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.

The fiue and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by S. Basil & Rupert.* 1.1

S. Basil is alledged, de baptismo: Oportet accedentem, &c.* 1.2 It behoueth him that commeth to the bodie and bloud of our Lord, to the remembrance of him that was dead for vs, and rose againe, not onely to be pure from all vncleannesse of bodie and soule, lest he eate and drinke to his owne condemnation, but also to shewe euidently, and to expresse the memorie of him that hath dyed for vs and risen againe. And what sayeth Basil in these words, that we do not graunt, vnderstanding purenesse by faith, and repentance? Maister Hesk. sayeth, in steede of that S. Paule sayde: this bread and this cupp, he sayeth the bo∣die and bloud of Christe, although I might stande with him, that this is no interpretation of Sainct Paules wor∣des, but an exhortation, which Basil maketh to the wor∣thie receiuing of the sacrament, what inconuenience is it to graunt that it is both bread and wine, and also after a spirituall manner his verie bodie and bloud which is re∣ceiued of the faithfull? But either Maister Heskins note booke serued him not, or els his malice against y^e trueth would not suffer him to see what the same Basil writeth not many lines before these wordes, which he citeth vpō the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ, of the institution

of this blessed sacrament, and immediatly after the verie text of the Apostle now in hande.

As often as you eate of this bread and drinke of this cuppe, you shewe the Lordes death vntill he come. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. What then do these words profit vs, y^t eating & drinking we might always remember him which dyed for vs, and is risen againe, and so wee might bee instructed of necessitie to obserue before God and his Christe, that lesson, which is deliuered by the A∣postle, where hee sayeth: for the loue of Christe doeth constreine vs iudging this, that if one hath dyed for all, then all are dead.

M. Heskins denyeth the sacrament to be a remembrance of Christe, for feare he shoulde con∣fesse Christ to be absent, affirming it is a remembrance only of the death of Christ. But Basil saith, that in eating and drinking we must remember Christe that is dead & risen againe for vs, and so be transformed into his image by mortification and newnesse of life. This is all the profite that Basil gathereth of the institution of the sup∣per of the Lorde. Where is then the carnall presence, the sacrifice propitiatorie, the application of it according to the priestes intention, and such like monsters of the Masse? The testimonie of Rupertus a burgesse of y^e lo∣wer house I will not stand vpon, notwithstanding it little helpeth Maister Heskins cause. For he doth not say, that the sacrament is so a remembrance of Christes death, that it is not a remembrance of Christ him selfe. But Maister Heskins sayeth, all the rable of sacramentaries cannot bring one couple of catholike authors, that saye Saint Paule spake here of materiall bread, neither can Maister Heskins bring one single auncient writer, within y^e com∣passe of the challenge, which is 600. yeres after Christ, y^t denyeth that S. Paule spake of materiall breade, as the earthly part of the sacrament. He hath named Hierome &

Basil, but neither of them denie it, as for Theophylact & Rupertus, although neyther of them also denye it, in the places by him cited, yet I knowe not why we might not as well produce Berengarius and Bertrame, as auncient as they, which affirme that Saint Paule spake here of bread. But that there is materiall bread in the sacrament, as the earthly part thereof, we haue already cited Irenaeus Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Origen in 15. Matthaei. Cyrill in Ioan. Lib. 4. Cap. 24. and many other.

Toward the end of this Chapter, Maister Heskins ta∣keth vpon him to aunswere an obiection of Oecolampa∣dius, who iustly chargeth the Papistes of wilfull igno∣rance, in that they make the body of Christ, both the ex∣emplar, and the thing exemplified, the figure and the thing figured, the signe and the thing signified, whereas relation must be betwixt two thinges distincted, and not of one thing to it selfe, bycause euery relatiue must haue a correlatiue. For aunswere to this obiection, hee saith hee will not vse the quiddities of the schooles, but plaine examples: but hee pretendeth quiddities where the mat∣ter is plaine, & his examples be mere sophistications. The first is, That in the diuine presence be sundrie relations, grounded vpon the one nature of God. Therefore relation must not be of necessitie betwixt two things distinct. A wise example, as though the persons betweene which there is relation, be not two distinct thinges, though they be one vndiui∣ded GOD: There is relation betweene the person of the Father and the person of the Sonne, therefore the Father is not the Sonne, nor the Sonne is the Father, yet are they both with the holy Ghost one God.

The second example, Christ being transfigured in the mount, & shewing him self in a glorious maner, was an exemplar or figure of him selfe nowe in glory, and of his glorious comming. It is well that he fleeth out of the schooles, before he vttereth these absurdities, for surely euery boy in Cambridge, that hath but once kept sophisme, would hisse at him for this asser∣tion, wherein he confoundeth the substaunce with the ac∣cidents. But to leaue the schoole termes which M. Hes∣kins

can not nowe abide, bicause they bewray his follie: I deny that Christes body then, was a figure or exemplar of his body now, but the glory of his body then, was a figure of his glory now, and wherewith he shall come: and I am sure hee will confesse, that they be two distinct thinges, for his glory nowe, is greater then the brightnesse of the Sunne, wherevnto it was then compared. Likewise to his third example I answere, denying That his immortall body which he shewed to Thomas, with the signes and tokens of his woundes, was an exemplare of the same body both mortall and pas∣sible. I say y^t, his immortall body was no exemplar of his mortall body, but euen the very same, chaunged in quali∣tie, not in substance, and the signes of his woundes, were signes of his passion, and they were two distinct things.

It is all one that hee citeth out of Chrysostome, that Christe shall come to iudgement with the signes of his passion: wherevpon he gathereth, That Christes body shall then be a signe memoriall or exemplar of it selfe. The scripture saith, they shall see him whome they haue perced, but whether with signes of woundes, I dare not say, sauing Chrysostomes authoritie, but admit he shall come with the same print of woundes, yet I deny that his body shall be a figure, exemplar, or memoriall of it selfe, but those signes should be an argument of their crueltie and vn∣godlinesse that crucified him. You see the plainnesse of these examples, howe they are plainely against him, and that it still remaineth vnremouable, that a signe and the thing signified, be distinct things. Therefore the sacra∣ment being a signe, figure, exemplar, and memoriall of the body and bloud of Christ is not the same after a cor∣porall manner.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Hesk.
• * 1.2

  Fulk.