Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues
The six and thirtieth Chapter createth of the next text by Augustine, & Chrysostom.
This text is this: it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. This text is made so familiar (he saith) that boys and girls can blatter it against Christ's presence in the sacrament, as though they denied the virtue of his flesh, that deny your carnal presence in the sacrament. But we must hear Saint Augustine. Tract. 27. In John. Quid est quod adi • ngit, &c. What is that he joineth? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing? Let us say unto him for he suffereth us not gainsaying but desirous to know) O Lord good Master, how doeth not the flesh profit anything, when then hast said: except a man eat my flesh, & drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Doth not life profit anything? And wherefor are we that that we are, but that we may have eternal life, which thou doest promise by thy flesh? What then is it: it profiteth not anything? The flesh profiteth nothing, but as they understood it. For they understood flesh so, as it is rent in pieces in a dead body, or sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit: It is therefore so said: the flesh profiteth nothing, as it is said: knowledge puffeth up a man. Shall we now then hate knowledge? God forbid. And what it is then? Knowledge p • ffeth up? being alone without charity. Therefore he added: But charity doth edify. Therefore add charity to knowledge, and knowledge shall be profitable, not by it self but by charity So now likewise the flesh profiteth nothing, that is the flesh alone. But let the spirit come to the flesh, as charity cometh to knowledge, and it profiteth very much. For if the flesh had profi • ed nothing: the word should not have been made flesh that it might dwell in us. If Christ have profited us much by his flesh, how doeth the flesh profit nothing at all? But the spirit by the flesh hath done something for our health. The flesh was that vessel, mark what it had in it, not what it was. The Apostles were sent, did their flesh profit nothing? If the flesh of the Apostles profited us not, could our Lord's flesh not profit us? For how came the sound of the word unto us but by the voice of the flesh? From whence the style? From whence the writing? All these works be of the flesh, but the spirit moving it as his instrument. Therefore it is the spirit which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. As they understood flesh, so do I not give my flesh to be eaten. Master Heskins doth glory that he bringeth not this sentence truncately as the heretics do, but wholly, that the reader should not be defrauded of S. Augustine's right meaning, vpō this scripture. And here again he repeateth his rotten distinction, that Christ giveth not his flesh by lumps & pieces, yet giveth it corporally, & that S. Augustine meaneth none otherwise. But as long a sentence as he rehearsed, he hath omitted the very interpretation of his text in hand. Which Augustine maketh in these words: Quid est spiritus & vita? Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt. What is spirit and life spiritually to be understanded: neither is there one word in all that treatise for the corporal presence, or receiving. And yet we confess that Christ truly giveth us his flesh, & we are truly fed therewith, but not after a corporal manner, but after a spiritual & unspeakable manner. Chrysostom is cited hom. 46. In John. Quid igitur? caro, &c. What then? Doth the flesh profit nothing? He speaketh not of the very flesh, God forbid, but of them that carnally take those things that are spoken. And what is it to understand carnally? Simply as the things are spoken, and not to think any other thing of them. For th • se things that are seen, are not so to be judged, but all mysteries are to be considered with inward eyes, that is spiritually. He that eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, hath no life in him self. How doeth the flesh profit nothing without the which no man can live? See that this particle (The flesh profiteth not anything) is not spoken of the flesh it self, but of the carnal hearing. M. Hesk. saith that Chrysostom needeth no expositor, to open his exposition. And I am of y t same judgment. For he is so plain against all gross and carnal imagination, about these mysteries, that nothing can be plainer. He saith to understand these things in y e sixth of John simply, as they are spoken, is to understand them carnally, which ought not to be, for all mysteries must be understood spiritually, the receiving of Christ in the sacrament is a mystery, therefore it must be understanded spiritually.
The seven and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth upon the same text, by Theophylact, & S. Bernard.
Theophylacte following Chrysostom, as he doth very much, whē he is not carried from him by the corruption of his time, saith That the words of Christ must be understood • spiritually: Whervpon M. Hesk. maketh an objection, how those words may be understood spiritually, & yet y e carnal presence & receiving retained? He answereth, y t the Papists also confess, the words of Christ must be understood spiritually, and first alledgeth Theophylacte, to prove that he allowed the carnal presence, which though they do not undoubtedly prove it, yet considering y e time in which he lived, it may be granted that he did allow it. What then? Marie spiritual understanding letteth not y e carnal presence. But I have shown before y t while Theophylact would follow Chrysost. & yet maintain the error of his time, no marvel though he were contrary to himself. But spiritual understanding by M. Hesk. definition, is to understand, y t these things are not done by any natural mean, but by the spirit of God, namely transubstantiation & such like. But Chrysostom as we saw in the Chapter before, determined otherwise of spiritual understanding of this scripture, namely, that the sayings must not be taken simply as they are spokē, but as mysteries be considered w t y e inward eyes. But M. Heskins hath a plain place for the proclaymer out of S. Aug. serm. Ad Infant: Quod videtis in altari panis est, &c. That which you see on the altar is bread and the cup, which also your eyes do show you. But that faith requireth to be instructed: the bread is the body, the cup is the blood. In the mind of some man such a thought may arise, Our Lord Jesus Christ we know whence he received flesh, namely of the virgin Marie, he was nourished, grew up, was buried, rose again, & ascended into heaven, thither he lifted up his body, from whence he shall come to judge both the quick & the dead. There he is now siting at the right hand of the father, how is therefore bread his bodies? or that which is in the cup how is it his blood? Brethren, therefore those things are called sacraments, because one thing is seen in them, another thing is understanded. That which is seen, hath a corporal form, that which is understood hath a spiritual fruit. What plainness is in this place, except it be against transubstantiation, and the real presence, let the readers judge. And withal I must admonish them, that M. Hesk. citeth it far otherwise then it is in Augustine, beside y t he leaveth out that which followeth, & maketh all the matter as plain as a pack staff, which are these words: Corpus ergo Christi, &c.
The eight and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Euthymius and Lyra.
Euthymius is cited In 6. John. in these words: Spiritus est qui viuificat, &c. It is the spirit that quickeneth. Now he calleth the spirit, the spiritual understanding of those things which are said: likewise the flesh, to understand them fleshly. For the speech is not now of his flesh which quickeneth. Therefore he saith: to understand these things spiritually, giveth that life, which I spake of before: but to understand them carnally it profiteth nothing. Master Hesk. would fain make Euthymius to speak for him, if he could tell how to wring him in, but it will not be. Spiritual understanding is, as Chrysost. before in the 36. Chap. hath declared, & not as M. Heskins would rack it, to make it stand with his gross and carnal understanding. From the judgment of Lyra as no compotent Judge, I appeal, although in this place he speak nothing for M. Heskins, but rather against him, for he agreeth with the rest that the words must be spiritually understanded.
The nine and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text by S. Augustine and Cyril.
The text is this: the words that I speak unto you are spirit and life, of which Augustine writeth thus: Tra. 27. In John. Quid est, &c. What is it, they are spirit and life? They are spiritually to be understood. Hast thou understood them spiritually? they are spirit and life. Hast thou understood them carnally? Even so also they are spirit and life, but not to thee. M. Heskins having once made a blind determination of spiritual understanding, taketh spiritual understanding wheresoever he findeth it for carnal understanding, & carnal understanding for spiritual understanding, without all ryme or reason.
The fortieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text, and so of the process of the sixth of S. John by Euthymius, and Lyra.
Euthymius to end this long and tedious process, is cited, as before In. 6. John. Verba quae, &c. The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life, they are spiritual and quickening. For we must not look upon them simply, that is understand them carnally. But imagine a certain other thing, and to behold them with inward eyes as mysteries, for this is spiritually to understand. Euthymius affirmeth the same, that Chrysostom doeth Hom. 46. In John. and almost in the same words, neither can M. Hesk. draw anything out of thē to serve his humor, but that the sacraments are mysteries, and therefore some other thing must be present, then is seen with the outward eye: which is true, so it be such a thing as may be seen only with the eyes of the mind, of which the author speaketh. But the body of Christ, as Aug. saith, even immortal and glorified, is still visible. Ep. 85. Consentio. To wrangle about y e sentence of Lyra it were loss of time, who although he will have a real presence, yet he will have The flesh of Christ to be eaten in the sacrament after a spiritual manner, because the spirit by the power of God united to the flesh is refreshed. Wherevpon M. Hesk. rejecting the true spiritual manner of eating Christ's flesh in y e sacrament by faith, as heretical, which he hath so often before allowed, as only profitable: setteth up three other spiritual manners of Christ's presence in the sacrament for three causes. First, because it is wrought by the spirit of God. Secondly, because, although it be verily present, it is not known by corporal sense, but by spiritual knowledge of faith. Thirdly, because our spirit by the power of God, is united to the flesh: of these devises he maketh Lyra the author, and he may be well enough. For such blind teachers, while they wrangled about words, they became altogether vain in their imaginations, and lost the true sense and meaning, both of the word of God, and of the sacraments. The railing stuff wherewith he concludeth this Chapter, and this worthy expositiō continued in 36. Chapters, I pass over as unworthy of any answer.
The one and fortieth Chapter beginneth, the exposition of these words of Christ: this is my body, after the mind of the adversaries.
The first part of this Chapter containeth a fond and lewd comparison of the doctrine of the Sacramentaries, with the temptation of the devil, used to our first parents▪ which, because it showeth nothing but M. Hesk. wit and stomach, I omit. It hath more color of reason that he bringeth in afterward: namely that there are two things, which ought to move men to resist the temptation of the sacramentaries: their contrariety to the word of God, and their contrariety among them selves. Their contrariety to the word of God, he saith to be, where Christ said: This is my body, Satan saith, it is not his body. In very deed, if after Christ hath said, the bread and wine are his body & blood, any man should rise up & say, they are not his body & blood at all, we might well judge y t he spake by the spirit of Satan: as when Christ saith, drink ye all of this, & the Pope saith to the people, there shall none of you all drink of this, we may easily acknowledge the spirit of Antichrist. But we (whom he calleth sacramentaries) do with all reverence & humility confess, that the bread & the wine ministered according to Christ's institution, are the body & blood of Christ, in such sense, as he said they were. And we say with S. Augustine:
Thus, where M. Hesk hath gathered, as he reckoneth, sixteen several sects, four of them being condemned of us for heretical, with the authors of them, five agreeing with the papists in the carnal presence, and Luther's own sect, if he dissent from them, as Heskins maketh him to do, the sixth, ten are of us generally refused. The other six, that remain in Master Heskins number, are falsely forged to disagree, when they hold all one thing in effect, although they express the same thing in diverse forms of words, as it is not possible for diverse interpreters, though they agree in sense and interpretation, to iump all in one form of words, for then all commentaries should be one. But as God giveth his gifts diversely, some expound the scriptures briefly, some more at large, some more plainly, some more obscurely: so all these, and five hundred more, (God be thanked) learned men either in writing, or in preaching, have shown the understanding of Christ's words, hardly five of them agreeing in all terms and phrases, yet all moste sweetly consenting in one sense, and meaning, which consent and agreement is more notable, when it is uttered in so many diverse forms of words. And yet, to take away all cauels and flaunders, all the churches for the moste parte in France, Scotland, Savoy, Heluetia, Germany, Hungary, Piemont, Polonia, &c. beside the persecuted Churches of Italians, Spaniards, and others, have subscribed to one form of confession, concerning not only the sacrament, but all other principal points of religion, which we do likewise receive in this Church of England. And if disagreing of men among themselves, were a matter of such importance, it were no hard thing, to show the battles of the school doctors among the Papists, not only about other matters, but even about the manner of the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, & transubstantiation. If you say, all these, whom you reject, as the Lutherans in this point, the Swinkefeldians, Anabaptists, Libertines, Henrinicolaites, and such other, do all disagree with you, from the Catholic church of Rome, therefore you are all together naught. By this reason, all Christianity might be condemned of the Jews and Gentiles, because so many sects and heresies as be under the name of Christianity, together with the true Church of Christ, be all against Judaism & Gentilism. But agreeing or disagreeing of men among themselves, is a weak argument, to prove or disprove anything, only agreeing with the truth, is a sure reason to allow, and disagreeing from the truth, is a certain argument to refuse, either men, or matter propounded by them.
The two and fortieth Chapter, beginneth the exposition of the words of Christ, after the Catholic manner, with certain proves of the same.
First, he setteth down the sayings of the three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and of the Apostle Paul, in which they describe the institution of the sacrament: of which he saith, not one maketh any mention of tropes, figures, or significations, wherein he useth a shameless kind of Sophistry: for although they name no tropes, or figures, or signification, yet by the Papists own confession, Saint Luke, & S. Paul, use manifest tropes, figures, and significations, namely, where they say: This cup is the new testament in my blood. First, it is a trope or figure, to say, the cup, for that which is contained in the cup, unless they will say, that the cup, of what metal or matter so ever it was, was likewise transubstantiated into the blood of Christ.
Likewise, where he saith: this cup is the new testament or covenant, he must either acknowledge a signification, this cup signifieth the new testament, or else he must make the new testament to be nothing else but a cup.
Finally, where he saith, this cup is the new testament in my blood, except he acknowledge a trope or figure, he will utterly deny that, which is in the cup, to be the blood of Christ.
And out of all controversy, this manner of speech used by Saint Luke and Saint Paul, is a manifest interpretation of the words used by S. Matthew, and Saint Mark, this is my blood, which are all one in sense and meaning, and teache us howe the words spoken of the bread are to be interpreted, this is my body, this is the new testament in my blood, which is as much to say, this is a seal, and confirmation of the new covenant, (which is remission of sins) purchased by the breaking of my body, and the shedding of my blood for you. This bread and this cup received of you, shall assure you, that you are truly incorporated into my body, & so made partakers of eternal life. This interpretation hath in it nothing far fetched, or strange, from y e words of Christ, & y e usual manner of speaking in the scripture.
But now M. Heskins will prove, that the words of Christ are to be understanded without trope or figure, by the slanders of the Infidels, which defamed y e Christians in the primitive Church, for eating the flesh of men and of children, as appeareth in Euseb. lib. 5 Cap. 2. & 3. in the story of Blandina and Attalus martyrs: when they did eat the flesh of Christ. But none of them, neither in Eusebius, nor yet Justin, Origen, Tertullian, or any other that have written Apollogies, defended the Christians, by the commandment of Christ, to eat his body, but utterly denied and derided the slander, that they were said, to eat the flesh of men or children, as they did other slanders, which had no ground nor similitude of truth, as that they worshipped an Asses head, y t they companyed together in the dark like brute beasts, and such like: whereas, if they had eaten the natural flesh of Christ, as the Papists teache, they would neither have simply denied y e eating of a man's flesh, nor yet have spared to show, how it was eaten under the forms of bread & wine, to avoid all cruelty and lothsomnes. As for the legend of S. Andrew's passion, which M. Heskins saith was written per Presbyteros & diaconos Achaie, is of as good credit, as y e book of Beuis of Hampton, y e like I say of y e fable of Amphilochius a new found old writer: concerning the Jew, that saw a child divided when the sacrament was broken. The Legend and festival have many such miracles. But why did he not see a man divided, seeing Christ is not now a child, but a man? Belike the authors of those miracles thought, that if they feigned him to be a little child like Tom Thumb, their miracles should be more credited, that such a one should be contained in their cake, rather then a tall man of perfect stature. O impudent asses! But it proveth well the real presence (saith M. Hes.) that Auerrois a Philosopher saith: I have walked over the world, I have found diverse sects, and yet have I found none so foolish a sect. is is the sect of the Christians. For they devour with their teeth their God whom they worship. Hereof it is easy to perceive (saith he) that y e fame was, that they did receive and eat Christ, whom they honored. But herein M. Hes. bewrayeth either his falsehood, or his ignorance. For he speaketh as though Auerrois were an ancient Philosopher, that lived in the days of the primitive Church, whereas he was a Spanish Mahometist, or rather Athist, not past three or four hundredth years ago, when Popery was in y e greatest pride, and Idolatry covered the face of the earth. His saying therefore proveth nothing, but how great an offense y e popish Idolatry did give to y e Heathen, Turks, and Jews. And whereas Justinus in his Apollogie to the Emperor, declareth whatsoever was done in the assemblies of the Christians, he well dischargeth them of all slanders that were raised against them, but defendeth not the corporal eating of man's flesh by the commandment of Christ, although he confess that they received that bread not as common bread, nor as common drink: but as their flesh and blood was nourirished by that food, so they were persuaded that it was the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ for the spiritual food of their souls.
As for the curse that Rupertus threateneth to them that add unto the word of God▪ pertaineth not to them y t give the true sense of the word of God, whether it be in more words or fewer. And whereas Rupertus saith these words of Christ, I am a vine, and this is my body, be no like speeches: I confess, they are not in every respect, because in the one he did institute a sacrament, in the other he taught as by a similitude, the true end, use, and signification of the sacrament. Yet are they not altogether unlike, because they are both figurative, and so judged and compared together by the ancient Fathers. But Rupertus will prove by two reasons, that the latter is no figure. First, because in the former, there is a continuation of the Allegory, which proveth it to be a figure, in the other there is none such. This is a fond reason, for both we have shown a continuation of the trope, where he said, this cup is the new Testament, and although there were none, yet that cannot exclude a figure, no more then when baptism is called regeneration, when the lamb is called the Passover, which be sacramental speeches and such like, where no continuation of the figure followeth. The other reason of Rupertus, M. Heskins divideth into two parts. The first is, to note the enunciation of both scriptures, for he doth not take a branch of a vine, and say, I am this vine, or this vine is my body, but he saith of the bread, this is my body. A strong reason: he saith (as signanter ) by a certain demonstration of substance, and speaking of the same sacrament, That rock was Christ, and in the time when it was a sacrament, it was and might be truly said, pointing to the rock, this is Christ, and to the water issuing out of it, this is the blood of Christ, and so no doubt, Christ spake by his spiri • e in the consciences of the faithful. The second part of Rupertus reason is, that y e words which follow, which is given for you, &c. cannot be applied to the figure, therefore the sense of that place is proper, and not figurative. But contrariwise, these words cannot be applied to the sacrament, therefore the speech is not proper but figurative, and show howe the bread and the cup are the body and blood of Christ, namely, as his body is broken and his blood shed for us, for the virtue of the sacrament standeth in his passion, by which his body and blood offered in sacrifice for our sins, are made a spiritual food of our souls. The conference that Rupertus maketh between the words of Christ, and the words of the serpent, I pass over, as containing no argument in them for the proof of M. Heskins bill, but only showing the corrupt judgment of the author, whose reasons I am content to weigh, but I esteem not his authority, as being a late prop of the Popish church.
The three and fortieth Chapter beginneth to prove the understanding of Christ's foresaid words not to be figurative, by the authority of the Fathers. And first by Alexander and Justinus.
Justin is alleged in this second Apology in a corrupt Latin translation, which he maketh worse by falsifying the same in his English translation. The place hath been already considered in the first book Chap. 27. according to the original Greek copy. I will now rehearse the same after his Latin translation, and afterward show M. Heskins falsification. Cum autem &c. When he that is overseer hath given thanks, and all the people have assented, they which are called Deacons with us, do distribute to everyone that is present, that they may take part in the bread in which thanks is given, and of the wine and water, and carry it to those which are not present. And this food which is called thanks giving: Of which it is not lawful for any other to take part, but he that believeth those things to be true which are taught by us, and which is washed in the laver unto remission of sins and regeneration, and so liveth as Christ hath taught. Neither do we take these things as common bread and a common cup: but even as by the word of God Jesus Christ our savior being incarnate, had both flesh and blood: so we are taught that the food through the prayer of his word being consecrated by thanksgiving, of which our flesh & blood by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh & blood of Jesus Christ, which was incarnate. For the Apostles in their commentaries, which are called Gospels, have taught that he did so command them, That when he had taken bread & given thanks, he said, Do this in remembrance of me, this is my body. And likewise when he had taken the cup and given thanks that he said: This is my blood, and gave first to them alone. M. Heskins hath falsified this author in his translation. First, where he turneth is qui pręest, the priest, as though there were Mass priests in that time. Secondly, quae docentur a nobis, that be taught of us, as though none should receive the sacrament, but they which believe the real presence, which he surmiseth to be taught to thē.
But M. Heskins, although there was never seen a more impudent falsifier of the Doctors sayings and meanings, and even in this place as I have plainly discovered, most lewdly corrupted the authors words by false translation: yet he shameth not to slander holy and learned Cranmer of the same crime. But what should an harlot do? but after she hath played the strumpet, call every honest woman she meeteth whore first? Cranmer (saith he) reporteth, as though Justin should say, the sacrament is but called the body of Christ. This is first an intolerable lie. For Cranmer saith, it is called the body of Christ, he saith not it is but called so, that is only called so. Secondly Cranmer said out of Justinus, that these creatures after they be consecrated do nourish the bodies, and are changed into them. And therein he saith most truly, and as the words of Justin are, and as the Latin translation is, and Master Heskins most falsely hath corrupted them, as I shown before. Of which falsification being guilty in his own conscience, he fleeth from his former Latin translation which is true in this point, to the translation of Petrus Nannius a Papist, which yet helpeth him not, but by false pointing and displacing of the words, Ita quoque per preces verbi illius, cibum ex quo caro nostra & sanguis per immutationem aluntur cum benedictus fuerit, Jesus ipsius incarnati, carnem & sanguinem didicimus esse. But the Greek Article is so placed, as it can abide no such patcherie: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .
But to help out the matter, Ambrose is alleged. Lib. 4. de sacra. Cap. 5. Before it be consecrated it is bread, but when the words of Christ are come to it, it is the body of Christ. But the same Ambrose in the same book and Chapter, saith of the sacrament in the prayer of the Church:
But now cometh in the authority of Alexander sometime Bishop of Rome, to which I will not vouchsafe to make any answer, because it is a mere forgery and counterfeit Epistle, as all y e pack of these decretal Epistles are, y t are feigned in the name of those ancient holy Martyrs, sometimes Bishops of the city of Rome, by some lewd Losel, that could not write true Latin, as is easy to see of all men that will take pains to read such beastly baggage. I will give you a taste of this counterfeit Alexander, speaking of holy water: If the ashes being sprinkled with the blood of a heifer did sanctify the people, much more shall water sprinkled with salt, and hallowed with godly prayers. See howe the brutish blasphemous Ass, transferreth the argument of the Apostle, Heb. 9. from the precious blood of Christ to his beggarly holy water. I will therefore leave M. Heskins rooting with his groyne in this draff sack, and pass to the next Chapter.
The four and fortieth Chapter by occasion of the words of Alexander, treateth of the adoration and honoring of Christ's body in the sacrament.
It is a worshipful Alexander, that gave you the occasion of this discourse by his words. But let the occasion go, we will look to the matter. First he rehearseth half a side of M. Jewels words against the adoration of the sacrament, out of which he gathereth two arguments, the one thus: Christ never gave commandment to worship the sacrament: ergo, it is not to be done. This argument he answereth is negative, and therefore concludeth nothing. But under correction of his great Logike, when God chargeth us to do that only, which he commandeth, an argument of negatives of God's commandment concludeth all things to be unlawful, which God hath not commanded. He bringeth examples of many that worshipped Christ, yet had they no commandment of him so to do. A great number worshipped him not as God, but as the Prophet of God, for which they had commandment in the law, and they that worshipped him as God most especially. But M. Heskins will make the like argument, Christ gave the sacrament of his body to the Apostles only, and gave no commandment that all people should receive it indifferently, wherefore it ought not to be done. Reverend M. Doctor, I deny your antecedent, for ye cannot prove, that he gave it only to his Apostles, nor that he gave no commandment, for he gave an express commandment to continue y e same ceremony until his coming again, as S. Paul doth testify. Therefore your argument is as like, as an apple is like an oyster. But to pass over the rest of his babbling against the proclamers learning, too well known, to be defaced by such an obscure Doctors censure: I come to his second argument. S. Paul that took the sacrament at Christ's hand, and as he had taken it, delivered it to the Corinthians, never willed adoration or godly honor to be given to it. This argument he will not vouchsafe to answer, as concluding nothing, but he denieth the antecedent, saying, It is false, that S. Paul delivered no more to the Corinthians then Christ did. First he will make Paul a liar, when he said, that which I received I delivered, &c. But howe will he prove that he delivered more then Christ did? If you can spare laughter in reading, I could not in writing. Forsooth S. Paul delivered to the Corinthians, that the unworthy receiver shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, whereas Christ when he instituted the sacrament gave no such law. O noble Divine! as though that if Christ at his supper had used no longer discourse of this sacrament, then those few words, which the Evangelists do rehearse, as a sum thereof, yet it was not necessarily to be gathered, that the unworthy receiver contemning the body & blood of Christ, which is offered to him, is guilty of heinous injury against the same, and therefore it is necessary that everyone that receiveth it, should examine him self that he receive it worthily. Whether Christ received Judas or no, which is not agreed upon: but if he did, knowing him by his divine knowledge to be a reprobate, though not yet discovered to the knowledge of man, he gave us none example to receive notorious wicked persons, whom we as men know to be unworthy without repentance.
But to make the matter out of doubt, Saint Paul, though not by the term of adoration, yet willed honor to be given to the sacrament. When he saith, let a man examine him self, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. For a man cannot examine himself without great honor givē unto the sacrament. And for more manifest proof, Saint Paul referreth the honor or dishonor that is done by worthy or unworthy receiving, not to the grace of GOD, or merit of Christ's passion, but to the sacrament. Who so eateth this bread, and drinketh this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Nay rather, he referreth the honor or contempt of the sacrament to the body and blood of Christ, whose sacrament this is, as the words are plain. But who would think that Master Heskins would play the fool so egregiously, to abuse his reader with ambiguities and aequiuocations? as though there were no difference between adoration and honoring, that is, giving of due reverence unto the sacraments, and worshipping them as God's. But S. Augustine (I trow) helpeth him, Ep. 118. ad Ian. Placuit &c. It hath pleased the holy Ghost, that in honor of so great a sacrament, the body of Christ should enter into the mouth of a Christian man before other meats. I hold him as blind as a beetle, that seeth not honor in this place to signify reverence, which is given to holy things, and not adoration, which pertaineth only to GOD. His last reason to prove, that Saint Paul taught the adoration of the sacrament, is that, which is the whole controversy, that Saint Paul taught the carnal presence, but that remaineth to be proved afterward.
The five and fortieth Chapter proveth by the same Doctors, that the proclamer nameth, that the sacrament is to be honored.
This is a mere mockery, the Bishop speaketh against adoration of the sacrament as God, M. Heskins proveth, that it is to be honored, that is to say, reverenced as a holy ceremony. And none otherwise then the sacrament of baptism, as we shall see by his proofs. First, Chrysostom being one that is named by the Bishop, maketh so clear mention thereof, as M. Heskins thinks, the reader will marvel, he was not ashamed to name him. And what saith he? De sacerdotio lib. 6. thus he writeth: Quum autem ill &c. But when he (meaning the Prieste) hath called upon the holy Ghost, and hath finished that sacrifice, most full of horror and reverence, when the common Lord of all men is daily handled in his hands: I ask of thee in what order shall we place him? Howe great integrity shall we require of him? How great religion? For, consider what hands those ought to be, which do minister, what manner of tongue, that speaketh those words. Finally, then what soul, that soul ought not to be purer and holier, which hath received that so great and so worthy a spirit? At that time evē the Angels do set by the Priest, and all the order of heavenly powers lifteth up cries, and the place near to the altar in honor of him which is offered, is full of the companies of Angels. Which thing a man may fully believe, even for the great sacrifice which is there finished. And I truly did hear a certain man reporting, that a certain wonderful old man, and one to whom many mysteries of revelations are opened by God, did tell him, that God did once vouchsafe to show him such a vision, and that for that time he saw as far as the sight of man could bear, soudenly a multitude of Angels clothed in shining garments compassing the altar, finally so bowing the head, as if a man should see the soldiers stand when the king is present, which thing I do easily believe. In these words Chrysostom doth hyperbolically amplify the excellency of the Ministers office, unto which no man is sufficient. But notwithstanding, he rehearseth a vision by hearsay, of angels reverencing the presence of God, to advance the dignity of the ministry, yet speaketh he not one word, that the sacrament is to be worshipped & adored as God. And therefore M. Heskins maketh a poor consequence, the ministration of y e sacrament is honorable: ergo, much more a man ought to honor the sacrament. The ministration of baptism is honorable, doth it therefore follow, that the water of baptism is to be worshipped as God? An other testimony he citeth out of Chrysostom's Liturgy, which he calleth his Mass, which though it be out of doubt none of Chrysostom's penning, yet maketh it nothing for the adoration of the sacrament: Thou that fittest above with the father, and art here present with us invisibly, vouchsafe to give unto us thy undefiled body, and thy precious blood, and by us to all the people. Then the Priest adoreth, and the Deacon in the place where he is, thrice saith secretly. God be merciful to me a sinner. And all the people likewise with godliness and reverence do adore. It is said here they do adore, but not the sacrament, but God. For here have passed no words of the consecration as yet by the Papists own rule, therefore this adoration cannot be referred to the sacrament. And yet M. Heskins is so blockish to gather, that he fitteth in heaven, and yet is here present, as though he were present in body before they had prayed that he would give them his body, &c. But yet another place of Chrysostom, Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. Christus suam, &c Christ hath given v • his flesh, that we might be filled therewith, whereby he hath allured us very much into his love. Let us therefore with fervency and most vehement love come unto him, that we suffer not a more grievous punishment. For the greater benefit we take, so much more shall we be punished, when we shall appear unworthy of it. This body did the wisemen reverence in the manger, and being both ungodly men and barbarous, after they had ended a long journey with much fear and trembling did worship it. Let us therefore that are citizens of heaven follow those strangers. For they when they did see only that manger and cottage, and none of those things which thou now beholdest, came with great reverence and horror. But thou seest it not in the manger but in the altar, not a woman which holdeth it in her arms, but the Priest present, and the spirit so abundantly poured upon the sacrifice that is set forth. Neither doest thou see a simple body, as they did, but thou doest acknowledge his power, and all the administration. And thou art not ignorant of any of the things that by him were made, and t • ou art diligently instructed in all things. Let us be stirred up, and tremble, and declare more godliness then those barbarous men ▪ Note here▪ reverence and trembling, but no worshipping of the sacrament, no, not although he saith the wise men did worship his body in the manger, yet dare he not conclude, that we ought to adore it in the sacrament. Wherefore it is intolerable, that M. Heskins gathereth that in the first place, he declareth that it is to be honored, in the second, he declareth the practice of him self, his ministers, and all the people in worshipping it, & in the last y t he provoketh all men to honor it in the altar by the example of the wise men. For none of these three can be concluded out of y e same places. Next followeth Ambrose, De spiritu sanct. lib. 3. cap. 12. Per scabellum terra &c. By the footstool the earth is understood, and by the earth the flesh of Christ, which as this day also we do adore in the mysteries which the Apostles, as we have said before, did adore in our Lord Jesus: For Christ is not divided, but one. By adoring, he meaneth the reverent use of the mysteries, and not worshipping y e sacraments as though Christ were present in them, as he is in heaven, for that he acknowledgeth not, but only a sacramental presence, as hath been shown often already, & more shall be, as occasion serveth. And he saith we worship or reverence the flesh of Christ in the mysteries, he saith not we worship the mysteries as the flesh of Christ. Finally we worship Christ in the sacraments as we do in the word, and yet we imagine no carnal presence in either of them. Yea, we honor him, his ministers, both civil Magistrates, and Ecclesiastical teachers, & yet we have none of thē as transubstantiated into Christ. The last is S. Augustine In Psal. 98. Adore ye the footestole of his feet, for it is holy. But see brethrē what he biddeth us to adore. In another place the scripture saith: Heaven is my seat, & earth is the footstool of my feet. Then he commandeth us to adore the earth, because he said in another place, that it is the footstool of God. And how shall we adore the earth? when the scripture saith plainly, thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and here he saith, adore his footstool. And expounding to me what is his footstool, he saith: the earth is my footstool, I am made doutful, I am afraid to adore the earth, least he condemn me, which hath made heaven and earth. Again, I am afraid not to adore the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm saith to me, Adore ye his footstool. Thus wavering up and down I turn me unto CHRISTE, because I seek him here, and I find howe without impiety the earth may be adored, without impiety his footstool may be adored. For he hath taken on him earth of the earth, because flesh is of the earth, & of the flesh of Marie be took flesh. And because he walked here in that flesh, and gave that flesh to be eaten of us to salvation: And no man eateth that flesh except, he do first adore it, it is found out how such a footstool of the Lord may be adored, and we should not only not offend in adoring, but offend in not adoring. The Papists make no small accompt of this place, and yet there is no place in all S. Augustine's works, y t maketh more against them then this, if it be well marked with that which followeth. For first he saith not that the sacrament must be, or may be worshipped as God, but that the flesh of Christ may be worshipped as the earth, which is God's footstool, whereunto Divine honor is not to be given, but reverence as to an holy thing, & no man eateth his flesh, but he that before hath worshipped it, not as really present in the sacrament, but he that hath reverently acknowledged his incarnation, passion, and giving of his flesh to be wholesome unto us. But to put all out of doubt, he so maketh the sacrament God's footstool, that he doeth expressly deny speaking in the person of Christ, y t his body which was seen and crucified should be eaten, but a sacrament which being spiritually understood, should quicken them or give them life. The place hath been already once or twice set down. Non hoc corpus quod videtis mandicaturi estis, &c. You shall not eat this body which you see, &c. The corporal presence therefore being flatly taken away by S. Augustine in that place, it is easy to see what kind of worship is left to the sacrament.
But he is cited again Lib. Confess 9. Cap. 13. speaking of his mother. Illa imminente, &c She when the day of her departure was at hand, took no care to have her body sumptuously buri • d, or to be spiced with sweet spices, neither did she covet a chosen monument, or cared for her fathers sepulcher. She did not give us in charge any of these things, but only she desired that remembrance should be made of her at thine altar, which she without any days intermission had served, from whom she knew that holy sacrifice to be dispensed, by which the hand writing that was against us, was put out, by which triumph was obtained against the enemy. Master Heskins would learn of the proclaymer what service she did, was it not the service of Christ her Lord God? Yes, and why did she it at the altar, and not in heaven? Have you heard of such a blind question? While she lived on earth, although she worshipped him that is in heaven, yet she served him in the place appointed for public prayer and administration of the sacraments, and she served him with prayer and thanksgiving, not with knocking and kneeling to the sacrament, which is the thing he would have if he could tell howe to bring it about: as for the carnal presence it was spoken off even in the place next before cited out of the 48. Psalm.
After this he saith, the same that the Christians did honor Ceres and Bacchus, proveth their adoration of the sacrament. A substantial proof I promise you. It may argue they had some use of bread & wine in their religion, but no adoration of it. For the Heathē men did not take bread and wine to be Ceres and Bacchus, but Ceres and Bacchus to be the God's of bread and wine. S. Augustine is cited Contra Faust. Lib. 2 Cap. 13. Quomodo &c. How then doest thou compare our bread and cup, and sayest that error which is far differing from the truth to be like religions being more mad then some which for the bread and the cup think us to honor Ceres and Bacchus? The Heathen did offer bread and wine to Ceres and Bacchus, so they imagined y t the Christians did, not that they honored bread and wine, as Master Heskins dreameth. The like is to be said of the other place. Si • ut a Cerere, &c. As we are far from Ceres and Bacchus the God's of the Pagans, although we embrace after our manner the sacrament of the bread and the cup, which you have so praised as you would be equal with us: so our fathers were far from the chains of Saturn, although for the time of the prophesy they have observed the vacation of the Sabbath. Because there is nothing in this place for the purpose, M. Heskins after his accustomed manner, hath falsified the word by wrong translation, to deceive the unlearned. For he hath translated, Quamuis amplectamur sacramentum, although we honor the sacrament. Yet again S. Augustine is cited In Psal. 48. Edent paupers, &c. The poor shall eat and be satisfied. What eat they? That which the faithful know. How shall they be satisfied? In following the passions of their Lord, and not without cause taking their price. What do the riche? They also do ease: but how do they eat? All the riche of the earth have eaten and worshipped. He saith not, they have eaten and are satisfied: but they have eaten and worshipped. They do in deed adore God, but they will not show brotherly humanity, they eat and adore, these eat and are satisfied, yet all do eat. Augustine saith expressly the rich adore God, but of adoring the sacrament he speaketh never a word. Last of all he citeth him Ep. 120. ad Honoratum. Neque enim frustra ita distincti sunt, &c. Neither are they without purpose so distincted, that before it was said of the poor: The poor shall eat and be satisfied: And here all the riche of the earth have eaten and have worshipped. For they also are brought to the table of Christ, and receive of his body and his blood, but they do adore only, they are not also satisfied, because they do not follow. For eating the poor men, they disdain to be poor because Christ suffered for us leaving v • an example, that we should follow his steppes. This place being the same in effect, that the next before, hath never a word of adoring the sacrament, but that Master Heskins in his drowsy head dreameth, that where mention is made of eating and worshipping, it must needs follow that those things are worshipped which are eaten. And thus you see how pithily he hath proved the adoration of the sacrament, out of those Authors, whom the proclaymer named, as making no mention thereof.
The six and fortieth Chapter proveth by other Doctors that the sacrament is to be adored.
First he taketh this principle, that if Christ very God and man, be there, he is to be honored: but that is the matter in question, although it doeth not follow, if he were there, that the sacrament is to be worshipped. The dove was an undoubted sacrament of the presence of the holy Ghost, so was the fiery tongs, yet none of them worshipped. For God will not be worshipped in outward shapes, as he hath often testified in the law, otherwise then he hath appointed, therefore would he not appear in any visible form unto the people, least they should be deceived to worship God therein. But to his Doctors. The first is Erasmus who pleaseth him well, in affirming that he would still worship Christ in the Eucharistie. Then he presseth his principle of the real presence, and that he will prove by Algerus, that was more then 400. years before him, & then by Paschasius that was more then 200. years before Algerus, and last of all by Leo that was more then 400. years before Paschasius. As for Algerus and Paschasius as being far without the compass of the challenge I will pass over and come to Leo: saving that I will note, that though Paschasius alledgeth Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyril, and the counsel of Ephesus, he doeth but wrest their sayings, as the Papists do now to uphold y e error y t was not so old in his time. The words of Leo are Ep 22. ad Constant. Separentur & huiusmodi, &c. Let such men be separated from the holy member of the body of Christ, neither let the Catholic liberty suffer the yoke of the unfaithful to be laid upon it. For they are to be accounted without the house of God's grace, and without the sacrament of man's health, which denying the nature of our flesh in Christ, do both speak against the Gospel, and strive against the Symbole. Neither do they perceive through their blindness, that they are brought into such a steep place, that they stand neither in the truth of the Lord's passion, nor of his resurrection for both is made void in our savior, if flesh of our kind be not believed to be in him. In what darkness of ignorance, in what sluggishness of sloth have they 〈◊〉 hitherto, that they would neither learn by hearing, nor acknowledge by reading that, which in the Church of God, in the mouth of all men, is so agreeably spoken? That not as much as of the tongues of infantes, the verity of the body and blood of Christ is unspoken of among the sacraments of the common faith: for in that mystical distribution of that spiritual food, this thing is given forth, this thing is received, that receiving the virtue of that heavenly meat, we may go into his flesh, which was made our flesh.
First M. Heskins as his fashion is, to make the matter more clear on his side, falsely translateth, Hoc impertitur, hoc sumitur, this body is given forth, this body is received. Whereas Hoc is either taken absolutely for this thing, or else at the least, must have relation to Sacramentum, which is the next substantive of the neuter gender in any reasonable construction.
Secondly, it is manifest that Leo speaking against the heretics Eutyche • and Dioscorus, setteth forth the truth of Christ's body & blood, as one of the common known sacraments or mysteries of Christian faith: & saith never a word of his carnal presence in the mystery of his supper, but contrariwise teacheth that it is a mystical distributiō, a spiritual food, an heavenly meat, which words import not a carnal manner, but a spiritual manner of presence & eating. Thus real presence (as he termeth it) being not yet proved, y e adoration cannot follow, as he pretendeth.
The seven and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the proof of the adoration of the Sacrament by doctors.
The first doctor named, is Dionysius Areopagita disciple of S. Paul (as he saith) Eccles. Hierarch. 3. parte. Cap. 3. who maketh this prayer to the sacrament: O very godly & holy mystery, opening favorably the coverings of signifying signs, wherewith thou art covered, shine openly and apertly unto us, & fill our spiritual eyes with the singular & open brightness of thy light. That this Dionyse, although of some antiquity, yet is not that Dionyse, that was converted by S. Paul, nor any that lived 600. years after, at the least, it is plain by this reason; that neither Eusebius, nor Hieronyme, nor Gennadius, which wrote the Catologs of all ecclesiastical writers, that were before them, or were famous in the church in their time, nor yet any other writer within the compass of 600. years after Christ, maketh any mention of any such Dionyse, to be a writer of those books, which are said to be written by him. Now touching his supposed prayer, it is but an exclamatiō rethoricall, named apostrophe, not unto the bread & wine, but to him, that in that mystery is represented, which is Christ, that he would vouchsafe to open himself, & shine in the hearts of the faithful, as the outward signs are seen w t the outward eyes. And that he allowed no transubstantiation, it is manifest by that he saith in the same place, that the Bishop doth after consecration, cut in pieces the undivided bread, & speaking of y e sacrament, doth often affirm, that by those symbols or signs, we are changed into God & Christ, meaning, we are renewed by his spirit, but never affirmeth, the bread & wine to be turned into the body & blood of Christ. Howbeit, what I judge of his authority & antiquity, I have declared before. The next is Gregory Nazianzen in Epitaph. Gorgoniae sororis. Quid igitur, &c. What then did the soul both great & worthy of greatest things, and what remedy had she against her infirmity? For now the secret is disclosed, when she had dispaired of all other, she flieth to the Physician of all men, and taking the solitariness of the night, when the disease had given her a little respite, she fell down with faith, before the altare, and with a loud voice and all her might, she called upon him which is worshipped at is, and unto him she rehearsed all the miracles that he had done of old time. M. Heskins immagineth, that it was such an altare as they have in the popish Churches, which is untrue, for it was a table, & men stood round about it, as is to be proved by many testimonies of antiquity. Secondly, he immagineth, that y e sacrament was hanged over the altare to be worshipped, as it is among them, but that is utterly false: for it was received at such time as it was consecrated, except some remanents that were kept to be eaten. Therefore, though she made her prayer at the altare, she made no prayer to anything upon the altare, but to God, whom she did worship and reverence, and whose mysteries she used to receive at the same altare. Therefore M. Heskins falsifieth Gregory's words, which are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. but thus they are turned by him into latin, ante altare cum fide procubuit, & illum quem super altare venerabatur &c. She prostrated her self with faith before the altar, and called upon him whom she worshipped upon the altare. But Gregory saith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in it, or at it, meaning the altare where she prayed.
M. Heskins gathereth hereof, that the same body, should be honored by mystery, whose visible presence not his body, was taken away from the earth. But Eusebius saith, not only that he would take his body from our sight, but also place it in heaven, and in steed thereof, he leaveth the sacrament of his body and blood, which no man doubteth, but it ought to be honored, as so high a mystery deserveth, but not as God or Christ. The other saying of Eusebius, which he addeth, doeth show, howe it is to be honored: When thou comest to the reverend altare to be satisfied with heavenly meats, behold with faith the holy body and blood of thy God, honor it, wonder at is, touch it with thy mind, take it with the hand of thy heart, and chiefly, receive it with the inward draught. What can be laid more plainly for the spiritual receiving, and the like reverence to be given to so holy a sacrament? But because M. Heskins thinketh this saying to make more against him, then for him, therefore he saith, to avoid cavilling, Eusebius proceedeth sone after in these words: Sicut autem, &c. As any man coming to the faith of Christ, before the words of baptism, is yet in the bands of the old deis, but when the words are spoken, is forthwith delivered from all dreg • of sin: So when the creatures are set upon the holy altares to be blessed with heavenly words, before they be consecrated by invocation of the most highest name, there is the substance of bread & wine, but after the words of Christ, the body & blood of Christ. This is a plain place for M. Jewel, what else? But if it be rightly understood, it is a plain place against M. Hesk. for he showeth the change or transubstantiation that is in the Lord's supper, to be the same, that it is in baptism, which is spiritual, and not carnal, and so doth very fitly compare them together, or else his similitude were to no purpose, if it were not to show by that which is don in baptism, what is likewise done in the other sacrament.
M. Heskins still blattereth of a bare figure, which is of us always denied. Consequently he citeth Bernard, whose authority I leave unto him, being a burgesse of y e lower house, in which he hath many voices, as he hath never a one in y e upper house, though he wrest their speeches most injuriously. To confirm some phrase of Bernard, he rehearseth certain phrases of the old writers like to them in words, but not in sense, which have been answered already, as Jerome. ad Hed. qu. 2. Our Lord Jesus is the feaster, & the feast: he that eateth and which is eaten. Ambrose in praepara. ad miss. which is none of his, but falsely entitled to him: Thou art the Priest and the sacrifice, wonderfully and unspeakably appointed. And Augustine in Psal. 33. He was borne in his own hands. But he leaveth out a word, which expoundeth both Augustine, and all the rest that speak so: quodam modo, after a certain manner Christ was borne in his own hands, is the feast & that which is eaten, & the sacrifice. I say quodam modo, therefore not simpliciter. Last of all, he will join issue, to subscribe on this point, that the proclaimer can bring but one ancient doctor, that saith the sacrament is not to be adored. To whom I answer, that forasmuch as in the primitive church, the opinion of transubstantiation was not known, there never grew any question of the adoration of the sacrament, as y t Papists now do use it and command it.
The eyght and fortieth Chapter, confuteth the rest of the proclaymers words before rehearsed, against the honoring of Christ in the sacrament.
The words which he taketh upon him to confute, are these: It is a new devise to worship the sacrament. About three hundredth yere past, Pope Honorius commanded it to be lifted up, and the people reverently to bow unto it. How doth he confute these words? First, he saith it is no new devise, but y e contrary, that is, the denying of the adoration, is not past forty years old, and yet he confesseth before, that some infected with the heresy of Berengarius & Wycliffe, might whisper it in corners, yet Berengarius and Wycliffe preached openly, & be • ore them Bertrame wrote a book to Charles the great, wherein he confuteth the real presence, which began in that time to be received of some, as it seemeth, & upward even to Christ, all the ancient fathers are against that carnal presence, & consequently against adoration. But to proceed: Admitting that Honorius was the first y t commanded it to be worshipped, which was 300 years ago, yet is he elder then Oecolampadius & not defamed of heresy as Oecolampadius was: yes M. Hesk he is defamed of more then heresy, and proved to be an antichrist. As for the continuance of 300. years in an error can make no prescription against y e truth. But he saith, it is a fond argument of the proclaimer: Because Honorius commanded the adoration of the sacrament, therefore it was never in use before. But if it were generally believed & used in all ages before, as M Hesk. would bear us in hand, what need had Pope Honorius to command it? He saith: in like manner the fleshly sort of them dispute to maintain their shameless abode with their women it is a new devise that priests should not marry, invented by Urban and Gregory.
Whether M. Heskins were married, or else had a shameless abode with a woman, I leave to be tried by God & the country, in the county of Cambridge. But to the purpose, I have not heard any affirm, these late Popes to be the first forbidders of marriage, and therefore it is to no purpose, that he citeth Sylvester before them, and Calixtus before him, and the counterfeit Canons of the Apostles before them all. And yet by the prohibition of the latest Popes, it is certain, that Priests were married until their time. And for as much, as the scripture alloweth their marriage, and condemneth the forbidders thereof, and the eldest fathers in the primi • iue church confess no less, it is not to be regarded, although a whole hundredth Popes in a row, did everyone forbid it. The like example he bringeth of fasting in Lent, decreede in the eight Toletane counsel, near 700. years after Christ, but yet affirmed of Jerome, to be a tradition of the Apostles (For so they used to father such ceremonies and usages, as they knew not the beginning of them, upon tradition of the Apostles) nevertheless, he cannot show any Pope, or any council before Honorius, that did command adoration of the sacrament, wherefore the words are vnconfuted until the contrary can be shown.
After this, the Proclaimer, (saith he) falleth to mocking the Scholastical doctors, as S. Thomas, Duns, Durand, Holcos and such like to make it seem a dangerous thing to honor the sacrament, for that the people cannot discern the accidents from the body of Christ, and so may commit idolatry in honoring the outward forms, in steed of Christ, or if the priest do • mitt consecration. This M. Heskins calleth a mocking, but he is not able to avoid it in good earnest. He calleth it a fantasy, like to that which joined with avarice, pulled down all the Abbeys in England. The like fantasy, he saith, might move us, not to honor Christ in heaven, and much more the Apostles that honored Christ in the flesh, percase not sufficiently discerning the humanity from the Deity, and so likewise others that worshipped Christ & yet do, even some of the proclaymers scholars, understand not these quiddities. Shall they therefore fly the honor of Christ in heaven? A wise comparison, between Christ both God and man, who no doubt is to be worshipped both as God & as the mediator of God & man, and the accidents of bread & wine, or bread and wine, when they are not consecrated. Christ in the flesh is to be worshipped, because he was incarnate and joined to the humanity in a personal union, but he is not to be worshipped in bread & wine, or in y e accidents of bread & wine, because he is neither impanated, nor inuinated, nor inaccidentated, that is, not joined to any of them in a personal union. To these doubts that are moved by his own schoolmen, what if the Priest do not consecrate? what if he speak not the words of consecration? what if he had none intention to consecrate? in all which cases, the schoolmen define, that the people commit idolatry if they worship their host. First he saith: he goeth about to shake the foundation of this sacrament, as Brenz doth of baptism. Concerning Brenz, although it were easy to defend his assertion even by the schoolmen, yet because it is no matter of our controversy, I will briefly pass it over. Brenz held that Christ hath not bound us to baptize in certain form of words to be pronounced by the minister, so the meaning be observed, that he baptize into the name of the Father, & of the Son, & of the holy ghost. Herevpon, charitable M. Heskins rayleth on him, that he impugneth the form of baptism, and rejecteth y e words of baptism, which is utterly false: and then he reasoneth, that if the words of baptism may be without danger omitted, why may not the words of consecratiō likewise ? as though Brenz saith, they might be omitted, where he speaketh of altering the form of words, when the same sense remaineth. Next to this he farceth in another slander of us, that we agree not in the number of the sacraments, some admitting three, some two, some four, and some never a one. The world knoweth what we hold herein. After this, he showeth out of Basil & Damascene y e necessity of the form of baptism, which we confess, & Brenz himself doth not deny. At length he defineth contrary to y e scholemen, y t if consecration be omitted, y e danger is to the priest, & not to y e people that worship an idol. Finally, he will move the like doubt of our ministration, what if the minister of y e communion, do neither speak y e words of consecration, nor have intent to minister, what do the people receive? I answer, w t his intentiō we have nothing to do, but for as much as nothing is whispered, or mumbled in our Communion, but so uttered, y t all men may hear and understand, if anything be omitted that is necessary to the consecration of y e sacrament, if y e people communicate with him, they are in as great fault as he. As for Richerus, whom he calleth a Caluenist, y t forbiddeth to pray to Christ, and rejecteth y e words of consecration, if any such be, let him answer for himself, we have nothing to do with him. Although we acknowledge not any mumbling of words, but the whole action according to Christ's institution, to be the form of consecration of the sacrament.
The nine and fortieth Chapter, proceedeth in the understanding of Christ's words, by Irenaeus & Tertullian.
Irenęus is cited, lib. 4. Cap. 32. Sed & discipulus, &c. But also giving counsel to his disciples, to offer to God the first fruits of his own creatures, not as to one that hath need, but that they also should neither be unfruitful nor unthankfull: he took that bread which is of the creature, & gave thanks saying: this is my body, & likewise he confessed the cup, which is of the creature that is among us, to be his blood & taught the new oblation of the new testament, which the church receiving of the Apostles in all the world, offereth to God.
Here you see plainly, that our flesh is so nourished of the body and blood of Christ, that it is increased of the same, and so consisteth of them, that we are his members, but our bodies are not increased, &c. but spiritually: therefore they are not nourished but spiritually, & after an heavenly manner.
But moste plainly, for impugning of both the heresies aforesaid, and other heresies more of transubstantiation and the carnal presence, and the sacrifice propitiatory of the mass, he writeth, lib. 4. Cap. 34.
By this place is transubstantiation overthrown, where" he saith, the sacrament consisteth of two things, an earthly and an heavenly, the carnal presence, when he defineth it to be a heavenly thing, that is a divine and spiritual communication of the body and blood of Christ, the propitiatory sacrifice, when he saith, that the creatures of bread and wine were offered for a thanks giving, &c. That Melanchthon defending the popish presence abused the authority of Irenaeus against Oecolampadius, it ought to be no prejudice to us, especially 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 seeing as M. Heskins before confessed, that Melancthon him self forsook that opinion in the end.
Now come we to Tertullian, whose testimony, though it be flatly against him, yet he hath labored if it were possible, by wrestling and wrangling, to make it serve his turn, or a least to avoid it, that it should not hurt his cause, Lib. 4. contra Marcionem. Professus itaque, &c. When therefore he had professed that with desire he desired to eat the Passover, as his own (for it was unmeet that God should desire anything pertaining to another) the bread that was taken and distributed to his disciples, he made it his body, saying. This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. But it had been no figure except his body had been of truth.
That this is the true meaning of Tertullian, it appeareth plainly by the words before alleged, and by these that follow, and by the whole discourse of his work, Lib. 5. he saith.
But now it is a sport to see howe M. Heskins taketh upon him To open Tertullian, and to deliver him from the sacramentaries. His saying hath two partes, the one that Christ made the bread his body, the other that he saith: This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. Now he will require of y e adversary, whether of these two parts he will receive? and he is certain they will not receive y e former part, because Zwingli, Oecolāpadius, & Bullinger, with the rest, denieth the bread to be the natural body of Christ. But he is foully beguiled, for all these & we with thē will neither receive the first part by it self, nor the latter part by it self, but both parts together, as they are uttered by Tertullian, that Christ so made the bread his body, y t he made it a figure of his body. That is to say, that he made it a sure & undoubted pledge of his body. And we agree with Cyprian De cae • . Deu • . that The bread which our Lord gave to his disciples to be eaten, being not cha • nged in shape, but in nature, by the almighty power of the word was made flesh : and with S. Ambrose. li. 4. de sacr. cae. 4. That this bread before the words of the sacrament is bread, but when the consecration cometh to it, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Places often answered before by interpretation of the same Authors. And we do so understand Tertullian, as he is not contrary to him self, nor to any Catholic writer of his time in this matter, which is Master Heskins rule to understand a Catholic Author, And we so understand the sacrament to be a figure, as it is not a bare figure. But now, because Master Heskins must needs acknowledge the sacrament to be a figure, he maketh two kinds of figures. A figure of a thing absent, and a figure of a thing present. Bicause there is no doubt of the former, I will touch only the latter. An example of a figure of a thing present, he maketh in these words: As the spouse beholding her very husband, and seeth the scars and tokens of wounds that he suffered for her defense and safeguard, and of his children and hers: is brought in remembrance of his loving kindness, and of the dangers sustained for her sake. In which case although the substance of the man be present, yet to his wife he is a figure and token of remembrance of him self absent, in condition of a man now in fight & dangered with sore and deep wounds. For now he is no such man, but whole & sound, & a perfect man. Have you not heard a wise similitude think you? Is the substance of the man present, a figure of his actions & passions absent? or rather the scars present, a token of his wounds suffered, and acts passed? If he be so gross, that he cannot distinguish between substance and accidents, and the properties and effects of them both, yet very children can plainly see, that the substance of the man occasioneth no such remembrance as he speaketh of, but the scars of the wounds: neither do they bring the substance of the man in remembrance, but the actions and passions of the man. And therefore this is too blockish an example, that a figure may be of a thing present in substance. But Augustine Lib. sentent. Prosperi. doth help this matter as he weeneth: Caro carnis, &c. The flesh is a sacrament of the flesh, and the blood is a sacrament of the blood. By both which being invisible, spiritual, and intelligible, is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Jesus Christ, full of the grace of all virtues, and divine Majesty. M. Hes. noteth, that the invisible body of Christ in the sacrament, is a figure of the same visible. Very good. But let me go with him. Although S. Augustine or Prosper speak not of an inui • ible body. But he saith directly, that the flesh and the blood in the sacrament, are both spiritual and intelligible flesh and blood, which is as much as I ask. Then the spiritual flesh of Christ which is in the sacrament, doth signify y t visible and palpable body of Christ, then the which nothing can be said more plainly against the corporal presence, nor for y e spiritual presence. But he objecteth further, y t the scriptures also use such speeches, saying, that Christ was made in the likeness of a man. Ph. 2. When he was a man in deed, and so Tertullian might well cal it a figure, although it be the body itself. As though S. Paul in that place speaketh of the substance of his humanity, & not rather of the base show and condition that he took upon him in his humanity, whereas he might have behaved himself as God, being both God and man. Yet Augustine hath two places, by conference whereof this thing shall appear; that the sacrament is both a figure and the very thing it self. The first place is in Psal. 3. speaking of Judas the traitor, which place M. Heskins read not in Augustine, but in some other man's collections, for both he citeth it truncately, & also addeth words both in the Latin and the English, which are not in Augustine, although he do not alter the sense. But Augustine's words in deed are these. Et in historia &c.
The fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same words by S. Cyprian and Athanasius.
First he alledgeth Cyprian de cęna Domini in these words, Significata olim a tempore Melchizedek, &c. For understanding of which place, seeing he referreth his reader to the first book and 29. Chapter, where he handleth it more at large, thither also will I refer him for answer, where the place is at large rehearsed and discussed. But out of the same sermon of S. Cyprian, he hath a plain place for M. Jewel: Which is this: Non • est • uius sacramenti doctrina, &c? The doctrine of this sacrament is new, and the Evangelical schools first brought forth this manner of teaching, and Christ being the teacher. This learning was first made known to the world, that Christian men should drink blood, the eating whereof the authority of the old law doeth most straitly forbid. For the law forbiddeth the eating of blood, the Gospel commandeth that it should be drunk. In which commandem •• t • this moste chiefly ought the Christian religion to discern, that the blood of beasts differing in all things from the blood of Christ, hath only the effect of temporal relief, and the life of them ha • h an end appointed without revocation.
He noteth further, that this is called of Cyprian, a new doctrine, and therefore it cannot be the drinking of the figure of the blood of Christ, for that was old. I answer briefly, it was so new, as the gospel is the New Testament, which yet was preached to Adam and Eve, but not so clearly and distinctly as since the time of Christ, and so was the eating of the body and blood of Christ, all one with that it is now, differing but in manner of reuelatiō, and not in substance of spiritual food.
Athanasius is alleged as he is cited in Theodoret Dial. 2. in confus. Corpus est, &c. It is therefore a body to whom he saith: for them on my right hand. Whereof the devil was enemy, with the evil powers, and the Jews and the Greeks. By which body, he was in deed and so was called an high priest and Apostle, by that mysteria which he d • liuered to us saying▪ This is my body which is broken for you. And the blood of the New Testament, not of the old, which is shedd for you. The Godhead hath neither body nor blood, but man, which he did take of the virgins Marie. He meaneth nothing less, than that y e sacrament was his natural body and blood, but that he could not have instituted a mystery of hi • body and blood, except he had ben a very man, which hath body and blood, for the godhead hath none. And therefore the rule that M. Heskins giveth, that scriptures must be alleged in their literal sense in matters of faith, is to little purpose, although it may stand well in this place. For the mystery of his body proveth his humanity, without any allegory or other figure, as I have shown before. Athanasius is likewise alleged in the second Nicene counsel: Serm. de 〈◊〉 . Jesus in Berito.
The one and fiftieth Chapter showeth the mind of Iunencus, & Euseb. Emissen, upon the words of Christ.
Iuuencus a Christian Poet is cited Lib. 4. Euang. Histor. Haec vbi dicta dedit palmis sibi frangere panem, &c. When he had thus said, he took bread in his hands, and when he had given thanks he divided it to his disciples, and taught them that he delivered unto them his own body. And after that our Lord took the cup filled with wine, he sanctified it with thanksgiving, and giveth it to them to drink, and teacheth them that he hath divided, to them his blood, and saith this blood shall remit the sins of the people. Drink you this my blood. Because this Poet, doeth but only rehearse the history in verse, without any exposition and interpretation, and saith no more then the Evangelists say: I will not stand upon him, only I will note the vanity of Master Heskins, which like a young child that findeth miracles in everything he seeth, still noteth a plain place for Master Jewel, a plain place for the proclaymer: when either there is in it nothing for his purpose, or as it falleth out oftentimes, much against him.
Euseb. Emissen is cited Hom. 5. Pasc. Recedat omne, &c. Let all doubtfulness of infidelity depart. For truly he which is the auctour of the gift, is also the witness of the truth. For the invisible priest by secrete power doth with his word convert the visible creatures into the substance of his body & blood saying thus: This is my body. And the sanctification repeated: take and drink saith he, this is my blood. This place hath been often answered, to be meant of a spiritual and not a carnal conversion, as diverse other places out of y e same homily alleged by M. Hesk. himself, do prove. First it followeth immediately. Ergo vt, &c. Therefore as at the will of our Lord suddenly commanding, of nothing the height of the heavens, the depths of the waters, the wide places of the earth were in substantial being: even so by like power in the spiritual sacraments, virtue is given to the word and effect to the thing. Therefore how great and notable things, the power of the Divine blessing doeth work, and how 〈◊〉 ought not seem to the too strange and impossible that earthly and mortal things are changed into the substance of Christ, ask of thyself which now art borne again into Christ. Here saith M. Heskins, he proveth the change possible, I grant, and with all showeth what manner a change it is, even such a one as is in regeneration, namely spiritual. The same is shown in the other places following. Non dubites quispi •• , &c: Neither let any man dout, that by the will of the Divine power, by the presence of his high majesty, the former creatures may pass into the nature of the Lord's body, when he may see man himself by the workmanship of the heavenly mercy, made the body of Christ. And as any man coming to the faith of Christ, before the words of baptism, is yet in the band of the old debt, but when they are rehearsed, he is forthwith delivered from all dregs of sins: So when the creatures are set upon the holy altars to be blessed with heavenly words, before they be consecrated by invocation of the highest name, there is the substance of bread and wine, but after the words of Christ, the body and blood of Christ. And what marvel is it, if those things, which he could create with his word, being created, he can convert by his word? Yea rather it seemeth to be a less miracle, if that which he is known to have made of nothing, he can now when it is made, change into a better thing. Upon these sayings Master Heskins urgeth the change. I acknowledge the change, and urge the kind or manner of change to be spiritual, according to the examples of baptism & regeneration. Unto these authorities he annexeth a large discourse of transubstantiation, and citeth for it diverse testimonies old and new, what the old are, we will take pains to view, as for the younger sort, we will not stick to leave unto him.
First Gregory Nicene is cited, Serm. Catech. de Diuin. Sacram. Sicut antem qui panem videt, quodammodo corpus videt humanum, &c. And as he that seeth bread, after a certain manner, seeth a man's body, because bread being in the body becometh a body: so that divine body, receiving the nourishment of bread, was after a certain manner the same thing with that meat, (as we have said) being turned into the nature of it. For th • t, which is proper to all flesh, we confess to have apperteined to him. For even that body was sustained with bread, but that body, because God the WORDE dwelled in it obtained Divine dignity. Wherefore we do now also rightly believe, that the bread sanctified by the word of God, is changed into the body of God the WORDE. Master Heskins after his usual manner translateth Quodammodo in a manner, if not falsely, at the least obscurely. But that word Quodammodo, that is after a certain manner, looseth all the knotte of this doubt. For even as the body of CHRISTE was bread after a certain manner, because it was nourished with bread, and bread was after a certain manner the body of Christ: even so we believe, that the sacramental bread is after a certain manner changed into the body of Christ, that it may be the spiritual food of our souls.
Ambrose is cited De his, qui initian. Cap. 9. Where Master Heskins beheadeth the sentence, for it is thus:
Moses held a rod, he cast it do • ne, and it was made a serpent. Again, he took the serpent by the tail, and it re •• rueth into the nature of the rod. Thou seest therefore by the prophets grace, the nature of the serpent and of the rod to 〈◊〉 been twice changed: And after many examples: Quod si, &c. If then the benediction of man was of so great power, that is changed nature, what say we of the very divine consecration, where the very words of our Lord and Savior do work. For this sacrament which thou reciuest is made with the word of Christ. And again. Thou hast read of all the works of the world, that he said & they were made, be commanded and they were created. Therefore the word of Christ which could of nothing make that which was not, can it not change those things that are, into that they are not? For it is no less thing to give new natures to things, then to change natures. Hitherto you have heard Ambrose speaking earnestly for a change of nature, in the sacrament, now hear him expound it in the same place for a spiritual change:
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 unspeakably change these things into his quickening body and his precious blood, and into the grace of them. When he saith the bread and wine are changed into the grace of his body and blood, it is easy to understand, that he meaneth a spiritual change, and the last clause is an exposition of the former, they are changed, into the body and blood of CHRISTE, that is, into the grace of them.
Remugius followeth 1. Cor. Cap. 10. The flesh which the word of God the father took upon him in the womb of the virgin in unity of his person, and the bread which is consecrated in the Church, are one body of Christ, for as that flesh is the body of Christ: so this bread passeth into the body of Christ, neither are they two bodies but one body. He meaneth, that the bread is a sacrament of the very and only true body of Christ, otherwise his antiquity is not so great, to purchase him authority, but as a Burgess of the lower house, what so ever he speak. The rest that remain although I might well expound their sayings so, as they should not make for Popish transubstantiation, which the Greek Church did not receive: yet being late writers out of the compass, as Damascene, Theophylact, Paschasius, I omit them. But of all these doctors, M. Heskins gathereth, that it is a marvelous and wonderful work, that is wrought in this change of the sacramental bread and wine, therefore he would prove it cā not be into a bare token, or figure, but it may well be into a spiritual meat, to feed us into eternal life, which is a wonderful and great work of God, as likewise that the washing of the body in baptism, should be the washing of the soul from sin. And therefore be saith very lewdly, y t the institution of sacramental signs, as the Paschal lamb, and such like, is no wonderful work of God, and as fondly compareth he the institution of sacraments with bare signs and tokens of remembrance, as the twelve stones in Jordan, &c. And yet more lewdly, with the superstitious bread used to be given to the Cathechumeni in Saint Augustine's time, that had no institution of God. Finally touching the determination and authority of the late Lateran counsel for transubstantiation, as we do not esteem it being contrary to the word of God: so I have in y e first book shown what a gross error it committed, in falsification of a text of scripture, out of Saint John's Gospel.
The two and fiftieth Chapter openeth the minds of S. Basil, & S. Ambrose upon the words of Christ.
Basil is cited Quaest. comp. explic. qu. 17 • . In answer to this question, with what seat, what faith or assured certainty, and with what affection the body and blood of of Christ should be received? Timorem docet, &c. The Apostle teacheth us the fear saying: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, but the credit of our Lord's words bringeth in the perfection of certainty, who said: This is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me. In this answer, seeing he bringeth no exposition, but only citeth the bare words of the text, there is nothing that maketh for M. Heskins. He saith the words are plain enough, and need none other interpretation. It is true, before the world was troubled with the heresy of carnal presence, the text seemeth plain enough, & these words: Do this in remembrance of me, were thought a sufficient interpretation of those words: This is my body: and so doth Basel use them.
But S. Ambrose he saith, is so plain, that if his mother the Church had not been good to him, he should have been shut out of the doors. For Oecolampadins rejected his book of the sacraments, as Luther did the Epistle of S. James. Touching Luther, although he were too rash in y t censure, yet had he Eusebius for his author, twelve hundredth years before him. And not only Oecolāpadius, but many other learned men do think both the phrase, and the matter of that book to be unlike S. Ambrose. But for my part let it be received, I hope M. Hesk. shall gain little by it: he hath noted many short sentences which I will rehearse one after another. First Lib. 4. Ca. 5. Antequam. Before it be consecrated, it is bread, but when the words of Christ are come to it, it is the body of Christ. Finally hear him saying: take & eat ye all of it, This is my body. And before the words of Christ, the cup is full of wine and water, when the words of Christ have wrought, there is made the blood which redeemed the people. Ibi. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Tu forte. Thou peradventure sayest my bread is usual bread, but this bread is bread before the words of the sacraments, when consecration is come to it, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. And again in the same Chapter. Sed audi, but hear him saying that saith: he said and they were made, he commanded and they were created. Therefore that I may answer thee. Before consecration it was not the body of Christ. But after consecration I say unto thee, tha • now it is the body of Christ. He said and it is made, he commanded, and it is created. And in the same book Cap. 5. Ipse Dominus, Our Lord Jesus himself testifieth unto us, that we receive his body and blood, shall we doubt of his truth and testification ? Out of these places, he concludeth not only that figures be excluded, but also that the term of consecration is used seriously. I grant, but not in such sense as the Papists use it, but as the word signifieth, to hallow or dedicate to an holy use. How figures be excluded, and how these places are to be taken, that are so plain, as he pretendeth, I pray you hear what he writeth in the same books of sacraments.
The three and fiftieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of Christ's words by Gregory Nicene, and S. Jerome.
Gregory Nicene is cited, Ex serus. Catatholico. De Diuinis sacram. Qua ex causa panis in eo corpore mutatus, &c. By what cause the bread in that body being changed, passed into the divine power, by the same cause, the same thing it done now. For as there the grace of the word of God maketh that body, whose nourishment consisted of bread, and was after a certain manner bread: So bread as the Apostle saith, by the word of God and prayer, is sanctified, not because it is eaten, growing to that that it may become the body of the WORDE, but forthwith by the word it is changed into the body, as it is said by the WORDE. This is my body. This place saith Master Heskins overthroweth three heresies. The first of Luther or Lutherans: that the sacrament is not the body of Christ, except it be received. Gregory saith, it is not the body of Christ, because it is eaten. But that is no overthrow to Luther's assertion, for Gregory meaneth, that the sacrament by nourishing our bodies, is not made the body of Christ, as the bread that a man eateth is turned into his body, and so was the bread y t our savior did eat, turned into y e substance of his body while he lived, but by the power of God, & this notwithstanding, it is made that body of Christ, only to the worthy receiver. Of which a • sertion M. Hesk. saith, they have no substantial ground in scriptures: as though an argument framed out of the scripture, of the end & use of y e sacrament, were not a substantial ground. And as for the popish counsel of Florins, is a sorry ground without scripture. Although 〈…〉 nor, (as he slandereth us) y t the power of consecration dependeth upon the will of the receiver, but upon the wonderful work of God, with such practice as he requireth. The second supposed heresy, to be overthrown, is, that the substance of bread & wine do still remain, because Gregory saith, it is changed into the body of Christ. But this change is not of substance, but of use, for as he saith, it is changed into the body, so he saith it is changed into the divine virtue, which words, though Master Hesk. would rack to signify the divine flesh of Christ, yet cannot he avoid a manifest figure in the speech of Gregory, & therefore it is nothing so plain for him, as he pretendeth. To this he adjoineth a defense of the term of transubstantiation, which he confesseth to be but new, (as in deed the doctrine thereof is) but yet he compareth it with the term used of old by the fathers Homousion, to signify that Christ is of the substance of the father. But to be short, for terms, we will not strive, let him prove transubstantiation so old as he pretendeth, & we will acknowledge the term. The third pretended heresy to be overthrown, is, that he teacheth a real presence, and therefore the words: This is my body, are to be understood without trope or figure. But this is avoided in answer to the seconde, and so we leave him discharged of M. Hesk. cavils.
Jerome is alleged ad Hedibiam. qu. 2. the place hath been already handled, & proved to be against M. Hesk. in the 31. Chap. of this book, whither I refer the reader for brevities sake, only in this place I will deal with such points as were not spoken of there, and rehearse the whole discourse of S. Herome together, & not in patches as M. Hesk. hath done, interlacing his fond glosses. Questio secunda. Quomodo accipiendum sit, &c.
The four & fiftieth Chapter testifieth the understanding of the same words by Isychius, & S. Augustine.
Isychius is alleged in Levite. lib. 6. Cap. 2 • . upon this text. He that eateth of the holy things unwittingly, shall put the fifth parte thereunto, and give unto the Priest the hallowed thing. Sancta sanctorum, &c. The most holy things properly are the mysteries of Christ, because it is his body, of whom Gabriel said unto the virgin: The holy ghost shall come vpō thee, and the power of the moste highest shall ouershadowe thee, therefore that holy one that shall be borne of thee, shall be called the son of God. And Isaiah also: The Lord is holy, & dwelleth in the heightes, that is to say, in the bosom of his father. For from this sacrifice he hath forbidden, not only strangers and soiourners & hired servants, but he commanded also, not to receive it by ignorance. And he taketh it by ignorance, which knoweth not the virtue and dignity thereof, which knoweth not that this body and blood is according to the truth, but receiveth the mysteries, and knoweth not the virtue of the mysteries. Unto whom Solomon saith, or rather the spirit which is in him: When thou sittest to eat with a Prince, attend diligently, what things are set before thee. He also compelling openly and constraining him that is ignorant to add a fifth parte. For this fifth parte being added, maketh us to understand the divine mysteries, intelligibly. Now, what the fifth parte is, the words of the Law giver may teache thee. For he saith: he shall add a fifth parte, with that he hath eaten. And howe can a man add a fifth parte of that which he hath already eaten and consumed? For he biddeth not another thing, or from any other where. But a fifth parte to be added of it, or with it, or as the 70. interpret upon it. Then the fifth parte of it, upon it, is the word which was uttered by Christ him self upon the Lord's mystery. For that being added, delivereth and removeth us from ignorance, as to think anything carnal or earthly of those holy things, but decreeth, that those things should be taken divinely & spiritually, which is properly called the fifth part, for the divine spirit which is in us, and the word which he delivered, doth set in order the senses that are in us, and doth not only bring forth our taste unto mystery, but also our hearing & sight and touching & smelling, so that of these things which are very high, we do suspect, nothing that is near to less reason or weak understanding.
This place M. Hesk. noteth, that the mysteries are called a most holy thing, and a sacrifice. We confess it is a most holy thing, & a sacrifice of thanksgiving, for so y e fathers meant, and not a propitiatory sacrifice. Moreover he noteth, that it is called the very body and blood in very deed. Although the words of the author sound not so roundly, yet let that be granted also, what is then the conclusion? Marie then, have ye a plain place for the proclaimer, & issue joined thereupon, that no one writer of like auncientie, saith, it is not the very body. For the plainesse of the place, I wish always, that the author may be his own expositor. First, where he saith, that the fifth part added, maketh us to understand the mysteries intelligibly (that is as he useth the term) spiritually & mystically, although M. Hesk. translate intelligibiliter easily.
Secondly, where he saith, we must think nothing carnally or earthly of the holy things, and that the word of God decreeth, that they should be taken divinely and spiritually. As for the issue it was joined & tried in the one and twentieth Chapter of the first book. But we must hear what Hesychius saith further. Quicunque ergo sanctificata &c. Whosoever therefore shall eat of the things sanctified by ignorance, not knowing their virtue (at we have said) shall add a fifth parte of it upon it, and give it to the Priest into the sanctuary. For it behooveth the sanctification of the mystical sacrifice, and the translation or commutation from things sensible to things intelligible, to be given to Christ, which is the true Priest, that is, to grant and impute to him the miracle of them, because that by his power and the word uttered by him, those things that are seen, are as surely sanctified, as they exceed all sense of the flesh. Out of these words M. Hesk. would prove transubstantiation, because he saith, there is a translation or cōmutation from things sensible to intelligible, y t is, from bread, which is perceived by y e senses, to y e body of Christ, which in this manner is not perceived by senses. But M. Hesk. must prove the body of Christ to be no sensible thing, but a thing which may be perceived by understanding only, or else his exposition will not stand, for here is a division & exposition of things sensible & intelligible, which is a plain overthrow of popish transubstantiatiō, & carnal presence, for y t whereunto the things sensible are changed, is not a sensible thing, as the natural body of Christ is, but they are changed into things intelligible▪ y t is, which may only by understanding be conceived, & so is the spiritual feeding of our souls by faith, with y e very body & blood of Christ. Next Augustine is cited in Ps. 33 a place which hath ben cited & answered more then once already. Et ferebatur, &c. And he was carried in his own bāds. Brethren how could this be true in a man? &c. I will remit the reader to the 10. Chap. of this second book, where it is answered by Aug. himself, & in the same exposition. Christ carried himself, saith Aug. in his hands, quodam modo, after a certain manner, but not simply. Master Hesk. jangling of an only figure, hath been often reproved: we make not the sacrament such an only figure, as David might carry in his hands of him self, for David could make no sacrament of him self, but such a figure, as is a divine and heavenly work, to give in deed, that it representeth in sign. An other place of Augustine, is cited De Trin. lib. 3. cap. 4. but truncately (as he termeth it) for he neither alledgeth the head nor the feet, by which the scope of Augustine's words might be perceived. But the whole sentence is this. Si ergo Apostolus Paulus, &c.
He rayleth upon Oecolampadius, for leaving out of S. Augustine that which maketh against him, as though he him self hath not an hundredth times done so as he chargeth him. Although it is not to be thought, that Oecolampadius used any fraud, when he took as much as served his purpose for which he alleged it, and nothing followed, that was contrary to it, for all M. Heskins loud crying out. For Paul preached Christ by signifying in the sacrament, which is called the body & blood of Christ, because it is a sacrament thereof, whereas his tongue, nor his parchment, nor ynke, nor sound of words, nor figures of letters were no sacraments, and yet he preached the same Christ by signifying, in speaking, writing, and ministering the sacrament. But besides this, M. Heskins would have us note two things. That the bread is sanctified and made a great sacrament: and that it is sanctified and made by the invisible work of the holy Ghost. The first (he saith) is against Oecolampadius & Cranmer, that say, the creatures receive no sanctification, but the souls of men. They mean, that holiness is not included in the creatures, but consisteth in the whole action, and so Augustine addeth to the consecration the due receiving in remembrance of Christ's death, without which the bread is no sacrament. But M. Heskins would learn what he meaneth by calling it a great sacrament, and what the work of the holy Ghost is in it? If it please him to understand, the holy Ghost working invisibly, maketh it a great mystery of our salvation, assuring our consciences, that we are fed spiritually with the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are corporally with bread and wine. As for S. James his Mass, and other such ma • king disguisings, I will not vouchsafe to answer, being mere forgeries and counterfetings.
But howe S. Augustine did expound these words, M. Heskins if he durst, might have cited this place, Contra Adimantum.
The five and fiftieth Chapter tarrieth in the exposition of the same words by Chrysostom and Sedulius.
Chrysostom is cited In 26. Math. Hom. 83. Credamus vbique &c. Let us believe in every place, neither let us resist him, although it seemeth to be an absurd thing to our sense, and to our cogitation, which is said. Let his word I beseech you overcome both our sense and our reason, which thing let us do in all matters, and specially in mysteries, not looking upon those things only which lie before us, but also holding fast his words. For we cannot be deceived by his words, but our sense is most easy to be deceived: they cannot be false, but this our sense is often and often deceived. Therefore because he hath said: This is my body, let us be held with no doutfulnesse, but let us believe, and thoroughly see it with the eyes of understanding. Here M. Heskins noteth that it passeth not reason, to make present a figure of his body, as though the mystery of the sacrament were nothing, but a figure of his body. Secondly, that Chrysostom willeth Christ's words to be understanded as they be spoken. No doubt, but he would have them to be understood as they were meant by Christ, and that is spiritually, for which cause he willeth us to behold the matter with the eyes of our understanding and by faith. And whereas M. Heskins doth further allege this Doctors words In Marc. 14. Hom. 51. Qui dixis &c. He that said, This is my body, did bring to pass the thing also with his word. We confess he did so, but thereof it doth not follow, that all figure is wiped away, as he saith: neither is there any plain place for the proclamer, or in anything that followeth in the same Homely. Quando igitur &c. When then thou seest the Priest give the body, think not the hand of the Priest, but the hand of Christ is put forth unto thee. Surely in these words, we must either say that the Priests hand is transubstantiated into the hand of Christ, or else we must acknowledge a figurative speech. It followeth in Chrysostom, for more persuasion. Qui enim maius &c.
Sedulius for variety of names is cited In 11. pri. ad Cor. Accipite hoc est corpus meum &c. Take ye, this my body, as though Paul had said, take heed ye eat not the body unworthily, seeing it is the body of Christ. What is there here that the proclamer will not confess? and yet is there nothing to bind him to subscribe, for the proclamer would never deny, that the sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, though after another sort, then it is affirmed by the Papists.
The six and fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same words by Theophylus and Leo.
Theophylus Alexandrinus is brought on the stage in this show, cited Lib. 2. Pasch. Consequence est &c. It is consequent, that he that receiveth the former things, should also receive those things that follow. And he that shall say, that Christ was crucified for devils, must allow also that it is to be said unto them: This is my body, and take ye, this is my blood. For if he be crucified for devils (as the author of new doctrine doth affirm) what privilege shall there be, or what reason that only men should communicate with his body and blood, and not devils also for whom he shed his blood in his passion ? He saith here is no mention of tropes and figures. A substantial reason, therefore none are used. It is a good reason that Theophylus useth: that Christ died not for the devils, because he giveth them no participation of his body and blood, but it hangeth on a rush that M. Hes. concludeth. Such as are partakers of his real body, may be made partakers of his spiritual body: but devils cannot of his real body, therefore not of his spiritual body be partakers. See how this perverse man, maketh the sacrament to be the real body of Christ, and that which was crucified, his spiritual body. By which he doth not only make Christ have two bodies, but also overthroweth the truth of the one, to establish the falsehood of y e other. But the same writer in y e first book, doth more certainly avouch the real presence, & deny the figures in these words: Dicit spiritum sanctum &c. Origen saith, that the holy Ghost doth not work upon those things, which are without life nor cometh to unreasonable things. Which when he saith, he thinketh not that the mystical waters in baptism by the coming of the holy Ghost to them are consecrated, and that the Lord's bread by which our saviors body is shown, and which we break for sanctification of us, and the holy cup which are set on the table, and be things without life, are sanctified, by invocation and coming of the holy Ghost to them. M. Hes. translateth quo saluaioris corpus ostenditur, in which the body of our Savior is shown, but it is plain enough, Theophylus meaneth, that by the bread the body of Christ is shown, that is signified, or figured, or represented. As for consecration, which term he giveth to the waters in baptism, Master Heskins chattereth I wot not what about it, nor to what purpose. Certain it is, that he useth not the term as the Papists do, for they apply it only to the sacrament of the altar, as they call it.
Leo is cited Serm. 7. de pass. dom. Jesus confisij sui certus &c. Jesus being at a point with him self, and ready to do his fathers disposition without fear, finished the old Testament, and made the new Passover. For his disciples sitting with him to eat the mystical supper, while they in the house of Caiaphas were treating howe Christ might be slain, he ordaining the sacrament of his body and blood, did teach, what manner of sacrifice should be offered to God, and from this mystery removed not the traitor. This place being against Master Heskins, where he calleth it the sacrament of his body and blood &c. he would answer the matter by this principle, that old writers did so call the very natural body of Christ in the sacrament, which is all the matter in question. But he will prove it by another saying in the same place. Vt vmbrae &c. That shadows might give place to the body, and images might cease under the presence of the truth, the old observance is taken away with a new sacrament, the sacrifice passeth into the sacrifice, blood excludeth blood, and the festiuitie of the law while it is changed, is fulfilled. These words must needs be referred to the passion of Christ, whereof the sacrifice is a memorial: for the sacrifice of Christ, and his blood shedding on the cross, was the very fulfilling of the shaddow and image of the Paschal Lamb in the old law, and not the institution of the sacrament, which is a figure or sacrament thereof. And so the groundwork of all M. Hes. building is quite overthrown.
The seven and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same words by S. Cyril and S. Gregory.
Cyrillus is cited, as he is often, ad Colosyrium. Non dubites an &c. Doubt thou not whether this be true, when he saith manifestly, This is my body: but rather receive the word of our Savior in faith. For seeing he is the truth, he doth not lie. Master Heskins inferreth, that the words of Christ are manifest, and so to be taken in the literal sense without figure, because he useth these words, Christ said manifestly, this is my body: but this is a childish mockery. Christ said manifestly, I am the door. Doeth it therefore follow, that it is no figurative speech, and that the words of Christ are manifest, and therefore to be taken in the literal sense? And yet I believe, because Christ said manifestly, I am the door, that he is in deed the door, though not literally but figuratively taken. It greueth M. Hes. that the proclamer should play with Duns his indiuid • um vagum, saying, that by the like means, he might disgrace the faith of the trinity, to open the quiddities of distinctions, and relations of persons, that be spoken thereof. And I think the same, if he should teach that holy mystery after the school manner, & not after the word of God. But he returneth to another place of Cyril. Ne horreremus carnem & sanguinem. Bicause this place is already rehearsed more at large, and answered in the 51. Chap. of this book, I will send the reader back, to consider it in that place.
Gregory is cited Lib. 4. dialogue. cap. • 8. Debemus ita{que} praesens sęculum &c. We ought therefore, seeing we see this present world to be passed away, with all our mind to contemn it, to offer to god the daily sacrifices of tears, the daily sacrifices of his body and blood. For this sacrifice doth singularly save the soul from eternal destruction, which repayreth to us the death of the only begotten, by a mystery. Who although since he arose from death, he doth not now dy, and death shall have no more dominion of him: yet living in himself immortally & incorruptibly, is sacrificed again for us in this mystery of the holy oblation. For his body is there received, his flesh is divided for the health of the people, his blood is shed, not now upon the hands of the Infidels, but into the mouths of the faithful. Hereof therefore let us consider, what sacrifice this is for us, which for our deliverance doeth follow the passion of the only begotten Son. For which of the faithful ought to have any doubt, that in the same hour of the immolation, the heavens are opened at the Priests voice? that the companies of Angels are present in the mystery of Jesus Christ? That the lowest things are coupled to the highest: earthly things are joined to heavenly things, and that one thing is made of things visible and invisible? Of these last words of joining high and low, heavenly and earthly things, he maketh a great matter, which is (saith he) that Christ is joined to the earthly forms of bread and wine. Where note (I pray you) that he nameth the accidents of things, for the things them selves, which is a toy to mock an ape. And yet he pleaseth him self so well therein, that he would draw Irenaeus, which is clean contrary to transubstantiation, to be a great patron thereof: Irenaeus saith as we have shown before more at large, that Eucharistie consisteth of two things, earthly and heavenly. Now he inquireth of us, what is the heavenly part of the sacrament? And he reasoneth that it is neither the grace of God, nor thanksgiving, nor the word of God, nor sanctification. Well: what is it then? Gregory saith, it is the body of Christ, and so say we, spiritually received. But if I should ask M. Hes. what is the earthly part of the sacrament, he will say, the accidents of bread & wine, but saving his wisdom, accidents be neither earthly not heavenly, but the earthly thing must needs be a substantial thing, & what other earthly substance can there be, but the substance of bread and wine? He saith, that corporal receiving is here avouched by Gregory. Then must he tell me how in these words, the sacrifice of tears, is matched with the sacrifice of his flesh and blood, and how the death of Christ is repaired by a mystery, howe the flesh of Christ is divided or parted, if this cannot be done, but spiritually, then Christ's body cannot be eaten, but spiritually.
The judgment of Barnard which followeth, we leave to be weighed according to the corruption of the age in which he lived.
The eight and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition among the eldest Fathers by Euthymius and Isidorus.
Although neither of these writers are within the compass of the challenge, yet because Euthymius useth much to follow ancient Doctors, and Isidorus was near the time of the challenge, I will set down their places and examine their words. Euthymius is cited In 26. Math. Sicut vetus testamentum &c. Even as the old Testament had sacrifices and blood: so hath the new, namely the body and blood of our Lord. Now he did not say: These are the signs of my body and my blood: but these things be my body and blood. Therefore we must not look to the nature of those things that are set forth, but to the virtue of them. For as he did supernaturally defy (if I may so speak) his assumpted flesh: so doth he also unspeakably transmute these things into the same his quickening body, and into his precious blood, and into the grace of them. And the bread hath a certain similitude unto the body, and wine to blood. For both the bread and body are earthly: but the wine and the blood are airy and hot. And as bread doth comfort, so the body of Christ doth the same and much more, it sanctifieth both the body and the soul. And as the wine doth make glad: so the blood of Christ doth the same, and moreover is made a defense. Although the chiefest partes of this place are answered in the 17. Chapter of the first book, and in the 51. Chap. of this second book: yet as M. Hes. gathereth here two other matters, so I will make answer to them. First he saith, That the figurative gloss of the sacramētaries is flatly denied : But by what words I pray you▪ Marrie where he saith: Christ said not these be signs of my body and blood, but these are my body and blood, if this be a flat denial of a figure, because Christ said not so, then is it likewise in these speeches, he said not the rock was a sign of Christ, but the rock was Christ, the Lamb is the Passover &c. Euthymius meaneth not to exclude all figures from the saying of Christ, but to show that the sacrament is not a bare, naked, and vain sign, but a true sign of the very body and blood of Christ, given to the faithful in the administration of the supper.
The second matter that Master Heskins noteth, is, of the unspeakable transmutation, and that must needs be meant of transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the natural body and blood of Christ, by this reason: there be four things called the body of Christ. 1. The figure. 2. The Church. 3. The merit, fruit, or virtue of his passion. 4. And his body natural, but it cannot be into the figure, nor into the Church, Nor into the spiritual body of Christ, I mean the merit, virtue, and grace of Christ's passion, Ergo it must needs be spoken of the natural body of Christ. But vouchsafe (gentle Reader) to run over once again these words of Euthymius, which in Latin are these. Ita & hec ineffabiliter transmuta • in ipsum vinific ••• corpus, & in ipsius pręciosum sanguinem si • on, & in gratiam ipso 〈◊〉 : Even so he doth unspeakably transmute and change thes • things into the same his quickening body, and into his own precious blood, and into the grace of them. Now tell me whether M. Heskins doth flatly deny, that which Euthymius doeth flatly affirm, that the bread and wine are changed into the grace of the body and blood of Christ? By which words he doth sufficiently expound, what kind of change he meaneth of them into the body and blood of Christ, not a corporal but a spiritual transmutation. To the rest of the sentence which is a good exposition of the former parte, showing both the bread and wine to remain in the sacrament, and for what cause they are used to represent the body and blood of Christ, namely, for the similitude they have unto the body and blood of Christ: Master Heskins saith nothing. But let the reader weigh it well, and he shall see it clean contrary both to transubstantiation, and the carnal presence.
Now we come to Isodorus, whom he confesseth to be somewhat out of the compass of the challenge, and his words De Offi. Eccle. Lib. 18. are these. Sacrificium, &c. The sacrifice that is offered of the Christians unto God, Christ our God and Master did first institute, when he commended to his Apostles his body and his blood before he was betrayed, as it is read in the Gospel: Jesus took bread and the cup and blessing them gave unto them.
In this place is nothing for the carnal presence, but that Isydore calleth the sacrament the body and blood of Christ, which we also do, and acknowledge to be so rightly called. And Master Heskins can conclude nothing but upon a negative, he saith not he gave a figure, so may I conclude, he saith not he gave his natural body, and no figure. After this he reasoneth as fondely of Christ's blessing of the bread, which although the Evangelists do expound to be giving of thanks, yet admit blessing to signify consecration, and what hath he gained? Forsooth Christ would not have blessed it to make but a figure: still he playeth the fool with that bable, but a figure, only a figure, a bare figure, which we utterly do forsake. But toward the ende of the Chapter, he falleth to gathering his voices, and affirmeth that none of the old fathers cal the sacrament a figure, except Tertullian only, wherein he lieth impudently, for beside Ambrose, and Augustine, which both use the very word figure, we have shown in due places, that both they & in a manner all the rest of the fathers, have either written plainly against the carnal presence, or else nothing for it. As for his last challenge, that all the protestants must bring forth when any country did profess the same religion that is now preached, is vain: and hath been sufficiently answered in other treatises. It is certain, that all nations y t were converted by the Apostles, before they were corrupted by heresy and Antechristianitie, professed the same religion that we do. As for the alterations in King Henries time, King Edward's, and the Queens Majesty's, that now is, it is easy to answer. King Henry began the work, which King Edward finished, and the Queen repaired and upholdeth in spite of the devil and the Pope. As for the consent and peace of the Popish Church, it proveth nothing, but that the devil had then all things at his will, and therefore might sleep on both sides, but now he is disturbed of possession of the house, now he stormeth, and of Robin good fellow, which he was in the Popish time, is become plain Satan the Devil.
The nine & fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the same text by the fathers of the latter days, & first Damascene, & Haymo.
Before M. Heskins begin his pretended exposition, he chargeth Luther, to be a proud contemner of the fathers, who reverenced them as much as it was meet they should be reverenced, although he preferred one authority of scripture, before a thou •• nd Cyprians & Augustine's. Next to Luther, he rayleth on the bishop of Sarum, whō he calleth the proclaymer, charging him with mocking of the holy fathers, whereof some he saith be saints in heaven, what the rest be he doth not determine, he meaneth Sylvester, Isodore, Innocentius, Betram, Durand, Holcot Dunce, &c. Which if they have written anything that is ridiculous, in defense of Popery, it were better men should laugh at their folly, then be still deceived with their errors. But whereas M. Hesk. will set a player on a stage, and a boy in the Pa •• is to answer the Bishop, I ween it be more then the reverend M. Doctor Heskins reuested in Doctoralibus and inthronized in his Doctors chayer, dare well take upon him to do. That which followeth in this Chapter, is consumed in cyting and urging of the forenamed writers, whose authority we do not admit, appealing always from the lower house of punys Burgesses, to the higher house of ancient Barons.
The sixtieth Chapter proceedeth in exposition of the same text by Theophylacte and Paschasius.
Although we might demure upon the understanding of those words of Theophylact, In 14. Matth. That the bread & wine are transelementated into the virtue of his flesh & blood: yet considering the corrupt time in which he lived, his authority is not worth the striving for. And whereas Master Heskins would make him so say no more then the old fathers, Hilar. Iren. Cyril. Chrysost. &c. Seeing we have already considered their testimonies, it were superfluous to repeat them again in this place, and as often, as it pleaseth Master Heskins to abuse their names.
The one and sixtieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of the same words by Oecumenius and Anselmus.
Oecumenius saith little to the purpose, too or fro. But Anselmus goeth more roundly to y e matter, as one y t was y e scholar of Lanfrācus, which wrote against Berengarius. Nevertheless upon these words of his, riseth some other matter: Neque eminet. For we do neither altogether exclude a figure frō this sacrament, nor admit an only figure. This place M. Hesk. would have to expound Tertullian's figure, but we have shown before, it will not serve. Unto this he addeth Augustine, cited in the Popes decrees, but not to be found in his works in these words. The body of Christ is both the truth and a figure: The truth while the body and blood of Christ in the virtue of the holy Ghost is made of the substance of bread and wine: but that is the figure which is outwardly perceived. De cons. Dist. 2. Cap vtrum. When these words are found in any work of S. Augustine's, we will make answer to them, otherwise we may not receive them of the only credit of the Popes law. Unless they have such meaning as the saying of Hilarius B. of Rome which followeth. Corpus Christi, &c. The body of Christ which is takē at the altar is a figure, while the bread & wine are seen outwardly, and a truth, while the body and blood of Christ inwardly are believed. It seemeth to me this saying to be plain enough, that the sacrament is an outward figure of the body and blood of Christ, which is inwardly received spiritually by faith.
By like Master Heskins had not learned the solution at that time, and therefore now he sendeth it over the sea to him. The argument was this: Christ took bread, he blessed bread, he brake bread, wherefor he gave bread to his disciples: if he gave bread, then not his body. M. Heskins saith, he so useth the words, as though by the acts which the verbs express, nothing had been done. Yes M. Heskins he changed the use, but not the substance. But by the like sophism (saith Master Heskins, he might prove that he gave no sacrament of his body. For that he delivered which he took, but he took bread, no sacrament: therefore he delivered bread, no sacrament.
But by his patience, this sophism of his, is nothing like Master Pilkintons argument. For in one proposition, he speaketh of the substance, in the other of another quality or affection beside the substance, as in this example: that which you bought in the shambles you have eaten, but you bought cow flesh, therefore you have eaten caulfes flesh. Every child seeth this followeth not. But if I speak of the substance in both alike, it followeth as thus. That which you bought in the market, you have eaten, but you bought mutton, therefore you have eaten mutton. Upon the premises granted, this argument followeth of necessity, and such is the argument of Master Pilkinton, which all the Papists in Louayne cannot answer.
The t • o and sixtieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same words by Rupertus, and Nicholaus Methonen.
In this whole Chapter is nothing worth the reading, and much less the answering, for he doeth nothing but cite and urge the sayings of these two late writers, of whose authority he knoweth we make none account, as there is no reason why we should, they being members of the Popish Church. For the ancient writers whom he nameth, their sayings have been already weighed and answered.
The three and sixtieth Chapter, taryeth in the exposition of the same words by Innocentius & Germanus.
The authority of Pope Innocent the third, which called the Lateran Counsel, in which transubstantiation was first decreede, must needs be of great credit with us. But Germanus, bishop of Constantinople, the Popes sworn enemy, I marvel why he is joined with the Pope. For that he saith, is small to M. Heskins purpose, and therefore he helpeth him out with Damascene: yet he confesseth his saying subject to cavilling. For where he writeth, that in the sacrament, Dominus & conspicitur &c. Our Lord is both seen and suffereth him self to be touched, by the fe •• full and holy mysteries, &c. and so saith Chrysostom, thou seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him, &c.
Master Heskins saith we reason (and so we may in deed) that we eat him, as we see him, which is only by faith: But M. Heskins with profound Logike, will answer this argument, that a thing is said to be seen, when the outward forms are seen: and so Christ is seen, when the forms of bread and wine are seen. But by his favor, a thing is seen: when the proper forms & accidents thereof are seen, but the form or accidents of bread and wine are not the proper forms of Christ's body, therefore Christ's body is not seen by them, no more then I see a man, when I see the house wherein he is, or then I see a knife, when I see the close case or sheath wherein it is. And the words of Germanus can abide no such boyish sophism, for he saith: Christ is seen by the fearful and holy mysteries, but neither bread nor wine by M. Heskins confession, & much less the accidēts of them are fearful & holy mysteries, therefore the whole sacrament is so called, by which Christ is seen, & touched, and eaten, but with the eye, hand, and mouth, of faith.
The four and sixtieth Chapter, showeth the exposition of Petrue Çluniacensis & Bessarion upon the same,
In this Chapter, beside the sayings of this Dan Peter of Clunye & Bessarion, which for a Cardinals hatt in the counsel of Florence, forsook the unity of the Greek church, he maketh a short repetition of all the authors names & sayings, whom he hath cited vpō this text: This is my body, which because I have answered at large, it were needless to recapitulate in this place. I trust the indifferent reader will confess, that not one of the highher house hath given a clear voice on his side, but all are most clear against him.
The five and sixtieth Chapter, treateth of the bread, blessed, and given by Christ to the two disciples in Emmaus, and proveth by Theophyl • st & Bed • , that it was the sacrament,
It shall be easily granted him, that not only these two whom he nameth of late time, but also diverse of the ancient doctors, are of opinion, that Christ did give y e sacrament at Emmaus, but yet it followeth not, that it was so. For no certain circumstance of Scripture, can lead us or them so to think. Beda in 24. Luke writeth thus: • erti mysterij causae, &c. It came to pass for the cause of a certain mystery, that another shape should be shown to them in him, and so they should not know him but in the breaking of bred▪ left any man should say, that he hath known Christ, if he be no • partaker of his body, that is to say, of his Church, whose unity, the Apostle commendeth at the sacrament of the bread, saying: one bread, we many, are one body, that when he reached to them the blessed bread, their eyes were opened, that they might know him. This place indeed showeth, y t Beda his opinion was, that y e sacrament was there given, but either for transubstantiation, or the real presence, or for the communion in one kind, he saith nothing. For the English church in his time knew none of all these monsters.
The six & sixtieth Chapter, proveth the same by S. Augustine and Chrysostom.
I said before, we confess, that not Augustine only, but other also of the fathers were of this opinion. The place of Augustine hath ben already cited & considered. I would also omit the place of Chrysostom, but that he gathereth further matter out of it, then the pretence of this Chapter. He is cited in Hom. 17. in Math. Quia de sanctis, &c. Because we have begun to speak of holy things, it is not to be left unspoken, but that sanctification is one thing, and the thing sanctified another: For that is a sanctification that sanctifieth another thing: but that which is sanctified cannot sanctify another thing, although it self be sanctified. As for example, thou • ignest the bread which thou eatest, as Paul saith, it is sanctified by the word of God & by prayer. Thou hast sanctified it, thou hast not made it sanctification. But that which the priest giveth from his hand is not only sanctified, but also it is sanctification, because that only is not given which is seen, but also that which is understood. Of the sanctified bread therefore it is lawful to cast to beasts, and give it to infidels, because it doth not sanctify the receiver. But if that which is taken of the hand of the priest, were such, as that which is eaten at the table, all men would eat of the table, and no man receive it of the priests hands. Wherefore our Lord also did not only bless the bread in the way, but gave it with his hand to Cleophas & his fellow. And Paul fasting did not only bless the bread, but also reached it with his hand to Luke, and the rest of his disciples.
Three things M. Heskins noteth. First, that Chrysostom calleth the sacrament, not only a sanctified thing, but also sanctification it self. And here he would have the adversary to answer him, where this sanctification resteth? in the bread, or in the priest. I answer in neither of both, but in Christ, which is the heavenly matter of y e sacrament received by faith: for if sanctification rested in the bread, then all they that receive the bread should be sanctified, but all they that receive the bread, receive not sanctification, neither be they sanctified, therefore sanctification resteth not in the bread: and so consequently, y e body of Christ is not in y e bread. And whereas M. Hesk. reasoneth, that y e priest giveth sanctification, I answer, y t is said, because he giveth the outward sacrament, as John baptized, yet speaking properly of the ministry of man, he restraineth it to the washing of water. The seconde thing he would have noted, is, that Christ delivered the sacrament to Cleophas and his fellow, whereof, as Chrysostom hath no ground in the scripture, so that which he affirmeth, that Paul in the ship should minister the sacrament (which is the third thing M. Hesk. observeth) is utterly false, and confuted by the text. For his exhortation was to the whole multitude, whereof the greatest parte, and almost all, were infidels. And the text saith, that they did all receive food; & being satisfied, cast the rest over borde to lighten the ship. But the place, Acts 2. that they continued in the doctrine of the Apostles & communication, & breaking of bread & prayers: I confess may well and aptly be understood of the participation of the Lord's table, & yet nothing less may be gathered out of it, then that horrible sacrilege of robbing the church of the Lord's cup, because bread is only named, as in the next Chapter shall be shown.
The seven and sixtieth Chapter, proveth by the scripture • , and practices in the last Chapter handled, that the Communion under one kind is lawful and good.
It answereth to one parte of the challenge (he saith) to prove, that the communion was ministered within 600 years after Christ in one kind only. And this he will do very easily. For he beginneth with Christ himself, whom moste impudently and blasphemously, he affirmeth to have ministered the Communion in one kind only, to the disciples at Emmaus. First, although diverse of the old writers are of opinion, and yet wthout asseveration, that Christ there gave the sacrament, yet none of them is so bold, to gather any such division of the sacrament out of that place. Secondly, notwithstanding their opinion, it is most probable, that he never ministered the sacrament after his first institution thereof, not only, because there is no mention thereof, but because he gave that as the last pledge of his presence with them, immediately before he departed from them. And although after his resurrection he appeared to them at sundry times, by the space of forty days, eating and drinking with them, to show the certainty of his resurrection, speaking of the kingdom of God: yet is there no word of celebrating of the sacrament with them. And it is altogether unlikely, that he would give y e sacrament, the comfort of his absence, at his first return again to them, and that he would celebrate the same to two disciples, and not to the whole number of his Apostles, who had as great need to be confirmed in faith, as those two.
Finally, if ever he had repeated the use of y e sacrament, it is moste probable, he would have done it immediately before his assention, but then he did not (which S. Luke, who showeth that story exactly, would not have omitted) therefore there is no likelihood, that he did it before. But admit that he did then minister the communion, doth it follow because bread is only named, therefore the cup was not given? But Master Heskins would have it proved, that the figure Synecdoche is here used, that is, part named for the whole. For proof, the institution of Christ, and practice of the church, for more then a thousand years after Christ, may serve a reasonable man.
Also the usual phrase of the scripture, which by bread meaneth whatsoever is joined with it to be received: as Math. 15. & Mark. 7. The disciples are accused for eating bread with unwashed hands, &c. shall we here exclude meat and drink, because bread is only named? Also, Mark the 3. they had no leisure to eat bread: & Luke 14. Christ came into the house of the Pharizee to eat bread. And John. 6. You seek me not because you have seen the signs, but because you have eaten of y e bread and are satisfied. And 2. Cor. 9. He that giveth seed to the sower, shall minister bread for food. And 2. Thess. 3. we have not eaten our bread freely. And in the same Chapter, the disordered persons are exhorted, to labor and eat their own bread.
In all these places and a great number more, bread only is named, in which it were mere madness to affirm, that only bread is spoken of, & not meat or drink. So the whole supper of Christ consisting of bread & wine, for the outward or earthly parte: under the name of bread, the cup also is comprehended. Wherefore the practice of Christ is not contrary to his institution, as M. Heskins most arrogantly, wickedly, and unlearnedly affirmeth. The second reason he useth is, that the institution pertaineth only to priests, because Christ did then minister it only to priests. But first, that is not proved nor like to be true: for, seeing our Savior Christ did minister the communion in the house of one of his disciples, with whom he did eat the passover, it is not like that he excluded him from the sacrament of the new testament, with whom he was partaker of the sacrament of the old testament. For proof that both he and his family were partakers of the Passover with him, it is manifest, that it was not possible for thirteen persons to eat up a whole sheep and other meat also at one meal. For it was a sheep of a year old, although it were a very small one, and must be eaten with the head, feet & the purtenaunce, and nothing reserved unto the morrow. But grant that only the Apostles were partakers of the first institution by the same reason, y t the one part of the sacrament pertained to them only, the other parte also might be left to them only, and so the people should have neither of both kinds, because only priests had both kinds delivered unto them.
Further he saith, the doctrine of Saint Paul is not sufficient to prove, that the sacrament ought to be ministered in both kinds: for Saint Paul doth but only set forth the institution without an exclusive, excluding all other manners but this. O shameless dog: is not the institution of Christ an exclusive of all other manners? take example of baptism, is it lawful to baptize with any other lycour then water? into any other name, then the name of the Father, the Son▪ and the holy Ghost? yea, it is said in the Acts, that the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ: and yet no man will say, y t they brake the institution of Christ, and baptized only in the name of Christ, excluding the father and the holy ghost. Even so it is said, they continued in breaking of bread, shall we not understand this after the institution, as well as the other? Again, if the institution of Christ, had not heene an exclusive of all other manners, howe doth the Apostle, by the institution of Christ, reprove another manner brought in by the Corinthians? Finally, when the holy Ghost by Saint Paul, commandeth every Christian man and woman to try themselves, and so not only to eat of that bread, but also to drink of that cup: what Lucifer is that, which will oppose him self against the flatt commandment of the holy ghost, 1. Cor. 11. and say, the lay people shall not drink of that cup, or may be without the cup well enough? But the doctrine of the Catholic church (as he saith) is, that the whole sacrament is in either of both kinds, the blood is in the body, and the body in the blood. But this is neither the doctrine of Christ, nor the doctrine of the church of Christ. For Christ to show, that he is a perfect nourishment unto us, which of necessity consisteth of meat and drink, and neither of both can be lacking, for the nourishment of our bodies: hath instituted his sacrament both in bread and drink, to testify unto us, that we are perfectly fedd in him, and therefore hath divided the sacrament into two signs, the one to signify his body, as meat, the other to represent his blood, as drink: and therefore confounded be he, y e confoundeth these things, which his heavenly wisdom hath thus mercifully distinguished. Justinus also a moste ancient writer of the church affirmeth, that the sacrament consisteth of a dry and moist nourishment, in Dialog. Cum. Tryphone aduersus Iudęos.
And even this very division of the sacrament, sufficiently confuteth both transubstantiation & the carnal presence. For, if he had purposed to give us his natural body in the form of bread, or otherwise in the bread, he would not have divided his blood from his body. But even hereby he taught us, that he spake of an heavenly, mystical, and spiritual manner of eating his body, and drinking his blood by faith, and not of a swallowing or gulping in of the same at our mouth and our throat. But the cup (saith Master Heskins) is the body of Christ, and howe is it consecrated? by these words, This is my blood. Why? where is now the plain words of scripture, where blood is taken for a whole body? But seeing Christ saith further, This is my blood which is shed for you, and that blood, which was shed for us, was separated from his body, therefore this blood in y e cup is separated from his body. And in very deed, the mystery of the cup is set forth, in that he saith, his blood was shedd for us, and not as it remained in the veins of his body: for, not his blood in his body, but the shedding of his blood, hath washed our consciences from dead works, to serve the living God. So the breaking of his body on the cross, hath made it a spiritual meat for us to feed upon, and therefore he saith: this is my body which is given for you.
But M. Heskins by miserable detorting of a word or two, would make the ancient fathers patrons of his monstrous sacrilege, as though they taught whole Christ to be under eche kind, of which opinion, there is not one title to be found in all their works. First, Cyprian de Cana Domini, Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem Domini mutatus, pro • urat vitam. This common bread being changed into the body and blood of our Lord, procureth life. But here Master Heskins playeth his old parte most impudently, falsifying the words of Cyprian, by adding Domini, and leaving out that which followeth, and maketh all out of doubt, that Cyprian speaketh not here of the sacramental bread, but of common bread.
Who seeing he was so vehement against them that used water only in the cup, would he (think you) allow, that neither wine nor water should be given? Especially, when he giveth a general rule, that the institution of Christ be precisely observed, and that nothing else is to be done concerning the cup, then that Christ him self did before us, lib. • . Ep. 3. Caecilio. But are Papists ashamed of forgery, to maintain their false doctrine of transubstantiation?
After Cyprian, he depraveth the words of Irenaeus lib. 5. Calicem qui est creatura suum corpus confirmauit.
Whether there be eclipsis or synechdoche in the former words, thou mayst see plainly here, that he meant not to exclude the bread, but that they both together make the sacrament. But Master Heskins alledgeth further out of Irenaeus: Sanguis non est nisi a venis, & carnibus & reliqua quae est secundùm hominem substantia. Blood is not but of veins and flesh, and other substance of man. By these words which he useth to prove, that Christ had a true body, because he had blood, M. Heskins like a wise man would prove that wheresoever blood is, there must be flesh, and veins also, wherein all the pudding wives of Louayne will hold against him. In deed, blood cometh from vaynes and flesh, (as Irenęus saith) but it doth not follow, that where blood is, there must be veins and flesh. As for the saying of Bernard, we are as little moved withal, as M. Heskins with Melancthon, to whom in his bravery, he saith vale, and will cleave to the substantial doctrine of the fathers for the communion in one kind, of which he is not able to bring one. But to conclude this Chapter, If he be asked why Christ did institute the sacrament under both kinds, if it be sufficient to receive one: he answereth, to frequent the solemn memorial of his death and passion. But all Christian men ought to frequent the solemn memorial of his death and passion, therefore he did institute it, for all Christian men to receive under both kinds. And so S. Paul concludeth, as often as you eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, you show the Lord's death until he come. Wherefore the scripture is directly contrary to the sacrilegious decree of the Papists, of receiving the sacrament in one kind only.
The eyght and sixtieth Chapter, proveth the same receipt under one kind to be lawful, by the ancient practice of the Church.
Before these substantial proves come in, he taketh upon him to answer the objections of the adversaries. And first of the Bohemnians, who used that place out of the sixth of S. John, Except you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you. These & such like texts out of that Chapter, must needs be invincible arguments against the Papists, which hold that those sayings are to be understood of the sacrament, first and principally. And otherwise, for as much as the Lord's supper is a seal and sacrament of that doctrine and participation of the flesh and blood of our savior Christ, which he there teacheth: we may necessarily gather, y t seeing he joineth eating and drinking in y e thing, we may not omit either of them in the sign.
And where as y e Papists would shift off that matter with their concomitans of blood with the body, it will not serve, seeing he requireth drinking, as necessarily as eating, even as he is a perfect food: and therefore, is not meat without drink, but both meat and drink.
Therefore, diverse counsels, and specially Bracarense tertium Capitul. 1. and it is in the decrees De Con. Dis. 2. cum omne, as it reformed many corruptions, that were crept into the Church about the ministration of the cup, so this was one, which they reproved, that they used to dippe the bread in the cup, and so deliver it to the people.
But to follow Master Heskins. The second objection, and that presseth him hardest, is the saying of Gelasius bishop of Rome: That the division of one and the same mystery cannot be done without great sacrilege. To avoid this most manifest and clear authority, he thinketh it sufficient to show, that the decree was made against other heretics, namely, the Manichees & Eutychians, as though it were sacrilege in one kind of heretics, and lawful in another. He saith, the Manichees, to cloak their heresy, would dissemblingly receive the bread, and would not receive the cup, because they held that Christ had but a fantastical body, without blood. And the Eutychians joined with them, which received the bread as a sacrament of the divine body of Christ, in which was no blood.
Concerning the Eutychians, there might be some such fantasie, if they joined with the Manichees in this point, which presently I do not remember that I have read. But concerning the Manichees, it is certain, there was another cause of their refusal of the cup, because they condemned all drinking of wine. And of them it seemeth, that Leo spake, Serm. 4. de quadra. which M. Heskins rehearseth. Abducunt se &c. They withdraw them selves from the sacrament of the health of man, and as they deny Christ our Lord to be borne in the verity of our flesh, so they do not believe, that he did verily die, and rise again, and therefore they condemn the day of our health and of our gladness, with the sadness of their fasting. And when to cover their infidelity, they are so bold to be present at our mysteries, they so temper them selves in the communion of the sacraments, that sometimes they are more safely hidden. With unworthy mouth they receive the body of Christ, but the blood of our redemption they altogether refuse to drink: which thing we will your holiness to understand for this cause, that such kind of men may be known to you and by these tokens, and that they whose sacrilege and dissimulation shall be found out being noted and bewrayed, by the Priestly authority, may be banished the society of the Saints. This M. Hes. confesseth to be spoken against the Manichees. And I would he would further note, that Leo chargeth them with dissimulation joined with sacrilege, which yet is more tolerable, then the Papists open impudency and violent sacrilege. But here he noteth a plain place for the proclamer, in that Leo saith: with unworthy mouth they receive the body of Christ, but that Leo so calleth y e sacrament of the body of Christ, which after a certain manner is the body of Christ, and not simply or absolutely, it appeareth by that which followeth immediately, that those heretics refuse to receive the blood of our redemption, whereby he meaneth the cup and the sacrament of his blood, for if he should not mean the outward sacraments, but the body and blood of Christ indeed, how could his body be received without his blood? Therefore it is manifest he speaketh of the signs and not of the things signified even by their own rule of concomitance.
And now followeth the whole saying of Gelasius, Comperimus autem &c. We have found out of a certainty, that certain men after they have received a portion of the holy body, do abstain from the cup of the holy blood, who (because I know not by what superstition they are taught to be withholden) let them without all doubt receive the whole sacraments, or else let them be forbidden from the whole. For the division of one and the same mystery, cannot be done without great sacrilege. Master Heskins to shift off this place, saith, it was written against the Manichees. But that is altogether unlike, for then Gelasius would not have said, he knew not by what superstition they were led, for he knew well the blasphemies of the Manichees. Wherefore it is certain, they were other such superstitious people, as the Papists be now. But if it were written against the Manichees, the Papists following their steppes, shall gain nothing, but prove them selves to join with the Manichees.
Secondly Master Heskins saith, the division of one mystery, is not the dividing of the cup from the bread, but of the body of Christ from his blood, which the Manichees did. Although he be worthy to be knocked in the head with a mall, that will not understand Gelasius, to speak of the sacrament, yet there is no shadow of reason to shroud him most impudently affirming the contrary. For the Manichees did not divide the body of Christ from his blood, but utterly denied him to have either body or blood. Again, when he said immediately before, that they should either receive the whole sacraments, or abstain from the whole, he addeth this for a reason. For the division (saith he) of one and the same mystery, cannot be done without great sacrilege. He therefore that denieth him to speak one title of dividing the one kind from the other, is worthy to be divided in pieces, and to have his partes with hypocrites, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. But as though he had not passed impudency her self already, he falleth on railing against the proclamer, that had not brought forth past half a score words of this place, suppressing the rest for very shame, they make so much against him. Surely, in all reasonable men's consciences, what so ever he left out of this place, he left the advantage of his own cause, and no title against him.
But let us see here what Master Heskins, a man of invention passing Sinon the Gręcian, hath gathered out of it. There be two things in this place plainly taught: The first is, the real presence of Christ's body and blood, in that he so reverently calleth the sacrament under one kind, the portion of the Lord's body, and the other he calleth the cup of the holy blood. For the spiritual blood is not contained in external or material vessels. No syr, but the sacrament of his natural blood is, whereof he speaketh: as it is manifest by the words immediately before, the portion of the Lord's body, for his natural body is not broken into portions, but the bread which is a sacrament thereof, is broken, and thereby is shown, what wicked men receive both in this saying of Gelasius, & in the other of Leo, not the natural body of Christ, which cannot be received in portions, but a portion of the sacramental bread, which is therefore called the body of Christ, because it is so indeed to them that receive it worthily, & is consecrated to that use, that it may be the communication of the body of Christ. And as it hath ben often shown, sacraments bear the names of the very things whereof they are sacraments. The second thing that he teacheth (saith M. Hes.) is, that he calleth not these two kinds, Sacramentum, a sacrament, but, Sacramenta, sacraments, in the plural number signifying thereby, that each of them is a whole sacrament. O new Divinity! thē ye Papists have eight sacraments. But are you such a prudent gatherer M. Hes? it appeareth you will lease none advantage for the taking up. I commend you. But for all y t , doth not your Author Leo call both kinds sacramentum a sacrament? and that is more (for it is too too childish, to reason of the singular number) doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kinds, Vnum idemque mysterium, one and the same mystery? And when he useth y e plural number, the ground of your Achillean argument, doth he not say, Integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Let them take the whole sacraments, or else let them be kept from the whole, signifying, that they which took the bread only, took but half the sacraments, and none took the whole, but they that took the cup also.
But now for the practice of the Primitive Church to have received in one kind: he saith, that in time of persecution, the Priest delivered them of the sacrament wrapped in fine linen clothes to carry home with them, and to receive it secretly by them selves, and this could be none other, but the sacrament under the fo • ne of bread. Admit it were so, that they carried home the sacrament, yet it followeth not, but they might as well carry the wine in a fair pot, as they carried the bread in a fair cloth. And although Tertulliā writing to his wife, name bread only, yet doth it not follow, but that he comprehendeth the cup also. The words of Tertullian are before rehearsed and answered, Lib. 1. cap. 24. & 27.
Next is brought in Basil. Episto. ad Caesareant patriciam. Illud autem &c. As for that to be a grievous thing in the times of persecution, any man to be enforced to receive the communion with his own hand, the Priest or Deacon not being present, it is more then needeth to prove, for because the same thing is by a long custom, and by the very use of things established. For all they that in the wilderness lead a solitary life, where there is no Priest, keeping the communion at home, communicate of them selves. But in Alexandria and Ae • ypt, everyone of the people for the most part, have the communion in their own house. For when the Priest doth consecrate the sacrifice and distribute it, we must well believe to participate and receive it. For in the Church the Priest giveth part, and he that taketh it receiveth it with all liberty, and putteth it to his mouth with his own hand It is therefore the same thing in virtue, whether a man take one part of the Priest, or many parts together. Of the credit and authority of this Epistle, which being cited in the name of Saint Basil, is not to be found in all his works, I have spoken before sufficiently, as also of the reservation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first book cap. 27. But for the communion in one kind, I see nothing that he saith, saving that Master Heskins gathereth, that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hot countries conveniently in their own kind such long time, as they were forced to reserve the sacrament in the wilderness and else where. But I answer him, that such strong wine as they have in those hot countries, will be kept longer from souring, then the bread will be from moulding, and therefore his gathering is altogether fond & ridiculous. But now you shall hear a more plain testimoine for this receipt under one kind, if you will hearken to S. Cyprian. He is cited In sermon de Lapsis, a long saying & to little, yea to no purpose at all. Praesente ac teste meipso, &c. Hear what came to pass, myself being present and witness. The parents of a child flying by chance, while for fear they took no good advisement left their young daughter under the cherishing of a nource, the nource brought her so left, unto the Magistrates. They before an Idole where the people were gathered, because for her age she could yet eat no flesh, gave unto her bread mixed with wine, which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish. Afterwarde the mother received her daughter. But the little maid could no more speak and declare the offense, that was committed, then understand it before and forbid it. Through ignorance therefore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her, while we were sacrificing. But truly the girl being among the Saints, not abiding our prayer and supplication, sometime was constrained to cry out, sometime with vehement grief of mind was tossed here and there, even as though a tormentor compelled her, the ignorant soul, by such tokens as she could, acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those young and tender years. But after the solemnities being accomplished, the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present, and when the rest had received, and her place was next, the little one by the instinct of God's Majesty, turned away her face, pressed her mouth with her lips stopped, refused the cup. Yet the Deacon persisted, and though it were against her will, poured in somewhat of the sacrament of the cup. Then followed belking and vomit. In a body, and a mouth that was defiled, the Eucharistie could not remain. The drink sanctified in the blood of our Lord, brake out of her polluted bowels, &c. Out of this History, Master Heskins gathereth two things.
Another tale he telleth out of Sozomenus. Eccl. hist. lib. 8. Cap. 5. Ioanne Constantinopolitanum, &c. When John Chrysostom did very well govern the Church of Constantinople, a certain man of the Macedonian heresy, had a wife of the same opinion. When this man had heard John teaching what was to be thought of God, he praised his doctrine, and exhorted his wife to be of the same mind with him. But when she did more obey the words of noble women, then his conversation, and after many admonitions her husband had profited nothing: Except (quod he) thou be a cōpaniō with me in Divine matters, thou shalt not be hereafter a partaker of living with me. When the woman heard this, & promised her consent dissemblingly, she communicated the matter with a certain maid servant, which she judged to be trusty unto her, and useth her service to deceive her husband. And about the time of the mysteries, (they that be received to them know what I say) she keeping that she had received, fell down as though she would pray. Her maid, standing by, giveth her privily, 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 being astonnied fearing least any evil should happen to her, for that thing which came to pass from God, made hast to the Bishop, and bewraying her self, showeth the stone, having yet upon it, the marks of her bit, and showing an unknown matter, and a wonderful color, and also desiring pardon with tears, promised that she would agree with her husband. And if this matter seem to any man to be incredible, this stone is a witness which is kept to this day among the Jewels of the Church of Constantinople. If this story be true, as it is no article of our belief, yet proveth it not, that the communion was ministered in bread only, to all the rest, that would receive the cup, although I wote not what was turned into a stone, before the time came she should receive the cup. If M. Heskins will urge, she could not have anything to convey into her mouth in steed of the wine, I answer, she might easily counterfeit the drinking, by kissing the cup, and so letting it pass from her, without tasting thereof. Wherefore this is but a blind and unreasonable conjecture of Master Heskins, that the sacrament was ministered in one kind, because she that had dissembled in the receipt of one kind, was punished with deprivation from both kinds.
The last reason he useth, Is that it is testified by learned men, that the manner of receiving under one kind, which is used in all the Latin Church upon good Friday, on which day the priest receiveth the host consecrated upon maundie Thursday, hath been so used from the primitive Church.
THE THIRD BOOKE OF MAISTER HESKINS PARLEAment repealed by W. Fulke.
The first Chapter entereth by Preface into the first text of S. Paul, that toucheth the sacrament, and expoundeth it according to the letter.
T The Preface is out of Didymus, that divine matters are to be handled with reverence, and considering the difficulty of the scriptures by Jerome, that in matters of doubt, recourse must be had, by Irenęus his advise, unto the most ancient Churches, in which the Apostles were conversant. In so much that Irenaeus saith: Libro 3. Cap. 4. Quid autem, &c. And what if the Apostles, had left us no writings, ought we not to have followed the order of tradition which they delivered to them to whom they had committed the Churches ? Wherevpon Master Heskins gathereth, that not only for matters contained in scripture, but also for traditions unwritten in the holy scriptures, the fathers are to be credited. But he goeth far from Irenaeus mind, who confuted the heretics both by the scriptures, and by the authority of the moste ancient Churches, whose traditions must have been all our institution, if there had ben no scriptures: But seeing y t scriptures inspired of God by his gracious providence, are left unto us, all traditions are to be examined by them, & that is twice proved (after Irenaeus mind,) which is proved both by the scriptures, and by the authority of the Churches. Otherwise the scriptures are sufficient of them selves. 2. Tim. 3. And no tradition or authority is to be received which is repugnant or contrary unto them. The text of Saint Paul, that he speaketh, is written, 1. Cor. 10. Brethren I would not have you ignorant, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized by Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the same spiritual rock, which followed them, and the rock was Christ. Where it is to be noted, that Master Heskins in steed of the same spiritual meat, and the same spiritual drink, translateth one spiritual meat, and one spiritual drink, as though the sense were, that the Fathers did all eat & drink of one spiritual kind of meat and drink, but not of the same that we do. Which is directly contrary to the meaning of the Apostle, as it appeareth by many reasons, whereof some I will set down, because this one text of scripture, if it be rightly understood, is sufficient to determine all the controversies that are between us and the Papists, concerning the sacraments. First therefore the argument of Saint Paul is of no force to convince the Corinthians, except he show, that the fathers of the old Testament, had the same sacraments in substance, that we have, and yet pleased not God by means of their wicked life, no more shall we, having the same sacraments if we follow their wicked conversation. Secondly, except he had meant to make the fathers equal unto us in the outward signs or sacraments of God's favor, he would rather have taken his example of circumcision, and the pascal lamb, which all men know to have been their principal sacraments: then of their baptism and spiritual food, which in them was so obscure, that except the spirit of God had by him revealed it unto us it had been very hard for us to have gathered. Thirdly, when he saith the fathers were all baptized, there is no doubt, but that he meaneth, that they all received the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, for there were no reason, why they should receive the one sacrament, rather then the other. Fourthly, seeing the Apostle saith expressly, they did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, and after doth precisely affirm, that they drank of the same rock, which was Christ, it is moste evident, that their spiritual meat was our spiritual meat, namely the body of Christ, and their spiritual drink was our spirirituall drink, namely the blood of Christ.
And this place overthroweth transubstantiation, the carnal presence, the communion under one kind, the grace of the work wrought, the five false sacraments, the Popish consecration, the Popish reservation for adoration, and in a manner, what so ever the Papists teache of the sacraments contrary to the truth. For if we have no prerogative above the fathers concerning y e substance & outward signs of the sacraments, then we receive the body and blood of Christ in the sacraments, none otherwise then they did before his body was conceived of the virgins Marie, and that is spiritually by faith, not carnally with our mouth. The rest of this Chapter is consumed in rehearsing out of Chrysostom, the general purpose of the Apostle in these words, which we have shown before, & it is most plain, by the text as it followeth: Finally in declaring what temporal benefits the Israelites received by the cloud, the sea, manna, and the water of the rock. But that which is principal, and for which cause the Apostle alledgeth their example, namely, for the spiritual grace that was testified by these outward signs, Master Heskins speaketh never a word.
The second Chapter showeth what these four things done in the old Law, did figure in the new Law.
In this Chapter he laboreth to show, that these sacraments of theirs, were not in deed the very same in substance, that ours are, but only figures of them. And for this purpose, he citeth diverse authorities of the fathers, especially Chrysostom, and Augustine, which cal them figures of our sacraments, whereof we will not strive with him. But he doth not consider, y t in so calling them, they compare not the substance, or things signified by these ancient sacraments, with the substance or things signified by our sacraments, but the outward signs of theirs with the substance and things signified by ours. As it appeareth in sundry places of S. Augustine, whose authorities in this Chapter he citeth: which affirmeth that the fathers also received, not only y e signs of our sacraments, as bare figures, but also the grace and substance of them, whereof they were no counterfeit seals. Neither doeth Chrysostom or Origen say anything to the contrary, for Chrysostme saith, that as all sortes of men, riche and poor were under the cloud, passed through the sea, and were fed with the same spiritual food, so in our sacraments of baptism and the supper, there is no respect of persons, but all members of the Church are partakers of them alike.
And Origen saying that: Baptism was then in a dark manner, in the cloud, and in the sea, but now in clear manner regeneration is in water and the holy Ghoste : Doeth both affirm the same sacrament to have been then, which is now, namely baptism, and also showeth the only difference between this and that, when he saith, that was after a dark manner and this after a clear manner. But Augustine is moste plain in many places, namely: Tract. in John. 26. speaking of the bread of life, in the sixth of John, he saith: Hunc panem significauit manna, hunc panem significauit altare Dei.
"The last parte of the Chapter, would prove, that the baptism of John was not the baptism of CHRIST, whereupon I will not stand, because it is another controversy, out of the purpose of the book, only I will note these gross absurdities: that he denieth the baptism of John to be the very baptism, and then it followeth, that CHRISTE was not baptized with the very baptism, who was baptized of John.
Secondly, he denieth, that sins were remitted in the Baptism of John, which is directly contrary to the Scripture: Luke. 3. verse 3. He alledgeth Chrysostom for his proof, but the blind buzzarde cannot see the difference between the ministry of John in his baptism, and the work of CHRISTE in the same, which maketh him with his fellows to imagine a difference of baptisms, by as good reason as they might make a difference between the Supper which was celebrated by CHRISTE him self, and that which was ministered by his Apostles.
Finally, where the Apostle saith expressly, that the Fathers were baptized, he is so bold as to say, they were not baptized in deed, but only received a bare figure of baptism, which is as much for the Apostles purpose, as if he had said nothing at all.
The third Chapter expoundeth the residue of the text: Et omnes candem escam spiritualem, &c.
First he declareth that this one meat, which the Fathers did eat, was Manna, and that he proveth by the authority of Saint Chrysostom, and Saint Augustine, as his manner is to heap up testimonies of the Fathers, where no need is of any proof.
Secondly, he determineth wherefore it is called spiritual meat, and the water that flowed out of the rock, spiritual drink. Namely, because it was given unto them miraculously, and not naturally, and for none other cause, which is altogether untrue: for as it hath been proved before, both out of the text, and confirmed by the judgment of Saint Augustine, manna was called spiritual meat, because it fed the faithful, not only bodily, but also spiritually, with the body of CHRISTE, and the water with his blood. But Master Heskins seemeth to build upon Chrysostom's authority, who in 1. Cor. 10. writeth thus. Quanuis, &c. Although those things that were given were perceived by sense: yet they were given spiritually, not according to the nature of consequences, but according to the grace of the gift. By these words Chrysostom meaneth, that although Manna and the water were sensible things, yet had they a spiritual signification and virtue given with them: for as they were not given by the ordinary course of nature, but by special Divine power: so they had more then a natural property of nourishment, and were to be esteemed according to the special grace, by which they were given. But Master Heskins will acknowledge nothing in this miracle of manna, but the feeding of their bodies, nor in the water of the rock, but the quenching of their thirst, and serving their bodily necessity. In which gross madness, he maketh no difference between the faithful, and their brute beasts, whose thirst and bodily necessity, that water did satisfy, as much as their Masters.
So that if the water be called spiritual drink, only because it was miraculously given, this horrible absurdity will follow, that the cattle which drank thereof, did also drink of the spiritual rock which followed them, which rock was Christ: which every Christian man detesteth to hear. But contrariwise, seeing that water was a sacrament of the blood of Christ, we may see no less then three heresies of the Papists about the sacrament overthrown thereby.
First, because all the people did drink of the sacrament of Christ's blood, and not the Priests only.
Secondly, that the elements are no longer sacraments, then they be in use of ministration. For the water which was a sacrament of Christ's blood unto the Israelites, so often as they drank of it, was no sacrament when they occupied it to other necessary uses.
Thirdly, that brute beasts, as Dogs, Apes, and myse, eating and drinking the bread and wine that hath been consecrated to the use of the sacrament, do not eat and drink the body and blood of CHRISTE. For the brute beasts did drink of this water, which to the faithful was consecrated in the right use thereof, to be the blood of CHRISTE. Yet did not the brute beasts touche the sacrament of his blood.
But Master Heskins will have us to note, That Saint Paul saith not, they drank of that material rock: but they drank of a spiritual rock which followed them, which spiritual rock was Christ. And hereupon he condemneth Oecolampadius, for abusing Saint Paul's words. The rock was CHRISTE, to make it a figurative speech, whereas the said proposition is to be understood grammatically or literally, and not tropically, or figuratively : And so is nothing like, to this proposition. This is my body. Peradventure the Reader looketh for a new transubstantiation, when he heareth Master Heskins exclude all tropes and figures from this saying, The rock was Christ. But vouchsafe to hear his reason, and you shall more marvel at his monstrous impudency. Because it is called a spiritual rock, therefore there is no trope or figure in the speech.
But admit that Saint Paul had no relation to the material rock, out of which the waters did flowe, is this a proper and essential praedication to say, Christ is a spiritual rock? will not all the Grammarians, Logicians, and Rhetoricians in the world throw stones at him, that will so affirm? But all men endued with reason will confess, that Manna and the rock are in one sense of Saint Paul, called spiritual: but the material manna was the spiritual meat, by Master Heskins own interpretation, therefore the material rock was the spiritual rock out of which flowed the spiritual drink.
But Master Heskins hath another reason, to prove that the material rock was not called the spiritual rock, because the material rock stood still in the Wilderness, but the spiritual rock followed them. Although Saint Paul mean of the streams and rivers of water, which flowing out of the rock, followed them all along their journeys in the wilderness: Yet if we understand it (as he doeth) of Christ who rather went before them then followed them, it proveth not, that the material rock was not called the spiritual rock. For in sacraments, that is spoken of the sign often times, which is proper to the thing signified, & wrought by them, as baptism is called regeneration, the Paschal Lamb, the passing over, so the spiritual rock followed them, and was Christ. But he would fain father his monstrous absurdity, upon Chrysostom, 1. Cor. 10. Cum dixisset, &c. When he had said, that they drank spiritual drink, he added: For they drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and joined to it, and that rock was Christ. For not of the nature of the rock (saith he) flowed out the water, for then it would have flowed out before that time, but a certain other spiritual rock, wrought all things, that is Christ, which being present everywhere, did all the miracles, therefore he said following them.
In these words, Chrysostom putteth a difference between the sign, and the thing signified, that is, the material rock, and Christ whom because it represented, it was called a spiritual rock, as Manna being a corporal food, was called spiritual meat, because it represented Christ's flesh, which is the spiritual meat of our minds. Otherwise, that the material rock was not called the spiritual rock, Chrysostom saith not. But Saint Augustine, as we have shown before, affirmeth plainly, that which Master Heskins denieth impudently.
Proceeding in his confutation of Oecolampadius his principle, that figures bear the names of things, of which they be figures, as the fiery tongues, the Dove, and the breathing of Christ upon his Apostles, of the holy Ghoste, and John the Baptist, of Helias, he denieth that any of these examples do prove it: for that neither any of these is called the holy Ghoste, nor John called Helias. But he is foully beguiled: for although he quarrel at the adverb veluti, as it were fiery, alleging Chrysostom to prove, that it was not natural fire, or wind, but the holy Ghoste: yet was that visible form, called the holy Ghoste, as both in the seconde of the Acts, and in the eleventh it is plain: He sat upon everyone of them.
If Master Heskins were posed (as boys be in the school) who or what sat? he may not say the fiery tongues, which is the plural number, but the holy Ghoste which was represented by them. And Acts. 11. Peter saith: The holy Ghoste fell upon them, even as upon us at the beginning, that is those visible signs, of his invisible and incomprehensible presence. And whereas he cauelleth, that the Dove is not called the holy Ghoste: I ask him howe could John say, he saw the holy Ghoste which is invisible, but that he saw the bodily shape of a Dove, which was a sacrament of him? And as for the breathing of Christ, to signify the holy Ghoste, and to be so called: howe could the Apostles understand it otherwise, at that time, when giving them his breath, he said, receive the holy Ghost, then when he gave them bread, and said: receive this, it is my body? for in both, by an outward and visible sacrament, he testified, what he did give them in deed, no more turning the bread into his natural body, then his breath into the substance of the holy Ghoste.
But of all the rest, it is moste intolerable impudence, that he denieth John the Baptist to be Helias that was prophesied by Malachi, affirming that the prophesy speaketh of the coming of Helias before the seconde coming of Christ, which shall be to judgment: saying that Christ doeth not assertiuely say, that John was Helias, but if ye will so take it, this is he. But to knock his blockishe ignorance, or rather serpentine malice in the head, the Angel in Luk. 1. doth assertiuely apply that Prophesy to John Baptist, saying: He shall go before him in the spirit and power of Helias, to turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, which be the very words of the Prophet. And our savior Christ him self, Math. 17. and Mark the 9. doth assertiuely say, that Helias was already come, according to the Prophesy, and his disciples understood, that he spake to them of John the Baptist. What a shameless beast is this Heskins, to reason against so manifest a truth, to maintain so false an error? But we must answer his reasons, although no arguments are to be heard against the express authority of the scriptures.
First, he saith, that Prophesy cannot be expounded of the first coming of Christ, because he saith, Helias shall come before the great and fearful day of the Lord: whereas the first coming of Christ, was not fearful, but peaceable, not to judge, but to save. But he will not understand, that Christ's coming, as it was moste comfortable to the penitent sinners, so moste terrible to the hypocrites and obstinate wicked men: witness John the Baptist him self, Math. 3. from the seventh verse to the ende of the twelfth. What should I spend time in so clear a matter? His seconde reason is of the authority of Euthymius, and Chrysostom, which if they go against the plain authority of Christ, who will receive them? Although neither of them both in the places by him cited, affirm that he saith.
And although Euthymius do hold, that Helias shall come before the seconde coming of Christ: yet doth he affirm, that John is called Helias for similitude of office: Sicut primus Helias, secundus praecursor dicitur :
The place of Chrysostom, although either the words going immediately before, or coming after, do plainly express his mind, which Master Heskins hath fraudulently concealed: yet as it is cited by him, it maketh nothing for him, but against him. I will only rehearse the place, and leave the judgment to the readers. Recte apposuit, &c. He hath well added, if you will receive it: I came not to compel any man:
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 shameless lie: for he saith, that we affirm Manna to be a figure only of the word of God, which is utterly false: for we affirm, that it was a sacramental figure of the body of Christ, and so a figure, that it was in deed the body of Christ, after a spiritual manner, to them which received it worthily. But Master Heskins will have it a figure, not only of the word of God, but also of the body of Christ in the sacrament, and so a figure, that is was nothing else but a bare figure, and not a sacrament.
And this he hopeth to prove out of Saint Ambrose ad Iren. Ep. 62. Quaeria • me, &c. Thou askest me, why the Lord God did rain Manna to the people of the fathers, and doeth not now rain it? If thou knowest, he rayneth and daily rayneth from heaven Manna to them that serve him. And that bodily Manna truly, is found at this day in many places. But now it is not a thing of so great miracle, because • that which is perfect is come. And that perfect is the bread from heaven, the body of the virgins, of which the Gospel doeth sufficiently teache thee. Howe much better, are these things then the former? For they which did eat that Manna, that is that bread, are dead. But whosoever shall eat this bread, shall live forever. But it is a spiritual Manna, that is, a rain of spiritual wisdom, which is poured into them, that be witty and searching is from heaven, and deweth the minds of the Godly & sweeteneth their jaws.
Because there is nothing in this saying of Saint Ambrose for his purpose, he falleth into a great rage against Oecolampadius, for leaving out of this sentence: Quanto praestantiora sunt haec superioribus? Howe much more excellent are these, then the other above rehearsed? Which, howsoever it was, as I am sure, it was not of a falsifying mind, so no man in the world, might worse exclaim against falsifying of the doctors then Master Heskins, as I have often shown, and doubt not but I shall show hereafter.
But to the purpose, it is evident, that Saint Ambrose in the former sentence, speaketh of Manna, as a corporal food, not as a sacrament, in which respect, there is no comparison between it, & the body of Christ. And he is so far from saying, that Manna, as it was a sacrament, was but a figure of the body of Christ (as M. Heskins belieth him) that he saith not at all, that it was a figure.
But he chargeth us with two other wicked opinions, namely, That the sacraments of the new law give no grace, and that they are of no more excellency then the sacraments of the old law. To the first we answer, and say, that the sacraments give not grace of the work wrought, as they teach, but that GOD giveth grace by his sacraments in all his elect, we affirm. And to the second, we answer, that as in substance the sacraments of the old time were not inferior to ours, so in clearness of revelation and understanding, ours are far more excellent then theirs, and that the place of Saint Ambrose, which Master Heskins doeth next allege, doeth very well show. Oriente autem &c. The son of righteousness arising, and more bright sacraments of Christ's body and blood shining forth, those inferior things or sacraments should cease, and those perfect should be received of the people. Master Heskins noteth, that if the sacrament were but a bare sign, it should not be so magnified by Saint Ambrose. But so often as he chargeth us with a bare sign, so often must we charge him again with an impudently. For we do as much detest a bare sign or figure, as he doth a sign or figure.
As for the three kinds of Manna that Master Heskins gathereth, is altogether out of Saint Ambrose his compass. For he hath no more but the bodily Manna, and the spiritual Manna, as the sign and the thing signified. And the rain of spiritual wisdom, is the spirit of GOD, which sealeth inwardly in the heart, that which is expressed outwardly by the external signs. I marvel Master Heskins alledgeth not Saint Ambrose upon this text 1. Cor. 10. whose words might seem to have more color of his bare figure, although they be flat against it in deed.
The other places cited out of Euthymius a late writer, as we have often said, affirm that Manna was the figurative bread, and a figure, but not Christ which was the truth. Howbeit, he meaneth nothing else, but that Christ was not in flesh present to the fathers in Manna, before he was incarnate, and so useth the term, figure, as a prefiguration and shadowing, not of the sacrament, but of Christ him self, which is the matter of the sacrament, even as Christ him self in the 6. of S. John, opposing Manna against the true bread that came down from heaven, speaketh not of that spiritual meat which Manna was to the faithful, but of the outward creature, which was only considered of the wicked, to fill their bellies, and not to feed their soul.
But M. Heskins remitteth his reader, for all matters concerning the 6. of John, to the second book 36. chapter &c. and so do I to the same places for answer. Nevertheless, he will touch a word of Oecolampadius, where he saith, that the inward man is fed by faith, which is so strange to him, that he never read the like phrase in any authentic author.
The fifth Chapter, teaching that Manna and the water of the stone be figures of the body and blood of Christ, by Origen and Saint Ambrose.
That the old writers called Manna and the water, figures of the body and blood of Christ, it shall be no controversy between us and M. Heskins: but whether they denied them to be sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, or affirmed them to be nothing but prefigurations of the sacrament, is now the question betwixt us. And therefore these long sentences out of Origen and Ambrose make nothing for him, but much against him. But let us view them: Origen is cited In Num. Hom. 7. Modo enim &c. Now when Moses came unto us, and is joined to our Aethiopesse, the law of God is not now known in figures and images as before, but in the very apparence of the truth. And those things, which were first set forth in dark speeches, are now fulfilled in plain show and truth. And therefore he, which declared the plain form of figures and dark speeches, saith, we know that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea &c. Thou seest howe Paul assoyleth the dark riddles of the law, and teacheth the plain show of those dark speeches. And a little after. Then in a dark manner Manna was the meat, but now in plain show, the flesh of the son of God is the true meat, as he himself saith▪ my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. M. Heskins thinketh, this is as plain as need to be, for his only figure, and the bodily presence: and me think it is as plain for the contrary. For he affirmeth, that Manna was the same spiritual meat, that the flesh of the son of God is now, and layeth the difference in the obscure manner of delivering the one, and the plain manner of delivering the other, which cannot be understood of the outward signs, which are in both of like plainness or obscurity, but of the doctrine or word annexed to the signs, which to them was very dark, and to us is very clear, that Christ's flesh and blood are our meat and drink. For it is well known, that Origen knew neither the Popish transubstantiation, nor the bodily presence.
To Origen he joineth Ambrose, or rather disioyneth him, for he divideth his saying into two partes, pretending to inveigh against Oecolampadius, for leaving out the former parte, but in deed, that he might raise a dust with his stamping and staring, least the latter part might be seen to be, as it is, a clear interpretation of the former, and an application of the writers mind concerning the corporal manner of presence, I will rehearse them both together. Ille ego ante despectus &c. Even I before despised (speaking in the person of the Gentiles converted) am now preferred, am now set before the chosen. Even I before a despised people of sinners, have now the reverend companies of the heavenly sacraments, now I am received to the honor of the heavenly table. The rain is not poured down on my meat, the spring of the earth laboreth not, nor the fruit of the trees. For my drink no rivers are to be sought, nor welles. Christ is meat to me, Christ is drink to me. The flesh of GOD is meat to me, the blood of GOD is my drink. I do not now look for yearly increase to satisfy me: Christ is ministered to me daily. I will not be afraid; least any distemperature of the air, or barrenness of the country should hang over me, if the diligence of godly tillage do continue. I do not now wish the rain of Quayles to come down for me, which before I did marvel at. Not Manna which erst they preferred before all meats, because those Fathers which did eat Manna, have hungered. My meat is that, which doeth not fatten the body, but confirmeth the heart of man. Before, that bread which came down from heaven, was wonderful to me. For it is written, he gave them bread from heaven to eat, but that was not the true bread, but a shaddow of that was to come. The father hath reserved for me that true bread from heaven.
That bread of GOD descended from heaven to me, which giveth life to this world. It hath not descended to the Jews, nor to the Synagogue, but to the Church, to the younger people. For howe did that bread which giveth life, descend to the Jews, when all they, that did eat that bread, that is Manna, which the Jews thought to be the true bread, are dead in the wilderness? Howe did it descend to the Synagogue: when all the Synagogue perished and fainted, being pyned with everlasting hunger of faith? Finally, if they had received the true bread, they had not said: Lord give us always this bread. What doest thou require, O Jew, that he should give unto thee? The bread which he giveth to all, which he giveth daily, which he giveth always, it is in thyself, that thou mayest receive this bread. Come unto this bread, and thou shalt receive it. Of this bread it is said, all they that estrange them selves from thee shall perish. If thou estrange thyself frō him, thou shalt perish. If thou come near unto him, thou shalt live. He is the bread of life. He that eateth life cannot die. For howe doth he die▪ whose meat is life? How shall he fail, which hath that vital substance? Come ye unto him, and be satisfied, for he is bread. Come ye unto him and drink for he is a well Come ye unto him and be lightened, for he is light. Come ye unto him, and be delivered for where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Come ye unto him, and be absolved, for he is remission of sins. You ask who this may be? Hear ye him self saying I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me, shall never thirst. You have heard him, and you have seen him, and you have not believed him, therefore you are dead.
The latter part of this long discourse sufficiently expoundeth the former. That Christ and the flesh and blood of God (which M. Heskins noteth to be a plain place for the proclamer) is so our true meat and drink, as he is bread, as he is a well, as he is light, as he is liberty, as he is remission of sins: that is, after a spiritual manner. And where he saith, Manna was a figure or shaddow, and not the truth of that which was to come: he meaneth of Manna, as it was corporal meat, and eaten of the unfaithful that are dead, and not as it was spiritual meat, and eaten of the faithful which are alive, as S. Augustine saith. Moreover, it is to be noted, that S. Ambrose saith, that he which eateth this bread which is life, cannot die. Therefore no wicked man eateth this bread, this meat, this flesh of God, which with S. Ambrose are all one. As for the difference of our sacraments, what it is, we have shown before, and this place showeth none. For Ambrose speaketh of Manna as a corporal meat, and not as it was a spiritual meat and sacrament.
The sixth Chapter declareth, that Manna was a figure, by the testimony of S. Cyprian and Chrysostom.
It hath been often confessed, that Manna of the old fathers is called a figure of the body of Christ, but that it was only a bare figure, and not the body of Christ unto the faithful, that is it we deny. Cyprian is cited to little or no purpose in ser. de Coen. Dom. Huius panis &c. Of this bread Manna was a figure, which rained in the desert. So whē we are come to the true bread in the land of promise, that meat failed. M. Heskins saith, it is more manifest, then that it can be denied, that this bread he speaketh of, is the holy bread of the sacrament: in which he acknowledgeth to be no bread at all. Then as manifest as he maketh it, it was a figure of Christ, which is the spiritual matter of the sacrament, and not of any holy bread thereof. But this he saith, will be proved by the last words of that sermon, which in deed, prove the clean contrary to his purpose. Sed & nos ipsi &c. But we also being made his body, both by the sacrament, and by the thing of the sacrament, are knit and united unto our head, everyone being members one of another, showing the ministry of love mutually, do communicate in charity, are partakers of one cup, eating the same meat, and drinking the same drink, which floweth and runneth out of the spiritual rock, which meat and drink is our Lord Jesus Christ.