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 FIRST BOOKE OF HESKINS PARLEAMENT RE∣pealed by W. Fulke.

THE first Chapter vpon occasion that this aduersarie, this proclamer, and challenger (he meaneth the B. of Sarum of holy and learned memorie) would haue the Scriptures read of all men (presupposing the same to be easie to be vnderstanded) en∣tereth, as by preamble, to treate of the difficultie of the Scriptures, and to proue that they ought not of all men to be read, without an able interpreter or teacher.* 1.1

THIS Burgesse for the citie of Rome,* 1.2 hauing in purpose to make a speake in the Popish Parleament, for the matter of the sacrament of the Masse: and dou∣ting least his tale should not be long ynough, if he vttered nothing but that might seeme directly to appertaine to his cause, begin∣neth with a pretie preamble of eight Chapters long, of the difficultie of the Scriptures, and the vnderstanding of the same. And bicause he hath not aduauntage sufficient of any wordes or writing of the B. of Sarum to inlarge his speach by confuting thereof: he feigneth vnto him selfe, a monster to fight withall, out of Luthers booke, De seruo arbitrio, who teacheth (as he saith) That the Scrip∣tures of them selues be easie of all men to be vnderstanded, and neede none interpreter, for that we be all taught of God and of his spirite, &c. Of which minde he imagineth his aduersa∣rie to be, In that he would the scriptures to be common to all men. How false & slanderous this his report is of Luther, may sufficiently appeare by that one worde, Theodidac∣ti, taught of God, by which it is most manifest, that Luther affirmeth the scriptures to be easie to be vnderstood, not

of all men in generall, but onely of all them that are taught of God, and of his spirite, by which they were in∣dighted. But nowe our Burgesse will make plaine by dis∣cussion, that the scriptures be obscure, darke, and hard to be vn∣derstanded, and for that cause not of all men indifferently to be read, and that by seuen arguments. Although it followeth not, that the scriptures are not to be read, bicause they are hard, but the contrarie; yet let vs weigh these seuen arguments.

The first: There be many controuersies of the blessed sacra∣ment, therefore there be difficulties in the scriptures. If contro∣uersies raysed by froward maintainers of falshoode, be a proofe of difficultie, there shall nothing be plaine, not only in the scriptures of God, neither in any other wri∣tings or sayings of men, no not in such matters as are subiect to our senses, but we shall be brought into an Academicall doubtfulnesse of all things. But what say you M. Heskins? are not the scriptures plaine for the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament which you maintaine? Is Hoc est corpus meum, nowe a matter of diffic••ltie? Let all Papistes that haue witte beware of your proceding, you haue euen now by your first argu∣mēt, cut asunder the synnes & strength of al your cause.

The second: The very disciples of Christ, besides the Iewes, vnderstoode not Christes owne words before they were written. Ioh. 6. Much lesse we the same written. To passe ouer the vn∣godly difference you make, betweene Christes wordes proceeding out of his owne mouth, and the same writtē by inspiration of his owne holy spirit, call you them the very disciples of Christ, which offended with that speach departed from him, or them that abid the interpretati∣on of them, and tarried still with him? Such disciples as the former were be you, and your sect, which when the scripture serueth not your purpose, accuse it of difficul∣tie and vncertaintie, as the olde Heretiques the Valenti∣nians did: as witnesseth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. But Chry∣sostome I suppose helpeth you much,* 1.3 where hee saith: Quid ergo? est durus? difficilis intellectu, & quem capere non pos∣set

eorum imbecillitas plenus formidinis. What then? is this word hard? difficult to be vnderstoode, and such as their weaknesse could not receiue, full of fearefulnes. Here is the name of the words of Chrysostome, but to what purpose? when no doctor more often, or more earnestly exhorteth all Lay men that are Christians, to read the scriptures of God, affir∣ming thē also to be easie to be vnderstood for the most part, and not onely without daunger, but also verie pro∣fitable, euen where they be hard to be vnderstoode. I wil rehearse one or two places of a great number.

In Luc. cap. 16. Id{que}, hortor & hortari non desinam &c. And this I exhort you, and will not cease to exhort you, that you would not only in this place (meaning in the Church) giue heede to those things that are said, but al∣so when you shall be at home, you would euery day giue your selues to the reading of the holy scriptures. And there followeth a reason, Ne{que} nunc fieri potest: Nei∣ther can it nowe be, I say, it can not be, that any man should obtaine saluation, except hee bee continually conuersant in spirituall reading. And not long after, Etiamsi, non intelligas illic recondita &c. yea, although thou vnderstand not the misteries that are therein hid∣den, yet of the very reading of them, great holinesse groweth. Finally, In genesim Hom. 9. In diuinis autem scrip∣turis &c. but in the holy scriptures, & in those spirituall and precious stories, neither is it lawfull to suspect any danger, neither is there any great labour, but vnspeaka∣ble gaine, onely let vs bring with chearefulnesse that which lyeth in vs.

The third: If the scriptures be plaine and easie for euery mā to vnderstand, it was no great benefit that Christ did open his A∣postles witts, that they might vnderstand the scriptures, nor that he did interpret Moses and the Prophetes, to the disciples that went to Emaus, wherefore we conclude with S. Peter, that as he witnessing the Epistles of S. Paule be hard: so be the rest of the scriptures hard. O blundering Burgesse! Who did euer af∣firme that the scriptures were easie to be vnderstād with∣out the spirit of Christ? Or what asse of Acarnania, wold

brave out suche a reason? The Apostles could not vn∣derstand the scriptures sufficiētly to teach all the world, without a singular gift of interpretation, therefore no Christian man may learne by reading the scriptures, howe to knowe God to his eternall saluation, without the same extraordinarie gift. But by your leaue maister speaker, (for the office you take vpon you, I know not howe you came vnto it) you misreport S Peter being a Lord of the higher house as you count him, for he saith not that the Epistles of S. Paule be hard, but that among those things which he wrote of the second comming of Christ, some things are hard to be vnderstoode. Where∣fore neither his authoritie, nor your reason, will be suf∣ficient to conclude your cause.

The fourth. The Chamberlen could not vnderstand the pro∣phet Esay without an interpreter, therefore the scriptures are not plaine and easie of all men to be vnderstanded. A proper con∣clusion. There is some difficultie in some scriptures, therefore they are all hard and can not be vnderstoode. We neither affirme that all things in the scriptures are easie to be vnderstanded; nor that they are easie to be vn∣derstood of all men. But that the children of God by his spirite, are instructed to vnderstand so much in them as is profitable for their saluation, and that nothing neces∣sarie for vs to knowe, is so obscurely set foorth in one scripture, but it is as plainly set down in an other. Nei∣ther do we reiect interpreters, bicause we read the scrip∣tures, but as Chrysostom teacheth, by reading the scrip∣turs, we are made more apt to vnderstād the interpreters. In Euan. Ioan. Hom. 10. The exāple of Philip sent vnto the Chamberlen doth also declare, howe God wil blesse the reading of the scriptures, whē he is sought in them.

The fift. The Apostles them selues vnderstoode not Christe speaking of his passion and resurrection. Iohn. 16. After a while, &c. therfore if the liuely voyce of Christ was dark, much more is the same now written in dead letters, dark & hard to be vnder∣standed. The Apostles by speciall dispensation, not yet so wel lightned, that they vnderstood their master, not on∣ly

at this time, but at many other times also, bewrayed their naturall ignorance, that the grace of God in their illuminatiō in due time afterward, might appeare more glorious. But doth it therefore followe, that the sayings of Christe were hard, or their vnderstanding darke? A blinde man can not see the Sunne, is it therefore a good conclusion, that the Sunne is darke, and not easie to be seene? Howbeit, it is well to be marked, that once againe hee putteth difference betweene the liuely voyce of Christ, and his word written in dead letters, making op∣position betweene The liuely voyce in the eare, and the deade: letter in the eye. As though the vnderstanding of the scrip∣ture, consisted either in the eare or in the eye, when nei∣ther the eye hath seene, nor the eare hath heard, neither haue they ascended into the heart of man, such things as God hath prepared for them that loue him. 1. Cor. 2. Es. 64. But God hath reuealed them vnto vs by his spi∣rit, which spirit searcheth out al things, euen the depthes or greatest secretes of God. Neuerthelesse, here is bro∣ught in Hieronyme ad Paulinum. Habet nescio quid latentis e∣nergiae viua vox &c. The liuely voyce hath I knowe not what hidden vertue, and being vttered frō the mouth of the author, in∣to the eare of the disciple, soundeth more strongly. Wherfore Aes∣chynes when he was banished at Rhodes, and that Oration of De∣mosthenes was read, which he made against him, when all men did woonder at it, and praise it sighing he said: What if ye had heard the beast himself sounding out his owne words? This writeth Hieronyme to persuade Paulin{us}, not only to satisfie him self with his writings, but also to trauel that he might so him, & heare him, whom he had known before only by his writing, & that by the example not only of heathen Philosophers, but also of holy men of the Church, as the next wordes following immediatly do plainely te∣stifie: Haec non dico quod sit in me aliquid tale &c. I say not these things, for that there is in me any such matter, whi∣che either thou mayest, or art desierous to learne: but bicause thy feruent heate, and desire of learning, ought to be commended euen without vs. Thy wit is pregnant

and commendable without a teacher 3. So farre is it off that Hieronyme meant to compare the word of Christ spoken, with that which is writen, whose force is as great by his spirite in the scriptures, which this dogge calleth the deade letters, as it was in his voyce when it was vtte∣red. But howe impudently the name of Hieronyme is abused against his plain iudgment, wherby he not only alloweth lay men to read the scripturs, but also confes∣seth that they receiue great fruit therby, may appeare by this one place amōg many, written in Esaiam libro. 4. cap. 11. Frequenter euenit vt homines soeculi. It commeth to passe verie often, that lay men being ignorant of the mysti∣call sense, are yet fedde with the plaine and simple rea∣ding of the scriptures. 33. And in his epistle vpō the same

Cōmentarie, he affirmeth, that Ignoratio scripturarum, ig∣noratio Christi est.

Ignorance of scriptures, is the igno∣rance of Christ. Shortnes will not suffer me to point the places only, to the confusiō of the aduersary: if any dout or would see more, let them reade the places at the full.

The sixt All men haue not the gift of knowledge of prophesie, nor of interpretation of tongues, therefore euerie man hath not the vnderstāding of the scripturs, neither be they easie to be vn∣derstanded of euerie man. First I pray you note, that he ma∣keth interpretatiō of the scriptures and the interpretatiō of tongs al one, secondly, what force is in this reason, all men haue not extraordinarie gifts of tongs, of healing, of knowledge, of prophesie, of interpretation of tongues &c. Therefore the scriptures are so harde, as they cannot be vnderstood by the ordinarie gifte of prophesie, which is promised to all the seruaunts of God, young & olde, men and women, vpon whom his holy spirit is powred. 10.2. Act. 2. I am ashamed to troble the readers with any more words, in answer vnto such a grosse consequence.

The seuenth, God hath ordeined first Apostles▪ secondly Pro∣phetes, thirdly teachers, &c. Now if the scriptures be easie for eue∣rie mans vnderstanding, then either these states be superfluous, or else euerie man is a teacher and prophete, but this were a great absurditie, therfore the scriptures are hard & full of diffi∣culties.

If a yong Sophister had D. Heskins in the scholes at Cambridge, where somtime he hath been a Sophister, he would with one common warde, which is Nego con∣sequentiam, auoyde the pikes of all these seuen argu∣ments. Alas poore man, is there no vnderstāding of the scriptures, but such as may make a man a teacher, & an extraordinarie prophete? are there no degrees of know∣ledge but either the highest perfection, or the depest ig∣norance? Will this reason follow? Men may profite in knowledge by reading, therefore teaching is super∣fluous: or this, teaching is necessarie, therfore reading is vnprofitable. What shall I say to these reasons, but that they are giuen ouer into a reprobate minde, which are so furiously bent to withstand the trueth, that they set not foorth so much as any shadowe of reason.

The second Chapter to proue that the scriptures be not ea∣sie, reciteth certaine harde and obscure places of the olde Testa∣mente.* 1.4

The purpose of this Chapter, as of the next also,* 1.5 is al together foolishe and vnreasonable, for who is so mad to denie, but that ther are diuerse places both in the old and newe Testament, which bee obscure and hard to be vnderstode, not onely of the ignorant, but euen of the best learned, yet doeth it not therefore followe, be∣cause something is harde, therefore all is so: or because some places in the scripture are harde, therefore there is no profite in reading of all the rest. But let vs see these places recited. First he nameth all the prophetes, the books of Iob, the book of Psalmes, the Preacher, & the song of Salomon, Al which books in his iudgement are so hard, as they cannot be vnderstoode without an inter∣preter. Wel, let vs graunt great difficultie to be in these books, as in diuers other, is all time lost therfore that is spent in reading of them? The harder they be, the more diligently they are to be red, y^t they may be vnderstood. The difficultie to good scholers will not dull but whe••

••hei•• desire to learne▪ to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to conferre to se••••e 〈…〉〈…〉 to find Cōcer••ing Genesis he alledgeth out of Hieronyme, the tradition of the vnbel••uing Iewes, that they might not read it before they were 30 yeres olde. But Hieronyme him self wold haue yong childrens ten∣der tongs seasoned with sweet Psalmes▪ and exercised in studie of the scriptures and Prophets, which you M. Hes∣kins professe to be so difficult. For he instructing Laeta 〈◊〉〈◊〉 she should bring ••p her daughter, saith▪

Adhuc tenera lingua, Psalmis dulcibus imbuatur. let her tong when it i•• yet but tender be seasoned with sweete Psalmes, & when she groweth to yeares of discretion, Quaerant eam; &c. let them seeke her in the iourney of the worlde, a∣mong the flockes and companies of her kinsfolkes, but let them finde her no where else, but in the closet of the scriptures, asking counsell of the Prophets and Apostles of her spirituall marriage.

But more agreeing with the title of this Chap. you alledge the 49. Chap. of Gene. & one speciall place of that Chapter, namely the blessing of Iuda. What if this Chapter be harde, and this place especially in the Chapter: is it therefore hard, which Moses writeth in the beginning of this booke. In the beginning God created Heauen and Earth. And shal all the profitable and necessarie doctrine of this booke be vnread for the difficultie of one Chapter?

In Exodus and Leuiticus, although many things re∣quire a ripe iudgement, yet are many thinges also very easie and plaine, and the same scripture also teacheth vs, that all figures were referred to the patterne shewed in the mount, which is Christ. Exod. 25. Acts 7. Heb. 8. But these sayings offendeth M. Heskins, and seemeth to him to haue almost no reason in them, where God forbiddeth them to suffer their cattel to gender with a contrarie kinde, or sowe their fielde with mingled seede,* 1.6 or to weare a garment of linsiwoolsie. Which positiue lawes me thinkes do plainly teach, that God loueth purenesse, and abhorreth all vnholy mix∣tures. As likewise, those wordes Deut. 23 of sowing the vineyard with diuers seeds, and plowing with an oxe &

an asse. The law Deut. 22. of leauing the old bird when a man taketh her yong out of the nest, was a good rudi∣ment to teach them to abhor either couetousnes, or cru∣eltie, or both. Which law, when the heathen men had by the light of nature, as appeareth in Phocylides, I mar∣uell why it seemeth so straunge to M. Heskins, which would be taken both for a Christian and a Diuine. As for the moosling of the oxe, that treadeth the corne, is yet more plaine, when the Apostle doth gather a strong argument out of that place, from the lesse to the more, that God which would haue men to consider bruite beastes, with humanitie, would not haue the Ministers of his word neglected at their handes. But ô noble Di∣uine. Doth the high prouidence of God occupie it selfe in making ordinances for birds nestes? Yea M. Doctour, and in teaching birdes to make their nestes, and in feeding their young birds that cal on him, although these ordinances cōcer∣ning birdes nestes, were not made for birds, but for men. Or doth the wisedome of God ioyne such rewardes of prosperitie and long life to such trifles? O M. Doctour, obedience before God, is better then sacrifice, though it be in neuer so small matters.

But Salomon in his Ecclesiastes pleaseth not M. Hes∣kins, where he saith, that Where much wisedome is, there is also much trauell and disquietnesse &c: herevpon the vnlear∣ned, he saith, might take occasion to contemne wisedome, and much more by that which followeth. cap. 2. If it happen to the foole as to the wiseman, what needeth me to labour any more for wisedome. And herevpon he sweareth, that he heard a man of worship grauitie, wisedome, godly life, competent learning, able to vnderstand, and exercised in the scriptures, earnestly say to him, that it was a naughtie booke. When Salomon doth so excee∣dingly not onely in his other bookes, but also in that same booke, and place, set foorth the commendation of wisedome, it was a very spiderlike iuyce that your wise Gentleman (M. Doctour) gathered out of that booke, and such as no Bee would sucke out of so-sweete and wholesome flowers. As for The title Inci••ament vnto ver∣tue,

that you suppose to appeare in the ballattes of Salomon, yea rather how vngodly and wanton they seeme to be, rather in the outward face teaching and prouoking wantonnesse, then godli∣nesse of life, Declareth how reuerently you iudge of the holie scripture And that offence you dreame off (belike not most chastly affected) is most easily auoyded: for what vnlearned man indued with common sense, rea∣ding in so many other places of the scriptures, all wan∣tonnesse of life expressely forbidden, will not immedi∣ately conceiue, that this is some spirituall and mysticall loue, which is set forth in these ballats, rather then lewd or wanton songes, prouoking to wickednesse? But then followeth the sonne of Syrach, With his vnseemely wordes describing the wickednesse of an harlot Cap. 62. Which an ho∣nest man would be ashamed to speake, and you ashamed to write, if they were not scripture. Like as one that goeth by the way, and is thirstie, so shall she open her mouth, and drinke of euery next water that she may get. By euery hedge shal she fit her downe, & open her quiner to euery arrowe. Then what trifling, resting, and pastime you haue seene and heard vpon the reading, and re∣hersall of this text, and what vnchast wordes haue fallen out vp∣on the same. It appeareth you haue beene in good compa∣ny, where you haue often heard such wholsome talke. But once againe you sweare, that This text being spoken in the presence of a good vertuous gentlewomā, the book turned & the place read, she exclamed & said, that if the scripture had such bawdie wordes, she would no more beleeue the scripture, for it was naught, with mo such like wordes. To passe ouer the blas∣phemous nicenes of this your Gentlewoman, and your iudgement of their goodnes and vertue, with their ho∣nestie, that troubled her with this place: I pray you maister Heskins, was it the darkenes of the place, that did so much offend her, or else because she thought it to be too plaine a description of suche a matter? You see therefore, or if you do not, all the worlde beside do∣eth, that while you seeke to bring the reading of scrip∣tures into contempt and hatred, you forget your selfe so much, that you bring examples of one contrarie for

another. Although if I may speake of mine experience, as well as you, I do very well remember, that I hearde a sober and chaste matron, of her owne accorde, not pro∣uoked thereto by any meanes, but the only hearing the same place read, affirme, that it was a modest descripti∣on of so vile manners as an harlot vseth.

To conclude this Chapter, you bring in a long tes∣timonie of Origen. 10. lib. Strom. Who to defend his wicked allegorizing vpon the scriptures, goeth about to proue by some examples and sentences, that the litteral sense is not profitable, but rather hurtfull. As the incest of Iuda, & the polygamie of the Patriarks, the dronken∣nesse of Noe, and such like, which are not commended in histories, but reproued. The sacrifices of Leuiticus he imagineth should prouoke men to idolatrie, but without all colour of reason. He addeth the iudgement of God against Babylon and her children in the Psalme. 136. and the iustice that Dauid doeth promise to exe∣cute against al the wicked of the land. Psalm. 101. to in∣courage men to cruelty and contention, but all in vaine: like as his purpose (for which he alledgeth them,) was wicked, namely to ouerthrowe the true and naturall sense of the scripture. But yet the same Origen is direct∣ly against maister Heskins, in that cause for which he is alledged, as appeareth plainely in Leuitici cap. 16. Hom. 9. An tu putas qui vix diebus fectis ad Ecclesiam venis, &c.

Thinkest thou whiche scarcely commest to the Church vpon the holy dayes, & giuest no heede to heare the wordes of God, nor takest any paines to fulfill his commandements, that the Lordes lot can come vppon thee? Yet we wish that after you haue heard these things you would take paines not only in the Church to heare the wordes of God, but also at home in your houses to be exercised, and to meditate in the Lawe of the Lorde day and night. Go your wayes now and boaste of O∣rigens authoritie, that the scriptures are not to be read of all men, when in a publique Sermon he exhor∣teth all the people to the diligent reading of them,

and sharply reproueth them for their negligence in this behalfe.

* 1.7The third Chapter to declare the newe Testament not to be easie to be vnderstanded▪ bringeth diuers obscure places of the same.

* 1.8As I said before, there was neuer man yet so foolish, to affirme the scriptures to be so easie, that there was no obscure place in them, but that nothing needful to sal∣uation is so obscure in them, but that it may be easily vnderstoode by conference of other places, where the fame is most plainely set foorth. But let vs see his wise reasons, to proue the new Testament to be hard, bicause some places therein be hard to be vnderstanded.

The Euangelistes Matthewe and Luke seeme to varrie in the Genealogie of Christ, therefore all is not easie. What then? They both doe manifestly agree in that, which is mate∣riall for our faith, ••hat Christe was the seede of Abra∣ham, and the sonne of Dauid. In the rest, what straunge matter is it, if one pedegree be brought from one prin∣cipall ancester by seuerall discents, lineall, and collate∣rall, natural, and legall, by the male and by the female▪

For the second obscure place, Chrysostome is alled∣ged, who Numbereth it among the hid thinges, howe Elizabeth being of the tribe of Leuie, may be called the cousen of Marie.

A perillous doubt, in solution whereof, though a number be ignoraunt, yet I doubt not but they may be saued. And yet by conference of the stories of scripture it is ea∣sie to finde, that men of the tribe of Iuda might marrie of the Priestes daughters, and the Priestes did marrie e∣uen of the Kings daughters of Iuda. By which mariages cousenage might easily be vnderstoode to growe be∣tweene the two tribes▪ notwithstanding the lawe of Num 36.

Which did forbid only those marriages, by which the inheritances might be confounded.

The third doubtfull place is in Marke. 13. Where it is said, that Of that day and houre knoweth no man, no not the

Angels in heauen, nor the sonne him selfe, but the father. And Chrysostome is againe alledged, to shewe that this is a doubtful place: and yet a simple Christian that kno∣weth the two diuers natures in Christ, humane and di∣uine, can easily solute it, and say, that although Christe by his godhead knoweth all things, yet as he was man he knewe not all things.

The fourth proofe is taken out of the example of Algasia and Hedibia, two godly women, and studious of the scriptures; whereof the one found twelue, the other eleuen doubtes in the newe Testament, and sent to S. Hieronyme for resolution of them. I maruell M. Hes∣kins hath so small discretion, to alledge these examples, which do quight ouerthrowe his purpose. If not onely men, but women also, may read the scriptures, and pro∣fite so well in the studie of them, that they can finde but eleuen or twelue doubts in the whole newe Testament, for resolution whereof, they did (as became good schol∣lers) send so farre for the iudgement of their learned maister. But M. Heskins, not content to shewe that they douted, will also set downe some of their douts, namely this one moued by Algasia. Why Iohn the Baptist should send his disciples to Christ to aske this question: Art thou he that shalt come, or do we looke for an other? seeing he both knewe, & openly pointed at Christ with his finger before? Although this good woman doubted of this matter, yet it is easie to answer, that thē he sought the instructiō of his disciples, rather then the confirmation of his owne knowledge. An other was moued by Hedibia, Howe Christ in Iohn 20. forbad Marie to touch him, when Matthew 28. affirmeth, that the women held his feete. It seemeth to M. Heskins that one of these must be vntrue, I dare say it seemed not so to He∣dibia, although she could not perfectly reconcile these places. But seeing that both these reports are true, it is plaine ynough, that he suffered Marie Magdalene to holde his feete so much, as was sufficient to confirme the certeintie of his resurrection, & forbad her not, vntil she shewed her self too much addicted to his bodily presēce.

Another doubt is, howe Marke saith the women came to the sepulchre when the Sunne was rysen, and then saith, Marie Magdalene came early in the morning when it was yet darke. A woman sitting at her distaffe, woulde easily solue this doubt, and say that it was darke when they set foorth of their dores, but the Sunne was risen by that time they came to the Sepulchre.

Yet another doubt of Hedibia, whether Christ breathing on his Apostles gaue them the holie Ghost, when he promised to send him after his ascension. There is no doubt but he did then in some small measure, but afterwardes sent him with most plentifull vertue and power.

To conclude, what needed Austen to haue written a great volume, De consensu Euangelistarum, what needed the comen∣taries of Hieronyme & Ambrose vpon the Euangelistes, or the Homilies of Chrysostome & Augustine, and the expositions of so manie learned men, &c. if the Scriptures be so plaine & easie? O foolish conclusion! as though the Scriptures may not planely set foorth vnto vs, all things necessarie for vs to learne, and yet the same things (with all other things conteined in them, be set forth more plainly & largely to the instruction & increase of our faith, hope, comfort, obedience, &c. by Comentaries, Homelies, expositions, yea admonitions, and exhortations.

* 1.9The fourth Chapter conteineth certeine hard places of the Epistles.

* 1.10M. Heskins taketh great paines in those Chapters, to proue that which no man doubteth of, that there be some hard and darke places in the Scriptures, and yet it followeth not, but that the Scriptures are a light vnto our steppes, & a lanterne vnto our feete, & the worde of the Lord giueth wisedome vnto the simple. But let vs follow him whether he leadeth vs. In the Epistle to the Ro∣manes be mo obscure, then plaine places, yea, the matter of iustifi∣cation how hard it is, the controuersies thereupon risen may suf∣fise to declare. Such is M. Heskins diuinitie, that he coun∣teth al scripture obscure, that cā not easily be wrested to

maintein poperie. Otherwise ther is nothing more clere then the doctrin of iustification: though the Owles & Battes of our time, either can not, or will not see it. But it is no easie matter to reconcile the saying of S. Paul Rom. 3. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the lawe, & that which Iames saith: Iac. 2. what auayleth it my brethren, if a man say he haue faith, if he haue no workes, can faith saue him? And after he concludeth: euen so faith if it haue no workes it is dead in it selfe. It is an easie matter to recon∣cile these places to him that can put a differēce between him that hath faith in deede, & him that onely saith he hath it: betweene a true liuely faith, & a false & dead faith: finally, between the cause of iustification that go∣eth before, & the effectes therof that followe after.

In the same Epistle Cap. 10. concerning the reiection of the Iewes & calling of the Gentiles, there are many places that trou∣ble M. Heskins, as that out of Esay, for calling of the Gentiles. I am found of them that sought me not, &c. But against Israel, &c. yet afterward he asketh if God haue forsaken his people, & aun∣swereth: God forbid, & such like. The matter is not so hard as it seemeth to him, but who so doth read the text at∣tentiuely, may see the difference betweene a perticuler reiectiō of many, & an vniuersal reiection of all, a tem∣poral reiection of most, & the finall reiection of al. The former is true, the latter is false.

The matter of predestination no man denyeth, but it is a great secreat, yet so much as the spirite of God hath reuealed of it, for our comfort, is not so hard, but it may be easily vnderstood. And as for that contrarietie which he seemeth to finde, betweene these two texts, Rom. 9. It is neither in him that willeth, nor in him that ru••neth, but in God that hath mercie: & that other Rom. 7. To will is present with me, but I finde no meanes to performe that which is good, is so absurd, that I thinke it would not enter into the head of any vnlearned man, to make a doubt, whether the will which is in a regenerate man by the grace of Gods election, was the cause of his election before the world was made.

A like difficultie he findeth betweene these places: God will haue all men to be saued and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the knowledge of the trueth▪ 1. Tim. 2. and that Rom. 9. Who can resist his will. And againe: Many are called, fewe are chosen. If master Heskins would vnderstande like a man, and no•• like a childe, the verie wordes following would teache him, that in the first sentence, by all men, are meant all forces of men, as well Kings and Princes, as inferior subiectes.

After this he repeateth another doubt of Algasia: What Paule meaned to wish him selfe accursed from Christ, for the Iewes, which doubt is increased by an obiection of Hieronyme, that he had sayed before: I am sure that neither death nor life, &c. nor any other creature can separate vs from the loue of God. In which saying he seemeth to affirme that he so feruently loued Christ, that nothing could separate him from his loue, in the other he seemeth for the loue he bare to the Iewes, to wish that he were sepaerated from Christ, as though he loued the Iewes bet∣ter then Christ. A short aunswere is best. Although his desire was exceeding vehement, yet it was more for zeale of Gods honour, then for loue of the Iewes. And al∣though he loued Christ feruently▪ yet the boast he ma∣keth of assurance, was not of that loue wherewith he lo∣ued Christ, but of that loue wherwith Christ loued him. And yet there is another doubt moued by Algasia vpon the wor∣des of Paule Rom. 5. For scarse will any man dye for a righte∣••us man. But yet for a good man it may be that one dare dye. The obscuritie of which place, hath moued two contrarie here∣tikes, to take their heresies thereof. Marcion, who made two Gods, a iust GOD of the Lawe, for whome fewe dyed, and a good God of the Gospell, Christ, for whome innumerable Martyre haue suffered. Ar••ius contrarywise calleth Christ the iust God vppon the Psalme 71. Lord giue thy iudgements to the King, and thy righteousnesse to the Kings sonne. The good God he called father of heauen, of whome Christ saide, none is good but God. These doubtes Master Heskins moueth, but he aunswe∣reth none. The place is not so darke, that eyther such doubt should be made of it, or such farre fetched expo∣sitions sought as the heretikes made. For a man may

be righteous in some case, for which he is condemned to dye, which is not simply a good man, and for such a one will hardly any man giue his life, although peraduenture for a very good man, some woulde venture to dye: But Christ dyed for vs, being his enemies, iustly condemned, & altogether naught or wicked, which no man would e∣uer do but he. The douts of Algasia are matched with the foure questions of Amandus, of which one was, of that place 1. Cor. 15. He must reigne till he haue put all things vnder his feete. The last enimie that shalbe subdued is death. For he hath put all things vnder his feete. But when he sayeth, all things are put vnder him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things vnder him. When all things are subdued vnder him, then shall the sonne himselfe also be subiect vnto him that put all things vnder him, that God may be all in all▪ The question is, howe the sonne shalbe subiect to the father when he is equall with him. And this doubt is answered by Hillarius lib. 11. de Trin. M. Hes∣kins doth often declare, that he had rather men should be taught by him to doubt, then to be resolued in doub∣tes, for he vouchsafeth not so much, as to recyte the aun∣swere of Hillarius, but onely to cyte the place. But the aunswere is easie by the distinction of the two natures in Christ: for he shall neuer be subiect in his diuinitie, but in his humanitie, wherein he is nowe exalted, & reigneth vntill all his enimies be put vnder his feete.

Yet another doubt vpon Coll. 1. Where Paul writeth: Nowe ioye I in my suffrings for you, and fulfill the rest of the af∣flictions of Christ in my fleshe for his bodie which is his Church. Here he seemeth to make the passion of Christ insufficient. Not a-whit: for as Christ suffered once in his owne person, for their redemption, so he suffereth daily in his members, for their exercise of patience, & confirmation of faith.

Then the Epistle to the Hebrues hath two sore senten∣ces. Heb. 6. & 10. For it is not possible that they which were once lightened, and haue tasted of the heauenly gift, and were made partakers of the holie Ghoste, and haue tasted of the good worde of God, and of the power of the world to come, if they fall away, should be renewed againe by repentance, seeing they crucifie againe to

them selues the Sonne of God and make a mocke of him. And a∣gaine. For if we sinne wilfully after we haue receiued the know∣ledge of the trueth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinnes, but a fearefull looking for of iudgement, and violent fire which shall deuour the aduersaries. The difficultie of these places resteth in one point, and in a manner in one worde in eche of the sentences. For the Apostle excludeth not from re∣pentance euery one that falleth and sinneth, but him one∣ly which sinneth so wilfully, that he falleth cleane away from Christ. For then there is no repentance nor remis∣sion, because he sinneth against the holie Ghost, as did Iu∣das, Alexander the coppersmith, Iulian the Apostata, & such like.

The contention of Hieronyme & Augustine about Pe∣ters dissimulation is the last example of difficultie,* 1.11 which did not arise of any obscuritie of the place, but of Hiero∣nymes immoderate and ouer great zeale to defend Peter, where the holie Ghost saith plainly, he was worthie to be reprehended. But for as much as these two great doctors, could not agree about the exposition of this place, it doth not so much declare the hardnesse of the Scriptures, as it doth discourage vs, to finde the certeine exposition of them at all times in the iudgement of the doctours: which both in this place and many other, are not onely diuers, but oftentimes contrarie one to another. The conclusion of the Chapter is not all amisse, wherein he dissuadeth not men from reading the scriptures, but from rash∣nesse of iudgement, and exhorteth the readers of them to humilitie and modestie, that so the spirite of GOD may rest vppon them, which will leade them into all trueth.

* 1.12The first Chapter declareth the mindes and iudgements of the Fathers and Doctours, vpon the difficultie of the scriptures.

It is not ynough for this bold Burgesse, to trouble the house,* 1.13 in prouing that which no man doth gainesay, but he wil also charge men with impudencie and arrogancie,

which giue him no occasion of this his long and vaine speache. But herein, he sheweth his witt more then his honestie. For, bicause he can not disproue that which they say, he laboureth to proue that which they do not denie. And nowe of the doctours, (substantially no doubt) Ori∣gen must beginne, who saith: That these wordes of Paule: Brethren, you are called into libertie. Gal 5. is an hard place, and that the holy Ghost must be found in the scriptures, with much la∣bour and sweat &c. We say likewise with Dauid, that the godly mans studie must be in the lawe of the Lorde day and night. But that Origen would not for the difficultie of the scriptures, dissuade any Lay man from reading of them, is manifest by this place in Gen. Capit. 26. Hom. 12.

Tenta ergo & tu ô auditor habere proprium puteum, & proprium fontem, vt & tu cum apprehenderis librum scripturarum, incipias etiam ex proprio sensu proferre aliquem intellectum, & secundum ea, quae in Ecclesia didicisti, tenta & tu bibere de fonte ingenij tui. Assay therefore thou ô hearer, to haue a pit of thine own, a spring of thine owne, that euen thou also, when thou ta∣kest in hand the booke of the scriptures, maiest beginne to bring foorth some vnderstanding of thine owne wit, and according to those thinges which thou hast learned in the Churche, assay thou also to drinke of the spring of thine owne witte. Here Origen will not only haue men to reade the scripture, but also incourageth them to seeke out the interpretation by their owne studie.

But Hieronyme (next to Origen) in his Epistle to Paulinus both noteth diuerse obscure places in the scripture, and also counselleth Paulinus to vse the helpe of interpreters. And who is it that mislyketh his councel? especially if it be to exhort one that meant to be a teacher in the Church as Pau∣linus was. Yet neuerthelesse we shewed before, that Hie∣ronyme would haue euen infantes brought vppe in the knowledge of the scriptures, and exhorteth not onely men, but women also to the studie of them, and com∣mendeth husband men, and labourers; for their know∣ledge of the scriptures.

And although he confesse the questions of Algasia

to be full of difficulties, yet he both commendeth her studie in the scriptures, and desire to be resolued in her doubtes.

Yet Basill teacheth that all the scriptures are not to be published and made common.* 1.14 For there are poyntes of learning, or of doctrine that are to be kept close, and the obscuritie which the scripture vseth is a kinde of silence so framing those points of learning, that a man may hardly vnderstand them.

The wordes of Basil are these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is, (according to Erasmus translation) exercising a minde vnapte for the contemplation of this doctrine, and that for the profite of them that exercise them selues in the scriptures. Which last wordes, M. Heskins hath frau∣dulently left out, and so he is cleane contrarie to M. Hes∣kins purpose. Although Basill speaketh not expressely of reading the Scriptures by the faithfull, but of publi∣shing the mysteries of Christian religion that were recei∣ued by tradition without Scripture.

For in his short de∣finitions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: to this question, whether it be ex∣pedient that they which are new come to the faith, should be instructed in the holie Scriptures? he aunswereth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. This question may be dissolued by those things that were sayde before. For it is both con∣uenient & necessarie, that euery man for his neede should learne out of the diuine Scriptures, both for the certeine persuasion of godlinesse, & also that he be not accustomed vnto mans traditions.

* 1.15 But S. Ambrose also in fewe words saith much to this matter, calling the Scripture of God the great sea, ha∣uing in it a deepenesse without bottome of deepe senses & vnder∣standings, into the which many floods do enter. But this letteth not S. Ambrose vpon 118. Psal. Serm. 1. to exhort the laye people to read the Scriptures.

Et tu lege prophetam vt videat, lege vt apperiat os tutum. And thou also read the Prophet, that thou mayst see, read that he may open thine eyes. And againe: Quod sisugias lectionem propheticam, si domi non legas, in ecclesia audire nolis, &c. But if thou flye from the reading of the Prophetes, if thou read not at home:

thou wilt not heare in the Church, but while thou feinest to heare those things that are read, &c. And if in your iud∣gement he said much for you, when he cōpareth the scrip∣ture to the sea, I thinke he saith more against you, where he compareth the Church to the sea.

Hexam. lib. 3. cap. 3.

Vnde bene mari plerum{que} comparatur ecclesia, quae primo ingre∣dientis populi agmine totis vestibulis vndas vomit: deinde in ora∣tione totius plebis tanquam vndis refluentibus stridet: tum respon∣sorijs. Psalmorum, cantus virorum, mulierum, virginum, paruulorū, consonus vndarum fragor resultat. Whervpō the Church is oft times verie wel compared vnto the sea, which first by the cōming in of the multitude, floweth out waues frō euery porch or entrie: and then maketh a noyse with the pray∣er of the whole people, as it were with the ebbing or flowing backe of the waues: last of all, with answerings of Psalmes, singing of men, women, virgines, and little children, a well tunable sound of the waues reboundeth.

By this place it appeareth, that all sorts of people were ad∣mitted to the reading of the scriptures, and that no tong was vsed in the Church, but such as was cōmon to all the people. Chrysostome succeedeth Ambrose, who saith:* 1.16 The scriptures are darke that they are found out with labour, but not shut that they can not be found out at all, and that the priestes ought to be the keykeepers of the scriptures, not to shut them vp, but to open them, &c. I would oppose some testimonie of Chrysostome to explane his meaning, not to be to dis∣courage men frō reading the scriptures, but that M. Hes∣kins doth soone after confesse the same, of his owne ac∣cord, in these wordes: I am not ignorant (gentle reader) that Chrysostome doth so, that is, that Chrysostome in a number of places most earnestly exhorteth men to the reading of the scriptures, and doth not feare them with the obscuritie, and difficultie thereof. I aske no more against M. Heskins, but his own confession of Chrysostomes iudgement to be against him, whervnto we must returne anon, after a little consideration of Gre∣gories iudgement. Gregorie sheweth, that the obscuritie of the scriptures is for great profite, for exercising the vnderstanding, for auoyding of wearines, idlenes, contempt, and for great delight, when

it is found out with labour. Augustine hath the like sentence, but this maketh much for our cause, that the obscuritie of the scripture, where, it is darke: is very profitable for the diligent reader. To conclude, if all the scripture were ne∣uer so darke, yet seeing it is necessarie to be knowne of al men, it ought to be read and studied of all, & the more & the oftener, where it is more hard to vnderstand, y^t long & diligent search may find out, y^t which sildome & slight reading would passe ouer. As for the last testimonie of Hieronyme ad Paulinum, concerning the Canonicall E∣pistles, That they are both short and long so that there be not many which are not blind in them. Bicause we had the like be∣fore, I will referre it to the former answeres. The rest of the rayling stuffe, charging vs with cause of heresies, arro∣gance, and ignorance, in suffering and allowing the peo∣ple to reade the scriptures, affirming them to be easie, when they be hard &c. is more meete for M. Heskins to write, then vs to answere. But to return to the obiection, that he maketh of the iudgement of Chrysostome and E∣rasmus, whom he confesseth to be against him, let vs see his wittie answeres. To Chrysostome he answereth, That there were two causes why he would haue the scriptures read, one, that they might the better vnderstand his expositions in the Chur∣che, the other that they might reade them to followe them: to these purposes he graunteth it were tollerable they should be read, but not to frame newe doctrines out of them, nor to cont••mne the learned teachers, &c. And who (I pray you) would haue them read to other purpose? Not Luther, not Iewell, nor any man whom you most spyte at. But see the force of truth, and the malice of an enimie therof. Heskins hauing reasoned in fiue Chapters, against the reading of scriptures, nowe graunteth to it: but yet that which is most conuenient & of al, most necessarie, he vouchsafeth to cal it but tollera∣ble. To Erasmus he replyeth, first, y^t seeing he confesseth in diuers places the scriptures to be hard to vnderstand, he maruelleth that he would exhort ignorant men to the reading of them. But Erasmus would easily turne backe M. Heskins reason vpon his owne head. Seeing they are

hard, they are the more often and diligently to be read & studied. Secondly, he thinketh Alphonsus good ynough to oppose against Erasmus, who affirmeth, That although it were meete the people should read the scriptures in Chrysostomes time, yet it is not meete nowe, bicause lawes are changed as the times and manners of men are. And it is no more meete that the people should nowe read the scriptures, then that the Vigils should be kept as they were in Hieronymes time, or that Infantes should re∣ceiue the Communion as they did in Augustines t••me, or men shuld abstaine from bloud and strangled as in the Apostles time, or dis∣cipline and publique penance should be vsed as in the old dayes. If the maners of men be worse nowe, they haue more neede of the knowledge of God, whereby they might be refor∣med, wherefore the similitudes are nothing like. And be∣sides this, note also the errour of the Church in S. Augu∣stines time confessed, and the want of discipline in the Popish Church acknowledged.

The sixt Chapter, declaring howe the people shall come to the vnderstanding of the scriptures.* 1.17

The vnderstanding then of y^e scriptures is necessarie,* 1.18 se∣ing God as you cōfesse, which ordeineth nothing in vain, hath appointed a meane, wherby the people should come to the vnderstanding of the scriptures. So by the way we haue gained thus much: that ignorance is not the mother of Christian deuotion, as was most impudently affirmed by all the Bel weathers of Papistrie, in the conference of Westminster, to the perpetuall shame & ignominie, both of them selues, and al the Popish Church. But nowe to the meane appointed by God, which you say, Is, that the lawe should be in the mouth of the Priest, and the people should learne it at his mouth. A very godly order in deede, but yet such as neither promiseth, that the lawe shal be alwayes in the Priestes heart, nor bindeth the people to learne it only at his mouth. And therefore nothing in the world letteth, but that the godly man should meditate in the lawe of God day & night, Psal. 1. and haue it so familiar vnto him, that he shuld teach his childrē therin, talke of it at home,

& abroad, vprising, and downlying, and write on the postes of his doores, and vpon his gates, that he may learne to do it. Deut. 4. & 11. Wherefore all the places that M. Hes∣kins alledgeth, to shewe that the Priestes should be lear∣ned, and the people instructed by them, serue to proue nothing that is in controuersie, but is confessed of al men: except it be to condemne the Clergie of Papistrie, which for the most part are ignoraunt, not onely of Gods lawe, but of all honest knowledge, and vpon very necessitie, open a gate vnto the people, to seeke instruction them selues, where the ordinarie passage is stopped, through the ignorance of the Ministers.

The first place by him alledged, is Deu. 17. That if there rise a matter too hard for the people in iudgement betweene bloud and bloud, &c. they shall come to the Priestes, and stand to their iudgement on paine of death, &c. Although I might answere, that this ordinaunce appertaineth to iudiciall causes, of which God gaue his lawe also, yet if it be taken general∣ly, so long as the Prieste determineth according to the lawe, it is well ynough. But this proueth not, that the peo∣ple must haue no vnderstanding, beside the priests mouth. For the decree is onely of matters that are difficult, and such as cannot be decided at home. No more do the wor∣des of Malachie, That the lips of the Priest shall keepe the law, and men shall require it at his mouth. And much lesse the commaundement in Aggee: Enquire the lawe of the Priestes, And least of all that Christ commaundeth the Scribes and Pharisees to be heard sitting in the chaire of Moses. These places proue, that it is the Priestes duetie to be learned in the lawe of God, but repel not the general lawe, wherby euery man is cōmanded also to studie in the law of God, yea, though the Priestes neither would nor could teach him. For if the blinde followe the blinde, they both fall into the ditch: which our sauiour Christ willeth all men to take heede of. Hieronyme in the place by you alled∣ged (M. Heskins) gathereth rightly of these places,* 1.19 that it is the Priestes office to know and expound the scriptures: but I muse how the greatest number of your Priestes can

brooke those words of his: If he be ignorant of the law, he pro∣ueth him selfe to be no Priest of God. Much more against your cleargie, & your cause is that large sentence you set down out of Hieronyme, thē to hurt your aduersaries, where he concludeth out of 1. Tim. 3. & Tit. 1. that both by the new Testament and the old it is the priests office to know and teach the lawe of God. As is also that which you adde out of 1. Cor. 12. that God hath appointed some Apostles, some Prophets, some pastors, & teachers, as though these orders might not stand with the peoples reading of the scriptures: whē euen in the Apostles time, the Thessaloni∣ans or Berrhoeans wer cōmended, for that thei did not on∣ly heare the Apostles, but also cōferred their doctrin with the scriptures Actes. 17. Hauing rehearsed your texts, you fal to collecting of three things out of thē. 1. That it is the dutie of a Priest to be learned in the law of God, and god∣ly life also, which euerie man confesseth. 2. That there be doubts and hard matters in the law. And that also shal be confessed. But withall out of the same place it is proued, that there are many plaine and easie pointes in the lawe, because the decree was not for all the lawe, but onely for harde cases of the lawe. Thirdly, that the people must bee taught them and learne of the priestes, and this also shall be granted to the vttermost, so that you will allow the peo∣ple to learn such things as are easie, not only of the priests, but also of their own reading, study, & conference with thē that are no priestes. And this is no inuerting of Gods or∣der, M. Heskins, how much soeuer you enuie the peoples instruction. For it is gods commaundement, as I shewed before, that his people shoulde not onely reade the lawe themselues, but teach the same to others, yea parentes are commaunded to teach the lawe of God to their chil∣dren, and yet I weene you will not say that all parents be priestes. But the marke you shoote at, is easie to see, the ignorance of the people is more for your worshippe and gaine then their knowledge. The examples you bring, of the people teaching Aaron, of Chore, Dathan, & Abi∣ram; rebelling against Moses and Aaron, and of the Israe∣lites

in deposing Samuel and desiring a king, are of no force to dissuade men from reading of the Scriptures, no thoughe they haue learned and true teachers: much lesse, when they are vnder dumbe dogges and heretikes, as all popishe priestes are: nor to abridge the authoritie of lawfull magistrates, in banishing and suppressing all v∣surped power and false teachers, nor to shake off the yoke of Antichrist to submit thēselues vnto a king. There is too great oddes betweene the Pope and Samuel, betweene Mo∣ses and Aaron & the popish cleargie, that they which with∣stande the Pope and his Prelates, should be in the case of Dathan and his complices, or of the people that refused the regiment of Samuel. The saying of Augustine Ep. 118. Although it come in here out of season, yet it maketh no∣thing against vs. (He saith, It is most insolent madnesse to dis∣pute, whether that is to be done, which the Church throughout all the worlde doth obserue:) Excepte M. Heskins can shewe, what is obserued of the Church throughout the worlde; which we doe not obserue, or deny to be obserued. For S. Augustine in that place speaketh of Ceremonies.

* 1.20The seuenth Chapter declaring the same by examples of the Fa∣thers and authorities of the Doctours of the Church.

The title of this Chapter pretendeth to declare, howe the people shall come to the vnderstanding of the scrip∣tures,* 1.21 but the examples are most of the preachers and tea∣chers, how they shall atteine to knowledge sufficient to discharge their office. But the first argument whervpō al∣most all the rest of the Chapter doth runne, is a maruel∣lous conclusion God commaundeth the children of Israell, 32. Aske thy father and he will shewe thee, thy Elders and they will tell thee. Ergo God did not sende all the people, only to the fiue books of Moses to learne, but willed them to learne of their Elders: So now, all men may not be sent to the scriptures to learne, but they must learne of their Fathers, what be the goodly workes of God con∣teined in the Scriptures. Why M. Heskins, you forget not on∣ly lodgike, but common reason? We would not haue men to learne, onely by reading the scriptures, but muche more by hearing their teachers, first their Pastors, and then

all other, whom God hath indued with any gift of know∣ledge. And wil you conclude w^t shame, that because men were not sent, only to the fiue Bookes of Moses, men may not now be sent at all to the scriptures? And are you so blinde that you cannot see, this text to ouerthrowe the purpose of both your sixth and seuenth Chapters after this manner, by necessary conclusion? Men must learne of their fathers, therefore not only of the Priestes. The rest that followeth for certeine pages, is so tedious a proofe of that which is not at all in controuersie, that it yrketh me to abridge it, but for orders sake. The Apostles learned of Christ in three yeares study, prayer is required to the vn∣derstanding of the scripture by Origens iudgement. The Fathers of the Church learned of their Elders, as Clemens, Marke, Linus, Cletus, of Peter: Titus, Timotheus, Luke, & Dionise, of Paule: and so one of an other. Basil and Gre∣gorie Nazianzen studied thirteene yeres in a monasterie. Hieronyme learned of y^e Hebrues, & trusted not his own iudgement, wherefore all rashe readers and arrogant tea∣chers may be abashed, which take vpon them, to teach be∣fore they be learned, whereas no man, may be his owne teacher in the scriptures. All this, and much more shall be graunted to M. Heskins without any strife at all. But y^t which he also granteth, (though it be not very liberally) yet, it must not be refused. That in S. Hieronymies time many did study the scriptures, which if the people coulde nowe reuerently and meekely vse might be tollerated. Well then, the allowance of antiquitie is of our side, and the conditional tollerati∣on of M. Heskins: for I may not say of the Popish Church, knowing what horrible persecution they practise against thē, which haue but a book of the scriptures in their mo∣ther tonge, found in their hand or house, although it can∣not be proued, that they read it. Wherefore, it is most ab∣surd, that hee chargeth the proclamer, with slaundering their Churche, to bring hir in hatred with the lay peo∣ple, as though she had nowe forbidden them to read the Scriptures, in their owne tongue: whereas he knoweth no suche prohibition, giuen to the lay people vniuersal∣ly.

But the reason is most monsterous. For if there had bene any such prohibition, there should not haue bene so many lay men, which haue both read and written of the scriptures in their natiue tongues, &c. As thoughe learned lay men, coulde not haue readd the scriptures but in their mother tongue. But the church fearing the abuses of the scriptures by the vnlearned lay men, forbad them. But such lay men as vnderstād the scrip∣tures in Hebrue & Greeke, the Church wil allow them to read thē in English. O wise & prouident Church! Nay mer∣uell not at this. For the learned if they be rashe fall into heresies: much more the vnlearned. And the learned also, yea and phi∣sitians themselues sometimes take surfeites, therefore it were a sure way for the people neuer to eate meate. No∣ble men and wisemen somtime haue their houses burned, therefore it is much more dangerous for poore and sim∣ple men to haue fire in their houses.

The knowledge of Mysteries muste not bee made common to all men for the Iewes would not suffer Genesis, and Cantica to be redde of young men before 30. yeares of age. The heathen men also, as the Romanes & Philosophers, kept close their secrets: the one Sibyllaes bookes the other Morall philosophie, & especially Metaphysike. If I had time I might make sporte with this Metaphysical ar∣gument,* 1.22 that Christian men must folow the practise of In∣fidels. But I must passe ouer to the rest. Chrysostom in the Greeke Church, as wel as Hieronyme in the Latine, wold haue the people to learne by hearing their teachers, and not onely by reading them selues, because the scrip∣tures are darke, and are a storehouse not common for all men, but out of which the stewardes must deliuer to euerie man his portion. Remember all this notwithstan∣ding, that M. Heskins confessed before, that Chrysostome doth often earnestly exhort the lay and vnlearned people to the diligent reading of the scriptures.

Then followe similitudes of young children and vnthriftes, the one if they feede thēselues, the meate runneth about their mouth, bosome, and clothes, the other spende their fathers goods in suites, and quarels, and contention with their brethren: So men without witte & grace abuse the scriptures to the hurt of others, & no pro∣fite

of themselues. Except all laye men want witt and grace, these similitudes proue nothing. For many priestes also want wit & grace, whō you admit to read the scriptures. After similitudes come examples. Valdo an vnlearned man caused Bookes of scripture to be translated, and so beganne the sect of Valdenses, or Pauperes de Lugduno. Out of the same founteine of ignorance sprang the heretikes, called Begradi Turrelupini. Valdo was a godly man, & seeing the ignorance and vngodlines of the Priests, did very wel to procure the translatiō of the scripture, and vppon good groundes departed from the Church of Rome vnto the Church of Christ, what the o∣ther were as stories are vncertein, so I leaue them in doubt.

But Luther and Zwinglius are charged to affirme The scriptures to be easie, and make it free for all men to read and ex∣pound them, and teach that not onely men, but also women may o∣penly preache the worde of God, and that as well a childe and a wo∣man absolueth, as a Bishop. If these were not meere slaunders, he would haue set downe their owne wordes, the circum∣stance of which no doubt, would discharge them of such absurdities as he collecteth. For they would neuer affirme euery place of the scripture to be easie, nor women, but in case where al men, (or the most) faile of knowledge to teach, as the prophetesses of the olde lawe did, nor women and children to absolue as well as a godly bishop by the doctrine of the Gospell, but perhaps better then an igno∣rant Popish Prelate.

Likewise where he chargeth Luther To boast that he was ignorant in no part of the scripture, and yet bringeth in his owne wordes: wherein he confesseth that he knew not whether he had the right vnderstanding of the Psalmes, and saith also, that it was most impudent rashnesse for any man to professe that he vnderstoode any one booke of scripture in all partes: I say the conference of these places doeth declare, that no man except he were blinde, madde, or dronke with malice, would beleeue the slaun∣der of boasting to be true in manner and forme as Maister Heskins setteth it downe.

Hauing vomited his malice against Luther & Zwing∣lius, he inueyeth with mayn sayle of open rayling against

the people of our time, for the rashnesse and disorder of some. As though there were no talke, but rash babbling of predestination, free wil, iustification, yea God to be the au∣thor of sinne, of the number of y^e sacraments, & especially the sacrament of the altar, and no where, but in Tauernes, Innes, Alehouses, and Barbarshops, in streetes, highwayes, and fieldes, and in the mouthes of women, boyes, and girles. God be thanked, this slaunder is false. Although there be great rashnesse in some, and vnreligiousnesse in more: yet the true members of Christ, profite much by reading of his word. We confesse with Gregorie Nazian∣zene, that it is not for euery man rashly to dispute of God, nor yet of diuine matters, but with humilitie and sobrie∣tie, which they shal learne no where so well, as in the holy scriptures of God. The other cauil that followeth, of lay men artificers, preaching in open places, & ministring the sacramentes deserueth no answere, for if they be admitted to the office, beeing worthy thereof, there is no doubt, but they may as well now, as in all ages of the Church they haue done, neither are they to be takē for laymen, though they haue beene artificers. Yet if they presume without calling and admission of the Church, they are no more borne withall among vs, then suche as counterfet them∣selues to be Priestes among the Papistes. As Englishe Ioan did to clyme to the Papacie, & as of late a lewd fel∣low in Italie feigned himselfe to be a Cardinall, as Ste∣phanus in his defence of Herodotus doth witnesse. We condemne according to the scriptures, not only all in∣trusion of men without calling, but all ambitious and symoniacall practises, to procure the outward calling. So farre off is it, that we allowe euerie man of his owne fan∣tasie, to intrude himselfe, as this man doth most vainely slaunder vs.

* 1.23The 8. Chap. exhorteth men to heare, or to read the expositions of the scriptures, & not to presume vpon their own vnderstanding.

* 1.24If there were nothing in this Chapter, but answering to the title thereof: I would willingly subscribe vnto it. But after he hath exhorted as he promiseth, by the counsell of

Iames, Salomon, and Hieronyme, that we should heare & learne of them, whom God hath appointed, pastors and teachers in his Church: he dissuadeth men also, by the authoritie of Paule, and Ecclesiasticus, to appoint vnto them selues Elders, or maisters, to be carried about with new and straunge doctrines: & decreeth, That they only are lawfull Elders, that haue learned of their fathers. For whiche cause Luther was no good Elder, allowing women to teach openly, contrary to Paul, 1. Cor. 14. which is an impudent slaunder of Luther, who by no meanes would haue women to teache, except it were extraordinarily, as the prophetesses of the olde time did namely Debora, Holda, & such like. Such stuffe is in the other slaunders, That contrition maketh a man more sinner, where Luther meaneth of y^t, which is without faith, & therfore must needs be sinne. That a righteous man in euery good worke sinneth mortally, where he meaneth that sinne and imperfection is mixed, euen with the best works, not that good workes are sinne. That is also a detestable lye, that Luther should teach, Euery Christian man, to be a priest for the common or publique ministery, wheras he neither thought nor spake otherwise, then the scripture speaketh, which hath made vs Kings & Priests. Apoc. 1. And no lesse is y^e slander of Zwinglius, That he taught, that originall offence is no sinne, whereas the worlde knoweth, that Zwinglius taught the contrarie, and the Papistes come neerer to that errour, whiche define it to be no sinne in the regenerate: it is as false that he taught, That Christian mens children neede not to be baptised, As it is true, that if they dye without baptisme, (without any cōtempt of their part,) it is no cause of con∣dēnatiō vnto them. The saying of Christ, except a man be borne againe of water & of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heauē, maketh no more for the baptisme of infantes, then his saying also, except ye eate the fleshe of y^e sonne of man, & drinke his bloud, ye haue no life in you, maketh to proue, that infants must receiue y^e cōmu∣nion, for neither in the one speaketh he of the sacramēt of baptisme, nor in the other place, of the sacramēt of his sup∣per. But where Luther doth often protest y^t he will not be

taught by man, but by God, he doeth as euerie Christian man ought to do, and yet excludeth not the ministerie of men, but the authoritie, doctrines, traditions, and inuenti∣ons of men, which by Luciferian pride take vpon them to teache that they haue not learned of God. But howe shall we vnderstand this saying of Maister Heskins, speaking in despight of Luther: This is another Paule. As though only Paul wer called of God without the ministery of mā, whē all the Apostles were so, or as though it were a reproche to be so called as Paul was: if God do extraordinarily stir vp any man, as he did the Apostles & Euāgelistes. After his deriding of Paul, Zwinglius is condemned, by that which Maister Heskins hath saide, for writing a booke De clari∣tate verbi Dei, How wisely and iustly, let the godly Rea∣ders iudge. Next followeth generall rayling against Oe∣colampadius, Bullingerus, Caluinus, Bucer, of whom his aduersarie (meaning I thinke the B. of Sarum) learned his heresies: then he returneth to vnlearned artificers, teaching in corners. All which he would haue to be auoyded: I sup∣pose because he hath rayled vpon them, and called them heretiques, for other reason he bringeth none. Except this be one, that Hieronyme thinketh it not sufficient, if a man say, he loueth God, and yet breaketh the vnitie of the Church. The Church once named, by and by all is his. As though it were no cōtrouersie at this day, whether the Sy∣nagogue of Rome be the Church of God or no. And as though all Christendome, had bene at all times, and in all places obedient to the Churche of Rome, before these fewe yeares. And therfore he is bolde to demaunde where it was taught in the Christian worlde, that Christes natu∣rall bodie is not in the sacrament, nor to be offered, nor receiued, nor honoured? Nay Maister Heskins, where was this taught in the affirmatiue for fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Christe? As for your other questions of pray∣er for the dead, and prayers to the dead, if you bring any reasons for thē in this your Omnegatherū, they shal be an∣swered otherwise the readers for me shall resort to other treatises where they be handled of purpose. But seeing men

must learne the law of their mother, that is the Church, they must follow Hieronyme, which neuer ceased from his youth, to seeke knowledge of learned men, and trauelled to Alexandria to be in∣structed of Didym••s. So did Augustine to Millain to learne of Am∣brose. No wise man will mislike this counsell. But this one thing especially is notable: That Damasus being bishop of Rome, did send to S. Hieronyme to be answered in certein doubts, and disdained not to learne of him. I had thought the Pope, had had all knowledge In scrinio pectoris, in the closet of his brest, that he had the spirite of trueth, to resolue all doubtes, so that he could not erre, and that Hieronyme hauing him at Rome, needed not to haue sought know∣ledge at Alexandria. But Damasus, although euen in that time, a ioly stately Prelate, as appeareth by some of his Epistles, (if they be not counterfet) yet shew∣ed himselfe farre from that Antichristian pride, which the Popes of Rome, (I cannot say his successors,) did shew afterward, and yet to this day do holde.

But to omitte Damasus Many learned of Saint Augustine, and of other learned men also, which were learned them selues. They did wel, & many, (God be blessed) follow their ex∣ample at this day, and yet too fewe, for it were to be wished, that such modestie were in all men. The say∣ing of Clemens, registred also in the cannon lawe, al∣though you alledge it out of a counterfet and barbarous epistle, yet is it very godly, and worthie of the Apostles scholler: That the scripture must not be drawen into straunge and forreigne senses, according vnto euerie mans phantasie, but the true sense must be taken out of the very Scriptures them∣selues, agreeable to the iudgement of them, that haue receiued is from the elders, That is the Apostles. For there were none o∣ther in the time of Clemens, whiche went before but e∣uen they.

The rest of the Chapter conteineth a repetition of that he hath handled in these eight Chapters, with a promise that after this prety preamble, he will goe immedi∣ately to his purposed matter, to bee debated in this highe Court of prattlement. And yet I weene as you haue

had a preamble, so you shall haue a preface of other mat∣ter, for three or foure Chapters more, or euer you come to the principall matter. In deede great solemnitie be∣commeth a parleament.

* 1.25The ninth Chapter declaring that our redemption was prenun∣ci••••ed by promises figures, and prophesies, and what the promises be, and to whom they were made.

* 1.26In this Chapter, so long as he followeth the scriptures, he hath well and truely satisfied the title: shewing that Christ was promised principally to Adam, Abraham, and Dauid, denying that Salomon was promised to Dauid, but Christ. Where I hope he meaneth, that Salomon was not promised as Messias, but as a figure of him. Finally, I agree with him in all things, for which he bringeth au∣thoritie of the worde of God, onely I cannot admitte the exposition that Iacobus de Valentia maketh of the Domi∣nion of Christ from sea to sea, that is, from the mid lande sea to both the Oceans, the South, and the North, whiche inclose Affrike, and Europe from the floudes, Nilus and Tanais, vnto the endes of the world, that be towarde the East, which comprehendeth all Asia. For since the time of Iacobus de Valentia, we haue knowledge of the fourth part of the worlde, toward the West, called America, greater then any of the three other, which his circumscriptiō, do∣eth exclude, out of the kingdome of Christ, although I doubt not, but thither also the founde of the Gospell hath beene carried, and is nowe restored in some places, although brutish barbarousnesse hath of long time ouer∣whelmed it.

* 1.27The tenth Chapter toucheth the figures of Christes incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascention.

* 1.28In this Chapter as in the former, following the autho∣ritie of the holy scriptures, he sheweth that the concepti∣on of Sampson, was a figure of the incarnation of Christ:

Ioseph, of his betraying: Isaac, of his suffering: the priest∣hood of Aaron, and the sacrifices, of his priesthoode & sa∣crifice: Ionas, of his resurrection: & Elias, of his ascention. Wherein I see nothing worthie of reprehension, except peraduenture in some collation, there be more subtil cu∣riositie, then sound stedfastnesse.

The eleuenth Chapter, declareth by the Prophets of what line the Messias should come, with his cōception, birth, passion, & death.* 1.29

In this Chapter also he doeth well discharge his pro∣mise, for the historie of the cōception, & passion of Christ.* 1.30 If al the rest were like these Chapters, we should soone agree.

The twelfth briefely toucheth a prophesie or two of the resurrec∣tion, and ascention of Christ.* 1.31

In this Chapter, as he promiseth,* 1.32 is touched a saying of Dauid Psalm. 16. alledged by Peter, Act. 2 to proue the resurrection: and an other, Psalm. 67. for the ascention, al∣ledged by Paule. Eph. 4. in these foure Chapters, there is nothing in a manner, but that which is confessed of both sides.

The thirteenth Chapter, how that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ both in Priesthood and sacrifice.* 1.33

This Chapter promiseth more then it performeth,* 1.34 for it sheweth in deed, and as the trueth is, that Melchisedech was a figure of christ, but it scarse toucheth his priesthod, and speaketh not one worde of his sacrifice, as by a briefe collection of the whole Chapter, and euerie parte thereof shall appeare. First he there declareth, that as the mysterie of our redemption was promised, figured, & prophesied in the olde Testament, and accomplished in the New: so was the memorial of y^t redemption: which Newe Testament being euerlasting, hath an euerlasting Priest, & an euerlas∣ting sacrifice. The euerlasting priest he cōfesseth to be our

sauiour Christ. But the euerlasting sacrifice (he saith) is the very body & blod of the same, our sauiour Christ. Which as he according to the order of his priesthood, did sacrifice in his last supper, vnder the formes of bread & wine: so did he giue authoritie & cōmandemēt, to the Apostles & ministers of his Churche to do the same, saying: Hoc facite in meā cōmemorationem. This do ye in the remēbrance of me. Beside that these thinges of the euerlasting sacrifice, be vttered without all proofe, or shadowe thereof, marke one horrible blasphemie, and an other detestable absur∣ditie. For in as much as he affirmeth, the euerlasting sa∣crifice, to be Christes body and bloud offered in the sup∣per, and it is manifest by the scripture, that Christe neuer offered but one sacrifice, and that but once: Heb. 9.25.10.14. it is euident, that he vtterly excludeth the sacrifice of his body vpon the Crosse, as not being done, according to the order of his euerlasting priesthoode. For a prodi∣gious absurditie note this, that he graunteth the euerlas∣ting priesthood to Christ, (Which as the Apostle witnes∣seth is without succession) Heb. 7.24. because it is euer∣lasting in him: and yet he maketh the Apostles and mi∣nisters of the Church, partakers of that Priesthod, to offer that sacrifice, which none could offer, but he himselfe, which is an euerlasting priest, after the order of Melchise∣dech, that is, both a King and Priest.

He proceedeth and affirmeth, that Of this new Priesthood and sacrifice, there were figures, and prophesies, which must aswell be performed, as the other were of the instituter of them. The other figures and prophesies ended in Christ touching the fact, but not touching the efficacie and vertue which is eternall. The newe Testa∣ment with the new priesthood, and the new sacrifice are begon, and confirmed in the bloud of Christ, but must continue alwayes, whereof there be figures in the lawe of nature, and in the lawe of Moses. In the lawe of nature, albeit that Seth, Noe, and other did offer sacrifi∣ces vnto God: yet were they not figures of this sacrifice now vsed in Christes Church, but rather of Christes sacrifice offered vpon the crosse after the manner of Aaron. Here marke first, that he maketh Christ to haue two sacrifices, this sacrifice whi∣che is now offered, (I can not tell after what manner,) and

that which he offered on the Crosse, after the manner of Aaron.

Secondly, that he maketh Christ a Priest after the ma∣ner of Aaron, which the holy Ghost in expresse words de∣nyeth Heb. 7.11.

But the first that figureth both the priesthood and sacrifice of the new law, is Melchisedech. So that this priesthood is peculiar only to our sauiour Christe, as both Dauid, Psal. no. and the Apostle to the Hebrues the 7. do proue it: there is no doubt but Melchisedech was a figure of Christ: But what sacrifice hee offered, the scripture maketh no mention, neither is M. Heskins able to shewe. For first, he hath re∣hearsed the historie of him, which is written in Gen. 14. And Melchisedech king of Salem brought foorth breade & wine: and he was a priest of the most high God, Ther∣fore he blessed him, saying: blessed is Abraham of God most high, possesser of heauen and earth: and blessed be the most high God, which hath deliuered thine enimies into thine hande. And Abraham gaue him tithe of all. In which words, there is no mentiō of any sacrifice. Afterward he compareth him in all those points, in which the Apo∣stle to the Hebrues doth Heb. 7. Which are these: that he was king of rightuousnesse, and king of peace, without father, without mother, without kinred on earth. Hauing neither beginning of dayes, nor end of life, but is likened to the sonne of God, and continueth a Priest for euer: that he blessed Abraham, and that Abraham payde tythes vn∣to him. In all which applications, there is not one worde of any sacrifice. Neither in the apostle, nor in M. Heskins: therefore as I sayde in the beginning, M. Heskins hath not satisfied the title of his Chapter. And verily, the Apo∣stle in these two pointes, onely considereth the Priest∣hoode of Melchisedech, y^t he blessed Abraham which had the promises, and receiued tythes of him, in whose loynes Leuie the father of Aarons Priesthoode was tythed: who vndoubtedly would not haue omitted the sacrifice of breade and wine, if there had bene any, when he applyed the interpretation of his name, which was a great deale

lesser matter. And surely it seemeth, that Maister Heskins could not handsomely frame an application thereof, else would he not haue admitted so plausible a matter, and so commonly prated of among the Papistes. He sawe first in the text was no mention of oblation, secondly if there had bene oblation of bread and wine, it would not well haue figured that sacrifice, wherein they say, is neither bread nor wine.

* 1.35The fourteenth Chapter declareth, after the minde of Chryso∣stome that Iob was a figure of Christ, for the desire his seruants had to eate his flesh.

* 1.36Maister Heskins doth well to adde, after the minde of Chrysostome, for it is plaine by the text, that the words of eating his flesh, are meant of hatred and not of loue. Either that Iobs seruaunts shewed their desire to be reuenged of their maisters enimies, of whō he speaketh in y^e two ver∣ses before, or else as Saint Hieronyme thinketh, that he had procured his seruants hatred for his intertainment of straungers, and other vertues mentioned in the next verse following. Pro hospitalitatibus eius & virtute, quae & caeter•• sancti Deo placuerunt odium seruorum contraxerat. So that this matter standeth not vpon any certaine figure of the scrip∣ture, but onely vpon Chrysostomes minde, vnto which, you heare the contrarie minde of Hieronyme. But ••owe let vs consider what the authoritie of Chrysostome ma∣keth for him: his wordes are as he cyteth them out of Hom. 45. in 6. Ioan. Vt autem non solùm per dilectionem &c. But that we should be conuerted into that flesh, not onely by loue, but al∣so in deede: it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath gi∣uen vs. For when he would shewe his loue toward vs, he hath mixed himself with vs by his body, and made himself one with vs, that the body might be vnited to the hed These last words. For this is the maner of them that loue especially, in M. Heskins trāslation are left out, I know not for what causes, peraduenture of neg∣ligence. This did Iob signifie by his seruants of whome he was lo∣ued especially, which declaring their loue, did say: Who would giue

vs, that we might be filled with his flesh. Which thing Christe did, that he might binde vs to him with g••••••ter loue: and that he might shewe his desire that he had to vs, suffering him selfe not onely to be seene of them that desire, but also to be touched and eaten, and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh, and all to be filled with the desire of him. Wherefore let vs rise from that table as Lyons brea∣thing fire, terrible to the diuell, and let vs knowe our heade, and what loue he hath shewed vnto vs. Parents haue oftentimes gi∣uen their children to be nourished of other: but I doe feede with mine owne flesh. I giue my selfe vnto them, I fauour all, I giue an exceeding good hope to all of things to come. He that giueth him self so vnto vs in this life, much more in the life to come. I would be your brother, and I tooke flesh and bloud with you for your sakes. and by what thinges I am ioyned to you, the same I haue giuen to you againe. In this long speach of Chrysostome, what is there that maketh for Maister Heskins bill, that hee hath promoted into the Parleament house? and not rather altogether against it? For first, it can not bee necessarily concluded out of this place, that Chrysostome speaketh of the Lordes supper, but rather of that table, meate, gi∣uing and eating of Christes flesh, which is spoken of in the sixt of Saint Iohn, where no worde is of the sacra∣ment or supper, which at that time was not instituted. Se∣condly, if we should neuer so much vnderstand this speach of the sacrament, yet must we graunt it to be figuratiue, or else there wil folow infinite absurdities, beside such as M. Heskins affirmeth. Wherfore I will reason thus: Christ by this saying of Chrysostome, is none otherwise eaten then he is seene: but he is not seene corporally, but spiri∣tually by faith, therefore he is not eaten corporally but spiritually by faith. And likewise thus: as Christ is tou∣ched and teeth fastned in his flesh, so is he giuen or eaten, but he is not touched corporally or naturally, nor teeth fastned in his flesh corporally but spiritually, therefore hee is not giuen nor eaten in the sacrament corporally, but spiritually.

The maiors of these argumēts are Chrysostoms words, the minors are y^e confessions of the Papistes, which affirme

Christes body to be in the sacrament inuisibly, and doe correct the recantation of Berengarius, where he affir∣med, that the body of Christ is torne with the teeth: the conclusions I trust be rightly inferred. But nowe let vs see what handsome stuffe M. Heskins gathereth out of this text of Chrysostome.

First that we are ioyned to Christe two wayes, by loue, and by the thing it selfe. Which in other termes, is called spiritually and re∣ally. Marke this wise diuision of spiritually and really, as though such things as are ioyned spiritually, might not be ioyned really. But (M. Heskins) a spirite is not contra∣rie to a thing, except you will say it is nothing, but to a body, and therefore spiritually and bodily are opposite, not spiritually and really. For we are ioyned to Christe spiritually, and yet really, so that Christ dwelleth in vs by his spirite through faith, but not bodily, so in the sacra∣ment, we eate the body of Christ really, that is in deede & vnfeignedly, but yet in a spirituall kinde of eating, and not carnally or corporally.

But M. Heskins proceeding, affirmeth that We are spi∣ritually ioyned to Christ by charitie and faith, and therefore incor∣porated into his mysticall body, but really or substantially we are ioyned to him, when by eating his very substantiall flesh in the sacrament, THE SVBSTANCE OF OVR FLESH IS TVRNED INTO THE SVBSTAVNCE OF HIS FLESH, and thereby so ioyned to him, as we are made one flesh with him &c. Note here, good reader, for thy lear∣ning, that these wordes printed by M. Heskins in another letter, that they might be seene as a speciall paradoxe▪ teach thee a newe kinde of transubstantiation. For he is not content, to haue the breade turned into the body of Christe, without all type or figure, really, substantially, corporally, &c. but as really, corporally, and substan∣tially, he affirmeth that the substance of our flesh, is tur∣ned into the substance of y^e flesh of Christ. O monstruous paradox, as euer any was heard, since the beginning of the world!

After this he noteth, that Christes flesh is not digested

in vs, as other meates are, which is needlesse to note, if our fleshe be digested or turned into his: adding this reason, that As it is a celestiall meate, beeing now a glorified bodie, so it draweth vs vp to it, conuerting and turning vs into it, according to the nature of a celestiall thing. Howe vayne this reason is, by whiche hee would auoyde the digestion, and proue his new transubstantiation and conuersion, appeareth by this, that the body of Christe in the Sacrament, was as effec∣tuall, while hee liued in his passible bodie on earth, in which he instituted this sacrament, as it is nowe beeing a glorified bodie in heauen. And whereas hee chargeth, I knowe not what Stercoranites of our time, to affirme that the fleshe of Christ, passeth through the bodie as o∣ther meates, I thinke verilie, he lyeth most impudently. For I neuer heard, or read of any that so affirmed. Al∣though, I woulde wishe men to speake reuerently of so high mysteries, yet the importunitie of the Papistes with their matter of transubstantiation enforceth them not to affirme of them selues, but to report, what they reade in the fathers, concerning the breade, beeing the terrestriall or outwarde parte of the Sacrament, that it is digested & passeth through, as all other naturall meates do, where∣of Origen writeth in Math. Chap. 15. Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os in ventrem abit, & in sesession eijcitur: & ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Deipér{que} obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale, abit & in sesessū eijcitur. If what soeuer entereth into the mouth goeth into the bellie, and is cast foorth into the draught: euen that meate also which is sanctified by the worde of God and by prayer after that which it hath materiall, goeth and is cast foorth into the draught. This douteth not Origen to speake of the materiall parte of the Sacrament, by which it is mani∣fest, that he knew no transubstantiation. The cheefe thing that M. Heskins vrgeth vs to marke, is that, Whereas the Sacramentes woulde haue onely a spirituall receiuing, this holy fa∣ther teacheth that we are framed to Christ not onely spiritually by loue, which may bee without receiuing of meate, but, re ipsa, in deede by receyuing of meate. But I praye you M. Heskins,

where saith Chrisostom that our coniunction vnto Christ is not onely spirituall. In deede he saide, not onely by loue, but in deede, but he opposeth not spiritually and really as you doe. And where you vrge that this coniunction is by meate, and this meate is his bodie, and therevppon conclude that it is a corporall coniunction, and Christ is ioyned corporally: I aunswere, that if Chrysostom may expound himselfe, this meate and this body is a spirituall meate, therefore a spirituall coniunction, and Christ is ea∣ten spiritually. De prod. Iud. Nemo sit Iudas in mensa: hoc sa∣crificium cibus spiritualis est. Nam sicut corporalis cibus, &c. Let no man be Iudas in this table: this sacrifice is a spirituall meate. For as corporall meat when it findeth a bellie, pos∣sessed with humors contrarie to it, it hurteth and offen∣deth more, and helpeth nothing at all: euen so this spiri∣tuall meate, if it finde any man polluted with wickednes, it destroyeth him the more, not of it owne nature▪ but through the fault of him that receiueth it. Thus far Chry∣sostome, for the meate to bee spirituall. Finally the last obseruation that Christ doth giue vs in y^e sacrament, is the same fleshe, by which he was ioyned vnto vs, therefore his verie substantiall body and bloude, auayleth him no∣thing: For wee contende not, of the substance of the thing, that is giuen, but of the manner of the giuing, the thing is the verie body and bloude of Christ, but not after a corporall or naturall manner, but after a spirituall and diuine maner, or as the olde writers haue saide. Modo ineffabili, after an vnspeakeable manner, as so many fi∣guratiue speaches that are spoken therof do declare, whi∣che to expound literally or grāmatically, were little bet∣ter then extreme madnesse.

The other place which you adde out of Ho. 24. in 10.1. Cor. helpe them nothing at all, that Christ hath giuen vs his flesh &c. That this body the wisemen did reuerence in the māger. You might haue added out of the same place: Quod est in calice, id est quod a latere fluxit, that which is in the cuppe is the same that flowed out of his side, and thereof we are partakers. But that all these are figuratiue spea∣ches

it is manifest by this interrogation, that followeth in the same homilie.

Quid enim appello inquit communicati∣onem? id ipsum corpus sumus. Quid significat panis? corpus Christi. Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christs: non multa sed vnum corpus. For what do I cal it (saith he) a participation? We are the selfe same bodie. What signifieth the bread? The bodie of Christ. And what are they made which re∣ceiue the bodie of Christ? Not many bodies but one body. And in y^e same homilie. Sed quare, Addit quem frangimus? hoc in Eucharistia videre licet, in cruce autem minimè sed omnino con∣tra. Os enim eius non conteretur. Sed quod in cruce passus nō est, id in oblatione patitur, & propter te frangi permittit. But why? doth he adde (speaking of the breade) which wee breake, that you may see in the sacrament of thankesgiuing, but not on the crosse, but altogether the contrarie. For there shall no bone of him be broken.

But that which he suffered not on the crosse, he suffereth in the oblation, (for so they called the ministring of the communion, because it was a sacrifice of thanksgiuing) and for thee suffereth himself to be broken. In these places Chrysostome affirmeth the Church to be the same bodie, which the breade doth sig∣nifie, and which the faithfull doe receiue, and in the lat∣ter place, he sheweth manifest difference, betweene the na∣turall body of Christ that suffered on the crosse, and the spirituall receiuing of him in the supper, in whiche his bones are broken, which (he saith) was not on the crosse, which must needes bee figuratiue. I passe ouer the large allegorie he continueth in the same homilie, affirming that we must be Eagles to flye vp into heauen, and feed of Chrstes bodie where it is, for where the bodie is, thether the Eagles will be gathered.

The fifteenth Chapter declareth by scriptures that the figure of the pascall lambe, was a figure of the eating of Christ our pascall lambe.* 1.37

There is no doubt but the killing of the pascall lamb was a figure of the killing of Christ,* 1.38 and of the eating of the lambe, was a sacrament of the eating of Christe our pascal lamb, but not properly a figure of y^e Lords supper.

For Christe is eaten not onely in the sacrament, but also by faith, which the vse of the sacrament is to confirme, as he himselfe teacheth Ioan. 6. It is true also, that this sa∣crament is succeeded in the place of that. But that the ea∣ting of the Lambe, was a figure of our eating of the Sa∣crament, no scripture teacheth. For first your compari∣sons will not serue M. Heskins, The lambe was verily eaten, therefore Christ is verily eaten, the lambe was substantially and re∣ally eaten, therefore Christ was really and substantially eaten. For I may reason as well, the lambe was a naturall lambe; therefore Christ was a naturall lambe: or as you doe of the age of the lamb: the lamb was but one yere old, ther∣fore Christe was but one yeare olde: or rather and more properly thus, if you will algates haue it a figure of the sacrament, the lambe was called the passouer, and yet it did but signifie the passouer, so the breade is called the body of Christe, and yet it doth but signifie the body of Christe: or thus, the eating of the lambe was a figure of the eating of Christ, so the eating of the bread is a figure of the eating of Christ. As for the desire that Christe had to eate the passouer, proueth not, that he called his sup∣per so, but the olde passouer, which he so desired to eate, bicause it was the last & should be fulfilled, and then was in fulfilling, in the suffering an oblation of his body. The other text alleadged out of S. Paule, 1. Cor. 5. (Christ our passouer is slaine, therefore let vs feaste, not in the olde leauen, nor in the leauen of malice and wickednesse, but in the vnleauened bread of sinceritie and truth) is ma∣nifestly wrested vnto the eating of Christ in y^e supper: wher¦of, the Apostle speaketh not, but of the whole course of our life, wherein we must holde the feast in the vnleaue∣ned breade of sinceritie and trueth.

The rule borowed out of Augustine in Psalm••••ts. 77. will doe you little pleasure: for graunte that the thing figured in good thinges, is better then the figure, and in euill thinges worse, what haue you gained? Yes forsooth verie muche: For then the passouer figured must needes bee better then the passouer the figure. If the passouer

which is nowe eaten, be but a peece of bread, a bare signe, a figure, (as the sacramentaries affirme:) then the pascall Lambe is a figure of a peece of bread, which is not better then it. Of this argu∣ment no small accompt is made, for it is continued in sixe long tedious chapters following. But howe soone will all this smoke be blowen away? yea, euen with one breath. For admitte that the Pascall lambe was a signe of the Lordes Supper, which is not yet prooued by Scrip∣ture: yet shall the thing figured be better then the fi∣gure. For the supper of the Lorde consisteth of the bo∣die and bloud of Christe, and not of a peece of breade, (a bare signe or figure,) although bread and wine are ele∣ments which do liuely represent that, which Christe in his supper doeth feede vs withall. And he doeth more then beastly belye them, whome he calleth Sacramen∣taries, to affirme that it is but a peece of breade, a bare signe or figure. They affirme that it is bread, but they affirme not, that it is nothing but a peece of bread: they saye it is a signe and a figure, but they saye not, it is a bare signe, and nothing but a figure: except baptisme be a bare signe, and nothing but a figure, because it is a signe and a figure. Therefore, when you come to your con∣clusion (M. Heskins) you may well conclude, that the Sacrament is not a bare figure: but you falsly cogge in, that by Christes institution, it is consecrated to be offe∣red: for Christ was offered vp but once, and that by him selfe only. Likewise, (verie vnlike a diuine,) you say, the Pascall Lambe was but a bare figure, which is vntrue: for it should not haue beene called the Passouer, except it had truely assured the worthie receiuers of their spiri∣tuall deliuerance. But where you make it such an ab∣surditie, that one figure shoulde be figure of another: there is no such inconuenience as you immagine, but that one thing may be the signe of another thing, which shall be a figure of the third thing. As in this very ex∣ample, if you will call your wittes together, I am sure you will confesse, that the Pascall Lambe was a figure, of the deliuerance of the Israelites, from the destruction of

Aegypt, and the same deliuerance of their bodies was a figure of the spirituall deliuerance of our soules. Because Dionysius (whom you cal the Areopagite) sayth nothing to the matter in controuersie, I will passe him ouer vntil some other time.

* 1.39The sixteenth Chapter teacheth this matter by Tertullian, & Isychius.

* 1.40This 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,* 1.41 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.

* 1.42The seuenteenth Chapter proceedeth in the same matter, by S. Cyprian, and Euthymius.

Maister Heskins, in his Epistles, and prefaces, promi∣seth great sinceritie,* 1.43 and euery where obiecteth impuden∣cie, and insinceritie against the proclaymer, and his com∣plices. But see what sinceritie he vseth, that matcheth Eu∣thymius, scarse worthy to be a burgesse of the lower house, ••ith Cyprian one of the most auncient Barons of the vpper house. And yet afterward he him selfe placeth him in the lower house, that is, among the writers within the compasse of nine hundreth yeres. Wheras the higher house consisteth of them that writ within 600. yeares af∣ter Christ, as the Bishop whom he tearmeth the proclay∣mer, maketh his challenge. And certeinely Euthymius was neuer accounted for a Lord of the parleament, before he was called thereto by Maister Heskins writte, which of what force it is to make a Baron, let the readers iudge.

For he liued about the yeare of our Lord 1170. Not∣withstanding we will examine his voyce as it commeth in order. But we must first consider the voyce of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage. Which is this. The supper therefore be∣ing ordered among the sacramentall meates,* 1.44 there mette together the newe ordinances and the olde. And when the lambe was consu∣med or eat••n, which the olde tradition did set foorth, the maister did set before his disciples the inconsumptible meat••. Neither are the people now bidden to feastes, painefully wrought with expenses and cunning: but the foode of immortalitie is giuen, differing from common meates, reteyning the kind of appearance of corporall sub∣stāce, but prouing by inuisible efficiencie, the presence of Gods power or the diuine vertue to be there. In this saying, First there is neuer a worde, to proue that the Pascall Lambe was a figure of the Lordes supper, which is the purpose of the Chapter, but onely that the newe institution succeeded

the olde, which is manifest by the history of the Gos∣pell: Euen as Baptisme succeded circumcision, and yet was not circumcision a figure of Baptisme, Secondly note, that he doeth not affirme, the reall presence of Christes naturall bodie, but the inuisible working of his diuine power. And so his voyce is flatly againg Mais∣ter Heskins bill. Nowe let vs consider his fonde col∣lections. First that Christ gaue inconsumptible meate, the sacra∣mentaries giue consumptible meate? For they giue but bread. This is a false slaunder, a thousand times repeated, for they giue not bread only, but euen the same inconsumptible meate, by the inuisible working of his diuine power, which Cyprian affirmeth, that Christe gaue his Disciples. But he vrgeth, That it was put before them, taken by hande, & laid in sight, which the merite and grace of his passion could not be. See I pray you how this man agreeth with Cyprian: Cy∣prian saith, it was by inuisible working of Gods fauour, he saith it was put before them, (for so he translateth ap∣ponit) taken by hand, and laide in sight.

His second collection is, That it differeth from common meates, reteining the fourme of corporall substaunce, whiche can neither be the breade, which differeth not from common meates, nor the spirituall meate, which they call the merite of his passion, because that reteineth not the fourme of corporall sub∣stance.

A wise reason, disioyning and seuering thinges that should bee taken together. The water in baptisme, differeth from common water, and conteyning the fourme of corporall substance, by inuisible working, proueth the presence of Gods power to be there. So do∣eth the bread and wine in the Lordes Supper. Which al∣though of them selues, they be no more holy then o∣ther creatures, yet when they are consecrated for the vse of the sacrament, they differ as muche from common meates, as the bodie and the soule doe, as temporall life, and eternall life: as heauen and earth doe differ, so doeth the water consecrated for baptisme differ from common water.

His third collection, that it is called The foode of immor∣talitie, which cannot be bare materiall bread. A true collection, for the sacrament is not bare material bread, but the bo∣dy and bloud of Christ, represented by materiall bread, as a materiall lauer is the water of regeneration, but not bare materiall water.

For confirmation is brought in Ignatius ex Ep. ad Ephe. Be ye taught of the comforter obedience to the Bishop, and the priest with vnswaruing or stable minde, breaking the bread which is the medicine of immortalitie, the preseruatiue of not dying, but of liuing by Iesus Christ. Although no learned man, that is not more wilfull then wise, will graunt this Epistle to be written by y^t auncient father Ignatius, whose name it beareth: yet doth this saying, cōtein nothing but very sound doctrine of the sacrament, which he calleth bread, that i•• broken to be y^e medicine of immortalitie. M. Heskins vrgeth as before, y^t it can non be bare bread, which hath such effects. Which I graunt willingly, but I reply vpon him, that it cannot be the naturall body of Christ, which he exhor∣teth them to breake. For Christes body is not broken, but the sacramentall bread, to signifie the breaking and participation of his body.

But he proceedeth to another speech of Cyprian, which is in deede a more apparant speeche for his purpose, the wordes are these: Panis iste, quem Dominus Discipulis porri∣gebat, non eff••gie, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. Et fiout in persona Christi humanitas videbatur, & late∣ba•• diuinitas: ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter se diuina infudie essentia. This bread which our Lorde did reache vnto his disci∣ples, beeing chaunged not in shape, but in nature, by omnipo∣tencie of the worde is made fleshe. And as in the person of CHRISTE, the humanitie was seene, the diuinitie was hidden, euen so the diuine essence hath powred it selfe vnspea∣kably into the visible sacrament. The Papistes esteeme this place to be an inuincible bulwarke of their transubstan∣tiation, but alas it is soone ouerthrowne, when the mea∣ning of Cyprian is boulted out, not onely by sentences going before and after this saying, but also by the very

wordes of this same sentence. For he maketh a manifest difference, betweene the visible sacrament and the diuine essence, which is inuisible. Whereas the Papistes by their transubstantiation, haue no visible sacrament, but onely accidents of breade and wine, which they, nor none other can call a visible sacrament. Moreouer, the word diuine es∣sence, answering to the word flesh, in the former sentence, plainely expoundeth what he meaneth thereby, namely the diuine power which the flesh of Christ hath, to giue life, and not the diuine nature or substance, as M. Hes∣kins translateth it, and much lesse Christ, God and Man, as he expoundeth it. For if we take the diuine essence, for the diuine substaunce of Christes Godhead, it will bee a grosse absurditie, and a blasphemous heresie, to make any infusion or powring of that into the visible sacrament, which filleth all places. Wherefore of necessitie it signifi∣eth the propertie or efficacie, euen as the worde nature, in the former clause doth signifie. For the former shape of the breade is not chaunged, but the nature or propertie is altered, namely to feede the soule and not the body only, as before it was made a sacrament, it serued to do. But M. Hesk. liketh not this glose, but wil haue nature to signifie substance, and not propertie, as it doth very often: as when we say, the nature of hearbs, of stones, of beastes, we mea∣ne the properties. But whether he will or no, it must be so taken, seing it may be so taken, or else Cyprian should be contrarie to him selfe: who distinguisheth the visible sacrament from the diuine essence, who calleth that diuine essence (a word more vsuall for substance) which is but di∣uine efficacie or propertie, who, if he had meant, that the bread had bene turned into the naturall body of Christe, wold neither haue cōpared it with the diuinitie of Christ hid vnder his humanitie, nor haue said, euen so the diuine essens, infundeth it selfe in the sacrament, but euen so the bodie of Christ is hid vnder the formes of bread & wine. But that there should be no doubt of his meaning, thus he writeth in the same sermon, a litle after: Haec quoties a∣gimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide syncera panem

sanctum franginus & partimur. As often as we do these thin∣ges, we doe not sharpen our teeth to byte, but with a sin∣cere faith we breake and diuide this holy breade. What can be more plaine to expresse the meaning of this doc∣tour, then that wee receiue not the body of Christe with our mouth, but with our heart, not with the instrument of our teeth, but with the instrument of our faith.

In the same Sermon, hee writeth Panis est esca, sanguis, vita, caro, substantia, corpus, Ecclesia: Corpus, propter membrorum in v∣num conuenientium: panis, propter nutrimenti congruentiam: san∣guis, propter vinificationis efficientiam: caro, propter assumptae humanitatis proprietatem. The breade is foode, bloud, life, flesh, substaunce, his body, the Church: his body, for the agreement of the members in one: bread, for the aptnes of nourishment: bloud, for the efficiencie of quickening: flesh, for the propertie of his humanitie that he tooke on him.

These places do sufficiently expound the meaning of Cyprian, howe the breade is chaunged into flesh, not after any change of substance, but of qualitie and proper∣tie, as in so many figuratiue termes is more thē manifest.

Let vs nowe come to Euthymius aduaunced by Mai∣ster Heskins into the higher house. And he in deede see∣meth to affirme the purpose of this Chapter, that the Paschall lambe was a figure of the sacrament, and yet not very plainely, but rather it was a figure of the true Passeouer, which the sacrament doth represent, but that is no materiall point of our controuersie, whether one sa∣crament did figure an other, his wordes are: Christe in the same table described the figuratiue and shadowing Passeouer, and set before them the true and perfect Passeouer. Herevpon hee inferreth that Christe was not truely and perfectly giuen to the Iewes in the Paschall Lambe as we teach, but onely a figure and signe of him, but in the sacrament he is giuen to vs truely and per∣fectly, that is by a true and reall presence. But it is pitie that hee seeth not that his authour compareth the thing signified by our sacrament, with the outward signe of the Iewish sacrament, as also the scripture doth oftentimes, against them that depended vpon the outward ceremonies. Not

that a false or vnperfect Christ was figured and receiued of the faithfull by them, but to shewe a difference be∣tweene the shadowe and the trueth, the figure and the thing figured, when y^e Iewes so sticked in the figure, that they considered not the thing signified.

The other place which was alledged out of Euthymi∣us, bicause hee referreth the handling of it vnto the se∣cond booke, thether also will I referre the aunswere. In the meane time, it is a childish insultation that hee makes against the proclamer, noting that hee hath found a plaine place for Maister Iewell, when neither the place is so plaine, nor the Authour within the compasse of his challenge.

The eighteenth Chapter treateth of the same matters by S. Hie∣ronyme and Chrysostome.

In this Chapter Hieronyme is first brought foorth, In Matth. 26. in these wordes. After the figuratiue Passeo∣uer was fulfilled, and he had eaten the flesh of the Lambe with his Apostles, hee taketh breade which comforteth the heart of man, and passeth to the true sacrament of the Passeouer, that as in prefiguration of him, Melchisedech the Priest of the highest GOD had done, offering breade and wine, hee also might represent the trueth of his body and bloud. Here Hieronyme doeth not affirme the Passeouer to bee a figure of the sacrament, but of Christe the true Passeouer. Calling the supper a true sacrament of that true and prefigured Passeouer. Which wordes would bee noted, that hee calleth the breade a true sacrament, that is a liuely signe of the verie Passeouer Christ, and a representation of the trueth of his body and bloud. But here Maister Heskins, fareth as hee were halfe madde, sending vs to the Vocabula∣ries, Calepines, and Dictionaries, for the signification of this worde repre••ento, That among learned men it is not so streighted, as onely to signifie, to shewe a thing by a figure or signe.

And therevpon we will not striue, but that it is often

taken to shewe by a figure or signe, hee him selfe can not denie, and that it must be so taken here in this place, appeareth by this reason. The comparison will not else stand betweene Melchisedech and Christe (which all though it bee not grounded on scripture, Hierome often maketh) except Christe offered breade and wine in a figure or representation, as Melchisedech did in a prefi∣guration.

M. Heskins enforceth the word Truth, that he should not meane a figure, for then he would haue saide (as he imagineth) that he also must represent his body and bloud, and not that he also might represent the truth of his body. But if you marke the force of this word, quoque, also, you shall see, that Melchi∣sedech did prefigurate the truth of his body likewise. For it importeth an equalitie of both their doings, Melchise∣dech by breade and wine did represent or prefigurate the truth of his body, and Christ also by breade and wine did represent the truth of his body. For Christ could not doe also, that which an other had not done. Therefore very foolish are M. Heskins oppositions, of typicall passeouer, and true passeouer, and figure and truth, where the argu∣ment is a consentaneis, and not a dissentaneis. The other fri∣uolous interpretation, that he maketh of the bread com∣forting mans heart, being both out of the minde of Hie∣ronyme, and out of his purpose, I omit. At length hee commeth to an other place of Hieronyme ad Heliodorum Ep. 1. Absit vt de ijs quicquam sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gra∣dui succedentes: Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt. God forbid that I shuld speake any euil of thē, which succeeding the apostolike degree, doe make the body of Christ with their holy mouth. M. Heskins translateth it, which do consecrate, bicause in the word, make, which Hieronyme vseth, hee should be enforced to ac∣knowledge a figuratiue speach. But let him turne ouer all his vocabularies, Calepines, and dictionaries, vnto which he sent vs ere while, and he shall not finde this Verbe conficio, signifying to consecrate, but to make, to dispatch, or to kill. Likewise he leaueth out these wordes which folowe immediatly, Per quos & nos Chri∣stiani

sumus, by whome wee also are Christians. It is euident that Hieronyme speaketh hyperbolically of the dignitie of priestes, for as to speake properly, we are not made Christians by them, no more is the bodie of Christ made by them. But where he speaketh properly, he vseth proper tearmes, as Contra Iouin. lib. 2. In typo sangui∣nis sui non obtulit aquam, sed vinum. In the figure of his bloud he offered not water, but wine. Here he calleth the sacrament, the type of his bloude, and saith it is wine.

And in the same booke, he saith of Christ, that al∣though it be written of him, that he hungred and thristed and went often to diner, yet excepto mysterio, quod in typum suae passionis expressit, & probandi corporis veritate, nec gulae scribitur seruisse, nec ventri. Excepting the mysterie whiche he expressed in figure of his passion, and in prouing the trueth of his bodie, it is not written that he did serue his throte or bellie. Meaning that it is not saide expressedly what he did eate and drinke, but onely a•• his last sup∣per, and after his resurrection to proue the trueth of his body.

The other collection that hee maketh, that because priestes doe consecrate with their mouthe, therefore the faith of the receiuer, maketh not the presence of Christ in the sacrament, beside that it is not Hieronymes word, yet it proueth nothing, because, as there be causes that worke altogether alone, so there be causes which be helping, and concurre with other, of which sorte is the faith of the re∣ceiuer, necessarilie to conceyue with the ministerie of the Minister, that Christ may bee present. That Christian Priestes should not be contemned if they be good, it is easily graunted, if they be naught, the ministerie is to bee honoured, but not the person.

Out of Chrysostom are alledged two long testimonies, the one out of his homilies de prodit. Iudae. But by that al∣so an other greater benefit was shewed, that that lamb was a signe of the lambe to come, and that bloude shewed the comming of the Lordes bloude, and that sheepe was an example of the spirituall sheepe. That lambe was a shadowe, this lambe the trueth. But af∣ter

the sunne of righteousnesse shined, the shadowe was put away by the light. And therefore on the same table both the passeouers were celebrated, both that of the figure and that of the trueth. For as painters are wont to shadowe the table that is to be painted, with certayne lineamentes, and so with varietie of colours to make it perfecte. Euen so Christ did in the table. Hee did both describe the figure of the Passeouer, and shewed the passeouer of trueth: Where wilt thou that wee prepare for thee to eate the passouer? That was the Iewish passouer, but let the passouer giue place to the light, and the image be ouercome of the trueth. If this place be well considered, it maketh altogether against the Bill of tran∣substantiation. For the similitude of the Painters Table, hauing in it shadowes and colors, applyed vnto the pascal lambe and the sacrament, declareth that they both toge∣ther make a perfect image, to shew and represent the true lambe Christ which was offered for vs, the olde pascall, being the shadowing, & the new sacramēt which he calleth also a passouer, being the varietie of colors, by which the passouer of trueth is discribed and plainely shewed. Therfore M. Heskins collections are vaine, and from the authors meaning. For his purpose is not, to make y^e pascall lamb a figure of y^e sacramēt, but of christ, and both y^e lamb & the sacrament, figures of Christ: but yet the lambe a sha∣dowing figure, like the first draught of a painter, y^e sacra∣ment a cleare demonstration like an image in colors. It is therfore verie babish, y^t he groūdeth vpon the word of the Passeouer shewed in the table, that the bodie of Christ was really present on y^e table in y^e sacrament, wheras it is plain, that Chrysostom speaketh of shewing by signes, as by co∣lours an image is set forth in a painted table. As childish it is, that he will oppresse the proclamer to tell him why Hierome and Chrisostom call not the Iewish pascal, light, trueth, & veritie, as they doe our pascall, seeing by it they receiued Christ•• as well as wee in our sacramente. A sore matter. The Iewishe pascall represented (if I may vse that tearme vnder cor∣rection of M. Heskins dictionarie) the true pascal Christ, as our sacrament doeth, who is the light, trueth, and veritie: the sacramente they call not the pascall lambe,

light, nor trueth, but by a figure, as they call it manye other thinges. But when they speake properlie they vse o∣ther tearmes, so doth Chrysostome. Homi. Ex. Psal. 22. & 116.

Sapientia ędificauit sibi Domum, supposuit columnas septem, parauit mensam suam, misit seruos suos conuocans omnes, & di∣cens, venite & edite de panibus meis, & bibite vinum quod mis∣cui vobis: & quia istam mensam preparauit seruis & ancillis in conspectu eorum, vt quotidie in similitudinem corporis & sanguinis Christi, panem & vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sacramento, ideo dicit, parasti in conspectu meo mensam aduersus eos qui tribulant me. Wisedome hath buil∣ded hir an house, shee hath set vnder seauen pillers, shee hath prepared hir table, shee hath sent foorth her seruan∣tes calling all men to hir and saying, come and eate of my breade, and drinke of the wine that I haue powred foorth for you: and because she hath prepared this table for hir seruauntes and maides in the sight of them, that she might dayly shew vs in the sacrament after the order of Melchisedech, breade and wine in similitude of the bodie and bloude of Christe, therefore she saith, thou hast prepared a table in my sight againste them that trouble mee. What Papistes holding transubstantiation, would thus write, that breade and wine is shewed in the Sacra∣ment in the similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ?

The seconde testimonie that M. Heskins alleageth out of Chrisostome, is vpon the 1. Cor. 10. This table is the strength of our soule, the sinewes of our minde, the bonde of our trust, our foundation, hope, healpe, light, our life, if we depart hence defended with this sacrifice, with most greate confidence, wee shall ascende into the holy entrie, as couered with certaine golden gar∣mentes. But what speake I of thinges to come? For while wee be in this life; this mysterie maketh earth to be heauen vnto vs. Ascende vnto the gates of heauen & marke diligently, or rather not of heauē but of heauen of heauens, & thē thou shalt behold that we say. For that which is worthy of highest honor, I will shew thee in earth. For as in kings houses, not the walles, not the golden roofe, but the kinges body sitting in the throne is most excellent: so also in heauen the kinges body, which nowe is set foorth to be seene of thee in earthe.

I shewe thee neither Angels, nor Archangels, nor the heauens, nor the heauens of heauens, but the Lorde himselfe of all these thinges. Thou perceiuest how that which is greatest and cheifest of all things thou doest not onely see it on earth, but also touche it: and not onely touch it, but eate also: and when thou haste receiued it re∣turnest home, wherefore wipe thy soule from all filthinesse, pre∣pare thy minde to the receyuing of these mysteries. For if the Kinges childe being decked with purple and diademe, were deliue∣red to thee to bee carried, wouldest thou not cast all downe to the grounde and receiue him? But nowe when thou receiuest not the childe of a kinge beeing a man, but the onely begotten sonne of God, tell mee I praye thee, doest thou not tremble and caste awaye the loue of all seculer thinges?

This testimonie so necessarily muste bee vnderstood, of a figuratiue and spirituall receyuing of Christe by faith, that nothing in the worlde can bee more plaine. For euen as earth is made heauen vnto vs, so is Christe made present. And euen as wee see, the Lorde vppon earth, so we handle and eate him, and that is onely with the eye, hand and mouth of faith.

But let vs see M. Heskins collections. First hee is en∣forced to confesse that the sentence beginneth with a fi∣gure, The table for the meate therevppon: Secondely, hauing such honourable tearmes, it can not bee a peece of breade, but Christe himselfe. This shall bee graunted also. Thirdly, that Christe is verily on the table, which he calleth Altars. As veri∣lie as earth is made heauen. Fourthly, that it is Christ whiche is worthie of highest honour verily present in the Sacramente. As verily present as hee is seene: but hee is seene onely by faith, therefore present onely to faith. But this obiection hee taketh vppon him to aunswere: If we saye the bodie of Christ can not be sene in the sacrament. No more saith he, can the substance of man be seene, but his garmentes or outward formes & accidentes. This is such a boyish sophisme as I am ashamed to aunswere it. By which I maye as well proue, that Christes body was neuer seene, and therefore not seene in the sacrament, contrarie to that whiche Chrysostome saith. Frō this obiection he falleth into an other, y^t if christ

in the Sacrament be worthie all honour, then of sacrifice also, and the sacrifice being Christ, Christ shalbe offered to him selfe. This he calleth an ignorant obiection. But there is more knowledge in it, then he hath witt to answere. He alledgeth the words of Augustine. lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 14. Christ abideth one with him, to whome he offereth: and maketh him selfe one with them, for whom he offereth himself: and is one with them, that offer: & one, with that which is offered. Here are diuerse kindes of vnitie, and yet not Christ of∣fered vnto him selfe, vnlesse M. Heskins will be a Sabel∣lian and a Patripassian, to confound the persons of the Godhead, and say, that God the father, yea, the whole Trinitie is likewise transubstantiated in the Sacrament. Though Christe be one with his father, yet did he not offer him selfe to him selfe, but himselfe to his father. As for the other saying of Augustine that he bringeth, it is altogether against him De ciuitate Dei. lib. 10. c. 20. He is the Priest him selfe, he is the offerer, he is the oblation, whereof he would haue the daily sacrifice of the Church to be a sacrament; seeing that of her bodie he is the head, and of his head, shee is the bodie, as well shee by him, as he by her being accustomed to be of∣fered. First Christ is the offerer and the oblation, but not he to whome it is made. Secondly, that which he calleth the sacrifice of the Church, is a sacrament, that is a holie memoriall of that propitiatorie sa••••••fice, which he offe∣red. Thirdly, this sacrifice of the Church, is of the Chur∣che her selfe offered by Christ, and of Christe offered by the Church, which must needes be spirituall, as the con∣iunction of Christ and his Church is spirituall, therefore it is not the natural bodie of Christ offered by the priest, but his mystical bodie offered by the Church & by him∣selfe, and so a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of pro∣pitiation.

After these obiections, he returneth to his collections out of the authoritie of Chrysostome. There neede no such preparation nor trembling, if the Sacrament were but a peece of bread. He hath neuer done with this slaunder, as though any Christian man did saye, it was but a peece of bread,

which Christe vouchsafed to call his bodie. Wee saye truely, it is bread: but wee say not, it is but a peece of bread.

* 1.45The ninteenth Chapter continueth the proofe of the same matter by S. Augustine, & S. Cyrill.

* 1.46M. Heskins promiseth in his Epistle, and gloryeth of∣ten in his worke, that he doth not alledge the doctors wordes truncately, & by peece meale, as heretikes do. But you shal see how well he handleth him selfe. He would haue S. Au∣gustine speake for his bil, and alledgeth his words out of his worke. contrae literas Petiliani, quoting neither what booke nor what Chapter of the same, by which it see∣meth that either he red not the place him self out of Au∣gustine, but receiued it of some gatherer, or else hee would cloake his vnhonest dealing. Hee citeth it thus: Aliud est Pascha quod adhuc Iudaei celebrant de Oue: Aliud autē quod nos in corpore & sanguine domini celebranus. It is another Passouer that the Iewes do yet celebrate with a sheepe, another, that wee do celebrate in the bodie & bloud of Christ.

But Augu∣stines wordes, not truncately and by peece meale rehear∣sed nor altered are these: Contrae literas Petiliani lib. 2. Cap. ••7. Sed sicut aliud est carnis circumcisio Iudeorum, aliud autem quod octauo die baptizatorum nos celebratius: et aliud est Pas∣cha quod adhuc illi de Oue celebrant, aliud autem quod nos in corpore & sanguine domini accipimus: sic alius fuit baptismus Ioannis, alius est baptismus Christi, illis enim ventura ista prae∣manciabantur: istis completa illa praedicantur. But euen as the circumcision of the fleshe of the Iewes is one thing, and that which wee do celebrate the eyght day of them that are baptized is another thing: and the Passeouer whiche they do yet celebrate of a sheepe is one thing, and that which wee receiue in the bodie and bloud of the Lorde is another thing. So the baptisme of Iohn was one, and the baptisme of Christe is another: for by those things these things were foreshewed to come: by these, those things are preached to be accomplished.

First, the supper is not made here another Passeouer but another thing, that is, an other sacrament. Secondly here is declared, howe the sacraments of the old lawe, differ from ours of the newe Testament, not in sub∣stance, which is all one in both, but that they were sig∣nes of things to come, ours are signes of things accom∣plished. Which thing hee teacheth often, and in this Chapter moste plainly. Lex & Prophetae, &c.

The lawe and the Prophetes had Sacraments, foreshewing the things to come: but the Sacraments of oure time do te∣stifie that to bee come, which they did preache that it should come.

And in Ioan. Tract. 28. hee sayeth, that the Sacra∣ments of the olde testament and the newe, in signis diuersa sunt, in re quae significatur paria. In visible kindes, diuerse, but aequall in spirituall vertue. By which, and a hundreth such places, it is manifest to be ouerthrowen, which M. Hes∣kins would buylde, that Christ spiritually receiued, is not our Pascall lambe, but that we receiue another sub∣stance of Christe, then the faithfull did in the olde Testa∣ment.

The seconde place he citeth out of Augustine, I marueile he could not see it to be as plaine against him as the first. cont. Faust. Man. lib. 20. Cap. 18. The Hebrues in the sacrifices of beastes, which they did offer to God many and di∣uerse wayes, as for so great a matter it was meete, did celebrate a Prophesie of the sacrifice to come, which Christ hath offered. Wherefore nowe the Christians do celebrate the memorie of the same sacrifice being accomplished by the holie oblation and by the participation of the bodie and bloud of Christ. In this sentence is manifestly declared, the same difference we spake of before of the Iewishe sacraments, and of our sacraments, the one being a Prophesie of Christes sacrifice to come, the other, a remembrance of the same beeing past, and fulfilled.

And whereas M. Heskins vrgeth the worde oblation, to exclude y^e spirituall eating, he doth verie ridiculously, as though there might not be as wel a spiritual oblation, as a spirituall participation, especially when the author

shewing what we do in oblation and participatiō, sayeth, we so celebrate the memorie of Christes sacrifice alredie fulfilled.

Therefore, this oblation is another from that: namely, a spirituall oblation and thanksgiuing, for that whose memorie it celebrateth, as Augustine most plain∣ly teacheth in the same booke, Cap. 21. Sed quid agam & tantae caecitati istorum Hęreticorum, quando demonstrabo quam vim habeat quod in Psalmis canitur: Sacrificium laudis glorifica∣bit me & illie via est vbi ostendam salutare meum? Huius sacri∣ficij caro & sanguis ante aduentum Christi per victimas similitu∣din••m promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsum veritatem redd••batur: post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae ce∣lebratur. But what shall I do? or when shall I shewe vn∣to so great blindnesse of these heretikes, what force that hath which is soung in the Psalmes? The sacrifice of praise shall glorifie mee, and there is the way where I will shewe my saluation. The fleshe and bloud of this sacrifice before the comming of Christ, was promised by sacrifices of similitudes: in the passion of Christ, by the verie trueth it selfe, it was giuen vp: after the ascension of Christ, it is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance. Iudge by this place, whether Christes bodie be really offered, or whether it be a mathematicall sacrifice, as it plea∣seth M. Heskins in his merie vaine to call it.

Augustine maketh three kindes of oblation of the fleshe and bloud of Christ: In promise by sacrifices of similitudes, in truth by Christ in his passion, in the sacrament of remēbrance after his death.

Now followeth a long speache of Cyrill, directly a∣gainst M. Heskins the alledger of it: lib. 4. in Ioan. 6. ca. 14. Nec putet &c. Neither let the Iewe of the dullnesse of his whiche thinke, that we haue inuented mysteries neuer heard of be∣fore. For he shall see, if he will seeke more diligently, that the ve∣rie selfe same thing hath beene done since the times of Moses. For what deliuered their Elders from death, and the destruction of Aegypt, when death raigned vpon the first borne of Aegypt. Is it not euident to all men, that because they being taught by Gods in∣stitution, did eat the flesh of the Lambe, and oynted the postes and

vpper doore postes, with the bloud of the Lambe, therfore death de∣parted from them: for destruction, that is death of this fleshe, ra∣ged against mankinde for the transgression of the first man. For be∣cause of sinne, we haue heard: Earth thou art, and into earth thou shalt returne: but for asmuch as Christ by his flesh would ouerthrow that cruell tyrant, therefore that was shadowed by a mystery a∣mong the auncient fathers, and they beeing sanctified by the sheepes fleshe and bloud (God so willing) escaped destruction. Therefore ô Iewe, why art thou so troubled, seeing the trueth prefigured long before: Wherefore I say art thou troubled, if Christe saith: except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you, whereas it behoued thee, beeing instruc∣ted in the lawes of Moses, and well taught by the olde shadowes to beleeue, to be most ready to vnderstand these mysteries? The sha∣dowe, and the figure thou knowest, therefore learne the very trueth of the thing. My fleshe, saith he, is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede. In these wordes beside that there is nothing to proue the Pascall Lambe, to be a figure of the Lordes Supper: it is directly said, that the selfe same mysterie of eating the fleshe of Christ, hath ben obserued since the time of Moses: and that there is no cause, why the Iewe should be offended at the saying of Christe, if he would vnderstand the trueth, whereof the Pascall lambe was the figure and shadowe. Which trueth was no mysterie newly inuented, but practised euer since Mo∣ses, for not by the fleshe and bloud of the Lambe, but by the flesh and bloud of Christ, the people were deliuered from death. The Lambe was then a sacrament: Christe was then, and euer shall be the trueth: but what neede we more striue, whē M. Heskins confesseth, That the faith∣full of the olde Testament did eate the flesh, & drinke the bloud of Christ spiritually, as the Apostle teacheth. 1. Cor. 10. They did all eate the same spirituall meate, &c. And Cyrill saith, We haue no newe mysterie, but euen the same that hath beene practised since the time of Moses.

The twentieth Chapter, ioyneth Saint Gregorie, and Damascen to confirme the same matter.* 1.47

In the beginning of this Chapter, he doeth honestly confesse,* 1.48 that Gregorie was the last of the higher house: & Damascen the first and chiefest of the lower house, he may make him Vantparlar if he will. But neither of thē haue any thing materiall for his purpose, that he alled∣geth them, nor for the generall purpose of his bill. For Gregories wordes are altogether alegoricall, & there∣fore cannot be taken in the Grammaticall sense, Hom. 22. Pasch: All which thinges do bring forth to vs great edifying if they be discussed by mystical, or alegoricall interpretation. For what the bloud of the lambe is you haue learned, not now by hea∣ring, but by drinking, which bloud is put vpon both the postes, when it is dronke, not only with the mouth of the body, but also with the mouth of the heart. For he that doeth so receiue the bloud of his redeemer, that he will not as yet followe his passion, hath put the bloud on a post. Heare what a great thing is there? But that he calleth the sacrament of the bloud, y^e bloud of the redeemer, speaking alegorically, as he calleth it the bloud of the Lamb, meaning the olde Paschal, whi∣che doth signifie the bloud of Christ. Therfore if Mais∣ter Heskins will vrge the bloud of the redeemer dronke not only with the mouth of the body, but with y^e mouth of the heart: he may likewise vrge the bloud of y^e lamb: if this be a figuratiue speech, so is that. But Gregorie proceedeth. In the night (saith he) we eate the lambe, be∣cause we do now receiue the Lordes body in a sacrament, when as yet we do not see one anothers conscience. Note here y^t Grego∣rie doth not say simply, we eate the Lords body, but we eate the Lordes body in a sacrament or mysterie: compa∣ring the night of the Iewish eating, with the mysterie of the Lordes body. And in neither of both his sayinges af∣firmeth the lambe to be a figure of the supper, which is the purpose of the Chapter. As for Damascen, his chiefe words are these, (For it were too long to rehearse all, he being but a knight of the lower house.) If God the word by willing was made man, &c. can he not make bread his owne body, and wine with water his bloud? God saide in the beginning: let the earth bring forth greene hearbes: and vnto this day, bee∣ing

holpen, & strengthened by Gods cōmandement, the rayne com∣ming, it bringeth forth fruits. God said, this is my body, & this is my bloud, and do ye this in remēbrance of me: by his almightie cōman∣dement it is brought to passe vntill he come. In this testimonie, which M. Hesk. rehearseth more at large, sauing y^t he na∣meth y^e old Passeouer y^t Christ did celebrate at his last sup∣per, there is no mentiō of any figure y^t it was of his supper. Secōdly, although the time, in which Damascen liued, was very corrupt, yet there is nothing in these wordes, whiche may not wel be referred to y^e spiritual presence of Christs body, vnto the faith of the worthie receiuer. M. Heskins maketh a needlesse digression of y^e cōmandement of con∣secratiō, which shalbe granted to him, if he wil not frame a new signification of consecration, which none of his Ca∣lepines, Vocabularies, nor Dictionaries do acknowledge. For, to consecrate, is to halow, or to separat to an holy vse, so we grant y^e bread and wine to be consecrated. But y^e Pa∣pistes call consecrating, to change y^e substances, or to tran∣substātiat. And so neither Chrysostom, nor any other lear¦ned man, did euer vse y^t word. His wordes, as M. Heskins citeth thē Ho. de pro. Iud. be these: And now the same Christ is present, which did furnish that table, he also consecrateth this. For it is not man that maketh the thinges set foorth to be the body and bloud of Christ, by consecration of the Lordes table, but he that was crucified for vs, euen Christ Wordes are spoken by the mouth of the priest, but they are consecrated by the power and grace of God. This is saith he, my body. By this worde the thinges set foorth are conse∣crated. And as that voyce that said, grow ye, & multiply ye, was but once spoken, but yet it feeleth alway effect, nature working with it vnto generation: so that voyce was but once spoken, but through all the tables of the Church, vnto this day, and vntill the comming, it giueth strength to the sacrifice. In these wordes (because M. Heskins bringeth them in for consecration) note y^t Chry∣sostome affirmeth all consecration vnto the worldes end to be wrought by the voice of Christ, once spoken by him selfe. This is my body, whereas the Papistes affirme con∣secration to be by the vertue of these words spoken by a Priest. So y^t there is great diuersitie, betweene their iudge∣ments

of consecration.

* 1.49The one & twentieth Chapter concludeth the matter of the figure of the Pascall lambe, by Haymo, and Cab••sila.

There is no doubt, but in the lower house, M. Heskins may finde many that fauour his bill,* 1.50 but seeing it is shut out of the higher house, I will not trouble my selfe, nor the Reader much to examine the voyces of the lower house. Which if they should euery one allowe it, yet it cannot be an enacted trueth, without the consent of the higher house. Onely this will I note, that Maister Hes∣kins maketh Haymo elder by 500. yeares, then such chro∣nicles as I haue read do account him.

But this thing in this Chapter must not be omitted, that he saith, that The sacramentaries cannot bring one father, tea∣ching the sacrament to be onely a figure. And ioyneth issue with the proclaymer, that if he can bring any scripture, any catholique coun∣sell, or any one approued doctor, that by expresse and plaine words, doth denie the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament, then he will giue ouer and subscribe to him. Still he chargeth them, whom he calleth the sacramentaries, to make the sacra∣ment only a figure or a bare signe, which is false.

But for euidence to informe the men, that shall go vpon this is∣sue, I will alledge, first S. Augustine, in plaine and ex∣presse wordes, denying that which Maister Heskins, and the Papistes, call the reall presence of Christes body in the sacrament. In Psal. 98. Non hoc corpus quod videtis man∣ducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem, quo fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendani, spiritualiter intellectum vin••ficabit vor. You shal not eate this body whi∣che you see, nor drinke the bloude, whiche they shall shedde, that shall crucifie me: I haue commended to you a certeine sacrament, which beeing spiritually vnderstoode shall quicken you.

What can be saide more plainely. The seconde witnesse shall be Chrysostome In Matth. Homil. 11.

Si enim vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus trans∣ferre peccatum est, & periculum, sicut docet nos Balthasar, qui bibens in calicibus sacratis, de regno depositus est, & de vita.

Si ergo haec vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus transferre sic peri∣culosum est, in quibus non est verum Corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur: quanto magis vasa corporis nostri quae sibi deus ad habitaculum preparauit, non debemus locum dare diabolo agendi in eis quod vult? For if it be an offence to tran∣slate the sanctified vessels into priuate vses, and a daunger, as Balthasar doth teach vs, who drinking in the hallowed cups, was put out both of his kingdome and his life: ther∣fore if it be so daungerous to transferre vnto priuate v∣ses, those sanctified vessels in which not the very body of Christ, but the mysterie of the body of Christ is contey∣ned: howe much more the vessels of our body, which God hath prepared to be a dwelling place for him selfe, ought we not to yeld to the diuil to do in them what hee will.

The third shall bee out of the Popes owne Cannon lawe, which M. Heskins may not refuse for good eui∣dence, and it is gathered out of Augustine.

De con. dist. 2. Cap. Hoc est. Sicut caelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vo∣catur corpus Christi, cum reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet quod visibile, quod palpabile, quod mortale in cruce positum est, vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, quae sacerdotis mani∣bus fit, Christi passio mors, crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio: sic sacramentum fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, fides est. As that heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ, after a certaine maner of it, is called the body of Christ, wheras in very deed it is but the sacrament of the body of Christ, namely of that body which is visible, which is palpable, which when it was mortall was fastned to the crosse, and the same offering of the flesh of Christe which is done by the Priestes handes, is called the passion, death, and cruci∣fying of Christ, not in trueth of the thing, but in a signi∣fying mysterie: so the sacrament of faith which is vnder∣stoode to bee baptisme, is faith. Nowe let this issue bee tryed according to this euidence, by any lawful and indif∣rent men of the countrie, and I doubt not but they will finde Maister Heskins charged by his bond, to yeelde and recant.

But to conclude this Chapter, Maister Hes∣kins

will needes haue two manner of presences, as well as the sacramentaries, spirituall and corporall, the spirituall he graunteth to the worthy receiuer, and the corporal al∣so: the corporall only is left to the wicked. Wherevpon I would desire the Christian reader to consider, what hard holde the Papistes keepe for the corporall presence, which is no benefite to the faithfull, but according to their doc∣trine common to the wicked, and howe proudly they de∣ride and contemne the spirituall presence, wherein yet consisteth all the comfort of the godly, which they them selues can not denie. Vndoubtedly this quarrell for the corporall presence, hath a corporall respect, to abuse the superstitious minds of carnall men, to their carnall com∣moditie, and not to seeke spirituall recreation of the in∣ward man, which is throughly satisfied with the spirituall presence by faith.

* 1.51The two and twentieth Chapter beginneth the application of the shewe breade to the sacrament, as of the figure to the veritie, by S. Hierome and Damascen.

* 1.52The figures of Manna, and the waters, he reiecteth into the third booke, and nowe will treate of the figure of the shewe breade. And this bread, he will haue to be a figure of the body of Christ in the sacrament. Wherein the mat∣ter is not worth the strife, so we remember that the sacra∣ments of the old law, were not bare figures, but y^e same in substaunce and vertue that ours are, as we shewed before out of Augustine, and that they were not bare figures of our sacraments, but of the things wherof our sacraments are effectuall signes. Although ours more cleare, as of thinges already exhibited, and theirs were of thinges to come. And therefore the olde writers, Origen, Ambrose, and Oecumenius also affirme, that the Fathers in the sacraments had the shadowe, we the image, and both of vs shall haue the truth in one countrie. Orig. in Ps. 38. Amb. 4. Offi. Chap. 48. Oec. in 10. Heb. The like comparison we had before of the shadowe and image out of Chryso∣stome

and Euthymius, that borrowed it of him. But how friuolous the comparisons be, that M. Heskins maketh be∣tweene the shewe breade and the sacrament, to proue the one to be a figure of the other: bicause it was set on the table, neuer fayled, was a bread of remembrance, was our offering, might not be eaten of any defiled person: I will declare by as many differences. The shewe bread was 12. cakes in number, so is not the sacrament: had frankincen∣ses set vpon it and burned, so hath not the sacrament: was remoued euery Sabbath, so is not the sacrament: must of necessitie remaine a whole weeke, so must not the sacra∣ment: might not be eaten of any but only the Priestes, the sacrament must be eaten of al men: might not be eaten of the Priestes, vntill it was a seuen nights olde, so is not the sacrament. Where note I pray you, the synceritie of M. Heskins, that rehearsing the text out of 24. of Leuit. lea∣ueth out the putting of incence vppon the two rowes, bi∣cause he could not applie it to his Masse cakes.

But to the place of Hieronyme, In cap. 1. ad Tit. If Lay men be commaunded to abstaine from the companie of their wiues for prayer, what is to be thought of a Bishop, which daily must offer un∣defiled sacrifices for his owne and the peoples sinnes? Let vs read the booke of Kings, and we shall finde that Abimelech the Prieste, would not giue Dauid and his seruants of the shewe bread, before he asked whether the seruants were cleane from a woman, not from a straunge woman, but from their wiues: and except he had heard that yesterday and the day before they had abstained from the worke of marriage, he had not graunted them the bread which be∣fore he had denyed. There is as great difference betweene the shewe breade and the bodye of Christe, as betweene the shad∣dowe and the bodies, betweene the image and the trueth, betweene the exemplars of thinges to come, and the thinges them selues prefigured by the exemplars. Therefore as meeknesse, patience, sobrietie, moderation, abstinence from lucre, hospitalitie also and benignitie, ought to be chiefly in a Byshop, and amongest all Lay men excelling: so also a peculiar chastitie, and, as I may say, Priestly continence, that hee doe not onely keepe him selfe f••om an vncleane woorke, but also the mynde that shall

make the body of Christe may be free from casting of the eye, and wandring of thought. In these wordes Hieronyme maketh the shewe breade, a shadowe and figure of the body of Christe, but not of the sacrament thereof. Nei∣ther will Maister Heskins collection of the office of a bi∣shop standing in consecration, offering, and receiuing the body of Christ helpe him. For here is no word of conse∣crating, but of making the body of Christe, Mens Christi corpus confectura, the minde shall make the body of Christ: which if it be not a figuratiue speach, Hieronyme speaketh both grossely and vntruely, neither of offering the body of Christ, but offering vndefiled sacrifices, which are prayers. Finally if it were plaine, that he called the sacrament by the name of that which it signifieth, yet hee him selfe is the best expounder of him selfe.

Where hee sheweth a double taking of the body & bloud of Christe, spirituall and corporall. In Ep lib. 1. cap. Dupliciter vero san∣guis Christi & caro intelligitur: vel spiritualis illa at{que} diuina, d•• qua ipse dixit caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus: Et nisi manducaueritis carnem meum, & sanguinem meum biberitis, non habebitis vitam aeternam: Vel caro & sanguis quae crucifixa est, & qui militis effusus est lanc••a. The bloud and flesh of Christ is vnderstoode two wayes: either that spi∣rituall and diuine flesh, of which hee saide: My flesh is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede: And except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud, you shall not haue eternall life: or else that flesh that was crucifi∣ed, & that bloud which was shead by the souldiers speare.

This place may suffice to expound whatsoeuer either Hieronyme or any other olde writer saith of the conse∣cration, offering, or receiuing of the body and bloud in the sacrament: making a manifest difference betweene that flesh and bloud, which is eaten and dronke, and that which was crucified, which the Papistes teach to bee all one.

But M. Heskins cannot omit this place, w^tout a gird a∣gainst married Priests, of which number he him selfe was once one, saying, they haue put away the consecration

to keepe their women, but he did put away his wife, that he might returne to consecration: Howbeit to the mat∣ter. As it is verie well knowen, Hieronyme was too much addict to the prayse of virginitie, so in this Chapter, hee cannot simplie condemne the mariage of Byshoppes, al∣though he wish rather a continence in them that can ab∣steine: and openly saith to professed virgines, that either they must marie if they cannot conteine, or els continue if they will not marie. Ad Demetriadem.

Next to Hieronyme, which is of the higher house, hee is faine to place Damascene of the lower house. Who sayeth that The shewe bread did figure this breade, meaning the sacramentall breade, and not as M. Heskins expoun∣deth it the bodie of Christ in the sacrament. For transub∣stantiation is not so olde as Damascene, neither was it re∣ceyued in the Greeke Church, neither is it at this daye, neither, doe these wordes helpe him which hee addeth. Therefore with all feare and pure conscience, and with a sure faith let vs come to him and worship him with all purenesse of minde and bodie. Let vs come to him with burning desire, fashioning our handes in manner of a crosse, let vs receiue this bodie of him that was crucified. There can no necessarie collection bee made of this place, that Damascene spake of the popishe reall presence. And if it might, yet it is but one doctors opinion of the lower house, whose authoritie we weigh not. But why doe not the Papistes holde their handes a crosse, when they receyue the sacrament? by like all their ceremonies bee not so auncient as Damascene.

The three and twentie Chapter proceedeth in the proofe of the same by S. Augustine and Isychius.* 1.53

Out of Augustine he alleadgeth Ep. 86. Ad Casulanum:* 1.54 re∣prouing one Vibicus Dicit cessisse pani pecus. &c. Hee saith that the sheepe hath giuen place to breade, as though he knewe not that then also the shewe breade was wont to bee set on the Lords table, and that now also he doeth take part of the bodie of the immaculate lambe. Hee sayth that bloude hath giuen place

to the cuppe not considering that nowe also hee receyueth bloude in the cuppe. Therefore howe much better and more a∣greably shoulde hee saye, that the olde thinges are passed, and newe thinges are made in Christe, so that Altar gaue place to Altar, sworde to sworde, fire to fire, breade to breade, sheepe to sheepe, bloude to bloude? For wee see in all these, that the carnall oldnesse giueth place to the spirituall newnesse.

The vnderstanding of this place dependeth vppon the knowledge of the errour of Vibicus. And that was this. Hee thought that the outwarde ceremonies of the olde lawe, did signifie the outwarde ceremonies of the newe Testament, that is, that carnall thinges did suc∣ceede carnall thinges. As the lambe did signifie the bread, the bloude did signifie the wine in the sacrament, and so bread gaue place to the lambe, the cuppe to the bloud. But this Augustine denyeth. For they had bread then, and they haue breade nowe: they had the fleshe of a lambe then, and they haue the fleshe of a lambe nowe: they had bloude then, and they haue bloude nowe: they had carnall thinges then, and wee haue spirituall thinges nowe. This place therefore is directly against M. Hes∣kins bill of the carnall presence, and hath nothinge to prooue that the shewe breade was a figure of the sacra∣ment: but onely affirmeth that they had breade, as wee haue breade, for they had the shewe breade. But if there had ben transubstantiation, that is, no bread in the sacra∣ment, hee might easily haue confuted Vibicus saying, that breade gaue place to the sheepe. But hee confesseth that wee haue bread, and affirmeth, that they had breade also. And where he sayth, that wee eate parte of the body of the immaculate lambe, hee declareth sufficiently that hee spake of no carnall presence, for then hee woulde not haue deuided the bodie of the lambe into partes, which the Papistes say euerie one receiueth whole. Fi∣nally, where he saith that the carnall oldenesse gaue place to the spirituall newnesse, hee doth moste clearely teach vs, that the outwarde ceremonies of the olde Testament, were figures of the spirituall things signified and giuen

by our sacramentes, and not of the outwarde elementes of our sacraments. By which it is manifest, that spirituall thinges and not carnall thinges are the substance of our sacraments. Nowe to M. Heskins collections. He saith that the old sacrifices of the lambe were not figures of the sacrament: de∣nying now in one word, that he laboured to proue before in 7. Chapters: but of the bloudie sacrifice of Christ offered vppon the crosse after the maner of Aaron. Concerning y^e sence of Augustines words, let the readers weigh my collection & his, by Augustines place, and by the rest of the Epistle that is of the same matter. But marke here once againe, that hee maketh the sacrifice of Christs passion, a sacrifice after the maner of Aaron, and consequētly Christ a priest after the maner of Aaron, directly contrarie to the scriptures in expresse words Heb. 7. Secondly he vrgeth that, which Au∣gustine saith, we nowe receiue bloud in y^e cup, by which he wil exclude the distinction of spirituall receiuing. But all in vaine, except he can conclude, y^t we receiue partem de ag∣ni immaculati corpore, part of the vndefiled lambes bodie. For if the one be spirituall, so is the other. I am sure the naturall bodie of Christ is not deuided into parts, but wee do spiritually receiue nourishmēt al of one bodie. To be short, if that which Augustine addeth of spirituall newnes succeeding carnall oldnes, were not a sufficient demon∣stration of a spirituall receiuing, I woulde bring other places of Augustine to shewe the same most plainly. But the thing being so apparant, I will not mistrust the iud∣gement of any indifferent reader so much, as to trouble him with more testimonies, which shall better come in, where more shewe is for M. Heskins bill.

But we must passe ouer to Isychius, whose wordes are set downe at large in Cap. 24. Leui. The verie number of the loaues doth call vs to a contemplation of the cōmandement. So doth the setting forth of thē, & that he doth not cōmand thē to be made a burnt offering as those things which be of the frying pan, of the gir¦diron, & of the fornace, but that they shold be set on the table one o∣uer against an other, & that it shold be lawful only for the priestes to eat of thē, not for the Leuites, so that they also must eate thē in a

holy place. And also that they are called holie of holies, (vnderstand what is said, for the Lord shall giue thee vnderstanding) remember the mysticall table of which it is commaunded that none should be∣ginne except the intelligible Aaron, that is Christe, (For he began it first) excepte also his sonnes, which by him are made Christes, and haue put on him, which yet they are commaunded to eate in a holie place. And hee is that holy of holies, that they may haue a principall and vndespised sanctification. These loaues of two tenthes (for they are of God and man, of the same being, perfect in both) are set sixe ouer against sixe. The mysticall supper is set here, and it is set in the worlde to come. Sixe loaues are one proposition or set∣ting foorth, as the mysterie it se••fe is perfecte and maketh them that enioye it perfecte. And in sixe dayes this visible creature was made, and the sixt day man was made, for whome Christe prepared his mysticall table. But yet altogether are rightlie twelue loaues, because the Apostles that were twelue in number first sup∣ped at the Lordes table. Here is an allegoricall interpre∣tation of the shewe breade to signifie the Lordes supper, but that proueth it not a prefiguration of the sacrament. For there is great difference betweene an allegory, and a figure of a thing to come. But to the poynte of the bill, here is nothing for the carnall presence, but some∣what against it.

First where hee saith that the Christians (whom alle∣gorically he calleth the sonnes of the intelligible Aaron, induti sunt eo, haue put on him, meaning they are bapti∣sed, for as manie as are baptised in him haue put him on. But they haue put on him onely spiritually, there∣fore they are commaunded to eate him onely spiritu∣ally.

Secondly the twelue loaues, whiche signifieth the bodie of Christ, signifieth the twelue Apostles also, which mystically were his bodie, by which you may see, hee speaketh of no carnall presence, Thirdly he calleth it a mysterie and a mysticall supper, which will not stande w^t M. Heskins corporal collectiōs. No more wil y^t which he addeth That it is a cleane table, first as making cleane, secondly as hauing no lies or infectiō, such as are in the misteries of the pagās.

Where it is to be laughed at, that he will proue a corpo∣ral presence, because it cleanseth sinnes: for then shal we haue the same presence in baptisme, and the Papistes in holie water, which they affirme to clense sinnes also. But it is, a per se, that Isychius addeth. Moreouer, extolling his glorie, and aduauncing the dignitie of this mysterie into an height, he addeth, it is the holie of holies of the Lordes sacrifices for a per∣petuall lawe. Therefore prayer is holie, the reading of holie scrip∣ture is holie, and the hearing of the interpretation thereof: to be short, all things that are done and sayed in the Church of God, ac∣cording to the lawe, are holie. But the holie of holies of the Lordes sacrifice, of all things that are offered and done to his glo∣rie, is the table which Christ setteth forth of his owne sacrifice. Here is a great commendation of that mysticall Table, which Christ hath set forth of the sacrifice of his death, which no man doubteth to be moste holie in the right vse thereof, and in respect of him that feedeth vs with his bodie and bloud at that table. But what is all this to the corporall and carnall presence? But M. Heskins woulde finde a contradiction in the wordes of Oecolampadius, in that he sayeth the bread is sanctified, and yet it hath no holinesse in it, whereas that holie man speaketh plainly and distinctly, that it is sanctified, and doth sanc∣tifie, in the right vse of it, & not in the nature of it self.

The foure & twentieth Chapter, applying the continuall re∣seruation of the Shew bread, to the reseruation of the sacrament, proueth the same reseruatiō by the olde fathers, & by the perpetual practis•• of the Church.* 1.55

That the sacrament (of some) was reserued in the elder dayes of the Church, it is not so great a controuersie,* 1.56 as whether it ought to bee reserued by the institution of Christe. Neither is the simple reseruation, one of the proclaymers articles (as M. Heskins saith,) but whether it should be hanged vp in a Canopie for an ydol as the Papistes vse it. As for reseruation, how slenderly it is proued by him, we shall see by examination of his

witnesses. For as touching his application thereof vnto the reseruation of the shewe breade, because it is but his owne iudgement, I will not vouchsafe to aunswere it, o∣therwise then to denye it, to be of any force to proue his purpose. His first witnesse is Clemens Ep. 2. The sacra∣ments of Gods secretes are committed to three degrees: to the priest, the Deacon, and the minister, which with feare and trembling ought to keepe the leauings of the peeces of the Lordes bodie, that no rottennes be found in the holie place, lest when the thing is done negligently, great iniurie be done to the portion of the Lordes bo∣die. By this place M. Heskins will needes proue reserua∣tion, and the carnall presence, but neither of both will fall out of his side, although the authoritie of the Epi∣stle is not worth a strawe, beeing a counterfet decretall ascribed to Clemens, neither in true latine, nor good sense.

And first for the carnall presence, note how he sayeth, y^e remnantes of the peeces and portions of the Lords bodie, and so he doth often in this Epistle, meaning y^e crommes of the sacramentall bread, which was consecrated to bee the bodie of Christ. For Christes naturall bodie cannot be broken into leauings, fragments, and portions, which be the termes he vseth. Nowe touching the reseruation, he meaneth no keeping but of these crommes, which hee calleth leauings, fragments and portions, and no keeping of them, but from mouldinesse or rottennesse, that is, that they should be spent while they are good, and not kepte while they stinke, as the Papistes doe, not the fragments, but their whole Masse cakes sometimes. For touching the sacrament it selfe, he writeth by and by after:

Tanta in altario holocausta offerantur, quanta populo sufficere debens. Quod si remanserint, in Crastinum non reseruentur, sed cum timore & tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur. Let so great sacrifices bee offered on the altar, as may suffice all the people. But if any be left, let them not be kept vntill the next day, but with feare and trembling, let them bee spent by the diligence of the Clerkes.

This bee∣ing most manifest against reseruation, Master Heskins

is not ashamed to racke it to stande with reserua∣tion.

And first, he asketh the aduersarie, whether hee thin∣keth that Saint Clement was a foole, to denye that hee sayed before? No verily, but I think him to be no wise man, that either taketh this Epistle to bee written by Clement, the first bishop of Rome, or so vnderstandeth it, that he woulde make him contrarie to him selfe. And I thinke he that did forge this Epistle vnder Saint Cle∣ments name, was not onely a doltish foole, but also an impudent falsarie, to make that auncient Clemens to write to the Apostle Saint Iames of such bables as those be, and that followe in the Epistle: which, if they were of weight, yet the Apostle was not to learne them of Clemens, but Clemens of him. But concerning the kee∣ping that he speaketh of, he writeth yet more plainlye:

Non eijcientes foras è sacrario velamina, not shaking abroad out of the holy place or vestrie the couering of the Lords table, lest peraduenture the dust of the Lordes bodie shoulde fall a misse from the linnen cloth beeing wa∣shed abroade, and this should be sinne to him that doth it. Lo sir, before wee had reliques, fragments, and por∣tions, nowe wee haue the dust of the Lords body.

What dust is this, but small crommes? But he goeth on, and that Saint Iames might the better looke to those mat∣ters, he sayeth:

Iterum atque iterum de fragmentis dominic•• corporis demandamus. Againe, and againe, wee giue charge, concerning the fragments of the Lordes bodie.

And finally, he concludeth in fine Latine and cleanly termes:

A principio Epistolae vsque ad hunc locum de sacramen∣tis delegaui bene intuendis: vbi non murium stercora inter frag∣menta dominicae portionis appareant, neque putrida per negli∣gentiam remaneant clericorum. From the beginning of the Epistle vnto this place I haue giuen charge concerning the sacraments to be well looked vpon: where no Mise tordes may be seene among the fragments of the Lorde•• portion, nor they remaine rotten through the negli∣gence of the Clerkes.

You see this man would haue the sacrament spent, & ta∣keth thought that the crommes, both small and great, be not cast away, nor kept vntill they be rotten, nor suffe∣red to be eaten of Mise, nor defyled with their doung, but he is vtterly against popish reseruation. The next is Ire∣naeus, who in his Epistle, in which he doth sharply rebuke Victor bishop of Rome, for excommunicating the Bi∣shops of Asia about the celebration of Easter, sayth: That they were neuer for that matter driuen from the fellowship of the Church, or comming from those partes, were not receiued: but rather all the elders or Bishops that were before them, did alwayes solemnely send the sacrament of Eucharistie to all the bishops or elders of those Churches that did not so obserue it. M. Heskins imagineth that the Bishops of Rome, did sende the sacra∣ment into all partes of the worlde, to all bishops & el∣ders of euerie Church: which if he did, hee had neede of many messengers. But the matter is plaine ynough. If any of those bishops or elders came to Rome, they were louingly receiued of Victors predecessours, and at the time of the Communion, the bishop would send the sa∣crament to them by the deacons, as well as to any of the citizens that were of his owne Church. Here is no sha∣dowe of reseruation, but M. Heskins absurde imagi∣nation.

Tertullian followeth Irenaeus, writing to his wife, lib. 2. An arbitrare ô vxor ita gesturam te, vt clam viro sint, qua facis? Non sciet ille quid secreto ante omne cibum gustes? & si sciuerie non partem illum credit esse, qui dicitur. Doest thou thinke (ô wife) so to handle thy selfe, that these things that thou doest shalbe vnknowen to thy husbande? shall not he knowe what before all meates thou doest secretely receiue? and if hee shall knowe it, he beleeueth it not to be that bread, that it is saide to be. Thus M. Heskins hath set downe the wordes both in Latine and Englishe. But wheresoeuer he had the former que∣stion▪ An ar••itrare ô vxor ita gesturam te, vt clam viro sint quae facto? He had it not of Tertullian, for hee hath no such wordes in that booke, but onely, Non sciet maritus, &c. shall not thy husbande knowe, &c. By which it is

playne that he neuer read this place in Tertullian him∣self, but only borrowed it out of some other papist, that alledged it for this purpose, & belike gathered the for∣mer question, not as Tertullians wordes, but out of his meaning, which Maister Heskins not vnderstanding, very ridiculously, hath set down, as the words of Tertul∣lian. These be the Popishe doctours, that boast of their great reading, when they reade but patches out of other mens notes, and collections. But to the matter. Although it may seeme, this corruption to haue entred into the A∣frican Churches, y^t the people carried home y^e sacramen∣tall bread, and did eate it daily before all other meates, yet this is nothing like vnto the Popish reseruation in the pixe, to be adored. And Tertullian in his Booke De Corona militis, doeth rehearse this custome among those thinges, that had no ground of scripture for them. The liks is to be saide, to the place of Cyprian, where a wo∣man kept it in her chest, as for the miracle, whether it re∣proued her vnworthinesse, or her reseruation, it is not plaine by the authour. The story of Satyrus out of Am∣brose proueth not directly reseruation, for it is like, the Christians being in daunger of shipwrack, did minister the communion in the shippe, & not bring it with them from the shore consecrated. And Satyrus being then but a nouice or Catechumein, and not baptised, desired the sacrament of them, meaning to receiue it before his death, if he sawe present daunger of drowning, otherwise to tarry vntill he were admitted to it, by order of the Church. But this proueth nothing at all the Popishe reseruation, although the fact of Satyrus was not with∣out imperfection, as greatly as it is commended of Ambrose: and much lesse the Carnal presence, For Satyrus, did not so put his affiaunce in the sacrament, that he thought it to be God, but that he desired it as an helpe of his faith, that he might not depart this life with∣out the communion of the body of Christ in the sacra∣ment.

The place of Chrysostome, is nothing at all for re∣seruation,

where he saith, that in a tumult the souldiers rushing into the Churches, The most holy bloud of Christ was shed vpō their clothes. For he must remēber, it was on Easter day, when all the people did communicate, and such as came were baptised. And where he saith, it was Ad vesperū diei, that they did enter, that is, in the afternoone: he must wit, that Chrysostome after the maner of the scripture, calleth y^e morning before day light Vespere Sabbati, & ther¦fore his collection is vaine. But although it were in the afternoone, what inconuenience is it if we say, they spent al the forenoone in prayer, & fasting, and hearing the worde of God, and ministring baptisme, which then was ministred twise a yeare, at Easter, & at Pentecost: and then in the afternoone towarde euening, went to the commu∣nion? Hierome reporteth of Exuperius, that he caried the Lords body in a wicker basket, and his bloud in a glasse. What reseruation is here? M. Heskins saith, he did beare it about with him, but Hieronyme saith not so, except you meane about the Churche, when he ministred the communion. But here Maister Iewel hath a double blow. O cun∣ning Maister of defence. For here is not onely reseruation, bu•• also he calleth it in plaine wordes, the body and bloud of our Lorde. Maister Iewel shal not greatly feele these blowes. To the reseruation I haue saide before, and to the plaine calling of it body and bloud, I say, what other thing is it, then as Maister Iewel himselfe will call it? and worthily: yet no transubstantiation meant by him. But how will Maister Heskins warde these blowes? Exuperius had no hallow∣ed pixes, nor chalices of Golde and siluer, as the Papistes must haue? And Exuperius ministred to the lay people in both kindes, as the Papistes will not do? What hath M. Heskins gayned by Exuperius? But then Eusebius shall help him, for in his 6. booke, and 36. Chapter, is declared, y^t a certeine priest, sent to Serapion (beeing at the point of death) a litle portiō of the Eucharistie in the night season: by which it appeareth, y^t it was reserued. In deed Dionysi∣us bishop of Alexandria writeth so vnto Fabianus Bishop of Rome. But withall he sheweth, that it was no publique

order of the vniuersall Church, but his own commande∣ment vnto his owne Church, that he might not seeme in any point to resemble the Nouatians, which denied re∣conciliation to them that had fallen in persecution: wher∣fore he saith, that although the priest was sicke, and could not come:

Tamen quia pręceptum fuerat a me, vt lapsis in exitu nemo recōciliationis solatia denegaret, & maximè ijs, quos priùs id rogasse constaret, parum &c. Yet because it had beene com∣manded by me, that no man should denie to them that had fallen, the comfort of reconciliation at their depar∣ture, especially to those who were known to haue desired it before, he gaue a litle of the Eucharistie, &c. Whiche wordes M. Heskins hath cleane left out of the text, wher∣by the particular commandemēt of Dionyse is expressed:

and yet it is not proued that the Priest had the sacrament reserued, but it might well be, that he did then consecrate and send him parte, as he should haue done, if he could haue come to the sicke man himselfe for his owne weake∣nes. Last of all he rehearseth the wordes of Cyril Ad Colo∣syrium: I heare that they say, that the mystical blessing, if any rem∣nants thereof remaine vnto the next day following, is vnprofitable to sanctification. But they are madd in so saying, for Christe is not made an other, neither shal his holy body be chaunged, but the ver∣tue of blessing, and the liuely grace do alwayes remaine in him. M. Heskins translateth in illo, in it, as though y^e vertue, & quic∣kening grace were included in the sacrament, which y^e au∣thor saith to remain in Christ. But touching y^e authoritie of this Cyrillus ad Colosyrium, I must admonish the Reader, that these wordes are not to be found in all the workes of Cyrillus that are extant, but is only a patch cited by o∣ther men, y^e whole epistle is not to be found. So y^t we can neither tel whether it were writē by the ancient Cyrillus of Alexandria, or by some late writer of y^t name, nor yet what was y^e argumēt & scope of y^t Epistle. Neuertheles, it semeth to some, y^t he wrote against y^e Anthropomorphits, which thought y^t the body of Christ was corrupted, if the remnants of the sacrament were corrupted: but that Cy∣rillus denieth, because Christ is eternall & incorruptible.

He saith not that the remnantes of the sacrament are so, for that the Papistes confesse to be otherwise, affir∣ming that they ceasse to be the body & bloud of Christ, when the species or kinds of bread and wine are putrified or rotten. But Cyril saith, that vertue, & grace, do alwayes remaine in him, not in that sacrament reserued, which do∣eth corrupt. Finally, he speaketh but of reseruatiō for one day, to the vse of eating, and not of adoration, therefore he speaketh nothing against the challenge, which was not simply of reseruation, but of reseruing the sacramēt to be worshipped. But whereas M. Heskins mainteyneth reser∣uation by dipping of stoales, and linnen clothes in y^e cup, he must remēber that Iulius in his decretal epistles, for∣biddeth that dipping, as diuers counsels also do, which in due place are alledged.

Finally, Origen doth vtterly condemne that abuse of reseruation of the sacrament, affirming that it is in y^e same case, that the sacrifice of the passeouer, and the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing were, of which it was not law∣full to reserue any part, vntill the next mo••ning, there∣fore he saith in Leuit. 7. Ho. 5. Nam & Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat, & dicebat eis, accipite & manducate, non distulit, nec seruari iussit in erasti••um: For that bread, which our Lord gaue to his disciples, and said vnto them, take ye, & eate ye, he deferred not, neither commanded it to be reserued vntill the next day. By which wordes it is manifest, that as he disallowed the reseruation, so was it not in vse in the East Church in his time. And that M. Heskins may be snarled in his owne coarde, he must call to minde, what paines he tooke to proue the Pascall Lambe, to be a fi∣gure of this sacrament, and how earnestly he vrgeth, that the trueth must answere the figure, in all things iustly, in∣so much that he alledgeth this text, that not a iote, or a∣pricke of the law shall passe, vntill all be fulfilled. Nowe of the Pascal lambe, there was an expresse cōmandement, y^t no part of it should be reserued vntill y^e next day: ther∣fore by his owne figures, textes, & manner of reasoning, I conclude, that the sacrament may not be reserued at all.

The fiue and twentith Chapter proueth the same by Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time.* 1.57

For Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time, then sixe hundreth yeares after Christ,* 1.58 we doe not admit their authoritie. But M. Heskins promising Counsells, begin∣neth with the institution of Iustinian, That Monasteries of Virgines should haue libertie to choose a Priest which should bring vnto them the holy Communion. Herevpon he will build reseruation, for they did not celebrate to them (saith he) but they brought it. As though he that bringeth y^e worde of God to thē, doth not preach before them, but bringeth a Sermon in his bosome. But for as much as that decree speaketh not onely of a Priest but also of a Deacon, I can be content to thinke, that he brought the sacrament with him and did not consecrate there, but what maketh this for reseruation to the vse of adoration, which is the mat∣ter in question▪ Or else for an ordinarie custome of reseruation, if the sacrament were brought from the next Church, (where and when it was celebrated) to the Monasterie, not to be hanged vp in a cannopie, but to be receiued presently? But it is a proper reason that M. Hes∣kins vseth: for may be reserued for a short time, why not for a long time? For answere of this, I will referre him to his owne Popish decrees, that forbid such reseruation, for feare of putrifaction and rottennesse. At last commeth the Counsels of Wormes and Remes, in which times it is certaine that great corruptions preuailed in the church: then followeth the Counsell of Laterane commended for generall held Anno. 1215. speaking of the diligent reser∣uation of the sacrament: with much adoe about the au∣thoritie of Counsels But all not worth a rush. The gene∣rall Counsell of Laterane falsified the text of scripture tract to both in wordes and sense, alledging it thus in their second Canon or Chapter against Ioachim Abbas: Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus, that which the father hath giuen me is greater then all. Whereas the trueth of the text is, the father which hath giuē them to me, is gre∣ter then all. A wise and worshipfull Counsel, that can not

confute an errour, but by falsifying of the scripture. And this is the Counsell that first decreed transubstantiation.

Last of all commeth the Counsel of Trent in our days, and that, not so vainely alledgeth of The age of the Nicen Counsell to haue acknowledged reseruation, as M. Heskins im∣pudently affirmeth therevpon, that The Nicen Counsell did ag••••se reseruation. Next he iangleth of the authoritie of the Church, as though what so euer the synagogue of Anti∣christ doth affirme, were the difinition of the Church of Christ. And in the end, he ioyneth an other issue with the proclamer, That if he can bring any plaine scripture, catholique doctour, or counsel, that by expresse wordes forbiddeth reseruation, he will subscribe. For scripture y^e institution, do ye this in re∣membrance of me, proueth the sacrament to be an acti∣on, and not a name of a thing that may be reserued, for euery action is in mouing. Secondly, all Catholique doc∣tours in a manner, and all Counsels generall and prouin∣ciall, that speake of this sacrament, call it Eucharistia, whi∣che is a giuing of thankes, which name can not be rightly applyed to the bread and wine only, but to the whole vse of them according to Christes institution. Thirdly, the expresse decree of Clemens his owne Doctour is against reseruation, alledged in the Chapter next before. Fourth∣ly, Origen in Leuit. Chap. 7. Hom. 6. the place also cyted in the latter end of the 24. Chapter.

* 1.59The sixe and twentith Chapter answereth the cheefe obiection of the aduer••aries.

Our cheefe argument (hee saith) against the reserua∣tion,* 1.60 and our very Achilles against all other rites vsed in the sacraments, is, that in the institution thereof there is no mention made of reseruation. But there he belyeth vs. For we say it is directly against the commaundement of the institution, take and eate, and do this in remembrance of me. I would aske this question of him. Was it lawfull for the Apostles to haue reserued it when Christ cōman∣ded it to be eaten? If he say no, let him shewe me why it is more lawfull nowe to reserue it then it was then: see∣ing

we haue the same commaundement continued, doe this in remembrance of me, that is, take and eate it?

Moreouer, we say it is cleane contrarie to the end and forme of the sacrament, that it should be reserued and caried about to be worshipped. For it is spirituall meate, whose end, vse, and fruit is in eating, not in keeping and carying about, or worshipping. But nowe let vs see Mai∣ster Heskins profound Diuinitie in solution of our ar∣gument. There be three manner of doings as concerning the scripture. One is, to do so much as the scripture biddeth An other, to do against that the scripture biddeth. The third, to do something besides that the scripture biddeth. Concerning the first, hee saith, that As Christ tooke breade and wine, made it his body and bloud, commaunded it to be eaten and dronken in remembrance of him: so he that taketh bread and wine, and doth consecrate it, eat it, and drinke it in remembraunce of his death &c. doth as much as the scripture biddeth him, and is blamelesse in this respect. This is true, and all this doe we in our Church, therefore are we blamelesse by his owne conclusion. But they that be∣ing commaunded to eate, and minister to bee eaten, doe not eate it, nor giue it to be eaten, but keepe it, and hang it vp, doe manifestly breake this commaundement: and so doe the Papiste••. For they doe against that the scrip∣ture biddeth. And whereas he alledgeth the sixt Counsell of Constantinople, reprouing the Armenians for mini∣string with wine without water, it seemeth that both hee and the Counsell forgot his first rule. For they doing as much as they had either example or commaundement, of Christes institution, by his owne rule were in this respect blamelesse. But he addeth, that they in the Counsell al∣ledged the Masse of Saint Iames and Basil, which is vtter∣ly false, for they alledged but the manner of celebration of the mysticall sacrifice set foorth by them, and no Po∣pish Masse. Whether Saint Iames did set foorth any such forme of celebration I will not here dispute, but I am sure there were many thinges intituled to the Apostles, euen while they liued, that were but counterfet, and so I thinke was this, for else it had bene Canonicall scrip∣ture,

and the Churche would not, or should not haue chāged S. Iames his Masse, for Gregories Masse: nor Basil nor Chrysostome, should haue needed to haue made any newe liturgye, if they had bene certaine, that the olde had had the Apostles for their authours and inditers.

But M. Heskins triumpheth vpon the old vsage of the Primitiue Churche, for mixing water with their wine, which we in our celebration obserue not, neither is it any matter that we striue for, but against the necessitie of wa∣ter in the wine. Thē he cauelleth against M. Iewel, For pu∣nishing a Minister of his Dyocesse, that ministred the Communion with Ale, whereas he him selfe doth worse, like the high Priestes, that made no conscience to condemne Christ, but a great matter i•• was with them to put the price of his betraying in the tresurie &c. Where note, that ministring with wine onely, which was Christes institution, is called of him our tradition.

The thirde manner of doing he diuideth into two kindes. When the substaunce being kept, some circum∣stance is altered, or some ceremonie added for decencie. But reseruatiō is no meare circumstance of time, place, or persons, nor yet an indifferent ceremonie, but contrarie to the substance of the institution, and the cōmandement of Christ. For the sacrament was ordeined, only to be eaten and dronken, wherevnto reseruation is contrarie, so was it commaunded to be receiued, therefore ought not to bee reserued, hanged vp, worshipped, &c. And as M. Heskins will ioyne issue, so wil I demurre in law with him and all his fellowes, that Popish reseruation is contrarie to the end of the institution and commaundement of Christe, and nothing like those matters of circumstance where∣with he compareth it, of morning, euening, fasting, after supper, number of persons, or difference of sexe, or any of those kindes. Therefore (he him selfe saith) The Protestants argument of negatiue is eluded, but neuer a wh••t answered or auoyded.

* 1.61The seuen and twentith Chapter, answering other arguments & obiections of the proclamer.

In the beginning of this Chapter, whereas the Bi∣shops challenge was,* 1.62 of hanging vp the sacramente vnder a canopie, meaning reseruation, and setting it vp for ido∣latrous worshipping, for which M. Heskins hath no color in antiquitie, he woulde inforce him to vnderstande his challeng of simple reseruation, or for other vses thē ado∣ration, as to be caried to the sicke, or such as coulde not be present &c. And first he pleadeth possession of nine hundreth yeares, out of which hee shoulde not bee put without reason, but as good a lawyer as hee is, he muste know, that nowe a writ of right being brought against him, prescription of possession will not serue him.

But hee wil giue colour to the plaintife, and apply the reason vsed agaynste priuate masse by the proclamer, to see if it will serue against reseruation. That it is the com∣maundement of Christ Doe this, that is to say, practise this that I haue here done, and that in such forme and sorte as you haue s••ene mee doe it. This exposition hee refuseth as false, con∣cerning the manner and forme: Affirming that the com∣maundement extendeth no further, but to the receiuing of his bodie and bloud, as the substance wherevppon the memoriall shoulde be grounded, without any charge giuen of the manner and the forme. And for proofe of this exposition, hee citeth S. Hieronyme, Chrysostome, Euthymius, Thomas Aqui∣nas, and Hugo Cardinalis, all whiche in deede affirme, that wee are commaunded to celebrate the remembrance of his passion, but none of them exclude the manner and forme of celebration from the commaundement. Howe ••oudenly hath M. Heskins forgotten the strong clubbe of his Logike, whereby hee did euen now, beate downe the proclaymers negatiue argumentes, but now againe they are the best he canne occupie him selfe. Hieronyme, Chrysostome, and the rest speake not of the manner and forme of celebration: therefore there is no necessarie forme to bee obserued, as commaunded by Christ. But as the proclamer hath no authoritie for his expsition, so M. Heskins will bring good reasō against it to proue it false. First he will graunt that the primitiue Church for fiue or sixe

h••ndreth yeares after Christ did minister the sacramentes purely and without the breach of Christes commaundement. Hee will grant for the substance, but not y^t they continued so long without abuse. The assumption of this proposition is, that the Masses vsed in the primitiue Church, varied from Christes institution. As for example, the Masses of S. Iames, Basil, Chrysostome, Ambrose, differed ech from other, and all from Christes institution in forme and manner. It pleaseth him to call the olde liturgies or formes of ministration vsed in diuerse Churches, masses: the diuersitie hee meaneth is in formes of prayers, and circumstances, concerning which Christe gaue no com∣mandement, and therfore, they are contrarie to his in∣stitution.

The seconde reason is of the proclamers owne prac∣tise, who in celebration of this sacramēt vseth other time, other kinde of breade, other garmentes, other number of communicantes then Christe did. But none of these are the forme or matter of the sacrament, and so they touch not the substance. But eating and drinking is of the substantiall forme of the sacrament, and the end of the consecration of the creatures of breade and wine, to the vse of that holy mysterie, against which, not eating is contradiction, and so reseruation is a plaine contra∣diction of the commaundemente of Christ.

An other reason hee hath of admitting an vnworthie person, as Christ did Iudas, which is for all that a mat∣ter of question: and yet nothing to the purpose, if hee were admitted. For Christe knewe him by his diuine na∣ture, before he chose him to bee an Apostle, but in as much as Iudas was an hypocrite, before he was reueled to the iudgement of man, hee was not to be refused. To be short, the substance of the sacrament is not only the hea∣uenly matter thereof, as M. Heskins dreameth, but also the earthly matter and the fourme also. As for circum∣stances and accidentes, that touch neither the forme nor matter, they are to bee applyed to edification, order, & decencie. Cyprian and the fathers in his time, and long

time after, what reason did they vse to confute them that ministred with water, mylke, clusters of grapes, dipping of bread, and linnen cloathes in the wine, and such like? Did they not beate thē down with y^e institution of Christ? For they coulde well inough distinguishe the substance from the accidentes, the matter and forme from the cir∣cumstances.

After this M. Heskins will open a sleight of the pro∣clamer, who confesseth that women in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian did carie home the sacrament to their houses, and recei∣ued a portion therof in the morning, before meat: but he numbreth this custome among abuses, whereas neither Tertullian nor Cypri∣an do directly reproue them: neither do they allow them, by any one worde. But I pray you M. Heskins, if it bee no abuse, that women shoulde carie the sacrament home with them, keepe it in their coffers, and eate it euery mor∣ning next their heart, why doe not you of the Popishe Church continue such an auncient custome? Why haue you abrogated it? and to dissuade them from it, tell tales in you legends and promptuaries, of some that haue car∣ried it home, and founde it turned I cannot tell into what monsters? But peraduenture the vsage of the Church in Iustines time, will prooue it to bee none abuse. For then the sacrament was caried home to them that were absent. And here M. Heskins alleadging Iustines Apollogie, tel∣leth not in whether Apollogie, and setteth downe a forme of wordes, which are not in Iustine, Apoll. 2. where the matter is spoken of, in such forme as he citeth thē: by which once again you may see, that his great reading of y^e doctors was out of other mens notes & collections, & not of his own studie. For it semeth he knew not in which A∣pologie this matter is spokē of, alleging this saying thus, Cum autē is qui praest gratias egerit, & totus populus approhaue∣rit, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 qui vicentur apud nos diaconi, distribuūt vnicui{que}, praesenti••a vt participent de pane, in quo gratiae actae sunt, & de vino & aqua, & his, qui non sunt praesentes, deferunt domū.

Whē he that is chefe hath giuen thankes, and all the people hath consented to it, these that with vs be called deacons, doe distribute of the consecrated

bread, and of the wine and water to euerie one that is present to receiue, and to those that be absente they carie it home. But Iu∣stines owne wordes bee these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

When we haue ended our prayer, there is offered bread and wine and water. And the chiefe minister sendeth forth likewise praiers & thanksgiuing with al his might, and the people giue their consent saying Amen. Then is made distribution and participation of those thinges for which thankes is giuen, vnto euerie one:

And to them that are not present there is sent by the deacons. By these worde•• it can not be proued necessarily, that the sacra∣ment was sente to them that were absent, but rather part of the breade and wine which was offered in greate plentie, the distribution whereof belonged to the Dea∣cons: and immediatly after mentiō is made of the contri∣bution of the richer sorte. But admitte that they did send the sacrament to such as were sicke, or otherwise to ne∣cessarily letted, that they could not be present in bodie, & yet were present in minde, and ioyned in prayer with them, what maketh this for the popishe reseruation to bee worshipped? Euery one that was present there re∣ceiued, onely the Priestes receiueth amongest the Pa∣pistes, and hangeth vp the rest ouer the Altar. But it is a fine reason of M. Heskins, they carried it, therefore they reserued it: if they reserued it an houre, why might they not reserue it as long as they lift? But they caried it y^t it might be receiued presently, they hanged it not vp to bee gazed vppon.

S. Basill also witnesseth, that holy men liuing in the wildernesse did reserue the sacrament in their alter. Omnes in Eremis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vitam agentes, vbi non est Sacerdos, communionem domi ser∣uantes, a se ipsis communicant. All that leade solitarie liues in the wildernesse where there is no Priest, keeping the com••union at home, de receiue it of them selues.

M. Heskins falsifieth the wordes in translation & sayth: they receiued by them selues, as though they receiued it alone. This fragment of Basils Epistle, argueth an ab∣use of the reseruation, but it proueth no hanging vp of the sacrament for adoration. That this was an abuse crept in of superstition, it is manifest, for that it was af∣terwarde by a Godly councell condemned and forbiddē.

Concil. Caesaraugustanum, Capit. 3. Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in ecclesia, anathema sit in perpetuum. Ab vniversis Episcopis dictum est, Anathema sit. If any person be proued after he hath taken the grace or gift of the Eucharistie not to haue spent it in the Church, let him be accursed for euer. All the bishops saide, let him be accursed.

Moreouer, to prooue a thing to be lawfull, by such an vsage, as they them selues confesse to bee vn∣lawfull, what abusing of the simple is it? S. Hierome al∣so in his apollogie against Iouinian, testifyeth that the people of Rome in his time vsed to keepe the sacrament in their houses, and receiue it by themselues. In this place I cannot tel whether I should suspect that which hath often been prooued be∣fore, that M. Heskins cyteth his authorities out of note¦bookes and collections, rather then out of his owne readings, and so knowe not what was Hieroms iudge∣ment of this custome of receiuing at home, or else that of fraude to abuse the reader hee hath concealed it. But y^e matter of trueth is this. There was a custome at Rome, to receiue euery day, which custome Hierome sayth he doth neither allowe, nor reprehende. But hee appealeth to the consciences of those men that had communicated at home, the same day after they had companyed with their wiues, wherefore they durst not go to the Church.

Quare non ingrediuntur ecclesias? an alius in publico, alius in do∣mo Christus est? quod in ecclesia non licet, nec domi licet. Why come they not into the Churches? Is there one Christ in the publike places, another in their priuate house? that which is not lawfull in the Church, is not lawfull in the house. But howe can M. Heskins proue, that the people vsed to keepe the sacrament in their houses, wherof there

is no worde in Saint Hierome?

but rather it is to bee thought, that the Priests did come to them, and minister it in their priuate houses, which Hierome also disallo∣weth. And howe can he prooue, that they did receiue it by them selues? when Saint Hierome sayeth, communi∣cant, they do communicate. The last discourse prouing by authoritie of Saint Augustine, that vniuersall obser∣uations of the Church, where the Scripture commaun∣deth not the contrarie, are to bee holden for lawes, is meerely vaine, seeing he can neuer prooue his reseruati∣on to be catholike or vniuersally allowed and practised of the Church, and we haue proued it, to be contrary to the Scripture.

* 1.63The eight and twentieth Chapter beginneth to speake of the Prophesies, and first of the prophesie of the priesthood of Christe after the order of Melchizedech.

The one halfe of this Chapter is consumed in citing of textes,* 1.64 to proue that Christe is a Priest after the order of Melchizedech: and at length, hee deuideth the Priestes office into two partes, teaching, and sacrificing. Then he affirmeth, that Christ was not a Priest after the order of Aa∣ron, but after the order of Melchizedech. Yet in the ende of the Chapter like a blasphemous dogge, hee sayeth, that Christ executed his priesthood after the order of Aaron vppon the Crosse. Where beside his blasphemie, note how hee a∣greeth with him selfe. But Christ he sayeth, it called a Priest after the order of Melchizedech for the manner of his sacrifice, which maketh the difference betweene the order of Aaron, and the order of Melchizedech. For Aaron offered in bloud, the other in bread and wine. The Apostle to the He∣brues, obseruing many differences, could not finde this. But M. Heskins aunswereth that the cause why the Apo∣stle did leaue out this manner of sacrifice, was, for that his principall purpose was, to shewe the excellencie of Christ and his priesthood, aboue Aaron, and his priesthood, which could not bee by shewing that he sacrificed breade and wine, for the Iewes sacrifi∣ces

were more glorious then bread and wine. By this wise rea∣son, he giueth vs to deeme, that the Apostle of subtiltie suppressed this comparison, because they were weake, as though they knewe not what the sacramentes of the Church were. But if Christe sacrificed his bodie and bloud twise, he could not better haue shewed his ex∣cellencie aboue Aaron, then in declaring, that Christe did not onely offer him self in bloud on the Crosse, but also in bread & wine, after the example of Melchizedech. For if offering of sacrifice were one of the chiefe partes of a Priestes office, and breade and wine had beene the sacrifice of Melchizedech, the Apostle neither would, nor coulde haue dissembled the comparison of his sacri∣fice with the sacrifice of Christe, which would infinite∣ly haue aduaunced his priesthood aboue Aaron. For else the Hebrues, whom M. Heskins imagineth would haue obiected their sacrifices to be more glorious then bread and wine, might more probably haue replyed, that the Apostles compared Melchizedech with Christe in small matters, and omitted the chiefest parte of his office, which was this sacrifice: so that if he were infe∣riour in the chiefe, it was little to excell in the small matters.

But M. Heskins taketh vppon him to aunswere our obiection that we make against this sacrifice of breade and wine, which is this: as the Apostle to the He∣brues speaketh nothing of it, no more doeth Moses in Genesis. For it is sayed there, that Melchizedech bro∣ught foorth breade and wine, but neuer a worde, that he did sacrifice breade and wine. This obiection he wil aunswer, both by scripture and by the eldest learned men of Christes parleament. Concerning the parleament men, as it is true, that many of them did thinke Melchi∣zedech to be a figure of Christ in bringing foorth bread and wine: so when we come to consider their voyces, it shall appeare, that they make little for transubstantia∣tion, or the carnall presence.

But now let vs heare the scripture. The scripture to proue

that Melchisedech did sacrifice this bread and wine saith: that he was a Priest of the most high God, to whome is belon∣geth, not to bring foorth, but to offer bread and wine, so that the verie connexion of the Scripture and dependants of the same, en∣forceth vs to take this sense, and none other can be admitted. This is a verie peremptorie sentence, plumped downe of you M. Heskins, not as from your doctours chaire, but euen as from Apolloes three footed stoole. But if it may please you to heare: is it not also scripture, that he was King of Salem? and wil not the verie connexion and dependance of the Scripture leade vs to thinke, that as an example of his royall liberalitie, he brought foorth bread & wine, to refresh the hungrie and wearie souldiers of Abraham, which being such a multitude, could not easily be proui∣ded for by a priuate man?

And where Moses sayeth, he was a priest of the highest God, hee addeth also an example of his priestly holy∣nesse, that he blessed Abraham, & praysed God, and that Abraham gaue him tythes of al. And lest you should ex∣clame, as your manner is, that this is a newe exposition, Iosephus in the firste booke & tenth Chapter of his

Iewishe antiquities, doth so expounde it: Hic Melchise∣dechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit, nihil eis ad victum deesse passus &c. This Melchisedech gaue verie liberall intertainment to the souldiours of Abraham, & suffe∣red them to want nothing vnto their liuing.

But if M. Heskins wil obiect that Iosephus was a Iewe, then let him heare the author of Scholastica historia a Christian and a Catholike, as M. Heskins will confesse, allowing of the same exposition Chap. 46. in these wordes.

At verò Mel∣chizedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem & vinum: quod, (quasi ex∣ponen•• Iosephus) ait: ministrauit exercitui Xenia, & multam abun∣dantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit, et super epulas be∣nedixit deum qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos. Erat enim sa∣cerdos Dei altissimi. But Melchizedech King of Salem of∣fered vnto him bread and wine, which Iosephus, (as it were expounding of it) sayeth: he ministred to his armie the dueties of hospitalitie, and gaue him great plentie of

things necessary, & beside the feast, or at the feast, he bles∣sed God which had subdued vnto Abraham his enimies. For he was a priest of the high•• so God. Thus farre he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 M. Heskins for his connexion perchaunce will vrge the Coniunction enim, erat enim saterdos, &c. in the vulgar La∣tine text, to make it to be referred to the former clause, but neither the Hebrue, nor the Greeke text hath that Coniunction.

To be short, if the bringing foorth of bread and wine, perteined to his priestly office, there is nothing in the text to expresse his Kingly office: but Mo∣ses, as he calleth him, both a King, and a priest, so doth he distinctly shewe, what he did as a King, and what he did as a Priest. Yet Maister Heskins goeth on, and will proue, That if Christ were a Priest after the order of Melchizedech he of∣fred a sacrifice after that order: but he neuer made any mo oblations then two, the one on the crosse, after the order of Aaron: the other in his last Supper after the order of Melchisedech except we will say that Christe altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God. Marke here (Christian Reader) how many hor∣rible blasphemies, this impudent dogge barketh out a∣gainst our Sauiour Christ, directly contrarie to his ex∣presse worde. First he affirmeth, that Christ made two of∣ferings of himselfe, whereas the holy Ghost saith.

Heb. 9. not that he should oftentimes offer himselfe, as the high priest, &c. For then he should haue suffered oftentimes since the beginning of the world. And Heb. 10. He offered but one sacrifice for sinnes, and is set downe at the right hand of God for euer, &c. For by one only oblation, he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified. And in the same Chapter: where there is forgiuenesse of sinnes, there is no more sacrifice for sinne. Whervpon it follow∣eth that if Christes sacrifice at his supper, tooke away sinnes, he offered no sacrifice vpon the crosse.

Secondly, he affirmeth that Christe was a priest after y^e order of Aaron, which he denied before, and is in plaine wordes denied by the holy Ghost Heb. 7. which place M. Heskins himselfe setteth downe in this Chapter: if per∣fection had beene by the Priesthoode of the Leuites (for

vnder it the law was established to y^e people) what needed it further, that another priest should arise after y^e order of Melchisedech, &c not to be called after y^e order of Aaron.

Thirdly, he affirmeth, that the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse, was after the order of Aaron. Wherevpon it wil follow, that it was not an eternall redemption purchased by it, but transitorie, as the priesthoode of Aaron was. Whereas the holy Ghost saith, that by his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place, and found eternall re∣demption, which could neuer be obteined by any sacrifice after the order of Aaron.

Fourthly, he affirmeth, that Christ altogether neglec∣ted the priesthoode appointed to him of God, except he did offer sacrifice in his supper of bread and wine.

By which, he denieth, that the once offring vp of him∣selfe, by his eternall spirite on the crosse, was any parte of his priesthoode appointed him by God, then the which there can be no more diuelish blasphemie. And yet the beast is not ashamed to challenge and write, If not then •• let the aduersary shewe, when and where Christ did sacrifice after the order of Mechizedech.

Euen then, and there, thou enimie of the crosse of Christ, when and where he was made obe∣dient to the death of the crosse, and hauing learned obe∣dience by the thinges he suffered, he was consecrated, and made the authour of eternall saluation vnto all them that obey him, and is called of God an high priest, after the order of Melchizedech. Heb. 5. Hauing an euerlasting priesthod, by which he is able perfectly to saue them, that come vnto God by him, seeing he euer liueth to make in∣tercession for them. For such an high priest it became vs to haue, which is holy, harmelesse, vndefiled, separated frō sinners, and made higher then the heauens, which needed not daily, as these high Priestes, to offer vp sacrifice, first for his owne sinnes, and then for the peoples: for that he did once when he offred vp himself. Heb. 7. But beside his detestable blasphemies, see his ridiculous vanitie. If the priesthoode of Melchizedech standeth in his offering of bread and wine, then Christ also offered bread and wine,

as he saide before, Christ offered in bread and wine: as Aaron did in bloud.

If bread & wine be Christes offring, or any part of it, then there is bread and wine in the sacrament, & what is becomme of transubstantiation? If there was no bread & wine in y^e sacrifice of Christe, then where is Mel∣chisedeches priesthoode, by his owne diuinitie? Againe, if he say, there be the shewes, or accidents of bread & wine, then Melchizedeches bread and wine, was a figure of the accidents of bread and Wine, & then the figure was bet∣ter, then y^e thing figured, contrarie to his worshipfull rule, giuen in the 15. Chapter. If he say, y^t Melchizedeches bread & wine, figured not the Accidents, but the bread & wine before it be consecrated, then he breaketh his rule once a∣gaine: for Melchizedeches bread, if it were not hallowed, was as good: if it were hallowed, as it was, if it were offred, it was better then y^e vncōsecrated bread & wine. Finally, if he say, it figured, neither y^e vncōsecrated bread & wine, nor the accidents of the same consecrated, but the body and bloud of Christ vnder these accidēts: beside that he makes it a figure of a figure or signe, which he said could not be, he denieth that Christ did that, wherein he affirmed the priesthoode of Melchizedech to stand: namely, that he offred bread and wine. And so thou seest M. Heskins han∣ged in his owne halter.

The nine and twentieth Chapter proceedeth to prooue the same by S. Cyprian, and Isychius.* 1.65

I confessed before, that diuers of the olde fathers, were of opinion, that the bread and wine,* 1.66 which Melchisedech brought forth, was sacrificed by him, and that it was a figure of the sacramēt, which they vnproperly called a sa∣crifice, meaning nothing else, but that it was a holy signe, and a thankesgiuing, offered to God for the passion of Christe: as it is manifest by diuers places in their wri∣tings. But they were farre from those blasphemies, which M. Heskins hath vttered in y^e Chapter before, as to make Christes passion a sacrifice after the order of Aaron, to make Christ offer two sacrifices, and the better sacrifice, y^t was after the order of Melchizedech, in the sacrament, &c.

But now let vs consider the places of Cyprian, whether such poyson may be drawen out of them, as M. Heskins hath sucked out of his own poysoned brayne. The words of the first place are these: The sacraments signified of old, since the time that Melchisedech came forth,* 1.67 & to the sonnes of Abra∣ham that do his workes, the high priest bringeth foorth bread and wine. This (sayth he) is my body. They had eaten and dronken of the same bread, according to the visible fourme, but before those wordes, that common meate, was profitable only to nourish the body. But after it was saide by the Lorde, do this in remembrance, This is my flesh, & this is my bloud. As oftē as it is done with these wordes, and with this faith, that substantiall bread, and cuppe con∣secrated with a solemne blessing, profiteth vnto the life and health of the whole man, being both a medicine, (Et Holocaustum) and a burnt offering, to heale infirmities, and purge iniquities. There is also declared the difference betweene spirituall meate, and corporall meate: namely, that it was one thing that was first set before them, & another thing, which was giuē & distributed by their Maister. First it is graunted, y^t Cyprian thought the bread & wine brought foorth by Melchizedech, to be a figure of the sacrament, and that herein also he resembled the priest∣hoode of Christ, which we are neither afraide, nor abash∣ed to denie, because the Apostle (an older doctor then Cyprian, & such an one as in his writings could not erre) could finde no such resemblance betweene Melchizedech and Christ. Concerning the sacrifice of bread and wine, I wil speake hereafter, in answere to the other places of Cy∣prian. But now let vs examine M. Heskins two notes, for the reall presence, as he calleth it. The first is, that this cōmon meate being consecrated is profitable for the whole man, as a medi∣cine to heale infirmities, and a sacrifice to purge sinnes, but neither our faith in Christ crucified, nor the merites of his passion are the sacrifice, but his very body: therefore this meate is his very body.

The Maior of this argument is ambiguous: and there∣fore it must be distinguished: for this worde sacrifice, is either taken properly, or vnproperly, and figuratiue∣ly: if it be taken figuratiuely for a sacrament, or a memoriall of a sacrifice, as Cyprian meaneth, the pro∣position

is true, but if it be taken for a sacrifice in the proper sense, it is false. For Christe offered but one sa∣crifice, and that but once, neuer to be repeated, which was on the crosse. Nowe, to proue that Cyprian vsed the word sacrifice, vnproperly for this time, I will shewe no more, but his owne word Holocaustum, which signifieth a whole burned sacrifice, for M. Heskins will graunt, that the sa∣crifice of Christ is vnproperly called a burned offering.

The second note that he gathereth, is of the Propertie of this word, Aliud: in the Neuter gender it signifieth an other sub∣stance forsooth: as we may say, Alius pater, alius filius, but not aliud pater, aliud filius. And then the rule is extended to vnum, for Christ saith, ego & pater vnum sumus, & hij tres vnum sunt. This he would beare men in hand, to be the determina∣tion of learned men, and so the bread before consecrati∣on was aliud, that is one substance, but after consecration it is aliud, that is an other substance, and so the body of Christe. This is an high point in a lowe house, but the young pettites in the Grammer schoole, can teach him that aliud in the Neuter gender put absolutely, must bee resolued into alia res, an other thing, and so doth Maister Heskins him selfe translate it. And Cyprian sheweth what other thing it is, after consecration, when he saith: here is declared the difference betweene the spirituall meate and the corporall meate, namely that it was one thing when it was first set before them, that is corporall meate, and an other thing which was giuen by their mai∣ster, namely spirituall meate. The same substance re∣maining, it is spirituall meate that before was cor∣porall meate: as in baptisme the same substaunce of water remayning, it is a spirituall lauer, that before was a corporall lauer. This is the greate diuinitie of aliud and aliud. But I maruell that Maister Heskins, which seeth such high mysteries, in aliud, can not see that Cyprian saith, they did eate of the same breade before, after the visible forme, which they did afterward eate, be∣ing conuerted into spirituall meate, so that it was the same breade before and after, although it had nowe a

newe vertue giuen it by the wordes of Christ, to nourish the whole man, which before nourished only the body.

The next place which he alledgeth out of Saint Cypri∣an is Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecitium. Where he leaueth out the be∣ginning of the matter, bicause it expoundeth all the rest of the place against him: but I will be so bold as to add it for the better vnderstanding of S. Cyprian, and the dis∣charging him of M. Heskins blasphemies.

Item in sacerdo∣te Melchisedech sacrificij dominici sacramentum praefiguratum vi∣demus, secundùm quod scriptura diuina testatur & dicit: & Mel∣chisedech &c. Also in the Priest Melchisedech we see that the sacrament of our Lordes sacrifice was prefigured, ac∣cording to that the scripture testifieth, and saith.

And Mel∣chisedech king of Salem brought foorth bread and wine, and he was a Priest of the highest God, and blessed Abraham. And that Mel∣chisedech did beare the figure of Christ, the holy Ghost declareth in the Psalmes, saying in the person of the father vnto the sonne: Be∣fore the day starre I haue begotten thee. The Lorde hath sworne, and it shall not repent him, thou art a Priest for euer after the or∣der of Melchisedech; which order verily is this comming of that sa∣crifice, and from thence descending, that Melchisedech was a priest of the most high God, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham. For who is more the priest of the highest God then our Lord Iesus Christ, which offered vp a sacrifice to God his father▪

And offered the selfe some thing that Melchisedech offered, that is, bread and wine, euen his body and bloud. And concerning Abra∣ham, that blessing going before, perteined to our people. For if Abraham beleued God, and it was imputed to him for rightuousnesse: so likewise who so euer beleueth God liueth also by faith, is found righteous, and long agoe shewed to be blessed and iustified in faithfull Abraham, a•• S. Paule the Apostle proueth, saying: Abraham belee∣ued God, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse. Ye knowe therefore, that they which are of faith, euen they are the sonnes of Abraham. Wherefore the scrip∣ture foreseeing that God iustifieth the Gentiles by faith, foreshewed to Abraham, that all nations should be bles∣sed in him. Therefore they that are of faith, shall be blessed

with faithfull Abraham. Wherevpon in the Gospell we find that many are raised vp of stones, that is, y^t the sonnes of Abraham are gathered of the Gentiles. And when the Lord praised Zacheus, he answered and saide, This day is saluation happened to this house, bicause this man is also made the sonne of Abraham. Therefore that in Genesis the blessing about Abraham might duely be celebrated by Melchi∣sedech the priest, the image of the sacrifice goeth before, ordeined in bread and wine.

Which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling, of∣fered bread and the cup mixed with wine, and he that was the ful∣nesse, fulfilled the truth of the image that was prefigured. Thus much Cyprian. In cyting this place, note what falshood M. Heskins vseth: first of all he leaueth out the beginning, where Cyprian calleth the supper, the sacrament of the Lordes sacrifice, by which it is plaine what he meaneth, when he calleth it afterward, an oblation or sacrifice. Se∣condly he falsifieth his wordes, where Cyprian saith, Fuit autem sacerdos, that is, and he was a Priest, Maister Heskins chaungeth it into Fuit enim sacerdos, for hee was a Priest. Thirdly, where Cyprian compareth Christ to Melchise∣dech in three thinges distinctly, in that he was the Priest of the highest GOD, in that he offered breade and wine, and in that hee blessed Abraham, shewing, that Christe was the Prieste of the highest GOD, when hee offered his sacrifice to his father, meaning in his passion▪ that hee offered breade and wine as he did, meaning in his supper: and last of all, that he blessed his people as Melchisedech did Abraham. Maister Heskins confoundeth the first with the second, by putting out the interrogatiue point, that is after obtulit, and ioyning the next sentence to it, and the last he omitteth, by cutting off the dicourse that Cyprian maketh thereof. As though Cyprian had spoken of no resemblance of Melchisedech vnto Christe, but in offering bread and wine, as he before saide most blasphe∣mously, that the execution of that Priesthoode lay onely therein.

But now let vs looke to his collectiōs out of this place. First that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ. That shall easi∣ly▪

he graunted. Secondly, that Melchis••dech was a figure of Chris•• in three pointe••, and the•• the Authour doth applie them all to Christ, namely a Priest of the highest GOD, in offering sacri∣fice to his father, and that he offered the very same that Melchise∣dech did, which was bread and wine. But these two Master Hes∣kins▪ you would make all one, when you expound the sa∣crifice that he offered to his father, to bee the bread and wine that he offered in the supper, and so there shall not be three pointes. Besides that you are enforced to confesse that Christ offered bread and wine to his father, the very same that Melchisedech did offer, which I am sure was no accidents, and so you doe flatly ouerthrowe your owne dearling, transubstantiation. Your next cauil is of obi••••∣lie & protulie whereas both the text and Cyprian haue pro∣tili•• he brough•• foorth, although he seemeth to thinke, that he brought it out eo offer. And therefore to the impu∣dencie that you charge your aduersaries withall, will sit still in your owne brasen forehead.

For although he thin∣keth that Melchisedech offered the bread and wine, which he brought foorth, yet he cyteth the scripture truly: And Melchisedech brought foorth bread and wine, and he was a priest of the highest GOD: which you haue most im∣pudently falsified, as I shewed before, saying, for he was a Priest.

Your third glose you bring to proue, that the sacrifice which Christ offered, was but on the crosse, but at the sup∣per is, that the image of the sacrifice went before, which the Lord perfected and fulfilled, offering bread and the cup mixed with wine. An•• though that sacrifice may not be referred to his sacrifice on the crosse, bicause y^e image thereof was ordeined in bread and wine, and yet he ful∣filled the trueth of the prefigured image; when hee offe∣red bread and wine in the supper, as a sacrament of that sacrifice which he offered on the crosse, as Cyprian in the first sentēce of this place, doth cal it.

And for most cleare demonstratiō, that Cyprian by sacrifice meaneth a sacra∣ment, signe, and memorial of the passion of Christ, & not a sacrifice properly, consider his owne wordes in the same

Epistle. Et quia passionis eius mentionē in sacrifioijs omnibus faci∣nous, (pastio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud, quàm quod ille fecit, facere debemus. And because wee make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices (for the sacri∣fice which wee offer is the Lordes passion) wee ought to doe nothing, but that he did him selfe. This one place will aunswere all that can bee brought out of Cyprian, or any olde doctour for the sacrifice of the Lords supper.

The sacrifice which wee offer, is the Lordes passion (sayth Cyprian) what, was Christe crucified in their sacrifices? or were their sacrifices nothing els but a sacramēt of thankes giuing for the passion of Christe? You see by this place howe vnproperly they spake, but yet so as of reasona∣ble men they might well inough bee vnderstoode, and they them selues do often expounde them selues. Wher∣fore thou seest (reader) what iniurie the papistes doe vn∣to y^e doctors, when they faine such monsters to be begot∣ten by them, while they interprete literally, which the doctors did write figuratiuely.

But to y^e testimonie of Isychius, which is a curious alle∣gorie of sacrifices, wherin no merueyle,* 1.68 if he vse the name of sacrifice figuratiuely or vnproperly, his wordes are these. And what is this sacrifice? Two tenth deales of fine flower sprinkeled with oyle. For w••e must knowe to contemper the perfect manhoode and the perfecte Godhood, that it, to come together into one in oyle, that is, by that comparison which hee hath to∣warde vs. For so the sacrifice is founde a sweete sauour to our lord, when wee vnderstande of him thinges that bee worthie. In what thinges the sacrifice whiche is the oblation of the intelligible lambe, is, and by whome it is done, howe it is celebrated, that whiche fol∣loweth declareth. For neither by vnreasonable beastes doth God receiue sacrifice of vs, as the wordes that followe-doe plainely shewe ••or, hee saith, and the drinke offering of it, shall bee of wine, the fourth part of an Hi••, bread & Polentant (M. Heskins calleth it) parched corne. Because peraduenture it might haue been doubtfull by whome the mysterie of the sacrifice, (whiche is by Christs, that wee spake of before) is celebrated: behold thou hast the oblation of intelligible. Melchisedech which is perfourmed in

breade and wine, in which the fourth parte of an Him is offered in drinke offeringes of wine, that by the fourth part hee might signi∣fie the tradition or deliuerie of the Gospell which is in foure bookes▪ by the drinke offering, the Lordes worde, when hee saith, This is my bloude which shall bee shedde for you: for it seemed good to the lawe giuer without diminishing to signifie the mysterie of Christe.

And then againe hee saith: The oblation of these present giftes which we haue shewed to bee the mysterie of the onely be∣gotten sonne, hath reconciled vs to God, and giuen vs the meate of the newe parched corne. Nowe to M. Heskins collections, Wee must learne here, that Melchisedech did not only bring forth, but also offer bread and wine. In deed wee learne that Isychi∣us thought so: And that Christ the intelligible Melchisedech did sacrifice in breade and wine. Yea, but this sacrifice was a mysterie of that sacrifice, whiche hath reconciled vs to God, for so saith Isychius also, and that no man offered this sacrifice but hee himselfe, for that hee saith also. Reade ouer the place if you doubte of my collection. By which it is plaine, it was not the sacrifice of the masse that euerie hedge priest may offer. But that wee shoulde not say that it was bare breade that hee sacrificed, he sheweth what breade it was, saying, by the drinke offering hee woulde signifie that of which hee saide, this is my bloude. See this impudent falsa∣rie: the writer saith, hee woulde signifie Dominician ser∣monem, the Lordes worde, and hee saith, that of which he saide &c. Where is then the breade that the mysterie might bee fullie signified? Is it not that which he calleth the tradition of the Gospell which is in foure bookes? I dispute not howe well he applyeth these thinges, but it is more then manifest, that he speaketh so figuratiuely, that no argument can be fastened of his wordes, for the carnal presence. And whereas M. Heskins shrinketh in his hornes about the oblation of bread and wine, saying it was not bare breade, but he sheweth what bread it was. Let him aunswere me plainly, if he dare for his eares. Was it verie bread and wine, which Christ did sacrifice or no? If he say, it was verie bread and wine, then he denyeth transubstan∣tiatiō.

If he say it was not verie bread & wine which Christ

did sacrifice, then he denyeth y^e resemblance vnto Melchi∣sedechs sacrifice, and hath Cyprian against him, who as we heard before, saith, Obtulit hoc idem, quod Melchisedech ob∣tulerat, id est, panem & vinum, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinē. He offered y^t selfe same thing y^t Melchisedech had offered, that is to say, bread & wine, euen his body & bloud. Note here that Melchisedech and Christ offering both the verie selfe same thing, they both offered bread and wine: and likewise they both offered the body and bloud of Christ.

Whereby not onely transubstantiation, but also the car∣nal presence is vtterly ouerthrowne. And to presse him harder by his owne weightes, euen to death, If aliud signi∣fie an other substance, as he taught vs before, then hoc idem, signifieth the same substance, and much rather. Therefore wh••n Cyprian saith that Christ offered hoc idem quod Mel∣chisedech, it followeth that Melchisedech offered the same substance which he expoundeth bread and wine, his body and bloude. And this two forked reason, will hold down all the papistes noses to the grindstone, that they shall not be able to auoide it for their liues.

The thirtieth Chapter treateth of the same matter by S. Hiero∣nyme and Theodoret.* 1.69

The place of Hieronyme which M. Heskins doth so triumph vpon, is vpon the 110. Psalme,* 1.70 but those cōmenta∣ries, both by Erasmus and by Bruno Amerbachius, are vt∣terly denyed to be Hieronymes doing. But seeing they be falsly intituled to him, we are cōtent to take this place, as thogh it were Hieronymes writing in deed. The words vpon the fourth verse are these. It is superfluous for vs to goe about to make an exposition of this verse, seeing the holy Apostle to the Hebrues hath most fully treated thereof. For hee saith, this is Mechisedech without father, without mother, without genera∣tion. And of all ecclesiastical men it is said, that he is without father as concerning the flesh, and without mother as concerning his god∣head. This only therefore let vs interpret: thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech, let vs only see wherfore he said, after the order. After the order: that is, thou shalt not be a priest according

to the sacrifices of the Iewes: but thou shalt be a prieste after the order of Melchisedech: For as Melchisedech kinge of Salem of∣fered breade and wine: so shalt thou offer thy bodie and thy bloud, true bread and true wine. This Melchisedech hath giuen vs these mysteries which we haue. He it is that hath saide, he that shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloude. Hee hath deliuered to vs his sacrament according to the order of Melchisedech. What can be saide more plainely in exposition of this writer, then that hee him selfe saith? that hee hath giuen vs these my∣steries, that he hath deliuered to vs his sacrament after the order of Melchisedech, by which he expresseth, what his meaning was by offering his bodie and bloud, verie bread and verie wine, or true bread and true wine, not in the proper sence of a sacrifice, but in a mysterie, in a sacramēt. But nowe let vs see howe M. Heskins insulteth vppon vs, for this counterfete Hieronyme. First that he taketh vpon him to expound, that which was left vnexpounded by the Apostle to the Hebrues, namely that Christ was a prieste, which is altogether false, for the Apostle doth not one∣ly speake of his eternall priesthood, but also of his one oblation, by which hee purchased eternall redemption. And although this writer doth refer his order to the simi∣litude of his sacrifice in bread and wine, yet both the pro∣phet in the psalme, and the Apostle to the Hebrues doe sufficiently declare, that the excellencie of Melchisedechs order doth consiste in this, that he was both a Kinge and a Priest, and so a liuely figure of the reall priesthoode of our sauiour Christ.

But whereas M. Heskins will controle not only vs, but euen his owne vulgare interpretation of the bible, which saith not, obtuli•• hee offred, but protulit hee brought forth, by authoritie of this Hieronyme, who (hee saith) both knewe the olde testament and vnderstoode the Hebrue tongue, he bewrayeth his owne weaknesse, and sheweth, how good a reader he hath been of Hieroms works, when he knoweth not what the true Hieronyme himselfe wri∣teth of this matter in his Epistle to Enagrius, in which, setting downe the verie Hebrue text:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth thus expound it: Et Melchizedech rex Salem protulit panem & vinum. Erat autem sacerdos Dei exelsi. And Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, and he was a priest of the high God. The same word protulit hath Ambrose, de mysterijs initiandis, and Augustine vppon the title of the 33. Psalme, and Cyprian as we heard in the last Chapter lib. 2. Epi 3. ad Caecilium.

Besides this Hierome in the same Epistle sheweth, that the best learned of the Hebrues iudgement, was, that Melchizedech victori A∣braham obuiam processerit, & in refectionem tam ipsius, quàm pugnatorum ipsius, panes vinum{que} protulerit. Melchizedech came forth to meete Abraham the conquerour, and for refection as well of him, as of his warriours, brought forth breade and wine. And concerning the order of Melchizedech, he saith, that the Greeke writers inter∣pret it many wayes.

As for example, that he alone was both a King and a Priest: and that he was a Priest before circumcision: that he was not annoynted with the oyle of the Priestes, but with the oyle of gladnesse: that hee offered not sacrifices of flesh and bloud, and tooke not the bloud of beastes and their bowels, and what soeuer is in them more then meate: Sed pane & vino simplici puro{que} sacrificio, Christi dedicauerit sacramentum, but with breade & wine being a simple and pure sacrifice, he dedicated the sacrament of Christ. This the true Hierome writt, and yet in the ende, will determine nothing of his owne iud∣gement.

But M. Heskins repeting againe a parcell of Cyprians saying, vttered in the Chapter before: Who is more proper∣ly the Priest of the high God, then our Lord Iesus Christe, which offered a sacrifice to God his father? and offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech had offered, that is, bread and wine, euen his bodie and bloud, compareth it with this saying of Hie∣rome: As Melchizedech offered bread and wine so shalt thou of∣fer thy bodie and thy bloud, the true breade and the true wine.

And not content with this, hee noteth in the margent a plaine place for M. Iuel. Howe plaine it is to confute

M. Heskins, I haue shewed abundantly in the last part•• of the Chapter next before this, whether I remit the rea∣der, and passe to Theodoret, who in his second dialogue writeth thus. Godly Moses writing the olde genealogie hath taught vs, that Adam, when hee was thus many yeres old begat Se••h, and when he had liued so many yeres, he made an ende of his life. Euen so also he sayth of Seth and Enos with other. As for the beginning of the generation of Melchizedech, and the ende of his life he ouerpasseth it in silence. Wherefore, if the historie bee looked on, he hath neither beginning of dayes, nor end of life. So in deede the sonne of God neither hath beginning of his being, nei∣ther shall haue ending. Therefore in these most great and verie diuine things was Melchizedech a figure of Christ our Lord. And in his priesthood, which agreeth rather to man then to God, our Lord Christ was an high Priest after the order of Melchizedech. For Melchizedech was an high Priest of the Gentiles. And our Lord Christ offered a holy and healthfull sacrifice for all men. If I sayde neuer a word (as I neede not to say many) yet the indifferent reader would see, that here is no comparison of Melchizedechs bread and wine with the sacrament of the Lordes supper. Yea, he would easily see, that he spea∣keth of the sacrifice of his death which our sauiour offe∣red for all men, both Iewes and Gentiles. And much more plainly by that place which M. Heskins addeth out of the first dialogue. If therefore it appertaineth to Priestes to offer giftes, and Christ concerning his humanitie is called a Priest, he offered none other sacrifice but his owne bodie. This spea∣keth Theodoret expressely of the true sacrifice of his death, and not of the fained sacrifice of his supper, nor yet of any sacrament or figure of his onely true sacri∣fice, which the olde writers (as I shewed before) do often call a sacrifice, oblation, burnt offring, &c: But that M. Heskins cannot gaine by the doctours wordes, he will winne by reason. First, if wee denye that Melchizedech was a figure of Christe his Priesthood, saying, he was a figure onely of his eternitie, then wee ioyne with Euty∣ches, who graunted the diuinitie of Christe, and denyed his humanitie, vnto which his priesthood properly per∣teyned.

But who tolde M. Heskins, that wee denye Melchizedech to be a figure of Christs Priesthood? when wee most constantly affirme, that he was a figure of his eternall Priesthood, vnlesse Maister Heskins thinke the humanitie of Christe, hauing once conquered death, is not nowe euerlasting. It is not our exposition, that mainteineth the heresie of Eutyches, that the nature of Christes bodie is absorpt into the diuinitie, but it is your heresie of vbiquitie and carnall presence (Maister Heskins) that mayntaineth it most manifestly in verie deede, though in wordes you will say the contrarie.

But Maister Heskins followeth his reason, and vrgeth vs, that it is the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice, where∣fore, if Christe resemble Melchizedech in Priesthood, he must resemble him in sacrifice, and that is the sacrifice of breade and wine, for other sacrifice wee reade none that Melchizedech offered. I aunswere, as wee reade of none other, so wee read not in the Scripture one worde of that sacrifice of breade and wine, as hath beene often declared at large. And seeing the scripture expresseth not what sacrifice Melchizedech offered, wee are content to be ignorant of it, satisfying our selues with so much as the scripture affirmeth, that Christ offering him selfe once for all on the Crosse, was in the same called a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech, as wee haue shewed at large before out of Hebr. 5. & 7.9.10.

But it is a sport to see, how M Heskins skippeth to & fro, as it were one whipped at a stake, when hee woulde reconcile his transubstantiation, with this counterfet sa∣crifice of breade and wine. Christe sacrificed in breade and wine. In breade and wine I say, a kinde of foode more excellent then the breade and wine that did figure it, I meane with Theo∣doret and Hierome the true bread and wine, that is the bodie and bloud of Christ, that is to say, no bread nor wine. But if you giue him a lash on the other side, and saye: if Christ sacrificed not naturall bread & wine, then he answered not your fi∣gure, he wil leap to the other side, & say with Cyprian, &

Isychius, that Christe offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech did, and in one place he sayeth, he occupy∣ed bread and wine in his sacrifice: so did he a table and a cuppe, and other things, but was any thing his sacrifice that he occupyed therein, sauing onely that which he of∣fered? he will say no. Did he offer bread and wine? hee dare not aunswer directly, and so the poore man to vp∣holde two lyes, the one contrarie to the other, is misera∣bly tormented.

* 1.71The one and thirtieth Chapter concludeth this matter of Mel∣chizedech by S. Augustine and Damascene.

* 1.72S. Augustine is alledged vppon the 33 Psalme, whose wordes are these: The sacrifices of the Iewes were before time, after the order of Aaron, in offrings of beastes, and that in a my∣sterie. The sacrifice of the bodie and bloud of our Lord, which the faithfull, and they that haue read the Gospell do knowe, was not yet, which sacrifice is nowe diffused throughout all the worlde. Set before your eyes therefore two sacrifices, both that after the order of Aaron, and this after the order of Melchizedech. For it is wri∣ten, the Lord hath sworne, and it shall not repent him. Thou art a Priest for euer, after the order of Melchizedech. Of whom is it saide, thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech? of our Lord Iesus Christ. For who was Mel••hizedech? The King of Salem And Salem was that Citie which afterward (as the learned haue declared) was called Hierusalē. Therefore, before the Iewes reigned there, this Melchizedech was Priest there, which is written of in Genesis, the Priest of the high God. He it was that mett Abraham when he deliuered Loth from the hande of his per∣secutors and ouerthrewe them of whom he was helde, and deli∣uered his brother. And after the deliuerie of his brother, Melchi∣zedech mett him (so great was Melchizedech of whom Abraham was blessed) he brought forth breade and wine and blessed Abra∣ham. And Abraham gaue him rythes. See ye what he brought forth, and whome he blessed? And it is sayed afterwarde: Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech. Dauid sayed this in the spirite, long after Abraham. Nowe Melchize∣dech was in the time of Abraham. Of whome sayeth he in an••∣••her

place▪ Thou ar•• a Priest for euer after the order of Melchize∣dech, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of him whose sacrifice you knowe? Here saith Maister Heskins, is sacrifice auouched, and the sacrifice of the bo∣dy, and bloud of our Lorde: who saith nay? But this is not the sacrifice of the masse, but the sacrifice of CHRISTES death, whereof the holy sacrament is a memoriall.

But Augustine saith farther: The sacrifice of Aaron is taken away, and them beganne the order of Melchizedech. Very well, but once againe this sacrifice is the sacrifice of Chris∣tes death, the remembraunce whereof is celebrated in the Lordes Supper: where let the Reader obserue, that he doeth yet againe denie the sacrifice of Christes passion, to be a sacrifice, after the order of Melchizedech, contra∣rie to the expresse worde of God; & affirmeth that it was after the order of Aaron, saying, that The sacrifice af∣ter the order of Melchizedech, was onely as the Supper.

Here note that he maketh the sacrament more excellent then the sacrifice of Christes death, by so muche, as the Priesthoode, and sacrifice of Melchisedech, is more excellent then the sacrifice, and priesthoode of Aaron. But Augustine hath more yet, if it will helpe, vpon the same Psalme. Con. 3. Before the kingdome of his father, he chaunged his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and left him, and went his way: because there was the sacrifice, according to the order of Aaron: And afterwarde he himselfe by his body and bloud, instituted a sacrifice, after the order of Melchizedech. Therefore he chaunged his countenance in the priesthoode, and left the nation of the Iewes, and came to the Gentiles. By this we must needes vnderstand, that Christe did institute a sacrifice of his body and bloud, after the order of Melchizedech. Yea verily. But howe doe wee vnderstand, that this was in the sacrament? Therefore for any thing that is here shewed, it is no slaunder that the Pope hath turned the holy sacrament into a sa∣crifice, to obscure the glorie of Christe, and his onely sacrifice, once offered on the crosse. For although the Fathers did sometimes call the sacrament, a sacrifice, yet they meant nothing but a memoriall, or sacrifice of

thankesgiuing, for that one sacrifice, offered once, on the crosse for the redemption of the whole worlde. Whereof none other shalbe a better witnesse, then Augustine him∣selfe, and in his exposition of this selfe same Psalme:

Sa∣ginantur ergo illo Angeli sed semel ipsum exinaninit, vt manduca∣ret panem angelorum home: formam serui accipiens in simili∣tudinem hominum factus: & habitu inuentus vt homo. The Angels therefore are fead with that bread (meaning the diuinitie of Christe) But he emptied himselfe, that man might eate the bread of Angels, taking the shape of a ser∣uant, beeing made like vnto men, and in his habite was found as a man. Humilianit se factus obediens, vs{que} ad mortem, mortem autem crucis, vt iam de cruce commendar••tur nobis car•• & sanguis Domini 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sacrificium: quia mutauit vultum suum coram Abimelech, id est, eoram regno patris. He humbled him∣selfe and was made obedient to the death, euen the death of the crosse, that now the body and bloud of our Lorde might be commended to vs from the Crosse, beeing the new sacrifice, because he chaunged his countenaunce be∣fore Abimelech, that is, before the kingdome of his Fa∣ther.

By this it is manifest, that Augustine referred the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, vnto the crosse of Christ, whereof we are made partakers in the holy myste∣ries of his blessed supper. So that as well, the body and bloud of our Lorde, as the newe sacrifice in those myste∣ries are commended to vs, to be participated from the crosse, where they were truely and essentially offered vn∣to God by the eternall spirite of our sauiour Christ, wher∣by he procured euerlasting redemption.

The same Augustine in his Ep. 23. to Bonifacius. Non∣ne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso, & tamen in suet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non sobèr•• per omnes paschę solennitates, sed omni die populi•• im∣molatur, nec vbi{que} mentitur, qui interrogatus eum respondarit im∣molari? Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem ••arum rerum quarū sacramenta sūt non haberēt, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex haec autem similitudine plerun{que} etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt.

Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum, sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi,

sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est.

Was not Christe once onely offered vppe by himselfe? And yet in a sacrament▪ not onely at euery solemnitie of Easter, but euerie day he is offered for the people, neither doeth he lye, which being asked the question answereth that he is offered. For if sacraments had not a certeine similitude of those thinges, whereof they are sacramentes, they should not be sacramentes at all. And of this similitude oftentimes they take the names euen of the very thinges themselues. Therfore, as after a certeine maner the sacra∣ment of y^e body of Christ, is the body of Christ, the sacra∣ment of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ: so the sacrament of faith is faith. What can be vttered more plainely, either against the Popishe sacrifice, or against their carnal presence?

This one place may expound what∣soeuer in Augustine, or any other olde writer is spoken of the sacrifice of the Lordes supper, and of the presence of Christes body and bloud therein.

After Augustine M. Heskins citeth Chrysostome in Mat. 26. to proue that the sacrament is now of the same force that it was, when it was first ordeined by Christe at his last supper. These workes are not of mans power, what thinges he did then in that supper, he himselfe doth nowe worke, he himselfe doeth make perfect. We holde the order of Ministers, but it is he himselfe, that doeth sanctifie and chaunge these thinges. With my disciples (saith he) doe I keepe my Passeouer. For this is the same table, and none other. This is in nothing lesser then that. For Christ maketh not that table, and some other man this, but he himselfe maketh both.

Hieronyme followeth a vaine discourse, against, I wote not what Petrobrusians, and Henricians, that denied the body of CHRISTE to be consecrated, and giuen by the priestes, as it was by Christe him selfe: Whome peraduenture Petrus Cluniacensis, Maister Heskins Author, doeth slaunder, when they saide none otherwise, then Chrysostome saide before, and that which Maister Hes∣kins himselfe affirmeth, That Christ and not man doth conse∣crate: But by this place also are confuted the Oecolampa∣dians,

and Caluinistes, if we will beleeue Maister Hes∣kins: who first rauing against Cranmer, vrgeth the worde of sanctification of the bread and wine, that Chry∣sostome vseth, charging Cranmer to haue saide, that the creatures of bread and wine cannot be sanctified. Which no doubt, that holy Martyr spake of the substance, and not of the vse in the sacrament. Then he snatcheth vppe Chrysostomes wordes, Transmutat, he doeth transmute, and change them. This is easily aunswered. He chaungeth the vse, but not the substance. But for more confirmation, O∣rigen is called to witnesse Lib. 8. Cont. Celsum: We obeying the creator of all thing••s, after we haue giuen thankes for his be∣nefites, which he hath bestowed vpon vs, doe eate the bread which is offered which by prayer and supplication is made into a certeine holier bodie, which truly maketh them more holie, which with a more sound minde do vse the same. Here by Origens playne wordes, the vse doth sanctifie the worthie receiuers. And though you adde to Ambrose his phrase De pane fit corpus Christi, of the bread is made the body of Christ, yet the inter∣pretation of spirituall receiuing, which both Origen and Ambrose doe at large testifie, (as in due place hath and shall be more declared) doeth take away your grosse imagination. And that you doe not reiect the spi∣rituall receiuing in the sacrament, you doe well: but you doe fondely, when you oppose it against reall recey∣uing, where you should say corporall or carnall, for Spiritus & Res be not opposite, but Spiritus & Car••, or Cor∣pus, are.

And here I would haue the Readers to note, how Maister Heskins confesseth, that The receiuing of Christe really, (whiche is all that he striueth for) profiteth not, without the receiuing of him spiritually. But it is certeine by the scripture, that the spirituall receiuing profiteth without that, which he calleth the real receiuing. For Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith. And whereas he saith No man can receiue Christ spiritually, which beleeueth not that he receiueth him really: I demaund of him, whether in∣fants, and such as dye without the participation of the sa∣crament

may not receiue Christe spiritually, without re∣ceiuing of him corporally? He must needes answere, yea, or else by Christes word they haue no part of eternal life: and then his assertion is false. If I should obiect the fa∣thers of the olde testament, who did all eate Christ spiri∣tually, before he had a naturall body, perhaps he would answere, that he speaketh of men in these dayes. But seing the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. saith, they receiued the same spiri∣tuall meat and drinke that we do, euen Christ, it is mani∣fest, that Christ both now & then is eaten spiritually on∣ly, and not carnally.

To match with Augustine, for default of a Lorde of the higher house, he bringeth in Damascene a Burgesse of the lower house, whose authoritie although I do little e∣steeme, yet will I set downe his wordes, that you may see, how little helpe he hath out of them, but by racking and wresting. Melchisedech with bread & wine did receiue Abraham returning frō the slaughter of the strāgers,* 1.73 which was a priest of the highest God. That table did prefigurate this mysticall table, as that priest bare the figure and image of Christ the true priest. Thou art (saith he) a priest after the order of Melchisedech.

First Damascene is plaine, that Melchisedech did not offer bread and wine, but he did entertain Abraham ther∣with at his table, & that Melchisedechs feast was a figure of Christes feast, but not of his sacrifice, which is the mat∣ter in controuersie. But you shal see how M. Heskins set∣teth his words on the tenter, to stretch them to a sacrifice. I wold that the aduersarie did note, that the table of Melchisedech, which al men of learning do know, is taken for the sacrifice. Who shall be able to stand before M. Heskins, which hath the iudgement of all men of learning on his side? Yea and y^t which is more▪ S. Paule taketh it so: ye cannot be partakers of the table of God, and the table of diuels also, that is, of that which was offered to God, & of that which was offred to diuels. O lear∣ned expositiō! But he must remember that S. Paul repro∣ueth not the Corinthians for offring sacrifice to the idols, but for sitting downe at the feastes, in whiche that meate that had bene offered was eaten. So that a table is still a

table, and for a feast, not for a sacrifice. The conclusion of this chap, if he durst openly vtter it, containeth a most dete∣stable blasphemie: namely, that euery hedge Priest, that saith Masse, is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech. As though Christs Priesthood could not be perpetual, except it were cōtinued by succession of y^t greasie order of shaue∣lings, wheras it is expresly said Heb. 7. that his Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, resteth only in his owne person, bicause he liueth for euer, and that it can not passe by succession. Vpon which place (to cōclude this mat¦ter) and the Papists own graunt, I will reason thus. Christs Priesthoode after the order of Melchisedech, resteth in his owne person, and passeth not by succession: The Popish Priesthood consisting in the sacrifice of bread and wine, is continued in the world by succession: therfore the Popish Priesthood consisting in the sacrifice of breade & wine, is not the Priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedech.

* 1.74The 32 Chapter to proue the sacrifice of our shewe bread, to be a continuall sacrifice, as the old shew bread was, alledgeth the prophe∣sie of Daniel, and reiecteth the false expositions of the aduersaries.

The shew bread is here brought in for a meere shew, for there is no matter at all in it for his purpose,* 1.75 except it be this, y^t he saith The reseruation of that bread was a figure of the reseruation of their blessed bread. Which if it be true, it is not lawful for y^e priest to eat his cōsecrated hostes, vntill they be a seuen nights old. For the shew bread, was of necessitie to stand on y^t table, frō Sabbath to Sabbath. But of y^e cōti∣nuāce of their sacrifice, not only Malachie; but also Daniel hath prophesied, who in y^e 9. & 12. of his prophesie, fore∣sheweth y^e taking away of y^e daily sacrifice, which (he saith) y^e holy Fathers do expound to be done by Antichrist. As there be many prophesies in Daniel, very hard to inter∣pret, so there is none more cleere, either in him or in any other prophet, for y^e time when it should be fulfilled, then this of taking away y^e daily sacrifice, & placing y^e abhomi∣natiō of desolation, for asmuch as our sauiour Christ him self Mat. 24. doth refer it to y^e destructiō of Hierusalem & y^e tēple. For then y^e daily sacrifice, not of y^e shew bread, but

of y^e morning & euening oblatiō, was vtterly taken away in act, as it ceassed in effect, when our sauiour Christe by his true sacrifice had taken away all figuratiue oblations. For as Hierom saith very well, whatsoeuer was afterward sacrificed by y^e vnbeleuing Iewes in the temple, was not the sacrifice of God, but the worship of the diuel. But notw^tstanding this, M. Hesk. wil needs haue it meant of y^e daily sacrifice of y^e Christians, & for y^t purpose alledgeth y^e iudgement of Petrus, y^e Monk (I trow) of Clunie, y^t there be foure princi∣pal sectes in y^e world, y^t is of y^e Iewes, Sarazens, Pagans, and Christians, of which y^e Iewes, Sarazens, & Pagans offer no sacrifice, but only y^e Christians. But he is fowly beguyled, for y^e Sarazens or Mahumetans offer sacrifice for the dead, after the maner of the Gentiles. And where this Peter ac∣knowledged no Pagans, but such as dwell farthest in the North, it seemeth he hath not heard of so many nations as in all quarters be discouered to be Idolaters, especially those of Calechut, who beside the bloud of a cocke which they sacrifice to the Idole of the diuel, do offer vnto it all meat that the king eateth. Wherfore the conclusion of P. Cluniacensis is a very vain & foolish collectiō. And wher∣as M. Hes. maketh so smal account of y^e sacrifice of thanks∣giuing, praises, prayers, & obedience, that he calleth them but common thinges, he sheweth what religion is in his brest. But where Daniel saith, then daily sacrifice shalbe taken a∣way, he wil proue that there must be a daily sacrifice, and that of the Christians, by Hieronyms authoritie. Whose words are cited thus by him: Hos mille ducentos nonaginta dies Porphyrius in tempore Antiochi, & in desolatione templi dicis completos, quam & Iosephus & Machabęorum (vt dixintus) liber, tribus tantùni annis fuisse commemorant. Ex quo perspic•••••• est, tres istos & semis annos de Antichristi dici temporibus, qui tribus & semis annis, hoc est mille ducentis nonaginta diebus sanctos perseq••••turus est, & postea, ceciderit in monte inclyto & sancto. A tempore igitur quod nos interpreta••i sunus iuge sacrificiū quan∣do Antichristus vrbem obtinens Dei cultum interdixerit, vs{que} ad internecionem eius, tres & semis anni id est, mille ducenti nona∣ginta dies complebuntur. These thousand two hundreth and ninetie

dayes Prophyrius saith, th•••• were fulfilled in the time of Antiochus, and in the desolation of the temple, which both Iesophus and the booke of Machabees, (as we haue said) do testifie to be d••n in three yeares only, whereby it is plaine these three yeares and an halfe to be spoken of the times of Antichrist, who by the space of three yeres and an halfe, that is a thousand two hundreth and ninetie days, shal persecute the holy and faithfull Christians, and after shal fall downe in the famous and holy hill. From the time therefore that we bene interpreted the daily sacrifice, when Antichrist shal forbid the ser∣uice of God, vnto his destruction there shall be fulfilled three yeres and an halfe, that is to say, a thousand two hundreth and ninetie dayes.

We haue often seene before, what an impudent fal∣sarie M. Hesk. is of the Doctors, and here, I know not for what cause, except it were to trouble the sense of Hiero∣nymes words, both in y^e Latine & in his English translati∣on, he hath left out the Greeke word y^t Hieronyme vseth in this sentence, A tempore iginer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quod nos interpretati sumus iuge sacrificium &c. Therefore from the time of the perpetuitie, which we haue interpreted the perpetuall sa∣crifice, &c.

At least wise he should haue noted in the mar∣gent Graecum est, non potest legi But to the matter, although Hierom, contrarie to the exposition of our sauiour Christ referre this taking away of the daily sacrifice, to the time of Antichrist, yet doth he interprete the same sacrifice, to be but the worship and seruice of God, which Antichrist should forbid. But Nicholas Lyra is a Doctour for M. Heskins tooth, for he expoundeth it of the sacrifice of the altar. And M. Heskins will proue it by reason. For it can not be meant of a spiritual sacrifice of praise, prayers, mortification, repentance, &c. For these can not be put downe, but shalbe frequen∣ted, euen vnder his flames and sword, therfore it must needes be the daily sacrifice of the altar. And yet M. Heskins thinketh, that shal not be cleane put downe, but secretly be vsed of god∣ly disposed people, so that he were best to conclude, that there shal none at al be put downe. But may not the out∣ward seruice of God be put downe, as Hieronyme saith, But it must of necessitie be the sacrament of the altar? O easie ne∣cessitie, that so lightly is auoyded! Well, beside this rushie

cheine of M. Heskins necessitie you shall heare matter of congruitie.

If the fathers of all ages knewe that externe sacrifice did please God, should not christians much more, which liue in the cleare light, acknowledge the same? O profounde diuine! He hath for∣gotten that the true worshippers must nowe worshippe: God in spirit and trueth: Ioan. 4. Yet more. If those sacrifices were a sweete sauour to God, for his sake whom they figured, howe much more is our sacrifice, offering Christe him selfe vnto him? But sir, their sacrifices were commanded, & Christ by his eternall spirite hath offered himselfe once, to ende all such sacrifices. For no man is worthie to offer him to God, but euen himself. If they giue not onely sacrifice of laude and thankes, but also externall sacrifice of thankes, shall not Chri∣stians which haue receiued greater benefites then they, offer like, or rather greater thankes? Yes good M. Doctor, but by such meanes as God hath appoynted, and not by setting vp an other Altar and sacrifice, to deface the crosse and sacrifice of Christ. Althoughe nothing can bee feyned more lea∣den, and blockishe then these reasons bee, yet the illu∣minate doctor cryeth out agaynste his obcęcate and blind enemies, that cannot see y^e congruitie of these mat∣ters, as it were a light shining through a milstone.

The three and thirtieth Chapter openeth the Prophecie of Malachie.* 1.76

The Prophete Malachie towarde the latter end of the first chapter of his Prophecie, writeth thus:* 1.77 I haue no plea∣sure in you saith the Lorde of hoastes, neither will I accept an offe∣ring at your hand. For from the rising of the sunne, vntill the go∣ing downe of the same, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in euerie place incense shall bee offered vnto my name, and a pure offering: For my name is great among the heathen. This text (saith M. Heskins) hath greatly tormented the protestan∣tes: for they wrest it into diuerse senses, because it proueth inuincibly the sacrifice of the masse.

Therefore Oecolampadius expoundeth this sacrifice of the obedience of all nations, to the faith: Bucer, of

faith and the confession of the same: Bullinger, of the land and prayse of God: Vrbanus Rhegius, of mortification and inuocation of Gods name. Al which M. Heskins him selfe that firste cryeth out of their discord, confesseth to agre in this, that they vnderstand the prophesie of the spi∣rituall sacrifice of prayse and thanksgiuing. But these he∣reticall expositions, he saith, cannot stande. And why so▪ forsooth because these spiritual sacrifices be not new, but were offered by the godly, euen since Abel, who (he saith) was the first that offered sacrifice to God, and that of the fruites of the earth: whereas it is not to be thought, that Adam offered no sacrifice al that time before: and the text is plaine, that Abell offered the fruit of his cattell. But al∣though the spirituall worship of God is not newe, yet it was newe to the Iewes, that the father shoulde bee wor∣shipped from the time of Christ, neither in the moūt Ga∣rizim nor at Ierusalem, but of all nations in spirite and trueth,* 1.78 that is, without all externall and figuratiue sacri∣fices. An other reason is of the purenesse of the newe sa∣crifice, aboue the olde. For the olde sacrifices were pure by participation, the newe is pure by nature, and there∣fore nothing else but the bodie of Christe. But by his fa∣uour the prophet in calling the newe sacrifice pure, doeth not charge the old with imperfection, if they had been offered according to their institution, but reproueth the priestes, that they had polluted the Lords sacrifices, with their couetousnes and hypocrisie, and in punishment of their pride (which thought God could not bee serued ex∣cept it were by them) threateneth that he will reiect them and the people that were partakers of their sinnes, and set vp the spirituall pure worship of his name, among the Gentils in all partes of the worlde, which shoulde better please God (as y^e Prophete saith) then a bullock that hath hornes & hooffes. And as for the purenes that M. Heskins requireth in the new sacrifices, wee haue a sufficient war∣rant of the holy Ghost Heb. 13. that by Iesus Christ wee offer the sacrifice of prayse always to God, that is, the frui∣tes of the lippes which confesseth his name, doeing good

and not forgetting to distribute, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. By which place you may see that the ex∣positions of the godly before rehearsed, are grounded vpon the word of God, and not the deuise or imagination of man. It is meruell y^t M. Heskins (as the rest of y^e papistes do in this place) doth not builde much vppon the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which properly doth signifie a sacrifice made of flower, and so a kinde of bread: but then he lacketh wine, and the other worde which the prophete vseth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth an incense or perfume, both excludeth that phantisie, and also sheweth that the Prophet, accor∣ding to the common custom of other Prophets, speaketh after the capacitie of the people, in discribing the spiritu∣all state of Christs Church by the external-figures & cere∣monies of Moses law. And so there is no place in y^e scrip∣ture, maketh lesse for the sacrifice of the masse, then this text of the prophete Malachie.

The foure and thirteth Chapter expoundeth the prophesie of Malachie by Martialis and Ireneus.* 1.79

M. Heskins desirous to expounde this prophesie by two verie auncient barrons of the high house of parlea∣ment, beginneth with one Martialis,* 1.80 whom to make him seeme more reuerend and auncient, he hath adorned with Parleament Robes, affirming that he was the disciple of Christ himselfe, and after his Maisters death kepte com∣panie almost continually with the Apostle Peter, & ther∣fore willeth euerie man to giue audience to his speache. Now whether euer there were any such disciple of Christ, & companion of the Apostle, as the scripture maketh no∣mention of him so I will affirme nothing. But for as much as the Church neuer heard of any such writer, nei∣ther by Eusebius, or by Hieronyme, nor by Gennadius, all which gathered the names of all the writers y^t had ben in y^e Church of Christe, that were knowen in their times, and seeing that many hundreth yeares after, there is no mention of any such writer, and writinges in anye approued authour, I will playnely affirme, that the authour of such Epistles, is more worthie to stand on the

pillerie for an impudent counterfeiter, then to sit in the Parleament house among y^e Apostles of Christ and y^e holy doctors of the Church. If there were nothing else to con∣fute him, but the title that he giueth himselfe, it were sufficient to prooue him a shamelesse forger. Martialis Apostolus Christi, he tearmeth himselfe (in the Diuels name) as though the scripture had not defined both of the num∣ber and of the calling of the Apostles. If any man liste to heare his absurde speach, that hee maketh for the sacri∣fice of the masse, let him resorte to M. Heskins swyne∣trough, for I will not vouchsafe to defile my penne and paper to carie awaye such draffe, of such pseude-apostles and counterfeit doctors. Leauing therefore M. Heskins with his groyne serching in that swill, I will chase him away from routing in the holy auntient garden of Ire∣naeus, of whom M. Heskins confesseth, that hee is not to be suspected of truth, therby insinuating that his Marti∣all, was not so honest, but that his credite might come in question. But Irenaeus lib. 4. Chapter 32. writeth thus: Sed & suis discipulis dans consilium &c. But also giuing counsell to his disciples, to offer the firste fruites vnto God of his owne creatures, not as to one hauing neede, but that they might be neither vnfruitefull nor vnthankefull: he tooke that bread which is of the creature, and gaue thankes, saying, this is my bodie: and likewise the cup which is of the same creature that is with vs, hee confesseth to bee his bloude, and taught the newe oblation of the newe Testament, whiche the Church receiuing of the Apo∣stles, offereth to GOD in all the world, to him which giueth food vnto vs, the first fruites of his owne giftes in the new Testament, of which Malachias amonge the twelue Prophetes hath fore∣shewed: I haue no pleasure in you, (saith the LORD Al∣mightie) and I will receiue no sacrifice at your handes, &c.

Here M. Heskins I knowe not for what subtiltie, had translated verie absurdly primitias munerum suorum, the firste fruite of his sacrifices. But to the matter. What can bee more playne, then that Irenaeus speaketh here of the sacrifice of obedience and thankesgiuing, celebrated in the sacrament of the Lordes supper?

For he sheweth the end of the institution to be, that they should neither be vnfruitefull nor vnthankfull, which oblation the Church obserueth throughout all y^e world, according to the Prophesie of Malachie, in the celebra∣tion of the Lordes supper, although not onely therein. M. Heskins cauill, of the newnesse of the oblation, I haue answered before, that it is newe in the manner of the offering, which is without such sacrifices & ceremo∣nies as the lawe prescribed. And whereas the incense and the pure oblation, that the Prophet sayeth, should be sa∣crificed to God, be both of one nature, Irenaeus doth in plaine wordes expound the incenses for spirituall sacri∣fice, namely, the sacrifice of prayers. Which exposition M. Heskins doth so obstinately contemne lib. 4. Chap. 33.

Quoniam ergo nomen filij proprium patris est, & in Deo omnipo∣tente Iesum Christum offert ecclesia, bene ait secundum vtra{que} & in omni loco incensiū offertur nomini meo & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem Ioannes in Apocalypsi orationes ait esse sanctorum. Therefore, for as much as the name of the same pertei∣neth to the father, and in God almightie the Church of∣fereth Iesus Christ: he sayeth well according to bothe, and in euery place, an incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice. Nowe S. Iohn in the reuelation sayth, that the incense are the prayers of the Saintes. The one being a spirituall sacrifice, the other is also of the same nature:

by which it is euident, howe the Church offereth Iesus Christ in God almightie: namely, when shee ren∣dreth moste humble and hartie thankes to God, for her redemption by Iesus Christe. To which intent, much more might be alledged out of Irenaeus, but for pro∣lixitie, and the same places shall afterwardes be cited for other purposes.

The fiue & thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the exposition of the same Prophet by S. Augustine & Eusebius.* 1.81

Out of S. Augustine is alledged a long saying lib. Ad∣uersus Iudaeos, but not so long in wordes,* 1.82 as short of his purpose. Dominus omnipotens dicit, &c. The Lorde almightie sayeth, I haue no pleasure in you, neither will I receiue sacrifice of

your hands. Certainly, this you cannot denie ô ye Iewes that not o••∣ly he doth not take sacrifice as your handes, for there is but one place appointed by the lawe of the Lord, where he hath commaun∣ded sacrifices to be offered by your handes, beside which place, he hath altogether forbidden them. Therefore seeing you haue lost this place according to your deserts, the sacrifice also, which was lawfull to be offered there onely, in other place•• ye dare not offer. And it is altogether fulfilled which the Prophet saith: And sacri∣fice will I not receiue at your handes. For if the Temple and the Altar remained to you in the earthly Hierusalem, you might say this were fulfilled in them, whose sacrifices, (being wicked men abi∣ding among you) the Lorde doth not accept: but that he accepteth the sacrifice of other that be of you and among you, which keepe the commaundements of God. But this cannot be saide, for asmuch as there is not one of you all, which according to the lawe, which proceeded from mount Sinay, may offer sacrifice with his handes. Neither is this so forespoken & fulfilled, that the sentence of the Prophes will suffer you to a••nswere: because wee offer not flesh with our hands, with our heart and mouth we offer praise, according to that in the Psalme: Sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise. From this place also he speaketh against you which sayth: I haue no pleasure in you, &c. Moreouer, that you shuld not thinke that seeing you offer not, and that he taketh no sacrifice at your hands, therefore no sacrifice is offered to God, whereof truely hee hath no neede, who needeth not the goods of any of vs, yet because he is not without a sacrifice, which is not profitable for him, but for vs, be adioyneth and sayeth: For from the rising of the Sunne vn∣til the going downe of the same, my name is made honourable a∣mong all the Gentiles, and in euery place a sacrifice is offered to my name, euen a pure sacrifice, because my name is greate among the Gentiles saith the Lorde Almightie. What aunswere yee to these things? open your eyes at the length, & see from the sunne ri∣sing to the going downe thereof, that not in one place, as it was ap∣pointed among you, but in euery place, the sacrifice of the Christi∣ans is offered, not to euery God, but to him that spake these things afore hand, euen to the God of Israel. Wherfore (in another place) he sayth, to his Church: and he that hath deliuered thee, the same God of Israel shalbe called the God of the whole earth. Search

ye the Scriptures, in which you thinke to haue eternall life, and truely you should haue, if in them you could vnderstand Christ and hold him. But search them through and euen they beare witnesse of this pure sacrifice, which is offered to the God of Israel: not of your nation alone, of whose hands he saide he would receiue none, but of all nations which say: come let vs go vp into the hill of the Lord, neither in one place, as it was commaunded in the earthly. Hie∣rusalem, b••t in euery place, euen in Hierusalem it selfe▪ neither after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedech.

First we must see how M. Heskins note booke decei∣ued him: for where the words of Augustin in the begin∣ning of this sentence are these: Locus enim vn••to est lege do∣mini constitutus, &c. that is▪ there is but one place appoin∣ted by the lawe of the Lord. M. Hesk. hath falsified and set downe locus enim vnus est loco domini constitutus, which he translateth: For there is one place in y^e place of God ap∣pointed. But this is not the first corruption that we haue bewrayed by a great many. Nowe to the matter Maister Heskins still harpeth vpon one string, that the sacrifice in this saying spoken of cannot be the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing, because that is not peculiar to the Christians, but was offered of the Iewes before Christe, and may be yet, if they be conuerted. But I haue more than once or twise declared, that here is no such peculia∣ritie in the matter of the offering, but in the maner of the oblation. And Augustine speaketh not halfe a worde, by which we might deeme, that he refuseth the spirituall sacrifice of the Christians to be the pure sacrifice prophe∣sied in Malachie. If you vrge that he sayeth, it is offe∣red after the order of Melchisedech, and so hath relation to the offering of breade and wine in the Sacrament, al∣though it be no necessarie conclusion: yet Augustin him selfe will tell vs, that it is a spiritual sacrifice of laude and thanksgiuing. And M. Heskins him selfe directeth vs to the booke saying: As notable a saying as this hath S. Augu∣stine in an other place also, (and quoteth, lib. 1. Cont, aduersariū legis & Prophetarum) who so listeth to reade, shall finde that, that shall not repent him of the reading.

What place M. Heskins meaneth I knowe not, but in the same booke I read & in the 18. Chapter, that he cal∣leth the death of Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 singuler and onely was sacrifice. If that sacrifice be but one singuler, and the onely true sacrifice, what manner of sacrifice is the sacrifice of the Masse, which setteth vp a newe altar to ouerthrowe the crosse of Christ? And that you may knowe what sacri∣fice S. Augustine meaneth, when he nameth the sacrifice of the Church, or the sacrifice of breade and wine, or any such like phrase, he speaketh this in the twentieth Chap∣ter of certeine apocryphall writings, falsly intituled to the Apostles Andrew & Iohn.

Qua fillorum essent, receptae essent ab ecclesia, quae illorum tem∣peribus per Episcoporū succes••iones certissimas vs{que} ad nostra & deincap•• tempora perseuera••, & immolat Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium ••••••dis: Which if they had bene theirs, they should haue bene receiued of the Church, which from their times, by most certeine successions of Bishope, con∣tinueth vnto our times and after, and sacrificeth to God in the bodie of Christ, the sacrifice of lawde and prayse.

And let this suffice to discharge Augustine from M. Hes∣kins and the Papistes blasphemous cauelling. Now must we come to Eusebius: which lib. ••. Euang. Demonst. cap. 10. writeth thus: The Mosaical sacrifices being reiected he doth by diuine reuelation declare our ordina••ies that was to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, saying: For from the rising of the 〈…〉〈…〉 the going down of the s••••e my name is glorified among the nations, & in euery place 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is offred to my name, & a pure sacrifice. Wherefore our sacrifice to the most high God, is the sacrifice of praise. Wee sacrifice to God a full, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & holie sacrifice. We sacrifice after a newe maner, according to the new testament a pure sacrifice, &c. M. Heskins asketh vs, if we do not see that Eusebius expoundeth the Prophet of the sacrifice of Christes bodie? but wee may well bid him shore vp his eyes, & see, if he do not in plain words expound him of the sacrifice of praise? But because he calleth this sacrifice horrorem adferens, bringing hor∣ror, meaning, not a slauish, but a reuerent feare, as is meant to be in all matters of religion, which ought to

be handled with feare, and reuerence of Gods Maiestie, vnto whom they apperteine: he will needes haue it the body of Christ, and first, he alledgeth a saying of Diony∣sius, whom he falsely calleth the disciple of Saint Paule, although he be a writer of good antiquitie: Eccle. Hier. part. 1. cap. 3. Neither is it almost lawfull for any mysterie of the priestly office, to be done, except that his diuine, and most noble sa∣crament of thankesgiuing doe fulfil is. What he picketh out of this saying, as he noteth not, so I am not of his counsell to knowe, neither why (after his accustomed boldenesse) he translateth, Sacramentum Eucharistiae, the sacrament of Christe. From Dionyse he flitteth to the hyperbolicall amplifications of Chrysostom, which Lib. 6. De Sacerdotio, calleth the sacrament, That sacrifice most full of horror and re∣uerence, where the vniuersall Lorde of all thinges is daily felt with handes. And de prod. Iud. Hom. 30. The holy and terrible sacri∣fice, where Christ that was slaine is set foorth. He that will not acknowledge these and such like, to be figuratiue spee∣ches, must enter action against Chrysostom for many he∣resies: or rather Chrysostome may enter action against him of slaunder and defamation. In the same treatise De Sacerdotio Lib. 3. speaking of the same sacrifice, he sayeth:

You may see the whole multitude of people died and made redde with the precious bloud of Christ.

But to shewe that all this is spirituall, he demaundeth, if you thinke your selfe to stand vpon the earth, when you see these thinges, and not rather that you are translated into heauen, and casting away all cogitations of the flesh, with a naked soule, and pure minde you beholde those thinges that are in heauen. Therefore to conclude, neither Augu∣stine nor Eusebius haue spoken any thing to the furthe∣rance of Maister Heskins bill, of the carnal presence.

The sixe and thirtieth Chapter, endeth the exposition of Mala∣chie, by Saint Hierome, and Damascen.* 1.83

S. Hierome vpon y^e Prophet Malachie writeth thus:* 1.84 Ergo propriè nūc ad sacerdotes Indeorū sermo sit domini, qui offerūt, caecū & clandū & languidū ad immolandū vt sciant carnalib{us} victimis

spirituales victimas successuras. Et necquaquam tantorum hirce∣rùmque sanguinem: sed thymiana, hoc est, sanctorum orationes Do∣mino offerendas: & non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea, nec in vna iudaea vrbe Hierusalem: sed in omni loco offerri oblationem: ne∣quaquam immundam, vt a populo Israel: sed mundum, vt in cere∣monijs Christianorum. Now therefore the word of the Lorde is pro∣perly spoken to the Priestes of the Iewes, which offer the blinde and lamue, and feeble, to be sacrificed, that they might knowe that spiri∣tuall sacrifices, should succeede those carnall sacrifices. And not the bloud of bulles and goates, but an incense, that is to say, the prayers of the Sainctes should be offered to the Lord: and that not in one prouince of the world Iewry, neither in Ierusalem one citie of Iew∣ry, but in euery place an oblation is offered: was vncleane, as of the people of Israel, but cleane, as in the ceremonies of the Christi∣ans. Doest thou not maruell (Gentle Reader) that Maister Heskins alledgeth this place, which in euerie point is so directly contrarie to his purpose? He saith that among the ceremonies of the Christians, none can be properly called the cleane sacrifice, but the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ. O shamelesse begger, that craueth no lesse then the whole controuersie to be giuen him! And that contrarie to Hierome, whose name he abuseth, which expoundeth this place of spirituall sacrifices, and more expressely of the prayers of the saintes, whiche are not vsed in one, but in all the ceremonies of the Christi∣ans. But to set some colour vpon y^e matter, he bringeth in an other saying of Hierome, which is written before this in exposition of another place, perteining nothing to this prophecy of y^e pure sacrifice: but wher by analogie or like reason, (as the prophet rebuketh the priestes of the Iewes) he doeth reprehend also the Bishops, Elders, and Deacons of the Church for their negligence: Offertis inquit &c. You offer, saith he, vpon mine altar bread polluted. We pollute the bread, that is to say the body of Christ, when we come vnworthily to the altar, and we beeing filthie doe drinke cleane bloud, and say the Lordes table is contemptible, &c. Here forsooth, we vnder∣stand that the body of Christ is, the sacrifice of the Chri∣stians, yea, but according to the former sentence, so offe∣red,

that it is a spirituall sacrifice.

But what else? Here we are taught that we doe not take one thing: videlicet bread, and do iniurie to another thing, that is the body and bloud of Christ, as the sacramentaries say, but receiuing the very body and bloud of Christ we do iniury to the same. But vouchsafe to heare the same teacher, speaking of the same matter, and in the same place, in fewe wordes to satisfie the reasonable, and to stoppe the mouthes of quarrellers.

Dum enim sacramenta violantur, ipse cuius sunt sacramenta vio∣latur. For while iniurie is done to the sacramentes, iniurie is done to him whose sacraments they are. He sheweth a reason against them that demaunded proudly, wherein they had polluted God, when they had but polluted his sacraments?

Leauing therefore Hierome at open warre with M. Heskins, I will passe to Damascen, who for lacke of a Greeke auncient Baron, beeing an auncient burgesse of the lower house, Maister Heskins, is bolde to matche with Hironyme, though farre inferiour to him in anti∣quitie and credite, whose wordes are these:* 1.85 This is that pure and vnbloudy sacrifice, which our Lord speaketh by the Prophet to be offred to him, from the rising of the sunne, to the going downe of the same, namely the body and bloud of Christ, vnto the vnconsu∣med, and vncorrupted establishment of our body and soule, not go∣ing into secesse, (God forbid, that any such imagination should be) but it is a purgation of al manner filth, and a reparation of all man∣ner of hurt, vnto our sustentation, and conseruation. This place saith Maister Heskins is so plaine, that a childe may perceiue it: for it is sufficient for him, if he heare once bo∣dy and bloud named. Howbeit, if either Damascens au∣thoritie were of weight, or the corruption of the time in which he liued vnknowen, there is nothing, in this saying, which might not easily, and without any wresting, be re∣ferred to the spirituall sacrifices, & to the spirituall man∣ner of sacrificing the body and bloud of Christ, which we haue learned out of the elder fathers.

The seuen and thirtieth Chapter, maketh a brieefe recapitu∣lation of thinges before written, with the application of them to* 1.86

the proclamation of the aduersarie, and so concludeth the first booke.

It were but vaine labour, especially for me, that pro∣fesse such breuitie,* 1.87 to repeate the answers and declarati∣ons made before, that not one of these Lordes of the higher house, whom he nameth, fauoureth his bill, of the carnall presence, or the sacrifice of the masse in such sense, as he and his fellowes take it. But whereas he is so loftie once againe, to ioyne issue with the proclaymer, & that as he hath done alwayes hitherto, vpon the negatiue, I will not refuse him. And yet by the way I must admonish the Reader, how vnreasonably he dealeth, that ioyneth all his issues vpon the negatiue, whiche sometime is harde, some∣time is vnpossible to be proued, whereas the Bishop, whom he calleth the proclaimer, ioyneth issue with them vpon the affirmatiue, which if euer it was holden, is more probable to finde proofe in antiquitie. Whereas if I might haue libertie to ioyne vpon the negatiue, I would bring in fiue hundreth propositions, that are false, and yet neuer a one expressely denied of the olde writers, be∣cause there neuer happened any controuersie aboute suche matters in their times. But to his issue. If he can bring any one sufficient authoritie, that shall directly say, that the Church may not offer the body of Christ, in such sorte as it do∣eth, I will giue him the victorie.

First here he reiecteth the authoritie of the Apostle to the Hebrues, saying, it is but wrested, which is as direct, as nothing in the worlde can be more direct, that Christ offered himselfe, and that but once, and by that one ob∣lation hath made perfect for euer, them that are sancti∣fied.

But he shal heare Chrysostome vpon the same scrip∣ture Hebr. 10. Aufer•• primum, vt sequens statuat, &c. He ta∣keth away the former, that he might establish that whi∣che followeth. Beholde againe the aboundance. This sacrifice sayeth he, is but one, but those sacrifices are many: for therefore they were not strong, because they were many. But tell me what need is there of many,

when one is sufficient? Therefore whereas they were ma∣ny, and alwayes offered, he sheweth, that they were neuer purged. For as a medicine when it is strong and effectuall to giue health, and able to driue away, all sicknesse, being but once laide to, worketh the whole at once. If therfore being but once laide to it hath wrought the whole, it she∣weth the vertue thereof, in that it is not laid to any more: & this is the effect of it, y^t it is laid on no more but once. But if it be always laid to, it is a manifest token, y^t it pre∣uailed nothing. For this is the vertue of that medicine, y^t it is but once laid on, and not oftentimes: euen so in this case. By what meanes were they always healed, by y^e same sacrifices? For if they had ben deliuered from al their sins, there should not haue bene offered sacrifice throughout euery day. For they were appointed, y^t they should be al∣ways offred for al the people, both at euening & in y^e day. Therfore, that was an accusation of sinns, not a discharge: for ther was made an accusatiō of weaknes, not a shewing of strength. For bicause y^e first sacrifice was of no force, the second was likewise offered, & bicause that also profited nothing, an other was offered also: wherefore this is but a conuiction of sinnes. For in y^t they were offered, there is a conuiction of sinnes, but in that they were always offred, there is a conuiction of infirmitie But contrariwise in Christ, the sacrifice was but once offered. For what neede was there of medicines, when there is no more wounds re∣maining? For this cause, you wil say, he cōmanded that it should always be offered, bicause of infirmitie, that there might be also a remēbrance of sinnes: What then do we•• Doe we not offer euery day? we offer truely, but for a re∣membraunce which we make of his death, and this is but one sacrifice, not many. Howe is it one and not many? Bi∣cause it was offered but once, and it was offered in the holy of holies: but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that, we offer the same alwayes. For we do not nowe offer one lamb, to morrowe an other, but the same thing alwayes. Therfore this sacrifice is but one. For else by this reason, bicause it is offred in many places, are ther many Christs?

No, but one Christ is euery where, both here being per∣fect and there being perfect, euen one body. For as he which is euery where is one bodie, and not many bo∣dies: so also it is one sacrifice. And hee is our highe Priest, which offered the sacrifice which purged vs: the same do we also offer nowe, which then truely being of∣fered, can not be consumed. Howbeit, that which we doe nowe, is done truely, in the remembraunce of that which was done then. For this do ye (saith he) in remembraunce of me. We make not an other sacrifice as the high Priest, but alwayes the same, but rather we worke the remem∣brance of the same. This place of Chrysostome sheweth, both that the Church neither doth, nor may offer the bo∣dy of Christ in such sort as the Papistes say, that is really and carnally, and for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead: and also howe the Church is saide to offer the sa∣crifice of Christes body, namely, when she celebrateth the remembrance thereof.

After this holy issue ioyned, M. Heskins rayleth vpon Cranmer, which in his first booke hath not one Doctour or Counsel to alledge, but only a litle false descant vpon a scripture or two, as the proclamer in his Sermon. What reading Cranmer and Iewell, were able to shewe in the Doctours and Counsels, is so well testified by their owne learned workes vnto the world, that it can not by such an obscure doctour as M. Hesk. is, be blemished or darkned.

But M. Heskins hath such store of testimonies for the sacrifice of the Masse, to proue that Christ is offred therin, y^t beside those which he hath alredy cited, he wil ad three or foure to this recapitulation. First he nameth Iustinus Martyr, in his dialogue against y^e Iewes. Where he alled∣geth his wordes truncatly, leauing out the beginning▪ which declareth that Iustine maketh all Christians Prie∣stes and offerers of the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the celebration of the Lordes supper. His wordes are these.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euen so we which by the name of Ie∣susas al (shal be one man in God the maker of al things) hauing put off our filthy garments, that is, our sinnes, by the name of his first begotten sonne, and being set on fire by the word of his calling, are a right kinde of high priests of God, as God himself doth witnes, That in al places among the Gentiles, acceptable & pure sacrifices are offred to him.

But God receiueth no sacrifice of any but of his Priestes. Where∣fore God before hand doth testifie, that he doth accept all them that offer by this name the sacrifices, which Iesus Christe hath deliue∣red to be made, that is in the Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of the bread and the cuppe, which are done in euery place of the Christi∣ans. By these words it appeareth not, that Christ was offe∣red, but thankesgiuing in y^e sacrament, not of the priest a∣lone, but by all Christians. And yet more plainely in the wordes of his, that are in the same Dialogue:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And as concerning those sacrifices which are offered to him of vs Gentiles in euery place, that is of the breade of thankesgiuing, and the cup likewise of thankesgiuing, hee foresheweth saying, that we do glorifie his name, and that you do prophane it. In which saying what can we see, but the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the bread and cup?

And to proue that the Church hath none other sacrifice but of prayers and thankesgiuing, he saith within few lines after the place cited by M. Heskins;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For I my selfe do affirme, that prayers and thankesgiuing made by worthie persons, are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God. For these are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make, to be put in minde by their drie and moyst nourishment, of the passion which God the son of God is recorded to haue

suffered for them.

This place doth not onely shewe, what the only sacrifice of Christians was in his time, but also teacheth, that in the sacrament is drie and moyst nourish∣ment, that is, bread and drinke, not bare accidents as the transubstantiators affirme. How little Iustinus maketh for the sacrifice of the Masse, these places doe sufficiently declare.

The second place hee citeth, is out of Hierom in his booke of Hebrue questions. Quod autem ••it, &c. whereas he sa••th, thou art a Priest for ••uer after the order of Melchisedech: in the word (order) our mysterie is signified, not in offering vnrea∣sonable sacrifices by Aaron, but in offering bread and wine, that is, the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ. We haue shewed sufficiently before, howe the olde writers vsed the worde of sacrifice licentiously, when there was no such heresie, as fined is sprung vp, of the sacrifice of y^e Masse, for the me∣moriall of the sacrifice of Christes body and bloud, in which was offered the spirituall sacrifice of prayers and thanksgiuing: which reasonable men might wel ynough vnderstand, though heretiques do nowe drawe it to their meaning. As when Hierom calleth this offering of bread and wine a mysterie, euery indifferent reader may vnder∣stand, that he speaketh not properly in calling it the bo∣dy and bloud of Christe, and a sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe. But as to a sicke man of the ague, all drinkes seeme bitter, so to a popish heretique, all say∣ings of the Doctours seeme popish and hereticall.

The third place he alledgeth, it is out of Ambrose his preparatiue prayer to Masse, I will not vouchsafe to re∣hearse it, bicause it is a meere bastard and counterfet wri∣ting, out of which it is cyted, hauing as much of S. Am∣brose in it, as M. Heskins hath witt and honestie in alled∣ging it. If any man will obiect, that then I must bring arguments to disproue it, or else I may likewise denye any authenticall writer: I answere, it were too long to do in this shortnesse that I must vse, and not necessarie, when they are notorious and well knowne already to euery man of meane reading in the Doctors, and Erasmus in

his censure doth plainly reiect it.

The fourth is Isydorus li. 1. ca 18. de off. which althogh he be somwhat w^tout y^e cōpasse of 600. yeares after Christ, yet because he is an auncient writer, & nere that time, I will consider his speach which is cited by M. Heskins in these wordes, The sacrifice that is offered to God by the Christi∣ans, our Lorde and maister Christ did first institute, when hee com∣mended to his Apostles his bodie and bloude, before hee was betrai∣ed, as it is redd in the Gospell: Iesus tooke the bread and the cup and blessing them gaue the same vnto them. Here beside the vsu∣all phrase of sacrifice (which we haue often declared what it did signifie, and whence it came) is nothing to quar∣rell at. For Isydore ment no doubt, the spirituall sa∣crifice of thankesgiuing, which is offered in the celebra∣tion of the Lords supper, & not the propitiatorie sacrifice of the popish masse, of which scarce the foundations were begonne to be laide in his time, of certaine odde stones of vnproper speach, and licentious phrases of sacrifices and oblations.

As for Haymo and Cabasila, I will neuer trouble my self to examine their speaches, they are but late writers, & therefore of small credite in these causes. And whereas M. Heskins glorieth that he hath aunswered foure mem∣bers of the proclamation in this booke: the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, the reseruation of the sacrament, the offering of Christe to his father, and the presence of his bodie and bloude in the sacrament: let the iudgement reste with the indifferent readers, whether although hee hath some of the lower house to fauour his billes, & more might haue, if hee woulde aske their voyces, yet I haue proued by this short aunswere, that of the higher house, he hath not one that hath giuen a voyce with thē, but many that haue spoken directly against them.

God be praysed.

Notes

• * 1.1

  D. Hes∣kins.
• * 1.2

  D. Fulke.
• * 1.3

  Chrys. in. 6. Io••••.
• * 1.4

  Hesk.
• * 1.5

  Fulk.
• * 1.6

  Leuit. 19.
• * 1.7

  Hesk.
• * 1.8

  Fulk
• * 1.9

  Hesk.
• * 1.10

  Fulke.
• * 1.11

  Gal. 2.
• * 1.12

  Hesk.
• * 1.13

  Fulk.
• * 1.14

  Basil. lib. Sp. 5. cap. 27.
• * 1.15

  lib. 7. E. 44.
• * 1.16

  Hom. 44 in Matth.
• * 1.17

  Hesk.
• * 1.18

  Eulk.
• * 1.19

  ••n Agge. 2.
• * 1.20

  Hesk.
• * 1.21

  Fulk.
• * 1.22

  In Matth. H. 44.
• * 1.23

  Heskins.
• * 1.24

  Fulke.
• * 1.25

  Heskins.
• * 1.26

  Fulke.
• * 1.27

  Hesk.
• * 1.28

  Fulk.
• * 1.29

  Hesk.
• * 1.30

  Fulk.
• * 1.31

  Hesk.
• * 1.32

  Fulke.
• * 1.33

  Hesk.
• * 1.34

  Fulk.
• * 1.35

  Hesk.
• * 1.36

  Fulk.
• * 1.37

  Hesk.
• * 1.38

  Fulke.
• * 1.39

  Hesk.
• * 1.40

  Fulk.
• * 1.41

  In Leuit. lib. 2 cap. 8.
• * 1.42

  Hesk.
• * 1.43

  Fulke.
• * 1.44

  De coena Domini.
• * 1.45

  Hesk.
• * 1.46

  Fulk.
• * 1.47

  Heskins.
• * 1.48

  Fulk.
• * 1.49

  Hesk.
• * 1.50

  Fulk.
• * 1.51

  Hesk.
• * 1.52

  Fulke.
• * 1.53

  Hesk.
• * 1.54

  Fulke.
• * 1.55

  Hesk.
• * 1.56

  Fulk.
• * 1.57

  Hesk.
• * 1.58

  Fulk.
• * 1.59

  Hesk.
• * 1.60

  Fulke.
• * 1.61

  Hesk.
• * 1.62

  Fulke.
• * 1.63

  Hesk.
• * 1.64

  Fulk.
• * 1.65

  Hesk.
• * 1.66

  Fulk.
• * 1.67

  Serm. de coena Dom.
• * 1.68

  In Leui. lib. 6. Cap. 23.
• * 1.69

  Hesk.
• * 1.70

  Fulke.
• * 1.71

  Hesk.
• * 1.72

  Fulk.
• * 1.73

  Li. 4. de Or∣thod. fid.
• * 1.74

  Hesk.
• * 1.75

  Fulke.
• * 1.76

  Hesk.
• * 1.77

  Fulk.
• * 1.78

  Iohn. 4.
• * 1.79

  Hesk.
• * 1.80

  Fulk.
• * 1.81

  Hesk.
• * 1.82

  Fulke.
• * 1.83

  Hesk.
• * 1.84

  Fulke.
• * 1.85

  Libr. 4.
• * 1.86

  Hesk.
• * 1.87

  Fulk.