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
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
no man of learning will acknowledge them to be his And seeing the Greeke Liturgies are very vnlike the Latine Masse hee doth but mocke the ignorant readers to say they be all one Finally hee doth most absurdly conclude that his Masse should be within the compasse of Saint Augustines rule ad Ian. Ep. 118. That those thinges which the vniuersall Church obserueth throughout the worlde we may vnderstand that they are retayned as ordained either of the Apostles them selues or of the generall Counsels whose authoritie in the Church is most profitable Illa que per orbem vniuersa obseruat Ecclesia datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel a plenarijs concilijs quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrim a authoritas statuta retineri Thus hath M. Hes. cited Augustine to haue a starting hole vnder the name of the church but Saint Augustines wordes are somewhat otherwise Illae autem quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus quÄ™ quidem toto terrarum orbe obseruantur datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel plenarijs concilijs quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas commendata atque statuta retineri sicuti quod Domini passio resurrectio ascensio in Coelum aduentus de Coelo Spiritus sancti anniuersaria solennitate celebrantur si quid eliud â—ale occurrerit quod seruatur ab vniuersis quacunque se diffundat Ecclesia Those things which we obserue being not written but deliuered which truely are obserued throughout all the world it is giuen to be vnderstoode that they are retained as commended and decreed either by the Apostles or by generall Counsels whose authoritie in the Church is most wholsome as that the Passion resurrectioÌ„ of our Lord and his Ascention into heauen and the comming of the holy Ghost from heauen are celebrated with yerely soleÌ„nitie or if there be any such like matter which is obserued of all men wheresoeuer the Church spreadeth her self But seing the Popish Masse was vnknowne to the world in Augustines time neuer vsed throughout the worlde of all men for the orientall Churches neuer receiued it to this day if it haue no better holde then it getteth by this place of Augustine it must needes fall to the ground And thus much concerning the name fourme of the Masse In the next Chapter we shall heare of the matter or substance of the Masse it selfe The three and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the Masse it selfe Maister Heskins first with rayling tearmes taketh exception to the proclaymers diuision of the Masse into foure partes Prayers consecration receiuing doctrine except he adde oblation as the fifte or comprehend it vnder the name of consecration Moreouer he saith this is but a description of Masse in the large signification But the Masse it selfe properly is the holie consecration of the bodie and bloud of Christ the holy oblation and offring of the same in the memoriall and remembrance of his passion and death with humble and lowly thankes lawdes and prayses for the same and holy receiuing of that body and bloud so consecrated Here is the Lions skinne couering the asse but yet not so closely but the long eares may be seene hanging out For as the forme of these wordes for the most parte may be applyed to the holy communion so almost by euerie word he vnderstandeth another thing then either the scriptures or the auncient fathers do teache as we shall best see in the examination of the partes which followe First where he sayeth the proclaymer cannot abide consecration he sayeth falsely for both he graunteth consecration and the presence of Christes bodie and bloud but not the Popish charming nor their carnall manner of presence whiche how they be proued by M. Heskins let the readers iudge Oblation the second part he sayeth is proued in the first book and declaration of the prophesies of Melchisedech Damascen Malachie and in the 37. Chapter In the same places let the reader consider the answere In receiuing which is the thirde part two things saith Maister Heskins offend the proclaymer that is receiuing vnder one kinde and receiuing of the Priest alone The former is defended by him Lib. 2. from the 64. Chap. to the end of 67. Chap. there it is in this booke confuted The priuate receiuing he saith shall be defended afterward In doctrine the 4. part he knoweth not what faulte the proclaymer can finde wherein is greatest fault of all but M. Heskins will haue nothing to be the doctrine of the Masse but the Gospell and Pistle and other scriptures that are read in it In prayer the fift and last parte he findeth two faultes namely prayer to Saintes and for the dead for triall of these he will haue recourse to the primitiue Church It is well he can haue no recourse to the holie scriptures nor to the most ancient Church which is properly called the primitiue Church although these two errors be of great antiquitie But before M. Heskins vndertake these trials he girdeth at the communion ministred in copes and the proclaymer wearing Aarons garment for a bishoprick If the Popish priestes had no more pleasure to say masse in their vestments then the proclaymer to minister in copes I thinke the common sort of Papistes would haue lesse deuotion to the Masses then Gods people haue to the communion when it is ministred without any ceremoniall attyre But Maister Heskins will proue that neuer yet was heard off that Christ himselfe saide Masse For he instituted the Masse in his last supper and that he will proue by Cyprian but why doth he not rather proue it by the Euangelistes Forsooth because the scriptures haue no such vnproper speech to make any shewe of the Masse as Cyprian and the rest of the fathers haue Well let vs heare how Cyprian affirmeth that Christ saide Masse Maister Heskins saith First for the consecration Lib. 2. Ep. 3. He writeth thus Vt in Genesi c. That the blessing in Genesis by Melchisedech the priest might be duely celebrated about Abraham the image of the sacrifice appointed in bread and wine goeth before which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling offered bread the cup mixed with wine and he that is that fulnesse hath fulfilled the veritiâ— of the prefigured image In these wordes M. Heskins forgetting that Christ offred bread wine gloseth vpon the veritie of the image fulfilled by Christ and expressed by Cyprian in other wordes Obtulit c. He offred the same thing which Melchisedech had offered that is bread and wine euen his bodie and bloud Here againe is bread and wine offered by Christe which is his bodie and bloud after a spiritual manner as it was offered by Melchisedech Hitherto no worde of consecration nor of the carnall manner of presence but directly against it Nowe let vs heare howe he proueth oblation Quaerendum est c. It must be asked whom they haue folowed For if in the sacrifice which is
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
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
of God which forbiddeth worshipping of any image or similitude of any thing 4 When the faith and intent of him that worshippeth the image is good as to worship one God and his Saintes what so euer is done with this mind so that sacrifice be not made to images it can be no idolatrie What faith is that which is contrarie to Gods commaundement And what call you sacrifice if prayers thanksgiuing and prayses bee none which are offered by the people to images namely to our Ladie of Walsingham of Ipswich c. which can bee none other but those idols that bee set vp in those places wee haue also shewed before that the Councel of Nice 2. wil haue sacrifice offered to the image of Christ. 5 Christians must not be considered as weake fraile like the Iewes and Paynims but strong and full of knowledge according to the prophesies and promises They shall all knowe me c. Iere. 31. and he doth them wrong that iudgeth Gods people proue to idolatrie for images were forbidden the Iewes but as the libell of diuorcement was winked at in them O monstruous impudencie that maketh one of the tenne commandements that hath such a seuere threatening annexed vnto it that the Lorde will punish the transgressours of it vnto the thirde and fourth gâ—â—eration like a permission of that whereof there was no commaundement But what so euer was promised of the knowledge and faith of Christe perteyneth not to all that vnworthily beare the name of Christe but onely to perfect and well instructed Christians 6 If the people be weake and apt to idolatrie yet it is the best way to keep them from it to suffer them to haue and honour conueniently the images of honourable persons as God permitted the Iewes to offer â–ª Oxen Calues c. because they would needes offer some external sacrifice As though God learned of them to make his lawes of sacrifices or if that had ben the best way he would not rather haue permitted images then forbidden them 7 Because the people haue not so many sacrifices as the Iewes therfore it is good they haue the remembrances of the martyrs in images whiche sacrificed their owne bodies It is great maruell the Apostles coulde not finde suche a profitable supplie of the Iewish sacrifices by images but onely the sacrifice of Christes death and the spirituall sacrifices of our selues which if we offer diligently we shall finde matter inough to keepe vs exercised that we neede not spend our time in gaping vpon idols 8 Images are not so much permitted to Christians for their weaknesse as for their strength that they may now haue them worship them without committing spiritual fornication as in times past for to haue none is pusil lanimity In deed it is a Popish magnanimity to contemn the coÌ„mandement of God and it were belike no daunger of fornicatioÌ„ to haue a whore to kisse her to lie with her for Popish Christians are strong ynough 9 The text of Iohn 4. that the true worshippers must worship God in spirite and veritie must not be applyed against worshipping of God by images but against idols and bondage of praying after one corporall fashion for godly images leade vs to spirituall deuotion The Diuel they doe But if they did yet not more then the ceremonies of the olde law the abolishing of which our Sauiour Christe in that sentence doeth promise not to set vppoÌ„ a spirituall worship in spirite and trueth but as Maister Sander would beare vs in hand to chaunge the shadowes and ceremonies from such as were instituted by God to as many other ordeined by men and moreouer to worshipping by images which before was altogether forbidden Note also that he calleth them godly images which terme he reproued in Maister Iewell As for the Votaries he carpeth which can abide to see their concubynes after their vowe of chastetie and yet cannot abide to see popish images let them aunswere for themselues if any such keep harlots as for them that are married they shal better defend their marrying out of the scriptures then the Popish Votaries their filthie abhominable liues vnder the hypocriticall title of chastitie Now followeth 12. commodities that come by images 1 We learne something by them that we knewe not before The Prophet Abacuc faith an image can teach nothing but lies Cap. 2. vers 18. 2 They bring vs in remembrance of the thinges that we know Theodotus of Ancira saith such cogitation is vaine and the deceitfull inuention of the deuil 3 They bring vs in remembrance not as by reading and repeating but by the most speedie twinckling of an eye But faith without the which it is impossible to please God commeth by hearing of Gods word Rom. 8. 4 By seeing and knowing we are prouoked to become like them whose images we worship Nay rather we are made like them whom we worship that is without sense and vnderstanding Psal. 115. 5 We are confirmed in our faith perceiuing those things that are painted be so true that they are euerie where set forth and honored Pictoribus atque poetis quidlibet audendi semper fuit aequa potestas Because Painters and Poets haue alwaies had libertie to setforth what they list Let this be a confirmation of Popish faith it shal be none of mine 6 We are kept wel occupied and deliuered from occasion to imagine idle things of our owne fantasie which might cause idolatrie If they be wel occupied that worship God contrarie to his commandement according to their owne idle fantasie 7 We tarie more willingly in the house of God which is so adorned with godly histories The same reason Durande alleadgeth for hanging of Oistriches egges in the churches Dauid desired to dwel in the house of the Lord al the daies of his life wheÌ„ there was neuer an image in it 8 We consider the companie of heauen how maruelous it is for as the holy of holies which did signifie heauen was decked with the images of Angels he meaneth the Cherubims so must our Churches be decked with images of Angels Saintes to be a figure of euerlasting glorie By the same reason I wil proue that the people must neuer come into the Church for the people neuer came into the holy of holies but the Priest only and that but once a yere And seeing Christ is entred into heauen indeede there must be no more figures of heauen whereof actuall possession is all ready taken 9 We pray to Christ and the Saints at the sight of their images You cal vpon them in whom you do not beleeue and therefore you are Infidels and idolaters or if you beleeue in men you are accursed of god Cursed be he that putteth his trust in man Ier. 17. vers 5. 10 We honour God in his saintes and in the signes and monumentes of them You worship you knowe not what but as you list which is will worship condemned by god Col. 3. vers 23. 11 We glorifie God in
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
then he should haue suffered oftentimes since the beginning of the world And Heb. 10. He offered but one sacrifice for sinnes and is set downe at the right hand of God for euer c. For by one only oblation he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified And in the same Chapter where there is forgiuenesse of sinnes there is no more sacrifice for sinne Whervpon it followeth that if Christes sacrifice at his supper tooke away sinnes he offered no sacrifice vpon the crosse Secondly he affirmeth that Christe was a priest after the order of Aaron which he denied before and is in plaine wordes denied by the holy Ghost Heb. 7. which place M. Heskins himselfe setteth downe in this Chapter if perfection had beene by the Priesthoode of the Leuites for vnder it the law was established to the people what needed it further that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedech c not to be called after the order of Aaron Thirdly he affirmeth that the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse was after the order of Aaron Wherevpon it wil follow that it was not an eternall redemption purchased by it but transitorie as the priesthoode of Aaron was Whereas the holy Ghost saith that by his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place and found eternall redemption which could neuer be obteined by any sacrifice after the order of Aaron Fourthly he affirmeth that Christ altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God except he did offer sacrifice in his supper of bread and wine By which he denieth that the once offring vp of himselfe by his eternall spirite on the crosse was any parte of his priesthoode appointed him by God then the which there can be no more diuelish blasphemie And yet the beast is not ashamed to challenge and write If not then ◠let the aduersary shewe when and where Christ did sacrifice after the order of Mechizedech Euen then and there thou enimie of the crosse of Christ when and where he was made obedient to the death of the crosse and hauing learned obedience by the thinges he suffered he was consecrated and made the authour of eternall saluation vnto all them that obey him and is called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedech Heb. 5. Hauing an euerlasting priesthod by which he is able perfectly to saue them that come vnto God by him seeing he euer liueth to make intercession for them For such an high priest it became vs to haue which is holy harmelesse vndefiled separated frō sinners and made higher then the heauens which needed not daily as these high Priestes to offer vp sacrifice first for his owne sinnes and then for the peoples for that he did once when he offred vp himself Heb. 7. But beside his detestable blasphemies see his ridiculous vanitie If the priesthoode of Melchizedech standeth in his offering of bread and wine then Christ also offered bread and wine as he saide before Christ offered in bread and wine as Aaron did in bloud If bread wine be Christes offring or any part of it then there is bread and wine in the sacrament what is becomme of transubstantiation If there was no bread wine in the sacrifice of Christe then where is Melchisedeches priesthoode by his owne diuinitie Againe if he say there be the shewes or accidents of bread wine then Melchizedeches bread and wine was a figure of the accidents of bread and Wine then the figure was better then the thing figured contrarie to his worshipfull rule giuen in the 15. Chapter If he say that Melchizedeches bread wine figured not the Accidents but the bread wine before it be consecrated then he breaketh his rule once againe for Melchizedeches bread if it were not hallowed was as good if it were hallowed as it was if it were offred it was better then the vncōsecrated bread wine Finally if he say it figured neither the vncōsecrated bread wine nor the accidents of the same consecrated but the body and bloud of Christ vnder these accidēts beside that he makes it a figure of a figure or signe which he said could not be he denieth that Christ did that wherein he affirmed the priesthoode of Melchizedech to stand namely that he offred bread and wine And so thou seest M. Heskins hanged in his owne halter The nine and twentieth Chapter proceedeth to prooue the same by S. Cyprian and Isychius I confessed before that diuers of the olde fathers were of opinion that the bread and wine which Melchisedech brought forth was sacrificed by him and that it was a figure of the sacramēt which they vnproperly called a sacrifice meaning nothing else but that it was a holy signe and a thankesgiuing offered to God for the passion of Christe as it is manifest by diuers places in their writings But they were farre from those blasphemies which M. Heskins hath vttered in the Chapter before as to make Christes passion a sacrifice after the order of Aaron to make Christ offer two sacrifices and the better sacrifice that was after the order of Melchizedech in the sacrament c. But now let vs consider the places of Cyprian whether such poyson may be drawen out of them as M. Heskins hath sucked out of his own poysoned brayne The words of the first place are these The sacraments signified of old since the time that Melchisedech came forth to the sonnes of Abraham that do his workes the high priest bringeth foorth bread and wine This sayth he is my body They had eaten and dronken of the same bread according to the visible fourme but before those wordes that common meate was profitable only to nourish the body But after it was saide by the Lorde do this in remembrance This is my flesh this is my bloud As oftē as it is done with these wordes and with this faith that substantiall bread and cuppe consecrated with a solemne blessing profiteth vnto the life and health of the whole man being both a medicine Et Holocaustum and a burnt offering to heale infirmities and purge iniquities There is also declared the difference betweene spirituall meate and corporall meate namely that it was one thing that was first set before them another thing which was giuē distributed by their Maister First it is graunted that Cyprian thought the bread wine brought foorth by Melchizedech to be a figure of the sacrament and that herein also he resembled the priesthoode of Christ which we are neither afraide nor abashed to denie because the Apostle an older doctor then Cyprian such an one as in his writings could not erre could finde no such resemblance betweene Melchizedech and christ Concerning the sacrifice of bread and wine I wil speake hereafter in answere to the other places of Cyprian But now let vs examine M. Heskins two notes for the reall presence as he calleth it The first is that this
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
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
is the order of Melchisedech and consisteth nothing at all in offering of breade and wine as is manifest by the Apostle to the Hebrewes who sheweth in what respect Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech As impudent as this is blasphemous is his next argument that by verye expresse commaundement of Christ in his last supper they must offer him vp saying Do this in rememberance of me As though Christ which neuer sacrificed himselfe but once that on the crosse had at his supper offered himselfe to his father in sacrifice As for the testimonies of the Fathers which he citeth are easily answered that they spake of sacrificing Christe figuratiuely and vnproperly as some of them confesse namely Chrysostome whome hee citeth ad Heb. Hom. 17. which when he had demaunded saying Doe we not offer Christ daily he answereth yes but rather wee celebrate the remembrance of his sacrifice the other which hee citeth out of Dionyse hath no word of offering Christ although Dionyse be no writer within the compasse of sixe hundreth yeares Neither do these words of the Liturgie intituled to S. Basil which he rehearseth speake more then of an vnbloudie sacrifice which is the sacrifice of thanksgiuing although the Liturgie is not of such antiquitie credit as it is pretended And of as little is that he citeth out of Ambrose in Psal. 38. which no man learned of sound and indifferent iudgement will receiue for the worke of S. Ambrose Such false principles must leane vpon counterfet Doctours SECTIO 46. From the 152. leafe to the 154. leafe in which he taketh in hand â—o shape a generall aunswere to the particular questions which M. Iewell moueth Hauing proued nothing hitherto but him selfe to be a lying marchant a blasphemous and vnlearned defender of the sacrifice of the Masse to all the rest of the questions of Indiuiduum vaegum merit ex opere operato applying of the sacrifice of the Masse accidents remaining the case of the mouse eating the sacrament c. He aunswereth that these termes for any thing he knoweth were neuer vsed within the compasse of 600. yeares but the matters were beleeued and that he will proue by consent of learned men and the voyce of the Church since those 600. yeares This is in deede as he saith merily but falsely to the Bishop in the beginning of his booke which way to Croydenâ— a poke ful of plumbs the Bishop asketh proofe within in 600. yeares of Christ and M. Rastell will bring proofe without those 600. yeares the Bishop requireth antiquitie whereof the Papistes haue so impudently bragged and Rastel will bring foorth noueltie But he hath a proper similitude to shewe that these Articles though they were not knowne to the auncient Church for 600. yeares after Christe yet are they not to be refused no more then the fruites of Autumne bicause they appeared not on the trees in Aprill are to be reiected Thus you see by this delicate similitude he denyeth the Church of Christe his Apostles Euangelistes Martyrs Confessours Pastours teachers for 600. yeares together to haue beene a season fruitfull of matters of trueth hauing nothing but greene ornaments and gay flowers promising the wholesome fruites of Poperie that haue appeared and waxed ripe in the latter time of the Church as in the Haruest or moneth of September If this similitude can be defended without contumely of Christ and the Primitiue Church let al the Papistes clap their hands at it and say O learned M. Rast. that with so short an answere hath satisfied all M. Iewels demaunds But he will choake the Bishop and vs all with the last question Where is it read saith he within 600. yeares after Christ that our blessed Lady was preached or named the mother of mercy the handmaiden of the Trinitie the spouse of the holy Ghost the Queene of heauen the Empresse of hell and yet if you beleeue in deed that she is the mother of God all these Articles do follow like as the rest of that veritie which saith this is my body It is well that M. Rastell confesseth these titles neuer to haue ben giuen to the Virgine Marie neither by Christ nor by his Apostles nor by any in al the Church for 600. yeres after christ Nowe syr I will answere your question I do as constantly beleeue with my heart and more effectually then I can expresse with wordes that the holy and blessed Virgine Marie is the mother of hers and our Sauiour Iesus Christ the sonne of God very God and very man Yet all those titles which you confesse to be neither read in any antiquitie of 600. yeâ—res after Christe I abhorre and protest to be wicked idolatrous and blasphemous And wheras you say that common sense teacheth that a Kings mother is a Queene and not of no place you trow which is tried false by common experience for King Dauidâ— mother was no Queene I trowe nor fiue hundreth more that haue beene in the world since his time I aunswere yet if it were graunted in earthly Princes it followeth not in the King of heauen For by the like reason and more probable I might argue the mother of a man is a woman therefore the mother of God is a Goddesse from which blasphemie Saint Bonauenture a Popish Saint is of no force if he doe not farre exceede it when he saith to the Virgine Marie Iure matris impera filio and againe Coge Deum c. By the authoritie of a mother commaunde thy sonne and compel God to be merciful to sinners c. SECTIO 47. in the 154. leafe The Bishop declareth the vanitie of the Papistes aunswere which is that no Masse is priuate bicause that euery Priest communicateth with all Priestes that say Masse for that by this reason there should be no excommunication whereas the partie excommunated would say hee would communicate with the Prieste that saith Masse in Calicute Maister Rastel saith he that is excommunicate from one Church is excommunicated from al Churches therefore he that is in the Communion doth communicate with all Priestes But hee vnderstandeth not the Bishops argument or at least he will not vnderstand it For the sophistrie of the Popish argument resteth in the ambiguitie of this worde Communicate which signifieth to receiue the Lordes supper at one time and in one place with others of their Church which the Papistes take for receiuing generally so that the Priest in Louaine receiuing at his Masse alone communicateth with the Priest that likewise receiueth at his Masse alone in Calicut Now if this receiuing wer a sufficient coÌ„munion a Priest being excoÌ„municated in Louane so that no Priest wold suffer him to receiue with him at his Masse if he would contemne their excoÌ„munication might say Masse him selfe say that although none of you Louane Priestes will communicate with me yet I wil communicate with the Priest that this day saith Masse in Calicut yea I will communicate with you
Euen as the olde Testament had sacrifices and bloud so hath the newe namely the body and bloud of our Lorde Nowe he did not say These are the signes of my body and my bloud but these thinges be my body and bloud Therefore we must not looke to the nature of those things that are set foorth but to the vertue of them For as he did supernaturally deifie if I may so speake his assumpted flesh so doth he also vnspeakably transmute these thinges into the same his quickening body and into his precious bloud and into the grace of them And the bread hath a certaine similitude vnto the body and wine to bloud For both the bread and body are earthly but the wine and the bloud are airie and hote And as bread doth comfort so the body of Christe doth the same and much more it sanctifieth both the body and the soule And as the wine doth make glad so the bloud of Christ doth the same and moreouer is made a defence Although the chiefest partes of this place are answered in the 17. Chapter of the first booke and in the 51. Chap. of this second booke yet as M. Hes. gathereth here two other matters so I wil make answere to them First he saith That the figuratiue glose of the sacrameÌ„taries is flatly denied But by what words I pray you â–ª Marrie where he saith Christ saide not these be signes of my body and bloud but these are my body and bloud if this be a flat deniall of a figure bicause Christe saide not so then is it likewise in these speaches he saide not the rocke was a signe of Christe but the rocke was Christe the Lambe is the Passeouer c. Euthymius meaneth not to exclude all figures from the saying of Christ but to shew that the sacrament is not a bare naked and vaine signe but a true signe of the very body and bloud of Christe giuen to the faythfull in the administration of the supper The second matter that Maister Heskins noteth is of the vnspeakable transmutation and that must needes bee meant of transubstantiation of the breade and wine into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christe by this reason there be foure thinges called the bodie of Christ. 1. The figure 2. The Church 3. The merite fruite or vertue of his passion 4. And his bodie naturall but it can not be into the figure nor into the Churche Nor into the spirituall bodie of Christe I meane the merite vertue and grace of Christes passion Ergo it must needes be spoken of the naturall bodie of Christ. But vouchsafe gentle Reader to runne ouer once againe these wordes of Euthymius which in Latine are these Ita hec ineffabiliter transmutaâ— in ipsum vinificâ—â—â— corpus in ipsius prÄ™ciosum sanguinem siâ—on in gratiam ipso 〈◊〉 Euen so he doth vnspeakably transmute and change thesâ— thinges into the same his quickening bodie and into his owne precious bloud and into the grace of them Now tell me whether M. Heskins doth flatly denie that which Euthymius doeth flatly affirme that the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of the bodie and bloud of Christ By whiche words he doth sufficiently expound what kind of change he meaneth of them into the bodie and bloud of Christ not a corporall but a spirituall transmutation To the rest of the sentence which is a good exposition of the former parte shewing both the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament and for what cause they are vsed to represent the bodie and bloud of Christe namely for the similitude they haue vnto the bodie and bloud of Christ Maister Heskins sayeth nothing But let the reader weigh it well and he shall see it cleane contrarie both to transubstantiation and the carnall presence Nowe we come to Isodorus whom he confesseth to be somewhat out of the compasse of the challenge and his wordes De Offi. Eccle. Lib. 18. are these Sacrificium c. The sacrifice that is offered of the Christians vnto God Christe our God and Maister did first institute when he commended to his Apostles his bodie and his bloud before he was betrayed as it is read in the Gospel Iesus tooke bread and the cuppe and blessing them gaue vnto them In this place is nothing for the carnall presence but that Isydore calleth the sacrament the bodie and bloud of Christ which we also do and acknowledg to be so rightly called And Maister Heskins can conclude nothing but vpon a negatiue he saith not he gaue a figure so may I conclude he saith not he gaue his naturall body and no figure After this he reasoneth as fondely of Christes blessing of the bread which although the Euangelistes do expound to be giuing of thanks yet admit blessing to signifie consecration and what hath he gayned Forsooth Christ wold not haue blessed it to make but a figure still he playeth the foole with that bable but a figure onely a figure a bare figure which we vtterly doe forsake But toward the ende of the Chapter he falleth to gathering his voyces and affirmeth that none of the olde fathers cal the sacrament a figure except Tertullian onely wherein he lyeth impudently for beside Ambrose and Augustine which both vse the very worde figure we haue shewed in due places that both they in a manner al the rest of the fathers haue either written plainely against the carnall presence or else nothing for it As for his last challenge that all the protestants must bring forth when any countrie did professe the same religion that is now preached is vaine and hath beene sufficiently aunswered in other treatises It is certein that all nations that were conuerted by the Apostles before they were corrupted by heresie and Antechristianitie professed the same religion that we doe As for the alterations in King Henries time King Edwardes and the Queenes Maiesties that now is it is easie to answere King Henrie began the worke whiche King Edwarde finished and the Queene repayred and vpholdeth in spight of the diuel and the Pope As for the consent and peace of the Popishe Church it proueth nothing but that the diuell had then all thinges at his will and therefore might sleepe on both sides but now hee is disturbed of possession of the house nowe he stormeth and of Robin good fellowe which he was in the Popishe time is become playne Sathan the Diuell The nine fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the same text by the fathers of the latter days first Damascen Haymo Before M. Heskins begin his pretended exposition he chargeth Luther to be a proude contemner of the fathers who reuerenced them as much as it was meet they should be reuerenced although he preferred one authoritie of scripture before a thouâ—â—nd Cyprians Augustines Next to Luther he rayleth on the bishop of Sarum whoÌ„ he calleth the proclaymer charging him with mocking of the holie fathers whereof some he saith be
saintes in heauen what the rest be he doth not determine he meaneth Siluester Isodore Innocentius Betram Durand Holcot Dunce c. Which if they haue written any thing that is ridiculous in defence of Poperie it were better men should laugh at their follie then be still deceiued with their errours But whereas M. Hesk. will set a player on a stage and a boy in the Paâ—â—is to answere the Bishop I weene it be more then the reuerend M. Doctor Heskins reuested in Doctoralibus and inthronized in his Doctours chayer dare well take vpon him to doe That whiche followeth in this Chapter is consumed in cyting and vrging of the forenamed wryters whose authoritie we doe not admitte appealing alwayes from the lower house of punys Burgesses to the higher house of auncient Barons The sixtieth Chapter proceedeth in exposition of the same text by Theophylacte and Paschasius Although we might demurre vpon the vnderstanding of those wordes of Theophylact In 14. Matth. That the bread wine are transelementated into the vertue of his flesh bloud yet considering the corrupt time in which he liued his authoritie is not worth the striuing for And whereas Maister Heskins would make him so say no more then the olde fathers Hilar. Iren. Cyril Chrysost. c. Seeing we haue already considered their testimonies it were superfluous to repeate them againe in this place and as often as it pleaseth Maister Heskins to abuse their names The one and sixtieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of the same wordes by Oecumenius and Anselmus Oecumenius saith litle to the purpose too or fro But Anselmus goeth more roundly to the matter as one that was the scholler of LanfraÌ„cus which wrote against Berengarius Neuerthelesse vpon these wordes of his riseth some other matter Neque eminet For we do neither altogether exclude a figure froÌ„ this sacrament nor admit an only figure This place M. Hesk. would haue to expound Tertullians figure but we haue shewed before it will not serue Vnto this he addeth Augustine cited in the Popes decrees but not to be found in his workes in these wordes The bodie of Christ is both the trueth and a figure The trueth whyle the bodie and bloud of Christ in the vertue of the holie Ghost is made of the substance of bread and wine but that is the figure which is outwardly perceiued De cons. Dist. 2. Cap vtrum When these wordes are found in any worke of S. Augustines we will make aunswere to them otherwise we may not receiue them of the onely credit of the Popes law Vnlesse they haue such meaning as the saying of Hilarius B. of Rome which followeth Corpus Christi c. The bodie of Christ which is takeÌ„ at the altar is a figure whyle the bread wine are seene outwardly and a truth while the bodie and bloud of Christ inwardly are beleeued It seemeth to me this saying to be playne ynough that the sacrament is an outward figure of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is inwardly receiued spiritually by faith As Gratian also reporteth the wordes of the same Hilarie De Cons. Dist. 2. Vbi pars est Non enim est quantitas visibilis in hoc aestimanda mysterio sed virtus sacramenti spiritualis The visible quantitie is not to be regarded in this mysterie but the spirituall vertue of the sacrament But M. Heskins proceedeth and by Anselmus authoritie he will auoide the trifling sophysticall argument made by Maister Pilkinton in the open disputation holden in Cambridge By like Maister Heskins had not learned the solution at that time and therefore nowe he sendeth it ouer the sea to him The argument was this Christe tooke bread he blessed bread he brake bread wherfore he gaue bread to his disciples if he gaue bread then not his bodie M. Heskins saith he so vseth the words as though by the actes which the verbes expresse nothing had beene done Yes M. Heskins he chaunged the vse but not the substance But by the like sophisme saith Maister Heskins he might proue that he gaue no sacrament of his bodie For that he deliuered which he tooke but he tooke bread no sacrament therfore he deliuered bread no sacrament But by his patience this sophisme of his is nothing like Maister Pilkintons argument For in one proposition he speaketh of the substance in the other of another qualitie or affection beside the substance as in this example that which you bought in the shambles you haue eaten but you bought cowe fleshe therefore you haue eaten caulfes fleshe Euerie childe seeth this followeth not But if I speake of the substance in both alike it followeth as thus That which you bought in the market you haue eaten but you bought mutton therfore you haue eaten mutton Vpon the premises graunted this argument followeth of necessitie and such is the argument of Maister Pilkinton which all the Papistes in Louayne can not answere The tâ—o and sixtieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Rupertus and Nicholaus Methonen In this whole Chapter is nothing worth the reading and much lesse the aunswering for he doeth nothing but cite and vrge the sayings of these two late writers of whose authoritie he knoweth we make none account as there is no reason why we should they being members of the Popish Church For the auncient writers whome he nameth their sayinges haue beene already weyghed and aunswered The three and sixtieth Chapter taryeth in the exposition of the same wordes by Innocentius Germanus The authoritie of Pope Innocent the third which called the Laterane Counsell in which transubstantiation was first decreede must needes be of great credite with vs But Germanus bishop of Constantinople the Popes sworne enimie I marueile why hee is ioyned with the Pope For that he saith is small to M. Heskins purpose and therefore he helpeth him out with Damascen yet he confesseth his saying subiect to cauilling For where he writeth that in the sacrament Dominus conspicitur c. Our Lorde is both seene and suffereth him selfe to be touched by the feâ—â—full and holy mysteries c. and so sayeth Chrysostome thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him c. Maister Heskins sayeth we reason and so wee maye in deede that we eat him as we see him which is onely by faith But M. Heskins with profound Logike wil aunswere this argument that a thing is sayde to bee seene when the outwarde formes are seene and so Christe is seene when the formes of bread and wine are seene But by his fauour a thing is seene when the proper formes accidents thereof are seene but the forme or accidents of bread and wine are not the proper formes of Christes bodie therefore Christes bodie is not seene by them no more then I see a man when I see the house wherein he is or then I see a knife when I see the close case or sheath wherein it is And