broken downe thine altares While hee sayth thine he sheweth that the thing is Gods where any thing is offered of any man to God. Vppon pretence of this place Maister Hesk. chargeth vs with great sacriledge for pulling downe their popish altares on which they committed idolatrie and moste horrible sacriledge And therefore wee are commaunded to ouerthrowe such altares to breake downe their pillers burne their images with fire Deut. 7. And whereas he compareth vs to one Iulianus an heathen man that pissed against the altare and therfore was horribly punished hee sheweth his wisedome For there an idolater did vilanously contemne the Christians religion therfore was iustly plaged of God but we as Christians haue obeyed the lawe of God in ouerthrowing their antichristian idolatrous altars And yet I thinke the fact of Iulianus was not worse then the filthinesse of Pope Iohn that lay with his whores vppon your altares In the conclusion of this chapter he affirmeth that the altar sacrifice are correlatiues therefore there coulde be none altars but there was also sacrifice I haue shewed sufficiently howe the old writers called the communion table an altare and the sacrament a sacrifice namely a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation and yet more must I saye vpon M. Heskins discourses that followe The two and thirtieth Chapter vpon occasion that it is proued that the primitiue Church vsed the altare and reputed the bodie and bloud of Christ to be a sacrifice beginneth to treate of the same sacrifice which we commonly call the Masse Because the names of altar sacrifice haue beene vnproperly vsed by auncient writers for wee haue shewed that their altar was a table and their sacrifice a thankesgiuing therefore M. Hesk. will treat of the sacrifice of the Masse And first of the name of Masse which he saith we abhorre and iustly because it hath been vsed of many yeres to signifie a most blasphemous and idolatrous seruice The name he will deriue in all the haste out of the Hebrue tongue from a word that is called Mas from whence the Latines haue deriued their worde Missa being the same that the Greekes called Liturgia and the Latines officium which is in English a seruice To this I aunswere first that if Missa or Masse be nothing but a seruice then Euen song may be called Masse because it is a seruice Secondly it carryeth no shewe of trueth that the Latines would borrowe their name of the Hebrues rather then of the Greekes Thirdly that there is no such Hebrue worde as Maister Heskins affirmeth to bee Mas signifying a seruice as I report mee to all that haue but meane knowledge in the tongue Fourthly that although the name of Missa bee of some antiquitie in the Romane church yet is it neither so auncient as he maketh it and that which is chiefely to be regarded it is neuer founde in the holie scripture But nowe let vs consider his authoritie First Leo bishop of Rome Epist. 79. sayeth thus Necesse est vt quaedam pars populi sua deuotione priuetur si vniut tantùm Missae more seruato sacrificium offerre non possunt nisi qui prima diei parte conuenerint It must needes be that some parte of the people bee depriued of their deuotion if the manner or custome of our onely masse being obserued they cannot offer sacrifice except such as came together the first part of the day Vppon coulour of this place Maister Heskins will not onely prooue that the name of Missa is auncient but also that it is lawfull to saye more then one Masse in one church in one day if two then three if three then tenne if tenne then fifteene and so twentie which the proclaimer sayed could not be proued But you shall see howe lewdly hee abuseth his reader The proclaimers challenge was of tenne or twentie priuate Masses sayed in one church and commonly at one time Maister Heskins bringeth in authoritie of Leo which proueth that when one communion coulde no serue any more then so manie as the church woulde holde at one time it was meete it should be celebrated twise or as often as the same was filled with people vntill all had receiued which as wee confesse to be true so maketh it nothing in the worlde for the priuate Masse but altogether against it as is plaine by the whole treatie going before which Maister Heskins according to his accustomed synceritie hath cleane left out Vt autem in omnibus obseruantia nostra Concordet illud quoque volumus custodiri vt quum solennior festiuitas conuentum populi numerosioris indixerit ad eam tanta multitudo conuenerit quam recipere Basilica simul vna non possit sacrificij oblatio indubitanter iteretur ne his tantùm admissis ad hanc deuotionem qui primi aduenerint videantur hi qui posimodum confluxerint non recepti cum plenum pietatis atque rationis fit vt quoties Basilicā pręsentia nonae plebis impleuerit toties sacrificiū subsequēs offeratur And that our obseruation may agree in al things this also we will haue to be kept that when a more solemne festiuitie shall call together a greater assembly of people and so great a multitude is gathered vnto it that one great Church can not receiue them altogether the oblation of the sacrifice without doubt may be done againe least those only being admitted which came first they which came together afterward might seeme not to be receiued whereas it is a matter full of godlinesse and reason that how often so euer the presence of a newe people shall fill the Church so often the sacrifice following should be offered But M. Heskins vrgeth in the place by him cited that the word missa is vsed which is not denyed but this was almost 500. yeres after Christ about the yere 480. Secondly that the Masse is a sacrifice But he will not see that it is such a sacrifice as all the people offer which can not be a sacrifice propitiatorie but of thankesgiuing Howbeit he saith The Masse is a sacrifice that is or ought by ioyne affection and deuotion of the people to the Priest to be offered of them all What affection or deuotion he would haue to the Priest I do not well vnderstand but let him shadowe him selfe in what fond phrase of word he will yet can he not auoyde but that the people by the wordes of Leo did offer sacrifice in as ample manner as the Priestes and then they were all Priestes Besides this in the words of Leo he obserueth not that it was a custome of the Church before his time to haue but one Masse or Communion in a day so straightly kept that vpon necessitie they would not relent therein vntill he tooke this order with them But Maister Heskins asketh what scripture the proclamer hath to the contrarie for twentie Masses in one Church in one day I aunswere Saint Paule willeth the Corinthians to
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
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
For both they haue taken vppon them one administration and both are appointed forerunners wherefore he sayde not this truely it Helias but if ye will receiue it this is hee That is if with diligent studie and with a gentle not a contentious mynde you will consider the dooings of them both Thus Chrysostome And yet I am not ignorant that else where he supposeth that Helias the Thesbite shall come before the day of iudgement which sauoureth of a Iewish fable more then of a Christian trueth as is plainly proued before The fourth Chapter beginneth to declare by the holy fathers of what things Manna and the waters be figures He beginneth this Chapter with a shamelesse lye for he sayeth that wee affirme Manna to be a figure only of the worde of God which is vtterly false for wee affirme that it was a sacramentall figure of the bodye of Christe and so a figure that it was in deede the bodie of Christ after a spirituall manner to them whiche receiued it worthelie But Maister Heskins will haue it a figure not onely of the worde of God but also of the bodie of Christe in the sacrament and so a figure that is was nothing else but a bare figure and not a sacrament And this hee hopeth to prooue out of Sainct Ambrose ad Iren. Ep. 62. Quaeria◠me c. Thou askest mee why the Lorde God did rayne Manna to the people of the fathers and doeth not nowe rayne it If thou knowest he rayneth and daily rayneth from heauen Manna to them that serue him And that bodily Manna truely is founde at this day in many places But nowe it is not a thing of so greate miracle becaus◠that which is perfect is come And that perfecte is the breade from heauen the bodie of the virgine of which the Gospell doeth sufficiently teache thee Howe much better are these things then the former For they which did eate that Manna that is that breade are deade But whosoeuer shall eate this breade shall liue for euer But it is a spirituall Manna that is a rayne of spirituall wisedome which is powred into them that be wittie and searching is from heauen and deweth the myndes of the Godly sweeteneth their iawes Because there is nothing in this saying of Saint Ambrose for his purpose hee falleth into a greate rage against Oecolampadius for leauing out of this sentence Quanto praestantiora sunt haec superioribus Howe much more excellent are these then the other aboue rehearsed Which howesoeuer it was as I am sure it was not of a falsifying mynde so no man in the worlde might worse exclaime against falsifying of the doctours then Maister Heskins as I haue often shewed and doubt not but I shall shewe hereafter But to the purpose it is euident that Saint Ambrose in the former sentence speaketh of Manna as a corporall foode not as a sacrament in which respect there is no comparison between it the body of christ And he is so farre from saying that Manna as it was a sacrament was but a figure of the bodie of Christ as M. Heskins belyeth him that he saith not at all that it was a figure But hee chargeth vs with two other wicked opinions namely That the sacramentes of the newe lawe giue no grace and that they are of no more excellencie then the sacraments of the olde lawe To the first we aunswere and say that the sacramentes giue not grace of the worke wrought as they teach but that GOD giueth grace by his sacramentes in all his elect wee affirme And to the second wee aunswere that as in substaunce the sacramentes of the olde time were not inferiour to oures so in cleerenesse of reuelation and vnderstanding oures are farre more excellent then theirs and that the place of Saint Ambrose which Maister Heskins doeth next alledge doeth very well shewe Oriente autem c. The sonne of righteousnesse arising and more bright sacramentes of Christes body and bloud shining foorth those inferiour thinges or sacramentes should cease and those perfect should be receiued of the people Maister Heskins noteth that if the sacrament were but a bare signe it should not be so magnified by Saint Ambrose But so often as hee chargeth vs with a bare signe so often must we charge him againe with an impudently For wee doe as much detest a bare signe or figure as hee doth a signe or figure As for the three kindes of Manna that Maister Heskins gathereth is altogether out of Saint Ambrose his compasse For hee hath no more but the bodily Manna and the spirituall Manna as the signe and the thing signified And the rayne of spirituall wisedome is the spirite of GOD which sealeth inwardly in the heart that whiche is expressed outwardly by the externall signes I maruell Maister Heskins alledgeth not Saint Ambrose vpon this text 1. Cor. 10. whose woordes might seeme to haue more colour of his bare figure although they be flat against it in deede Manna aquaquae fluxit de Petra haec dicit spiritualia quia non mundi lege parata sunt sed Dei virtute sine elementorum commixtione ad tempus creata habentia in se figuram futuri mysterij quod nunc nos summus in commemorationem Christi Domini Manna and the water which flowed out of the rocke these he calleth spirituall bicause they were not prepared by the order of the world but by the power of God with out commixtiō of the elements created for a time hauing in them a figure of the mysterie to come which nowe we receiue in remembraunce of Christe our Lorde By these wordes it is euident that our sacraments do so differ from theirs as a figure of that which is to come and a remembrance of that which is past do differ For all sacramentes haue their strength of the death of christ Secondly we see that this father calleth our sacrament a mysterie in remembrance of Christ which speach is farre from a corporall manner of presence that M. Heskins would maintaine by his authoritie The other places cited out of Euthymius a late writer as we haue often saide affirme that Manna was the figuratiue bread and a figure but not Christe which was the trueth Howbeit he meaneth nothing else but that Christ was not in flesh present to the fathers in Manna before he was incarnate and so vseth the terme figure as a prefiguration and shadowing not of the sacrament but of Christ him selfe which is the matter of the sacrament euen as Christ him selfe in the 6. of S. Iohn opposing Manna against the true bread that came downe from heauen speaketh not of that spirituall meat which Manna was to the faithfull but of the outward creature which was onely considered of the wicked to fill their bellies and not to feede their soule But M. Heskins remitteth his reader for al matters concerning the 6. of Iohn to the second booke 36. chapter c. and so do I to the same
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
he said much for you when he coÌ„pareth the scripture to the sea I thinke he saith more against you where he compareth the Church to the sea Hexam lib. 3. cap. 3. Vnde bene mari plerumque comparatur ecclesia quae primo ingredientis populi agmine totis vestibulis vndas vomit deinde in oratione totius plebis tanquam vndis refluentibus stridet tum responsorijs Psalmorum cantus virorum mulierum virginum paruuloruÌ„ consonus vndarum fragor resultat WhervpoÌ„ the Church is oft times verie wel compared vnto the sea which first by the coÌ„ming in of the multitude floweth out waues froÌ„ euery porch or entrie and then maketh a noyse with the prayer of the whole people as it were with the ebbing or flowing backe of the waues last of all with answerings of Psalmes singing of men women virgines and little children a well tunable sound of the waues reboundeth By this place it appeareth that all sorts of people were admitted to the reading of the scriptures and that no tong was vsed in the Church but such as was coÌ„mon to all the people Chrysostome succeedeth Ambrose who saith The scriptures are darke that they are found out with labour but not shut that they can not be found out at all and that the priestes ought to be the keykeepers of the scriptures not to shut them vp but to open them c. I would oppose some testimonie of Chrysostome to explane his meaning not to be to discourage men froÌ„ reading the scriptures but that M. Heskins doth soone after confesse the same of his owne accord in these wordes I am not ignorant gentle reader that Chrysostome doth so that is that Chrysostome in a number of places most earnestly exhorteth men to the reading of the scriptures and doth not feare them with the obscuritie and difficultie thereof I aske no more against M. Heskins but his own confession of Chrysostomes iudgement to be against him whervnto we must returne anon after a little consideration of Gregories iudgement Gregorie sheweth that the obscuritie of the scriptures is for great profite for exercising the vnderstanding for auoyding of wearines idlenes contempt and for great delight when it is found out with labour Augustine hath the like sentence but this maketh much for our cause that the obscuritie of the scripture where it is darke is very profitable for the diligent reader To conclude if all the scripture were neuer so darke yet seeing it is necessarie to be knowne of al men it ought to be read and studied of all the more the oftener where it is more hard to vnderstand that long diligent search may find out that which sildome slight reading would passe ouer As for the last testimonie of Hieronyme ad Paulinum concerning the Canonicall Epistles That they are both short and long so that there be not many which are not blind in them Bicause we had the like before I will referre it to the former answeres The rest of the rayling stuffe charging vs with cause of heresies arrogance and ignorance in suffering and allowing the people to reade the scriptures affirming them to be easie when they be hard c. is more meete for M. Heskins to write then vs to answere But to return to the obiection that he maketh of the iudgement of Chrysostome and Erasmus whom he confesseth to be against him let vs see his wittie answeres To Chrysostome he answereth That there were two causes why he would haue the scriptures read one that they might the better vnderstand his expositions in the Churche the other that they might reade them to followe them to these purposes he graunteth it were tollerable they should be read but not to frame newe doctrines out of them nor to contâ—mne the learned teachers c. And who I pray you would haue them read to other purpose Not Luther not Iewell nor any man whom you most spyte at But see the force of truth and the malice of an enimie therof Heskins hauing reasoned in fiue Chapters against the reading of scriptures nowe graunteth to it but yet that which is most conuenient of al most necessarie he vouchsafeth to cal it but tollerable To Erasmus he replyeth first that seeing he confesseth in diuers places the scriptures to be hard to vnderstand he maruelleth that he would exhort ignorant men to the reading of them But Erasmus would easily turne backe M. Heskins reason vpon his owne head Seeing they are hard they are the more often and diligently to be read studied Secondly he thinketh Alphonsus good ynough to oppose against Erasmus who affirmeth That although it were meete the people should read the scriptures in Chrysostomes time yet it is not meete nowe bicause lawes are changed as the times and manners of men are And it is no more meete that the people should nowe read the scriptures then that the Vigils should be kept as they were in Hieronymes time or that Infantes should receiue the Communion as they did in Augustines tâ—me or men shuld abstaine from bloud and strangled as in the Apostles time or discipline and publique penance should be vsed as in the old dayes If the maners of men be worse nowe they haue more neede of the knowledge of God whereby they might be reformed wherefore the similitudes are nothing like And besides this note also the errour of the Church in S. Augustines time confessed and the want of discipline in the Popish Church acknowledged The sixt Chapter declaring howe the people shall come to the vnderstanding of the scriptures The vnderstanding then of the scriptures is necessarie seing God as you coÌ„fesse which ordeineth nothing in vain hath appointed a meane wherby the people should come to the vnderstanding of the scriptures So by the way we haue gained thus much that ignorance is not the mother of Christian deuotion as was most impudently affirmed by all the Bel weathers of Papistrie in the conference of Westminster to the perpetuall shame ignominie both of them selues and al the Popish Church But nowe to the meane appointed by God which you say Is that the lawe should be in the mouth of the Priest and the people should learne it at his mouth A very godly order in deede but yet such as neither promiseth that the lawe shal be alwayes in the Priestes heart nor bindeth the people to learne it only at his mouth And therefore nothing in the world letteth but that the godly man should meditate in the lawe of God day night Psal. 1. and haue it so familiar vnto him that he shuld teach his childreÌ„ therin talke of it at home abroad vprising and downlying and write on the postes of his doores and vpon his gates that he may learne to do it Deut. 4. 11. Wherefore all the places that M. Heskins alledgeth to shewe that the Priestes should be learned and the people instructed by them serue to proue nothing that is in controuersie
many God be blessed follow their example at this day and yet too fewe for it were to be wished that such modestie were in all men The saying of Clemens registred also in the cannon lawe although you alledge it out of a counterfet and barbarous epistle yet is it very godly and worthie of the Apostles scholler That the scripture must not be drawen into straunge and forreigne senses according vnto euerie mans phantasie but the true sense must be taken out of the very Scriptures themselues agreeable to the iudgement of them that haue receiued is from the elders That is the Apostles For there were none other in the time of Clemens whiche went before but euen they The rest of the Chapter conteineth a repetition of that he hath handled in these eight Chapters with a promise that after this prety preamble he will goe immediately to his purposed matter to bee debated in this highe Court of prattlement And yet I weene as you haue had a preamble so you shall haue a preface of other matter for three or foure Chapters more or euer you come to the principall matter In deede great solemnitie becommeth a parleament The ninth Chapter declaring that our redemption was prenunciâ—â—ed by promises figures and prophesies and what the promises be and to whom they were made In this Chapter so long as he followeth the scriptures he hath well and truely satisfied the title shewing that Christ was promised principally to Adam Abraham and Dauid denying that Salomon was promised to Dauid but christ Where I hope he meaneth that Salomon was not promised as Messias but as a figure of him Finally I agree with him in all things for which he bringeth authoritie of the worde of God onely I cannot admitte the exposition that Iacobus de Valentia maketh of the Dominion of Christ from sea to sea that is from the mid lande sea to both the Oceans the South and the North whiche inclose Affrike and Europe from the floudes Nilus and Tanais vnto the endes of the world that be towarde the East which comprehendeth all Asia For since the time of Iacobus de Valentia we haue knowledge of the fourth part of the worlde toward the West called America greater then any of the three other which his circumscriptioÌ„ doeth exclude out of the kingdome of Christ although I doubt not but thither also the founde of the Gospell hath beene carried and is nowe restored in some places although brutish barbarousnesse hath of long time ouerwhelmed it The tenth Chapter toucheth the figures of Christes incarnation passion resurrection and ascention In this Chapter as in the former following the authoritie of the holy scriptures he sheweth that the conception of Sampson was a figure of the incarnation of Christ Ioseph of his betraying Isaac of his suffering the priesthood of Aaron and the sacrifices of his priesthoode sacrifice Ionas of his resurrection Elias of his ascention Wherein I see nothing worthie of reprehension except peraduenture in some collation there be more subtil curiositie then sound stedfastnesse The eleuenth Chapter declareth by the Prophets of what line the Messias should come with his coÌ„ception birth passion death In this Chapter also he doeth well discharge his promise for the historie of the coÌ„ception passion of Christ. If al the rest were like these Chapters we should soone agree The twelfth briefely toucheth a prophesie or two of the resurrection and ascention of Christ. In this Chapter as he promiseth is touched a saying of Dauid Psalm 16. alledged by Peter Act. 2 to proue the resurrection and an other Psalm 67. for the ascention alledged by Paule Eph. 4. in these foure Chapters there is nothing in a manner but that which is confessed of both sides The thirteenth Chapter how that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ both in Priesthood and sacrifice This Chapter promiseth more then it performeth for it sheweth in deed and as the trueth is that Melchisedech was a figure of christ but it scarse toucheth his priesthod and speaketh not one worde of his sacrifice as by a briefe collection of the whole Chapter and euerie parte thereof shall appeare First he there declareth that as the mysterie of our redemption was promised figured prophesied in the olde Testament and accomplished in the New so was the memorial of that redemption which Newe Testament being euerlasting hath an euerlasting Priest an euerlasting sacrifice The euerlasting priest he coÌ„fesseth to be our sauiour Christ. But the euerlasting sacrifice he saith is the very body blod of the same our sauiour Christ. Which as he according to the order of his priesthood did sacrifice in his last supper vnder the formes of bread wine so did he giue authoritie coÌ„mandemeÌ„t to the Apostles ministers of his Churche to do the same saying Hoc facite in meaÌ„ coÌ„memorationem This do ye in the remeÌ„brance of me Beside that these thinges of the euerlasting sacrifice be vttered without all proofe or shadowe thereof marke one horrible blasphemie and an other detestable absurditie For in as much as he affirmeth the euerlasting sacrifice to be Christes body and bloud offered in the supper and it is manifest by the scripture that Christe neuer offered but one sacrifice and that but once Heb. 9.25.10.14 it is euident that he vtterly excludeth the sacrifice of his body vpon the Crosse as not being done according to the order of his euerlasting priesthoode For a prodigious absurditie note this that he graunteth the euerlasting priesthood to Christ Which as the Apostle witnesseth is without succession Heb. 7.24 because it is euerlasting in him and yet he maketh the Apostles and ministers of the Church partakers of that Priesthod to offer that sacrifice which none could offer but he himselfe which is an euerlasting priest after the order of Melchisedech that is both a King and Priest. He proceedeth and affirmeth that Of this new Priesthood and sacrifice there were figures and prophesies which must aswell be performed as the other were of the instituter of them The other figures and prophesies ended in Christ touching the fact but not touching the efficacie and vertue which is eternall The newe Testament with the new priesthood and the new sacrifice are begon and confirmed in the bloud of Christ but must continue alwayes whereof there be figures in the lawe of nature and in the lawe of Moses In the lawe of nature albeit that Seth Noe and other did offer sacrifices vnto God yet were they not figures of this sacrifice now vsed in Christes Church but rather of Christes sacrifice offered vpon the crosse after the manner of Aaron Here marke first that he maketh Christ to haue two sacrifices this sacrifice whiche is now offered I can not tell after what manner and that which he offered on the Crosse after the manner of Aaron Secondly that he maketh Christ a Priest after the maner of Aaron
twentieth Chapter beginneth to speake of the Prophesies and first of the prophesie of the priesthood of Christe after the order of Melchizedech The one halfe of this Chapter is consumed in citing of textes to proue that Christe is a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and at length hee deuideth the Priestes office into two partes teaching and sacrificing Then he affirmeth that Christ was not a Priest after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchizedech Yet in the ende of the Chapter like a blasphemous dogge hee sayeth that Christ executed his priesthood after the order of Aaron vppon the Crosse. Where beside his blasphemie note how hee agreeth with him selfe But Christ he sayeth it called a Priest after the order of Melchizedech for the manner of his sacrifice which maketh the difference betweene the order of Aaron and the order of Melchizedech For Aaron offered in bloud the other in bread and wine The Apostle to the Hebrues obseruing many differences could not finde this But M. Heskins aunswereth that the cause why the Apostle did leaue out this manner of sacrifice was for that his principall purpose was to shewe the excellencie of Christ and his priesthood aboue Aaron and his priesthood which could not bee by shewing that he sacrificed breade and wine for the Iewes sacrifices were more glorious then bread and wine By this wise reason he giueth vs to deeme that the Apostle of subtiltie suppressed this comparison because they were weake as though they knewe not what the sacramentes of the Church were But if Christe sacrificed his bodie and bloud twise he could not better haue shewed his excellencie aboue Aaron then in declaring that Christe did not onely offer him self in bloud on the Crosse but also in bread wine after the example of Melchizedech For if offering of sacrifice were one of the chiefe partes of a Priestes office and breade and wine had beene the sacrifice of Melchizedech the Apostle neither would nor coulde haue dissembled the comparison of his sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christe which would infinitely haue aduaunced his priesthood aboue Aaron For else the Hebrues whom M. Heskins imagineth would haue obiected their sacrifices to be more glorious then bread and wine might more probably haue replyed that the Apostles compared Melchizedech with Christe in small matters and omitted the chiefest parte of his office which was this sacrifice so that if he were inferiour in the chiefe it was little to excell in the small matters But M. Heskins taketh vppon him to aunswere our obiection that we make against this sacrifice of breade and wine which is this as the Apostle to the Hebrues speaketh nothing of it no more doeth Moses in Genesis For it is sayed there that Melchizedech brought foorth breade and wine but neuer a worde that he did sacrifice breade and wine This obiection he wil aunswer both by scripture and by the eldest learned men of Christes parleament Concerning the parleament men as it is true that many of them did thinke Melchizedech to be a figure of Christ in bringing foorth bread and wine so when we come to consider their voyces it shall appeare that they make little for transubstantiation or the carnall presence But now let vs heare the scripture The scripture to proue that Melchisedech did sacrifice this bread and wine saith that he was a Priest of the most high God to whome is belongeth not to bring foorth but to offer bread and wine so that the verie connexion of the Scripture and dependants of the same enforceth vs to take this sense and none other can be admitted This is a verie peremptorie sentence plumped downe of you M. Heskins not as from your doctours chaire but euen as from Apolloes three footed stoole But if it may please you to heare is it not also scripture that he was King of Salem and wil not the verie connexion and dependance of the Scripture leade vs to thinke that as an example of his royall liberalitie he brought foorth bread wine to refresh the hungrie and wearie souldiers of Abraham which being such a multitude could not easily be prouided for by a priuate man And where Moses sayeth he was a priest of the highest God hee addeth also an example of his priestly holynesse that he blessed Abraham praysed God and that Abraham gaue him tythes of al. And lest you should exclame as your manner is that this is a newe exposition Iosephus in the firste booke tenth Chapter of his Iewishe antiquities doth so expounde it Hic Melchisedechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit nihil eis ad victum deesse passus c. This Melchisedech gaue verie liberall intertainment to the souldiours of Abraham suffered them to want nothing vnto their liuing But if M. Heskins wil obiect that Iosephus was a Iewe then let him heare the author of Scholastica historia a Christian and a Catholike as M. Heskins will confesse allowing of the same exposition Chap. 46. in these wordes At verò Melchizedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem vinum quod quasi exponen◠Iosephus ait ministrauit exercitui Xenia multam abundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit et super epulas benedixit deum qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi But Melchizedech King of Salem offered vnto him bread and wine which Iosephus as it were expounding of it sayeth he ministred to his armie the dueties of hospitalitie and gaue him great plentie of things necessary beside the feast or at the feast he blessed God which had subdued vnto Abraham his enimies For he was a priest of the high◠so god Thus farre he 〈◊〉 M. Heskins for his connexion perchaunce will vrge the Coniunction enim erat enim saterdos c. in the vulgar Latine text to make it to be referred to the former clause but neither the Hebrue nor the Greeke text hath that Coniunction To be short if the bringing foorth of bread and wine perteined to his priestly office there is nothing in the text to expresse his Kingly office but Moses as he calleth him both a King and a priest so doth he distinctly shewe what he did as a King and what he did as a priest Yet Maister Heskins goeth on and will proue That if Christ were a Priest after the order of Melchizedech he offred a sacrifice after that order but he neuer made any mo oblations then two the one on the crosse after the order of Aaron the other in his last Supper after the order of Melchisedech except we will say that Christe altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God. Marke here Christian Reader how many horrible blasphemies this impudent dogge barketh out against our Sauiour Christ directly contrarie to his expresse worde First he affirmeth that Christ made two offerings of himselfe whereas the holy Ghost saith Heb. 9. not that he should oftentimes offer himselfe as the high priest c. For
an ende of his life Euen so also he sayth of Seth and Enos with other As for the beginning of the generation of Melchizedech and the ende of his life he ouerpasseth it in silence Wherefore if the historie bee looked on he hath neither beginning of dayes nor end of life So in deede the sonne of God neither hath beginning of his being neither shall haue ending Therefore in these most great and verie diuine things was Melchizedech a figure of Christ our lord And in his priesthood which agreeth rather to man then to God our Lord Christ was an high Priest after the order of Melchizedech For Melchizedech was an high Priest of the Gentiles And our Lord Christ offered a holy and healthfull sacrifice for all men If I sayde neuer a word as I neede not to say many yet the indifferent reader would see that here is no comparison of Melchizedechs bread and wine with the sacrament of the Lordes supper Yea he would easily see that he speaketh of the sacrifice of his death which our sauiour offered for all men both Iewes and Gentiles And much more plainly by that place which M. Heskins addeth out of the first dialogue If therefore it appertaineth to Priestes to offer giftes and Christ concerning his humanitie is called a Priest he offered none other sacrifice but his owne bodie This speaketh Theodoret expressely of the true sacrifice of his death and not of the fained sacrifice of his supper nor yet of any sacrament or figure of his onely true sacrifice which the olde writers as I shewed before do often call a sacrifice oblation burnt offring c But that M. Heskins cannot gaine by the doctours wordes he will winne by reason First if wee denye that Melchizedech was a figure of Christe his Priesthood saying he was a figure onely of his eternitie then wee ioyne with Eutyches who graunted the diuinitie of Christe and denyed his humanitie vnto which his priesthood properly perteyned But who tolde M. Heskins that wee denye Melchizedech to be a figure of Christs Priesthood when wee most constantly affirme that he was a figure of his eternall Priesthood vnlesse Maister Heskins thinke the humanitie of Christe hauing once conquered death is not nowe euerlasting It is not our exposition that mainteineth the heresie of Eutyches that the nature of Christes bodie is absorpt into the diuinitie but it is your heresie of vbiquitie and carnall presence Maister Heskins that mayntaineth it most manifestly in verie deede though in wordes you will say the contrarie But Maister Heskins followeth his reason and vrgeth vs that it is the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice wherefore if Christe resemble Melchizedech in Priesthood he must resemble him in sacrifice and that is the sacrifice of breade and wine for other sacrifice wee reade none that Melchizedech offered I aunswere as wee reade of none other so wee read not in the Scripture one worde of that sacrifice of breade and wine as hath beene often declared at large And seeing the scripture expresseth not what sacrifice Melchizedech offered wee are content to be ignorant of it satisfying our selues with so much as the scripture affirmeth that Christ offering him selfe once for all on the Crosse was in the same called a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech as wee haue shewed at large before out of Hebr. 5. 7.9.10 But it is a sport to see how M Heskins skippeth to fro as it were one whipped at a stake when hee woulde reconcile his transubstantiation with this counterfet sacrifice of breade and wine Christe sacrificed in breade and wine In breade and wine I say a kinde of foode more excellent then the breade and wine that did figure it I meane with Theodoret and Hierome the true bread and wine that is the bodie and bloud of Christ that is to say no bread nor wine But if you giue him a lash on the other side and saye if Christ sacrificed not naturall bread wine then he answered not your figure he wil leap to the other side say with Cyprian Isychius that Christe offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech did and in one place he sayeth he occupyed bread and wine in his sacrifice so did he a table and a cuppe and other things but was any thing his sacrifice that he occupyed therein sauing onely that which he offered he will say no. Did he offer bread and wine hee dare not aunswer directly and so the poore man to vpholde two lyes the one contrarie to the other is miserably tormented The one and thirtieth Chapter concludeth this matter of Melchizedech by S. Augustine and Damascene S. Augustine is alledged vppon the 33 Psalme whose wordes are these The sacrifices of the Iewes were before time after the order of Aaron in offrings of beastes and that in a mysterie The sacrifice of the bodie and bloud of our Lord which the faithfull and they that haue read the Gospell do knowe was not yet which sacrifice is nowe diffused throughout all the worlde Set before your eyes therefore two sacrifices both that after the order of Aaron and this after the order of Melchizedech For it is writen the Lord hath sworne and it shall not repent him Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech Of whom is it saide thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech of our Lord Iesus christ For who was Melâ—hizedech The King of Salem And Salem was that Citie which afterward as the learned haue declared was called HierusaleÌ„ Therefore before the Iewes reigned there this Melchizedech was Priest there which is written of in Genesis the Priest of the high god He it was that mett Abraham when he deliuered Loth from the hande of his persecutors and ouerthrewe them of whom he was helde and deliuered his brother And after the deliuerie of his brother Melchizedech mett him so great was Melchizedech of whom Abraham was blessed he brought forth breade and wine and blessed Abraham And Abraham gaue him rythes See ye what he brought forth and whome he blessed And it is sayed afterwarde Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech Dauid sayed this in the spirite long after Abraham Nowe Melchizedech was in the time of Abraham Of whome sayeth he in anâ—â—her place â–ª Thou arâ— a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech 〈◊〉 of him whose sacrifice you knowe Here saith Maister Heskins is sacrifice auouched and the sacrifice of the body and bloud of our Lorde who saith nay But this is not the sacrifice of the masse but the sacrifice of CHRISTES death whereof the holy sacrament is a memoriall But Augustine saith farther The sacrifice of Aaron is taken away and them beganne the order of Melchizedech Very well but once againe this sacrifice is the sacrifice of Christes death the remembraunce whereof is celebrated in the Lordes Supper where let the Reader obserue that he doeth yet againe denie the
sacrifice of Christes passion to be a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech contrarie to the expresse worde of God affirmeth that it was after the order of Aaron saying that The sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech was onely as the Supper Here note that he maketh the sacrament more excellent then the sacrifice of Christes death by so muche as the Priesthoode and sacrifice of Melchisedech is more excellent then the sacrifice and priesthoode of Aaron But Augustine hath more yet if it will helpe vpon the same Psalme Con. 3. Before the kingdome of his father he chaunged his 〈◊〉 and left him and went his way because there was the sacrifice according to the order of Aaron And afterwarde he himselfe by his body and bloud instituted a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech Therefore he chaunged his countenance in the priesthoode and left the nation of the Iewes and came to the Gentiles By this we must needes vnderstand that Christe did institute a sacrifice of his body and bloud after the order of Melchizedech Yea verily But howe doe wee vnderstand that this was in the sacrament Therefore for any thing that is here shewed it is no slaunder that the Pope hath turned the holy sacrament into a sacrifice to obscure the glorie of Christe and his onely sacrifice once offered on the crosse For although the Fathers did sometimes call the sacrament a sacrifice yet they meant nothing but a memoriall or sacrifice of thankesgiuing for that one sacrifice offered once on the crosse for the redemption of the whole worlde Whereof none other shal be a better witnesse then Augustine himselfe and in his exposition of this selfe same Psalme Saginantur ergo illo Angeli sed semel ipsum exinaninit vt manducaret panem angelorum home formam serui accipiens in similitudinem hominum factus habitu inuentus vt homo The Angels therefore are fead with that bread meaning the diuinitie of Christe But he emptied himselfe that man might eate the bread of Angels taking the shape of a seruant beeing made like vnto men and in his habite was found as a man Humilianit se factus obediens vsque ad mortem mortem autem crucis vt iam de cruce commendarâ—tur nobis carâ— sanguis Domini 〈◊〉 sacrificium quia mutauit vultum suum coram Abimelech id est eoram regno patris He humbled himselfe and was made obedient to the death euen the death of the crosse that now the body and bloud of our Lorde might be commended to vs from the Crosse beeing the new sacrifice because he chaunged his countenaunce before Abimelech that is before the kingdome of his Father By this it is manifest that Augustine referred the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech vnto the crosse of Christ whereof we are made partakers in the holy mysteries of his blessed supper So that as well the body and bloud of our Lorde as the newe sacrifice in those mysteries are commended to vs to be participated from the crosse where they were truely and essentially offered vnto God by the eternall spirite of our sauiour Christ wherby he procured euerlasting redemption The same Augustine in his Ep. 23. to Bonifacius Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso tamen in suet 〈◊〉 non sobèrâ— per omnes paschÄ™ solennitates sed omni die populiâ— immolatur nec vbique mentitur qui interrogatus eum respondarit immolari Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem â—arum rerum quaruÌ„ sacramenta suÌ„t non habereÌ„t omnino sacramenta non essent Ex haec autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est Was not Christe once onely offered vppe by himselfe And yet in a sacrament â–ª not onely at euery solemnitie of Easter but euerie day he is offered for the people neither doeth he lye which being asked the question answereth that he is offered For if sacraments had not a certeine similitude of those thinges whereof they are sacramentes they should not be sacramentes at all And of this similitude oftentimes they take the names euen of the very thinges themselues Therfore as after a certeine maner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith What can be vttered more plainely either against the Popishe sacrifice or against their carnal presence This one place may expound whatsoeuer in Augustine or any other olde writer is spoken of the sacrifice of the Lordes supper and of the presence of Christes body and bloud therein After Augustine M. Heskins citeth Chrysostome in Mat. 26. to proue that the sacrament is now of the same force that it was when it was first ordeined by Christe at his last supper These workes are not of mans power what thinges he did then in that supper he himselfe doth nowe worke he himselfe doeth make perfect We holde the order of Ministers but it is he himselfe that doeth sanctifie and chaunge these thinges With my disciples saith he doe I keepe my Passeouer For this is the same table and none other This is in nothing lesser then that For Christ maketh not that table and some other man this but he himselfe maketh both Hieronyme followeth a vaine discourse against I wote not what Petrobrusians and Henricians that denied the body of CHRISTE to be consecrated and giuen by the priestes as it was by Christe him selfe Whome peraduenture Petrus Cluniacensis Maister Heskins Author doeth slaunder when they saide none otherwise then Chrysostome saide before and that which Maister Heskins himselfe affirmeth That Christ and not man doth consecrate But by this place also are confuted the Oecolampadians and Caluinistes if we will beleeue Maister Heskins who first rauing against Cranmer vrgeth the worde of sanctification of the bread and wine that Chrysostome vseth charging Cranmer to haue saide that the creatures of bread and wine cannot be sanctified Which no doubt that holy Martyr spake of the substance and not of the vse in the sacrament Then he snatcheth vppe Chrysostomes wordes Transmutat he doeth transmute and change them This is easily aunswered He chaungeth the vse but not the substance But for more confirmation Origen is called to witnesse Lib. 8. Cont. Celsum We obeying the creator of all thingâ—s after we haue giuen thankes for his benefites which he hath bestowed vpon vs doe eate the bread which is offered which by prayer and supplication is made into a certeine holier bodie which truly maketh them more holie which with a more sound minde do vse the same Here by Origens playne wordes the vse doth sanctifie the worthie receiuers And though you adde to Ambrose his phrase De pane fit corpus Christi of the bread is
alledged out of Irenaeus but for prolixitie and the same places shall afterwardes be cited for other purposes The fiue thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the exposition of the same Prophet by S. Augustine Eusebius Out of S. Augustine is alledged a long saying lib. Aduersus Iudaeos but not so long in wordes as short of his purpose Dominus omnipotens dicit c. The Lorde almightie sayeth I haue no pleasure in you neither will I receiue sacrifice of your hands Certainly this you cannot denie ô ye Iewes that not oâ—ly he doth not take sacrifice as your handes for there is but one place appointed by the lawe of the Lord where he hath commaunded sacrifices to be offered by your handes beside which place he hath altogether forbidden them Therefore seeing you haue lost this place according to your deserts the sacrifice also which was lawfull to be offered there onely in other placeâ— ye dare not offer And it is altogether fulfilled which the Prophet saith And sacrifice will I not receiue at your handes For if the Temple and the Altar remained to you in the earthly Hierusalem you might say this were fulfilled in them whose sacrifices being wicked men abiding among you the Lorde doth not accept but that he accepteth the sacrifice of other that be of you and among you which keepe the commaundements of god But this cannot be saide for asmuch as there is not one of you all which according to the lawe which proceeded from mount Sinay may offer sacrifice with his handes Neither is this so forespoken fulfilled that the sentence of the Prophes will suffer you to aâ—nswere because wee offer not flesh with our hands with our heart and mouth we offer praise according to that in the Psalme Sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise From this place also he speaketh against you which sayth I haue no pleasure in you c. Moreouer that you shuld not thinke that seeing you offer not and that he taketh no sacrifice at your hands therefore no sacrifice is offered to God whereof truely hee hath no neede who needeth not the goods of any of vs yet because he is not without a sacrifice which is not profitable for him but for vs be adioyneth and sayeth For from the rising of the Sunne vntil the going downe of the same my name is made honourable among all the Gentiles and in euery place a sacrifice is offered to my name euen a pure sacrifice because my name is greate among the Gentiles saith the Lorde Almightie What aunswere yee to these things open your eyes at the length see from the sunne rising to the going downe thereof that not in one place as it was appointed among you but in euery place the sacrifice of the Christians is offered not to euery God but to him that spake these things afore hand euen to the God of Israel Wherfore in another place he sayth to his Church and he that hath deliuered thee the same God of Israel shal be called the God of the whole earth Search ye the Scriptures in which you thinke to haue eternall life and truely you should haue if in them you could vnderstand Christ and hold him But search them through and euen they beare witnesse of this pure sacrifice which is offered to the God of Israel not of your nation alone of whose hands he saide he would receiue none but of all nations which say come let vs go vp into the hill of the Lord neither in one place as it was commaunded in the earthly Hierusalem bâ—t in euery place euen in Hierusalem it selfe â–ª neither after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchizedech First we must see how M. Heskins note booke deceiued him for where the words of Augustin in the beginning of this sentence are these Locus enim vnâ—to est lege domini constitutus c. that is â–ª there is but one place appointed by the lawe of the lord M. Hesk. hath falsified and set downe locus enim vnus est loco domini constitutus which he translateth For there is one place in the place of God appointed But this is not the first corruption that we haue bewrayed by a great many Nowe to the matter Maister Heskins still harpeth vpon one string that the sacrifice in this saying spoken of cannot be the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing because that is not peculiar to the Christians but was offered of the Iewes before Christe and may be yet if they be conuerted But I haue more than once or twise declared that here is no such peculiaritie in the matter of the offering but in the maner of the oblation And Augustine speaketh not halfe a worde by which we might deeme that he refuseth the spirituall sacrifice of the Christians to be the pure sacrifice prophesied in Malachie If you vrge that he sayeth it is offered after the order of Melchisedech and so hath relation to the offering of breade and wine in the Sacrament although it be no necessarie conclusion yet Augustin him selfe will tell vs that it is a spiritual sacrifice of laude and thanksgiuing And M. Heskins him selfe directeth vs to the booke saying As notable a saying as this hath S. Augustine in an other place also and quoteth lib. 1. Cont aduersariuÌ„ legis Prophetarum who so listeth to reade shall finde that that shall not repent him of the reading What place M. Heskins meaneth I knowe not but in the same booke I read in the 18. Chapter that he calleth the death of Christ 〈◊〉 singuler and onely was sacrifice If that sacrifice be but one singuler and the onely true sacrifice what manner of sacrifice is the sacrifice of the Masse which setteth vp a newe altar to ouerthrowe the crosse of Christ And that you may knowe what sacrifice S. Augustine meaneth when he nameth the sacrifice of the Church or the sacrifice of breade and wine or any such like phrase he speaketh this in the twentieth Chapter of certeine apocryphall writings falsly intituled to the Apostles Andrew Iohn Qua fillorum essent receptae essent ab ecclesia quae illorum temperibus per EpiscoporuÌ„ succesâ—iones certissimas vsque ad nostra deincapâ— tempora perseueraâ— immolat Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium â—â—â—dis Which if they had bene theirs they should haue bene receiued of the Church which from their times by most certeine successions of Bishope continueth vnto our times and after and sacrificeth to God in the bodie of Christ the sacrifice of lawde and prayse And let this suffice to discharge Augustine from M. Heskins and the Papistes blasphemous cauelling Now must we come to Eusebius which lib. â— Euang. Demonst. cap. 10. writeth thus The Mosaical sacrifices being reiected he doth by diuine reuelation declare our ordinaâ—ies that was to 〈◊〉 saying For from the rising of the 〈…〉 the going down of the sâ—â—e my name is glorified among the nations in euery place 〈◊〉
filthy garments that is our sinnes by the name of his first begotten sonne and being set on fire by the word of his calling are a right kinde of high priests of God as God himself doth witnes That in al places among the Gentiles acceptable pure sacrifices are offred to him But God receiueth no sacrifice of any but of his Priestes Wherefore God before hand doth testifie that he doth accept all them that offer by this name the sacrifices which Iesus Christe hath deliuered to be made that is in the Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of the bread and the cuppe which are done in euery place of the Christians By these words it appeareth not that Christ was offered but thankesgiuing in the sacrament not of the priest alone but by all Christians And yet more plainely in the wordes of his that are in the same Dialogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as concerning those sacrifices which are offered to him of vs Gentiles in euery place that is of the breade of thankesgiuing and the cup likewise of thankesgiuing hee foresheweth saying that we do glorifie his name and that you do prophane it In which saying what can we see but the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the bread and cup And to proue that the Church hath none other sacrifice but of prayers and thankesgiuing he saith within few lines after the place cited by M. Heskins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I my selfe do affirme that prayers and thankesgiuing made by worthie persons are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to god For these are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make to be put in minde by their drie and moyst nourishment of the passion which God the son of God is recorded to haue suffered for them This place doth not onely shewe what the only sacrifice of Christians was in his time but also teacheth that in the sacrament is drie and moyst nourishment that is bread and drinke not bare accidents as the transubstantiators affirme How little Iustinus maketh for the sacrifice of the Masse these places doe sufficiently declare The second place hee citeth is out of Hierom in his booke of Hebrue questions Quod autem â—it c. whereas he saâ—th thou art a Priest for â—uer after the order of Melchisedech in the word order our mysterie is signified not in offering vnreasonable sacrifices by Aaron but in offering bread and wine that is the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ. We haue shewed sufficiently before howe the olde writers vsed the worde of sacrifice licentiously when there was no such heresie as fined is sprung vp of the sacrifice of the Masse for the memoriall of the sacrifice of Christes body and bloud in which was offered the spirituall sacrifice of prayers and thanksgiuing which reasonable men might wel ynough vnderstand though heretiques do nowe drawe it to their meaning As when Hierom calleth this offering of bread and wine a mysterie euery indifferent reader may vnderstand that he speaketh not properly in calling it the body and bloud of Christe and a sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe But as to a sicke man of the ague all drinkes seeme bitter so to a popish heretique all sayings of the Doctours seeme popish and hereticall The third place he alledgeth it is out of Ambrose his preparatiue prayer to Masse I will not vouchsafe to rehearse it bicause it is a meere bastard and counterfet writing out of which it is cyted hauing as much of S. Ambrose in it as M. Heskins hath witt and honestie in alledging it If any man will obiect that then I must bring arguments to disproue it or else I may likewise denye any authenticall writer I answere it were too long to do in this shortnesse that I must vse and not necessarie when they are notorious and well knowne already to euery man of meane reading in the Doctors and Erasmus in his censure doth plainly reiect it The fourth is Isydorus li. 1. ca 18. de off which althogh he be somwhat without the coÌ„passe of 600. yeares after Christ yet because he is an auncient writer nere that time I will consider his speach which is cited by M. Heskins in these wordes The sacrifice that is offered to God by the Christians our Lorde and maister Christ did first institute when hee commended to his Apostles his bodie and bloude before hee was betraied as it is redd in the Gospell Iesus tooke the bread and the cup and blessing them gaue the same vnto them Here beside the vsuall phrase of sacrifice which we haue often declared what it did signifie and whence it came is nothing to quarrell at For Isydore ment no doubt the spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing which is offered in the celebration of the Lords supper not the propitiatorie sacrifice of the popish masse of which scarce the foundations were begonne to be laide in his time of certaine odde stones of vnproper speach and licentious phrases of sacrifices and oblations As for Haymo and Cabasila I will neuer trouble my self to examine their speaches they are but late writers therefore of small credite in these causes And whereas M. Heskins glorieth that he hath aunswered foure members of the proclamation in this booke the scriptures in the vulgar tongue the reseruation of the sacrament the offering of Christe to his father and the presence of his bodie and bloude in the sacrament let the iudgement reste with the indifferent readers whether although hee hath some of the lower house to fauour his billes more might haue if hee woulde aske their voyces yet I haue proued by this short aunswere that of the higher house he hath not one that hath giuen a voyce with theÌ„ but many that haue spoken directly against them God be praysed THE SECOND BOOKE OF HESKINS PARLEAMENT repealed by W. Fulke The first Chapter declareth the offices of the olde lawe and the benefites of the newe lawe with an exhortation to submit our vnderstanding to the knowledge of faith and therewith to the beleefe of the sacrament HOW vnsauerly he discourseth vpon the two offices of the lawe it were too long to examine in euerie pointe Onely this let the reader obserue that when he hath made the first office of the lawe to giue them knowledge of sinne and to restrayne them from it The other office hee saith was by lineamentes of figures and shadowes to leade the people to Christe as S. Paule sayth the lawe was our scholemaister to Christ c. As though the lawe was not a Schoolemaister to bring vs to Christe by shewing vs our sinnes and condemnation but onely by shadowes and figures After this hee maketh him selfe a ioly hunter That with great trauell and some pleasure hath passed through the bushes and thickets of the lawe and nowe being come into the faire land of the Gospell forgetting his former trauels with freshe delight will followe on his game So that hee is nowe belike
of places as though hee required no lesse then a thousand then he bableth against natural Philosophie as though our faith were buylded therevpon whereas the Papistes and especially the schoolmen euen to lothsomnesse do reason out of natural philosophie in the greatest mysteries of faith But to put him out of doubt we buyld vpon the Scripture our faith of the trueth of Christes bodie that it cannot bee in more places then one because the Apostle sayth that in respect of his humaine nature he was made like to his brethren in all things sinne excepted Heb. 2. And therefore where as he will aunswere vs first by Ambrose De inition Myst. Cap. Quid hic c. What seekest thou here the order of nature in Christes bodie seeing the selfe same our Lorde Iesus besides nature was borne of a virgin I say he aunswereth nothing to the purpose for neither doth Ambrose speak of the presence of his bodie in more places then one nor of any carnall presence in the sacrament but of a mysticall diuine and significatiue presence as is manifest by his wordes that followe immediatly which M. Heskins as his custome is hath craftely suppressed Vera vtique carâ— Christi que crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aliud dicitur post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur It was the true fleshe of Christ which was crucified which was buryed therefore it is truely the sacrament of that fleshe Our Lorde Iesus him selfe cryeth This is my bodie before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after the consecration the bodie of Christe is signified Hee him selfe sayth it is his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud By this place you see that the Lords supper is the sacrament of his true fleshe that was crucified and that the bodie of Christ is signified by it Here is no one worde sounding either to the carnall presence â–ª or to the presence in many places His second proofe is out of Augustine that Christ was both in his owne hands in his twelue Apostles hands in Psal. 33. And he was borne in his owne hands But brethren howe may this be done in man who can vnderstande who is borne in his owne hands A man may be carried in thè handes of other men in his owne handes no man is borne Howe it may be vnderstanded in Dauid according to the letter we find not But in Christ we finde it For Christ was borne in his owne hands when he commending his owne body sayd this is my bodie I passe ouer that he translateth comendans ipsum corpus giuing forth the selfe same bodie But howe fraudulently he abuseth the authoritie of Augustine it is manifest by that which followeth ipse se portabat quodam modo cum diceret hoc est corpus meum And he carried him selfe after a certein maner when he sayde this is my bodie These wordes declare that Augustine woulde not teach that Christe absolutely did beare him selfe in his hands as M. Heskins would beare vs in hand but after a certeine maner And no man writeth so plainly of the necessitie of Christes bodie to be in one place as he I will cite one onely short place to auoide tediousnesse In Ioan. Cap. 7. Tr. 30. Sursum est Dominus sed etiam hîc veritas Dominus Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit vno loco esse potesti veritas eius vbique diffusa est The Lord is aboue and he is also here and the Lorde is trueth For the Lordes bodie in which he rose againe can be but in one place but his truth is spread ouer all places This saying beside that it limitteth the bodie of Christe to one place will expound the other sayings which he bringeth out of Chrysostome Basil c. that Christ is both in heauen and on earth The next proofe is out of the Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostome which he calleth their masses although writen by neither of them The wordes in effect are all one and therefore it were vaine to rehearse them both Looke ô Lorde Iesu Christ our God from thy holie habitation and from the seat of the glorie of thy kingdome and come to sanctifie vs which sittest aboue with thy father and art present with vs beneath inuisibly vouchsafe with thy mightie hande to giue vnto vs thy immaculate bodie and precious bloud and by vs to all thy people The distinction of the two natures in Christ will soone aunswere this presence of Christe both in heauen and in earth as in the late rehearsed sentence of Augustine And Basil him selfe in his booke de Spiritu Sancto Cap. 22. prooueth the Holie Ghoste to be God because he is reported in Scripture to be present in diuerse places at once so that except wee will with Eutyches ouerthrowe the trueth of Christes bodie wee must holde that it is in one onely place at one time and not in many places or euery where But Chrysostome I trowe shall helpe him In 10. Heb. Hom. 17. This sacrifice is an exemplar of that we offer the selfe same alwayes Neither do we nowe offer one Lambe and tomorrow another but the selfe same thing alwayes Wherefore this sacrifice is one Or else by this reason because it is offered in many places there are many Christes Not so but one Christ is euery where both here being full and there full euen one bodie And as he that is euerie where offered is one bodie not many bodies Euen so also is it one sacrifice First M. Heskins here I knowe not for what cause peruerteth the order of Chrysostomes wordes for where he sayeth Alioqui hac ratione Heskins setteth them down vnâ—m est hoc sacrificium hac ratione Alicqui c. Secondly which is no newe thing in him he leaueth out that which is the resolution of all this doubtfull disputation namely that which followeth Hoc autem quod facimus in commemorationem quidem fit eius quod factum est Hoc enim sacite inquit in meam commemorationem Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex sed idipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur But this which we do is done truely in remembrance of that which was done before For do this sayeth he in remembrance of mee We do not offer another sacrifice as the high Priest but the selfe same alwayes but rather wee exercise the remembrance of the sacrifice Here is nowe that sacrifice which is offered euery where by a necessarie correction brought to the remembrance of that sacrifice which was once offered on the crosse but is celebrated euery where in the ministration of the sacrament And the same wordes
of many that worshipped Christe yet had they no commaundement of him so to doe A great number worshipped him not as God but as the Prophete of God for which they had commandement in the lawe and they that worshipped him as God most especially But M. Heskins will make the like argument Christ gaue the sacrament of his body to the Apostles onely and gaue no commaundement that all people should receiue it indifferently wherefore it ought not to be done Reuerend M. Doctour I denye your antecedent for ye can not proue that he gaue it only to his Apostles nor that he gaue no commaundement for he gaue an expresse commaundement to continue the same ceremonie vntil his comming againe as S. Paule doth testifie Therefore your argument is as like as an apple is like an oyster But to passe ouer the rest of his babbling against the proclamers learning too well knowne to bee defaced by such an obscure Doctours censure I come to his second argument S. Paule that tooke the sacrament at Christes hand and as he had taken it deliuered it to the Corinthians neuer willed adoration or godly honour to be giuen to it This argument he will not vouchsafe to aunswere as concluding nothing but he denyeth the antecedent saying It is false that S. Paul deliuered no more to the Corinthians then Christ did First he will make Paule a lyar when he saide that which I receiued I deliuered c. But howe will he proue that he deliuered more then Christ did If you can spare laughter in reading I could not in writing Forsooth S. Paule deliuered to the Corinthians that the vnwoorthie receiuer shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of Christ whereas Christ when he instituted the sacrament gaue no such lawe O noble Diuine as though that if Christ at his supper had vsed no longer discourse of this sacrament then those fewe words which the Euangelistes doe rehearse as a summe thereof yet it was not necessarily to be gathered that the vnworthie receiuer contemning the body bloud of Christ which is offered to him is guiltie of haynous iniurie against the same and therefore it is necessarie that euery one that receiueth it should examine him selfe that hee receiue it worthily Whether Christ receiued Iudas or no which is not agreed vpon but if he did knowing him by his diuine knowledge to be a reprobate though not yet discouered to the knowledge of man hee gaue vs none example to receiue notorious wicked persons whome wee as men knowe to be vnwoorthie without repentance But to make the matter out of doubt Saint Paul though not by the terme of adoration yet willed honour to be giuen to the sacrament When he saith let a man examine him selfe and so let him eate of this bread and drinke of this cup. For a man cannot examine him self without great honor giuē vnto the sacrament And for more manifest proofe Saint Paule referreth the honour or dishonour that is done by woorthie or vnwoorthie receiuing not to the grace of GOD or merite of Christes passion but to the sacrament Who so eateth this breade and drinketh this cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ. Nay rather hee referreth the honour or contempt of the sacrament to the body and bloud of Christe whose sacrament this is as the wordes are plaine But who would thinke that Maister Heskins would play the foole so egregiously to abuse his reader with ambiguities and aequiuocations as though there were no difference betweene adoration and honouring that is giuing of due reuerence vnto the sacraments and worshipping them as Gods. But S. Augustine I trowe helpeth him Ep. 118. ad Ian. Placuit c. It hath pleased the holy Ghost that in honour of so great a sacrament the body of Christ should enter into the mouth of a Christian man before other meates I holde him as blinde as a beetle that seeth not honour in this place to signifie reuerence which is giuen to holy things and not adoration which pertayneth onely to god His last reason to proue that Saint Paul taught the adoration of the sacrament is that which is the whole controuersie that Saint Paule taught the carnall presence but that remaineth to bee proued afterward The fiue and fortieth Chapter proueth by the same Doctours that the proclamer nameth that the sacrament is to be honoured This is a meere mockerie the Bishop speaketh against adoration of the sacrament as God M. Heskins proueth that it is to bee honoured that is to say reuerenced as a holy ceremonie And none otherwise then the sacrament of baptisme as wee shall see by his proofes First Chrysostom being one that is named by the Bishop maketh so cleere mention thereof as M. Heskins thinkes the reader will maruell hee was not ashamed to name him And what saith he De sacerdotio lib. 6. thus he writeth Quum autem ille c. But when he meaning the Prieste hath called vpon the holy Ghost and hath finished that sacrifice most full of horrour and reuerence when the common Lord of all men is daily handled in his handes I aske of thee in what order shall wee place him Howe great integritie shall we require of him How great religion For consider what handes those ought to be which doe minister what manner of tong that speaketh those words Finally then what soule that soule ought not to be purer and holier which hath receiued that so great and so worthie a spirit At that time euē the Angels do set by the Priest and all the order of heauenly powers lifteth vp cryes and the place neere to the altar in honour of him which is offered is full of the companies of Angels Which thing a man may fully beleeue euen for the greate sacrifice which is there finished And I truly did heare a certain man reporting that a certaine wonderfull olde man and one to whome many mysteries of reuelations are opened by God did tell him that God did once vouchsafe to shewe him such a vision and that for that time he sawe as farre as the sight of man could beare soudenly a multitude of Angels clothed in shining garments compassing the altar finally so bowing the heade as if a man should see the souldiers stand when the king is present which thing I do easily beleeue In these words Chrysostom doth hyperbolically amplifie the excellencie of the Ministers office vnto which no man is sufficient But notwithstanding he rehearseth a vision by hearesay of angels reuerencing the presence of God to aduance the dignitie of the ministerie yet speaketh he not one worde that the sacrament is to be worshipped adored as god And therefore M. Heskins maketh a poore consequence the ministration of the sacrament is honourable ergo much more a man ought to honour the sacrament The ministration of baptisme is honourable doth it therefore followe that the water of baptisme is to be worshipped as God An
and Sauiour doe worke For this sacrament which thou reciuest is made with the worde of Christ. And againe Thou hast read of all the workes of the worlde that he saide they were made be commanded and they were created Therefore the worde of Christ which could of nothing make that which was not can it not change those thinges that are into that they are not For it is no lesse thing to giue newe natures to thinges then to chaunge natures Hitherto you haue heard Ambrose speaking earnestly for a change of nature in the sacrament now heare him expound it in the same place for a spirituall change Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est quae sepulta est verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus moâ—m ante benedictionem verborum coelestium aliâ— species nominatur post consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur Ipse dicit sanguinem suum ante consecrationem aâ—ud dicitur post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur It was the verie fleshe of Christ which was crucified which was buried therefore this is truely a sacrament of that flesh our Lord Iesus crieth out saying This is my bodie Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after the consecration the bodie of Christ is signified He himselfe saith it is his bloud before consecration it is called another thing after consecration it is called bloud And in the same place againe In illo sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi non ergo corporalis esca sed spiritualiâ— est In that sacrament Christ is because the bodie of Christe is Therefore it is not corporall meate but spirituall meate Wel then the bread is chaunged from the nature of coÌ„mon bread to be a true sacrament of the bodie of Christ wherby Christ his bodie is signified and to be spiritual meate and this is the change and conuersion he speaketh of and nor the Popish transubstantiatioÌ„ Next is alledged Chrysostome Hom. 83. in Matth. Non sunt c. These are not the works of mans power he that then in that supper made these things he also now worketh he performeth them We holde the order of ministers but it is he which doth sanctifie and change these things Here is a change or transmutatioÌ„ but no word of the maner of the chaunge therfore it maketh nothing for Popish transubstantiation and this place hath beene more then once answered before by Chrysost. authoritie After him he citeth Cyrillus ad Colosirium in these words Vâ—uificatiâ—â—em c. The quickening WORDE of God vniting himselfe to his own flesh made that also quickning How when the life of God is in vs the WORD of God being in vs shall our bodie also be able to giue life But it is an other thing for vs to haue the sonne of God in vs after the manner of participation and an other thing the same to haue beene made flesh that is to haue made the bodie which he tooke of the blessed virgin his owne bodie Therefore it was meete that he should be after a certeine manner vnited to our bodies by his holie flesh precious bloud which we receiue in the quickening blessing in bread and wine For least we should abhorre fleshe and bloud set vpon the holie altars God condescending to our fragilities inspireth to the thinges offered the powre of life turning them into the trueth of his owne flesh that the bodie of life may be found in vs all certeine seede giuing life Here Maister Heskins in his translation cleane leaueth out Quodammodo after a certeine manner Christe is vnited to our bodies by the sacrament and so is this chaunge made after a spirituall manner for otherwise this place is directly against transubstantiation where he saith we receiue the flesh and bloud of Christ in bread and wine Euthymius is the next In Matth 26. Quemadmodum c. As he did supernaturally Deifie as I may so say his assumpted flesh so he doeth also vnspeakably chaunge these thinges into his quickening bodie and his precious bloud and into the grace of them When he saith the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of his bodie and bloud it is easie to vnderstand that he meaneth a spirituall chaunge and the last clause is an exposition of the former they are chaunged into the bodie and bloud of CHRISTE that is into the grace of them Remugius followeth 1. Cor. Cap. 10. The fleshe whiche the worde of God the father tooke vpon him in the wombe of the virgin in vnitie of his person and the breade which is consecrated in the Church are one bodie of Christe for as that flesh is the body of Christ so this bread passeth into the bodie of Christe neither are they two bodies but one bodie He meaneth that the bread is a sacrament of the very and onely true bodie of Christ otherwise his antiquitie is not so great to purchase him authoritie but as a Burgesse of the lower house what so euer he speake The rest that remaine although I might well expound their sayings so as they should not make for Popish transubstantiation which the Greeke Church did not receiue yet beeing late writers out of the compasse as Damascen Theophylact Paschasius I omit them But of all these doctors M. Heskins gathereth that it is a maruelous and wonderfull worke that is wrought in this chaunge of the sacramentall bread and wine therefore he would proue it caÌ„ not be into a bare token or figure but it may well be into a spirituall meate to feede vs into eternall life which is a wonderful and great work of God as likewise that the washing of the bodie in baptisme should be the washing of the soule from sinne And therfore be saith very lewdly that the institution of sacramental signes as the Pascall lambe and such like is no wonderfull worke of God and as fondly compareth he the institution of sacramentes with bare signes and tokens of remembrance as the twelue stones in Iordane c. And yet more lewdly with the superstitious bread vsed to be giuen to the Cathechumeni in Saint Augustines time that had no institution of god Finally touching the determination and authoritie of the late Laterane counsell for transubstantiation as we doe not esteeme it beeing contrarie to the worde of God so I haue in the first booke shewed what a grosse errour it committed in falsification of a text of scripture out of Saint Iohns Gospell The two and fiftieth Chapter openeth the minds of S. Basil S. Ambrose vpon the wordes of Christ. Basil is cited Quaest. comp explic qu. 17â— In aunswere to this question with what feate what faith or assured certeintie and with what affection the bodie and bloud of of Christ should be receiued Timorem docet c. The Apostle teacheth vs the feare saying He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his own damnation but the credite
could not remaine The drinke sanctified in the bloud of our Lord brake out of her polluted bowels c. Out of this Historie Maister Heskins gathereth two thinges First that the sacrament in that time was ministred to infantes which was in deede a great abuse contrarie to the worde of god Secondly that this childe receiued onely the cup which is false for though she was not so troubled at the receipt of the bread yet it followeth not that she receiued no bread but contrariwise Cyprian saith the Eucharistie by whiche wordes the fathers alwayes vnderstand the whole sacrament could not remaine in her bodie And whereas he reasoneth foolishly that if she had receiued the bread she should like wise haue beene troubled he must vnderstand that when God worketh a miracle he taketh times and occasions at his pleasure And it is like he would not discouer her pollution that come by bread and wine before she had receiued both bread and wine as the sacrament If I should vrge vpon this place as the scoole men doe whether this that was vomited was the bloud of Christ and what should be done with it or what was done with it in this storie I should trouble him more then he could easily answere Another tale he telleth out of Sozomenus Eccl. hist. lib. 8. Cap. 5. Ioanne Constantinopolitanum c. When Iohn Chrysostome did very well gouerne the Church of Constantinople a certeine man of the Macedonian heresie had a wife of the same opinion When this man had heard Iohn teaching what was to bee thought of God he praysed his doctrine and exhorted his wife to be of the same minde with him But when she did more obey the words of noble women then his conuersation and after many admonitions her husband had profited nothing Except quod he thou be a cōpaniō with me in Diuine matters thou shalt not be hereafter a partaker of liuing with me When the woman heard this promised her consent dissemblingly she cōmunicated the matter with a certeyne maide seruant which shee iudged to be trustie vnto her and vseth her seruice to deceiue her husband And about the time of the mysteries they that be receiued to them know what I say she keping that she had receiued fell downe as though she would pray Her maide standing by giueth her priuily that which she brought in her hand with her which thing when it was put to her teeth it congeled into a stone The woman beeing astonnied fearing least any euil should happen to her for that thing whiche came to passe from God made hast to the Bishop and bewraying her selfe sheweth the stone hauing yet vpon it the markes of her bit and shewing an vnknowen matter and a wonderful colour and also desiring pardon with teares promised that she would agree with her husband And if this matter seeme to any man to be incredible this stone is a witnesse which is kept to this day among the Iewels of the Churche of Constantinople If this storie be true as it is no article of our beleefe yet proueth it not that the communion was ministred in bread only to all the rest that would receiue the cuppe although I wote not what was turned into a stone before the time came she should receiue the cuppe If M. Heskins will vrge she could not haue any thing to conuey into her mouth in steede of the wine I answere she might easily counterfet the drinking by kissing the cuppe and so letting it passe from her without tasting thereof Wherefore this is but a blind and vnreasonable coniecture of Maister Heskins that the sacrament was ministred in one kinde because she that had dissembled in the receipt of one kinde was punished with depriuation from both kindes The last reason he vseth Is that it is testified by learned men that the manner of receiuing vnder one kinde which is vsed in all the Latine Church vpon good Friday on which day the priest receiueth the hoste consecrated vpon maundie Thursday hath been so vsed from the primitiue Church But what learned men they be except such as him selfe and what proofes they haue of this vsage he sayeth not so much as halfe a word The whole matter standeth vpon his owne credite But if he and all the learned of that side should fast from good Friday vntill they haue shewed proofe of such an vse in the primitiue church not as they vse to fast in Lent but from all manner of nourishment there would not one learned Papist be left aliue on gang Monday to shew what proofes they haue found Thou hast seene Reader what his reasons and authorities are iudge of the answers according to thy discretion ¶ The end of the second Booke THE THIRD BOOKE OF MAISTER HESKINS PARLEAment repealed by W. Fulke The first Chapter entereth by Preface into the first text of S. Paule that toucheth the sacrament and expoundeth it according to the letter TThe Preface is out of Didymus that diuine matters are to be handled with reuerence and considering the difficultie of the scriptures by Hierome that in matters of doubt recourse must be had by Irenęus his aduise vnto the most auncient Churches in which the Apostles were conuersant In so much that Irenaeus saith Libro 3. Cap. 4. Quid autem c. And what if the Apostles had left vs no writinges ought we not to haue followed the order of tradition which they deliuered to them to whome they had committed the Churches Wherevpon Maister Heskins gathereth that not onely for matters conteined in scripture but also for traditions vnwritten in the holie scriptures the fathers are to be credited But he goeth farre from Irenaeus minde who confuted the heretiques both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the moste auncient Churches whose traditions must haue beene all our institution if there had ben no scriptures But seeing that scriptures inspired of God by his gratious prouidence are left vnto vs al traditions are to be examined by them that is twise proued after Irenaeus minde whiche is proued both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the Churches Otherwise the scriptures are sufficient of them selues 2. Tim. 3. And no tradition or authoritie is to be receiued which is repugnant or contrarie vnto them The text of Saint Paule that he speaketh is written 1. Cor. 10. Brethren I would not haue you ignorant that all our fathers were vnder the cloude and all passed through the sea and were all baptised by Moses in the cloude and in the sea and did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the same spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christe Where it is to be noted that Maister Heskins in steede of the same spirituall meate and the same spirituall drinke translateth one spiritual meate and one spirituall drinke as though the sense were that the Fathers did all eate drinke of one spiritual kind
them that are in dying are couered and the deadly strype in the deepe and inward bowels is hidde with dissembled sorrowe Retourning from the altar of the diuell with handes filthye and defiled with the greasie sauour they come to the holie of the LORDE Almoste yet belching out the deadly meates of Idols with their lawes yet breathing out their wickednesse and sauouring of their deadly infections they set vpon the Lords body whereas the Scripture commeth againste them and cryeth and sayeth Euerie cleane person shall eate the fleshe But if any eate of the fleshe of the wholesome sacrifice whiche is the Lordes hauing his vncleanenesse vpon him the same soule shall perishe from among his people The Apostle also witnesseth and sayeth ye can not drinke the cuppe of the Lorde and the cuppe of Diuels Ye can not communicate of the table of the Lorde and the table of diuels In this sermon Cyprian reproued those men whiche had admitted to the communion such persons as had sacrificed to idols before they were throughly penitent and had made satisfaction to the Church which was offended by them contrarie to the order of good discipline Now saith Maister Heskins he would not so sharply haue reproued them if the thing they receiued had beene but a peece of bread A wise reason What if a man at that time had come vnreuerently to baptisme had it not ben an horrible offence although the outward element of baptisme be nothing but a litle water Although when we say â–ª that bread is a parte of the sacrament we neuer teache that it is but a peece of bread neither doe we say that baptisme is nothing but water They that vnreuerently rush vnto the Lords sacraments are punished for their presuÌ„ption not in respect of that they receiue whether it be bread wine or water but for that they receiue it vnworthily Another thing he noteth out of Cyprian is that Christes bodie is a sacrifice because he alledgeth the scripture of Leuiticus which is spoken of a sacrifice as though the scripture could not be rightly applyed that spake of holie meate vnreuerenely receiued vnto the vnreuerent receiuing of the sacrament except the sacrament were a sacrifice this is out of all compasse of reason He might as well say the sacrament is a burnt offring because it is compared to a sacrifice which is a burnt offring and an hundreth other absurdities may likewise be inferred which for reuerence of the blessed mysteries I spare to name But it followeth in Cyprian immediately where Maister Heskins leaueth Idem conuâ—â—nacibus pertinacibus comminatur detrâ—â—iciat dicens quicunque ederis panem aut biberit calicem Domini indignè reus eriâ— corporis sanguinis Domini Spretis his omnibus atque contempâ—is vis infertur corpori cius sanguini eiut Plus modò in Dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt quà m cum Dominum negâ—uerunt The same Paule threateneth and denounceth to the obstinate and froward saying whosoeuer shal eate of the bread drink of the cup of the Lord vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the lord All these sayings being despised and contemned violence is done vnto his bodie his bloud They do more offend against the Lord now with their hands their mouth then when they denied the Lord. These wordes declare that Cyprian calleth not the bread cup the bodie bloud of Christ â–ª as M. Hesk. would haue it properly but figuratiuely for no force or violence can be done to the bodie and bloud of Christe but to the sacrament thereof there may and Christ is iniured in the contempt of his mysteries as the Prince in contumelious breaking abusing of the broad seale by rebellious subiectes though he suffer no violence in his owne person Chrysostome is cited Ho. 11. ad Populum Antiochen Quomodo sacruÌ„ videbimus pascha c. How shal we see the holie passeouer How shall we receiue the holy sacrifice How shall we coÌ„municate in these maruelous mysteries with that tongue with which we haue contemned the lawe of God With that â—ong with which we haue defiled our soule For if no man durst take the Kings purple robe with foule hands how shall we receiue the Lordes body with a defiled tonge For swearing is of the wicked sacrifice is of the lord Therefore what communication is there betweene light and darknesse what agreement between Christ and Beliall Here saith M. Hesk. by the excellent titles he giueth the sacrament is proued the reall presence The holie sacrifice wonderful mysteries the bodie of our Lord light Christ himself But one of these titles is manifestly vnproper and figuratiue namely that of light and why may not the rest be so likewise Baptisme hath honourable titles yet is there no transubstantiatioÌ„ therin The second note to proue the reall presence is that saying how shall we with defiled tong receiue the Lordes body Here the body is receiued with the mouth and tong therefore corporally But if I should say that Chrysostome by this interogation denyeth that it can be receiued with a defiled tong where were the strength of this place but I will graunt that he vseth so to speake but vnproperly that the hand the tong receiue the bodie and bloud of Christ and yet meaneth no carnall maner of presence as Ho. 21. ad Pop. Antioch Cogita quid manu capias ipsam ab omni auaritia rapina liberam conserua Consider what thou receiuest with thy hand and keepe it free from all couetousnesse extortion This peraduenture pleaseth M. Heskins But it followeth soone after Etenim perniciosum est tam tremendis ministraâ—â—em mysterijs linguam sanguine tal purpuratam factam aureum gladium ad cornicia contumelias scurrilitates transferre For it is a pernicious thing to transferre that tonge which ministreth vnto so reuerend mysteries is died purple with such bloud and made a golden sworde vnto rayling reuiling and scoffing Here the tong doth not only receiue the bloud of Christ but also is made red or purple with it is made by it a golden sword If these be not figuratiue speeches they be monstruous absurdities And yet againe in the same place Sed rursum aduertens quod post manus liâ—guam cor suscipit horrendum illud mysteriâ—en ne vnquam in proximuÌ„ sumas dolum sed menseÌ„ tuam ab omni malitia mundâ—m conserua fic oculos aures munire poteris But againe considering that after thy handes thy tong thy heart receiueth that fearefull mysterie neuer deuise any craft against thy neighbour but keepe thy minde cleane from all malice so maist thou defende thine eyes and thine eares And the like speeches he hath of the eyes and the eares By which it is euident that although he speak figuratiuely in the way of exhortation yet he meaned not to teache any other but a spirituall manner of receiuing the bodie of Christ
substantiall partes whiche are consecration oblation and receiuing instituted by Christ and into outward ceremonies prayers gestures manners Instituted by the ministerie of the holie Ghost but not of Christe In these later he graunteth that the Masses of S. Peter of S. Andrew of S. Iames of S. Clement of S. Dionyse S. Basil Chrysostome S. Ambrose do differ one from another but not in the former substantiall partes specially in consecration and oblation wherein the controuersie standeth which M. Heskins wil proue adding two handmaides vnto them that is to consecration intention and to oblation prayer for acceptation So by his Diuinitie the intention of the priest hath more force then the wordes of consecration to make the bodie of Christ present and when it is present and sacrificed it hath neede of the priestes prayers for acceptation But he will begin with S. Peters Masse and that he proueth by this reason the proclaymer confesseth though in scorne that some say S. Peter saide Masse at Rome but no auncient writer saith he did not say Masse therefore it is true that he did say Masse This argument is of like force with this that I will bring some say that Maister Heskins in King Edwards time married a Nunne whiche no auncient writer denieth therefore it is true that he married a Nunne and so peraduenture it is although it followe not vpon the assumption that no auncient writer denieth it And as for S. Peters Massing as there is no auncient writer that writte within 600. yeares of Christe that denieth it so is there none that affirmeth it But you shall heare another reason S. Peter that sate 2â— yeares at Rome and had saide Masse at Antioche is not like to haue neglected his duetie at Rome Admit it were true that he was at Rome which is not all out of doubt and that he sate as Bishop there 25. yeares which is proued false by the scriptures all though Hierome and Eusebius doe affirme it yet howe proueth M. Hesk. that it was any part of his dutie to say Masse either there or else where or that he did say Masse at Antioche His first witnesse is Hugo de S. Lib. 2. de Sacra par 8. Cap. 14. Who although he be a late writer vnworthie of credite in this cause yet I wil set downe his words that you may see howe much they make for M. Heskins cause Celebratio Misse c. The celebration of the Masse is done in commemoration of the Passion of Christ as he commaunded the Apostles deliuering to them his bodie and his bloud saying This do ye in remembrance of me This Masse S. Peter the Apostle is saide first of all men to haue saide at Antioch In the which in the beginning of the faith there were only three prayers saide If this be true none of the Apostles saide Masse at Hierusalem many yeare after Christ but it is manifest that they ministred the Lordes Supper therefore the Masse is not the Lordes supper But if he will restraine the words of Hugo to meane that Peter was the first that saide Masse at Antioch the consequence will be the same for it is certeine that the Gospell beeing first preached at Antiochia by those Cyprians and Cyrenians that fled vpon the persecution of Stephan Barnabas and Paul sent thither by the Apostles brought the Antiochians to be perfect Christians in so much that the name of Christians began there before Peter came thither to say Masse but they could not be Christians without the celebration of the Lordes supper therefore the Lordes supper is not the Masse Againe where he saith there were but three praiers in S. Peters Masse some Popish writers affirme that he vsed no praiers but the lords praier if this were true what liklyhod hath S. Peters Masse with the Popish Masse but only that it pleaseth them to cal the celebratioÌ„ of the Lords supper which Peter no dout ministred purely aâ—ter Christs institutioÌ„ by the name of their impure Masse After the testimonie of Remigius he bringeth in Isidorus whom he confesseth to haue ben before Remigius yet he was without that compasse of 600 yeres after Christ whereas in other places before he maketh Remigius almost 200. yeres elder theÌ„ Isidorus But Isidorus affirmeth Li. 1. de Off. Ecc. Cap. 15. That the order of the Masse or prayers with which the sacrifices offered to God are coÌ„secrated was first instituted by S. Peter Although he liued in an erronious superstitious time yet he meaneth that S. Peter did appoint an order and forme of prayers for the celebration of the Lords supper But certeine it is that the same order was not extant in his time much lesse now For Gregorie is made the institutor of the Popish Masse whiche was not long before Isidorus Next he will proue that S. Paule said Masse though no olde writer faith it for saith he S. Paul did that he taught but he taught the Masse Therfore he said Masse He ministred the coÌ„munion according to the doctrine he taught in those Chapters in which in deede is mention of consecration and receiuing but no syllable of oblation of Christ in the sacrament As for the order forme of ministration it was agreable to that doctrine when he said Other things I wil set in order when I come although it be not necessarily to be referred to matters coÌ„cerning the sacrament sauing the authority of Hugo Hierom Augustine yet it is out of question that he did dispose nothing contrary to the doctrine of that Epistle as all the Popish filthines is which M. Hesk. would thrust vpoÌ„ vs vnder the name of those things which S. Paul ordeined But it is wonderful to see his blockish frowardnes that he would proue out of Aug. that the order of the Masse now vsed is the order of the Masse that S. Paul speaketh of Ep. 118. Vnde datur c. Wherby it is giueÌ„ to be vnderstanded because it was much that in an epistle he shuld set forth all that order of doing which the vniuersall Church through out the world obserueth that it is ordeined of him which by no diuersity of maners is altred He speketh of receiuing of the coÌ„munion fasting which M H. willfully hath corrupted by a false translation and by wrong pointing falsifying the relatiue Quod to make it a Coniunction that he might apply it to the whole order of his Popish Masse which Aug. speaketh but of that one ceremonie of receiuing fasting and not after supper Augustines wordes are these Vnde datur intelligi quia mulium erat vt in Epistola totum agendi ordinem insinuaret quem vniuersa per orbem obseruat Ecclesia ab ipso ordinatuÌ„ esse quod nulla moruÌ„ diuersitate variatur Which M. Hes. hath corrupted thus whereby it is giueÌ„ to be vnderstanded that it was too much that in an epistle he should declare al that order of ministration which the vniuersal Church throughout the worlde
Christ it is euident that he neither beleeued transubstantiation nor the carnall presence nor consecration nor intention after the manner of the Papistes as also by this that hee calleth the bread and wine after consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplaries or figures You see therefore howe with patches and peeces rent off here and there he goeth about to deceiue the simple readers which either haue no leasure or no boookes or no skill to trie out his falsifications and malicious corruptions The like sinceritie hee vseth in citing Chrysostomes Masse for so he calleth his Liturgie in which is a prayer for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius which was seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostomes death and therfore could not possibly be written by him Besides this there be diuers copies in the Greeke tong one that Erasmus translated which is very vnlike that copie which is printed in Greeke since that time as the learned sort doe knowe The wordes he citeth be in a manner the same that were in Basils Liturgie sauing that in the end he addeth Permutans ea sancto spiritu tuo changing them by the spirt This change may well be without transubstantiation as hath bene often shewed before The saying of Ambrose is more at large in the Chapter next before As for the praier of the Popish Masse that the oblation may be made the body and bloud of Christ as it is vnderstoode of them is nothing like the prayers of the elder Liturgies although in sound of some words it seeme to agree And as foolishly as vniustly he findeth fault with our praier in the communion that wee receiuing the creatures of breade and wine in remembrance of Christes death according to his institution may be made partakers of his most blessed body bloud S. Iames S. Clement and the rest saith he prayed not that they might receiue bread and wine No more doe we thou foolish sophister But that receiuing bread and wine we might be partakers of Christes body and bloud and this did all the Apostolike and Primitiue Church pray as we pray in baptisme not that we may receiue water but that receiuing water we may be borne a newe Neither did they euer pray that the breade and wine might be transubstantiated into the body bloud of Christ but that they might be made the body bloud of Christ to theÌ„ after a spirtual sacrameÌ„tal maner But I am much to blame to vouchsafe these childish sophismes of any answere Next to this he would knowe what authoritie the Protestants can shewe that the eating and drinking of bread wine is of Christes institution That it is a part of his institution the Euangelists S. Paul do shewe most euidently But though he tooke breade and wine in his hands saith M. Heskins he changed it before he gaue them so that it was no more bread and wine but his body and bloud and therefore we charge Christ with an vntrueth to say that receiuing of bread and wine is of Christes institution O Maister of impietie and follie Christ made no such change in his handes but that which was in the cup was still the fruit of the vine as he himself testified saying I wil no more drinke of this fruit of the vine vntill the day come when I shall drinke it a newe with you in the kingdome of my father Math. 26. As for the praier of those Liturgies of Iames and Basil That God would make them worthie to receiue the body and bloud of Christe without condemnation proueth not that they meant to receiue the body of Christ after a corporall maner nor that the very body of Christe may be receiued to damnation The thirde Liturgie of Chrysostome which Erasmus expoundeth hath it otherwise Dignos nos redde potenti manu â—ua vt participes simuâ— immaculati tui corporis preciosi tui sanguinis per nos omnis populus Make vs worthy by thy mightie hand that we may be partakers of thy vndefiled body and of thy precious bloud and so may al the people by vs This prayer is godly sound and so are the other being rightly vnderstoode namely that they which eate of that bread drinke of that cup of the Lord vnworthily as S. Paule saith do eat and drinke their owne damnation not considering the Lords body But M. Heskins vrgeth that the spiritual body of Christ or Christ spiritually cannot be deliuered by the Priestes to the people but the real body may Yes verily much rather then the body of Christ corporally euen as the holy Ghost may be deliuered in baptisme and as eternal life and forgiuesse of sinnes may be giuen in preaching the Gospell and none of these feinedly but truly yet otherwise are they giuen by God otherwise by this Ministers But in this distinction of M. Hes â–ª it is good to note that he maketh Christ to haue a reall body which is not spirituall a spirituall body which is not reall Christ hath in deede a mysticall body which is his Church and that is not his natural body but by spiritual coniunction vnited to his only true naturall body But of this mystical body M. Hes. speaketh not Further he taketh exceptions to our prayer affirmeth that It is not the institution of Christe to receiue the creatures of breade and wine in the remembrance of his death But notwithstanding all his childish blockish quarels our prayer is waranted by the Apostles words 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat of this bread drinke of this cup ye shewe the Lords death till he come In the last part of this Chap. he will determine of the intention of the ministers of the new Church And that is that Desiring to receiue the creatures of bread wine they exclude the body and bloud of Christ. Who euer heard a more shamelesse lye or a more inconsequent argument But seing there be two sorts of ministers in this new founded Church he wil speake of them both one sort were made Popish Priestes so haue authoritie to consecrate but they lacke intention now they be fallen to heresie there is a second sort which thought they could not haue intention to consecrate yet being none of the greasie and blasphemous order they lack authoritie But I wold there were not a third sort of whom I spake in the last chap. that wer made popish Priestes and so continue but in outward dissimulation ioyne with vs if these intend to consecrate when they minister the coÌ„munion how can M. Hes. dissuade the Papists from receiuing of them or count their sacrameÌ„t nothing but bare bread And wheras M. He. seemeth in the end to inueigh against such I will willingly confesse that they are worse then he is or such as professe what they are but not worse then hee hath beene in King Henries King Edwards dayes when he dissembled and swaâ—e as deepely as any of them all As for our intention seeing it is
is directly against him that wicked men receiue not the bodie and bloude of Christe And wheras hee noteth that the sixte of Iohn and Saint Paule in this texte speake of one thing it is cleane contrarye for Christe speaketh of that which is testifyed and giuen in the sacrament to the faithfull Paule of the sacrament receiued vnworthely And Primasius ioyneth them to shewe the diuersitie of these textes and not as though they signified one thing For by Saint Paule hee prooueth that not all eating and drinking is the eating and drinking of the bodie and bloude of Christe but the eating and drinking worthily The one and fiftieth Chapter abydeth in the exposition of the same texte by Cassiodorus and Damascene Cassiodorus is cited in Psalm 110. vppon this verse Tu es sacerdos c. Thou arte a priest after the order of Melchizedeche in these wordes Cui enim putest veracitet euidenter aptari nisi Domino saluatori qui corpus sanguinem sâ—um in paniâ— vini erogatione salutariter consecrauis Sicut ipse in Euangelio dicit nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis hiberitis eius sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis Sed in ista carne sanguine nil cruentum nihil corruptibile mens humana concipiat ne sicut dicit Apostolus Qui enim corpus Domini indignè manducat iudicium sibi mandueas sed viuificaâ—ricem substantiam atque salutarem ipsius verbi propriam factam per quam peccatorum remissio aeterno vitae donapraestuntur For vnto whome may it bee truely and euidently applyed but to our Lorde and Sauiour which hath healthsontly consecrated his body and bloude in the giuing foorth of breade and wine as he him selfe sayeth in the Gospell except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and dâ—inke his bloud you shall haue no life in you but in this fleshe and bloud let the minde of man conceiue nothing bloudie neither corruptible left as the Apostle sayeth For he that eateth the Lordes bodie vnworthily eateth his owne damnation but a substance giuing life and health and made proper to the WORDE himselfe by which remission of sinnes and the giftes of eternall life are perfourmed This saying being directly contrarie to all Maister Heskins three assertions namely transsubstantiation carnall maner of eating and the wicked receiuing Christes bodye hee hath cloked the two firste with a false translation the last with a needelesse excursion into the heresies of Marcion Manicheus c. For where it is firste manifest by Cassiodorus that when Christe gaue the sacrament to his disciples hee gaue foorth breade and wine Maister Heskins translateth Corpus sanguinem suum in panis vini erogatione salutariter consecrauit In the giuing foorth of breade and wine to our health hee consecrated his bodie and bloud whereas euery litle boye will teach him that the Aduerbe must be ioyned with the Verbe in construing to declare his signification Therefore his meaning must needs be as I haue translated it he did helthsomly or profitably consecrate his bodie and bloud in giuing forth of breade and wine therfore he gaue forth breade and wine Touching the seconde of the carnall manner of presence whereas Cassiodorus sayeth In ista carne sanguine nil cruentum nihil corruptibile mens humana contipiaâ— which is In this fleshe and bloude let the minde of man conceiue nothing bloudie nothing corruptible Maister Heskins translateth it Let not the minde of man conceiue any thing grosse any thing corruptible whereas the mynde of the author is seeing we must in this fleshe and bloud conceiue nothing bloudie we must not conceiue the flesh of Christ to be present carnally nor the bloud of Christ to be present bloudily but spiritually and as he addeth a quickening and healthfull substance giuing forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life to all that receiue it And therefore impertinent is al that discourse that Maister Heskins maketh afterwarde against the olde heretikes of which some denyed the humanitie some the diuinitie of Christe and ridiculous is that rayling of his by which hee woulde charge vs with their heresies for mainteining the trueth against their carnall manner of presence which in deede sauoureth of the heresie of the Marcionistes Mannyches and Eutychians Finally where Cassiodorus sayeth he that eateth the bodye of our Lorde vnworthily eateth his owne damnation it is manifest that hee calleth the sacrament by the name of that which it signifieth as many of the fathers doe But where he sayeth that forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life are giuen by the fleshe and bloud of Christe it followeth that the wicked which are not partakers of the one are not partakers of the other Concerning Damascene a corrupt writer farre out of the compasse of the challenge who writeth so monstrously of this sacrament that the Papistes them selues do not receiue him in all thinges as I haue alwayes refused his authoritie so nowe I will not trouble the reader with it The two and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this texte by Theodoret and Anselmus In the beginning of this Chapter he maketh much adoe that Damascenes authoritie might be receiued and so he shoulde haue twelue which make a quest to giue verdict in this matter But seeing Damascene cannot be taken hee presumeth him selfe to bee the foreman of the quest and to speake for all the rest But because he was neuer impannelled nor returned foreman of the quest wee will not take the verdicte or rather the falsedict at his mouth but as the manner of Lordes of the parleament is to let euery man giue his verdict for him selfe so I wish the reader to consider their seuerall sayinges and hee shall finde that not one of them being rightly vnderstoode speaketh on Maister Heskins syde But Theodoret hee sayeth though Cranmer would deceiue the people by his authoritie is altogether on their syde Hee citeth him in 1. Cor. 11. Hic eos quidem pungit c. Here truely he pricketh them that were sicke of ambition Also he pricketh him which had committed fornication and with them those that without any difference were partakers of those thinges that were offered to idols Besides them also vs which with an euill conscience dare receiue the diuine sacraments As for that hee sayeth He shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud signifyeth this that as Iudas betrayed him and the Iewes mocked and reuyled him euen so doe they dishonour and disworship him which receiue his moste holie bodie with filthie handes and put it into a filthie and defiled mouth Here Maister Heskins noteth that the bodie of our Lorde is receiued with hande and mouth cleane or vncleane In deede the sacramentes which are called by the name of that whereof they bee sacramentes are so receiued and of them doeth Theodoret speake by expresse wordes Another sentence hee alledgeth out of the same Chapter Sacram illam ex omni parte
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
in reformation no doubt but there were mutuall messages betweene them The vnion and communion of our Church with other particular Churches of God throughout the world is spirituall made by the working of the holy Ghost and not by embassages or orders taken by men But the same is declared and shewed by the confession of our faith fully agreeing in all necessarie Articles with them 91 The publique protestations and confessions of our faith doe shewe our reconciliation and coniunction with the Catholique Church of Christ without that it is needfull for vs to exhibite any billes of submission to any singular persons as hath bene vsed in cases of particular discipline as in reconciliation of Vrsarius and Valens to Iulius of Rome Maximus Vrbanus other to Cyprian of Carthage 92 The realme did neuer submit it selfe to Luther Zuinglius or Caluine but to Christe and his Church As for offring of billes of submission to forreigne Bishops it is no part of Christian discipline But if it were a matter of any substance al the Cleargie of England gaue their subscription to the Archbishop of Canturburie and other Bishops for the departure out of the Popish Church into the Church of England That we receiued not the errour of Luther concerning the reall presence it sheweth wee depend not vpon any man further then his doctrine is true and agreeable to the word of God. 93 Caluine and Zuinglius although they receiued some light of vnderstanding by the ministerie of Luther yet came they not from him but were stirred vp of God as he was 94 The realme in King Edwards time neuer purposed to submit them selues to Caluine who although he misliked the title of supreme head in that sense whiche Steuen Gardiner maintained it at Ratisbone as though it gaue vnto the King an absolute authoritie to do what he would in the Church yet in that sence that it was receiued of King Edward and vnderstoode of all godly men that is to bee the highest Magistrate in the Church as well for the ordering of Ecclesiasticall as ciuill matters he neuer did condemne it 95 King Edward retaining that title in the godly sense aboue rehearsed the Church of England notwithstanding was vnited to the Catholique Church of Christ throughout the world 96 When Queene Marie came to the Crowne shee found the realme a member of the Catholique Church of Christe which she forsooke and sought to bring it in bondage againe to the Antichristian See of Rome which by meanes of a Legacie from the Pope brought by Cardinall Poole long before attainted for treason against his Prince and countrie was by an acte of Parleament yeelded vnto Although GOD reserued more then seuen thousand that neuer bowed their knee to Baal of Rome whereof many were cruelly put to death and suffered martyrdome the rest were persecuted and by the protection of God escaped out of that bloudie and fierie persecution 97 The seat of Peter could not be planted at Rome in the dayes of Claudius the Emperour bycause that in the tenth or eleuenth yeare of his Empire Peter was at Antioch reproued by Paule Gala. 2. The last yeare or the first of Nero S. Paule writte his Epistle to the Romanes from Corinth where he taried almost two yeres in which Epistle he sending salutation to sixe and twentie singular persons beside diuers families would not haue omitted to salute Peter if he had bene there But admit that Peter had a seat at Rome yet the Papacie hath not continued from that time but since the dayes of Boniface the third which was more then â—00 yeares after Christe Neither hath the faith of the See of Rome continued without chaunge as M. Sanders saith these 1500. yeares but is altogether in a manner chaunged from the faith of Peter and of the Apostolike Church therefore Queene Marie bringing the realme to that Church did not reconcile it to the true Church of Christ but restored it to the slauerie of the Antichristian tyrannie 98 Seeing the realme is nowe againe returned to the embracing of the doctrine of the Gospell set foorth in the holy scriptures taught in the Primitiue Church many hundreth yeares after Christe continued in all times though vnder persecution of Antichrist and nowe openly and publiquely professed of many nations it is a member of the true Catholike Church of Christe whereof Christe onely is the head and communicateth with the Church of Christ of all nations in all pointes of true religion necessarie to saluation and therefore is no seismaticall Church but a Catholique and Apostolique Church 99 The Catholique Church of Christe whereof the Church of England is a part is an inuisible Church and therefore an Article of our faith which is of things inuisible Heb. 10. and no Church vnder a bushell But Hierusalem that is in heauen is the mother of vs all Gala. 4. Contrariwise the Popish Church which is visible is the Church of Infidels and Rome which is vpon earth is the mother of all Antichristians 100 The preaching of Gods worde is the ground of faith â–ª the celebrating of the sacramentes is the confirmation of the same these exercises haue alwayes beene in the true Churche of God when they be not hindred by persecution 101 The Gospell of Christ hath beene preached vnto all nations And the Church hath had Pastours and teachers froÌ„ Christes time vnto Luthers age Maister Sander asketh where they were through all nations As though it were necessarie they should be in euerie nation at all times Poperie when it was at the largest had not teachers in all nations For many coÌ„tinue in barbarous Gentilisme beside Mahometisme which hath filled the greatest part of the worlde The Church of Christe is scattered in many nations and hath had and now also hath many Kinges that walke in the light thereof And at this time more then the Popish Church hath 102 The true Church in England is honoured nourished by the Kinges whome she honoureth as supreme gouernours heades or rulers thereof And although Ecclesiasticall persons pay subsidies vnto their princes yet are not their Princes and their Courtiers nourished by the goodes of the Church as Maister Sander moste slaunderously reporteth otherwise then it is meete that subiects should contribute to the maintenance of the state of the Prince and their owne defence 103 The worde of God written is in deede honorable and true and conteineth all that doctrine by whiche the Church of God was gouerned two thousand yeres before any word of the Bible was written when by reason of that long life of the Patriarches the tradition might be certeine The Gospell also was preached by the Apostles before any of the foure Gospels was penned but yet agreable to the scriptures of the olde Testament and is the same that is written and none other which written word of God is able to make the man of God perfect and is deliuered vnto the Church of Christe as a moste certeine rule to followe that
all Councels is and ought to be by the authoritie of the holy scriptures The Apostles thēselues in the Councel of Hierusalem decided the controuersie of circumcision by the scriptures Act. 15. A worthy paterne for al godly Councels to folow Constantine also in the Councel of Nice charged the Bishops there assembled by his commandement to determine the matter by the authoritie of the holy scriptures Euangelici enim Apostolici libri necnon antiquorum Prophetarum oracula planè instruunt nos inqui sensu numinis Proinde hostici posua discordia sumamus ex dictis diuini spiritus explicatione◠The bookes of the Gospels and the Apostles and also the Oracles of the auncient Prophetes do plainly instruct vs saith he in the vnderstanding of god Therefore laying away hatefull discord let vs take explications out of the sayings of the holy Ghoste Therdor lib. cap. 7. By this charge it is manifest how truely M. Rastel faith that the decree of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equalitie of the Sonne in substance with the Father was made only by tradition and not by the authoritie of the scriptures For the Councel examining by scriptures the tradition and receiued opinion of the Fathers and finding it agreeable to them did confirme the same And whereas the Arrians quarrelled that this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not found in the scriptures and therefore would refuse it it helpeth nothing M. Rastels vnwritten verities for the trueth of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proued by an hundreth textes of scriptures as the truth of the Trinitie is although neither of both words are found in the scriptures We quarell not as those heretiques did and M. Rastel a Popish heritique doth of letters syllables words and sounds but we stand vpon the sense meaning vnderstanding doctrine which we affirme to be perfectly contained in scripture what so euer is necessarie to saluation as S. Paul saith Al scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to improue to correct and to instruct in righteousnes that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect to al good workes 2. Tim. 3. And therefore olde customes being referred vnto the custome of the Church of God in the time of the Patriarches Prophetes Apostles and Doctours that followed the same vnitie of Gods wordes is the thing wee desire might preuaile in all our controuersies of religion and so the sentence is wel inough placed if Momus could let any thing alone SECTIO 2. Frō the second face of the 12. leafe to the first face of the 19. leafe When any order giuen by God is broken or abused saith the Bishop the best redresse thereof is to restore it againe into the state that it was first in the beginning M. Rastel saith the Bishop can not tell where of he speaketh For whereas he affirmed that S. Paule had appointed an order touching the ministration of the sacramentes vnto the Corinthians M. Rastell will not simplie graunt that this order was appointed by God although S. Paule himself say he receiued it of christ which he deliuered to thē For this difference hee maketh That an order giuen by God must be obserued without exception and yet he addeth an exception of reuelation and especial licence from god But what so euer order S. Paule did giue he saith is subiect vnto the Church to remoue or pull vp as it shall please her Thus the blasphemous dog barketh against the spirit of god But I trust al sober Christian minds will rather beleue S. Paul then Rastel who saith of such orders as were giuen by him 1. Cor. 14. If any man seem to be a prophet or spirituall let him know the things that I write to you that they be the cōmandements of god But now M. Ra. will take vpon him to teach vs the order giuē that Paul speaketh of namely That the Christians had certein charitable suppers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after which as August saith before which as Chrysost. saith they did vse to receiue the sacramēt Note here that M. Rast. which wil haue old customes tried by the fathers bringeth in here two Doctors one contrarie to the other To the purpose This order was taken away by cōtention disdaine of the rich against the poore therfore Paule purposed to bring them againe to that order of sitting eating their supper altogether that rich with the pore by saying That which I receiued of the Lord I deliuered to you And not to reforme any abuse of the sacramēt by reducing it to the first institution This iudgement of M. Rastell is partly by him proued by the authoritie of Theophylact but chiefly it standeth vpon his owne authoritie without further reason Howbeit it is manifest by the scripture that Paule reproued that mingling of prophane suppers with the Lordes supper appointing their priuate houses for their bodily refreshings of eating and drinking Haue you not houses saith he to eate and drinke in By which saying it is manifest he would haue no eating and drinking in the Church as M. Rastell dreameth but onely the eating and drinking of the Lordes supper And therefore that abuse of mingling their bodily suppers with the spirituall supper of the Lorde whereof came so many abuses and especiall the seuering and sundering of the congregation into diuers partes which ought to haue receiued altogether he laboureth to reforme by bringing it to the first institution of the Lord him selfe But M. Rast. following his owne dreame asketh what there was in the institution for sitting together or a sunder for eating at Church or at home Yes forsooth Christe did institute his supper to be a foode of the soule and not of the body and therefore to be celebrated in the congregation and in common as the saluation is common and not to bee mingled with prophane banquets of bellie cheare for which priuat houses and companies are meet and not the Church of god And wheras M. Rastel chargeth M. Iewel with not vnderstanding this place which he alledgeth namely therefore when you come together to eate tarie one for an other which he saith pertaineth no more to the institution of the sacrament then a pot full of plumbs doth to the highway to London he sheweth all his wit honestie at once For he denyeth that any thing that Saint Paule there rehearseth namely these wordes take eate this is my body c. is the institution of the sacrament or the originall paterne of reforming the Corinthians disorder bicause time place vesture number of communicants and such other accidentall and variable circumstà nces be not therein expressed So that by his diuinitie either the institution of the sacrament is not at all contained in the scriptures or else there is an other first paterne to reforme abuses by then this that is set downe in the scriptures I would maruel at these monstrous assertions but that I see the obstinate Papists cannot otherwise defend their Popish Masse
Pope Leo saide at his death that this one thing he should gayne by dying that he shoulde be resolued concerning the question of the immortalitie of the soule Wherein all the learned men in the worlde before could not satisfie him Last of all what an impudent lyer Maister Rastell is you may plainely perceiue when he chargeth the Bishop with this confession That these nine hundreth yeres and more none did euer take this way which he doth follow For although the Bishop made his chalenge of sixe hundreth yeares after Christe â–ª yet did he neuer confesse that in the nine hundreth yeres following none did euer reteine or imbrace the Gospell whiche he teacheth when God be praised there was a number euen in the moste blindest times that sawe the light thereof although they were fewe and persecuted by Antichriste SECTIO 4. From the second face of the 23. leafe to the first of the 38. leafe In which he taketh vpon him to proue that the English communion and seruice doth not followe Christe and his Apostles in taking into their handâ— and blessing the cuppe and the challice nor the primitiue Church in praying toward the East mingling water with the wine signe of the crosse altars incense tapern praying to Saintes and praying for the dead The â— in his sermon affirmed as R. saith 1. The holy coÌ„munion to be restored to the use form of the primitiue Church 2. To the same order that was deliuered appointed by Christ 3. and after practised by the Apostles 4. and continued by the holy doctours and fathers by the space of fiue or sixe hundreth yeares throughout all the catholike Churche of Christ 5. without exception or anye sufficient example to be shewed to the contrarie Al these Master Rast. saith be lyes which is his short aunswere And I coulde aunswere as shortly that then they be lyes of Master Rastells forging For the bishoppe affirmed no such thing of the ceremoniall forme of our Communion but of the doctrine thereof But let vs see his answere at large He woulde know how this Communion of ours doth agree with that which Christ deliuered and theÌ„ rehearseth the institution of Christ beginning at the eating of the Pascall Lambe and the washing of his disciples feete as though either of these perteined to the sacrament and forsoothe we must tell him how many thinges more how many things lesse our order in the coÌ„munion booke hath And firste what scripture we haue for the linnen clothe for the priestes standing on the North side of the table for our prayers confessions collects other ceremonies and seeing wee haue no scripture for these the Communion is not restored to the order appointed by Christ. I aunswere that forasmuch as those matters perteine to order and decencie we haue scripture sufficient to authorize them although as I saide before the bishop speaketh not of the ceremoniall forme of ministration but of the substaunce and doctrine which is the essential forme of the Communion concerning which we haue neyther more nor lesse then Christ vsed and deliuered Yet saith Master Rast. we haue many pointes lesse then was done by Christ at his last supper First he will not presse vs with that question why we do not Communicate after supper which peraduenture yet some doth with the sicke as a thing not vnlawfull nor tyed to any time but by the generall rule of order and decencie but he demandeth why we take not the bread into our handes before we consecrate it as Christ did A profounde question As though we doe not both take it breake it receiue it and deliuer it with our handes as Christ did Or as though Christ appointed at what moment we should touch it or that M. Rastel is able to say that Christ spake nothing of his institution before he touched the breade or as though we did not vse ordinarily before we make the exhortation vnto the Communion to take the bread and breake it and with the cup to set it before vs not to let it stand at the ende of the table as he belyeth vs as though we werâ— ashamed to folow Christ. The seconde thing that we haue lesse then Christ did as he saith is blessinge of the breade which is vtterly false for we blesse it as Christ did not with the signe of the crosse as ye would haue vs but with thanksgiuinge and prayer as the Euangelistes doe testifie that Christe did and as the primitiue and Apostolike Church did practise And therefore Iustinus martyâ— speaking of the sanctified or blessed nourishment of the sacrament calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that nourishement for which thankes is giuen by the worde of prayer receiued of him And touching the reuerende gestures vsed by Christ at his supper as we doubt nothing but that he vsed them alwayes so can M. Rastell with all his prating prooue none other then the Euangelists haue set downe And therefore for his loking on the bread separating it from the rest of the bread on the table blessing it by some special signe as the signe of the crosse c. when he can prooue out of the scriptures we shall bee content to refourme our Communion accordinge to those supposed gestures In the meane time notwithstanding his ruffian like raylinge our order of celebration hath all things instituted and deliuered by Christ to be obserued in the reuerent ministration of this most holy sacrament The seconde lye he chargeth Master Iewell with all is that he saith we haue the same order that was practiâ—ed by the Apostles where as we reade of none order practised by them For Actes the 2. we read saith he that they did breake breade in houses And yet it may be doubted whether that was the communion and actes 13. saith he when the Apostles had fasted and sacrificed they sent forth Paule and Barnabas But where finde you that translation Master Rastell that they sacrificed will you now forsake your owne Latine translation Ministrantibus illis Domino when they ministred vnto the Lorde and so wilfully runne into the curse of the Tridentine councell or will you appeale to the Greeke text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which worde signifieth any publike Ministerie by the iudgement of all learned Graetians and Erasmus himselfe whom you folowe in this translation though you count him an heretike and forsake your Catholike translation confirmed by generall Councelles Well then I see that papists iangle of general councels and catholike interpretations vnto other but they themselues will be holden of none anye longer then they liste But to the matter he saith that S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. testifieth of the veritie of the sacrament but not of the order referringe that to his owne comming As though he doeth not manifestly reforme a disorder or as though other thinges which he saith he woulde set in order at his comminge could be taken for the same thinges that he wrote of in his Epistle But what of al
in argument to defende And as for shauen crownes and purple sandales holy water or praying in one tongue hee sayeth they were neuer taken for secreat mysteries in the Church and if the scriptures applyed to them do not proue them they take no harme for by like they are good ynough without the scriptures Sauing that the saying of Ezechiell Chap. 36. I will sprinkle you with cleane water hee seeth not but that it may bee applyed to holy water though it bee meant of baptisme because holy water putteth vs in mynde of our baptisme Where fynde you that meaning of holy water in all the exorcising or coniuring thereof A poore shift God wott to defende a beggerly ceremonie As for Ecce duo gladij hic to prooue that the Pope hath power of both swordes hee defendeth it to bee good and sufficient Firste because Christe had power of both although hee vsed but one But what hath the Pope to doe with Christe Forsooth hee made Peter his lieutenaunt and ruler of all Christians when hee had him feede his sheepe and lambes Euen as good a reason as Ecce duo gladij hic But what hath the Pope to doe with Peter if Peter had beene such a one Forsooth because hee sitteth at Rome So did Nero and was Pontifex Maximus to as good as the Pope But Barnarde vseth the same texte so What if Barnarde was disposed to iest with the Pope in his owne interpretations or if hee were in earnest can Barnarde make that good which is starke naught Last of all the shamelesse and blasphemous beast is not afrayde to compare this argument with the allegorie vsed by the holie Ghoste Gal. 4. of the two wiues in Abrahams house that were figures of two Testaments which the Apostle vsed not to proue but to declare and shewe plainly as it were by example that which hee had before moste substantially proued SECTIO 35. From the seconde face of the III. leafe to the seconde face of the 118. leafe The argumentes where on the masse is builded being so absurde as euen his brasen face blusheth to allowe hee aunswereth the thinges proued by these argumentes are but the heire and nayles of the masse and not the substantiall partes thereof and yet those partes are good ynough without those argumentes namely by tradition For the Corporall was of lynen before the argument of Christes buriall cloath was made for it Chalices were of goulde and siluer before the texte Babylon is a cuppe of goulde was alleadged for them And facer◠signifieth to sacrifice though Virgils verse had neuer beene written Cum faciam vitula For in the Iudges Manoah saide to the Angell faciamus tibi haedum de capris wee may offer to thee a kidde of the Goates O subtile Maister Rastell Where learned you first that Manoah spake latine Secondlye that hee woulde offer sacrifice to a man and not rather make readie a kidde to bee eaten of him whome he thought to haue beene a man for it followeth immediately in the text that Manoah knew not that hee was an Angell of GOD least you shoulde imagine that Manoah had beene a Papist and woulde haue offered a sacrifice to an Angell But yet to couer his shame with impudence he saith he will bee yet bolder and applie whatsoeuer hee findeth in the scripture to mainteine Popish ceremonies hee careth not howe fitlye Theologia Mistica hee saith hee woteth well non est argumentis apta Mysticall Diuinitie is not fit to make argumentes of But GOD keepe our faith from grounding vppon such diuinitie as will neither satisfie our conscience nor conuince the errors of other Laste of all least hee shoulde passe ouer this place without a blasphemie hee compareth these balde reasons of Siluester and Durande with the argument that Saint Paule maketh 1. Cor. 9. vppon this text of the law Thou shalt not binde vp the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corne therefore GOD which prouideth that beastes labouring shoulde not want their foode ▪ much more woulde haue the minister of the Gospell rewarded for his trauell Whiche is a most pithie argument from the lesse to the more as euerye learned man and godly will acknoweledge SECTIO 36. From the second face of the 118. leafe to the 127. leafe in which he treateth of the priuate Masse Whereas the Bishop proueth the priuate Masse to be contrarie to the institution of Christe which ordeined a communion First M. Rastell will not vnderstand what is meant by this word priuate Masse for al Masses he saith are common which if it be true to vse his own examples of an open houshold and a common of pasture they be fooles that will pay any money for them Afterward vnderstanding a priuate Masse to be when no man receiueth with the Priest he asketh whether the Masse saide on Easter day be good bicause there be a number of communicants or whether any other Masse be good at which be many that receiue with the Priest I answer him those Masses in that point are lesse euil then the priuate Masses in which there is no communion bicause they erre not in that one point although they are abhominable in many other But now let vs heare how M. Rast. looketh the Doctours in the faces which were cited by the Bishop against priuate Masse as he promiseth to doe First to Clemens and Dionysius he aunswereth nothing but cauilleth at the Bishops manner of citing them not for writings of such antiquitie as they are said to be but yet sufficient to choake the Papistes which boast of their authoritie And trifleth of the oyle salt singing and in Dionysius which ceremonies as we haue not in our Church no more haue the Papistes in such order as he rehearseth thē To Iustine likewise he aunswereth nothing but cauilleth of the water vsed to be mixed with the wine in his time which was no ceremonie but a custome of sobrietie and of sending the communion to them that were absent which we vsed not neither is he able to proue that they vsed to send it as the communion but as almes rather of the great plentie of breade and wine that was accustomed to be offred And if it were proued to bee the communion it maketh more strongly against the priuate Masse that they would suffer none that were absent not to communicate much lesse would they suffer them which were present not to receiue with the minister The sayings of Ambrose Hierome Augustine Leo he passeth ouer with confession that the people in their dayes vsed to receiue with the Priest commonly but hee denyeth they did so alway Which hee weeneth to proue by that Chrysostome saith they did offer daily and Ambrose saith that in Greece they were accustomed to receiue but once a yeare And he thinketh it were absurde that there should be but one Communion in a yeare in Greece But hee is much deceiued for Saint Chrysostome as he confesseth speaketh of often receiuing ad Ephe.
Hom. 3. and would haue all that receiued not to depart euen as the Canons of the Apostles and Gregorie in his Dialogues doe shewe And although many of the people were negligent in comming to the Lordes table yet was there no priuate Masse bicause that in those great Churches there were always a great number of the Clergie which receiued with the Bishop vpon paine of excommunication To the prayers of the Masse which being in the plurall number suppose a number present ▪ and a number of communicants hee saith they argue the antiquitie of the Masse to bee aboue sixe hundreth yeares after Christe which is not so in deede they argue the forme of those prayers to be ancienter then the priuate Masse and more they argue not But they may be vsed saith Maister Raster bicause at euery Masse be more present then any bodily eye can see O absurde Asse that so arrogantly braggeth of learning and so proudly despiseth so learned a Fathers arguments Admit that in steede of legions of diuels that be present at euery Masse whose seruice it is there were so many legions of Angels present as he fantasieth doeth the Priest saying Oremus Let vs pray speake to the Angels that are present to pray with him yea why not will some froward Papist say But to whome speaketh he when he turneth about and sayth Orate pro me fratres sorores pray for me brethren and sisters Be there hee Angels and she Angels also And when he prayeth that the oblation which they haue offered be saluation to all that haue receiued it doeth he meane that the Angels haue taken their rytes of the Priest though none of the people be present but perhaps one sorie boy that helpeth him to say Masse But the Prieste he saith is no priuate person but a common officer euen as when hee baptizeth But is hee such a Magistrate to altar and chaunge the institution and ordinaunce of GOD Baptisme may bee ministred to one alone according to the institution thereof but the Communion which is a feast of the Church ought not to bee kept without a number of guestes To all the rest of the authorities cited by the Bishop out of the Canons of the Apostles the decree of Calixtus the Dialogues of Gregorie hee saith they proue nothing but that the people vsed to communicate and there be diuers thinges in those writings which wee doe not obserue as though wee haue bound our selues to the obseruing of mens decrees as the Papistes haue But what so euer they haue agreeable to the worde of GOD wee obserue and willingly although hee slaunder our Church to suffer them to be present at the Communion which doe not communicate which is a most impudent and shamelesse lye and yet easily to bee borne in comparison of their blasphemies which he barketh out against the Priesthoode of our Sauiour Christe saying the order of Melchisedech should haue an end if their stinking Masse were omitted and that their Priestes must daily enter into Sancta sanctorum O Antichristian Helhoundes that challenge vnto your selues the peculiar Priesthoode of Christe who onely is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech and hath no successours in his Priesthoode Heb. 7. O blasphemous dogges that will haue your hedge Priests to enter into Sancta sanctorum the most holy places euery day whither Christ hath once for all entered and found eternall redemption Heb. 6. And these blasphemies he had rather defend then giue ouer the blasphemie of the priuate Masse which with neither learning modestie nor conscience he or any of al the rout of them is able to defend either as lawfull or as auncient SECTIO 37. in the 127. leafe To the challenge which the Bishop made against the priuate Masse he aunswereth nothing but that they haue no priuate Masse for all Masses are one common masse trifling vpon the terme when he can not say one word to the matter SECTIO 38. From the second face of the 127. leafe to the 131. leafe in which he treateth of receiuing the communion in both kindes To the Bishops challenge that the Communion was neuer ministred in one kinde to any man in the space of 600. yeres after Christes he answereth first that if it were not yet their Church is out of daūger bicause it is a matter indifferent for the Lay people to receiue in one kind or in both alledging for proofe a saying of Luther written before hee was throughly conuerted from Papistrie Secondly hee will proue that it was receiued vnder one kind first bicause in Luke 24. and Act. 20. there is no mention but of bread Ergo Christe and Paule gaue them the communion in one kind a good consequent By the same I may proue that Christe and Paule receiued them selues but bread bicause there is no mention of wine And yet the Papistes holde it necessarie that the Priest which ministreth should of necessitie receiue in both kindes And whereas he is ashamed of this negatiue consequence he chargeth vs with like reasoning out of some place of Augustine or Irenaeus c. Wheras he slandreth vs falsly except it be vpon such an affirmatiue as excludeth all other things With like impudence he saieth we doe not deny but that in Tertullians time the sacrament in one kinde was carried home to their houses which we doe vtterly deny neither is he euer able to proue As false it is that he saith in Cyprians time it was carried to mens houses in one kinde for Cyprian saith no such thing nor any worde sounding to such end And concerning the custome of sending the sacrament to Bishops that were straungers which came to Rome cited by Irenaeus Ad victor whereby he would proue it was sent vnder one kinde because wine would soone waxe sower I say he vnderstandeth not what the custome was but imagineth that the sacrament was sent a thousand myle of to those Bishops whereas it was onely from the Table to the places where they did sitte in the Churche or at the worste to their lodging where they soiourned at Rome But passing ouer as he doeth all reportes of carrying and sending the sacrament whiche prooueth nothing at all the communion in one kinde for both might as well be carried and sent as one he commeth to a fragment of an Epistle of Basilius Ad Caesariam Pratriciam which also he falsifieth in translation as the rest of the Papistes Harding and Heskins doe For where he saith that such as ledde a solitary life in the wildernesse where no Priest is keeping the communion at home receiue of themselues Communionem domi seruantes à seipsis communicant meaning they receiued one of an other which he translateth They communicate by themselues Gathering that a priest may as well receiue by himselfe in the churche as the people at home whiche doth not followe although neither of both be wel done And here againe he wil haue no wine for feare of sauoring
the wine and such like Did they not beate theÌ„ down with the institution of Christ For they coulde well inough distinguishe the substance from the accidentes the matter and forme from the circumstances After this M. Heskins will open a sleight of the proclamer who confesseth that women in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian did carie home the sacrament to their houses and receiued a portion therof in the morning before meat but he numbreth this custome among abuses whereas neither Tertullian nor Cyprian do directly reproue them neither do they allow them by any one worde But I pray you M. Heskins if it bee no abuse that women shoulde carie the sacrament home with them keepe it in their coffers and eate it euery morning next their heart why doe not you of the Popishe Church continue such an auncient custome Why haue you abrogated it and to dissuade them from it tell tales in you legends and promptuaries of some that haue carried it home and founde it turned I cannot tell into what monsters But peraduenture the vsage of the Church in Iustines time will prooue it to bee none abuse For then the sacrament was caried home to them that were absent And here M. Heskins alleadging Iustines Apollogie telleth not in whether Apollogie and setteth downe a forme of wordes which are not in Iustine Apoll. 2. where the matter is spoken of in such forme as he citeth theÌ„ by which once again you may see that his great reading of the doctors was out of other mens notes collections not of his own studie For it semeth he knew not in which Apologie this matter is spokeÌ„ of alleging this saying thus Cum auteÌ„ is qui praest gratias egerit totus populus approhauerit 〈◊〉 qui vicentur apud nos diaconi distribuuÌ„t vnicuique praesentiâ—a vt participent de pane in quo gratiae actae sunt de vino aqua his qui non sunt praesentes deferunt domuÌ„ WheÌ„ he that is chefe hath giuen thankes and all the people hath consented to it these that with vs be called deacons doe distribute of the consecrated bread and of the wine and water to euerie one that is present to receiue and to those that be absente they carie it home But Iustines owne wordes bee these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When we haue ended our prayer there is offered bread and wine and water And the chiefe minister sendeth forth likewise praiers thanksgiuing with al his might and the people giue their consent saying Amen Then is made distribution and participation of those thinges for which thankes is giuen vnto euerie one And to them that are not present there is sent by the deacons By these wordeâ— it can not be proued necessarily that the sacrament was sente to them that were absent but rather part of the breade and wine which was offered in greate plentie the distribution whereof belonged to the Deacons and immediatly after mentioÌ„ is made of the contribution of the richer sorte But admitte that they did send the sacrament to such as were sicke or otherwise to necessarily letted that they could not be present in bodie yet were present in minde and ioyned in prayer with them what maketh this for the popishe reseruation to bee worshipped Euery one that was present there receiued onely the Priestes receiueth amongest the Papistes and hangeth vp the rest ouer the Altar But it is a fine reason of M. Heskins they carried it therefore they reserued it if they reserued it an houre why might they not reserue it as long as they lift But they caried it that it might be receiued presently they hanged it not vp to bee gazed vppon S. Basill also witnesseth that holy men liuing in the wildernesse did reserue the sacrament in their alter Omnes in Eremis 〈◊〉 vitam agentes vbi non est Sacerdos communionem domi seruantes a se ipsis communicant All that leade solitarie liues in the wildernesse where there is no Priest keeping the comâ—union at home de receiue it of them selues M. Heskins falsifieth the wordes in translation sayth they receiued by them selues as though they receiued it alone This fragment of Basils Epistle argueth an abuse of the reseruation but it proueth no hanging vp of the sacrament for adoration That this was an abuse crept in of superstition it is manifest for that it was afterwarde by a Godly councell condemned and forbiddeÌ„ Concil Caesaraugustanum Capit. 3. Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in ecclesia anathema sit in perpetuum Ab vniversis Episcopis dictum est Anathema sit If any person be proued after he hath taken the grace or gift of the Eucharistie not to haue spent it in the Church let him be accursed for euer All the bishops saide let him be accursed Moreouer to prooue a thing to be lawfull by such an vsage as they them selues confesse to bee vnlawfull what abusing of the simple is it S. Hierome also in his apollogie against Iouinian testifyeth that the people of Rome in his time vsed to keepe the sacrament in their houses and receiue it by themselues In this place I cannot tel whether I should suspect that which hath often been prooued before that M. Heskins cyteth his authorities out of note-bookes and collections rather then out of his owne readings and so knowe not what was Hieroms iudgement of this custome of receiuing at home or else that of fraude to abuse the reader hee hath concealed it But the matter of trueth is this There was a custome at Rome to receiue euery day which custome Hierome sayth he doth neither allowe nor reprehende But hee appealeth to the consciences of those men that had communicated at home the same day after they had companyed with their wiues wherefore they durst not go to the Church Quare non ingrediuntur ecclesias an alius in publico alius in domo Christus est quod in ecclesia non licet nec domi licet Why come they not into the Churches Is there one Christ in the publike places another in their priuate house that which is not lawfull in the Church is not lawfull in the house But howe can M. Heskins proue that the people vsed to keepe the sacrament in their houses wherof there is no worde in Saint Hierome but rather it is to bee thought that the Priests did come to them and minister it in their priuate houses which Hierome also disalloweth And howe can he prooue that they did receiue it by them selues when Saint Hierome sayeth communicant they do communicate The last discourse prouing by authoritie of Saint Augustine that vniuersall obseruations of the Church where the Scripture commaundeth not the contrarie are to bee holden for lawes is meerely vaine seeing he can neuer prooue his reseruation to be catholike or vniuersally allowed and practised of the Church and we haue proued it to be contrary to the Scripture The eight and
his deuorse from his first vnlawfull mariage gaue him occasion to enquire and finde out what weake foundation the vsurped power of the See of Rome was buylded vppon 76 King Henrie departed not out of the societie of the churche of Rome onely for the vices of the men thereof but for their false and Antichristian heresies which they obstinately mainteined and ioyned him selfe to the true auncient and vniuersall Church of Christe when hee departed out of that false newe sett vp schismaticall and particuler Synagogue of Rome as Saint Augustine went from the Manichees to the Catholicke church And as King Henrie the eyght knewe whence hee went so knewe hee also whither he went euen from Rome with seuen hilles to Ierusalem which is aboue and is the mother of vs all 77 Hee that goeth out of an hereticall church as King Henrie did must goe to the Catholike church of Christe as hee did without making any newe church or being without a church I knowe not the age of Maister Sander but if hee bee not much aboue fourtie yeares olde hee was borne and baptized as manye other Papistes were in that which hee calleth a newe church or no church which howe hee will aunswere let him and them aduise which holde it necessarie that a man must tarrie in that church in which hee is baptized 78 King Henrie the eight was not without a churche but in the church of Englande a member of the Catholike church of Christe neither did hee call him the supreme head of the church of Englande before that title was giuen him by the Popish Clergie in their submission after they were cast in the premunire Edw. Hall. 79 That hee receiued not fully the true doctrine of Christ as he banished the false vsurped power of the Pope is to bee imputed to the trayterous practises of his dissembling Clergie which although they durste not withstande him in mainteining the Popes authoritie yet they laboured all that they coulde to reteine the Popes doctrine in as many poyntes as they might hereof came the lawe of the sixe articles which mainteined the sacrifice of the Masse transubstantiation communion in one kynde and such other heresies Neuerthelesse the authoritie of Antichrist much Idolatrie superstition and false doctrine was abolished Iustification by faith in Christe was preached the scripture was read in the vulgar tongue which was a beginning of a reformation and returning vnto the true church of Christe and not a setting vp of a newe churche Except Maister Sander will saye that those Kinges of Iuda which refourmed some parte of religion and yet left the hill altares other abuses did set vp a newe church because they made not a perfect reformation Finally where he sayth that King Henrie adioyned himselfe to no companie of faithfull men in earth which had from Christes time liued after that profession of faith which he allowed proueth not that hee set vp a newe church For he ioyned to the Catholike church in so many pointes of true doctrine as hee acknowledged from which the Popish church was departed although he was not rightly instructed in all 80 The church of Englande in King Henries time was a true church although all the doctrine which was then mainteined by publique authoritie through the subtile practises of popish hypocrites was not true And the church of England at this daye is the same that it was then but nowe by publike authoritie embraceing all true doctrine which by the true members of the church in King Henries dayes was mainteined and withstoode by hypocrites or other not yet rightly instructed 81 The church vnto which King Henrie went and brought the realme when he departed from Rome was the same church which began at Ierusalem and so increased into all nations and continueth in the world for euer though not among all nations 82 King Henry went out of the Antichristian church of Rome into the Catholike church of Christe embracing some part of the doctrine therof therefore hee needed no reconciliation to the Romish church but a more perfect information of the church of Christ. 83 In King Edwardes time the reformation began and hindred in his fathers time was perfected and accomplished for all pointes of Christian doctrine neither was there any reconciliation vsed to the churche of Rome but the Church of Englande by publike authoritie perfectly vnyted to the Catholike Churche of Christe ioyning in profession of faith with the best refourmed Christian churches in the worlde 84 The abolishing of forrein power hindred not the ioyning in faith and doctrine with all the Churches of God that were without the realme of England The propitiatorie sacrifices of the Masse was in King Edwardes time abolished by publique authoritie out of the Church of England as it was in King Henries time abhorred of all true members of the Church that were then rightly instructed as much as the supremacie of the Pope 85 The power of being the sonnes of God the power of preaching and forgiuing of sinnes in the Church of Christe is no forreigne power neither was any such power euer excluded but the false and vsurped tyrannie of Antichrist of Rome 86 We beleeue and professe a Catholique or vniuersall Church of Christe whereof we are members and therefore we detest the hereticall schismaticall and particular Church of Rome 87 The Church of England vnder King Edward did professe her selfe to be a member of the most auncient Catholike and Apostolique Church of Christe which is the piller of trueth to bee iudged by the worde of GOD which is the trueth it selfe Iohn 17. being not so ignoraunt but that she could distinguish the worde of GOD from the Church of GOD as the lawe of GOD from the houshold of GOD which is gouerned by that lawe And not as Maister Sanders similitude is as the statutes of England differ from the men of England which make them but the Church maketh not the worde of God but contrariwise the word of God maketh the Church 88 It is not necessarie to shewe a companie of men in a peculiar place as Geneua or any such like for them that will ioyne them selues with the Catholike Church of all the world although it were easie to name diuers companies of men in seuerall places which continued in the true Church out of the Church of Rome both in Fraunce and Italie beside Bohemia which long before was returned out of the Popish Church into the Church of Christ and all the East Churches which neuer ioyned with the Church of Rome 89 The Churches of Zurich and Saxonie be members of the Catholique Church of Christe which is fifteene hundreth yeares olde and vpward although the same Churches were gathered and returned in those places within these three score yeares 90 There needed no embassages to goe to and fro to the Churches of God beyond the seas for reconciliation bicause there was no debate betweene the Church of England and them Although for conference and aduise
one question or two about this diffuse argument I would demaund Doeth God forbid by the second commaundement naturall or artificiall images If artificiall then they haue no comparison with naturall images Againe syr are our seeing and hearing from whome these images you speake of first doe come by your Philosophie actions or passions If they be passions howe are they compared with making of grauen images whiche are actions Finally where he saith this prohibition was not immutable but temporall to that people he passeth all bounds of reason and common vnderstanding as by the iudgment of God is become like vnto those Idols whome he defendeth For hauing graunted before that Idolatrie was forbidden by this precept nowe he restraineth the forbidding of idolatrie only to the Iewes of that time as though it were lawfull for Christians who more streightly then the Iewes must worship God in spirit and trueth Iohn 4. and are commaunded to keepe them selues pure from Idols 1. Iohn 5. THE VI. OR V. CHAP. That the word of God only forbiddeth Latria which is Gods own honour to be giuen to artificiall images leauing it to the lawe of nature and to the gouernors of his Church what other honour may be giuen to holy images Also the place of Exodus Thou shalt not adore images is expounded and that Christe by his incarnation taketh away all idolatrie that Maister Iewell vainely reproueth Doctour Harding condemneth his owne conscience and is proued a wrangler The difference in honour betweene Latria and Doulia As M.S. saith images are forbidden to be worshipped as they are forbidden to be made so say I but with a farre differing vnderstanding They may not be made to any vse of religion so they may not be worshipped with any religious worship which apperteineth to god For our religion is a seruice of God onely And where he saith as Images might be made by the authoritie of Moses or of the gouernours of Gods people so they wert not to be taken for Gods so they may be likewise worshipped by the authoritie of Gods church this only prouiso being made that Gods owne honour be not giuen vnto them I aunswere that as neither Moses nor any gouernour had authoritie to make any images in any vse of religion other then God commanded no more hath the Church any authoritie to allowe any worshipping of them whiche she hath none authoritie by God to make but an expresse commandement forbidding both the making the worshipping of them in the first table of the law which concerneth onely religion Nowe we haue saide both let vs consider M. Sanders reasons First he saith God forbidding his owne honour to be giuen to images left it to the lawe of nature and to the gouernors of his Churche what honour images should haue Concerning the lawe of nature he saith that God perceiued that when images of honourable personages are made honor was due vnto them What lawe of nature is this M. Sander that is distinct from the law of God Or what nature is that whose lawe alloweth the worshipping of images In deed the corruption of mans nature is to worship falshode in steed of trueth but the law of nature hath no such rule beeing al one with the lawe of God as nature is nothing else but the ordinaunce of god And where find you one title in the lawe that God hath leaft it to the gouernours of his Church to appoint a worship meete for images Worde you haue none letter you haue none nor pricke of a letter sounding that way But you haue collections First of the signification of Latria as though God had written his Lawe in Greeke and not in Hebrue and yet Latria according to the Graecians hath no such restraint to signifie the seruice of God only but euerie seruice of men also and is all one that Doulia and so vsed of Greeke writers excep◠we will say that Doulia which you will haue to be giuen to images is a more slauish seruile worship then that whiche you would haue vs to giue to God. But you will helpe your distinction with the confusion of the commandementes because God saith in the 1. precept Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me and then saith immediately Thou shalt not make nor worworship images but these cōmandementes are distinct or else you shall neuer make tenne And whereas you alledge that he saith immediatly after I the Lord thy God am a iealous God that maketh cleane against you For by those wordes the Lorde declareth that he can no more abide the vse of images in his religion then a iealous man can abide any tokēs of an adulterer to be about his wife therefore idolatrie in the scriptures is often called fornication So the circumstances helpe you nothing but is altogether against you But what an horrible monster of idolatrie is this that after you haue once confessed that Gods incomprehensible nature cannot be represented by any artificiall image you affirme that Christe by his incarnation hath taken away idolatrie that we should not lacke some corporall trueth wherein we might worship the Diuine substance Whereas Christ himselfe telleth vs that nowe the time is come that God shall not be worshipped as before in bodily seruice at Ierusalem or in the mountaine but in spirite and trueth Ioan. 4. The image of Christe you say is a similitude of an honourable trueth whereas no idol doth represent a trueth A worshipfull trueth I promise you Christe you say was man but I say he is both God and man a person consisting of those two natures Your image representeth onely a person consisting of one nature but suche a one is not Christe therefore your image representeth a falshoode and is by your owne distinction an Idol For the Diuine nature you confesse cannot be represented by an artificiall image Againe what an image is it of his humanitie It can not expresse his soule but his bodie onely Last of all why is it an image rather of Christ then of an other man Seeing in lineamentes and proportion of bodie it hath no more similitude vnto Christes bodie then to an other mans But that it pleased the caruer to say it is an image of Christ. O honourable blockes and stones But Philo the Iewe was cited for a fauourer of this interpretation that images are none otherwise forbidden to be made or worshipped then to be made or worshipped as GODS Howe vaine the authoritie of a Iewe is for a Christian man to leane vnto I shall not neede to say especially when it is well knowen that the Iewes also not considering in whether table this commandement is placed vnderstand by it that all images generally are forbidden And Philo saith nothing to helpe him For first in Decal he saith when God had spoken of his owne substance and honour order would that he should tell how his holy name was to be worshipped And againe De eo quis haer rer Diuin Vt solus
Deus c. That God onely might be truely worshipped What can be reasonably gathered of these wordes but that al honour is due to God and therfore none to idols which are forbidden to be made If Philo a Iewe will not serue Augustine a Christian is alledged who Super Exod. 9.71 allowing that diuision of the tenne commandementes by which three onely are saide to apperteine to God saith Et reuera c. And truely that which is saide Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me is more perfectly expounded when forged things are forbidden to be worshipped First for the diuision of the coÌ„mandements Aug. is not constant with him selfe For In Quaesti Nou. Vet. Test. Quest. 7. he writeth thus Non sint tibi Dij alij praeter me primum verbum hoc est Es subiecit secundum Non facies tibi vllam similitudineuâ— â–ª Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me this is the first worde or commandement and he addeth the second Thou shalt not make to thy self any similitude By which it is manifest that to worship images is not all one with hauing other Gods. But M. Sander will answer our obiection that God forbiddeth all honour of images thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worship them Adoration saith he is a doubtfull worde For Abraham adored the people of the lande Gen. 23. Very true but with a ciuill worship whereof we speake not nowe He made obeysans to them or as we say he made courtesie to them And the Angel refused to be adored saying adore god Therefore there is an adoration proper to God for Angels sometime haue beene adored Nay M. Sander therefore all religious worshippe perteineth to god For S. Iohn was not so madde to worship the Angel as God but as the messenger of God with a religious and not a ciuill worshippe And when you say Angels haue beene adored as Gen. 18. and Iudicum 13. I answere in both places they were adored with ciuill worship supposed by Abraham and Manohah to be honourable men and not to be Angels But when you cite Augustine to fortifie your distinction of Latria and Doulia you hurt your cause by his iudgement more then you further it by his authoritie For whereas he in Exod. 94. saith that Latria is due to God as he is God Doulia is due to God as he is our Lorde it followeth that that worship which is called Doulia as well as that which is called Latria is due onely to God who is our onely Lord and wil not giue his glorie to grauen Images Es. 42.8 1. Cor. 8.6 Theodoret saying that God calleth his people from the worshipping of diuels euen as Saint Paule 1. Cor. 10. sheweth that worshipping of images is the worshipping of diuels And whereas Maister Sander saith it can not possibly be saide that Christes images is dedicated to the diuell I say plainely with Theodoret and Paule it is dedicated to the diuell when it is worshipped For the Images of the Gentiles were not by the intente of the makers and worshippers dedicated to deuils but to God and godly men and women but when they were honored with religious honour which appertaineth onely to God the spirit of God saith they were dedicated to deuils And euen the same reason is of the Image of christ of the Trinitie of Peter or any other honoured with religious worshippe Thus Augustine and Theodoret cited by him are both against him Well yet he will disproue the comparison that M. Iewell maketh betweene Gods wordes and M. Hardings Iewell God saith thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen Images M. Hardinge saieth thou shalt make to thy selfe grauen Images But M. Sander saieth neither God nor M. Harding say so that is they do not meane so for God expounding his meaning added thou shalt not adore them nor giue them the honor due to God aboue therefore M. Iewell did euill to deuide Gods saying and by that diuision hee is sure that hee hath condemned his owne conscience So that by M. Sanders interpretation to make Images and to adore them is all one But M. Iewell seeinge them to be distincte matters to make and to worshippe without condemning his conscience did speak first of making and then of worshippinge of Images And although M. Sander be either so blind or so wilful that he cannot see or will not acknowledge the distinction of the two tables of the Lawe the matter of one being religion the other charitie yet M. Iewell did well inough consider that the Queenes Maiesties Image grauen in her coyne and such like pictures as nothing at all concerned religion nor nothinge at all forbidden were made by a commandement of the first table Now followeth another comparison Iewell God saith thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worshippe them M. Harding saith thou shalt fall downe to them and worshippe them But M. Sander answereth that M. Harding defendeth that another degree of honour incomparably inferiour to that which is due to God may be giueÌ„ to images not that which is due to god Wel then is M. Hard. Sander to contrary to other papists as great doctors as they But yet M. Iewels comparison doth stand For God forbiddeth al worship of Images Master Hard. aloweth some worship of Images Again how wil you distinguish the falling downe to God from falling downe to Images And therfore M. Iewel is no wrangler for meane Harding what he can meane his saying and meaning is contradiction to the saying and meaning of god But you wil affâ—rme saith M. Sander that al maner of honour is forbiddeÌ„ to be giuen to any kind of Image You haue against you the opinion of the law of nature the word of God the iudgement of the ancient fathers the decrees of general councels the practise of the whole church as hereafter shal be declared Verily M. Sander if you can bring al these authorities to vphold the worshipping of Images you shal do more then any man was euer able to do before you but hitherto you haue brought nothing worth the hearing But in the meane time you wil proue that there are two kindes of honour the one due to God alone the other to his creatures so to Images But you must proue that there be two kindes of religious honor or els you proue nothing for your purpose For ciuil honor wil not helpe you one iote for worshipping of Images except you be of that minde as Boniface a gentleman about Stamford was that would salute the sacrament of the altar with curtesie these words God giue you good morrow good Lord. And what haue you to proue this your distinction Nothing in the world but a saying of Augustine lib. 10. cap. 1. De ciuit Dei. that Latria by a certaine consent of ecclesiasticall writers hath bene taken for that seruice which is due to God that there is another seruice due to men according to which the Apostle coÌ„mandeth seruants to be