D. Heskins, D. Sanders, and M. Rastel, accounted (among their faction) three pillers and archpatriarches of the popish synagogue (vtter enemies to the truth of Christes Gospell, and all that syncerely professe the same) ouerthrowne, and detected of their seuerall blasphemous heresies. By D. Fulke, Maister of Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge. Done and directed to the Church of England, and all those which loue the trueth.

* 1.1The sixteenth Chapter teacheth this matter by Tertullian, & Isychius.

* 1.2This Chapter neither prooueth substantially that it promiseth, nor gaineth any thing if it proued it. For, if y^e Pascall Lambe were a figure of Christes supper, yet that proueth not, as was shewed before, that the bodie of Christ is there eaten corporally, and after a corporal ma∣ner. Tertullian, a noble man in Christes Parleament Cont. Mar∣cion lib. 4. writeth thus. Professus igitur se concupiscentia con∣cupiscere edere pasca, vt su••••m (indignū enim vt quid alienum con∣cupiscat Deus) acceptum panem, & distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit. Therefore, when he had professed that with de∣sire he desired to eate the Passouer, as a thing of his owne: (for it was an vnworthie thing, that God should desire that pertained to another) that bread which he tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie. This saying M. Heskins hath most vn∣tollerably abused: first, by false translating, and then by leauing out that which expoundeth the mind of Tertul∣lian most clearely. For the true vnderstanding of this place, we must note two things: firste, that Marcion, a∣gainst whome he writeth, affirmed that the God of the lawe, was not the God of the Gospel: secondly, that Christ had not a true bodie, but a fantasticall bodie. Against both these errours, he reasoneth in this sentence. A∣gainst the first, when he saith, he desired to eate the Pascal lambe of the olde lawe, which was his owne, namely of his owne institution, (for it was absurd that Christ being God, shoulde desire that which was another Gods insti∣tution) as the heretike sayde, the lawe and all ceremo∣nies thereof were. And this is directly contrarie to M. Heskins purpose, who ioyning with the heretike, deny∣eth that he did desire to eat the Pascall of the lawe, and that it

was not properly his owne, and for this intent, to make it serue his turne, he translateth falsly vt suum, as his owne Passouer, & alienum, any strange thing. Against the seconde, Tertul∣lian reasoneth in the same sentence, which words, because M. Heskins could not abyde, he hath cleane cut off.

The wordes are these, Acceptum panem, & distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit, quia corporis ca∣••ebas veritate, ergo panem dibuit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis crucifigeretur. The bread which he tooke & distributed to his disciples, he made his bo∣die, saying, this is my bodie, that is to saye, a figure of my bodie. And it could haue bene no figure, except his bo∣die had bene of trueth. But a vaine thing which is a phan∣tasie, cannot receiue a figure. Or else, if therefore he made breade his bodie, because he lacked the trueth of a bodie, therefore he should haue giuen bread for vs. It made wel for the vanitie of Marcion, that bread should haue beene crucified. There can nothing bee more euident, then that Tertullian by this place, ouerthroweth both the transubstantiation and also the carnall presence, maintai∣ned by the Papistes.

This M. Heskins because he coulde not brooke, he brake off the sentence, and commeth out of the matter also, to raile against Cranmer of holy me∣morie; first, doubting whether the booke set forth in his name were made by him, as though Cranmer was not wel enough knowen to be as well able to write a booke as Heskins: then that he affirmeth, the Papistes vnable to shewe one article of faith, so directly contrarie to our senses, that all our senses shall by daily experience affirme a thing to be, and yet our faith shall teach vs the contrarie.

Maister Heskins like a wilie Pye, obiecteth the arti∣cle of the resurrection, where our senses teacheth vs, that mens bodyes be dead, and faith teacheth, y^t they shall rise againe. But the subtile sophister doth not see, I weene a difference betweene it & is in M. Cranmers assertiō, & is

and shalbe in his balde obiection. Faith teacheth, that shalbe, which our sense teacheth nowe not to be. But faith teacheth not that to be white, which our sense tea∣cheth to be blacke. But he hath another wise instance. The senses taught, that the wounde which Christe had in his side, after his resurrection was verie sore, but faith taught the con∣trarie, because his bodie was glorified. Seeing the wounde was made after his death, reason would iudge, that it was insensible, especially when he was risen againe frō death, by his diuine power. And Thomas was not so rude, that he would haue thrust in his hand, if he thought it shold haue hurt him, and when he did thrust in his hande, he perceiued by his senses, that it did not hurt. But it is pittie to spende any time about so vaine a matter: sore∣nesse being not the thing, but a certeine affection of the thing, which cannot alwayes be knowen by another mans senses, but by his onely that feeleth it, as in him that hath the Palsey, if his legge were cut off, he feeleth nothing, yet some such wise man as M. Heskins, would thinke it were verie sore. But he woulde-faine excuse the matter, why he cutteth off Tertulian by the waste, promising in another place to do it, and willeth you in the meane time to consider, that Christes bodie is giuen in the sacrament, and further alledgeth out of Tertul∣lian in another place, which is in his booke De resurre∣ctione carnis: That the fleshe doth eate the bodie and bloud of Christ, that the soule may be fedd of God. Where hee mea∣neth none otherwise, then in the former place, cal∣ling the sacrament a figure of Christes bodie, and so an ende with Tertullian. Then commeth Isychius disciple of Gregorie Nazianzene, who firste dissuading men from vsing of the Iewes ceremonies, affirmeth that which M. Heskins denyed, that Christe did eat the le∣gall Passouer in his last supper. His wordes that are materiall are these:

Christus primùm celebrauit figuratum Pasca. Post canam auem intelligibidem tradit. Christ did first celebrate the figuratiue Passeouer, but after supper he deliuered the intelligible supper.

Then followe diuers places, to shew that by intelligible, he meaneth figured. But being graunted that the supper was figured, by the pascall Lambe, which is the egge that he is so long in brooding, yet he is neuer the neerer, for the carnall presence and corporall manner of eating, no not with that whiche Isychius saith: That he tooke the in∣telligible bloud first in the mysticall supper,* 1.3 and afterward gaue the cuppe to his Apostles, and that he dranke himselfe, and giuing to his Apostles to drinke, then he powred the intelligible bloud vpon the altar, that is to say, his body. Now the body of Christ is the Church and all his people. He that seeth not, that this Father doeth vse figuratiuely these wordes: bloud, body, altar, powre, drinke, &c. is worthy to weare a cockes combe, & a bell. Yet Maister Heskins noteth in the margent, Christ dranke his owne bloud, and gaue it to his Apostles. Which if it be true in the litterall sense, as he meaneth, then it is as true, that he powred his owne bloud vpon his owne body in the literall sense. For the same bloud, which he dranke, and gaue, he powred on his body. But he powred not his natural bloud vpon his body, therefore he neither gaue nor dranke his naturall bloud in the litterall sense. But you will say, his body signifieth his Church and peo∣ple, for whom he powred forth his naturall bloud. Well, beside that you are inforced to acknowledge a figuratiue speeche, you are neuer the neere. For although he pow∣red out his bloud for them, yet he powred it not vpon them. And your Authour saith, he dranke none other bloud, but that he powred vpon them. Here is also alled∣ged Chrysostomes name, for Christes drinking of his bloud, but his wordes are referred to another place. Then followeth a conclusion: If Christ drank his owne bloud, he drank it spiritually, or corporally: spiritually he could not: wher∣fore he dranke it corporally. This is very round dealing M. Heskins. But if he could drinke his bloud, I pray you why could he not drinke it spiritually, as well, & rather, then corporally? For if he dranke his owne bloud, he also did eate his owne body, which if it sound not grossely in your eares, it is, because you haue a grosse vnderstanding.

In this Chapter two Lordes of the Parleament beeing required of their iudgment, haue giuen their voices both directly against his bill for the carnall presence.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Hesk.
• * 1.2

  Fulk.
• * 1.3

  In Leuit. lib. 2 cap. 8.