place which M. Hesk. cited before In 1. Cor. 10. Ad hoc 〈◊〉 nos inducis sacrificiâ—on formidandâ—â— admirabile quod iubet nobis vt cum concordia charitate maxima ad se accedamis aquilae in hac vita facti ad ipsum câ—lum euotemus vel potius supra 〈◊〉 Vbi enim cadâ—uer inquit illic aquilae Cadauer Domini corpuâ— propter mortem nisi enim ille cecidisset nos noÌ„ resurrexissemus Aquilas 〈◊〉 appellat vt oftendat ad alta eum oportere conteÌ„dere qui ad hoc corpus acâ—edit nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune neque ad inferiora trahi repere sed ad superiora seÌ„per volare in solem institiae intueri mentisqué oculum acutissimum habere Aquilaerum enim non gracculorum hec mensa est For vnto this doeth the fearefull and wonderful sacrifice bring vs that he coÌ„mandeth vs that we come vnto him with concord and great charitie and beeing made eagles in this life we flie vp into heauen or rather aboue heauen For where the carkase is saith he there are the Eagles The Lords bodie is the carkas in respect of his death for except he had fallen we had not risen againe And he calleth them Eagles to shew that he must get vp on high that coÌ„meth to this body must haue nothing to do with the earth nor be drawn and creepe to the lower places but alwayes to flie vp on high and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse and to haue a most cleare eye of the minde For this is the table of Eagles and not of Iayes These words may satisfie a reasonable man that Chrysostom in this homily ment none other but a spirituall manner of receiuing of Christe in heauen and not transubstantiated in the sacrament on the altar in earth the other places he soweth together after his manner to peece out his Chapter out of Cyprian De Coen Chrysost. De prodition Iudae August contra literas Pet. Iren. Lib. 4. Cap. 32. are answered at large before in seuerall places namely in order Lib. 1. Ca. 17. Lib. 1. Cap. 18. Lib. 1. Cap. 19. and Lib. 2. Cap. 49. The place of Ambrose In prima oratione praepar c. Deserueth none answere beeing none of his workes but a counterfet as Erasmus and all learned men do iudge that be not wedded to their owne affection The seuententh Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by the exposition of Chrysostome and S. Hierome Chrysostome is cited as before vpon this text In 1. Cor. 10. vpon these wordes The bread which we breake is it not the communication of the bodie of Christ Quare non dixit participatio Why said he not the participatioÌ„ because he wold signifie somewhat
to make no diference betweene matters of substance and matters of circumstance as hee by his Popish sophistrie doth confounde SECTIO 24. From the secoÌ„d face of the 72. leafe to the second face of the 74. leafe wherin he beginneth to speak of adoration of the sacrameÌ„t Where the bishop saith that the olde doctours neuer make mention of adoration of the sacrament maister Rastell saith the argument is both naught and lying Naught because it may bee they vsed it although they neuer spake of it lying because he saith they do speake of it But to aunswere the naughtinesse of the argument I say maister Rastell is both a naughtie and lying gatherer of the bishoppes argument dismembring that which hee ioyneth together thus Christ his Apostels and the primitiue church neuer made mention of adoration of the sacrament therefore is not to bee vsed And concerning the lying supposed I answere that no auncient doctour speaketh one word of adoration of the sacrament as the verye sonne of GOD but either of adoration of Christ in heauen or of worshipping and adoring that is reuerently handling and honouring of the mysteries of Christ and no more of this sacrament then of the other namely baptisme For aunswere to the places he citeth out of Chrysostome Ambrose Augustine I will referre the reader to mine answere vnto the 45.46 47. Chapters of the second booke of Heskins parleament where this question is handled more at large Sauing that which he citeth out of Hom. 83. out of Chrysost. that we are fed with that thing which the Angels do honour which we confesse to be the body of Christ after a spirituall maner yet pertaineth it nothing to adoration of the sacrament And much lesse that he citeth ex Orat. in Philon. That as we entertaine God here so he wil receiue vs there with much glorie Where he speaketh of honouring God and not adoring the sacrament SECTIO 25. in the 74. leafe The Bishop aunswering a place of Augustine saith we must worship Christ where we eate him but we eate him in heauen by faith therefore we must worship him there M. Rastel sayth we eate him on earth also but proofe he bringeth none greater then his owne saying either of reason or authoritie SECTIO 26. From the end of the 74. leafe to the first face of the 79. leafe The Bishop proueth we must seeke Christe in heauen by these reasons Wee must lift vp our heartes wee must seeke those things which are aboue in heauen where Christ is and not the things that are vpon earth where Christ is not Câ—ll 3. And our conuersation is in heauen from whence wee looke for our Sauiour c. Phil. 3. M. Rastel saith the conclusion is inferred madly and miserably bicause these textes do no more disproue Christes body to bee on earth really then they proue our bodies to be in heauen really as in this short example our conuersation is in heauen and yet Paule was on earth in body when he saide this O wise and happie concluder but blinde and blockish interpretour which reasoneth as though the worde Conuersation in Saint Paules saying did signifie presence or being whereas it signifieth franches or libertie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our franches freedom or conuersation is in heauen Where is nowe your madd and miserable conclusion The Bishops arguments therefore on these places stand firme and vnmoueable that Christ is not on earth in body but in heauen where we must seeke him not climbing with ladders as it pleaseth Maister Rastel to scoffe in so graue matters but ascending by faith and affection set on heauenly and spirituall things As for his exposition of Sursian corda howe wholesome it is you may gather by this one note that in the very beginning â–ª he saith that the body of Christe is not onely lying on the altar and caried in mens handes but also broken and diuided The places hee citeth out of Saint Augustine for adoration be aunswered in mine aunswere to Maister Heskins before mentioned SECTIO 27. The Bishop saith that adoration of the sacrament is a newe deuise of Pope Honorius of three hundreth yeares agoe and after him Vibanus the fourth made an holiday of Corpus Christi c. Maister Rastel is angrie that three hundreth yeares should be counted a little while agoe when it is not three score yeares since Luther sprang vp But if Luther haue taught any doctrine that was not receiued in the Church a thousand and fiue hundreth yeares ago we are content it be accounted newe but whatsoeuer may be proued to haue bene taught 1500. yeares agoe must needes be old though Luther be newe and in comparison of that age Honorius and Vrbanus are but yong children But remitting the antiquitie Maister Rastell will stande for the veritie bicause the Popes lacked no counsell Neither by your doctrine needed they any 2. The Vniuersities were not without great schollers Such as those blinde and hereticall times affoorded 3. Religious houses and orders were not destroyed Yea they swarmed with Locustes to maintaine the kingdome of Absaddon 4. The holy Ghost in true Catholikes was inuincible Yea but there were fewe true Catholikes in those days 5. The wicked spirit in heretiques would haue bene venterous Yea the Pope the Archheretique of the world was venterous ynough when he set vp such idolatrie 6. A good man with the daunger of his life would haue spoken the trueth So did many good men which cost them their liues 7. An heretique for fame would not haue passed vpon death what neede an heretique feare death when heresie was so generally receiued that the true Catholikes were condemned and burned for heretiques by the name of Albigenses Waldenses Pauperes de Lugduno and such like which from time to time were persecuted imprisoned and burned for refusing and disalowing such idolatrie and false worshipping These be the worshipfull reasons he hath to proue the veritie of this bread worship which after he hath dilated more at large hee commeth at length to admiration of the seruice of Corpus Christi day made by Thomas Aquinas which hee thinkeh to be so excellent that the very sound and sense of the Anthemnes Respondes and Versicles declare whence they proceeded And I am of the same opinion for the comparing of such thinges to the sacrament as pertaine nothing vnto it declareth that such comparison came from the spirit of man not from the spirite of god As where it is saide 3. Reg 19. That Helias sawe a cake of bread at his head c. And Iob complaineth of the crueltie of his seruants that would haue eaten his flesh Iob. 31. And as for the holiday though it were instituted but of late yeares yet he taketh it sufficient to proue the adoration necessarie which could not be seene in the Church twelue hundreth yeres before or els that holiday should haue bene set vp long before SECTIO 28. The
And your Authour saith he dranke none other bloud but that he powred vpon them Here is also alledged Chrysostomes name for Christes drinking of his bloud but his wordes are referred to another place Then followeth a conclusion If Christ drank his owne bloud he drank it spiritually or corporally spiritually he could not wherfore he dranke it corporally This is very round dealing M. Heskins But if he could drinke his bloud I pray you why could he not drinke it spiritually as well rather then corporally For if he dranke his owne bloud he also did eate his owne body which if it sound not grossely in your eares it is because you haue a grosse vnderstanding In this Chapter two Lordes of the Parleament beeing required of their iudgment haue giuen their voices both directly against his bill for the carnall presence The seuenteenth Chapter proceedeth in the same matter by S. Cyprian and Euthymius Maister Heskins in his Epistles and prefaces promiseth great sinceritie and euery where obiecteth impudencie and insinceritie against the proclaymer and his complices But see what sinceritie he vseth that matcheth Euthymius scarse worthy to be a burgesse of the lower house â—ith Cyprian one of the most auncient Barons of the vpper house And yet afterward he him selfe placeth him in the lower house that is among the writers within the compasse of nine hundreth yeres Wheras the higher house consisteth of them that writ within 600. yeares after Christ as the Bishop whom he tearmeth the proclaymer maketh his challenge And certeinely Euthymius was neuer accounted for a Lord of the parleament before he was called thereto by Maister Heskins writte which of what force it is to make a Baron let the readers iudge For he liued about the yeare of our Lord 1170. Notwithstanding we will examine his voyce as it commeth in order But we must first consider the voyce of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage Which is this The supper therefore being ordered among the sacramentall meates there mette together the newe ordinances and the olde And when the lambe was consumed or eatâ—n which the olde tradition did set foorth the maister did set before his disciples the inconsumptible meatâ— Neither are the people now bidden to feastes painefully wrought with expenses and cunning but the foode of immortalitie is giuen differing from common meates reteyning the kind of appearance of corporall substaÌ„ce but prouing by inuisible efficiencie the presence of Gods power or the diuine vertue to be there In this saying First there is neuer a worde to proue that the Pascall Lambe was a figure of the Lordes supper which is the purpose of the Chapter but onely that the newe institution succeeded the olde which is manifest by the history of the Gospell Euen as Baptisme succeded circumcision and yet was not circumcision a figure of Baptisme Secondly note that he doeth not affirme the reall presence of Christes naturall bodie but the inuisible working of his diuine power And so his voyce is flatly againg Maister Heskins bill Nowe let vs consider his fonde collections First that Christ gaue inconsumptible meate the sacramentaries giue consumptible meate For they giue but bread This is a false slaunder a thousand times repeated for they giue not bread only but euen the same inconsumptible meate by the inuisible working of his diuine power which Cyprian affirmeth that Christe gaue his Disciples But he vrgeth That it was put before them taken by hande laid in sight which the merite and grace of his passion could not be See I pray you how this man agreeth with Cyprian Cyprian saith it was by inuisible working of Gods fauour he saith it was put before them for so he translateth apponit taken by hand and laide in sight His second collection is That it differeth from common meates reteining the fourme of corporall substaunce whiche can neither be the breade which differeth not from common meates nor the spirituall meate which they call the merite of his passion because that reteineth not the fourme of corporall substance A wise reason disioyning and seuering thinges that should bee taken together The water in baptisme differeth from common water and conteyning the fourme of corporall substance by inuisible working proueth the presence of Gods power to be there So doeth the bread and wine in the Lordes Supper Which although of them selues they be no more holy then other creatures yet when they are consecrated for the vse of the sacrament they differ as muche from common meates as the bodie and the soule doe as temporall life and eternall life as heauen and earth doe differ so doeth the water consecrated for baptisme differ from common water His third collection that it is called The foode of immortalitie which cannot be bare materiall bread A true collection for the sacrament is not bare material bread but the body and bloud of Christ represented by materiall bread as a materiall lauer is the water of regeneration but not bare materiall water For confirmation is brought in Ignatius ex Ep. ad Ephe. Be ye taught of the comforter obedience to the Bishop and the priest with vnswaruing or stable minde breaking the bread which is the medicine of immortalitie the preseruatiue of not dying but of liuing by Iesus Christ. Although no learned man that is not more wilfull then wise will graunt this Epistle to be written by that auncient father Ignatius whose name it beareth yet doth this saying coÌ„tein nothing but very sound doctrine of the sacrament which he calleth bread that iâ— broken to be the medicine of immortalitie M. Heskins vrgeth as before that it can non be bare bread which hath such effects Which I graunt willingly but I reply vpon him that it cannot be the naturall body of Christ which he exhorteth them to breake For Christes body is not broken but the sacramentall bread to signifie the breaking and participation of his body But he proceedeth to another speech of Cyprian which is in deede a more apparant speeche for his purpose the wordes are these Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effâ—gie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro Et fiout in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebaâ— diuinitas ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter se diuina infudie essentia This bread which our Lorde did reache vnto his disciples beeing chaunged not in shape but in nature by omnipotencie of the worde is made fleshe And as in the person of CHRISTE the humanitie was seene the diuinitie was hidden euen so the diuine essence hath powred it selfe vnspeakably into the visible sacrament The Papistes esteeme this place to be an inuincible bulwarke of their transubstantiation but alas it is soone ouerthrowne when the meaning of Cyprian is boulted out not onely by sentences going before and after this saying but also by the very wordes of this same sentence For he maketh a manifest difference betweene the visible sacrament and the diuine essence which
beene slaine in a sedition raysed by him where as the worlde knoweth it was in warre that was helde in defence of his countrie The like foolish quarell he hath for putting out of Polycarpus out of the Calender placing Thomas Hutten in his stood all which as vnworthie any aunswer I passe ouer it is sufficiently knowen what Bullinger esteemed of mâ—ns authoritie what Fox if he meane him iudged of the old Martyrs diuinitie The other reasons following I could scarse read without loathsomnesse that preachers must ceasse if writers may not be receiued vnder 1000 yeres antiquitie more that speaking writing are of like authority and such like blockish stuffe The elder writers are allowed not for their age but for their agreement with the worde of God the later preachers are beleeued not for that their speaking is better then Papistes writing but because they speake thinges consonant to the word of God the touchstone and triall of trueth And therefore we receiue not the testimonie of Nicholaus de Lyra the second Burgesse because it is contrarie to the word of God and the consent of the elder Doctours that Christ speaketh of the sacrament when he saith the bread which I will giue is my fleshe which wordes Theophylacte euen nowe affirmed to be spoken of the passion of Christ. The fourth Chapter beginneth a further proofe of the former master by S. Cyprian and Euthymius For proof of the two breads that the text The bread which I will giue is my flesh c. is ment of the sacrament Cyprian is alledged although the place be not quoted but it is in the sermon vpoÌ„ the Lords prayer in these words Panis vitae Christus est c. Christ is the bread of life and he is not the bread of all men but our bread And as we say our father because he is the father of theÌ„ that vnderstand beleeue so we call it our bread because Christ is our bread which touche his body And this bread we pray to be giuen vs daily least we that are in Christe and daily receiue the Eucharistie to the meate of health some greeuous offence comming betweene while beeing separated and not communicating we be forbidden from that heauenly bread we be separated from the body of Christ he himselfe openly saying and warning I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and the bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde Howsoeuer M. Hesk. would falsly gather out of this place Cyprian maketh not two breades but one bread of life Christ God man as for the two respects of his Godhead manhoode that he prateth of cannot make Christ to be two breads but one true foode of our soules And that Cyprian doth apply this text to the sacrament only it is utterly false in that he saith we must pray for this daily bread Christ to feede vs although for some greeuous offence we be restrained from the sacrament as is also euident by these words that follow Quando ergo dicit in aeternum viuere si quis ederit de tius pane vt manifestum est cos vinera qui corpus eius 〈◊〉 Eucharistitum â—â—re coÌ„municationis accipiunt ita contrae timenduÌ„ est erandum ne dam quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore procul remaneat a salute comminante ipso dicente Nist ederitis carnem fâ—ij hominis biberiâ—is sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis Et ideo panem nostrium id est Christum dari nobis quoâ—idie petimus vt qui in Christo manemus vinimus a sanctificatione corpore eius non recedamus Therefore when he saith that he liueth for euer whosoeuer shal eate of his bread as it is manifest that they do liue which touch or come neare vnto his body and by the right of communication receiue the sacrament of thankesgiuing so contrariwise it is to be feared and to be prayed for lest while any being sequestred is separated from the body of Christe he remaine farre from health he himselfe threatening saying except ye shal eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you And therefore we pray daily that our bread that is to say Christ may be giuen to vs daily that we which remaine liue in Christ go not away from sanctification and his bodie In these wordes as in the former Cyprian directly referreth that text to our spirituall communication with the body of Christ by right of which communication we receiue the sacrament thereof And this participation of Christ he calleth Contingere attingere corpus Christi not to touch his body with our teeth or mouth in that sacrameÌ„t as M. Heskins dreameth Here followeth Euthymius of whose antiquitie we haue spoken in the first booke Neuerthelesse we wil examine his saying which is this In 6. Ioan. Duobus modis c. Christ is saide to be bread two wayes that is after his godhead and after his manhood therefore when he had taught the manner which is after his godhead now doeth he also teach the manner which is after his manhoode For he did not say which I do giue but which I will giue for he would giue it in his last supper when thankes being giuen he tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and saide take eate this is my body M. Heskins maruelleth that the aduersaries cheekes waxe not redd for shame to see so plaine a sentence against them But if we knew not that Maister Heskins had beene as impudent as a frier we might maruell that he was not ashamed first to alledge Euthymius as a writer within 6. hundreth yeares after Christ who liued about the yeare of our Lorde 1180. And secondly to make two breads of that which Euthymius saith to be one bread after two manners Finally although Euthymius referred this text to the sacrament yet saith he nothing for the carnall presence in as much as it is manifest that Christ spake there of a spiritual communication of his fleshe or else all infantes are damned that receiue not the sacrament The fift Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by S. Augustine and Chrysostome S. Augustine is alledged De Agricultura agri Dominici a treatise of no account for the authoritie being falsely intituled to Augustine which was the worke of a farre later writer The wordes neuerthelesse are these The table of thy spouse hath whole bread and a holy cuppe which bread although we haue seene broken and brused in his passion yet he remained whole in that his indiuided vnity with his father Of this bread and of this cup our Lorde himselfe saide The bread which I will giue is my fleshe for the life of the world and the cuppe which I wil sanctifie is my bloud which shal
be shed for you vnto remission of sinnes This place is falsly truncatly cited by M. Hesk. thus Quem paneÌ„ etsi fractum coÌ„minutumque vidimus integer tamen cum ipso suo patre manet in coelis De quo pane dicit panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita Which he Englisheth thus which bread although we haue seen brokeÌ„ brused on the crosse yet it abideth with that his father whole in heauen of the which bread he saith c. Wheras the very wordes are quem panem etsi fractum comminunumque vidimus in passione integer tamen mansit in illa sua indiuidua vnitate De isto pane de isto calice dicebat ipse Dominus Panis quem ego dedero caro 〈◊〉 est pro saeculi vita c. Although this writer as it is manifest to any man that will reade his treatise speaketh onely of the vnitie of the Godhead of Christ with his Father and the holy Ghoste notwithstanding the breaking of his body in his passion which is represented in the sacrament yet M. Heskins vpon his owne falsification inferreth that the body of Christ was and is in three sundrie places on the Table or Altar on the Crosse and in heauen with his father Yea he appealeth to the grammarian for the nature of a Relatiue That the same bread is on the table which was broken on the crosse and that which was broken on the crosse is it which is whole sitting in heauen Which how vaine a reason it is when it is vrged of that thing which hath two natures vnited in one person as our Sauiour Christ hath I appeale from all grammarians to al Catholike diuines as in the saying of Christ no man hath ascended into heauen but he that came downe from heauen euen the sonne of man which is in heauen Ioan 9. Let M. Hesk. with the graÌ„marian vrge the relatiue in this place he shal proue him selfe both an Anabaptist a Marcionist For Christ coÌ„cerning his humanitie came not down out of heauen neither was he in heauen according to his humanity when he was on the earth But what stand we trifling about this testimonie Seeing Augustine both in the interpetation of this whole chapter is so copious vpon the Psal. 98. in exposition of this text is so plain direct against the carnal presens of Christs body in the sacrament Nisi quis c. acceperunt illud stulte carnâ—liter illud cogitauerunt putaâ—eruÌ„t quòd praecifurus esset Dominus particulas quas daÌ„ de corpore suo daturus illis c. I lle auteÌ„ instruxit eos ait illic spiritus est qui vinificat caro auteÌ„ nihil predest Verba quae loquatuâ— suÌ„ vobis spiritus est vita Spiritualiter intelligite quae loquatus sum Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent sacramentum aliquod vobis commendati spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos â–ª â—t si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen inuisibiliter intelligi Except a man eate the flesh c. They tooke it folishly they imagined it carnally and thought that our Lorde would haue cut off certaine peeces of his 〈◊〉 and haue giuen them c. But he instructed them and 〈◊〉 vnto them It is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life Vnderstand you spiritually that which I haue spoken You shall not eate this body which you see and drinke this bloud which they shall shed which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a certaine sacrament or mysterie which beeing spiritually vnderstoode shall quicken you Although it is necessarie that the same be celebrated visibly yet must it be vnderstood inuisibly Likewise In 6. Ioan. Tr. 27. Illi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum ille autem dixit se ascensurum in Coelum vtique integrum Cum videatis filium hominis ascendentem vbi erat priùs certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum certè vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus He speaketh plainely if they will vnderstand him For they thought that he would giue his body but he said that he wold ascend whole into heauen WheÌ„ you shal see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was before surely then at the least you shall see that hee giueth not his body after that maner that you think surely then at the length you shall vnderstand that his grace is not coÌ„sumed with bitings If these places were not most manifest euen to the first eye that looketh vpon them I might spend time in obseruing and noting out of them We come nowe to Chrysostome who in his 45. Hom. in Ioan. vpon those wordes The bread which I will giue is my flesh saith The Iewes that time tooke no profite of those sayings but we haue taken the profite of the benefite Wherefore it is necessarily to be saide howe woonderfull the mysteries be and wherefore they were giuen and what profite there is of them And immediatly after We are one body and members of his flesh and of his bones and yet more plainely And that we might be conuerted into that flesh not onely by loue but also in deede it is brought to passe by the meat which he hath graunted vnto vs. He addeth also an other cause of the giuing of this mysterie When hee would shewe foorth his loue toward vs hee ioyned him selfe 〈…〉 his body and brought him selfe into one with vs that the 〈◊〉 might be vnited with the head Finally he adioyneth a plaine place for the proclamer I would be your brother and for your sakes I tooke flesh and bloud with you and by what things I was conioyned vnto you those things againe I haue giuen vnto you Here he triumpheth as though the game were his when in deede there is nothing for his purpose but much against it For no one word of all these sentences proueth that the sixt of Iohn must be vnderstoode of the supper otherwise then as it is a sacrament of that feeding and coniunction of vs with Christ which is therein described And wheras he argueth vpoÌ„ the last sentence Christ gaue vs that flesh by which he was ioined to vs but he was ioyned to vs by very substantiall flesh therfore he gaue vs his very substantiall flesh I confesse it to bee most true for he gaue his very substantiall flesh to be crucified for vs If he vrge that he gaue his flesh in that sacrament although Chrysostome saith not so in this place directly yet the manner of the participation of his flesh must be such as is the maner of his coniunction with vs but that is spiritual by which he is the head and we the members and yet vnited
of places as though hee required no lesse then a thousand then he bableth against natural Philosophie as though our faith were buylded therevpon whereas the Papistes and especially the schoolmen euen to lothsomnesse do reason out of natural philosophie in the greatest mysteries of faith But to put him out of doubt we buyld vpon the Scripture our faith of the trueth of Christes bodie that it cannot bee in more places then one because the Apostle sayth that in respect of his humaine nature he was made like to his brethren in all things sinne excepted Heb. 2. And therefore where as he will aunswere vs first by Ambrose De inition Myst. Cap. Quid hic c. What seekest thou here the order of nature in Christes bodie seeing the selfe same our Lorde Iesus besides nature was borne of a virgin I say he aunswereth nothing to the purpose for neither doth Ambrose speak of the presence of his bodie in more places then one nor of any carnall presence in the sacrament but of a mysticall diuine and significatiue presence as is manifest by his wordes that followe immediatly which M. Heskins as his custome is hath craftely suppressed Vera vtique carâ— Christi que crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aliud dicitur post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur It was the true fleshe of Christ which was crucified which was buryed therefore it is truely the sacrament of that fleshe Our Lorde Iesus him selfe cryeth This is my bodie before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after the consecration the bodie of Christe is signified Hee him selfe sayth it is his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud By this place you see that the Lords supper is the sacrament of his true fleshe that was crucified and that the bodie of Christ is signified by it Here is no one worde sounding either to the carnall presence â–ª or to the presence in many places His second proofe is out of Augustine that Christ was both in his owne hands in his twelue Apostles hands in Psal. 33. And he was borne in his owne hands But brethren howe may this be done in man who can vnderstande who is borne in his owne hands A man may be carried in thè handes of other men in his owne handes no man is borne Howe it may be vnderstanded in Dauid according to the letter we find not But in Christ we finde it For Christ was borne in his owne hands when he commending his owne body sayd this is my bodie I passe ouer that he translateth comendans ipsum corpus giuing forth the selfe same bodie But howe fraudulently he abuseth the authoritie of Augustine it is manifest by that which followeth ipse se portabat quodam modo cum diceret hoc est corpus meum And he carried him selfe after a certein maner when he sayde this is my bodie These wordes declare that Augustine woulde not teach that Christe absolutely did beare him selfe in his hands as M. Heskins would beare vs in hand but after a certeine maner And no man writeth so plainly of the necessitie of Christes bodie to be in one place as he I will cite one onely short place to auoide tediousnesse In Ioan. Cap. 7. Tr. 30. Sursum est Dominus sed etiam hîc veritas Dominus Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit vno loco esse potesti veritas eius vbique diffusa est The Lord is aboue and he is also here and the Lorde is trueth For the Lordes bodie in which he rose againe can be but in one place but his truth is spread ouer all places This saying beside that it limitteth the bodie of Christe to one place will expound the other sayings which he bringeth out of Chrysostome Basil c. that Christ is both in heauen and on earth The next proofe is out of the Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostome which he calleth their masses although writen by neither of them The wordes in effect are all one and therefore it were vaine to rehearse them both Looke ô Lorde Iesu Christ our God from thy holie habitation and from the seat of the glorie of thy kingdome and come to sanctifie vs which sittest aboue with thy father and art present with vs beneath inuisibly vouchsafe with thy mightie hande to giue vnto vs thy immaculate bodie and precious bloud and by vs to all thy people The distinction of the two natures in Christ will soone aunswere this presence of Christe both in heauen and in earth as in the late rehearsed sentence of Augustine And Basil him selfe in his booke de Spiritu Sancto Cap. 22. prooueth the Holie Ghoste to be God because he is reported in Scripture to be present in diuerse places at once so that except wee will with Eutyches ouerthrowe the trueth of Christes bodie wee must holde that it is in one onely place at one time and not in many places or euery where But Chrysostome I trowe shall helpe him In 10. Heb. Hom. 17. This sacrifice is an exemplar of that we offer the selfe same alwayes Neither do we nowe offer one Lambe and tomorrow another but the selfe same thing alwayes Wherefore this sacrifice is one Or else by this reason because it is offered in many places there are many Christes Not so but one Christ is euery where both here being full and there full euen one bodie And as he that is euerie where offered is one bodie not many bodies Euen so also is it one sacrifice First M. Heskins here I knowe not for what cause peruerteth the order of Chrysostomes wordes for where he sayeth Alioqui hac ratione Heskins setteth them down vnâ—m est hoc sacrificium hac ratione Alicqui c. Secondly which is no newe thing in him he leaueth out that which is the resolution of all this doubtfull disputation namely that which followeth Hoc autem quod facimus in commemorationem quidem fit eius quod factum est Hoc enim sacite inquit in meam commemorationem Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex sed idipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur But this which we do is done truely in remembrance of that which was done before For do this sayeth he in remembrance of mee We do not offer another sacrifice as the high Priest but the selfe same alwayes but rather wee exercise the remembrance of the sacrifice Here is nowe that sacrifice which is offered euery where by a necessarie correction brought to the remembrance of that sacrifice which was once offered on the crosse but is celebrated euery where in the ministration of the sacrament And the same wordes
to the end of the worlde he is both gone away and is here is come againe and hath not forsaken vs For he hath carried his bodie into heauen he hath not taken away his Maiestie from the worlde And in the same treatise speaking of his presence in the sacrament Si bonus es ad corpus Christi pertines quod significat Petrus habes Christum in praesenti in futuro In presenti per fidem in praesenti per signum in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum in praesenti per altaris cibum potum If thou be a good man and perteynest to the bodie of Christe thou hast that which Peter doeth signifie that is Christ in present and in that which is to come In present by faith in present by signe in present by the sacrament of baptisme in present by the meate and drinke of the altar And againe Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui Nam secundùm Maiestatem suam secundùm prouidentiam secundùm ineffabilem inuisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus vsque ad consuÌ„mationem saeculi Secundùm carnem verò quam verbum sumpsit secundùm id quod de virgine natus est secundùm id quod a Iudae is prÄ™hensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod linteis inuolutus quod in sepulchro conditus quod in resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare quoniam conuersatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascendit in coelum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris hic est non enim recessit prÄ™sentia maiestatis Aliter secundùm praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum secundùm prÄ™sentiam carnis rectè est discipulis Me autem non semper habebitis Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundùm praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modò fide tenet oculis non videt c. That is He spake of the presence of his bodie For according to his Maiestie according to his prouidence according to his vnspeakable and inuisible grace it is fulfilled that was saide of him Beholde I am with you all the dayes vnto the end of the worlde But according to the fleshe which the worde tooke vpon him according to that he was born of the virgin according to that he was taken of the Iewes that he was crucified on the tree that he was taken down from the crosse that he was wrapped in linnen clothes that he was laied in the sepulchre that he was openly shewed in his resurrection you shall not always haue me with you Why so because he was conuersant with his disciples according to the presence of his body by the space of 40. dayes and they bringing him on his way by seeing not by following he ascended into heauen and is not here For there he is where he sitteth at the right hand of his father And he is here also For he is not departed concerning the presence of his Maiestie otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie we haue Christ alwayes But according to the presence of his flesh it was well saide to his disciples but me shall ye not alwayes haue For according to the presence of his flesh the Church had him a few dayes now she holdeth him by faith she seeth him not with eyes These places and such like of which a number might be brought out of diuers authours I wish the Readers to consider for the presence of his body in the worlde or in many places at one time and to see how they will stande with Popish transubstantiation The thirteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of an other text in the sixt of Saint Ioan. The text he meaneth is this Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue no life in you That this should be spoken of in the sacrament of the Lordes supper he wil proue by this reason as a man must haue birth and nourishment so there be two sacraments baptisme the supper by which we are born and nourished vnto eternal life and both necessarie for as Christ speaketh here of the one so to Nicodemus he speaketh of the other except a man be borne of water and of the spirite c. But seeing he himselfe denieth the necessitie of the one and of the other but in them that are of type age c. it is manifest that neither the one place is of baptisme nor the of the other supper but as these sacramentes are seales to testifie the grace of regeneration preseruation But if his reason faile the doctours interpretation shall helpe namely Cyprian and Theophylacte The place of Cyprian hath bene already rehearsed and â—onsidered in the fourth Chapter of this booke whether I referre the Reader for breuitie sake The other place cited by Maister Heskins to proue that Cyprian by this word Eucharistia meaneth the bodie of Christ is Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra legem Euangelij c. They contrarie to the lawe of the Gospell and also your honourable petition before penance done and before confession made of their most greeuous and extreeme offence before hand was laide on them by the Bishop and the Cleargie for repentance dare be bolde to offer for them and giue them the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing that is to prophane the holy bodie of our Lorde Thus much Heskins rehearseth but Cyprian proceedeth Cum scriptum sit c. Seeing it is writen he that eateth this bread and drinketh this cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shal be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lorde By these wordes which Maister Heskins concealeth it is apparent how they did prophane the bodie of Christ that gaue the sacrament to vnpenitent offenders namely in that sense which S. Paule saith they are guiltie of the death of Christ. That Theophylacte vnderstandeth this text of the receiuing of the Diuine mysteries and requireth faith in the receiuers although it make litle for his purpose yet because he is a late writer I will not spende time about his authoritie The fourteenth Chapter expoundeth the same text by S. Augustine and Cyrill Out of Saint Augustine are alledged foure places one In Ioan. Tra. 36. Quomodo quidem detur c. How it is giuen and what is the manner of the eating of this bread ye knowe not Neuerthelesse except ye eate that flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you This did he speake not to dead carkases but to liuing men By this place sayeth Maister Heskins is proued that the Iewes knewe not the manner of eating of Christes fleshe in the sacrament And no maruell for his disciples did not yet knowe it nor could before the sacrament was instituted and therefore
the body of Christe by Origens owne wordes and therefore the proclamer sayde truely that wee receiue Christe none otherwise in the sacrament then the Iewes did in Manna concerning the substaunce of the spirituall meat And Maister Heskins saith falsely That we excell the Iewes for our incorporation in Christ and therefore receiue him corporally as though the Iewes also were not incorporated into Christe and were not liuely members of his body in as great excellencie as we yea and with a prerogatiue of the first begotten and of the naturall oliue wherein wee are inferiour The place of Ambrose hee cyteth Lib. 9. cap. 1. De sacramentis Sicus verus est Deifilius Dominus noster Iesus Christus c. As our Lorde Iesus Christe is the true sonne of God not as men by grace but as a sonne of the substance of his father euen so it is true flesh which we receiue as he him selfe saith and very drinke This is noted for an other plaine place for the proclamer as though the proclamer did not graunt that we receiue the true flesh and bloud of Christe in the sacrament but spiritually and by faith not carnally nor transubstantiated But Ambrose is the best expounder of him selfe who in the 6. booke and Chap. 1. De sacramentis hath these wordes Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis sacramentum sed verae naturae gratiam virtutémque consequeris Therefore least more should say this as though there were a certaine horrour of bloud but that the grace of redemption might remaine therefore thou receiuest the sacrament truely for a similitude but thou obtainest the grace and vertue of his true nature By which Ambrose expresseth the whole substaunce of the sacrament that it is a similitude of the body and bloud of Christe but not a similitude onely but such a one as by which we receiue the grace and power of that true nature which is resembled by it This place would satisfie a sober minde but a froward heart will admit no wisedome The nineteenth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Eusebius Emiss and S. Augustine Eusebius is cyted out of Hom. 5. pasch Quia corpus assumptum c. Bicause hee would take his assumpted body from our eyes and bring it into heauen it was necessarie that in the day of his supper he should consecraâ—â— vnto vs a sacrament of his body and bloud that it might be celebrated continually by a mysterie which was offered for our price that bicause the daily and vnwearied redemption did runne for the health of all men the oblation of the redemption might be perpetuall and that eternall sacrifice should liue in memorie and that true onely and perfect sacrifice should be present in grace to be esteemed by faith not by shewe neither to be iudged by outward sight but by inward affection Wherevpon the heauenly authoritie confirmeth that my flesh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede This sentence being directly against him as euery man that readeth it may easily perceiue he is neither ashamed to alledge it hauing nothing to gather out of it for his purpose nor yet that is worse most breastly to corrupt it by false translation and wrong distinction or pointing committing that childish sophisticatioÌ„ which is called ab accentu For where the Latine is Et perennis victima illa viueret in memoria semper prÄ™sens esset in gratia vera vnica perfecta hostia fide aestimanda non specie c. hee hath dismembred it by this translation And that perpetuall sacrifice should liue in memorie and alway be present in grace A TRVE ONE ONLY AND PERFECT SACRIFICE to be esteemed by faith and not by outward forme c. And al bicause he would not acknowledge the presence of Christ that onely true sacrifice by grace which is absent in the bodie as the purpose of Eusebius is to shewe And therfore those words that follow are to be vnderstoode by them that goe before Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie therefore departe seeing hee that is the Authour of the gift is also witnesse of the trueth For the inuisible priest with his worde by secrete power conuerteth the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie and bloud The former sentence sufficiently declareth that he speaketh of a spiritual and not a carnall conuersion because his body which is absent from vs and carried into heauen is present with vs by grace and not otherwise Saint Augustine is cyted Tr. 26. in Ioan Cum enim cibo potu c. For as much as men by meate and drinke do this desire â–ª that they should neither hunger nor thirst nothing perfourmeth this truely but this meate and drinke which maketh them of whom it is receiued immortall and incoâ—â—uptible that is the fellowship of the Saints where peace shal be full and perfect vnitie For therefore truely as the men of God haue vnderstoode it before vs our Lord Iesus Christ commended his bodie and bloud in those thinges which of many are brought to one certein thing For the one is made into one of many graynes so consisteth the other coÌ„meth into one of many grapes Because this sentence is clean contrarie to the carnal presence transubstantiation you must cal to remeÌ„brance the glose of a certeine blind Authour that there be three things in the sacrament to be considered The first the sacrament only which is a signe of an holy thing and that is the forme of bread The second the thing signified conteined that is the very bodie of christ The third is signified but not conteined that is the mysticall bodie of christ But this balde distinction is so farre of Augustines minde that he cleane ouerthroweth two partes of it First the carnall presence of Christes bodie conteined when he affirmeth that this meate maketh them of whome it is receiued immortall and incorruptible whiche are onely them that receiue it by faith for if it were conteined wicked men should also receiue it but they receiue it not therefore it is not conteined Secondly he ouerthroweth transubstantiation when he saith that Christe commended his bodie in such thinges as are made one of many as one bread of many graines and one wine of many grapes For the fourme by which Heskins meaneth the accidents of bread is made neither of graynes nor of grapes Therfore the fourme of Bread is none of those things in which Christ commended his body and bloud But when nothing is in Augustine then the collections of Prosper must helpe on this manner Hoc est quod dicimus c. This it is which we say which by al meanes we labour to approue that the sacrifice of the Church is made by two meanes and consisteth of two thinges the visible kinde of the elementes and the inuisible fleshe and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe
in the beginning of the sentence that it is a meate to nourish the soule and not for the bodie to receiue neither receiued but where it nourisheth the soule And that ouerthroweth the corporall manner of eating The one and twentieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by Chrysostome and Lyra. Chrysostome is cited Hom. 46. in Ioan. The same wordes almoste that were before ascribed to Euthymius who borrowed them of Chrysostome Quid autem c. But what meaneth this saying my fleshe is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede Either that he is the true meate whiche saueth the soule or that he might confirme them in that he said before least they should thinke he spake darkely in parables If this be spoken of the fleshe of Christe in the sacrament then none receiue the flesh of Christ in the sacrament but they whose soules are saued but many receiue the sacrament whose soules are not saued therefore this is not spoken of the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament Ye but are ye aduised that this is a plaine place for M Iewel that these words My fleshe is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in is no figuratiue speeche Let it be as plaine as you will it must be meate in deede and drinke in deede to feede our soules and that must needes be spiritually for our soules cannot eate carnally As for Lyra a late Popishe writer I haue often protested that I will not stay vpon his authoritie let him be on M. Heskins side The two and twentieth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by S. Cyrill and Dionyse S. Cyrill is alledged Lib. 4. Cap. 16. in Ioan. Vmbram figuram nosti c. Knowest thou the shadowe and the figure Learne the very truth of the thing For my flesh saith he is meate indeed and my bloud is drinke in deede Againe he maketh a distinction betweene the mystical benediction and manna the streames of water out of the rocke and the communication of the holie cuppe that they should not more esteeme the miracle of manna but rather receiue him which is the giuer of the heauenly bread and of eternall life For the nourishment of Manna brought not eternall life but a short remedie of hunger Therefore it was not the true meate But the holie bodie of Christ is a meate nourishing vnto immortalitie eternall life Also that water out of the rocke easied bodily thirst for a short time neither brought it any thing beside Therfore it was not that true drinke but the bloud of Christ by which death is vtterly ouerthrowen and destroyed is the true drinke For it is not the bloud of a man simply but of him which being ioyned vnto a natural life is become life Because M. Heskins cannot tell what to gather out of this place for his purpose he taketh vp yesterdayes colde ashes of the authorities cited before by light of them to wrest this place to his purpose but all remaineth still darke and dyme for his intent Of the excellencie of the fleshe and bloud of Christe aboue Manna the water as they were corporal foode there is neither doubt nor question nor yet that the same is eaten in the sacrament of the faithfull but whether it be eaten corporally or spiritually is all the question And Dionyse the Charterhouse Monke whome he matcheth vndiscretely with Cyrill denieth also that the body of Christ is receiued corporally in the sacrament Verè est cibus animae non corporis quia non visibiliter nec corporaliter sumitur quamuis verum corpus sumatur It is meate in deede but of the soule not of the bodie because it is not receiued visibly nor corporally although the very body be receiued So that the Papistes them selues do not al agree of the maner of receiuing In this Chapter beside these two expositors are also cited Augustine Chrysostome Augustine in Saint Prosper to auouch the phrase of formes of bread and wine Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in sacramento accipimus sanguis eius est quem sub vini specie sapore potamus It is his flesh which we receiue in the sacrament couered with the fourme of bread and it is his bloud which we drinke vnder the kinde and taste of wine Beside that this collection of Prosper is not to be found in any of Augustines owne workes I denie the names of Forma and Species to be taken for accidentes in that sense the Papistes doe but for a figure or signification as by the wordes immediately following it is most manifest which M. Heskins hath moste lewdly suppressed Caro videlicèt carnis sanguis sacramentum est sanguinis carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili spirituali intelligibili signatur spirituale Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile plenum gratia omnium virtutū diuina Maiestate That is the flesh is a sacrament of the flesh and the bloud is a sacrament of the bloud by both of them beeing inuisible spirituall intelligible is signified the spirituall bodie of our Lord Iesus Christe which is palpable ful of the grace of all vertues and diuine Maiestie In these wordes he calleth the elementes of bread wine flesh and bloud which are sacramentes of his true glorious palpable bodie which is in heauen as it is yet more plaine by that whiche followeth Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui caro Christi est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile quod mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus sit Christi passiō mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significāte mysterio sic sacramentum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As that heauēly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a certeine manner is called the body of Christ when in very deede it is the sacrament of the bodie of Christ which beeing visible which beeing palpable which beeing mortall was put on the crosse the very offring of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie so the sacrament of faith which is vnderstood to be baptisme is faith In these words he affirmeth the elements to be the bodie bloud of Christ as the action of the Priest is his passion death crucifying as baptisme is faith not in trueth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Chrysostome is alledged to proue that the whole bodie of Christe is in the sacrament Hom. 24. in 10. ad Cor. 1. Et quando c. And when thou seest that thing set foorth say with thy selfe for this bodie I am no more earth and ashes this bodie being crucified and beaten was not ouercome by death This same bodie being
eaten when his fleshe is eaten as a man doth see when his eye or rather his soule by the eye doth see c. For the godhead is not eaten therefore it cannot be spiritually eaten but verily Still he maketh spirite and trueth contrarie as though what soeuer were done spiritually were not done verily But he remembreth not that Cyrill sayeth that he which eateth this fleshe is wholy refourmed or fashioned anewe into Christe Whereby hee doth not onely exclude wicked men but also teache a spirituall eating as the reformation is spirituall And as the worde was made fleshe by an vnspeakable vnion so wee by eating that fleshe are ioyned to him by an vnspeakable vnion Finally where Maister Heskins sayeth that Christs fleshe cannot be verily eaten but in the sacrament he excludeth all them from the benefites of his fleshe which are not partakers of the sacrament and so condemneth all children not come to yeares of discretion O cruell transsubstantiation The Thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the nexte text by Saint Ambrose and Chrysostome The text is This is that breade that came downe from heauen not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse and are dead He that eateth this bread shal liue for euer Saint Ambrose is alledged lib. 8. de initiandi but I thinke he should saye Capitâ— 8. de mysterijs initiandis Reuera mirabile c. Truely it was maruellous that God did rayne Manna to the fathers and that they were fedd with dayly foode from heauen Wherefore it is sayde man did eate the breade of Angels But yet they that did eate that breade in the wildernesse are dead But this breade which thou receiuest this breade of life which came downe from heauen giueth the substance of eternall life And whosoeuer shall eat this breade shall not dye for euer And it is the body of Christ. M. Heskins noteth that he calleth it the body of Christ as though any man doubted thereof But the same Ambrose reacheth that it must bee spiritually receiued in the same booke Chap. 9. In illo sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritualis est In that sacrament Christ is bicause it is the body of Christe therefore it is not corporall but spirituall meate If it be spirituall meate it must be spiritually receiued and not corporally as it is no corporall meate Now followeth a long sentence of Chrysostome Hom. 46. in Ioan. which Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth to make no great mention of the sacrament yet bycause he saith it followeth vpon his iudgement of the sacrament I will set it downe to be considered He saith therefore he that eateth my flesh shall not perish in death he shall not be damned But he doth not speake of the common resurrection for all shal riâ—e again but of that cleere and glorious which deserueth reward Your fathers haue eaten Manna in the wildernesse and be deade He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer He doeth oft repeate the same that it might be imprinted in the mindes of the hearers This was the last doctrine that he might confirme the faith of the resurrection and euerlasting life wherefore after the promise of eternall life he setteth foorth the resurrection after he hath shewed that shall be And howe is that knowne By the scriptures vnto which he doth alwayes send them to be instructed by them When he saith it giueth life to the world he prouoketh them to emulation that if they be moued with the benefite of other men they will not be excluded them selues And he doth often make mention of Manna comparing the difference allureth them to the faith For if it were possible that they liued fourtie yeares without haruest corne and other things necessarie to their liuing much more nowe when they are come to greater things For if in those figures they did gather without labour the things set foorth nowe truely much more where is no death and the fruition of true life And euery where he maketh mention of life For we are drawne with the desire there of and nothing is more pleasant then not to dye For in the olde Testament long life and many dayes were promised but nowe not simply length of life but life without end is promised Herevpon hee noteth that we are come to greater things in the sacrament then the Iewes did in Manna I graunt the faithfull come to greater thinges then the vnbeleeuing Iewes of whome and to whome our sauiour Christ speaketh Otherwise they that were faithfull did eate the same spirituall meate in Manna that we doe in the Sacrament 1. Cor. 10. But if the reall presence be not in the sacrament saith Maister Heskins Manna is greater then a bare peece of breade This comparison is topsi-turuie Chrysostome compareth bare Manna which the wicked receiued with the body of Christ which the godly take Maister Heskins compareth Manna to bare breade The one and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Hierome and S. Cyrill Hierome is cyted Ad Hedibiam quÄ™st 2. Si ergo panis c. Then if the bread which came downe from heauen is the body of our Lorde and the wine which he gaue to his disciples be his bloud of the newe Testament which was shed for many in remission of sinnes let vs cast away Iewish fables and let vs ascend with our Lorde into the great parler paued and made cleane and let vs take of him aboue the cuppe of the newe Testament and there holding the Passeouer with him let vs be made dronke by him with the wine of sobrietie for the kingdome of GOD is not meate and drinke but righteousnesse and ioye and peace in the holy Ghoste Neither did Moses giue vs the true bread but our Lord Iesus hee being the guest and the feast hee him selfe eating and which is euen S. Hierome proceedeth with that which M. Hes. omitteth His bloud we drinke and without him we can not drinke it and daily in his sacrifices we tread out new redd wine of the fruit of the true vine and of the vine of Sorech which is interpreted chosen and of these wee drinke the wine new in the kingdome of his father not in the oldenesse of the letter but in the newenesse of the spirit By these words more that foloweth it is most euident that Hieronyme speaketh of spirituall eating by faith as also by that he saith we ascend with Christ into the parler by which he meaneth heauen and there aboue we receiue the cup of the newe Testament Maister Heskins noteth that the bread which descended from heauen is the body of our Lorde But he must beware he say not that the naturall body of Christ descended out of heauen Againe he forgetteth not to repeat that that bread is the body of Christe but he will not see in Hieromes wordes that Christ gaue wine to his disciples Cyrillus
is cyted thus Non enim prudenter c. Those things which suffice for a short time shal not wisely be called by that name neither was that bread good which the Elders of the Iewes did eate and are dead For if it had bene from heauen and of God it had deliuered the partakers of it from death Contrariwise that body of Christe is bread from heauen bicause it giueth the eaters of it eternall life Cyrill saith the body of Christe is the bread that came downe from heauen and which giueth eternall life being eaten euen in the sacrament all this we confesse alwayes But as the body of Christe did not naturally descend from heauen which he receiued here on earth no more speaketh he of a carnall presence or corporall manner of eating but yet of his very flesh and bloud eaten spiritually by faith The two and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by S. Augustine and Theophylact. Saint Augustine is cyted Tract 26. iâ— Ioan. Hic est panis c. This is the bread which came downe from heauen that by eating thereof we might liue bicause we can not haue eternall life of our selues Not saith he as your Fathers did eate Manna and are deade He that eateth this bread â–ª shall liue for euer Therefore that they are dead he would haue it so to be vnderstoode that they should not liue for euer For truely they also die temporally that eaâ— Christ but they liue eternally bicause Christ is eternall life Maister Heskins wondereth what gloses the aduersaries inuent vpon this saying but I maruell what hee can picke out of it for his purpose except it bee this that who so euer eate Christ shall liue for euer but that I am sure hee will none of The saying of Theophylact but that I stand not on his authoritie being a late writer seemeth to be directly against him For hee saith that The Lorde by his flesh which he tooke of the Virgine Marie shall preserue our spirituall nature Which as it is very true so must it needes inforce a spirituall receiuing For our spirituall nature can not receiue carnally or corporally but onely spiritually And yet the wise man noteth in his margent a plaine place for the proclamer which is plaine against his owne purpose The three and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the next text in the sixt of S. Iohn The text is that when our Sauiour had taught this doctrine in the synagogue in Capernaum diuers of his disciples were offended and saide This is an hard saying who can abide it Hee aunswereth out of Saint Augustine In Psal. 98. They were hard and not the saying The like out of Theophylact. In Ioan. 6. Who beeing carnall can eate spirituall meate and the bread which came downe from heauen and the flesh which is eaten c. For bicause they had flesh they thought he would compell them to be deuourers of flesh and bloud But bicause we vnderstand him spiritually we neither are deuourers of flesh but rather we are sanctified by such a meate This place for any thing that I can see therein is directly against the carnall eating of the Papistes sauing that Theophylact lyuing in a corrupt time writeth in other places suspiciously of the carnall presence and transubstantiation Nowe where Maister Heskins chargeth vs to be Caparnaites whome he calleth Sacramentaries and derideth our carnall vnderstanding bycause wee can not conceiue howe Christes very body should bee in the sacrament except it should occupie a place and bee felt with our senses let the world iudge whether our vnderstanding or theirs bee more spirituall or else more grosse and like the Capernaites The foure and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Si videritis c. by Saint Augustine and Saint Cyrill The text is this What if you see the sonne of man ascend where he was before Ere he enter into his exposition hee moueth this doubt howe Christe doth say the sonne of man shall ascend where he was before seeing concerning his humanitie hee was neuer in heauen before he spake these wordes For answere he bringeth a long sentence of Saint Augustine which containeth this in effect that Christ concerning his humanitie would ascend thither where he was before concerning his diuinitie For by reason of the vnion of two natures in one person of Christe that is often spoken of the whole person which is proper either to the diuine nature onely or to the humane nature onely For exposition hee cyteth Augustine Tr. 27. in Ioan. Quid est hoc Hinc soluit c. What is this by this he resolueth them whome he knewe by this he hath opened whereby they were offended by this plainely if they would vnderstand For they thought that he would giue foorth his body but he saide that he would ascend into heauen whole When you shall see the sonne of man ascending where he was before certainly euen then at least you shall see that he giueth not foorth his body after that manner that you thinke certainly euen then at least you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bytinges Although this place is so directly against him that nothing can bee more plaine yet hee is not ashamed to cyte it for his purpose Affirming that Augustine by these wordes denyeth not the giuing of Christes bodye but the manner of the giuing of his bodye This wee confesse but what manner of giuing doth hee denye Maister Heskins saith onely the giuing of it by lumpes and peeces as the Capernaites did imagine But that is false for he denieth not onely the giuing of Christes bodie by lumpes but also al corporall and carnall manner of giuing thereof as both these wordes aboue cited and the whole discourse of that treatise doth shew most euidently First he saith that Christ by telling them of his ascention doth clearely resolue them and open plainely where at they were offended Which is very true For when they should see that he carried his naturall bodie whole into heauen they might well perceiue that he would not giue that bodie to be eaten after a corporall manner either in peeces much lesse in the whole For the giuing thereof in whole is much more monstruous then the giuing therof in peeces And if there remained a corporall receipt of his whole bodie notwithstanding his absenting thereof from the earth the doubt by his ascention is nothing at all resolued but by an hundreth times more increased Againe where he saith after his ascention Then you shall see that he giueth not his bodie after the manner that you thinke then you shal vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitings By these wordes he doeth plainely determine of the manner of giuing that the Iewes thought which was corporall whether it were in whole or in peeces and after what manner Christes bodie is giuen namely by grace But Maister Heskins citeth another place out of Augustine In
Psalm 98. to proue that he denieth the giuing of his bodie by lumpes or peeces But the place is altogether against him if he had alledged the whole and not cut it off in the waste Tunc autem c. Then when our Lorde setting foorth this had spoken of his flesh and had saide except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue in him life euerlasting Some of the seuentie were offended and saide This is an harde saying who can vnderstand it And they departed from him and walked no more with him It seemed a harde thing to them which he saide Except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue eternall life They tooke it foolishly they thought of it carnally and they thought that our LORDE would cut certeine peeces of his bodie and giue them and they saide this is an harde saying Here stayeth Maister Heskins but it followeth in Augustine Ille aâ—tem instruxit eos c. But he instructed them and saith vnto them it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life Vnderstand you spiritually that which I haue spoken You shal not eate this bodie which you see drinke that bloud which they shal shed which shall crucifie me I haue commended vnto you a certeine sacrament or mysterie which beeing vnderstoode spiritually shall giue you life Although it be needefull that it be celebrated visibly yet it must be vnderstoode inuisibly In these wordes Augustine denieth not onely the giuing of his bodie in peeces but all maner of corporall eating of his naturall and visible bodie and aduoucheth onely a spirituall vnderstanding of this text that we haue beene so long in expounding But M. Heskins willeth vs not to triumph before the victorie for Augustine In sermo ad Neophy hath a plaine place for M. Iewel Hoc accipite in pane c. Take ye this in the bread that did hang on the crosse Take ye this in the challice that was shed out of the side of christ He shall haue death not life that thinketh Christe a lyar If M. Heskins had expressed in what booke or â—ome I should haue sought for this sermon Ad Norphil he might haue spared me a great deale of labour which I haue lost in searching for it and yet cannot finde it There are many homilies and sermons of Augustine Ad Neophyl and yet in none of them can I reade that whiche he aduouched out of him It seemeth therefore that this place is taken out of some later writer that without iudgement ascribeth it to Augustine which is not to be found in his workes And yet the saying is not such but that it may haue a reasonable interpretatioÌ„ for the bread after a certein maner as Augustine speaketh is that which did hang on the crosse the wine is that which was shed out of his side that is sacrameÌ„tally but not naturally or after a bodily maner S. Cyril followeth ca. 22. sup 6. Ioan. Ex imperitia multi c. Many that folowed Christ for lack of knowledge not vnderstanding his wordes were troubled For when they had hearde Verily verily I say vnto you Except you shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you they thought they had bene called by Christ to the cruell manners of wilde beastes and prouoked that they would eate the rawe flesh of a man and drinke bloud which are euen horrible to be heard for they had not yet knowen the fourme and most goodly dispensation of this mysterie This also moreouer they did thinke howe shall the flesh of this man giue vs eternall life Or how can he bring vs to immortalitie Which things when he vnderstod to whose eyes all things are bare and open he driueth them to the faith by an other maruelous thing Without cause saith he O syre are ye troubled for my words And if you will not beleeue that life is giuen by my bodie vnto you what will you do when you see me flie vp into heauen I doe not onely say that I will ascend least you should aske againe how that should be but you shall see it with your eyes so to be done Therfore what will you say when you see this Shall not this be a great argument of your madnesse For if you thinke that my fleshe can not bring life vnto you how shall it ascend into heauen like a birde How shall it flye into the ayre For this is a like impossible to mankinde And if my fleshe beside nature shall ascende into heauen what letteth but it may likewise beside nature giue life Cyrill noteth as M. Heskins saith two vaine thoughtes of the Capernaites one of eating raw the flesh of Christ the other how that flesh shuld giue life the latter he answereth at large the other breefely they vnderstoode not the fourme and dispensation of the mysterie by which he meaneth the spirituall mysticall maner of receiuing his bodie cleane contrarie to their grosse imagination for otherwise the ascention of Christe would not answere that doubt but increase it Maister Heskins citeth another text to shewe the power of Christes fleshe whiche is needelesse for it is confessed of vs to be such as he himselfe hath declared it to be Non verbo soliù c. He did not onely with his worde raise dead men but also with his touching to shewe that his bodie also doth giue life If then with his onely touching corrupted thinges are made sound how shall we not liue which doe both tast and eate that fleshe it will without all doubt refourme againe to immortalitie the partakers thereof Neither doe thou inquire after the Iewish manner how But remember that although water by nature be colde yeâ— by comming of fire to it forgetting her coldeneâ— it boyleth with heate Here M. Heskins will not allowe vs our glosse that Cyril speaketh of the spirituall receiuing of Christes flesh because he teacheth more then once that we are ioyned to Christ not onely spiritually but also after the flesh and that by eating the same flesh as though we could not truely be partakers of the fleshe of Christe â–ª by a spirituall receiuing of him not onely in the sacracrament but also by faith without the sacrament And Cyril saith we doe both taste and eate his flesh whiche of necessitie imployeth a spirituall manner of receiuing for other tast we haue not of Christes flesh but spirituall and by faith In the ende of the Chapter to deliuer himselfe his fellowes from the grosse errour of the Capernaites he scoffeth finely at our spirituall sifting of the sacrament so fine that we leaue nothing but the bare bran of the signifying signe in our owne hand whiche is the grosse bread we feede on If we taught a bare signe or bare bread in the sacrament there were some place for Maister Heskins ieaste But when we teache that presence and receiuing which
He that eateth not my flesh and drinketh not my bloud hath no life in him selfe How doeth the fleshe profite nothing without the which no man can liue See that this particle The flesh profiteth not any thing is not spoken of the fleshe it selfe but of the carnall hearing M. Hesk. saith that Chrysostome needeth no expositor to open his exposition And I am of that same iudgment For he is so plaine against al grosse and carnal imagination about these mysteries that nothing can be plainer He saith to vnderstand these thinges in the sixt of Iohn simply as they are spoken is to vnderstād them carnally which ought not to be for all mysteries must be vnderstood spiritually the receiuing of Christ in the sacrament is a mysterie therfore it must be vnderstāded spiritually The seuen and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Theophylact S. Bernarde Theophylacte following Chrysostome as he doth very much whē he is not carried from him by the corruption of his time saith That the wordes of Christ must be vnderstood◠spiritually Whervpon M. Hesk. maketh an obiection how those words may be vnderstood spiritually yet the carnal presence receiuing retained He answereth that the Papists also confesse the words of Christ must be vnderstode spiritually and first alledgeth Theophylacte to proue that he allowed the carnal presence which though they do not vndoutedly proue it yet considering the time in which he liued it may be granted that he did allow it What then Marie spiritual vnderstāding letteth not the carnal presence But I haue shewed before that while Theophylact wold followe Chrysost. yet mainteine the errour of his time no maruel though he were contrarie to himself But spiritual vnderstanding by M. Hesk. definition is to vnderstand that these thinges are not done by any naturall meane but by the spirit of God namely transubstantiation such like But Chrysostom as we sawe in the Chapter before determined otherwise of spirituall vnderstanding of this scripture namely that the sayings must not be taken simply as they are spokē but as mysteries be considered with the inward eyes But M. Heskins hath a plaine place for the proclaymer out of S. Aug. serm Ad Infant Quod videtis in altari panis est c. That which you see on the altar is bread and the cuppe which also your eyes do shew you But that faith requireth to be instructed the bread is the bodie the cup is the bloud In the mind of some man such a thought may arise Our Lorde Iesus Christ we know whence he receiued flesh namely of the virgin Marie he was nourished grewe vp was buried rose again ascended into heauen thither he lifted vp his bodie from whence he shall come to iudge both the quick the dead There he is now siting at the right hand of the father how is therfore bread his bodies or that which is in the cuppe how is it his bloud Brethren therefore those things are called sacraments because one thing is seene in them another thing is vnderstanded That which is seene hath a corporall forme that which is vnderstoode hath a spirituall fruite What plainnes is in this place except it be against transubstantiation and the reall presence let the readers iudge And withal I must admonish them that M. Hesk. citeth it farre otherwise then it is in Augustine beside that he leaueth out that which followeth maketh all the matter as plain as a pack staffe which are these words Corpus ergo Christi c. Therfore if thou wilt vnderstand the body of Christ heare the Apostle saying to the faithful you are the bodie of Christ his mēbers If you therefore be the bodie of Christ his members your mysterie is set on the table you receiue the Lords mysterie you answer Amen to that which you are in answering you consent Thou hearest therefore the body of Christ thou answerest Amen Be thou a mēber of the bodie of Christ that thy Amen may be true Why then in bread Let vs here bring nothing of our owne Let vs also heare the Apostle Therfore when he spake of this sacrament he saith One bread we being many are one bodie Vnderstand this and reioyce By these wordes it is moste manifest that Augustine excludeth the carnall presence affirming the elementes to be the bodie and bloude of Christ euen as we are the bodie and members of Christ and that is spiritually mystically as we are the bread namely by significatiō not by transubstantiation The testimonies of Algerus and Bernard I leaue to M. Hesk. for that they are without the compasse of the challenge The eight and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Euthymius and Lyra. Euthymius is cited In 6. Ioan. in these words Spiritus est qui viuificat c. It is the spirite that quickeneth Now he calleth the spirit the spiritual vnderstanding of those things which are said likewise the flesh to vnderstand them fleshly For the speech is not now of his flesh which quickeneth Therefore he saith to vnderstand these thinges spiritually giueth that life which I spake of before but to vnderstand them carnally it profiteth nothing Maister Hesk. wold fain make Euthymius to speak for him if he could tell how to wring him in but it wil not be Spiritual vnderstanding is as Chrysost. before in the 36. Chap. hath declared not as M. Heskins would racke it to make it stand with his grosse and carnal vnderstanding From the iudgement of Lyra as no compotent Iudge I appeale although in this place he speake nothing for M. Heskins but rather against him for he agreeth with the rest that the wordes must be spiritually vnderstanded The nine and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text by S. Augustine and Cyrill The text is this the wordes that I speake vnto you are spirite and life of which Augustine writeth thus Tra. 27. In Ioan. Quid est c. What is it they are spirite and life They are spiritually to be vnderstoode Hast thou vnderstoode them spiritually they are spirite and life Hast thou vnderstoode them carnally Euen so also they are spirite and life but not to thee M. Heskins hauing once made a blind determination of spirituall vnderstanding taketh spirituall vnderstanding wheresoeuer he findeth it for carnal vnderstanding carnall vnderstanding for spirituall vnderstanding without all ryme or reason But still Chrysostome lyeth in his way to vnderstand carnally is to vnderstand things simply as they are spoken for all mysteries must be vnderstood with inward eyes that is spiritually When the inward eyes see the bread they passe ouer the creatures neither do they thinke of that bread which is baked of the baker but of him which called himselfe the bread of eternal life Cyril is cited Cap. 24. In 6. Ioan. Verba quae c. The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirit
other testimonie he cyteth out of Chrysostomes Liturgie which he calleth his Masse which though it be out of doubt none of Chrysostomes penning yet maketh it nothing for the adoration of the sacrament Thou that fittest aboue with the father and art here present with vs inuisibly vouchsafe to giue vnto vs thy vndefiled body and thy precious bloud and by vs to al the people Then the Priest adoreth and the Deacon in the place where he is thrice sayth secretly God be mercifull to me a sinner And all the people likewise with godlinesse and reuerence do adore It is said here they doe adore but not the sacrament but god For here haue passed no words of the consecration as yet by the Papistes owne rule therefore this adoration can not be referred to the sacrament And yet M. Heskins is so blockish to gather that he fitteth in heauen and yet is here present as though he were present in body before they had prayed that he would giue them his body c. But yet an other place of Chrysostome Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. Christus suam c Christe hath giuen vâ— his flesh that we might be filled therewith whereby he hath allured vs very much into his loue Let vs therefore with feruencie and most vehement loue come vnto him that wee suffer not a more greeuous punishment For the greater benefite we take so much more shall wee bee punished when wee shall appeare vnwoorthie of it This body did the wisemen reuerence in the manger and being both vngodly men and barbarous after they had ended a long iourney with much feare and trembling did worship it Let vs therfore that are citizens of heauen folow those strangers For they when they did see only that manger and cottage and none of those things which thou nowe beholdest came with great reuerence and horrour But thou seest it not in the manger but in the altar not a woman which holdeth it in her armes but the Priest present and the spirite so aboundantly powred vpon the sacrifice that is set foorth Neither doest thou see a simple body as they did but thou doest acknowledge his power and all the administration And thou art not ignorant of any of the thinges that by him were made and tâ—ou art diligently instructed in all thinges Let vs be stirred vp and tremble and declare more godlinesse then those barbarous men â–ª Note here â–ª reuerence and trembling but no worshipping of the sacrament no not although he saith the wise men did worship his body in the manger yet dare hee not conclude that wee ought to adore it in the sacrament Wherefore it is intollerable that M. Heskins gathereth that in the first place he declareth that it is to be honoured in the second he declareth the practise of him selfe his ministers and all the people in worshipping it in the last that he prouoketh al men to honor it in the altar by the example of the wise men For none of these three can be concluded out of the same places Next foloweth Ambrose De spiritu sanct lib. 3. cap. 12. Per scabellum terra c. By the footstoole the earth is vnderstood and by the earth the flesh of Christ which as this day also we do adore in the mysteries which the Apostles as we haue saide before did adore in our Lorde Iesus For Christ is not diuided but one By adoring he meaneth the reuerent vse of the mysteries and not worshipping the sacraments as though Christ were present in them as he is in heauen for that he acknowledgeth not but only a sacramentall presence as hath beene shewed often already more shal be as occasion serueth And he saith we worship or reuerence the flesh of Christe in the mysteries he saith not we worship the mysteries as the flesh of christ Finally we worship Christ in the sacramentes as we do in the word and yet we imagine no carnal presence in either of them Yea we honor him his ministers both ciuil Magistrates and Ecclesiasticall teachers yet we haue none of theÌ„ as transubstantiated into Christ. The last is S. Augustine In Psal. 98. Adore ye the footestole of his feete for it is holie But see brethreÌ„ what he biddeth vs to adore In another place the scripture saith Heauen is my seate earth is the footestoole of my feete Then he commandeth vs to adore the earth because he said in an other place that it is the footestoole of god And how shall we adore the earth when the scripture saith plainely thou shalt adore the Lord thy God and here he saith adore his footestoole And expouÌ„ding to me what is his footstoole he saith the earth is my footstoole I am made doutful I am afraide to adore the earth least he condemne me which hath made heauen and earth Againe I am afraid not to adore the footstoole of my Lord because the Psalme saith to me Adore ye his footstoole Thus wauering vp and down I turne me vnto CHRISTE because I seeke him here and I finde howe without impietie the earth may bee adored without impietie his footestoole may be adored For he hath taken on him earth of the earth because flesh is of the earth of the flesh of Marie be tooke flesh And because he walked here in that flesh and gaue that flesh to be eaten of vs to saluation And no man eateth that flesh except he do first adore it it is found out how such a footestoole of the Lord may be adored and we should not onely not offend in adoring but offend in not adoring The Papists make no small accompt of this place and yet there is no place in al S. Augustines workes that maketh more against them then this if it be wel marked with that whiche followeth For first he saith not that the sacrament must be or may be worshipped as God but that the flesh of Christ may be worshipped as the earth which is Gods footstool whereunto Diuine honour is not to be giuen but reuerence as to an holie thing no man eateth his flesh but he that before hath worshipped it not as really present in the sacrament but he that hath reuerently acknowledged his incarnation passion and giuing of his flesh to be holsome vnto vs But to put al out of doubt he so maketh the sacrament Gods footestoole that he doeth expressely denie speaking in the person of Christ that his bodie which was seene and crucified should be eaten but a sacrament which being spiritually vnderstood should quicken them or giue them life The place hath beene already once or twise set downe Non hoc corpus quod videtis mandicaturi estis c. You shall not eate this bodie which you see c. The corporall presence therefore being flatly taken away by S. Augustine in that place it is easie to see what kinde of worship is left to the sacrament But he is cited againe Lib. Confess 9. Cap. 13. speaking of his mother Illa
fiftieth Chapter sheweth the minde of Iunencus Euseb. Emissen vpon the wordes of Christ. Iuuencus a Christian Poet is cited Lib. 4. Euang. Histor. Haec vbi dicta dedit palmis sibi frangere panem c. When he had thus said he tooke bread in his handes and when he had giuen thankes he diuided it to his disciples and taught them that he deliuered vnto them his owne bodie And after that our Lorde tooke the cuppe filled with wine he sanctified it with thankesgiuing and giueth it to them to drinke and teacheth them that he hath diuided to them his bloud and saith this bloud shall remitte the sinnes of the people Drinke you this my bloud Because this Poet doeth but onely rehearse the historie in verse without any exposition and interpretation and saith no more then the Euangelistes say I will not stand vpon him onely I will note the vanitie of Maister Heskins which like a young child that findeth miracles in euerie thing he seeth still noteth a plain place for Maister Iewel a plaine place for the proclaymer when either there is in it nothing for his purpose or as it falleth out oftentimes much against him Euseb. Emissen is cited Hom. 5. Pasc. Recedat omne c. Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie depart For truely he which is the auctour of the gifte is also the witnes of the trueth For the inuisible priest by secrete power doth with his worde conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie bloud saying thus This is my bodie And the sanctification repeated take and drinke saith he this is my bloud This place hath beene often answered to be ment of a spirituall and not a carnall conuersion as diuerse other places out of the same homilie alledged by M. Hesk. himself doe proue First it foloweth immediately Ergo vt c. Therfore as at the will of our Lord sodenly commanding of nothing the height of the heauens the depths of the waters the wide places of the earth were in substantiall beeing euen so by like power in the spirituall sacramentes vertue is giuen to the word and effect to the thing Therefore how great and notable thinges the power of the Diuine blessing doeth worke and how 〈◊〉 ought not seeme to the too strange and impossible that earthly and mortall thinges are chaunged into the substance of Christ aske of thy selfe which now art borne againe into Christe Here saith M. Heskins he proueth the chaunge possible I graunt and with all sheweth what manner a chaunge it is euen such a one as is in regeneration namely spirituall The same is shewed in the other places following Non dubites quispiâ—â— c Neither let any man dout that by the wil of the Diuine power by the presence of his high maiestie the former creatures may passe into the nature of the Lordes bodie when he may see man himselfe by the workmanship of the heauenly mercie made the bodie of christ And as any man comming to the faith of Christ before the wordes of baptisme is yet in the band of the olde debt but when they are rehearsed he is forthwith deliuered from all dregges of sinnes So when the creatures are set vpon the holie altars to be blessed with heauenly wordes before they be consecrated by inuocation of the highest name there is the substance of bread and wine but after the wordes of Christe the bodie and bloud of christ And what maruell is it if those things which he could create with his word beeing created he can conuerte by his worde Yea rather it seemeth to be a lesse miracle if that which he is knowne to haue made of nothing he can now when it is made chaunge into a better thing Vpon these sayings Maister Heskins vrgeth the chaunge I acknowledge the chaunge and vrge the kinde or manner of chaunge to be spirituall according to the examples of baptisme regeneration Vnto these authorities hee annexeth a large discourse of transubstantiation and citeth for it diuers testimonies olde and newe what the olde are we will take paynes to viewe as for the younger sorte we will not sticke to leaue vnto him First Gregorie Nicene is cited Serm. Catech. de Diuin Sacram. Sicut antem qui panem videt quodammodo corpus videt humanum c. And as he that seeth bread after a certeine manner seeth a mans bodie because bread beeing in the bodie becommeth a bodie so that diuine bodie receiuing the nourishment of bread was after a certeine manner the same thing with that meate as we haue said beeing turned into the nature of it For thâ—t which is proper to all flesh we confesse to haue apperteined to him For euen that bodie was susteined with bread but that bodie because God the WORDE dwelled in it obteined Diuine dignitie Wherefore we doe nowe also rightly belieue that the bread sanctified by the worde of God is chaunged into the bodie of God the WORDE Maister Heskins after his vsuall manner translateth Quodammodo in a manner if not falsely at the least obscurely But that worde Quodammodo that is after a certeine manner looseth all the knotte of this doubt For euen as the bodie of CHRISTE was bread after a certeine manner because it was nourished with bread and bread was after a certeine manner the bodie of Christ euen so we beleeue that the sacramentall bread is after a certeine manner chaunged into the bodie of Christ that it may be the spirituall foode of our soules Ambrose is cited De his qui initian Cap. 9. Where Maister Heskins beheadeth the sentence for it is thus Prior enim â—ux quà m vmbra veritas quà m figura corpus authoris quà m manna de coelo For light is before the shadowe the trueth before the figure the bodie of the authour before manna from heauen Which wordes we may vnderstand howe he taketh the bodie of Christe that sayeth it was before manna namely for the effecte of his death and sacrifice perfourmed by his bodie But M. Heskins beginneth at these wordes Forte dicat c. Peraduenture thou mayst say I see another thing How doest thou assure me that I take the bodie of Christ And this remaineth for vs to proue Howe many examples therefore doe we vse that we may proue this not to be that which nature hath formed it but which the blessing hath consecrated and that there is greater force of blessing then of nature for by blessing nature it selfe is chaunged Moses helde a rodde hee cast it doâ—ne and it was made a serpent Againe he tooke the serpent by the tayle and it reâ—â—rueth into the nature of the rodde Thou seest therefore by the prophets grace the nature of the serpent and of the rodde to 〈◊〉 beene twise changed And after many exaÌ„ples Quod si c. If then the benediction of man was of so great power that is chaunged nature what say we of the very diuine consecration where the very wordes of our Lorde
of our Lords words bringeth in the perfection of certeintie who said This is my bodie which is giuen for you doe this in remembraunce of me In this aunswere seeing he bringeth no exposition but onely citeth the bare wordes of the text there is nothing that maketh for M. Heskins He saith the wordes are plaine inough and neede none other interpretation It is true before the worlde was troubled with the heresie of carnall presence the text seemeth plaine ynough these wordes Do this in remeÌ„brance of me were thought a sufficient interpretation of those words This is my bodie and so doth Basill vse them But S. Ambrose he saith is so plaine that if his mother the Church had not beene good to him he should haue bene shut out of the doores For Oecolampadins reiected his book of the sacraments as Luther did the Epistle of S. Iames. Touching Luther although he were too rash in that censure yet had he Eusebius for his author twelue hundreth yeres before him And not only OecolaÌ„padius but many other learned men do thinke both the phrase and the matter of that booke to be vnlike S. Ambrose But for my part let it be receiued I hope M. Hesk. shal gaine litle by it he hath noted many short sentences which I wil rehearse one after another First Lib. 4. Ca. 5. Antequam Before it be consecrated it is bread but when the wordes of Christe are come to it it is the bodie of christ Finally heare him saying take eate ye all of it This is my bodie And before the words of Christ the cuppe is full of wine and water when the wordes of Christe haue wrought there is made the bloud which redeemed the people Ibi. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Tu forte Thou peraduenture sayest my bread is vsuall bread but this bread is bread before the wordes of the sacramentes when consecration is come to it of bread it is made the fleshe of Christ. And againe in the same Chapter Sed audi but heare him saying that sayeth he saide and they were made he commanded and they were created Therefore that I may answere thee Before consecration it was not the bodie of Christe But after consecration I say vnto thee thaâ— now it is the bodie of christ He saide and it is made he commanded and it is created And in the same booke Cap. 5. Ipse Dominus Our Lord Iesus himselfe testifieth vnto vs that we receiue his bodie and bloud shall we doubt of his trueth and testification Out of these places he concludeth not onely that figures be excluded but also that the tearme of consecration is vsed seriously I graunt but not in such sense as the Papistes vse it but as the worde signifieth to hallow or dedicate to an holie vse How figures be excluded and how these places are to be taken that are so plaine as he pretendeth I pray you heare what he writeth in the same bookes of sacramentes Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Ergo didicisti quòd ex pane corpuâ— fiat Christi quòd vinum aqua in calicem mittitur sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi Coelestis Sed fortò dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis vt nullus horror cruoris sit precium tamen operetur redemptionis Didicisti ergo quia quod accipis corpus est Christi Therefore thou hast learned that of the bread is made the body of Christ and that the wine and water is put into the cup but by consecration of the heauenly worde it is made his bloud But perhappes thou sayest I see not the shewe of bloud Yet hath it the similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud that there may be no horror of bloud yet it may worke the price of redemption Thou hast learned then that that which thou takest is the bodie of christ Here you see it is so the bodie of Christ as it is the similitude of his death so the bloud as it is the similitud of his bloud Moreouer in the same book Ca. 5. Dicit sacerdos c. The priest saith make vnto vs saith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. And Cap. 6. Ergo memores c. Therefore beeing mindefull of his most glorious passion and resurection from hell and ascention into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudie sacrifice this holie bread and cup of eternall life And againe Lib. 6. cap. 1. Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipiâ— sacramentuÌ„ sed verae naturae gratiam virtus émque consequeris Therfore lest any man should say this and there should be a certeine horror of bloud but that the grace of redemption might remaine therefore truely thou takest a sacrament for a similitude but thou obteinest the grace vertue of his true nature Thus Ambrose hath spoken sufficiently to shewe him selfe no fauourer of Maister Heskins bill although as the scripture teacheth he call the sacrament the bodie bloud of Christ and declareth why it is so called because it is a figure similitude and a memoriall thereof The three and fiftieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of Christes wordes by Gregorie Nicene and S. Hierome Gregorie Nicene is cited Ex serus Catatholico De Diuinis sacram Qua ex causa panis in eo corpore mutatus c. By what cause the bread in that bodie beeing chaunged passed into the diuine power by the same cause the same thing it done now For as there the grace of the word of God maketh that bodie whose nourishment consisted of bread and was after a certeine maner bread So bread as the Apostle saith by the word of God and prayer is sanctified not because it is eaten growing to that that it may become the bodie of the WORDE but foorthwith by the worde it is chaunged into the bodie as it is saide by the WORDE This is my bodie This place saith Maister Heskins ouerthroweth three heresies The first of Luther or Lutherans that the sacrament is not the bodie of Christ except it be receiued Gregorie saith it is not the bodie of Christ because it is eaten But that is no ouerthrow to Luthers assertion for Gregorie meaneth that the sacrament by nourishing our bodies is not made the bodie of Christe as the breade that a man eateth is turned into his bodie and so was the bread that our sauiour did eat turned into the substance of his bodie while he liued but by the power of God this notwithstanding it is made that bodye of Christ only to the worthie receiuer Of which aâ—sertion M. Hesk. saith they
ignorance which knoweth not the vertue and dignitie thereof which knoweth not that this bodie and bloud is according to the trueth but receiueth the mysteries and knoweth not the vertue of the mysteries Vnto whome Salomon sayth or rather the spirite which is in him When thou sittest to eat with a Prince attende diligently what things are set before thee He also compelling openly and constraining him that is ignorant to adde a fifth parte For this fifth parte being added maketh vs to vnderstande the diuine mysteries intelligibly Nowe what the fifth parte is the wordes of the Law giuer may teache thee For he sayth he shall add a fifth parte with that he hath eaten And howe can a man adde a fifth parte of that which he hath alreadie eaten and consumed For he biddeth not another thing or from any other where But a fifth parte to be added of it or with it or as the 70. interprete vpon it Then the fifth parte of it vpon it is the worde which was vttered by Christ him selfe vpon the Lordes mysterie For that being added deliuereth and remoueth vs from ignorance as to thinke any thing carnall or earthly of those holie things but decreeth that those thinges shoulde bee taken diuinely spiritually which is properly called the fifth part for the diuine spirite which is in vs and the worde which he deliuered doth sett in order the senses that are in vs and doth not onely bring foorth our taste vnto mysterie but also our hearing sight and touching smelling so that of these things which are verie high we do suspect nothing that is neare to lesse reason or weake vnderstanding This place M. Hesk. noteth that the mysteries are called a most holy thing and a sacrifice We confesse it is a most holy thing a sacrifice of thanksgiuing for so the fathers meant and not a propitiatorie sacrifice Moreouer he noteth that it is called the verie bodie and bloud in verie deede Although the wordes of the author sounde not so roundly yet let that be graunted also what is then the conclusion Marie then haue ye a plaine place for the proclaimer issue ioyned thereupon that no one writer of like auncientie sayth it is not the verie bodie For thè plainesse of the place I wish always that the author may be his own expositor First where he sayth that the fifth part added maketh vs to vnderstand the mysteries intelligibly that is as he vseth the terme spiritually mystically although M. Hesk. translate intelligibiliter easily Secondly where he sayth wee must thinke nothing carnally or earthly of the holy things and that the worde of God decreeth that they should be taken diuinely and spiritually As for the issue it was ioyned tryed in the one and twentieth Chapter of the first booke But wee must heare what Hesychius sayth further Quicunque ergo sanctificata c. Whosoeuer therfore shal eat of the things sanctified by ignorance not knowing their vertue at we haue saide shall adde a fifth parte of it vpon it and giue it to the Priest into the sanctuarie For it behoueth the sanctification of the mysticall sacrifice and the translation or commutation from thinges sensible to things intelligible to be giuen to Christ which is the true Priest that is to graunt and impute to him the miracle of them because that by his power and the worde vttered by him those things that are seene are as surely sanctified as they exceede all sense of the flesh Out of these words M. Hesk. would proue transubstantiation because he saith there is a translation or cōmutation from things sensible to intelligible that is from bread which is perceiued by the senses to the body of Christ which in this manner is not perceiued by senses But M. Hesk. must proue the bodie of Christe to bee no sensible thing but a thing which may be perceiued by vnderstanding only or else his exposition wil not stand for here is a diuision exposition of things sensible intelligible which is a plaine ouerthrow of popish transubstantiatiō carnall presence for that wherunto the things sensible are changed is not a sensible thing as the naturall bodie of Christ is but they are changed into things intelligible ▪ that is which may only by vnderstanding be conceiued so is the spiritual feeding of our soules by faith with the verie body bloud of christ Next Augustin is cited in Ps. 33 a place which hath ben cited answered more then once alreadie Et ferebatur c. And he was carried in his own bāds Brethren how could this be true in a man c. I will remit the reader to the 10. Chap. of this second book where it is answered by Aug. him self in the same exposition Christ caried himself saith Aug. in his hands quodam modo after a certaine manner but not simply Maister Hesk. iangling of an onely figure hath bene often reproued wee make not the sacrament such an onely figure as Dauid might carrie in his handes of him selfe for Dauid could make no sacrament of him selfe but such a figure as is a diuine and heauenly worke to giue in deede that it representeth in signe An other place of Augustine is cyted De Trin. lib. 3. cap. 4. but truncately as he termeth it for he neither alledgeth the heade nor the feete by which the scope of Augustines wordes might be perceiued But the whole sentence is this Si ergo Apostolus Paulus c. If therefore the Apostle Paule although hee did yet carrie the burthen of his body which is corrupted and presseth downe the soule although he did as yet see but in part and in a darke speach desiring to be dissolued and to bee with Christ groning in himself for the adoption wayting for the redēption of his body Could neuerthelesse preach our Lord Iesus Christ by signifying otherwise by his tong otherwise by his Epistle otherwise by the sacrament of his body bloud for neither his tong nor the parchments nor the ynke nor the signifying sounds vttered with his tong nor the signes of the letters written in skinnes do we call the body and bloud of Christ but only that which being taken of the fruits of the earth being consecrated with mysticall prayer we do rightly receiue vnto spiritual health in remembrance of our Lords suffring for vs which when it is brought by the hands of mē to that visible forme it is not sanctified that it shuld be so great a sacramēt but by the spirit of god working inuisibly whē God worketh al these things which in that work are done by corporall motions mouing first the inuisible parts of his ministers either the soules of men or of secret spirits that are subiectes seruing him what maruel is it if also in the creature of heauen earth the sea al the ayre God maketh what he wil both sensible and inuisible things to set forth him selfe in them as he him selfe knoweth it shuld
places for answere Neuerthelesse he will touch a word of Oecolampadius where he saith that the inward man is fed by faith which is so straunge to him that he neuer read the like phrase in any authentike authour By which woondring he sheweth him selfe to be a great stranger in S. Augustine who saith In Ioan. Tr. 25. c. Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede maÌ„ducasti Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly Beleeue thou hast eaten Here faith feedeth the soule for it feedeth not the belly The last text he citeth out of Chrysostom is alledged more at large in the 30. Chapter of the second booke where it is also answered The fift Chapter teaching that Manna and the water of the stone be figures of the body and bloud of Christ by Origen and Saint Ambrose That the olde writers called Manna and the water figures of the body and bloud of Christ it shal be no controuersie betweene vs and M. Heskins but whether they denied them to be sacraments of the body and bloud of Christe or affirmed them to bee nothing but prefigurations of the sacrament is nowe the question betwixt vs And therefore these long sentences out of Origen and Ambrose make nothing for him but much against him But let vs viewe them Origen is cited In Num. Hom. 7. Modo enim c. Nowe when Moses came vnto vs and is ioyned to our Aethiopesse the lawe of God is not nowe knowne in figures and images as before but in the very apparence of the truth And those things which were first set foorth in darke speaches are nowe fulfilled in plaine shewe and trueth And therefore he which declared the plaine forme of figures and darke speaches saith we knowe that all our fathers were vnder the cloude and all passed through the sea c. Thou seest howe Paule assoyleth the darke riddles of the lawe and teacheth the plaine shewe of those darke speaches And a little after Then in a darke manner Manna was the meate but nowe in plaine shewe the flesh of the sonne of God is the true meat as he himselfe saith â–ª my flesh is meat in deed and my bloud is drink in deede M. Heskins thinketh this is as plaine as neede to be for his onely figure and the bodily presence and me thinke it is as plaine for the contrarie For he affirmeth that Manna was the same spirituall meate that the flesh of the sonne of God is nowe and layeth the difference in the obscure manner of deliuering the one and the plaine manner of deliuering the other which can not be vnderstoode of the outwarde signes which are in both of like plainenesse or obscuritie but of the doctrine or worde annexed to the signes which to them was very darke and to vs is very cleere that Christes fleshe and bloud are our meate and drinke For it is well knowne that Origen knewe neither the Popishe transubstantiation nor the bodily presence For writing vpon the fifteenth of Saint Matthewe after hee hath shewed that the materiall part of the sacrament goeth into the bellie and is cast foorth hee addeth Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest non indignè comedenti illum Et haeâ— quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore Multa porro de ipso verbo dici possent quod factum est caro verÃssque cibus quem qui comederie omnino viuet in aeternum quem nullus malus edere potest Neyther that matter of the breade but the woorde which is spoken of it is that which doth profite to him which eateth it not vnwoorthily And these thinges are of the typicall or symbolicall bodye Many thinges also might bee sayde of the Worde it selfe which was made flesh and the true meate which hee that shall eate shall vndoubtedly liue for euer which no euill man can eate Doest thou not here see Christian reader what Origens minde was of transubstantiation when hee speaketh of the matter of the breade whiche is eaten And what his iudgement was of the bodily presence when hee calleth it the typicall and symbolicall or figuratiue bodye distinguishing it from the woorde made fleshe and the meate in deede Finally whether hee thought that any euill man could eate of the bodye of Christ which is the spirituall part of the sacrament To Origen he ioyneth Ambrose or rather disioyneth him for hee diuideth his saying into two partes pretending to inueigh against Oecolampadius for leauing out the former parte but in deede that hee might raise a dust with his stamping and staring least the latter part might be seene to be as it is a cleare interpretation of the former and an application of the writers minde concerning the corporall manner of presence I will rehearse them both together Ille ego ante despectus c. Euen I before despised speaking in the person of the Gentiles conuerted am nowe preferred am nowe set before the chosen Euen I before a despised people of sinners haue nowe the reuerend companies of the heauenly sacramentes nowe I am receiued to the honour of the heauenly table The rayne is not powred downe on my meate the spring of the earth laboureth not nor the fruite of the trees For my drinke no riuers are to be sought nor welles Christe is meate to me Christe is drinke to me The fleshe of GOD is meate to me the bloud of GOD is my drinke I doe not nowe looke for yearely increase to satisfie me Christe is ministred to mee daily I will not bee afrayde least any distemperature of the ayre or barrennesse of the countrie shoulde hang ouer mee if the dilligence of godly tillage doe continue I doe not nowe wishe the rayne of Quayles to come downe for me which before I did maruell at Not Manna which earst they preferred before all meates bicause those Fathers which did eate Manna haue hungered My meate is that which doeth not fatten the bodye but confirmeth the heart of man Before that breade which came downe from heauen was woonderfull to mee For it is written hee gaue them bread from heauen to eate but that was not the true breade but a shaddowe of that was to come The father hath reserued for me that true breade from heauen That breade of GOD descended from heauen to mee which giueth life to this worlde It hath not descended to the Iewes nor to the Synagogue but to the Church to the younger people For howe did that breade which giueth life descend to the Iewes when all they that did eate that breade that is Manna which the Iewes thought to bee the true breade are deade in the wildernesse Howe did it descend to the Synagogue when all the Synagogue perished and fainted beeing pyned with euerlasting hunger of fayth Finally if they had receiued the true breade they had not sayde Lorde giue vs alwayes this breade What doest thou require O Iewe that hee shoulde giue vnto thee The
downe from heauen to giue eternall life to all them that did receiue him in all ages past and to come The seuenth Chapter proceedeth to declare the same by Saint Hierome and Saint Cyrill In the beginning of this Chapter Maister Heskins maruelleth that we whom he counteth the aduersaries of the truth would leaue a doctrine so vniuersally taught and receiued as though he had prooued their doctrine of the sacrament to be such comparing the protestantes to Esopes dogge that snatching for a shadowe lost the bone out of his mouth neuerthelesse he will proceede on his matter if there be any hope to reclayme vs And first he will choke vs with the authoritie of Saint Hieronyme In 1. Cor. 10. expounding that saying They did eate the same spirituall meate c. Manna figura corporis Christi suit Manna was a figure of the bodie of Christe It is very true we neuer saide the contrarie But the same Hierome in the same place vpon that saying The rocke was Christe Saith that the rocke was a figure of Christe which Maister Heskins vtterly denyeth Quia Christus erat postmoduÌ„ sequnturus cuius figuram tunc Petra gerebat idco pulchrè dixit consequente eos Petra Because Christe was afterward to followe of whom the rocke was a figure therfore he saide very fitly of the rocke that followed them By which wordes it is most manifest that by his iudgement they dranke of Christes bloud who was to come and consequently did eate his bodie whereof Manna was a figure But it followeth after in Hieronyme which Maister Heskins rehearseth at large and to no purpose Omnia enim quae in populo c. For all thinges which at that time were done in the people of Israell in a figure now among vs are celebrated in truth for euen as they by Moses were deliuered out of Egypt so are we by euerie priest or teacher deliuered out of the worlde And then beeing made Christians we are ledde through the wildernesse that by exercise of contempt of the worlde and abstinence we may forget the pleasures of Egypt so that we knowe not to go backe againe into the worlde But when we passe the sea of Baptisme the diuell is drowned for our sake with all his armie euen as Pharao was Then wee are fedde with Manna and receiue drinke out of the side of christ Also the clearenesse of knowledge as a piller of fire is shewed in the night of the worlde and in the heate of tribulation we are couered with the clowde of Diuine consolation In these wordes Maister Heskins noteth two thinges the applications of the truthes to the figures and the drinke flowing out of the side of Christe concerning the first it is cleare that he maketh their temporall benefites figures of our spirituall benefites and in that sense he vseth the tearmes of figures and trueth for otherwise hee confesseth that those thinges were truely done among them and in a figure were the same that ours are immediately before these wordes before rehearsed by Maister Heskins Ipsis verè facta sunt quae in figura erant nostra vt â—imeamus talia agere ne talia incurramus Those thinges were truely done vnto them whiche in figure were ours that we might feare to doe suche thinges least we incurre such thinges As for the drinke flowing out of his side we confesse to be the bloud of Christe as I haue shewed a hundreth times receiued after a spirituall manner But Maister Heskins reasoneth wittily as he thinketh when he sayeth as the Iewes did verily eate Manna so we doe verily eate the bodie of Christ. But he marketh not howe Hieronyme saith We are fedde with Manna and we receiue drinke flowing out of the side of Christ. Wherevpon I will inferre as we are fedde with Manna so we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe but are not fedde with Manna corporally but spiritually so we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ not corporally but spiritually After this least we should doubt of this authoritie as falsly ascribed to Hierome he returneth to Hierome Ad Hedibiam qu. 2. which we cannot refuse to be S. Hierome But seeing that place is sufficiently answered in the 53. Chapter of the second booke I wil not trouble the Reader with the repetition Likewise the place of Cyprian De Coena Dom. in the 17. Chapter of the first Booke Likewise the other parcels of Chrysostome he citeth In Matth. 25. Hom. 83. In the 55. Chapter of the second Booke The other named and not rehearsed be oftentimes answered throughout the Booke and none of them all haue any thing in them for his purpose Now commeth Cyrill In 6. Ioan. Cap. 19. Non enim prudenter c. Those thinges that suffice but for a shorte time shall not wisely be called by this name neither was that bread of God which the elders of the Iewes did eate are dead for if it had bene from heauen and of God it had deliuered the partakers of it from death But contrariwise the bodie of Christe is bread from heauen because it giueth eternall life to them that receued it Here saith M. Heskins is a breefe and plaine testimonie that manna was a figure and the bodie of Christ is the thing figured This is graunted but that Cyrill meant to make it only a figure or a bare figure it is vtterly false as appeareth in his commentarie vpon the same Chapter Lib. 3. Cap. 34. Manna verò figura quaedam vniuersalis Dei liberalicatis loco arrhae hominibus concessa Manna truely was a certeine figure of the vniuersall liberalitie of God granted to men in place of a pledge or earnest By these words you see that Manna was not a bare figure but an earnest or assurance of all the bountifulnes of god And in the same place he saith Sic enim planè videbitur quod verum Manna Christus erat qui per figuram Mannâ— priscis illis a Deo dabatur For so it shall plainely be seene that Christ was the true Manna which was giuen of God to those auncient fathers by the figure of Manna Thus it is moste euident that Manna was not a figure onely of Christe but that Christe in deede was giuen by that figure as hee is by our sacrament and so no corporall presence by his iudgement Neuerthelesse M. Heskins harpeth on his old string really and substantially and that by this authoritie of Cyrillus Cap. 14. in 6. Ioan. Quoniam c. Because the flesh of our sauiour is ioyned in the WORDE of God which is naturally life it is made able to giue life when we eate it then haue we life in vs beeing ioyned to him which is made life These wordes indeede doe declare that whosoeuer eateth the fleshe of Christ is partaker of eternall life which M. Heskins will not graunt but with his distinction spiritually therefore this place maketh nothing for him for Cyril speaketh generally So that no man
all matters perteining to aeternall life but here is no prophesie spoken of neither doeth Maister Heskins gather one worde out of it for that intent The like is to be sayde of Saint Augustine vppon the 77. Psalme Quid enim c. For he which commanded the clowdes aboue and opened the gates of heauen and rayned to them Manna to eate and gaue them the bread of heauen so that man did eate the breade of Angels Hee which sent vnto them meate in aboundaunce that he might fill the vnbeleeuers is not vnable to geeue to the beleeuers the verie true breade from heauen which Manna did signifie which is in deede the meate of Angels which WORDE of God feedeth them that are corruptible incorruptibly which that man might eate was made flesh and dwelled among vs. Here is no worde of Prophesie neither can Maister Heskins himselfe finde any and the wordes which doe immediately followe do plainly shewe that Augustine spake neither of corporall presence nor corporall maner of eating Ipse enim panis per nubes Euangelicas vniuerso orbi pluitur apertis praedicatorum cordibus tanquam coelestibâ—â—â— ianuis non murmur anti tentanti synagogae sed credenti in illo spem ponenti ecclesiae praedicatur For this bread thorough the cloudes of the Gospell is rayned vnto all the worlde and the hearts of the preachers as it were the heauenly gates being opened is preached not to the murmuring and tempting synagogue but to the church beleeuing and putting her trust in him Here Augustine sayth that the VVORDE which became fleshe is rayned from heauen by the preaching of the Gospell and eaten by faith Vnto Augustine he ioyneth Cassiodorus as he sayeth and truely nothing dissenting from the former writers but altogether from M. Hesk. purpose he is cited in Psalm 77. Et pluit illis c. And he rayned to them Manna to eate he sayeth he rayned that he might shewe the great plentie of the meat which like vnto rayne came down from heauen And lest thou shouldest doubt what rayne that was it followeth To eate Manna Manna is interpreted what is this which we verie fuly applye to the holie Communion for while this meat is sought by wandring the giftes of the Lordes bodie are declared He hath added He gaue them the breade of heauen What other breade of heauen is there but Christe our Lorde of whome the heauenly things receiue spirituall foode and doe enioy inestimable delight Finally thus it followeth Man hath eaten the breade of Angels Therefore Christ is saide to be the breade of Angels because they are fedde with his eternall praise For the Angels are not to be thought to eate corporall breade but with that contemplation of our Lorde with the which that high crâ—ature is fedd they are fedd but this breade filleth the Angels in heauen and feedeth vs on earth In this exposition it is worthie to be noted that Cassiodorus affirmeth that Christe our Lorde was the breade from heauen which God gaue to the fathers in the sacrament of Manna Also that the Angels in heauen and we vppon earth are fedde with the same bread which must needes be a spirituall foode For as he saith the Angels eate no corporall bread so doe they not eate any corporall thing or after any corporall manner The last authoritie hee citeth out of fryer Titelman I will not trouble the reader withall although if he neuer had spoken worse then in this sentence he were not greatly to be reprehended But to M. Heskins all is fishe that commeth to the nett The twelfth Chapter proueth by occasion of that that is sayde with further authoritie that the sacraments of the newe lawe are more excellent then the sacraments of the olde lawe The first reason is taken out of S. Augustines rule cited in the firste booke That all good things figured are more excellent then the figures which wee graunt for Christ figured by Manna was more excellent then Manna as he is more excellent then the breade wine by which he is likewise represented The second reason he vseth is this that if the bodie of Christe were not so present in the sacrament as they imagine Manna shoulde be better then the sacrament for Manna hath twelue wonders declared by Roffens lib. 1. Chap. 12. The firste that he that gathered moste had but his measure The seconde that he that gathered least had his measure full also The thirde that which was kepte vntill the next day putrified except on the Saboth day The fourth it was kept many yeres in the Arke vnprutrified The fift it would melt in the Sonne and be harde in the fire The sixth it fell all dayes sauing vppon the Sabboth day The seuenth that on the daye before the Saboth day they had two gomers full and all other days but one The eyght that whether they gathered more or lesse they had that day two gomers full The ninth that measure sufficed all stomackes and appetites The tenth that to them that were good it tasted to euery one according to his desire The eleuenth although to the godly it was a most pleasant taste yet to the vngodly it waâ— lothsome The twelfth the children of Israel were fedd with it fortie yeres in the Wildernesse Of some of these speaketh Chrysostom in dict Apost Nolo vos which because it is long and conteineth nothing more then is collected by Fisher I will not set downe Augustine also witnesseth for one miracle that Manna tasted to euery man as hee woulde Hereuppon he concludeth that Manna farre excelleth the sacramentaries sacramentall bread which shal be graunted and so it doeth the Papists consecrated host which is subiect to putrifaction and in none of the twelue miracles comparable to Manna But Manna for all this doth not excell the bodie and bloud of Christe which is giuen vs that are faithfull with our sacramentall bread and wine He sayeth the Iewes receiuing Manna receiued Christe spiritually Nowe at the length he sayth trueth And we also receiuing the sacramentall bread and wine receiue Christ spiritually Neither are our sacraments as I haue sayde concerning the spirituall or heauenly substance more excellent then theirs as our saluation is the same with theirs but in clearnesse of signification more excellent as the doctrine of our saluation is more plainly reuealed vnto vs But M. Hesk. replyeth that if our sacrameÌ„ts excel not theirs then their sacraments and figures farre excell ours and that in three things The first In excellencie of the thing signified The second in the fulnesse liuelinesse of the signification The third in the worke of God about the same figures But I aunswer concerning the first they are aequall concerning the second ours are superior more excellent and concerning the thirde I distinguish of outward working of God inwarde Concerning the outward work of God about their sacraments figures it was meete it should be more notable because the doctrine was more obscure
nothing of the institution of the sacrament bicause hee spake of it most plentifully in this Chapter by Augustines iudgement Ioannes c. Iohn saide nothing in this place of the body and bloud of our Lord but plainely in an other place he testifieth that our Lord spake of them most plentifully Here he will haue vs note that Augustine calleth it not a signe or figure but plainly the body and bloud of Christ therefore it is not a figure or signe By the same reason he may say Augustine calleth it not a sacrament therefore it is no sacrament But Christ him selfe saith Not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer In which wordes M. Heskins noteth two thinges The first that Manna is a figure of Christe in the sacrament for proofe of which he sendeth vs backe to the 4.5.6.7.8.9 10. Chapters of this booke The second is the excellencie of the body of Christ in the sacrament aboue Manna the eaters whereof are dead but the eaters of the body of Christe in the sacrament shall liue for euer M. Heskins saith he wot not what for if you aske him whether all they that eat the body of Christ in the sacrament shall liue eternally he will say no. For wicked men as he saith eate it which shall not liue eternally Againe if you aske him whether al they that did eat Manna are dead he will say no. For though they be dead in body yet bicause many did eate Christ spiritually by faith they shall liue for euer You see what pith is in his reason and substance in his doctrine But in very deede Christe compareth his flesh with Manna as it was a corporall foode only and so all that did eate it are dead but all they that eat the flesh of Christe which is eternall life shall liue eternally for though they dye corporally yet will be raise them vp in the last day And whereas Maister Heskins voucheth S. Augustine to warrant De vtilita poenit Manna de coelo c. I must send the reader to the eight Chapter of this booke where that authoritie is cited and answered to be flat contrarie to M. Heskins Likewise the sentence of Cyprian de Coen Dom. Coena disposita c. is handled in the first booke Chapter 17. and the other beginning Significata in Lib. 1. Cap. 39. The saying of Ambrose Lib. 4. de sacra Cap. 5. is also against Maister Heskins as we shall plainely see Ipse Dominus c. The Lorde Iesus him selfe testifieth vnto vs that wee receiue his body and bloud ought we to doubt of his fidelitie and testification Nowe returne with me to my proposition It was truely a great and a venerable thing that he rayned Manna to the Iewes from heauen But vnderstand which is the greater Manna from heauen or the body of Christe The body of Christe truely who is the maker of heauen Further he that hath eaten Manna hath dyed but he that shall eate this body it shall be made to him remission of sinnes and he shall not dye for euer By the effectes of the sacrament which are remissioÌ„ of sinnes eternal life M. Hes. saith the excellencie thereof is proued aboue Manna I answere Ambrose folowing our sauiour Christ doth not compare Manna the sacrament with our sacrament but Manna the corporall foode with the body of Christ the heauenly substance of our sacrament so it is more excellent without comparison But Maister Heskins skippeth ouer with a drye foote that Ambrose saith Whosoeuer shall eate of this body it shall be made to him remission of sinnes and he shall not not die for euer by which words it is euident that no wicked man eateth this body but they only which eat it spiritually by faith An other place of Ambrose hee citeth De myster initiand Cap. 9. Considera nunc c. Consider nowe whether is better the bread of Angels or the flesh of Christ which truly is the body of life That Manna was from heauen this aboue heauen that of heauen this of the Lorde of heauens that subiect to corruption if it were kept vntill the next day this farre from all corruption which who so euer shall taste religiously he can feele no corruption The water did satisfie them for an houre the bloud doth wash thee for euer The Iewe drank and thirsteth when thou hast drâ—nke thou canst not thirst And that was in a shaddowe this in the trueth And after a fewe wordes he saith Thou hast knowne better thinges for light is better then a shaddowe the trueth then a figure the body of the Authour then Manna from heauen This place of Ambrose vtterly denieth the body of Christ to be receiued of the wicked which perish and so consequently denyeth it to be corporally present But least we should obiect that Ambrose speaketh not of the sacrament he addeth a long discourse following immediatly Forte dicaâ— c. which bicause it is contained in the 51. Chapter of the second booke I will send the reader thither where he shall see it aunswered by Ambrose him selfe and in the same place and in the tenth Chapter of the second booke where some part of it is touched For it were in vaine to trouble the reader with one thing so often as M. Heskins listeth to repeat it The fifteenth Chapter prouing all our sacraments generally to be more excellent then the sacraments of Moses First baptisme in respect of The noble presence of God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost must bring with it some more noble gift then a bare signe or token See howe this impudent beast would make Popish fooles beleeue that we teach baptisme to be nothing else but a bare signe or token We thinke and speake of it as honourably as the scripture teacheth vs Let the forme of baptisme vsed in the Church of England testifie whether we make it nothing but a bare signe or token Let our catechismies of al sorts beare witnesse of the same But nothing will stop a slanderous mouth Yet to aunswere the title of that Chapter S. Augustine is cited contra Faust. lib. 19. cap. 13. Prima sacrameÌ„ta c. The first sacraments which were obserued celebrated by the lawe were the foreshewing of Christ that was to come which when he had fulfilled by his coÌ„ming they were taken away therfore they were taken away bicause they were fulfilled For he came not to breake the law but to fulfill it And other are instituted greater in power better in profite easier to be done fewer in number Maister Heskins asketh wherein bee they greater in power but in this that the sacramenets of the olde lawe had no power but to signifie onely oures not onely to signifie but also to giue that they signifie And I will aske him seeing he maketh the sacraments instruments of Gods grace by what instrument did they receiue the grace of
beloued flye from the honouring of Idols Afterward following he sheweth to what sacrifice they ought to appertein saying I speak as vnto wise men iudge what I say is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communication of the bloud of Christ and is not the bread which we breake a communication of the bodie of our Lord In this saying after the worde altar he hath gelded out thus much Ideo quippe addidit carnaliter vel secundùm carnem quia est Israel spiritualiter vel secundùm spiritum qui veteres vmbras iam non sequitur sed eam consequentem quae his vmbris praecedentibus significata est veritatem For therfore he added carnally or after the flesh because there is a Israel spiritually or according to the spirite which doth not now followe the olde shadowes but the trueth following which was signified by those shadowes All this is left out of the very middest From the end he cutteth of these wordes following Quia vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus omnes enim de vno pane participamus Et propter hoc subiunxit videte Israel secundùm carnem nonne qui de sacrificijs manducant socij sunt altaris vt intelligerent ita se iam socios esse corporis Christi quemadmodum illi socij sunt altaris Because there is one bread and we beeing many are one bodie for we are all partakers of one bread And for this cause he added Behold Israel according to the flesh are not they which eate of the sacrifices fellowes or partakers of the altar That they might vnderstand that they are now so fellowes or partakers of the bodie of Christe as those are partakers of the altar What can be saide more playne for the spirituall manner of participation of the bodie of Christe Except M. Heskins will say that the Iewes were really corporally and substantially partakers of the altar And this is conteined in the first booke Cap. 19. And wheras M. Hesk. iangleth of the sacrifice mentioned in this place heare what sacrifice it may be by Augustines owne wordes in the 18. Chapter of the same booke Sed nec laudibus nostris eget c. But neither hath he need of our prayses but as it is profitable for vs and not for him that we offer sacrifice to God and because the bloud of Christe is shed for vs in that singular and onely true sacrifice therefore in those first times God commanded the sacrifices of immaculate beastes to be offered vnto him to prophecie this sacrifice by such significations that as they were imaculate from faults of their bodies so he should be hoped to be offered for vs who alone was immaculate frō sins Here the sacrifice of death is the singular sacrifice the only true sacrifice propitiatorie of the Church otherwise for the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing or for the sacrament to be called vnproperly a sacrifice of the auncient fathers I haue often confessed before As for Damascenes authoritie li. 4. Ca. 14. it is not worth the aunswering being a late writer more then 100. yeares out of the compasse and full of grosse absurdities and in the place by M. Hesk. alledged denyeth that Basill calleth breade wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exemplaria exemplaries of the bodie and bloud of Christ after the consecration which is an impudent lye for before the consecration they are no sacraments and so no exemplars of the bodie and bloud of Christe therefore if he called them exemplars it must needs be when they are sacraments that is after consecration but such lippes such lettyce he is a sufficient author for M. Heskins and yet hee is directly against transubstantiation For he saith cum sit mos hominum edere panem bibere vinum ijs rebus adiunxit suam diuinitatem whereas it is the manner of men to eate beead and drinke wine hee hath ioyned his diuinitie to these things In these words he acknowledgeth the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament the diuinitie of Christ to bee ioyned to them The nynteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Isidore Oecumenius M. Hesk. hath many friends in the lower house as hee hath neuer a one in the vpper house that fauoureth his bil Yet Isidorus saith litle for him but rather against him He citeth him lib. 1. offic Cap. 18. Panis c. The bread which we breake is the bodie of Christ which sayth I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen and the wine is his bloud and this is it that is written I am the true vine M. Hesk. saith truely that Isidore is the rather to be credited because he alledgeth the scripture and therefore according to these two textes of scripture he must be vnderstoode but neither of both these texts is to be vnderstood litterally but figuratiuely therefore his saying the breade is the bodie and the wine is his bloud must be vnderstood figuratiuely not litterally which M. Heskins perceiuing would help him out by foysting in a place of Cyrillus in Ioan. Annon conuenienter c May it not be conueniently sayde that his humanitie is the vine we the branches because wee be all of the same nature For the vine the branches be of the same nature So both spiritually corporally wee are the braunches and Christ is the vine In these wordes Cyrill reasoneth against an Arrian as is more at large declared in the sixth Chapter of this third booke that would interpret this place only of the diuinitie of Christe to make him lesse then his father as the vine is subiect to the husbandman But Cyrill contendeth that it may well be vnderstoode also of his humanitie because we are not onely ioyned to the diuinitie of Christ but also to his flesh which is testifyed vnto vs by the sacrament wherin we are spiritually fedd with the verie bodie bloud of Christe and so Christe is the vine both spiritually corporally that is both after his godhead after his manhod But Cyrillus would neuer denie that this saying I am the true vine is a figuratiue speach which is the matter in controuersie betweene M. Hesk. and vs. Oecumenius is alledged to as litle purpose as Isidorus in 1. Cor. 10. Poculum vocat c. He calleth the cupp of the bloud of Christ the cupp of blessing which we blesse which hauing in our hands we blesse him which hath giuen vs his bloude Here is neuer a worde but I will willingly subscribe vnto it yet M. Hesk. sayth it is a common manner of speache that the vessel is named by the thing that it conteineth hee dare not say it is a figuratiue speach lest while he would haue the bloud of Christ locally conteined in the cupp he might be pressed with the figure in the worde bloud which he cannot denye though he dissemble in the word cupp In the end he braggeth of an euident
taketh to be ordeined of him for as much as it is not by any diuersitie of maners varied or altered But if it were as he fableth that S. Paul ordeined the ceremonial part of the Masse that was vsed in Augustines time the Popish Masse being not the same in ceremoniall partes as he will confesse that it was in Augustines time it foloweth that the Popish Masse is not that which was ordeined of S. Paule for it is well known it was patched peeced together by many peeces long since August time And as certein it is that almost euerie Church in his time had a seuerall forme of liturgie and therefore by his owne words they cannot be that which S. Paule set in order at the Church of that Corinthians The like impudeÌ„cie he sheweth in the next saying of Aug. which he citeth Et ideo non proecipit c. And therfore he coÌ„manded not in what order it should be receiued afterward that he might reserue this place to the Apostles by whoÌ„ he would set the Churches in order It followeth which M. Hesk. hath omitted Etiamsi hoc ille monuisset vt post cibos alios semper acciperetur credo quòd eum moreÌ„ nemo variasset For if he had charged this that it should always be receiued after other meats I beleeue that no man would haue varied froÌ„ that maner When August speketh so expresly of that one order of receiuing the communioÌ„ before meat what boldness is it to say that crouching kneeling other dumb ceremonies although they were not instituted by Christ yet were ordeined by S. Paul vpoÌ„ colour of Aug. authority who in the same epistle wished al such idle ceremonies vtterly to be abolished The next Massemonger he maketh is S. Andrew out of whose legend written by I knowe not what priestes deacons of Achaia he wil proue that S. Andrew did both say Masse and also therin offer in sacrifice the bodie bloud of Christ. But he is too much deceiued if he thinke any man of reasonable vnderstanding will in these dayes giue credite to such fabulous legends after S. Andrew coÌ„meth in S. Iames with his Masse said at IerusaleÌ„ which is in print but not heard of in the Church 600. yeres after Christ yet M. Hesk. saith it is allowed praysed by the proclaymer which is vtterly false for he proueth by a manifest argumeÌ„t that the liturgie which is in print vnder the name of S. Iames is a counâ—erfet because therein is a special prayer conteyned for such as liue in Monasteries whereas there was neuer a monasterie in the world many hundreth yeres after the death of S. Iames. And for a further proofe of the false inscription of that liturgie to S. Iames I will adde this argument that he vseth the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or consubstantial which as the learned knowe was neuer heard of in the Church before the heresie of Arrius was condemned in the Nicene counsell although the Catholike Church did alwayes confesse that Christ was God of the same substance equal with the father and the holy Ghost In deede the B. of Sarum confesseth that there is more in those liturgies against the Papistes then for them as by examining these parcels which M. Heskins citeth we shall easily perceiue First the liturgie of Iames hath these wordes Dominus c. Our Lord Iesus the same right in which he was betrayed or rather in which night he deliuered himselfe for the life of saluation of the world taking bread into his holie vndefiled innocent immortall hands looking vp into heauen shewing it to the God father giuing thankes sanctifying breaking he gaue it to vs his disciples saying Take ye eate ye this is my bodie which is broken for you and giuen vnto remission of sinnes Likewise after he had supped he tooke the cup and mingling it with wine and water looking vp into heauen and shewing it to the God and father giuing thankes sanctifying blessing filling it with the holy Ghost he gaue it to vs his disciples saying Drinke ye all of this this is my bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you and many and giuen for remission of sinnes This saith Maister Heskins was his maner of consecration vnlike the manner of the newe ministers in their communion which only rehearse the words of Christ historically not directing theÌ„ to God as a prayer wherein he lyeth most impudently as euerie man that heareth or readeth the praier immediately before the receiuing of the sacrament can testifie Concerning the tearme of consecration I haue often shewed that in the true sense thereof we both allow vse it although he wold make ignorant obstinat papists that wil neither heare our preachings nor read our writings to beleeue the contrarie only because he saith it Another ridiculous cauil he hath that we take not the bread into our handes before we consecrate it But let it lie on the table as though we had nothing to do with it Surely we do not acknowledge such holines in our hands that it can consecrate the bread but we pray to God to blesse those his creatures of bread wine that they may be vnto vs the bodie and bloud of Christ his sonne our lord If the Papists haue such holy vndefiled and immortal hands as this Iames speaketh of it is more then we knowe or will confesse before they can proue it In the consecration of the wine he chargeth vs that we mingle no water with the wine But when he can proue by the word of God that our sauiour Christ did so we will confesse our errour otherwise we see no necessitie of the water so their own schoolemen do confesse We acknowledge that in the primitiue Church it was an ancient custome to mingle water with the wine but not as a ceremonie at the first but as the coÌ„mon vsage of al men that drank the hotte wines of the East countries but afterward it grewe to be counted a ceremonie including some mysterie and at length with some it excluded the wine altogether as with those that were called Aquarij so daungerous a matter it is to vse any thing in Gods seruice more then is prescribed by himselfe But M. Heskins caÌ„not be persuaded that after al this sanctifying blessing and filling of the cup with the holy Ghost there should bee nothing else but a bare hungrie figure As though there were no choyce but either transubstantiation or a bare hungrie figure In baptisme there is sanctification blessing and filling with the holie Ghost as much as in the communion is there therefore transubstantiation in baptisme because there is not a bare hungrie figure But if I might be so bold as to examine him in his own fained Masse of S. Iames I would aske him how the cuppe is filled with the holie Ghost essentially so that the holie Ghost or any parte of him is conteined in the cupp I dare say he will say
no. And why then may not the bodie of Christ be present and yet not corporally nor locally conteyned in pixe corporax cupp hand or mouth but after a spirituall manner as the holy Ghost is in the cuppe by his owne Iames his saying The last quarrell he picketh is to our ministers who sayeth he haue none authoritie to consecrate because they receiue it not from the catholike succession As for that authoritie which we haue receiued of God by the outwarde calling of the church wee minde not to exchange with the Popes triple crowne and much lesse with Maister Hesk. shauen crowne But to shape him an answere according to his lewde obiection seeing many are suffered to minister in our church which were made priestes after the Popish order of antichrist why should he denye any of them them at the least to haue power to consecrate according to the Popish diuinitie though the wordes be spoken in English so long as he hath intentionē consecrandi before he be of them disgraded and hath his indebeble character scraped out of his handes and fingers endes I aunswere he is not able to defend his opinion that thei cannot consecrate neither in Sorbona of Paris nor in the schoole of Louain To shutt vp this Chapter he flappeth vs in the mouth with S. Mathewes Masse testified by Abdias in the diuels name a disciple of the Apostles as hee saith but one that sawe Christ him selfe as M. Harding sayeth in verie deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more then Caunterburie tales And thinketh he that such fables will nowe bee credited except it bee of such as wilfully will be deceiued The fiue and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the manner of consecration vsed and practised by the disciples of the Apostles and the fathers of the primitiue and auncient church His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian but a late writer who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgie which Peter Paule and the Apostles vsed Although that which he rehearseth of Clemens his Liturgie be to small purpose litle or nothing differing from that hee had before of Iames yet Nicolaus Methon is too yong a witnesse to bee credited in this case For he was not of yeres of discretion to discerne that for the authenticall writing of Clemens which the more auncient church by a thousand yeres could not haue perfect knowledge to be his Neither doth the testimonie of Proclus help him any whit For as it is not to be doubted but S. Iames the other Apostles Clemens also appointed some forme of Liturgie for the churches by them planted instructed which is all that Proclus saith yet how proueth M. Hesk. that those which we haue were the same which were written by Iames Clemens or any other of lawful antiquitie when wee bring manifest demonstrations for the contrarie Againe where he saith that Peter vsed the Liturgie of Clemens he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which sayth that Peter vsed a Liturgie of his own cōsisting of three praiers only The next witnesse should be Dionysius falsly surnamed Areopagita but that he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstantiation carnal presēce priuate Masse or sole cōmunion therefore vnder pretence of his obscuritie he dare cite neuer a sentence out of him Then follow the Liturgies vnder the names of Basil Chrysost. verie litle in words nothing at al in matter differing from that former Liturgie ascribed to S. Iames which because M. Hesk. knoweth we cannot receiue as the lawful writings of Basil Chrysost. he would vnderprop them by the authoritie of Proclus B. of Constantinople as he did S. Clem. S. Iames masse euen now The reason alledged by Proclus will cleane ouerturne his ground worke proue that none of these Liturgies were writen by thē to whom they be ascribed For Proclus sayeth that Basil and Chrysostom made the auncient Liturgies receiued from the Apostles shorter cutting many things away frō them because they were too long for the peoples colde deuotion to abide First this is a colde reason to alter the tradition of the Apostles so many yeres continued in the church for want of the peoples deuotion But be it that they followed this reason then doth it followe moste manifestly that this Liturgie which is ascribed to S. Iames is none of his because it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But if M. Hesk. will defende that of S. Iames then hee must needes refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it therfore none abridgements of it After these Liturgies hee addeth the testimonie of the sixt counsell of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretike wherein it is reported the S. Iames Basil Chrysostome ministred in their Liturgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water But this proueth not that these Liturgies which we haue are the same that were set forth by those fathers as for the water they striue not for it but for wine to be vsed not water onely Finally where the fathers of that counsell call the celebration of the communion an oblation and an vnbloudie sacrifice they speake in the same sence that the elder fathers vse the same termes otherwise that counsell being an hundreth yeres without the compasse of the challenge hath no place but in the lower house among the Burgesses whose speaches may be hearde but they haue none authoritie to determine in this cause by M. Heskins order according to the challenge Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latine church as though Clemens if he were bishop of Rome and wrote a Liturgie as he affirmeth before that of his making might not serue the Latine church But Ambrose is cited lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca. 5. Vis scire c. Wouldest thou knowe that the sacrament is consecrated with heauenly wordes Marke what the wordes be The Priest sayth Make vnto vs faith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ which the day before he suffred tooke bread in his holie hands looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thanks blessed it brake it being broken gaue it to his Apostles and disciples saying Take ye eat ye all of this for this is my bodie which shal be broken for many Likewise also he tooke the cupp after he had supped the day before he suffered looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thankes he blessed it deliuered it to his Apostles disciples saying Take ye and drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud M. Hesk. passeth ouer that the oblation of the church is the figure of the body bloud of Christ for feare he should be espied taken with such an assertion he flyeth in all the haste to other words of
to doe that which Christ commanded to be done and to receiue that which he deliuered vs to be receiued if the particular explication of our faith will not satisfie M. Hes. at least let him after his owne Popish Diuinitie holde vs excused for our implicite faith or if his own principles can hold him no longer then he listeth let him giue vs leaue to esteeme none otherwise of them then he giueth vs example to do The seuen and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the oblation and sacrifice of the Masse as it was vsed of the Apostles and Fathers When not one of the Apostles or Euangelistes make one word mention either of Masse or sacrifice therein M. Heskins taketh vpon him much more then al the Papistes in the world can proue Concerning the Fathers as they vse the terme of sacrifice so I haue often shewed that they meane a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of propitiation or else they vse the name of sacrifice vnproperly for a memorial of the onely sacrifice of Christ which he once offered neuer to be repeated Neither do any of these Liturgies which M. Heskins calleth Masses though they be falsly ascribed to Saint Iames Saint Clement Saint Basil Saint Chrysostome c. shewe any other thing but manifestly the same that I haue saide First that which is falsly ascribed to Saint Iames in these wordes Memores c. Therefore we sinners being mindfull of his quickening passions of his healthfull crosse and death his buriall and resurrection from death the third day of his ascension into heauen and sitting at the right hand of thee ô God the father and of his second glorious and fearefull comming when he shall come with glory to iudge the quicke and the dead when he shall render to euery one according to his workes we offer vnto thee ô Lord this reuerend vnbloudie sacrifice praying that thou wilt not deale with vs according to our sinnes No reasonable man can vnderstand here any other but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing or prayer or a memoriall of the sacrifice of christ For he saith not we offer the body and bloud of Christe but being mindfull of his sufferings c. we offer this reuerend and vnbloudy sacrifice for such is the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing The like and more plaine is that which is ascribed to Clemens by Nicholas Methon Memores igitur Therefore being mindfull of his passion death and resurrection returning into heauen and his second comming in which he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead and to render to euery man according to his workes we offer vnto thee our king and God according to his institution this bread and this cup giuing thankes vnto thee by him that thou hast vouchsafed vs to stand before thee and to sacrifice vnto thee This is so plaine against M. Heskins for the oblation of Christes body and bloud c. that he is enforced to flee to shamefull petitions of principles the end of which is that this bread is no bread this cup is no cup but as Christe called bread in the 6. of Iohn and S. Paule in the 1. Cor. 10. 11. in exposition whereof lyeth all the controuersie That Liturgie which is intituled to S. Basil is yet more plaine for a spirituall oblation of thankesgiuing Memores ergo c. Therefore being mindfull ô Lord of his healthsome passions of his quickening crosse three dayes buriall resurrection from death ascension into heauen sitting at thy right hand ô God the father and of his glorious and terrible second presence we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures M. Heskins saith he abhorreth not from the name of sacrifice as we do but he falsly belyeth vs for if he will looke in our Liturgie or communion booke he shall finde that we also offer a sacrifice of thankesgiuing euen our selues our soules and bodies as the Apostle exhorteth vs to be a holy liuely and acceptable sacrifice to god But he will not remember that the sacrifice he speaketh of is not the body and bloud of Christe but tua ex tuis thy creatures of thy giftes or thy gifts of thy creatures namely the bread and wine which also after consecration he prayeth to be sanctified by Gods holy spirite but the body of Christe hath no neede of such sanctification Secondly he noteth not that his Basil maketh but two presences of Christe in the worlde the first when hee liued in humilitie in the the world the second which shall be terrible and glorious by which he doth manifestly exclude the third imagined presence of Christ in the sacrament To the same effect prayeth the Priest in the other Liturgie ascribed to Chrysostome Memores c. Therefore being mindfull of this wholesome commaundement and of all those things which are done for vs of his crosse buriall resurrection ascension into heauen sitting at the right hand of his second and glorious comming againe we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures Maister Heskins saith he will not seeke the deapth of this matter but only declare that al these fathers did offer sacrifice In which words he mocketh his readers egregiously whereas he should proue that they offered the body and bloud of Christe to be a propitiatorie sacrifice and that he proueth neuer a whit Nowe that the meaning of that Liturgie was not to offer Christ in sacrifice this prayer therein vsed before the words of coÌ„secration as they terme it doth sufficieÌ„tly declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Lord receiue this sacrifice vnto thine heauenly altar So that it is manifest they called the bread wine a sacrifice not the body bloud of christ The like is that of Ambrose The Priest saith Therefore being mindfull of his most glorious passion resurrection from death and ascension into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudy sacrifice this holy bread and cup of eternall life This vndefiled sacrifice saith M. Heskins must needes be the body and bloud of Christe for else there is nothing vndefiled that a man can offer But why may it not be as Ambrose calleth it here the holy bread and cup of the communion or as he calleth it a little before in the same place the figure of the body bloud of Christ For the bread and the wine which vnproperly he calleth a sacrifice in steede of a memoriall of a sacrifice in that they be the holy sacraments of Christes body and bloud are holy vndefiled and the foode of eternal life The same Ambrose called the soule of his brother an innocent sacrifice and offered the same to God in his prayer De obiâ—â— fratris c. To conclude not one of all these Liturgies no not the Canon of the Masse it selfe saith that the body of Christe is the sacrifice that they do offer or that they offer a propitiatorie sacrifice or that they offer any other but a
sacrifice of thankesgiuing or a memoriall of the sacrifice of Christ by which it is easie to iudge howe the doctrine that the Papistes do nowe holde of the propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse doth agree with the auncient Liturgies ascribed to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church The eight and twentieth Chapter treateth of the prayer for acceptation of the oblation or sacrifice made in the Masse and vsed as well by the Apostles as the Fathers That the Apostles and Fathers commended to God by prayers the sacrifice which thei offered it is a manifest argument that they offered not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe for that needeth no commendation of our prayers They prayed therefore that their sacrifice of thankes giuing and duetifull seruice celebrated in the memorie of Christes death might be acceptable to God as you shal see by al their prayers First the Liturgie vntruly ascribed to Iames praieth thus Pro oblatis c. For these offred and sanctified precious heauenly vnspeakable immaculate glorious feareful horrible diuine gifts let vs pray to our Lord God that our Lord God accepting them into his holy heauenly mentall and spirituall altar for a sauour of spiritual sweet smell may giue vs againe and send vnto vs the diuine grace and gift of the most holy spirite These sanctified giftes can not be the body and bloud of Christe which are holy of them selue but the bread and wine sanctified to be a memoriall of the death of Christe in a spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing Saint Clement if wee beleeue Nicholas Methon prayed thus Rogamus c. We pray thee that with mercifull and cheerefull countenaunce thou wilt looke vpon these giftes set before thee thou God which hast no neede of any thing and that thou mayest be pleased with them to the honour of thy Christ. These wordes are plaine that he offered not Christe but the breade and wine to bee sanctified to the honour of Christe namely that they might be made the body and bloud of Christe to as many as receiue them worthily In the Liturgie imputed to Basil the Priest prayeth thus Dominum postulemus c. Let vs desire the Lorde for these offered and sanctified the most honourable giftes of our Lorde God and for the profite of the goods of our soules that the most mercifull God which hath receiued them in his holy heauenly intelligible altar for a sauour of sweete smelling would send vnto vs the grace and communion of his holy spirite The same wordes in a manner be in the Liturgie fathered vppon Saint Chrysostome though it be manifest that it was written seuen hundreth yeares after his death as is shewed before Pro oblatis c. For the offered and sanctified precious giftes let vs pray the Lorde that our mercifull God who hath receiued theÌ„ in his holy heauenly intelligible altar may send vs therfore grace the gift of the holy Ghost Maister Heskins would haue vs note that these Fathers seeme to pray for their sacrifice which we note very willingly for thereby is proued that their sacrifice was not the very body of Christ for that nedeth no commendation of our prayers Wel S. Ambrose followeth Lib. de Sacr. 4. Cap. 6. Petimus c. We pray and desire that thou wilt receiue this oblation in thy high altar by the handes of the Angels as thou hast vouchsafed to receiue the gifts of thy seruant righteous Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that which thy high Priest Melchisedech offered to thee The very name of gods heauenly mental intelligible holy high altar do argue a spirituall sacrifice and not a reall oblation of the naturall body and bloud of christ Next to these Liturgies Maister Heskins adioyneth the wordes of the Canon of the Popish Masse agreeing in effect with these of Ambrose but nothing at all in vnderstanding For that the Papistes esteeme their sacrifice to be very Christ God and Man which none of the auncient fathers did For which cause the Bishop of Sarum iustly reproued those three blasphemies in their Canon not in respect of the words but in respect of their vnderstanding of them The first that they seeme to make Christ in his fathers displeasure that he needeth a mortall man to be his spokesman The second that the body of Christe should in no better wise bee receiued of his father then a Lambe at the handes of Abel The third that they desire an Angel may come and carie away Christes body into heauen These three blasphemies M. Heskins taketh vpon him to auoyde or excuse To the first after many lowd outcries and beastly raylings against that godly learned father of blessed mâ—mory he answereth defending it first by example of these auncient Liturgies that they prayed for their sacrifice but this helpeth him not for they neither thought nor saide that their sacrifice was very Christe God and Man but a sacrament and memoriall of him Afterward hee saith the meaning of their Church is not to pray for Christe but by Christ to obtaine fauour bicause they say in the end of euery prayer per Christum Dominum nostrum by our Lord Christ. But this hole is too narrowe for him to creepe out at For he confesseth that he prayeth for his sacrifice and he affirmeth that his sacrifice is Christ therfore he praieth for Christ. To auoyde the second blasphemie hee saith that the meaning of their Church is not to pray that God will accept the sacrifice which is acceptable of it selfe but their deuotion and seruice and them selues the offerers as hee did accept Abell and his sacrifice c. and so flyeth to the example of the olde Liturgies but that will not serue him For their sacrifice was not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ but a seruice and duetie of thankesgiuing in remembrance of Christe And therefore they might well pray that their sacrifice might be accepted as Abell and his sacrifice as Noe and his burnt offering and so of the rest but this meaning will not stande with the wordes of their Canon which are that God will accept the sacrifices that is the body and bloud of Christ as hee accepted the giftes of his iust seruaunt Abell c. Therefore they must either chaunge the wordes of the Canon or his aunswere to the second accusation by the meaning of their Church can not stande howe so euer Hugo Heskins would seeme to salue or rather to daub vp the matter To the third and last hee aunswereth denying that the meaning of their Church is that the body of Christe should be caried by an Angel but that their prayers should bee offered by an Angel or Angels in the sight of GOD making a long and needlesse discourse of the ministerie of Angels and howe they offer our prayers to GOD which is nothing to the purpose For the Maister of the sentences affirmeth that an Angel must be sent to
consecrate the quickening body or else it can not be called a Masse which is nothing like to Maister Heskins seruice Lib. 4. dist 13. In the end he will ioyne issue with the proclamer that no Catholique euer thought that Christes body was caried into heauen by an Angell And it seemeth plainly that they are all ashamed of the grosse absurdities and blasphemies of their Masse and therefore are forced to feigne meanings and interpretations which are cleane contrarie to the wordes thereof The trueth is that these and some other prayers of their Canon were vsed in the Romane Church before the opinion of transubstantiation carnall presence or propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse were receiued and this is the cause that being nowe applyed to these monstruous errours they imploy such detestable blashemies as all the Papistes in the world are ashamed to heare of and not able to defend whereas before these errours receiued some of them were good prayers some were tolerable The nine thirtieth Chapter treateth of the value of the Masâ—â— to the quicke and the dead Prayer for the dead beeing an auncient errour Maister Heskins triumpheth out of measure that he findeth some spottes thereof in the auncient writers bookes But there is great difference betweene praying for the dead which is an errour rising of superstition and infidelitie and offring the bodie of Christe in sacrifice for the dead which is a most horrible blaspheming Therefore he doeth maliciously wrest such thinges as are spoken of prayer for the dead or the sacrifice of prayer for the dead yea and sometimes the sacrifice of thanksgiuing for the dead to the oblation of CHRISTE for the dead Thus he abuseth first all the liturgies falsely ascribed to Saint Iame Basil Chrysostome Which as we haue proued before pretended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice and therfore offred it not for the dead although they offer prayers for the dead And here it is to be noted that Clementes liturgie forsaketh him for prayer for the dead or else we should surely haue heard of him as we did before He would get credite to that whiche is vntruely ascribed to Saint Iames by the proclaymers testimonie because he saide it was full of knowledge and full of errours also When Dionysius can say nothing for him concerning the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable for the dead he bringeth him in speaking of prayers made for the partie deceassed at his buriall Concerning the antiquitie of this Dionysius we haue shewed before that he cannot be so olde by sixe hundreth yeares as the Papistes would make him That the Apostles taught not prayer for the dead in their writinges he saith the cause was that they needed not for that the Iewes vsed both prayer sacrifice for the dead before Christes comming â–ª by testimonie of the Booke of Machabees which he sayeth S. Augustine alloweth canonicall and by witnesse of one Antonie Margarita a late conuerted Iewe to Papistrie Touching the veritie of that historie of the Machabees though Augustine allowe it to be read so it be soberly yet doeth not he take it for Canonicall and Hierome vtterly denieth it for Canonicall Expreâ—at in Prouerb But for as much as this controuersie of praying for the dead is vnpertinent to this cause and requireth a larger discourse then the answere to this Chapter may conteine also that Maister Heskins in the end ioyneth issue and maketh a newe challenge I thinke it best to referre the Readers to mine answere against Maister Allens Booke of Purgatorie where he shall finde all those and a number more of places alledged and answered both touching prayers for the dead and the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable to the dead in the same also is some treatie of prayer vnto dead Saintes In the meane season this is sufficient against all mans authoritie that the worde of God prescribeth neither the one nor the other but condemneth them both for what so euer is not of faith is sin and whatsoeuer is not of the word of God is not of faith therfore prayers for the dead and to the dead beeing not of the worde of God are sinne Neither were they vsed in the Church more then an hundreth yeres after christ And the first that maketh mention of any praiers for the dead which is the elder errour by two or three hundreth yeres is Tertullian wheÌ„ he was an heretike who had receiued it with other heresies of the Montanistes who were two hundreth yeares after Christ notwithstanding that Epiphanius Augustine number it among the errours of Arrius that he denied prayers for the dead yet they both do also number it for one of the heresies of the Heracleonites to redeeme their dead with inuocations and other ceremonies vsed at their buriall How M. Heskins falsifieth the councel of Carthage which made a decree that such as denied to pay the oblations of the dead should be excommunicated as murtherers of the poore I shall not neede to rehearse vnderstanding dead mens legacies for the vse of the poore for Masses saide for the dead The same doeth M. Allen with this and other councels Likewise M. Heskins falsifieth Cyprian De Cerna Dom In huius praesentia non superuacuè in endicant lachrymae veniam nec vnquam patitur contriti cordis holocaustum repulsam In presence of him teares do neuer begge pardon in vain neither doeth the sacrifice of a contrite heart euer suffer repulse Here doth he translate Huius of this sacrifice and applyeth it to the sacrifice of the Masse for the dead whereas there is not one worde in all that sermon either of prayer or sacrifice for the dead But leauing this argument of praying and offering for the dead M. Heskins chargeth the the proclaimer with three vntrueths in one sentence where he saide that Saint Iames in his Masse preached and set foorth the death of Christ but the Papistes in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe geastures and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstande not and make no manner mention of Christes death To the first he answereth that they haue all thinges that S. Iames had in his Masse by the proclaymers confessioÌ„ who diuideth their Masse into holie prayer holie doctrine holy consecration holy receiuing See the impudent quarrelling of this froward sophister The Bishop saith the Papistes diuide their Masse into these partes therfore he acknowledgeth their Masse to consist of these partes and yet all these are but dumbe gestures and ceremonies because the people vnderstand none of them were they neuer so good as a great parte of them is starke naught To the second he saith that they them selues vnderstand not their owne gestures and ceremonies he sayeth that diuerse writers haue expounded euerie parcell of them as Isidorus Rabanus Hugo Hoffnester Garetius and others he leaueth out Bonauentur and Durandus the cheefe belike beeing ashamed of their ridiculous interpretations But admitte these things to be set foorth in bookes doth
and that the puritie of so greate grace shoulde not make a dwelling for it selfe in vnworthie persons I am verie wel content that this place shal determine the controuersie betweene vs Cyprian sayeth the maiestie of GOD doth neuer absent it selfe from the sacramentes but either hee worketh saluation or damnation by them as well in baptisme as in the Lords supper for hee speaketh of both in the plurall number And seeing infidels and wicked persons cannot bee partakers of the spirite of Christe it followeth they cannot bee partakers of the bodie of Christe for Christ his bodie is neuer separate from his spirite But Augustine contra Crescen is alledged the place is not quoted but it is lib. 1. Cap. 25. Quid de ipso corpore c. What shall wee saye euen of the bodie and bloude of our Lorde the onely sacrifice for our health Although the Lorde him selfe doeth saye Except a man doe eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud he shall haue no life in him doeth not the Apostle teache that the same is made hurtfull to them that vse it amisse For he sayeth whosoeuer shall eate the breade and drinke the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shal bee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde But it followeth imediately Ecce quemadmodum obsint diuina sancta malè vtentibus Cur non eodem modo baptismus Behold how diuine and holy things do hurte them that vse them amisse why not baptisme after the same manner By which woordes it appeareth that Augustine speaketh of the sacrament and not of the thing signifyed by the sacrament For he compareth baptisme ministred by heretikes with the Lordes supper vnworthily receiued which comparison cannot stande except you vnderstande the outwarde parte of the sacrament in bothe Baptisme is ministred by heretikes that is to say the outwarde sacrament of baptisme the bodie of Christe is receiued vnworthily to destruction that is the outwarde sacrament of the bodie of Christe for as wee heard in the last Chapter Res ipsa sacramenti the thing it selfe of the sacrament is receiued of euery man to life of no man to destruction whosoeuer doth receiue it The fiftieth Chapter sheweth the vnderstanding of the same â—ext by Effrem Primasius Effrem is cited in tract de die Iudicij Si procul a nobis est Siloe c. If Siloe whither the blinde man was sent be farre from vs yet the precious cuppe of thy bloude full of light and life is neere vs beeing so much neerer as hee is purer that commeth vnto it This then remayneth vnto vs O mercifull Christ that being full of grace and the illumination of thy knowledge with faith and holinesse wee come to thy cuppe that it may profite vs vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes not to confusion in the day of iudgement For whosoeuer being vnworthie shall come to thy mysteries hee condemneth his owne soule not cleansing himselfe that hee might receiue the heauenly king and the immortall brydegrome into the moste pure chamber of his brest For our soule is the spouse of the immortall bridegrome and the heauenly sacramentes are the couple of the marriage For when wee eate his bodie and drinke his bloude both hee is in vs and wee in him Therefore take heede to thy selfe brother make speede to garnish continually the chamber of thine heart with vertues that hee may make his dwelling with thee with his blessed father And then thou shalt haue praise glorie and boasting before the Angels and Archangels with great ioy and gladnesse thou shalt enter into Paradise This saying being directly contrarie both to the corporall manner of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christe and also to that absurde opinion that the wicked receiue the body of Christe Maister Heskins is not ashamed not onely to alledge it as making for him but also tryfleth off the nearnesse of the bloud of Christe which hee sayeth wee denye when wee affirme Christe to bee alwayes in heauen As though the bloude of Christe cannot purge and clense vs except it come downe from heauen and bee powred in at our mouthes As though faith cannot make Christ him selfe to dwell in vs. But where Effrem sayeth his bloud is so much the neerer as hee is purer that commeth vnto it why cannot M. Hesk. vnderstand that the more vnpurer the receiuer of the cup is the further off the bloud of Christ is and so farthest of all from them that be most vnpure that is the wicked and the reprobate But hee woulde haue the bloud of Christ to be as neere the wicked as the godly Againe when Ephrem saith when wee eate and drinke his body and bloude hee is in vs and wee in him with what face can Maister Heskins or any papist in the worlde saye that the wicked receiue the bodye and bloud of Christe in whom Christe is not nor they in him The like syncerity hee vseth in racking the wordes of Primasius Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in mee and I in him As though he should saye they that so eaâ—â— as it is to bee eaten and so drinke as my bloud is to be dronken For many when they seeme to receiue this thing abide not in God nor God in them because thei are affirmed to eate their own damnation M. Hesk. hath so corrupted this place in translation that you may see hee ment nothing but falshood trechery The latine text he citeth thus Qui edit meane carneus bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo pro eo ac si diceret qui sic edent vs edenda est sic bibent vs bibendus est sanguis meus Multi enim cùm hoc videantur acciperâ— in Deo non manent nec Deus in ipsis quia sibi iudicium manducare perhibentur He translateth in English thus He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in mee and I in him As if he should say they that so shal eate my flesh as it is to be eaten and shall so drinke my bloud as it is to be dronken For many when they are seene to receiue this sacrament neither dwell they in God nor God in them because they are witnessed to eate and drinke their owne damnation Now let the reader though hee bee but a meane Latinist iudge whether he haue not corrupted Primasius in translation especially where hee sayeth Multi cùm hoc videantur accipere whiche is manye when they seeme to receiue this thing namely the body and bloud of Christe of whiche hee spake Maister Heskins turneth it into manye when they are seene to receiue this sacrament Many seeme to bee Christians that are not many seeme to bee baptized with the holy Ghoste which are not so many seeme to eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe which doe not because God dwelleth not in them nor they in god Therefore take awaye Maister Heskins false translation and this saying of Primasius
no wicked men Nowe let vs heare Chrysostome whom hee citeth in foure places but the two first are one compt In 1. Cor. 11. Probet seipsum c. Let a man examine himselfe whiche thing also he sayeth in the second Epistle proue your selues whether you be in the faith examine your owne selues not as we doe nowâ— comming rather for the times sake then of any earnest desire of the minde Neither doe we come as full of compunction prepared to purge out our vices but we consider that wee may bee at the solemnities when all men are presente But Paule doeth not so commaunde but he knewe one time in whiche we should come to the purenesse of communication and conscience For if we would neuer communicate at a sensible table if wee be sicke of an ague and doe abounde with humours least we should be caste away muche more wickednesse it is to touche this table being intangled with noysome lustes which are more greeuous then feuers And when I speake of noysome lustes I speake of lustes of the bodie and of money and of anger and of wrath and plainely all lustes that be naught All which he that commeth to receiue must auoide and so touche that pure sacrifice not to be slouthfully disposed nor miserably to be compelled for the solemnities sake to come Neither againe beeing penitent and prepared to be hindered because there is no solemnitie For solemnitie is an euident declaration of good workes purenesse of soule certeintie of life whiche thinges if thou hast thou mayest alwayes celebrate a solemnitie and alwayes come therefore sayth he let a man examine him selfe and so let him eate It followeth immediately Non iubet vt alter alteri probetur sed ipse sibi non publicum faciens iudicium sine teste argutum He doth not commaunde that one should be examined of an other but eache man of him selfe making the iudgement not publike and the accusation without witnesse Maister Heskins alledged the place to proue the necessitie of preparation which no man denieth but these last words of Chrysostome doe clearly ouerthrow auricular confession which Maister Heskins compteth for a necessarie parte of repentance He noteth further that the sacrament is called of him a pure sacrifice and the bodie of christ How it is called either a sacrifice or the body of Christ we haue often shewed before yet he will presse vs with an other place out of his Hom. Oporteâ— haereses c. Deinde vbi multum c. Then when he had disputed much of those which vnworthily are partakers of the mysteries and had greâ—uously rebuked them and shewed that they should suffer the same punishment that they did which had slaine Christe if they receiue his bloud and body without examination rashly he turneth againe his communication vnto the matter in hande Of these wordes M. Heskins will needes gather both his carnall presence and the presence of Christ vnto the wicked receiuer but seeing Chrysostome expressely nameth the partaking of the mysteries it is plaine in what sense the bodie of Christ is said to be receiued vnworthily namely wheÌ„ the mysteries that is his sacrament are receiued vnworthily But our doctrine he saith is without all ground of scriptures that only faith maketh Christe present in the sacrament in deed meaning either such a presence as he fantasieth included in the sacrament or suche an only faith as he slandereth vs withal neither do we affirme it neither is it in the scriptures to be found but that Christ dwelleth in our heartes by faith both in the receiuing of the sacramentes and in receiuing of the word of God the Apostle teacheth vs Eph. 3. and our sauiour Christ testifieth Ioan. 6. that whosoeuer eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud hath life euerlasting euen as he saide before he that beleeueth in him hath life euerlasting whervpon Augustine In Ioan. Tract 26. doeth rightly gather Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem viuum To beleeue in him that is to eate the bread of life and Tra. 25. Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie beleeue and thou hast eaten it Yet another place of Chrysostome M. Heskins heapeth vpon vs Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Eph. Considera nunc c. Consider now what great sobrietie of life those partakers of the olde sacrifice did vse For what did they not They were purified euerie time And doest thou comming to this wholsome sacrifice which the Angels them selues doe receiue with trembling measure so great a thing with the compasse of times With what face wilt thou appeare before the iudgement seate of Christ which hast beene so bolde with vncleane handes and lippes so impudently to touch his bodie Thou wouldst not choose to kisse the King if thou hast a stinking mouth doest thou shamelesse man kisse the King of heauen with thy soule so stinking of vices Surely this maner of thing is a cruell reproche Tell me wouldest thou take vpon thee to come to so honorable a sacrifice with vnwashed handes I thinke not but as I coniecture thou haddest rather altogether to refraine from comming then to come with foule hands And whylest thou art so religious in so small a thing thou commest hauing thy soule defiled with the myre of vices and darest thou touch it thou impudent man Although a man for the vncleanenesse of his handes doe withholde himselfe for a time yet to cleanse his soule from the filthie puddle of all vices let him returne altogether Maister Heskins noteth in this figuratiue speeche three thinges first the corporal presence of Christes bodie that it may be touched with handes or lipps And he is not ashamed to cite the saying of Christ handle me and see that a spirite hath no fleshe and bones as you see we haue as though any man either by sight or feeling could discerne Christe corporally present in the sacrament But what a shamelesse man is this to vrge the kissing of Christ with a foule mouth which is a figuratiue and vnproper speech when it followeth that he is kissed of the wicked with a foule soule Like impudencie is in the second note that the bodie of Christe may be touched and receiued of him that hath a filthie soule which Chrysostome saith not but inueyeth vehemently against their presumption that hauing a filthie soule would presume to receiue the sacrament The thirde that it is an wholsome sacrifice which the Angels do honour doth no more proue the corporall presence of Christ on earth then the same Authors wordes soone after do proue the corporal presence of the receiuers in heauen Dic quaeso si rex quispiam praecepisset ac dixisset si quis istud vel istud fecerit mensa mea abstineat an non huius gratia omnia fecissetis In coelot nos vocauit Deus ad mensam magni admirandi Regis recusamus moras nectimus ad rem tantam
nec festinantes nec accurrentes Tel me I pray thee If any King had commanded and said if any man haue done this or that let him not come to my table wouldest not thou haue done any thing for his sake God hath called vs into heauen vnto the table of the great and wonderfull King and doe we refuse and make delayes neither making haste nor comming to so great and excellent a matter This place of Chrysostome doth teach vs that Christes bodie commeth not downe corporally to vs but that we are called vp into heauen to receiue him there spiritually by faith This is in deede a great and wonderfull mysterie which Chrysostome doeth garnish with many figures as he was an eloquent preacher to make the people to haue due reuerence thereof Neither is Luthers doctrine one hayre breadth differing from Chrysostoms iudgement concerning the preparation necessarie for all them that shall receiue the sacrament worthily howsoeuer it pleaseth Maister Heskins neuer to haue done railing and reuiling him charging him with that which I thinke the holy man neuer thought certeine I am he neuer did teach but the contrarie And because this is the last testimonie he citeth out of Chrysostome I thought good to set downe one place also directly ouerthrowing his transubstantiation for which he striueth so egerly It is written Ad Caesa. monachum Et Deus homo est Christus Deus propter impassibilitatem homo propter passionem vnus filius vnus Dominus idem ipse procul dubio vnitarum naturarum vnam dominationem vnam potestatem possidens etiamsi non consubstantialiter existant vnaquaeque incommixta proprietatis conseruas agnitionem propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis panem nominamus Diuina autem illum sanctificante gratia mediante sacerdote liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione etsi natura panis in ipso remansit non duo corpora sed vnum filij corpus predicattâ—r sic haec Diuina inundante corporis natura vnum filium vnam personam vtraque haec secerunt Christe is both God and man God because of his impassibilitie man for his passion being one sonne and one Lord he himselfe doubtlesse possessing one domination one power of the two natures being vnited although they haue not their being consubstantially and either of them vnmingled doeth keepe the acknowledging of his propertie because they are two vnconfounded For euen as the bread before it be sanctified is called of vs bread but when the grace of God doth sanctifie it by meanes of the priest it is in deede deliuered from the name of bread and is compted worthie of the name of our Lordes bodie although the nature of the bread hath remained in it and it is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne so both these the diuine nature ouerflowing the body haue made one sonne one person I knowe Stephan Gardener when he can not aunswere this place denyeth it to bee written by Iohn Chrysostome ascribing it to an other Iohn of Constantinople but seeing it caÌ„ not be denied to be an ancient authoritie it is sufficient to proue the doctrine of transubstantiation to be newe and vnknowen to the Churche of God in the elder times The fiue and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same by Isichius and S. Augustine To garnishe his Booke with the name of Isichius he continueth his most vniust and slaunderous quarrell against Luther as though he denied all preparation requisite to the woorthie receiuing of this holie sacrament which is so impudent an vntruth that all the world doth see it And God in time will reuenge it Isichius is cited In 26. Leuit. Probet autem c. Let a man examine him selfe and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cuppe What manner of examination doeth he speake of It is this that in a cleane heart and conscience and to him that intendeth to repent those thinges wherein he hath offended men should participate of the holy things to the washing away of their sinnes M. Hesk. would make men beleeue that Luthers doctrine were contrarie to this saying and multiplieth his slaunders against him which seeing they be without al proofe yea and manifest proofe to the contrarie it shall suffice to denie them and so to consider what he will bring foorth of S. Augustine He citeth him Ad Iulianum Ep. 111. Whereas in deede ther is no such Epistle in any good edition of Augustine and the treatise he speaketh of may rather be called a Booke then an Epistle for the length of it But the stile of it is as like vnto the stile of Augustine as our Asse is to a Lyon. It hath no inscription to whom it should be directed and therefore some say to Iulianus some to Bonifacius It beginneth O mi frater c. and so continueth in such balde Latine that Erasmus hath not only reiected it out of the number of Augustines Epistles but also out of his authenticall workes such iudgement or honestie M. Heskins vseth in citing the fathers all is fishe that commeth to his nette I will set downe the wordes Ab ijs pietas c. From them let the pietie of our Lorde Iesus Christe deliuer vs and giue himselfe to be eaten who saide I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen he that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting life in him But let euerie man before he receiue the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ examine himself and so according to the commandement of the Apostle let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that vnworthily eateth the bodie and bloud of our Lord eateth and drinketh his owne condemnation making no difference of the bodie of our Lorde Therefore when we shall receiue we ought before to haue recourse to confession and repentance and curiously to searche out all our actions and if we finde in vs any punishable sinnes leâ— vs hasten quickely to washe them away by confession and true repentance least we with Iudas the traytor hyding the diuell within vs doe perish protracting and hyding our sinnes from day to day And if we haue thought any euill or naughtie thing let vs repent vs of it and let vs make hast to scrape that speedily out of our heart This is the saying of this counterfet and forged Augustine out of which Maister Heskins gathereth not only his manner of presence to be such as the wicked receiue the bodie bloud of Christ but also his auricular confession But what the iudgement of the true Augustine is you haue hearde before concerning the former as for the later question is neuer touched in all his owne workes De ciuit Dei Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Non dicendum eum manducare corpus Christi qui in corpore non est Christi It is not to
before bread Dunce holdeth that if there were no transubstantiation graunted yet the presence might well stande and the adoration to as Maister Rastel saith but he taketh parte with Thomas But if the reason of Thomas be good for the presence of the bread because it is a creature why not also for the accidents of bread which are creatures also â–ª To the saying of Augustine In sermo ad Infantes That whiche you see on the table is breade Maister Rastel sayeth it is a reason of Tinkers Taylers and Coblers O learned Clearke and not of learned Schollers to say it is bread because it is called bread But learned Maister Rastel Saint Augustine doeth not say it is called breade but he saith it is bread and moreouer he maketh their senses Iudges thereof Quid-etiam oculi vestri renunciant Which also your eyes do tell you And that your learned penne hath set downe out of Prosper which is not to be found in Augustines workes yet maketh it nothing against the remayning of bread but only saith that vnder the visible kindes of breade and wine we honour the bodie and bloud of Christ. To the saying of Gelasius that the substance and nature of bread and wine doth not ceasse to be he aunswereth that Gelasius doth expound him selfe straight after where he saith But they remaine in the propertie of their nature as though nothing remained but whitensse thicknesse c. O impudent falsifier Is substance and properties of nature all one Againe I aske what are they that remaine in their propertie of nature but the breade and wine Finally the very argument whiche he vseth against Eutiches most plainely confuteth Rastell for a moste shamefull and shamelesse peruerter of this Doctours meaning for he concludeth that as the substance of bread wine remaine in the sacrament so the bodie in Christ after the assumption of the Diuine nature The like beastly racking he vseth of the wordes of Theodoret which vseth the same argument against the Eutichians But in the end he saith it must not be considered what one or two haue saide but what the whole consent of the Church is and if it were graunted that Gelasius and Theodoret denied transubstantiation yet they graunting the carnall presence it were a small matter and nothing at all against the Catholikes which hold of the generall councell of Laterane What say you learned M. Rastel is it not to be regarded nor maketh it any thing against you what Gelasius the Bishop of Rome hath written whiche you holde can not erre But where he sayeth that they bothe graunt the carnall presence I must sende the Reader to mine aunswere vnto the 60. Chapter of the 3. booke of Hesk. Parlea for Gelasius and to the 52. and 56. chapters of the same booke for Theodoret How vnlearnedly he affirmeth Cyprians errour of rebaptization to be no heresie because the church had not determined the contrarye I passe ouer when on the one side the bishoppe of Rome was against it on the other side a whole councell in Affrica was for it SECTIO 31. in the 98. leafe The bishop shewed out of the schoole men that if a man worship the accidents of breade Idolatrie may bee done to the sacrament M. Rastell saith not to the sacrament but to the accidents But do not you papists call the accidents the sacrament else what difference make you betweene sacramentum rem sacramenti in S. Augustine the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament Againe he saith the fault were not in the institution of Christ but in the silence of the priest and simplicitie of the people that were no better taught As though Christ did euer institute the sacrament to be worshipped after any maner of Latriâ— or Doulia of which he reasoneth brutishly with putting such cases if a man shoulde haue worshipped the only face of Christ as God which no man would euer haue done or his garment which had bene idolatry whosoeuer had done it SECTIO 32. From the 99. leafe to the 103. leafe Whereas the bishop lamenteth the miserable case of the people which are brought into idolatrie â–ª with these blinde distinctions M. Rast. deriding his needlesse and folish pitie lamenteth the state of the worlde when such things as are concluded in schooles should be opened in pulpets as though there were one doctrine of God for the schooles and another for the pulpets Yet he thinketh it not meete to teache the distinctions of the three persons in trinitie but onely to beleeue as the Churche doth beleeued as well in the trinitie as in al other articles and namely in this of the sacrament Which position of his if it may stand there needeth none other creed to be preached but onely this short curtall creed beleeue as the church beleeueth you cannot do amisse But in time of popishe tyrannye you woulde not haue bin satisfied if a man examined of his faith in the sacrament had answered I beleue as the church teacheth or I beleeue it to be the body of Christ as Christ said it and meant it to be his body but then you must grope him in fleshe blood and bones as he was borne of the virgine Mary c. Whether he beleeue the substance of breade to remaine after the wordes of consecration spoken by the priest c. Well howsoeuer it be all learning resteth in the brest of reuerende M. Rast. M of art student in diuinity who can with one breath condemne all the pedlers and pelting craftesmens arguments deuised in alehouses or shops and after recited in the protestants schooles as this Christ is ascended in body in to heauen and there sitteth vntill the end of the world therefore he is absent from the earth in bodie and consequently is not in the sacrament an vnlearned argument saith M. Ra. as this can a priest make God but learned sir who taught the people to call that which the priest maketh their maker or what or which of all the reuerend rabbins of poperie did reprooue the people for so speaking Againe can one bodie be in more places then one at one time An argumente of ignoraunte people O vnlearned Augustine whiche hath defined that the bodie of Christ can be but in one place at one time in Ioan. cap. 7. Tr. 30. If a mouse eat the hosâ— doth hee ease Christes bodie A peltinge craftesmans argument What M. Rast. are you so arrogant in opinion of your owne learning that you will condemne all the schoolemen for pedlers and tynkers that haue moued argued decided this question and a hundreth like vnto it came this question from protestants or from your owne popish schooles not from the schooles onely but euen the instructions that haue bene written for euery simple curate as Manupulus curatorum c. But if a lerned man expert in liberall sciences saith M. Rast. a great Master of liberal arts should vse this argument of the necessitie of Christs body
proued that seruice in an vnknowne tongue is neither so auncient as it is pretended nor yet so allowed in all times but that euen a popish councel hath decreed against it SECTIO 40. From the second face of the 135. leafe to the 139. leafe in which he speaketh of the title of the vniuersall bishop To the bishops challenge that the bishoppe of Rome was not called an vniuersal bishop or head of the vniuersall Church he answereth that the title was due although it was not vsed and after his accostomable manner cauilleth of the worde vniuersall whereas the bishop doth sufficiently expound himselfe by addinge or head of the vniuersall Church which he taketh in hand to proue giuing ouer the former title of vniuersall First by a lowsie counterfett Epistle most falsely ascribed to Anacletus which he citeth to be the second but it is in the thirde in which the vnlearned asse that counterfeted that Epistle interpreteth the name of Peter giuē him by Christ which was Cephas ▪ to signifie a head and beginning whereas by the Gospell we learne that Cephas was a stone as Peter is if the knowledge of the Syrian tongue shoulde fayle vs. His seconde authoritie is out of Cyprian Lib. 3. ep 11. The wordes of certaine scismatikes that tooke part with Nouatus against Cornelius bishop of Rome and vppon their repentaunce beeinge in Africa were receyued into the Churche These men confessed that they did acknowledge Cornelius to bee a bishoppe of the most holy Catholike Churche whereas before they refused him and claue to Nouatus a false bishoppe of Rome not lawfully ordained like as afterwarde they acknowledge that there shoulde bee but one bishoppe of a Catholike Church meaning in one citie for else they shoulde haue denyed Cyprian and all other bishoppes of the worlde to bee bishoppes sauinge onely Cornelius the bishoppe of Rome whereas Cornelius being lawfully called to be bishop of Rome they had taken part with Nouatus which would be a bishoppe by intrusion He citeth also Cyprian lib. 1. ep 3. heresies haue risen of none other cause but that the priest of God is not obeyed and that there is not one priest of God in the Churche for a time and one iudge in steede of Christ thought vpon whiche Cypriane speaketh not of one priest to be as iudge of all the Churche but of one in euerie Churche and namely he speaketh of himselfe complaininge that he was contemned by a leude heretike and scismatike called Felicissimus with his complices His thirde author is Ambrose in 1. Tim. 3. whiche although it bee denyed to be the worke of Ambrose but rather set forth of some man of muche later time in the name of Ambrose to get more credite vnto his writing yet receyuinge it as Ambrose what sayeth hee Forsoothe that Damasus was a gouernour of the Church of Christ whiche is the house of God whiche he sayeth in none other sense then S. Paule enstructed Timothie to behaue himself in the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God not meaning to make him supreame head of all the Church of Christ no more did Ambrose meane to make Damasus then bishop of Rome His fourth authour is Cyrillus whome hee citeth in Lib. Thesau a counterfette place not to bee founde in all the workes of Cyrillus by whome so euer it was forged His last authour is Gregorie Libro 4. Epistola 32. who sayeth that although the charge of all the Churche was committed to Peter as chiefe of the Apostles yet he was not called an vniuersall bishoppe I confesse the charge of al the Church was committed to Peter whiche was not bishoppe of one Churche but an Apostle sent vnto the whole worlde as all the rest of the Apostles were But that prooueth not the supremacie of the bishoppe of Rome who if hee were a right bishoppe yet were hee no Apostle and so hath nothinge to doe with the charge and commission of an Apostle Hee nameth also Sainte Augustine whiche in diuers places calleth Rome Sedem Apostolicam a seate Apostolike whiche is nothinge else sayeth Maister Rastell but that place whiche may plante and pull vppe sette and lette and hath his power ouer the whole worlde But where learned hee this deffinition of a seate Apostolike O impudent and arrogaunt disputer All Churches that were planted and honoured with the presence of the Apostles were called Apostolike seates yet did they neuer claime neither would Rastell giue vnto them that whiche he maketh to bee the deffinition of a seate Apostolike As for Augustine doeth often call Rome Babylon the seat of Antichrist De ciuit Dei lib. 16. cap. 17. lib. 18. cap. 2. 22. SECTIO 41. From the 139. leafe to the 144. leafe in which he speaketh of the reall and corporall presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament The bisho◠saith the people were not taught that Christs body is really substantially corporally carnally or naturally in the sacrament Master Rastell saith although these termes be not founde yet that which is signified by them is found For thus he vseth in euery matter to trifle about termes as though the bishop did striue for wordes and sylables and not for the matter And he would haue the bishop to bring out of any antiquitie that the people were taught to beleeue that the bodie of Christ is onely figuratiuely sacramentally significatiuely tropically imaginatiuely in the sacrament to the denyal of all presence and reallitie as though a sacramental presence were not a presence and a reall presence also if by reall you meane that whiche is in deede and not counterfeted though it bee not after a grosse and carnall manner For that Christ is present and truely receyued in his sacramentes wee doe gladly confesse whiche is all that any aunciente writers speaketh of his presence Hierome Isychius Cyrillus Origen Augustine or Chrysostome whose names he citeth or any other within 600. yers after christ But to maintein that grosse corporall maner of presence or receiuing which the papistes doe now holde there is none of the olde writers that saith any thing to the purpose As for Damascen is far out of the compasse a corrupt writer and yet more grosse in termes then his iudgement was as it were easie to prooue if his authoritie were of any weight But Master Rastel asketh if these words be not plaine inough This is my bodie which shall bee deliuered for you Luk. 22. Hee maketh them somewhat plainer by chaunging the pretertence into the future for Luke reporteth the words which is giuen for you I againe aske him whether these wordes bee not as plaine This cuppe is the Newe Testament in my blood which is shedde for you Wee doubt not but that it is the sacrament of his true and naturall body for we make not two bodies of Christ as the papistes doe a naturall bodie and a spirituall bodie which true and naturall bodie of Christ being in heauen is giuen vnto
from our sight but also place it in heauen and in steede therof he leaueth the sacrament of his bodie and bloude which no man doubteth but it ought to be honoured as so high a mysterie deserueth but not as God or Christe The other saying of Eusebius which hee addeth doeth shewe howe it is to be honoured When thou commest to the reuerende altare to be satisfied with heauenly meates beholde with faith the holy bodie and bloud of thy God honour it wonder at is touch it with thy minde take it with the hande of thy heart and cheefely receiue it with the inwarde draught What can be layed more plainely for the spirituall receiuing and the like reuerence to be giuen to so holie a sacrament But because M. Heskins thinketh this saying to make more against him then for him therefore he sayeth to auoyde cauilling Eusebius proceedeth sone after in these words Sicut autem c. As any man comming to the faith of Christe before the wordes of baptisme is yet in the bands of the olde deis but when the words are spoken is foorthwith deliuered from all dregâ— of sinne So when the creatures are set vppon the holie altares to be blessed with heauenly words before they be consecrated by inuocation of the most highest name there is the substance of bread wine but after the wordes of Christ the bodie bloud of Christ. This is a plaine place for M. Iuell what else But if it be rightly vnderstood it is a plaine place against M. Hesk. for he sheweth the change or transubstantiation that is in the Lordes supper to be the same that it is in baptisme which is spirituall and not carnall and so doth verie fitly compare them together or else his similitude were to no purpose if it were not to shewe by that which is don in baptisme what is likewise done in the other sacrament M. Heskins still blattereth of a bare figure which is of vs always denyed Consequently he citeth Bernarde whose authoritie I leaue vnto him being a burgesse of the lower house in which he hath many voices as he hath neuer a one in the vpper house though he wrest their speaches most iniuriously To confirme some phrase of Bernard he rehearseth certein phrases of the old writers like to them in words but not in sense which haue bene aunswered alreadie as Hierom. ad Hed. qu. 2. Our Lord Iesus is the feaster the feast he that eateth and which is eaten Ambrose in praepara ad miss which is none of his but falsly intituled to him Thou art the Priest and the sacrifice wonderfully and vnspeakably appointed And Augustine in Psal. 33. He was borne in his owne hands But he leaueth out a worde which expoundeth both Augustine and all the rest that speake so quodam modo after a certeine manner Christ was borne in his owne hands is the feast that which is eaten the sacrifice I say quodam modo therefore not simpliciter Last of all he wil ioyne issue to subscribe on this point that the proclaimer can bring but one auncient doctor that saith the sacrament is not to be adored To whome I answer that forasmuch as in the primitiue church the opinion of transubstantiation was not knowen there neuer grew any question of the adoration of the sacrament as that Papistes nowe do vse it and commaund it The eyght and fortieth Chapter confuteth the rest of the proclaymers wordes before rehearsed against the honouring of Christ in the sacrament The words which he taketh vpon him to confute are these It is a newe deuise to worship the sacrament About three hundreth yere past Pope Honorius commaunded it to be lifted vp and the people reuerently to bowe vnto it How doth he confute these words First he saith it is no newe deuise but the contrarie that is the denying of the adoration is not past fourtie yeres old and yet he confesseth before that some infected with the heresie of Berengarius Wickliffe might whisper it in corners yet Berengarius and Wickliffe preached openly beâ—ore them Bertrame wrote a booke to Charles the great wherein he confuteth the reall presence which began in that time to be receiued of some as it seemeth vpward euen to Christ al the auncient fathers are against that carnall presence consequently against adoration But to proceede Admitting that Honorius was the first that commaunded it to be worshipped which was 300 yeres agoe yet is he elder then Oecolampadius not defamed of heresie as Oecolampadius was yes M. Hesk he is defamed of more then heresie and proued to bee an antichrist As for the continuance of 300. yeres in an errour can make no prescription against the trueth But he saith it is a fond argument of the proclaimer Because Honorius commaunded the adoration of the sacrament therefore it was neuer in vse before But if it were generally beleeued vsed in all ages before as M Hesk. would beare vs in hande what neede had Pope Honorius to commaund it He saith in like manner the fleshly sort of them dispute to mainteine their shamelesse abode with their women it is a newe deuise that priests should not marrie inuented by Vrban and Gregorie Whether M. Heskins were marryed or else had a shamelesse abode with a woman I leaue to be tryed by God the countrie in the countie of Cambridge But to the purpose I haue not heard any affirme these late Popes to be the first forbidders of marriage and therefore it is to no purpose that he citeth Syluester before them and Calixtus before him and the counterfet Canons of the Apostles before them all And yet by the prohibition of the latest Popes it is certeine that Priestes were married vntill their time And for as much as the scripture alloweth their marriage and condemneth the forbidders thereof and the eldest fathers in the primiâ—iue church confesse no lesse it is not to bee regarded although a whole hundreth Popes in a rowe did euery one forbid it The like example he bringeth of fasting in Lent decreede in the eight Toletane counsell neere 700. yeres after Christe but yet affirmed of Hierome to be a tradition of the Apostles For so they vsed to father such ceremonies and vsages as they knewe not the beginning of them vpon tradition of the Apostles neuerthelesse he cannot shewe any Pope or any councell before Honorius that did commaund adoration of the sacrament wherefore the wordes are vnconfuted vntill the contrarie can be shewed After this the Proclaimer sayth he falleth to mocking the Scholasticall doctours as S. Thomas Duns Durand Holcos and such like to make it seeme a dangerous thing to honour the sacrament for that the people cannot discerne the accidents from the bodie of Christ and so may committ idolatrie in honouring the outwarde formes in steede of Christ or if the priest do â—mitt consecration This M. Heskins calleth a mocking but he is not able to auoide it in good earnest
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