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THE SECOND BOOKE OF HESKINS PARLEAMENT repealed by W. Fulke.

* 1.1The first Chapter declareth the offices of the olde lawe, and the benefites of the newe lawe, with an exhortation to submit our vn∣derstanding to the knowledge of faith, and therewith to the beleefe of the sacrament.

* 1.2HOW vnsauerly he discourseth vpon the two offices of the lawe, it were too long to examine in euerie pointe. Onely this let the reader obserue, that when he hath made the first office of the lawe, to giue them knowledge of sinne, and to restrayne them from it: The other office hee saith was, by lineamentes of figures and shadowes to leade the people to Christe: as S. Paule sayth, the lawe was our scholemaister to Christ, &c. As though the lawe was not a Schoolemaister to bring vs to Christe by shew∣ing vs our sinnes and condemnation, but onely by sha∣dowes and figures. After this hee maketh him selfe a ioly hunter, That with great trauell and some pleasure hath passed through the bushes and thickets of the lawe, and nowe being come into the faire land of the Gospell, forgetting his former trauels, with freshe delight will followe on his game. So that hee is nowe belike gone out of the parleament house, where mat∣ters are grauely intreated of, and hath betaken him selfe to the wilde forest, where hee may disporte himselfe in his games with Robin hoode, and his merie mates. And verilie if he had not tolde vs him selfe of his lustie hun∣ting, wee might well haue thought, he had not beene at home, but wandering in the woodes so wilde, when in his exhortation vnto faith in the sacrament, hee will per∣suade vs, that none can vnderstande the scriptures, except they haue founde faith in the veritie of the Sacramente. Which happeneth to all those that wil not be with Christ in the breaking of the breade, as the two disciples were that went to Emans, to whome Christe was a straunger, vntill he came to the breaking of the breade. But leaste

this vaine allegorie shoulde seeme to bee founde out on∣ly in M. Heskins chase, hee trauelleth to finde it in S. Augustin, & Theophylact, but al in vaine. For first to giue vs a tast what synceritie and trueth he will vse in the rest of this booke, the verie first sentence he alleadgeth out of any Doctor, is corruptly and vntruly rehearsed. For thus hee maketh Augustine to speake in his treatise De consen∣su Euangelistarum, not naming in what booke or Chapter, whereas that which he writeth of this matter, is Lib. 3. Cap. 25. Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in ocu∣lis eorum a Satana fuisse, ne agnosceretur Iesus, sed tantùm a Chri∣sto propter eorum fidem ambiguam facta est permissio vs{que} ad sa∣cramentum panis, vt vnitate corporis eius participata, remoueri intelligatur impedimentum inimici, vt Christus possit agnosci. We doe not take it incongruently, that this impediment in their eies was of Sathā that Iesus shold not be knowen, but only it was permit∣ted of Christ for their doubtfull faithes sake, vntill they came to the sacrament of bread, that the vnitie of Christs body being partici∣pated, it might be perceiued, that the impediment of the enimie was remoued, that Christ might be knowen. In this place beside y^t he turneth autem into enim, and leaueth out factum after fuisse, he addeth of his owne propter eorum fidem ambiguam, for their doubtfull faiths sake. Which words are not Augustins. Wher∣by it appeareth that hee redde not this place out of Au∣gustine himselfe, but followed some other mans col∣lection as he doth almost euerie where. But Augustine in that place comparing the wordes of Marke and Luke together, sheweth that there was no alteration in the shape of Christes bodie, but onely that the two disciples eyes were helde, that they could not knowe him, but in brea∣king of the bread which signified the vnity of y^e Church. For this he writeth:

Neque quisquam se Christum agnouisse ar∣bitretur, si eius corporis particeps non est, id est ecclesię; cuius vni∣tatem in sacramento panis commendat Apostolus dicens, vnus pànis vnum corpus multi sumus: vt cum eis benedictum panem porrige∣ret apperirentur oculi eorum & agnoscerent cum. Neither let a∣ny man thinke that he hath knowen Christ, if he bee not partaker of his body, that is, of the Church, whose vnitie

the Apostle cōmendeth in the sacrament of the bread say∣ing: One bread, we being many are one bodie: y^t when he reached vnto them the blessed bread, their eyes were ope∣ned and they knew him. This is Augustines collection of this matter, nothing agreable with M. Heskins allegorie of y^e soūd faith in y^e veritie of the sacrament, but much a∣gainst it, teaching y^e true participation of y^e body of Christ in y^e sacrament, which is the mystical coniunction of him vnto his Church.

Moreouer euen in y^e place by him alled∣ged, I meruell M. Heskins cannot see y^t Augustine calleth it the sacramēt of bread, which agreeth not with his trans∣substantiation, and if he think y^e participation of the vnitie of Christes bodie doth helpe him, Augustine in the same place sheweth the contrarie, vnderstanding the bodie of Christ to be his Church, as is before shewed. But what saith Theophylact of the same? Another thing also is here insum∣ated, namely that, that their eyes which take this blessed bread are opened that they may knowe him. For the fleshe of our Lorde, hath a great and vnspeakable strength. What is there here in these authorities, either for M. Heskins bil of the reall presence, or for his fond allegorie? It pleaseth him excedingly, that Theophylact saith the flesh of Christ is of vnspeakeable power, which we doe most willingly admitte, & euen in receiuing of the sacrament, it worketh mightily, but hee will not see at all, y^t Theophylact with Augustine, calleth the sacrament blessed bread, by which they both do shew, that y^e substance of bread remaineth, although it be bles∣sed & consecrated vnto an other vse then for bodily food.

* 1.3The second Cha. expoundeth the sixt of S. Ioh according to the letter

* 1.4The summe of this literal exposition is this, that three sundry breades are mentioned by Christe in this sixte of Iohn, that is, y^e bread Manna, the bread the sonne of God, and the bread the flesh of Christ, and y^t these three breads are distincted both in nature and in time, in whiche they were giuen. For Manna was a corporall food giuen of old time in the wildernes. The second bread, the godhead of Christ, being an eternall and spirituall substance, Christ

saith his father doth giue, in the present tence, and that he is the bread of life, and requireth beleefe in him which is proper to God onely. The third breade, is the fleshe of Christ, which he will giue for the life of the world, spea∣king in the future tence, and is meant of the sacrament. And this he dare auouch, to be the natiue & true vnder∣standing of this scripture. But sauing his authoritie, there are but two breades spoken of in this Chapter, namely Manna, and the bread of life, which is not the diuinitie of Christ separated from his flesh, nor his flesh separated or distincted from his godhead, but euen his quickening & spiritual flesh, which being vnited to his eternal spirit, was by the same giuen for the life of the world, not in y^e sacrament, but in the sacrifice of his bodie & bloud on the crosse, and is daily sealed and testified vnto vs by the sacrament of his bodie and bloud ministred according to his holie institutiō. And this I dare auouch to be the true & natiue sense of this scripture, both by the plain circum¦stances of the same, and by the iudgement of the best ap∣proued ancient writers. And first to take away as wel the vain supposed distinction of time, in which the two later breads are said to be giuen, as also to proue that they are but one bread: our sauior Christ him selfe after he hath promised to giue the bread, which is his flesh, for the life of the world, and declared what fruite commeth to them that eate his fleshe, and drinke his bloude, &c. in the 58. verse he concludeth and sayeth plainly: that it is the same breade that came downe from heauen, and that who so eateth of this breade, shall liue eternally. Se∣condly, that the promise of giuing his flesh, is not to be restrayned to the giuing of the sacrament: his wordes are plaine, that he will giue his fleshe for the life of the worlde, which all true Christians will acknowledge to haue beene perfourmed in the sacrifice of his death, and not at his last supper. Finally, that his flesh must not bee separated from his spirit, nor his spirit from his flesh, he doth as plainly teach vs, when he affirmeth y^t it is the spi∣rite y^t quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, & y^t except

we eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, we haue no life in vs. For neither the flesh profi∣teth, but as it is made quickening by the spirite, neither do we participate the life of his spirite, but as it is com∣municated vnto vs by his fleshe, by which we are made fleshe of his fleshe, and bone of his bone: which holie mysterie, is liuely represented vnto vs in the blessed sa∣crament. And this your aduersaries confesse (Maister Heskins) not denying (as you charge them) that any one worde of that Chapter perteineth to the sacrament, but affirming the sacrament to bee a seale of the do∣ctrine, which is deliuered in that Chapter, and not o∣therwise. The iudgement of the olde writers conso∣nant to this vnderstanding, shall followe afterwarde in confutation of M. Heskins vngodly and hereticall di∣stinction, not of the two natures in Christ, but of par∣ticipation of the one without the other, which hee ma∣keth by his two last breades.

* 1.5The thirde Chapter proueth by the doctours, that the sixt of S. Iohn speaketh as well of the bread Christes fleshe in the sacrament, as of the bread his godhead.

Chrysostom is alledged in Ioan 6. Hom. 44. Iam in my∣steriorum &c.* 1.6 Nowe will he come to the setting forth of the my∣steryes, and first of his godhead, he sayeth thus: I am the breade of life, this was not spoken of his bodie, of which about the ende he sayeth: The breade which I will giue is my flesh: but as yet of his godhead: for that is bread because of God the worde, euen as this bread, because of the spirite comming to it, is made heauenly breade. Maister Heskins asketh if we do not here plaine∣ly see a distinction of breades. I answere, no forsooth: but a distinction of two natures in one breade. Againe, he asketh: Doth not nowe the sixt of S. Iohn speake of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament? I aunswere, that no such thing appeareth by these wordes of Chrysostome, otherwise then as the sacrament is a liuely representation of that his bodie, which he gaue for the life of the world. And that Chrysostome meaneth not to diuide Christe into

two breades, as M. Heskins doth, he teacheth, speaking of the same mysterie of his coniunction with vs by his fleshe Hom. 45.

Vester ego frater esse volui, & communica∣ui carnem propter vos, & sanguinem, & per quae vobis coniun∣ctus sum, ea rursus vobis exhibui. I would be your brother, and so I tooke parte of fleshe and bloud for you, and the same things I haue giuen you againe, by which I was ioyned vnto you. So that not the godhead of Christ a∣lone, nor his flesh alone is giuen vs as two breades, but Christ by his flesh is ioyned vnto vs as one bread of life.

Let vs nowe see what S. Augustine sayeth, who expoun∣ding the same text writeth thus: Our Lorde determineth consequently howe he calleth him selfe bread, not onely after his godhead which feedeth all things, but also after his humaine na∣ture which is assumpted of the worde of God, when he sayeth after∣warde: And the bread which I will giue is my flesh, &c. Once againe M. Heskins asketh whether Augustine teach not a plaine difference of the bread of the Godhead of Christe, and the bread of his manhood? And once againe I aun∣swer, not so, but he teacheth directly the contratie, name∣ly, Christe God and man to be one breade, and not two breades. And that the doctrine of this Chapter, is not to be restrained vnto the sacrament, the same Augustine in the same place teacheth abundantly, while hee maketh no mention of the Lordes supper vntill he come to the ende, and then sheweth, that the mysterie of this fleshe and bloud is represented in the supper, when it is celebra∣ted of the Church in remembrance of his death & passiō.

Huius rei sacramentum, id est, vnitatis corporis & sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Domi∣nica mensa praeparatur, & de mensa Dominica sumitur quibus∣dam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res verò ipsa cuius sa∣cramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium qui∣cun{que} eius particeps fuerit. The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ, in some places euery day, in other some at certeine space of dayes betweene, is prepared in the Lordes table, and is taken at the Lordes table of some vnto life, of some vn∣to

to destruction. But the thing it selfe, whose sacrament it is, to all men is to life, and to no man for destruction. whosoeuer shalbe partaker thereof.

Note here also the distinction betweene the sacrament, and the thing wher∣of it is a sacrament, and that the sacrament may be re∣ceiued to destruction, but not the thing or matter of the sacrament, which is the bodie and bloud of Christ.

To these Barones he wil ioyne two Burgesses, and the first shalbe Theophylact, one of them which he sayeth is well towarde a thousand yeare olde. Hee woulde fayne get him credite by his antiquitie, but he ouer reacheth too farre, to make him so auncient, which cometh nerer to fiue hundred, then to a thousande yeares. But let vs consider his speache in 6 Ioan. he writeth thus: Manife∣stè &c. He speaketh manifestly in this place of the communion of his bodie. For the bread (sayeth he) which I will giue is my flesh, which I wil giue for the life of the world. And shewing his power, that not as a seruant, nor as one lesse them his father, he should be crucified, but voluntarily, he sayeth: I will giue my flesh for the life of the world. Note (sayth M. Hesk.) that Christ spake manifestly of y^e communion of his bodie. Who doubteth or denyeth that? but that he spake not of the communi∣on of his bodie, which we receiue in the sacramēt. Note saye I, that Theophylact speaketh manifestly of his cru∣cifying, and nor of the communion in the sacrament. After this, he interlaceth a fond excourse of the autho∣ritie of the later writers, whome he affirmeth, and wee confesse to haue written plainly of his side, whereas hee sayeth, the olde writers did write obscurely: and then he taxeth Bullinger, for alledging Zwinglius, whome he slaundereth to haue beene slaine in a sedition raysed by him, where as the worlde, knoweth it was in warre, that was helde in defence of his countrie. The like foo∣lish quarell he hath, for putting out of Polycarpus out of the Calender, & placing Thomas Hutten in his stood all which as vnworthie any aunswer, I passe ouer it is suf∣ficiently knowen, what Bullinger esteemed of m••ns au∣thoritie, & what Fox (if he meane him) iudged of the old

Martyrs diuinitie. The other reasons following, I could scarse read w^tout loathsomnesse, that preachers must ceasse if writers may not be receiued vnder 1000 yeres antiqui∣tie & more, that speaking & writing are of like authority, and such like blockish stuffe. The elder writers are al∣lowed, not for their age, but for their agreement with the worde of God, the later preachers are beleeued, not for y^t their speaking is better then Papistes writing, but be∣cause they speake thinges consonant to the word of God, the touchstone and triall of trueth. And therefore we re∣ceiue not the testimonie of Nicholaus de Lyra the second Burgesse, because it is contrarie to the word of God, and the consent of the elder Doctours, that Christ speaketh of the sacrament, when he saith the bread which I will giue is my fleshe: which wordes Theophylacte, euen nowe af∣firmed to be spoken of the passion of Christ.

The fourth Chapter beginneth a further proofe of the former master by S. Cyprian, and Euthymius.* 1.7

For proof of the two breads, & that the text,* 1.8 The bread which I will giue is my flesh, &c. is ment of y^e sacrament, Cyprian is alledged, although y^e place be not quoted, but it is in y^e sermon vpō y^e Lords prayer in these words: Panis vitae Christus est. &c. Christ is the bread of life, and he is not the bread of all men, but our bread: And as we say our father, because he is the father of thē that vnderstand, & beleeue, so we call it our bread, because Christ is our bread, which touche his body. And this bread, we pray to be giuen vs daily, least we that are in Christe, and daily receiue the Eucharistie to the meate of health, some greeuous offence comming betweene, while beeing separated, and not commu∣nicating, we be forbidden from that heauenly bread, we be separated from the body of Christ, he himselfe openly saying and warning: I am the bread of life, which came downe from heauen, if any man shall eate of this bread, he shall liue for euer, and the bread which I will giue, is my flesh for the life of the worlde. Howsoeuer M. Hesk. would falsly gather out of this place, Cyprian ma∣keth not two breades, but one bread of life, Christ God & man, as for y^e two respects of his Godhead, & manhoode,

that he prateth of, cannot make Christ to be two breads, but one true foode of our soules. And that Cyprian doth apply this text to the sacrament only, it is utterly false, (in that he saith:) we must pray for this daily bread Christ, to feede vs, although for some greeuous offence, we be re∣strained from the sacrament, as is also euident by these words that follow.

Quando ergo dicit in aeternum viuere, si quis ederit de tius pane, vt manifestum est cos vinera, qui corpus eius 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & Eucharistitum ••••re cōmunicationis accipiunt: ita contrae timendū est & erandum, ne dam quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore, procul remaneat a salute, comminante ipso & dicente: Nist ederitis carnem f••ij hominis, & biberi••is sanguinem eius, non ha∣bebitis vitam in vobis. Et ideo panem nostrium, id est, Christum dari nobis quo••idie petimus, vt qui in Christo manemus & vinimus, a sanctificatione & corpore eius non recedamus. Therefore when he saith, that he liueth for euer, whosoeuer shal eate of his bread, as it is manifest that they do liue, which touch or come neare, vnto his body, and by the right of commu∣nication receiue the sacrament of thankesgiuing: so con∣trariwise, it is to be feared, and to be prayed for, lest while any being sequestred, is separated from y^e body of Christe, he remaine farre from health, he himselfe threatening & saying: except ye shal eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you. And therefore we pray daily, that our bread, y^t is to say, Christ may be giuen to vs daily, that we which remaine & liue in Christ, go not away from sanctification, and his bodie. In these wordes, as in the former, Cyprian directly refer∣reth that text to our spirituall communication with the body of Christ, by right of which communication, we re∣ceiue the sacrament thereof.

And this participation of Christ he calleth Contingere & attingere corpus Christi, & not to touch his body with our teeth or mouth in y^t sacramēt as M. Heskins dreameth. Here followeth Euthymius, of whose antiquitie we haue spoken in the first booke. Ne∣uerthelesse we wil examine his saying, which is this In 6. Ioan. Duobus modis, &c. Christ is saide to be bread two wayes, that is after his godhead, and after his manhood, therefore when he

had taught the manner, which is after his godhead, now doeth he al∣so teach the manner, which is after his manhoode. For he did not say, which I do giue, but which I will giue, for he would giue it in his last supper, when thankes being giuen, he tooke bread, and brake it, and gaue it to his disciples and saide: take, eate, this is my body. M. Heskins maruelleth that the aduersaries cheekes waxe not redd for shame, to see so plaine a sentence against them. But if we knew not that Maister Heskins had beene as impudent as a frier, we might maruell, that he was not ashamed, first to alledge Euthymius, as a writer within 6. hundreth yeares after Christ, who liued about the yeare of our Lorde 1180. And secondly to make two breads of that which Euthymius saith, to be one bread after two manners. Finally, although Euthymius referred this text to the sacrament, yet saith he nothing for the carnall pre∣sence, in as much as it is manifest, that Christ spake there of a spiritual communication of his fleshe, or else all in∣fantes are damned that receiue not the sacrament.

The fift Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text, by S. Augustine, and Chrysostome.* 1.9

S. Augustine is alledged De Agricultura agri Dominici, a treatise of no account for the authoritie,* 1.10 being falsely in∣tituled to Augustine, which was the worke of a farre la∣ter writer. The wordes neuerthelesse are these:

The table of thy spouse hath whole bread, and a holy cuppe, which bread although we haue seene broken and brused in his passion, yet he remained whole in that his indiuided vnity with his father. Of this bread and of this cup, our Lorde himselfe saide: The bread which I will giue is my fleshe for the life of the world, and the cuppe which I wil sanc∣tifie is my bloud which shalbe shed for you vnto remissi∣on of sinnes. This place is falsly & truncatly cited by M. Hesk. thus: Quem panē etsi fractum cōminutum{que} vidimus, in∣teger tamen cum ipso suo patre manet in coelis. De quo pane dicit: pa∣nis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita. Which he Eng∣lisheth thus: which bread although we haue seen brokē & brused on y^e crosse: yet it abideth with y^t his father whole in heauen: of the which bread he saith, &c. Wheras y^e very

wordes are quem panem etsi fractum comminunum{que} vidimus in passione, integer tamen mansit in illa sua indiuidua vnitate.

De isto pane, & de isto calice dicebat ipse Dominus. Panis quem ego dedero caro 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est pro saeculi vita, &c. Although this writer as it is manifest to any man that will reade his treatise, speaketh onely of the vnitie of the Godhead of Christ, with his Fa∣ther and the holy Ghoste, notwithstanding, the breaking of his body in his passion, which is represented in the sa∣crament: yet M. Heskins, vpon his owne falsification, in∣ferreth, that the body of Christ was and is in three sundrie places, on the Table or Altar, on the Crosse, and in hea∣uen with his father. Yea, & he appealeth to the gramma∣rian for the nature of a Relatiue, That the same bread is on the table, which was broken on the crosse, and that which was bro∣ken on the crosse, is it which is whole sitting in heauen. Which, how vaine a reason it is, when it is vrged of y^t thing which hath two natures vnited in one person, as our Sauiour Christ hath, I appeale from all grammarians to al Catho∣like diuines: as in y^e saying of Christ, no man hath ascen∣ded into heauen, but he that came downe from heauen, e∣uen the sonne of man, which is in heauen, Ioan 9. Let M. Hesk. with y^e grāmarian vrge the relatiue in this place, & he shal proue him selfe both an Anabaptist, & a Marcio∣nist. For Christ cōcerning his humanitie came not down out of heauen, neither was he in heauen according to his humanity when he was on y^e earth. But what stand we tri∣fling about this testimonie? Seeing Augustine both in y^e interpetation of this whole chapter is so copious, & vpon the Psal. 98. in exposition of this text is so plain & direct against the carnal presens of Christs body in y^e sacrament:

Nisi quis &c. acceperunt illud stulte, carn••liter illud cogitauerunt, & puta••erūt quòd praecifurus esset Dominus particulas quas dā de corpore suo & daturus illis, &c. Ille autē instruxit eos, & ait illic, spiritus est qui vinificat, caro autē nihil predest. Verba quae loquatu•• sū vobis, spiritus est & vita. Spiritualiter intelligite, quae loquatus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri il∣lum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt, qui me crucifigent: sacramentum aliquod vobis commendati: spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos▪

••t si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen inuisibiliter intelligi. Except a man eate the flesh &c. They tooke it fo∣lishly, they imagined it carnally, and thought that our Lorde would haue cut off certaine peeces of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and haue giuen them, &c. But he instructed them, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vn∣to them, It is the spirite that quickeneth, the flesh profi∣teth nothing.

The wordes which I haue spoken to you, are spirite and life. Vnderstand you spiritually that which I haue spoken. You shall not eate this body which you see, and drinke this bloud which they shall shed which shall crucifie me: I haue commended vnto you a certaine sacra∣ment or mysterie, which beeing spiritually vnderstoode, shall quicken you. Although it is necessarie that the same be celebrated visibly, yet must it be vnderstood in∣uisibly. Likewise In 6. Ioan. Tr. 27. Illi enim putabant eum ero∣gaturum corpus suum, ille autem dixit se ascensurum in Coelum v∣ti{que} integrum. Cum videatis filium hominis ascendentem vbi erat priùs: certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo, quo putatis, erogat corpus suum: certè vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia eius non consu∣mitur morsibus. (He speaketh plainely if they will vnder∣stand him.) For they thought y^t he would giue his body, but he said that he wold ascend whole into heauen. Whē you shal see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was be∣fore, surely then at the least you shall see, that hee giueth not his body after that maner that you think, surely then at the length you shall vnderstand, that his grace is not cōsumed with bitings. If these places were not most ma∣nifest, euen to the first eye y^t looketh vpon them, I might spend time in obseruing and noting out of them.

We come nowe to Chrysostome, who in his 45. Hom. in Ioan. vpon those wordes, The bread which I will giue is my flesh, saith, The Iewes that time tooke no profite of those sayings, but we haue taken the profite of the benefite. Wherefore it is necessarily to be saide, howe woonderfull the mysteries be, and wherefore they were giuen, and what profite there is of them. And immediatly after, We are one body and members of his flesh and of his bones: and yet more plainely, And that we might be conuerted into that flesh, not onely by loue, but also in deede, it is

brought to passe by the meat which he hath graunted vnto vs. He addeth also an other cause of the giuing of this mysterie: When hee would shewe foorth his loue toward vs, hee ioyned him selfe 〈…〉〈…〉 his body, and brought him selfe into one with vs, that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 might be vnited with the head. Finally he adioyneth a plaine place for the proclamer: I would be your brother, and for your sakes I tooke flesh and bloud with you, and by what things I was conioyned vnto you, those things againe I haue giuen vnto you. Here he triumpheth, as though the game were his, when in deede there is nothing for his purpose, but much a∣gainst it: For no one word of all these sentences proueth, that the sixt of Iohn must be vnderstoode of the supper o∣therwise, then as it is a sacrament of that feeding and coniunction of vs with Christ, which is therein described. And wheras he argueth vpō the last sentence, Christ gaue vs that flesh by which he was ioined to vs, but he was ioy∣ned to vs by very substantiall flesh, therfore he gaue vs his very substantiall flesh. I confesse it to bee most true, for he gaue his very substantiall flesh to be crucified for vs. If he vrge y^t he gaue his flesh in y^t sacrament, although Chry∣sostome saith not so in this place directly, yet the manner of the participation of his flesh must be such, as is the ma∣ner of his coniunction with vs, but y^t is spiritual, by which he is the head, and we the members, and yet vnited in one very substantiall flesh: therefore the manner of partici∣pation of his flesh in the sacrament, is also spirituall and not carnall. Maister Heskins reiecteth this participa∣tion to bee the fruition of the benefites of his body and bloud crucified, bycause that (saith hee) is common to all the sacraments, and not proper to this. But that the substaunce of all sacramentes is one, and the diffe∣rence is in the manner of dispensation of them, wee haue shewed sufficiently in the first booke, which were tedious nowe to repeate. Wherefore we must now set downe what Chrysostome speaketh of the bloud of Christe. This bloud maketh that the kinges image doth flou∣rish in vs. This bloud doth neuer suffer the beautie and nobilitie of the soule, which it doth alwayes water and nourish, to fade or waxe

faint. For bloud is not made of meate soudenly, but first it is a cer∣taine other thing. But this bloud at the first doth water the soule, and indue it with a certaine great strength. This mysticall bloud driueth diuelles farre off, and allureth Angels and the Lorde of Angels vnto vs. For when the diuelles see the Lordes bloud in vs, they are turned to flight, but the Angels runne foorth vnto vs. This bloud being shed did wash the whole world, whereof Paule to the Hebrues doth make a long proces. This bloud did purge the secrete places, and the most holy place of all. If then the figure of it had so great power in the temple of the Hebrues, and in Aegypt, beeing sprinkled vpon the vpper postes of the doores, much more the veritie. This bloud did signifie the golden altar. Without this bloud the chiefe priest durst not goe into the inward secret places. This bloud made the priestes. This bloud in the figure purged sinnes, in which if it had so great force, if death so feared the shadowe, how much I pray thee will it feare the truth it selfe? This bloud is the health of our soules, with this bloud our soule is washed, with it she is decked, with it she is kindled. This bloud maketh our minde clee∣rer then the fire, more shining then golde. The effusion of this bloud made heauen open. Truely the mysteries of the Church are woonderfull, the holy treasure house is woonderfull. From Para∣dise a spring did runne, from thence sensible waters did flowe: from this table commeth out a spring, which powreth foorth spiri∣tuall flouds. Chrysostome in these wordes doth extoll the excellencie of the bloud of Christe shed vpon the crosse, the mysterie whereof is celebrated and giuen to vs in the sacrament, and therefore hee saith, it is Mysticus sanguis mysticall bloud which wee receiue in the sacrament, which word Mysticall, M. Heskins a common falsarie, hath left out in his translation, to deceiue the vnlearned reader. Hee laboureth much to proue that Chrysostome spake in this long sentence of y^t sacrament, which is need∣lesse, for as he spake of the sacrament, so spake he of the passion of Christe, and of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the olde lawe, and all vnder one name of bloud. By which it is more then manifest, that hee vseth the name of bloud figuratiuely, and ambiguously, therefore no∣thing can bee gathered thereout, to fortifie M. Heskins

bill of the naturall bloud of Christ to be in the challice. The honourable titles of the sacrament, proue no tran∣substantiation nor carnal presence in this sacramēt more then in the other.

The same Chrysostome vpon Cap. 9. ad Heb. Hom. 16. she∣weth howe the bloud of Christ that purged the old sacri∣fices; is the same which is giuen vs in the sacrament of the new testament.

Non enim corporalis erat mundatio, sed spiritua∣lis, & sanguis spiritualis, Quomodo hoc? Noune ex corpore mana∣uis? Ex corpore quidem, sed a spiritu sancto. Hoc vos sanguine non Moses, sed Christus aspersit, per verbum quod dictum est, Hic est sanguis noui testamenti, in remissionem peccarorum. For that was no corporall cleansing but spirituall, and it was spirituall bloud. Howe so? Did it not flowe out of his body? It did in deede flowe out of his body, but from the holy spirit. Not Moses but Christe did sprinkle you with this bloud, by that worde which was spoken: This is the bloud of the newe testament for the remission of sinnes.

Thus let Chrysostome expound him selfe, touching the mysticall or spirituall bloud of Christe, which both was offered in the old sacrifices, and nowe feedeth vs in the sacrament: if it were in the olde sacrifices naturally present, then is it so nowe, if the vertue onely was effectuall, so is it also to vs, and no neede of transubstantiation or carnall presence.

* 1.11The sixt Chapter proceedeth in the opening of the vnderstāding of the same text of S. Iohn, by Beda and Cyrillus.

* 1.12Although Beda our countriman were far out of y^e com∣passe of 600. yeres, and so vnfitly matched with Cyrillus a Lord of the higher house, yet speaketh he nothing for y^e corporal presence of Christes body in the sacrament, but directly against it, His words vpon this text of Saint Iohn are these: Hunc panem Dominus dedit, &c. This bread our Lord gaue, when he deliuered the ministerie of his body and bloud vnto his disciples, & when he offered him selfe to his father on the altar of the crosse. And where he saith, for the life of the world, we may not

vnderstand it for the elementes, but for men that are signified by the name of the worlde. In these wordes Beda according to the custome of the olde writers, and the doctrine of the Church of Englande in his time, and long after, calleth the sacrament, the mysterie of the body & bloud of Christ, and not otherwise. Yet M. Heskins pythely doth gather, that as he calleth the flesh of Christ on the crosse, breade, and yet it is verie flesh; so the fleshe of Christ in the sacra∣ment is called bread, & yet it is verie flesh. Alas, this is such a poore begginge of that in question, videlicet, that the fleshe of Christ is in the sacrament according to his grosse meaning, that I am ashamed to heare it. Why might he not rather reason thus? the fleshe of Christe on the crosse is called bread, and yet it is not naturally bread: euen so the bread of the sacrament is called flesh, & yet it is not naturall fleshe. It is plaine that breade, in that texte of Iohn is taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode, and so the flesh and bloud of Christ on the crosse is our food, and the same is communicated to our faith in the sa∣crament.

Cyrillus in 6. Ioan. by M. Heskins alledged, speaketh neuer a worde either of the sacrament, or of Christes cor∣porall presence therein. Antiquus ille panis, &c. The old bread was onely a figure, an image and a shadowe, neither did it giue to the corruptible bodie any thing, but a corruptible nutriment for a little time. But I am that liuing and quickening breade for euer. And the breade which I will giue is my fleshe, which I will giue for the life of the worlde. Thou seest howe by little and little, he more and more openeth him selfe, and doeth set foorth this wonderfull mysterie. Hee saide, hee was the liuing and quickening breade, which shoulde make the partakers of it without corruption, and giue them immortalitie. Nowe he saith his fleshe is that breade, which hee will giue for the life of the worlde, and by which hee will quic∣ken vs that are partakers of the same: for truely, the quickening nature of the WORD beeing ioyned to it by that vnspeakeable manner of vnion, maketh it quickening, and therefore this flesh doth quicken them that are partakers of it. For it casteth foorth death from them, and vtterly expelleth destruction.

Maister Heskins alledgeth two reasons to proue that Cy∣rillus speaketh of the sacrament, and neither of both worth a strawe. First, bicause he calleth it a woonderfull mysterie, as though the incarnation of Christ whereof he speaketh expresly, were not a woonderfull mysterie. Secondly, By that he saith the flesh of Christe giueth life to the partakers. For the proper partaking of Christes flesh, is in the re∣ceiuing of this holy sacrament. As though we are not parta∣kers of Christes flesh by faith, according to that saying of Augustine vpon the same place, Vt quid paras dentes & ventrem? crede & manducasti. Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie? Beleeue and thou hast eaten &c. you see it is a poore helpe that he hath out of Cyrillus, when hee speaketh neuer a woorde for his cause nor of his cause.

* 1.13The seuenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by The∣ophylact and Lyra.

A short aunswere shall serue this Chapter, these two Burgesses of the lower house being late writers, speake fauourably for Maister Heskins bill.* 1.14 But their autho∣ritie is so small, that wee make none account of their speach, seeing not onely many in the lower house haue spoken against it, but all the whole vpper house is ma∣nifestly contrarie vnto it. And whereas hee chargeth Oecolampadius for adding this worde tantùm, onely, in his translation of Theophylact, I doubt not but Oeco∣lampadius followed either a truer copie, or a better rea∣son then Maister Heskins in so many additions, detrac∣tions, and falsifications of Doctors, which hee hath vsed in this worke. Finally, where he chargeth the aduersa∣ries with cauilling and slaundering; when they say that Popish Priestes make God: he himselfe slaundereth his aduersaries, for we haue learned of their owne writers, & namely of S. Bonauentura, that a Priest is, creator sui crea∣tori••, the creator of his creator, and that Christ is his pri∣soner on the altar.

The eyght Chapter declareth, by whose authoritie and power, the sacrament is consecrated & Christes bodie made present.* 1.15

As though such blasphemous speaches as I haue tou∣ched imediatly before, had neuer ben vttered by Papists,* 1.16 M. Heskins stomaketh the matter, & rayleth throughout this Chapter against his aduersarie, for charging y^e priests with such arrogancie, as though they tooke vpon them to make God. Nowe concerning the purpose of the Chap∣ter we agree, that God & no man, Christ and not the mi∣nister, doth consecrate the sacrament, and make Christes bodie and bloud to be present. I might therefore passe ouer his authorities, but that out of some of them he ga∣thereth also his corporall presence & transubstantiation. The first is Damascen: De Orth. Fid. Lib. 4. Ca. 14. If thou aske now how the bread is made the bodie of Christ, and the wine and water the bloud of Christ? I also answere thee: The holy Ghost euer shadoweth, and worketh these things aboue speech and vnderstan∣ding: The bread and wine are transsumed. This place Maister Heskins noteth for a plaine place, both for the presence and for transubstantiation. If it were as plain as he would haue it, yet is Damascen but a Burgesse of the lower house, out of the compasse of the challenge. But what∣soeuer his opinion was of the presence, certaine it is that he knew not transubstantiation, which the Greekes long after did not acknowledge. And though we take the word of transuming for changing, turning, transmuting, or transelementing, which wordes the olde writers doe sometimes vse, yet meane they not chaunge of one sub∣stance into another, but of the nature and propertie of the foode to be chaunged from corporall to spirituall and not otherwise.

Next followeth Chrysostome in 2: Tim. Ho. 2. Volo quiddam, &c. I will adde a certeine thing plainely wonderfull, and maruell ye not, neither be you troubled. And what is this? The holy oblation whether Peter or Paul, or a Priest of any maner of life do offer it, is euen the same, which Christ gaue vnto his disciples, and which the priestes do now make. This hath nothing lesse then that. Why so? because men do not sanctifie it but Christ which had hal∣lowed

it before. For as the wordes which Christ spake are the same which the priests do now pronoūce so also is the oblation. Here M. Hesk. cutteth of y^e taile of this sentence, for Chrysostoms wordes are: Ita & oblatio eadem est, eadem{que} baptismi ratio est, adoe omnia in fide consistunt. So the oblation is the same, and the same reason is of baptisme, so all thinges con∣sist in faith. Marke here that M. Heskins conceleth that the change and consecration is the same y^t is in baptisme, and the thing is receiued onely by faith as in baptisme. And nothing else meaneth Chrysostome in the seconde place by M. Heskins cited, Hom. 30. de prod. The same Christ is nowe present which did beutifie that table, hee doth also consecrate this. For it is not man, which by consecration doeth make the thinges set foorth on the table, the bodie and bloude of our Lorde, but euen Christ which was crucified for vs, The wordes are spoken by the mouth of the Prieste, but by the power & grace of God they are consecrated. This is (saith hee) my bodye, with this worde the thinges set foorth are consecrated. Here we must note that Christ maketh the bread and wine his bodie and bloude. Wee acknowledge he doth so, for the faith of the worthy receiuer, as in the former sentence it is manifest.

Nowe commeth S. Ambrose De benedict. Patr. c. 9. Who is then rische, but he in whome is the depth of wisdome and know∣ledge? This rich man then is the treasure of this fatte breade, which who shall eate, he cannot hunger. This breade he gaue to his Apostles, that they should deuide it to the beleeuing people. And now hee giueth the same to vs, which hee beeing the Priest doeth consecrate with his owne wordes. This bread then is made the meate of the Sainctes.

Here againe M. Heskins cutteth off that which liketh him not for it followeth: Possumus & ipsium Dominum accipere qui suā carnem nobis dedit. Sicut ipse ait, ego sunt panis vitae. Ille enim accipit qui scipsum probat: qui autem accipit, non moritur peccatoris morte, quia panis hic remis∣sio peccatorum est. Wee may receiue euen the Lorde him∣selfe which hath giuen vs his fleshe, euen as he himselfe saith, I am y^e bread of life. For he receiueth him, y^t exami∣neth himselfe, & he which receiueth him dyeth not the death of a sinner, for this bread is the remission of sinnes.

This place doth first ouerthrowe M. Heskins dreame of two breades. Secondly, the Papistes assertion, that wic∣ked men receiue the bodie of Christ. And thirdly tea∣cheth, that to eate Christ & his fleshe, is to receiue for∣giuenesse of sinnes, which M. Heskins and the Papistes denye.

Another place of Ambrose is alledged. li. 4. de sacra. Ca. 4. Let vs then teach this. How can that which is bread be the bo∣die of Christ? By consecration. By what and whose wordes then is the consecration? Of our Lorde Iesus. For all the other things that be sayed, praise is giuen to God, petition is made in prayer for the people, for Kings, and for the rest: but when it is come to that, the honourable sacrament is made, now the Priest vseth not his owne wordes, but he vseth the wordes of Christe. Therefore the worde of Christ maketh this sacrament. This is noted to be a plaine place for M. Iuell, but for what purpose, I can∣not tell, except it be to proue that he will not denye, that the sacrament is consecrated and made the bodie of Christ to the worthie receiuer, by the wordes of Christe, as before. Eusebius Emissenus hath the next place in Hom. Pasc. The inuisible Priest with his worde, by a secreat po∣wer, turneth the visible cratures into the substance of his body & bloud. This place being more apparant for his transub∣stantiation then any that he hath alledged, he vrgeth not, nor gathereth of it, but onely that Christ is the au∣thor of the consecration and conuersion. As for y^e con∣uersion, I thinke his conscience did tell him, that it was not of the substance, but of the vse of things, a spiritu∣all and not a corporall change, as both Eusebius and o∣ther writers do sufficiently expound what maner of mu∣tation it is. The last man is Cyprian De Caen Dom. It were better for them a milstone to be tyed to their neckes, and to be drowned in the Sea, then with an vnwashed conscience to take the morsell at the hande of our Lorde, who vntil this day doeth create, and sanctifie, and blesse, and to the godly receiuers diuide this his most true, and most holy bodie. Here M. Heskins vr∣geth, that he createth not an imaginatiue bodie, but his moste true bodie. But y^e blinde man seeth not, that either

this creation is figuratiue, or else it ouerthroweth trans∣substantiation. For to create, is not to change one sub∣stance into another, but to make a substance of no∣thing. Secondly, that Christ diuideth his bodie, but to y^e godly receiuers.

Finally, in the same Sermon he saith: that all this mysterie is wrought by faith. Haec quotie•• agimus, &c. So often as we do these things, wee do not sharpen our teeth to byte, but with a syncere faith, we breake and deuide this holy breade.

To conclude this Chapter, seeing M. Heskins hath la∣boured so well to proue that Christ onely & not y^e priest doth consecrate, and so often chargeth vs with slaunde∣ring them, to make God & the bodie of Christ, I would demaunde, wherefore the Bishop, when he giueth them the order of Priesthood, giueth them power to conse∣crate, saying: Accip•• potestatem consecrandi, & offerend•• pro vinit & defunctis: Take authoritie to consecrate, to offer for the quick and the dead. If the Priest cannot conse∣crat, whereto serueth this power? If the Priest take vpon him to consecrat Christ God and man, howe are we char∣ged with slaundering of them?

* 1.17The ninth Chapter expoundeth the next text that followeth in Saint Iohn.

* 1.18The text which he taketh vpon him to expound in this Chapter is this: The Iewes stroue among them selues, saying: How can this fellowe giue vs his flesh to eat? And first he sayth, that they being carnall, could not vnderstande the spiri∣tuall talke of Christe, wherein as he saith truely, so hee speaketh contrarie to him selfe. For he will haue those words to be spokē carnally. They could not vnderstand, (sayth he) because they did not beleeue, & therefore they questioned how it might be, euen as the Pseudochristians do. How can the bodie of Christ be in the sacrament vn∣der so litle a peece of bread? &c. But the aunswere to all their questions is, that they be don by the power of God. And if you proceede, to enquire of his will, he hath declared it in these wordes, the breade which I will giue is my fleshe, not a fanta∣sticall,

nor a mathematicall, or figuratiue flesh, but that same flesh•• that I will giue for the life of the worlde. But if wee proceede to demaund further, how he proueth, that he will giue y^t flesh to be eaten with our mouth, carnally in the sacra∣ment: then is he at a staye; he can go no further. Wee doubt not of the power of God, we will extend his will no further then his worde. For to eat the fleshe of Christe is not to eat it with our mouthes, but with our hearts, by faith, as Augustine vppon the same text teacheth vs.

Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, & illum bibere ponum, in Christo manere, & illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius, nec bibit cius sanguinē, li∣cèt carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corpo∣ris & sanguinis Christie sed magis tantę rei sacramentum ad iu∣dicium sibi manducat & bibit. This is therefore to eate that meate, & to drinke that drinke, to abide in Christe, and to haue him abyding in them. And by this, he that aby∣deth not in Christ, and in whome Christe abydeth not, out of doubt doth neither spiritually eat his flesh, nor drinke his bloud, although carnally, & visibly he presse with his teeth the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ: but rather he eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his owne condemnation. Thus Au∣gustine teacheth, how the flesh of Christe is eaten, and by whome, and what difference betweene the flesh & bloud of Christ, and the sacrament thereof, in all those points directly contrarie to the Papistes, which affirme, that the flesh of Christ is eaten with the mouth, and that it is ea∣ten of the wicked, and last of all, that the sacrament of the flesh of Christ, & his flesh is all one.

The tenth Chapter prouing against the aduersaries that the bo∣die of Christ may be & is in moe places then one as once.* 1.19

M. Heskins taketh occasion of the doubtful (how) of y^e Iewes, to answer y^e proclaimers (how) that is,* 1.20 how Christs body may be in a thousand places & moe at once: & first he trifleth of y^e number of places, as though hee required no lesse then a thousand: then he bableth against natural

Philosophie, as though our faith were buylded there∣vpon, whereas the Papistes, and especially the schoolmen, (euen to lothsomnesse) do reason out of natural philo∣sophie in the greatest mysteries of faith. But to put him out of doubt, we buyld vpon the Scripture our faith, of the trueth of Christes bodie, that it cannot bee in more places then one, because the Apostle sayth, that in res∣pect of his humaine nature, he was made like to his bre∣thren in all things, sinne excepted: Heb. 2. And there∣fore, where as he will aunswere vs first by Ambrose, De inition. Myst. Cap. Quid hic, &c. What seekest thou here the or∣der of nature in Christes bodie, seeing the selfe same our Lorde Iesus besides nature was borne of a virgin?

I say, he aunswereth nothing to the purpose: for neither doth Ambrose speak of the presence of his bodie in more places then one, nor of any carnall presence in the sacrament, but of a mysti∣call, diuine, and significatiue presence, as is manifest by his wordes that followe immediatly, which M. Heskins, as his custome is, hath craftely suppressed. Vera vti{que}, car•• Christi, que crucifixa est, quae sepulta est: verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est. Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus: Hoc est corpus meum: Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species no∣minatur, post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum: ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post con∣secrationem sanguis nuncupatur. It was the true fleshe of Christ which was crucified, which was buryed: therefore it is truely, the sacrament of that fleshe. Our Lorde Ie∣sus him selfe cryeth: This is my bodie: before the blessing of the heauenly wordes, it is called another kinde, after the consecration, the bodie of Christe is signified. Hee him selfe sayth, it is his bloud: before consecration it is called another thing, after consecrati∣on it is called bloud.

By this place you see, that y^e Lords supper is the sacrament of his true fleshe that was cruci∣fied, and that the bodie of Christ is signified by it. Here is no one worde sounding either to the carnall presence▪ or to the presence in many places.

His second proofe is out of Augustine, that Christ was

both in his owne hands, & in his twelue Apostles hands, in Psal. 33. And he was borne in his owne hands. But brethren, howe may this be done in man, who can vnderstande? who is borne in his owne hands? A man may be carried in thè handes of other men, in his owne handes no man is borne. Howe it may be vnderstanded in Dauid, according to the letter, we find not. But in Christ we finde it. For Christ was borne in his owne hands, when he commending his owne body sayd: this is my bodie. I passe o∣uer, that he translateth, comendans ipsum corpus, giuing forth the selfe same bodie.

But howe fraudulently he abuseth the authoritie of Augustine, it is manifest by that which fol∣loweth, & ipse se portabat quodam modo cum diceret, hoc est corpus meum. And he carried him selfe after a certein ma∣ner, when he sayde: this is my bodie. These wordes declare, that Augustine woulde not teach, that Christe absolutely did beare him selfe in his hands, as M. Hes∣kins would beare vs in hand, but after a certeine maner.

And no man writeth so plainly, of the necessitie of Christes bodie to be in one place, as he. I will cite one onely short place, to auoide tediousnesse:

In Ioan. Cap. 7. Tr. 30. Sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hîc, & veritas Domi∣nus. Corpus enim Domini, in quo resurrexit, vno loco esse potesti veritas eius vbi{que} diffusa est. The Lord is aboue, and he is also here, and the Lorde is trueth. For the Lordes bo∣die, in which he rose againe, can be but in one place, but his truth is spread ouer all places. This saying, beside that it limitteth the bodie of Christe to one place, will expound the other sayings, which he bringeth out of Chrysostome, Basil, &c. that Christ is both in heauen and on earth.

The next proofe is out of the Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostome, which he calleth their masses, although writen by neither of them. The wordes in effect are all one, and therefore it were vaine to rehearse them both: Looke ô Lorde Iesu Christ our God, from thy holie habitation, and from the seat of the glorie of thy kingdome, and come to sanctifie vs, which sittest aboue with thy father, and art present with vs beneath inuisibly, vouchsafe with thy mightie hande to giue vnto

vs thy immaculate bodie and precious bloud, and by vs to all thy people. The distinction of the two natures in Christ, will soone aunswere this presence of Christe, both in heauen and in earth, as in the late rehearsed sentence of Augu∣stine. And Basil him selfe, in his booke de Spiritu Sancto Cap. 22. prooueth the Holie Ghoste to be God, because he is reported in Scripture to be present in diuerse places at once, so that, except wee will with Eutyches ouerthrowe the trueth of Christes bodie, wee must holde that it is in one onely place at one time, and not in many places, or euery where.

But Chrysostome (I trowe) shall helpe him In 10. Heb. Hom. 17. This sacrifice is an exemplar of that, we offer the selfe same alwayes. Neither do we nowe offer one Lambe, and to¦morrow another, but the selfe same thing alwayes. Wherefore this sacrifice is one. Or else by this reason, because it is offered in many places, there are many Christes. Not so, but one Christ is eue∣ry where, both here being full, and there full, euen one bodie And as he, that is euerie where offered, is one bodie, & not many bodies: Euen so also is it one sacrifice.

First, M. Heskins here, I knowe not for what cause, peruerteth the order of Chrysostomes wordes, for where he sayeth: Alioqui hac ratione, Heskins setteth them down vn••m est hoc sacrificium hac ratione. Alicqui, &c.

Secondly, which is no newe thing in him, he leaueth out that which is the resolution of all this doubtfull disputation, name∣ly, that which followeth: Hoc autem quod facimus in com∣memorationem quidem fit eius, quod factum est. Hoc enim sacite, in∣quit in meam commemorationem. Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex, sed idipsum semper facimus, magis autem recordatio∣nem sacrificij operamur. But this which we do is done true∣ly in remembrance of that which was done before. For do this (sayeth he) in remembrance of mee. We do not offer another sacrifice, as the high Priest, but the selfe same alwayes, but rather wee exercise the remembrance of the sacrifice.

Here is nowe that sacrifice which is offered euery where, by a necessarie correction, brought to the re∣membrance

of that sacrifice, which was once offered on the crosse, but is celebrated euery where in the ministra∣tion of the sacrament. And the same wordes afterward falsely ascribed to Ambrose, haue the same interpretati∣on. The other place vpon the 38. Psalme, differeth not in sense, That Christ is offered on earth, when his bodie is offe∣red. For he speaketh but of a remembrance, or comme∣moration of the sacrifice of Christe, euen as Chryso∣stome, and as he him selfe teacheth, lib. 4. Chap. 5. de Sa∣cram. The wordes of the Priest in the celebration.

Fac nobis (inquit) haenc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabi∣lem: quod est figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi. Make (sayeth he) this oblation vnto vs ascribed reasonable, acceptable: which thing is the figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ. This was the Priest wont to say in the celebration of the supper in Saint Ambrose time.

And againe Chap. 6. Ergo memo∣res gloriosissimae eius passionis, & ab inferis resurrectionis, & in Caelum ascensionis, offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam, rationabilem hostiam, incruentam hostiam, hunc panem sanctum, & calicem vitae aeternae, &c. Therefore being mindfull of his most glorious passion and resurrection from hell, and ascention into heauen, we offer vnto thee this vnde∣filed sacrifice, this reasonable sacrifice, this vnbloudie sacrifice, this holie bread, and cup of aeternall life. Wee see therefore, that the sacrifice was a remembrance and thanksgiuing, for the onely true sacrifice of Christ once offered by him selfe for all.

To conclude, because I will omitt Bernard a late wri∣ter, not to be heard in this controuersie: Chrysostome in his booke de Sacerdotio, lib. 3. speaketh not contrarie to him selfe in other places, saying: O miracle, O the goodnesse of God, he that sitteth aboue with his father in the same point of time, is handled with the handes of all, and deliuereth himselfe to them that will receiue him and imbrace him.

Wherefore, this hyperbolical exclamation proueth no more, y^t Chri∣stes bodie is both in heauen & on earth: then these words of his proue that our bodies are both in heauen & earth,

ad Pop. Antioch. Hom. 55. Morduca me, dixi, bibe me, & te sar∣sum habeo, & deorsum tibi connector. I sayde eate me, drinke mee. I haue thee both aboue, and am knitt to thee also beneath.

Hitherto therefore nothing is brought to proue that Christes bodie may be in more places then one.

* 1.21The eleuenth Chapter proueth, that as two bodies may be in one place: so the bodie of Christ being one, may be in diuerse places.

* 1.22M. Heskins in this Chapter like a monsterous Gy∣ant, cryeth open battel against naturall Philosophie & reason, and thinketh he hath a sure shield to fight vnder the omnipotencie of God. But for as much as the lawe of nature is the lawe and ordinance of God, he doeth no∣thing else, but set the power of God against his will and decree, in making whereof did concurre, his power, wis∣dome, and goodnesse. God hath decreede that one body can be but in one place at one time, and that two bodies cannot occupie one proper place at once, nor one body without comixtion of partes, be in another bodye. And therefore both Cranmer and Oecolampadius haue true∣ly sayed, that it is vnpossible those thinges should be o∣therwise, then God hath decreed them. Now riseth vp this Gargantua, and will proue by scripture, that one bodie may be in another, and two bodies in one place, & alledgeth the text Ioan 20. that Iesus came, the dores being shutt, and stoode in the middest of them and saide, peace be with you, and this being testifyed for a miraculous comming in of Christ, proueth that he so comming in passed through dore or wall, as his pleasure was to do. Although the wordes of the texte 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after the dores were shutt, doth not in∣force vs to acknowledge any miracle, but that he might be let in of the porter at euen, after the dores were shutt vp for feare of the Iewes soudein breaking in vppon the Disciples that were gathered together in that place: yet I will willingly acknowledge a miraculous comming in of Christe, but no passing through the bordes of the dore, or stones of the wall: but that by his diuine po∣wer,

he did either open the dore and shutt it immediatly after he was passed through, or else at the vttermost, that the substance of the dore or wall gaue place to his diuine presence, and immediatly returned to his naturall state and place.

And whereas M. Heskins, no lesse impudently then vnlearnedly, doth charge Cranmer with falsifying the Scripture, where he affirmeth, that Christ might as well come into the house when the dore was shutt, as the A∣postles coulde go out of prison, the dore being shutt, Act. 5. he doth nothing else but bewray his great fol∣ly, ioyned with no lesse malice against the trueth. Cranmer was not ignorant, that the Angell opened the dore to the Apostles, and yet shutt it againe so close, that it could not be perceiued that it had beene opened, euen ••o might the Angell doe at the passage of our Sauiour Christe. What absurditie or repugnance is here, but in such an absurde persons eare, as Heskins is, that ouer∣throweth all lawe & order of nature to establish his bru∣tish, and monstrous errour.

But nowe we shall heare these monsters brought forth of the doctours, which Scripture hath not, and nature ab∣horreth: And firste shalbe Chrysostome Hom. de Ioan. Bapt. Sancta Maria, beata Maria, &c. Holy Maria, blessed Marie, both a mother, and a virgine. Shee was a virgine before birth, a virgine after birth. I marueile at this, howe of a vir∣gine, a virgine should be borne, and after the birth of a virgine▪ the mother should be a virgine. Will you knowe howe he was borne of a virgine, and after the birth, how shee was both a mo∣ther and a virgine? The dores were shutt, and Iesus entred in. No man doubteth, but that the dores were shutt, he that entred by the dores that were shutt, was no phantasie, he was no spirite, he was verily a body. For what sayd he? looke and see, that a spirite hath no flesh and bones, as ye see mee haue. He had flesh, he had bones, and the dores were shutt. How did fleshe and bones enter when the dores were shutt? The dores are shutt, and hee doth enter, whome wee sawe not goe in. How did he go in? all things are close, there is no place by the which he might go in,

and yet he is within, which entered in. Thou knowest in howe it was done, and doest referre it to the omnipotencie of God. Giue this also to the omnipotencie of God, that he was borne of a vir∣gine. In these wordes Chrysostome saith, that Christe might as well bee borne of a Virgine, as hee entered into the house after the doores was shut, this was not with∣out a miracle, and no more was that. But for two bo∣dies in one place at one instant, hee speaketh nothing as yet. No more doth Hieronyme In Apol. cont. Iouin. Respondeant mihi &c. Let them aunswere me howe Iesus en∣tered in, the doores being shut, when he shewed his handes to bee felt, and his side to be considered, and shewed both flesh and bones, least the trueth of his body should be thought to be a fantasie: And I will aunswere howe Saint Marie is both mother and a Vir∣gine, a Virgine before birth, a mother before she was knowne of man.

Vpon these places Maister Heskins doth inferre, that if the doores did open as the going in of Christ, which (hee saith) is a shaddowing of the miracle, and a falsifying of the scriptures, as though it were not miraculous ynough, except it tooke away the trueth of Christes body, and ouerthrewe the immutable decree of GOD, then his en∣tering In, could not proue that the clausures of the virginitie (I vse his owne wordes) of the mother of Christ notwithstanding his birth remained alwayes closed, which the Doctours intended to proue. I would not for shamefastnesse, enter into dis∣course of the secrets of virginitie, & last of all the high mysteries of the incarnation and natiuitie of our sauiour Christe, of the immaculate Virgine Marie, in any such Physicall questions, but that I am driuen vnto it by this shamelesse aduersarie. And yet will I onely al∣ledge the authoritie of the scripture, referring the col∣lection to the reuerent & shamefast consideration of the honest reader. Saint Luke writeth of his presentation at Hierusalem. As it is written in the lawe of the Lorde, euery manchilde that first openeth the matrice, shall bee called holy to the Lorde. Luke 2. According to this text, the miracle of his natiuitie preseruing her virginitie,

and of his entering in, the doores beeing shut, are verie like in deede, and agreeable to the Doctours mea∣ning.

But hee proceedeth with Chrysostomes authoritie, Hom. 86. in Ioan. Dignum autem dubitatione est &c. It is woorthie of doubt, howe the incorruptible body did receiue the fourme of the nayles, and could be touched with mortall hande. But let not this trouble thee. For this was of permission. For that body being so subtile and light, that it might enter in the doores being shut, was voyde of all grossenesse or thicknesse: but that his resurrection might be beleeued, he shewed him selfe such a one. And that thou mightest vnderstand, that it was euen he that was crucified, that none other did rise for him, therefore he roase againe with the tokens of the crosse. Except wee vnderstand Chrysostome fauourably in this place, where hee deny∣eth the glorified body of Christe to haue any thick∣nesse, but that it might pearce through all thinges as a spirite, wee shall make him author of a great heresie, both concerning the body of Christe, and concerning our bodyes which after the resurrection, must bee made conformable to his glorious body, Philip. 3. But in an other place, as wee shall heare afterwarde, hee doeth eyther expound or correct him selfe in this matter. And yet this that hee saith here, helpeth not Maister Heskins one whit, and that for two causes, one, for that hee speaketh heere of the glorified bodye of Christe, who instituted his sacrament before his bo∣dye was glorified.

An other cause, for that hee doeth not heere make two bodyes in one place, or one bodye in an other, but to auoyde that absurditie, doeth transfourme the bodye of Christe into the subtiltie and thinnesse of a spirite. But in an other sentence, De resurrect. Hom. 9. he is of an other minde concerning the bodye of Christe. Non est meum ludificare phantasmate, vanam i∣maginem visus si timet, veritatem corporis manus & digi∣tus exploret. Potest fortassis aliqua oculos caligo decipere, palpatio corporalis verum corpus agnoscat. Spiritus, inquit,

carnem & ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere: Quod Ostia clausa a penetrani, sola est virtus Diuini spiritus, non sola carnis substantia. It is not my propertie to delude my disciples with a fantasie, if your sight feare a vaine image, let your hand and fin∣gers trie out the trueth of my body. Some myste peraduenture may deceiue the eyes, let bodily handling acknowledge a true body. A spirite (saith he) hath neither flesh nor bones, as you see mee to haue. That I pearced through the doores beeing shut, it is the onely power of the diuine spirite, not the onely substaunce of the flesh. In these wordes, hee ascribeth it to the onely power of his diuine spirite, that he passed through when the doores were shut, and not to the subtiltie of his glorified body, as in the former sentence. Likewise in Ioan. Hom. 90.

Qui intrauit per ostia clausa, non erat phantasma, non erat spi∣ritus, verè corpus erat. Hee that entered in by the doores beeing shut, was no fantasie, hee was no spirite, hee was a body truely and in deede. But wee must passe ouer vnto Saint Ambrose, in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 4.

Habuit admiran∣di causam Thomas &c. Thomas had a cause to maruell, when hee sawe all thinges being shut vp and closed, the body of Christe by clausures without all wayes for body to enter, the ioyntes bee∣ing vnbroken, to bee entered in amongest them. And there∣fore it was a woonder, howe the corporall nature passed through the impenetrable body, with an inuisible comming, but with inui∣sible beholding, easie to be touched, hard to bee iudged. In these woordes of Saint Ambrose, nothing can bee certainely gathered, bycause hee doth not him selfe determine af∣ter what manner the body of Christe came in, but one∣ly sheweth what cause Thomas had to doubt and mar∣uell, sauing that in an other place, I finde him write sus∣pitiously of the trueth of the body of Christe, and of the true properties thereof.

For in his booke De mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9. hee hath these woordes, speaking of the body of Christ: Corpus enim Dei corpus est spirituale, Corpus Christi corpus est diuini spiritus. The body of GOD is a spirituall body. The body of Christe is the body of a diuine spirite.

These sayinges for reuerence of the Authours, may haue a gentle construction, but other∣wise

they are not directly consonant to the Catholique confession of the trueth of Christes body, and the pro∣perties thereof, remayning euen after his Assention, as hath bene discussed by the scriptures, especially after the Church was troubled with the heresies of the Eutychians and Monotholites.

Nowe followeth Saint Augustine, De agone Christiano Cap. 24. Nec eos audiamus &c. Neither let vs giue eare to them that denye, that the body of Christe is risen againe of such qualitie, as it was put into the graue. Neither let is moue vs that it is written that hee appeared soudenly to his disciples after the doores were shut, that therefore we should denye it to bee an hu∣mane body, bicause wee see that contrarie to the nature of this body, it entered by the doores that were shut, for all thinges are possible to GOD. For if hee could before his passion make it as cleare as the brightnesse of the Sunne, wherefore could he not after his passion, also in a moment of time, bring it into as much subtiltie as hee would, that hee might enter in by the doores that were shut.

Here first of all Maister Heskins according to his ac∣customed manner of falsification, translateth tale corpus, the same body, as though there were no difference be∣tweene substaunce: and qualitie. Secondly it is mani∣fest, that Augustine in this place, iudgeth (as in other places most plainely) that the body of Christe nowe glo∣rified, retayneth not onely the substaunce, but also the properties and qualities of a true body, which hee had before he suffered. Although for that moment, he sup∣poseth the body of Christe might be subtiliated, by his Diuine power, to passe through the doores being shut, and yet affirmeth nothing directly, that it was so, but rather that it might bee so. Whereas more probably hee might haue thought, that eyther the doore opened: or the nature of the boordes gaue place, then that the body of Christe for the time was altered.

The like place hee hath in him Epistle to Volusianus, which I maruell Maister Heskins hath not noted: Ep. 3.

Ipsa virtus per inuiolatae matris virginea viscera membra in∣fantis

dutie, quae posted per clausa ostia membra i••uenis introdux∣is. The same power brought foorth his body being an infant, by the Virginall bowels of his vndefiled mother, which afterward brought in his body being a yong-man, by the doores that were shut. Of his natiuitie whereunto this Doctour doth compare his comming in, after the doores were shut, I haue shewed before howe it was, out of the scripture.

But let vs heare what Cyrillus saith of y^e same matter, In Ioan. lib. 12. cap▪ 53. clausu foribus &c. After the gates were shut, the Lord by his almightie power, the nature of things being ouercome, soudenly entered vnto his disciples: let no man therfore enquire, how the body of our Lord entred in, after the gates were shut, when he may vnderstand that these things are described by the Euangelist not of a bare man a•• we be nowe, bu•• of the almightie sonne of God. For seeing he is true God, he is not subiect to the lawe of nature, which thing did appeare in other his miracles also. Here Maister Heskin•• after his wonted syn∣c••••itie, translateth 〈…〉〈…〉, through the gates beeing shut, otherwise the place of Cyrill is of our side, that hee chaungeth not the nature of his body, but ouercame the nature of other thinges, and so made a passage for him selfe, although the gates were shut, as in his other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hee chaunged not the nature of his body▪ when hee walked on the waters. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the nature of the waters. Hee altered not the trueth of his bodye, when hee arose out of the sepulchre, but remoued the stone from the doore thereof &. For it stoode Cyrillus vppon: by reason of the Eutychian ••eresie, to preserue in all thinge the true properties of the body of Christ, which in all places he doth ••onstantly affirme. But the elder fa∣thers, before they 〈…〉〈…〉 by that here••ie to search out the trueth did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 some∣times inconsideratly was beside ••hem, affirmes, that he•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 already 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Hilariu•• do••h not onely passed through the Lands walle•• with his body, in Psalme. 55. but al•••• that his body felt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 paine in the time of his passion: In. Psalm. 4•• 〈…〉〈…〉 and in other p••aces: whiche i•• a gro••••e and wic∣ked

errour, wherevnto hee was carried, whyle he stu∣died too much to aduaunce his Diuinitie, in the humane nature.

Howe be it the trueth of his naturall bodie by other Doctours was in all times affirmed, especially after Eu∣tyches; had broched his wicked heresie. First Origen, as it is cited by Pamphilus in his apollogie out of his booke Peria••chie translated by Ruffinus, thus writeth:

Corpus as∣sumpfit nostro corpori simile: eo solo differens, quod natum ex vir∣gine espiritu sancto est. He toke vpon him a body like vnto our body: in this point onely differing, that it was borne of a virgine by the holy Ghoste. This place would the rather bee noted, because it conteineth the consent of three auncient Doctours, of seueral ages.

Origenes, Pam∣philus, and Ruffinus. Afterward in the counsel of Chalce∣don, & the sixt of Constantinople, they were condemned heretiques, whiche denied either the trueth of the hu∣mane nature of Christ, or the true properties thereof. At in this latter counsell was allowed the Epistle of Leo, Ad Flauianum written in time of the former, wherein he writeth:

Simul suit & altitud•• Deitatis, & humilitas car∣nis, seruante vtraque natura et••am post aditatationem, fine defe∣ctu, proprietatem suam. Together be both the height of the Godhead, and the humilitie of the fleshe, both the natures, euen after the adiu••••rion, keeping the pro∣pertie without defect. And againe, Nusqu••m 〈◊〉〈◊〉 diffe∣rentia naturarum propter vnitatem, sed potius salua proprietate 〈…〉〈…〉 ••••turae in vnum personam, vnam subsistentium concur∣rente. In no place taking away the difference of the na∣tures, because of the vnitie, but rather hauing the propri∣etie of both the natures, concurring in one person, one subsistence.

Those testimonies 〈◊〉〈◊〉 shewe the iudgement of the Church concerning this matter, when iust occasion was giuen, narrowly to search out the trueth in the con∣clusion of this Chapter, Maister Heskins yeelding a rea∣son of his trauell in this matter, alledgeth two causes, the one that the miracle might not be shadowed the

other, that he might shew the workes of Christe to be a∣boue nature. And both these might stand without his la∣bour. For it was a miracle aboue nature, that the doores of their owne accorde, opened to our sauiour Christ at his entrie, as when Peter also came foorth of the prison Actes 12. But whereas he bringeth in an example of the eternitie of the worlde, which is held by some natu∣rall philosophers, to proue that Gods workes are aboue nature, he sheweth a grosse capacitie, that can not put a difference betweene the errours of naturall Philoso∣phers, and the true lawe and order of nature made by God himselfe, which is vndoubtedly knowen to all wise men, as in these propositions nowe in question. For it is not the opinion of philosophers we stande vpon, but vpon the trueth of thinges naturall, which either sense or first intellections doth manifestly approue vnto vs. For as Tertullian saith, speaking of the trueth of Christes bo∣dy:

Non lic••t nobis in dubàm sensus istos reuocare; n•• & in Christ•• d•• side illoru•• deliberemus. It is not lawful for vs to call in doubt these senses, least in Christe also we should stand in deliberation of the credit of them.

The like is to be iudged of such trueth in naturall causes▪ as Christ the true light hath kindled in the mindes of naturall men, to see the works of God in his creatures, lest beside horri∣ble confusion of all thinges, we be driuen also into blas∣phemou•• errour••.

* 1.23The twelfth Chapter aunswereth certaine obiections tha•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to imp••••ge the Catholique doctrine of this matter.

* 1.24In the beginning of this Chapter▪ he saith, there was neuer heretiques but had some shew of argumentes to a∣uouche his heresie, and bringeth in diuerse examples, on∣ly the proclaymer, made no argument in his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for y^t he would haue the people receiue his bare proclama∣tion. What arguments he vsed, let the world iudge & the Papistes if they can, study to answer him. But Oecolam∣padius (he saith,) hath heaped vp scriptures to proue the

ascention of Christ, which the Papistes doe graunt, & yet acknowledge his presence on the earth in the sacrament: as though his departing out of the world, and presence in the world concerning his bodily presence, could stand to∣gether. Then he flyeth to his diuine power, by which he is able to be present in diuerse places, as well as do such and such miracles as he rehearseth, and wisheth that we should not be so streight and cruell to the body of Christ, as to giue it no greater prerogatiue, then vnto any other body. Verily we do acknowledge as great prerogatiue thereof, as he himselfe hath giuen it, whereof we haue vnderstan∣ding by his holy worde, and otherwise it were madnesse in vs, to take vpon vs to be liberall to him which giueth all thinges. And if we found as good authoritie for the v∣biquitie, or pluralitie of placing of his body, as we finde for the feeding vs thereby into eternall life, we would as easily confesse the one, as we doe the other. But we finde not in deede (as M. Heskins saith) that he himselfe hath giuen or would giue his body that prerogatiue, to be eue∣ry where, or in more places then one at once. As for the possibilitie, we extend it no further then his will. We know he can do what soeuer he will. And many thinges we know he cannot do, because he wil not. But M. Hes∣kins to assure vs of his will, hath nothing to bring, but y^t which is al the controuersie, & which most impudently he affirmeth, that he hath proued both by scriptures and doctours, that Christ hath caused his bodie to be in di∣uers places at one time, which neither scripture nor any Doctour of antiquitie euer did affirme in proper manner of speaking, otherwise in figuratiue speech, we may truly say we eate in the sacrament the body of Christe, which is in heauen, when to speake properly, and w^tout figure, we eate but the bread, which to the faithfull receiuer is a sa∣crament, and seale of our spirituall nourishment, whiche we receiue of his flesh and bloud, after a diuine and vn∣speakable manner vnto eternall life: saith rather lifting vs vp into heauen, then bringing Christes body into the earth.

Maister Heskins saith, the scriptures that say Christ is in heauen, speake without exclusiues, or exceptiues, and therefore there is no denial imployed, but that he may be beleeued to be also on the earth in the sacrament:

When Peter in the Actes 3. affirmeth that Christ must be conteined in heauen, (which is meant of his humanitie) vntill the time of restoring of all thinges: is not this an exclusion of all other places or beeings of his humanitie? When Paule to the Colossians, Colo. 3. willeth them to seeke those thinges that are aboue, and where Christ is at the right hand of God, to set their mindes on thinges a∣boue, and not on things vpon the earth: is not the re••son, because Christ concerning his humanitie, is aboue & not vpon earth? Is not this an exclusiue and exception? When Christe sayeth not only, I goe to my father, but also I leaue the worlde Ioan. 16. Whiche saying the Apostles confessed to be plaine, and without all parable. Is not this a manifest exclusion of his bodily presence from the worlde? So that it is manifest, that this ascention and a∣biding in heauen, concerning his humane nature, in which he ascended, is an excluding and shutting out, and denying of all other places or presences of his bodie, then to be in heauen only. But now that he hath thus tombled vp the authorities of the scripture, he wil take in hand to answer the obiections brought out of the Doctours. And first shalbe the saying of Augustine Ad Dardanum ep. 57.

Which place contrarie to his bragg in the beginning, he alledgeth truncatly, & by halfe, beginning at the middest thereof. But this place is in Augustine: Et sic venturus est, illa angelica voce testante, quemadmodum ire visus est in Coelum, id est, in eadem carnis forma atque substantia, cui profectò immortali∣tatem dedit, naturam non abstulis. Secundùm hanc formam non est putandus vbique diffusus. And he shall come euen so (as that voyce of the Angel doth testifie.) euen as he was seene to go into heauen, that is, in the same fourme and substance of his fleshe, to which truly, he hath giuen im∣mortalitie, but he hath not taken the nature from it. Ac∣cording to this fourme, he is not thought, to be diffused

in all places.

All this hath Heskins left out, and beginneth thus: Cauendum est enim, no ita veritatem astru••mu•• hominis, vt veritatem corporis auferamus. Non est enim consequens, vt quod no Deo est, ita sit vbique vt Deus. For we must beware that we doe not so affirme the Deitie of the man, that we take away the tru∣eth of his body. For it is no consequent, that, that which is in God, should so be euerie where as God is. Note here, that Saint Au∣gustine doeth not onely flatly denie the vbiquitie of Christes body, but also affirmeth that it reteineth still the nature of a bodie, which is to be conteined in one onely place. Againe he sayeth in the same Epistle Iesus vbique per id quod Deus est: in coelo autem per id quod homo est. Iesus by that he is God is euerie where: by that he is man, he is in hea∣uen. Nowe let vs heare, howe wisely Maister Heskins will auoide this authoritie. First he sayeth, that Augu∣stine in this epistle, speaketh not of the sacrament, and therefore these sentences make not against that matter.

But when Augustine speaketh generally of the bodie of Christ, that it reteineth the nature of a body, that it is not euerie where, &c. he doeth not except the sacrament. Although it is false, that Heskins saith, for in the latter end of that Epistle he hath these wordes:

Huius corporis caput est Christus, huius corporis vnitas nostro sacrificio commen∣datur. The head of this bodie is Christ, the vnitie of this bodie is commended in our sacrifice.

By sacrifice (as Maister Heskins will confesse) he meaneth the celebration of the sacrament. Wherefore he forgate not the sacrament in that Epistle, but that he might haue made exception thereof, if he had thought good. The seconde aunswere of Maister Heskins is a balde distinction, that a thing may be at one time in ma∣ny places two wayes, the one is by nature, the other by gifte. By nature he confesseth that the body of Christe can not be in two places, but by gifte it may be euerie where, or in as many places as hee will: and then brin∣geth many examples to shewe that CHRISTES body hath many properties by gifte, which it hath not by nature. And in this distinction he triumpheth out of

measure.

But the lewde sophister will not see that Saint Augus∣tine denieth to Christes body his imagined gift, and affir∣meth his denied nature to remaine.

Cui (saith he) profectò immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstudit: to which fleshe he hath giuen immortalitie, but not taken away the na∣ture of it.

Doeth not Augustine here plainely deny the gift of vbiquitie, affirming the nature to remaine concer∣ning the circum scription of place? You see this very place to ouerthrow his blinde distinction.

Nowe followeth another place out of this Epistle to Dardanus, in which he beeing such an impudent falsarie, as we haue so often discouered, yet blusheth not to accuse Oecolampadius for falsifying of Aug. by a subtile addi∣tion. Spacia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquaem erunt, & quia nus∣quam erunt, nec erunt. Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit vbi fint, & ideo non alibi, quàm in caelo corpore fate••••r Christum. Take the spaces of places from bodies and they shall be no where, and because they shalbe no where, they shal not be at al. Take the same bodies from the qualities of bodies, and there shal no place be found, where they may be, & therfore we confesse Christ in body to be no where else but in heauē. These last words: & ther∣fore we confesse Christ in body to be no where but in heauen: as he saith truly they be not in Augustine, so he saith falsly, thei were added by Oecolampadius, otherwise then as a con∣clusion of his owne, gathered out of Augustines wordes. But he must haue some cauill, to shift of the matter. For his answere is so impudent, that I maruell the beast was not ashamed once to rehearse this obiection, which he could no more colourably auoide: He saith these wordes of Augustine are not spoken of the body of Christe, but of natural bodies vpon the earth: whereas the only pur∣pose of Augustine is, to shewe the naturall propertie of the bodie of Christ to be conteined in one place, accor∣ding to the nature of al other bodies either in heauen or in earth.

But because this olde foole playeth the boy so kinde∣ly, let me pose him in his aunswere like a childe. Spea∣keth

Augustine of all bodies or of some? If of all, then of the bodie of Christ: If of some, then of particulars followeth nothing. But speaketh he of all naturall bo∣dies of the earth? Then aunswere me whether Christes body be vpon the earth? Yes, or else it could not be in the sacrament. Well admitte it be vpon the earth, is it a na∣turall bodie or no? Take heede what you aunswere. Yea, it is a naturall bodie: why then sir, if Christes body be a naturall body vpon earth, and Augustine speaketh of na∣turall bodies vpon earth, then Augustine speaketh of Christes bodie also. This childishe kinde of reasoning were good inough for such childish aunsweres as he ma∣keth to so graue authorities.

But let vs see another obiection, whiche is out of Au∣gustine also. In Ioan. tract. 30. Sursum est Domimus, sed etiam hîc, & veritas Dominus. Corpus enim Domini, in quo resurrexit, v∣no loco esse potest. Veritas eius vbique diffusa est. Our Lorde is aboue, hi•• also he is here, and our Lord is the trueth. For the bo∣die of our Lorde, in which he rose againe, can be but in one place, his truth is diffused euerie where. This place is corruptly cited by Maister Heskins, for he setteth it downe thus: Sed etiam hîc est veritas Domini. His translation I wil not deale with, because it is the matter in controuersie. He aunswereth that Augustine saith no more, but that he may be in one onely place at one time, if it please him. A goodly saying, as though euer any man would thinke otherwise, then that it were possible for his bodie to be in one place at one time. But that one place in these wordes, is an exclu∣siue of all other places: if the opposition of one place and all other places will not serue, at least wise, let the Canon law it selfe beare some sway with Papistes, to ex∣pound it, for in the decrees De contract. Dist. 2. prima quidem. Thi•• place of Augustine is thus cited.

Corpus enim in quo resurrexit, in vno loco esse oportet, veritas autem eius vbique dis∣fusa est. For his body in which he rose againe must needes be in one place, but his trueth is diffused in all places By this it is euident, that Augustines worde, Potest esse vno loco assigneth his body to one onely place.

Nowe as

though there were no more obiections out of Augustine, or any other writer against the vbiquitie of Christes bo∣die, he endeth with this: concluding after his maner, that faith must ouer rule reason, which is true, where Gods worde hath promised any thing, but we denie that Christ hath promised the presence of his bodie in moe places then one, therefore there is no place for faith where the word hath not gone before. But left the reader should thinke, M. Heskins hath answered all obiections out of Augustine, I thinke good to set downe one or two more, first In Ioan. Tract. 31.

Christus, homo secundum corpus in loco est, & de loco migrat, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad alium locum venerit, in eo lo∣co, vnde venit, non est. Deus autem implet omnia, & vbique totu•• est, non secundùm spacia tenetur locis, &c. Christe, the man according to his bodie is in a place, & goeth from a place, and when he is come vnto another place, he is not in that place from whence he came, but God filleth all thinges, and is whole in euerie place, he is not helde in places ac∣cording to spaces or distances.

And Tr. 50. Respondent quem tenebo? absentem? Quomodo in coelum maman mittam vt ibi sedentem teneam? Fidem mitte, & tenuisti. Parentes tuitenuerunt carne, no tene corde, quoniam Christus absens etiam presens est. Nisi praesens esset a nobis ipsit to∣neri non posset, sed quoniam verum est quod ait: Ecce ego vobis∣cum sum vsque ad consumnationem saeculi: & abijs & his est, & redijt & nos non deseruit. Corpus enim su••n intulit caelo, maiesta∣tem non abstulis mundo. They answere (meaning the vnbe∣leeuing Iewes) whom shall I holde? Him that is absent? How shall I send vp my hand into heauen, that I may holde him which sitteth there? Send vp faith, and thou hast held him. Thy parentes held him in flesh, holde thou him in heart. For Christ being absent is also present. For except he were present, he could not be held of ourselues, but because it is true which he saith: Beholde I am with you to the end of the worlde, he is both gone away and is here, & is come againe and hath not forsaken vs. For he hath carried his bodie into heauen, he hath not taken a∣way his Maiestie from the worlde. And in the same trea∣tise,

speaking of his presence in the sacrament: Si bonus es & ad corpus Christi pertines, quod significat Petrus, habes Chris∣tum in praesenti & in futuro. In presenti per fidem, in praesenti per signum, in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum, in praesenti per altaris cibum & potum. If thou be a good man, and pertey∣nest to the bodie of Christe, thou hast that which Peter doeth signifie, that is, Christ in present, and in that which is to come. In present by faith, in present by signe, in pre∣sent by the sacrament of baptisme, in present by y^e meate and drinke of the altar. And againe: Loquebatur de prae∣sentia corporis sui. Nam secundùm Maiestatem suam, secundùm prouidentiam, secundùm ineffabilem & inuisibilem gratiam im¦pletur, quod ab eo dictum est: Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus die∣bus vsque ad consūmationem saeculi. Secundùm carnem verò, quam verbum sumpsit, secundùm id quod de virgine natus est, secundùm id quod a Iudae is pręhensus est, quod ligno crucifixus, quod de cruce depositus, quod linteis inuolutus, quod in sepulchro conditus, quod in resurrectione manifestatus, non semper habebitis vobiscum. Quare? quoniam conuersatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadra∣ginta diebus cum discipulis suis, & eis deducentibus, videndo, non sequendo, ascendit in coelum, & non est hîc. Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris: & hic est, non enim recessit pręsentia maiestatis. Aliter secundùm praesentiam maiestatis, semper habemus Christum: secundùm pręsentiam carnis rectè est discipulis, Me autem non semper habebitis. Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundùm praesentiam carnis, paucis diebus modò fide tenet, oculis non videt, &c. That is. He spake of the presence of his bodie. For according to his Maiestie, according to his prouidence, according to his vn∣speakable and inuisible grace, it is fulfilled that was saide of him: Beholde I am with you all the dayes vnto the end of the worlde. But according to the fleshe which the worde tooke vpon him, according to that he was born of the virgin, according to that he was taken of the Iewes, that he was crucified on the tree, that he was taken down from the crosse, that he was wrapped in linnen clo∣thes, that he was laied in the sepulchre, that he was openly shewed in his resurrection, you shall not always haue me with you. Why so? because he was conuersant with his

disciples, according to the presence of his body, by the space of 40. dayes, and they bringing him on his way, by seeing, not by following, he ascended into heauen, and is not here. For there he is where he sitteth at the right hand of his father. And he is here also. For he is not de∣parted concerning the presence of his Maiestie, other∣wise according to the presence of his maiestie, we haue Christ alwayes. But according to the presence of his flesh, it was well saide to his disciples: but me shall ye not al∣wayes haue. For according to the presence of his flesh, the Church had him a few dayes, now she holdeth him by faith, she seeth him not with eyes.

These places and such like, of which a number might be brought out of diuers authours, I wish the Readers to consider for the presence of his body in the worlde, or in many places at one time, and to see how they will stande with Popish transubstantiation.

* 1.25The thirteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of an other text in the sixt of Saint Ioan.

The text he meaneth is this: Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man,* 1.26 and drinke his bloud, you haue no life in you. That this should be spoken of, in the sacra∣ment of the Lordes supper, he wil proue by this reason: as a man must haue birth and nourishment, so there be two sacraments, baptisme & the supper, by which we are born, and nourished vnto eternal life, and both necessarie: for as Christ speaketh here of the one, so to Nicodemus he spea∣keth of the other, except a man be borne of water, and of the spirite, &c. But seeing he himselfe denieth, the necessi∣tie of the one and of the other, but in them that are of type age, &c. it is manifest, that neither the one place is of baptisme, nor the of the other supper, but as these sacra∣mentes are seales, to testifie the grace of regeneration, & preseruation. But if his reason faile, the doctours interpre∣tation shall helpe, namely Cyprian, and Theophylacte. The place of Cyprian, hath bene already rehearsed, and

••onsidered in the fourth Chapter of this booke,* 1.27 whether I referre the Reader for breuitie sake. The other place ci∣ted by Maister Heskins, to proue that Cyprian by this word Eucharistia meaneth the bodie of Christ, is Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra legem Euangelij, &c. They contrarie to the lawe of the Gospell, and also your honourable petition, before penance done, and before confession made of their most greeuous and extreeme of∣fence, before hand was laide on them by the Bishop, and the Clear∣gie for repentance, dare be bolde to offer for them, and giue them the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing, that is to prophane the holy bodie of our Lorde. Thus much Heskins rehearseth: but Cyprian proceedeth: Cum scriptum sit, &c.

Seeing it is writen: he that eateth this bread, and drinketh this cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily, shalbe guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lorde. By these wordes which Maister Hes∣kins concealeth, it is apparent, how they did prophane the bodie of Christ, that gaue the sacrament to vnpenitent of∣fenders, namely in that sense, which S. Paule saith they are guiltie of the death of Christ.

That Theophylacte vn∣derstandeth this text of the receiuing of the Diuine mys∣teries, and requireth faith in the receiuers: although it, make litle for his purpose, yet because he is a late writer I will not spende time about his authoritie.

The fourteenth Chapter expoundeth the same text by S. Augu∣stine, and Cyrill.* 1.28

Out of Saint Augustine are alledged foure places, one In Ioan. Tra. 36. Quomodo quidem detur, &c. How it is giuen,* 1.29 and what is the manner of the eating of this bread, ye knowe not. Neuerthelesse, except ye eate that flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, ye shall haue no life in you. This did he speake not to dead carkases, but to liuing men. By this place sayeth Maister Heskins is proued, that the Iewes knewe not the manner of eating of Christes fleshe in the sacrament.

And no maruell, for his disciples did not yet knowe it, nor could, before the sacrament was instituted, and therefore Saint Augustine in the same place expoundeth

what this meate and drinke was, saying: Hunc itaque e••∣bum & potum societatem vult intelligi corporis & membrorum suorum, quod est sancta Ecclesia in praedestinatis, & vocatis, & iustificatis, & glorificatis sanctis & fidelibus eius▪ He woulde haue this meate and drinke to be vnderstoode the fel∣lowship of his bodie and his members, which is the ho∣ly Church in them that are praedestinated, and called, and glorified, euen his sayntes and faithfull ones. And af∣terwarde he sayeth: Huius rei sacramentum id est vnita∣tis corporis & sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis in∣teruallis dierū in Dominica mensa pręparatur. & de mensa Do∣minica sumitur: quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit. The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the vnitie of the bodie and bloude of Christe in some places euerie daye, in some places at certeine dayes betweene, is prepared in the Lordes ta∣ble, and from the Lordes table is receiued, vnto some to life, to other some to destruction. But the thing it selfe whereof it is a sacrament, is to life vnto euery man, and to destruction of none that shalbe partaker of it.

These places declare, that the text in hande, is by Au∣gustine expounded not of the sacrament, but of the so∣cietie of the members of Christe in his bodie, whereof the communion is a sacrament. So that Master Hes∣kins alledgeth Augustine directly against his playne meaning.

The seconde place he citeth out of Augustine is in Psalm. 98. Nisi quis, &c. Except a man eate my flesh, he shall haue no life. They tooke it foolishly, carnally they thought, and they thought that our Lorde woulde cutt certeine peeces from his bodie and giue them.

They vnderstood not (sayeth Maister Heskins) that he woulde giue them his fleshe to be ea∣ten verily in the sacrament. But howe verily, let Saint Augustine tell his owne tale in the same place. Ille autem instruxit eos & ait eis: Spiritus est qui viuificat, caro autem ni∣hil prodest. Verba que loquntus sum vobis, spiritus est & vita. Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquntus sum. Non hoc corpus quod

videtis manducaturi estis▪ & bibituri illum sanguinem, quem fu∣suri sunt, qui me cru••ifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commend••••i spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vot. Et sine∣cesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen inuisibiliter in∣telligi. But he instructed them, and sayeth vnto them: It is the Spirite that quickeneth, the fleshe profiteth no∣thing. The wordes that I haue spoken to you, are spi∣rite and life. Vnderstande ye spiritually, that whiche I speake: You shall not eate this bodie which you see, and drinke that bloude which they shall shead, that shall crucifie mee. I haue commended vnto you a certeine sacrament, which being spiritually vnderstoode, shall quicken you. Although it be necessarie that the same should be celebrated visibly, yet it must be vnderstoode inuisibly. This saying of Augustine being so plaine, I shall not neede to gather any more of it, then euery sim∣ple man at the first reading will conceiue.

The thirde place he citeth is, de Doct. Christ. lib. 3. Capitul. 16. which he citeth corruptly and truncately, al∣though I see not what frawde lyeth in his corruption, saue onely he declareth, that he hath not redd the place in Augustine him selfe, but taketh it out of some col∣lectour or gatherer. The woordes of Augustine are these:

Si praeceptiua locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus ve∣tans, aut vtilitatem, aut beneficentiam iubens, non est figurata.

Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere, aut vtilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, figura est. Nisi manducaueritis (inquit) carn••m filij hominis & sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis, facinur vel flagitium videtur iubere, figura est ergo, praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum & suauiter at∣que vtiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit.

If it be a speache of commaun∣dement, forbidding any wickednesse or heynous of∣fence, or commaunding any profite or well doing, it is no figuratiue speache. But if it seeme to commaunde a wic∣ked deede, or an heynous offence, or to forbidd any profit or well doing, it is a figure.

Except you shall eat (sayth he) the flesh of the sonne of man, &

drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you. He fe••••eth to com∣maund a heynous offence, or a wicked deede: therefore it is a fi∣gure, commaunding vs to communicate with the pas••ion of our Lorde, and swetely and profitably to keepe in a memorie, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Although this place be directly against his purpose, and the purpose of al the Papistes, yet by a fonde glose of one Buitmundus, that wrote against Berengarius, he would seeme to make it serue his turne, and wring it out of our hands. And this forsooth is the shift. The sacrament is not a figure of the bodie of Christe, but of his death. But Augustine in this place calleth not the sacrament a figure, but sayeth that the text in hande, is a figuratiue speach, and sheweth howe it must be vnderstood.

The fourth place he rehearseth out of Augustine is Contra aduers. legis & Proph. Cap. 9. he omitteth to quote the booke, but it is in the second booke, and thus he ci∣teth it. Quamuis horribilius videatur humanam carnem man∣ducare, quàm perimere, & humanum sanguinē potare, quàm fun∣dere: nos tamen mediatorem Dei & hominum Iesum Christum carnem suam nobis manducandam, bibendum{que} sanguinem dan∣tem fideli corde & ore suscipimus. Although it may seeme to be more horrible, to eate the flesh of man, then to kill a man, and to drinke the bloud of man, then to shed it: yet wee for all that doe receiue the mediatour of God and man Iesus Christ, giuing vs his flesh to be eaten, with a faithfull heart and mouth, and his bloude to be drunken. Thus Augustine. But rather, thus Heskins, the impudent falsifier, truncator, gelder, peruerter, and lewd interpreter of Augustine, and all other doctours that come in his hande.

But Augustine him selfe writeth thus:

Sicut duos in carne vna Christum & ecclesiam istis nolentibus fine vlla obscoe∣nitate cognoscimus: sicut mediatorem Dei & homimum, hominem Christum Iesum, carnem suam nobis manducandam bibendum{que} sanguinem dantem, fideli corde & ore suscipimus: quamuis hor∣ribilius videatur, humanam carnem manducare, quàm perime∣re, & humanum sanguinem potare qàum fundere. At{que} in omni∣bus sanctis scripturis, secundùm sanae fidei regulam figuratè di∣ctum

vel factum si quid exponitur de quibuslibet rebus & verbis, quae sacris paginis continentur, expositio illa ducatur non asper∣nanter, sed sapienter audiamur. Euen as we knowe, though against these mens will, two in one fleshe, Christe and his Church without any filthinesse: euen as with faith∣full heart and mouth wee receiue the Mediatour of God and man Iesus Christe, giuing vs his fleshe to bee eaten, and his bloud to be drunken: although it seemeth a more horrible thing to eate the fleshe of man, then to kill him: and to drinke the bloud of man, then to shed it.

And in all the holie scriptures, if any thing figura∣tiuely spoken or done, be expounded, according to the rule of sounde faith, of any things or wordes, which are conteyned in the holie scriptures, let not the exposition be taken contemptuously, but let vs heare wisely.

Where is nowe that should pinche the proclaimer by the con∣science of receiuing the bodie of Christ with the mouth? Where is that lewd insultation against Maister Horne, whome (he sayeth) he heard in Cambridge, abuse the figuratiue speach, and place it there, where it should not be placed, &c. When S. Augustine maketh this whole text a figu∣ratiue speache.

And if Maister Horne (as he sayeth) did not place the figuratiue speach as Augustine doeth: why did not such a doubtie doctour as Maister Heskins is, either in another sermon openly confute him, or in priuate conference admonishe him of it. But such hedgecrea∣pers as he is, that dare not ioyne with a much weaker aduersarie, then that reuerend father is, in any conference or open disputation, can shoote out their slaunderous boltes against them, when they are a farre of, and prate of placing and displacing of Augustine, when he him∣selfe (as I haue shewed) most impudently peruerted and displaced the wordes and sense of Augustine, euen in this verie sentence, whereuppon he thus taketh occasion to iangle.

Out of Cyrill are alledged two places neither of

both any thing to his purpose, but directly against him, the former In 1••. Ioan. Non poterat, &c. This corruptible nature of the bodie could not otherwise be brought to vncorrup∣tiblenesse and life, except the bodie of naturall life were ioyned to it. Doest thou not beleeue mee saying these thinges? I pray thee beleeue Christ saying: Verily, verily, I saye vnto you, ex∣cept you shall ea••e the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you. Thou hearest him openly saying, that wee shall not haue life, except wee drinke his bloude, and eate his fleshe. He sayeth, in your selues, that is, in your bo∣die. The same fleshe of life, by right, may be vnderstanded, life.

What is there here for the sacrament? or that euery Christian man of our side will not graunt? But belike the second place maketh all playne. Non negamus &c. Wee do not denye, that with right faith and syncere loue, wee are spiritually ioyned to Christe: but that wee haue no manner of coniunction with him after the fleshe, that truely wee do vtterly denye, and that wee saye to be altogether contrarie to the holye Scriptures. For who hath doubted, that Christe is euen so the vine, and wee the braunches, that wee receiue life from thence into vs. Heare Saynt Paule saying, that we all are one bodye in Christ: For although wee be many, yet we are one in him, for wee all take parte of one breade. Or peraduenture doth hee thinke that the power of the mysticall blessing is vnknowen to vs, which when it is done in vs, doeth it not make Christe to dwell in vs corporally, by the participation of the fleshe of Christe? For why are the members of the faithfull, the members of Christ? Knowe ye not (sayeth he) that the members of the faithfull, are the members of Christe? Shall I then make the members of Christ the members of an harlott? In this place Cyrill sayeth, that Christe doth dwell corporally in vs, but howe? by participation of the fleshe of Christe, which as he tooke of our nature, so hath he againe giuen the same vnto vs, to bee in deede our nourishment vnto eternall life, which thing is testified vnto vs by the sacrament, euen as the vnitie wee haue one with another, and all of vs with Christe, is testified in that we all take part of

one breade. Otherwise I see nothing in this place that may help Maister Heskins. For such as our vnitie is, such is our participation of his flesh, and as we are members of his body, so doe we eate his body. This M. Heskins must graunt, if he will allowe Cyrills authoritie, but our vni∣tie, participation, and coniunction of members, though it be in his body, of his flesh, and vnto him as our head, yet is not after a carnall manner, no more is the eating of his flesh nor the corporall dwelling of him in vs after a car∣nall or corporall manner, but after a diuine and spiritu∣all manner. The place of Chrysostome hee cyteth, hath bene once or twice considered already.

The fifteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Leo and Euthymius.* 1.30

The place of Leo is cyted out of Serm. 6. de Ieiu. sep. mens. Hanc confessionem &c. This confession most welbeloued,* 1.31 vttering foorth with all your heart, forsake ye the vngodly deui∣ses of heretiques, that your fastings and almes may be defiled with the infection of no errour. For then the offering of sacrifice is cleane, and the giuing of almes is holy, when they which performe these things vnderstand what they worke. For as our Lord saith, except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you: you ought so to be partakers of the ho∣ly table, that you doubt nothing of the trueth of the body of Christe, and of his bloud. For that is taken with the mouth, which is beleeued by faith, and in vaine doe they answere Amen, which dispute a∣gainst that which is receiued. Leo in these words, as Maister Heskins is enforced to confesse, speaketh against the Eu∣tychian heresie, which denyed the trueth of Christes body after the adunation therof to the Diuinitie (as the papistes do indeed, though not in words, by their vbiquitie & trā∣substātiatiō) & saith, thei cannot be partakers rightly of y^e sacramēt of his body & bloud, which do not acknowlege y^t he had a very body & bloud. Therfore it is intollerable impudencie in M. Hes. to note a place for M. Iewel, whē he

him selfe after, confesseth, that he spake not of the trueth of his body in the sacrament. And whereas he saith, the mouth receiueth that which is by faith beleeued, it hel∣peth him nothing, for he meaneth nothing else, but that those men cannot receiue with their mouth the sacrament of his flesh and bloud, which deny him to haue true flesh & bloud, for the sacrament is a seale and confirmation of faith. Nowe how far Leo was from transubstantiation or vbiquitie, we haue shewed before in the 11. Chapter of this booke, where his saying may be read.

The testimonie of Euthymius is cyted In 6. Ioan. Nisi comederitis. Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drink his bloud you shall haue no life in you. They thought this impos∣sible, but he shewed that it was altogether possible, and not that on∣ly, but also necessarie, which also he did vnto Nicodemus. He ad∣deth also of his bloud signifying the cup, which as is saide already, he would giue to his disciples in the last supper. Here Euthymius a late writer, and out of the compasse of the challenge, vn∣derstandeth this text of the sacrament, yet speaketh hee nothing of the carnall manner of eating. As for the other place he braggeth of in Matth. 26. which he cyteth in the 58. Chapter of this booke, how little it maketh for him, I wish the reader before he go any further, to turne to the Chapter and consider.

* 1.32The sixteenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text in hand by the Ephesine Counsell.

The woordes of the Epistle of the Ephesine Counsell vnto Nestorius,* 1.33 be these: Necessario & hoc &c. This also we do adde necessarily, for shewing foorth the death of the onely begotten sonne of God after the flesh, that is, of Iesus Christe, and confessing together his resurrection and ascention into heauen, we celebrate it in our Churches, the vnbloudie seruice of his sacrifice, so also doe we come to the mysticall blessings, and are sanctified, being made par∣takers of the holy body and precious bloud of Christ, the redeemer of vs all: Not taking it as common flesh, (which God forbid) nor at the flesh of a sanctified man, and ioyned to the word, according to

the vnitie of dignitie, or as possessing a diuine habitation, but truely quickening and made proper vnto the word it selfe. For he being naturally life as God, bicause he was vnited to his owne flesh, pro∣fessed the sonne to haue power to giue life. And therefore although he say vnto vs: Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you, yet we ought not to esteeme it as of a man, that is, one of vs. For howe can the flesh of a man after his owne nature, be a quickening flesh? But as verily made his owne flesh, which for vs was both made and called the sonne of man. The Fathers of this Counsell do not (as M. Heskins saith) expound this text of the sacrament, or de∣clare what they receiue in the sacrament, but rather shew what they iudged of that flesh, whereof they receiued the sacrament, namely, that it was not the flesh of a pure man as Nestorius affirmed, but the flesh of the son of God, & therfore had power to giue life being eatē by faith, either in the participation of the sacrament or without it. And whereas he noteth a plaine place for M. Iewel, when they say, They were made partakers of the body and bloud of Christ, there is no more plainenesse then M. Iewell will confesse. But where he addeth, Receiuing it, not as cōmon flesh, but as the flesh truely giuing life: he corrupteth the sense of the Coun∣sel, referring that to the receiuing of the sacrament, which they vnderstand of their iudgement of the flesh, where∣of they receiued the sacrament. Finally, where he would helpe the matter with the opinion of Cyril, of our corpo∣rall coniunction with Christ, howe little it auayleth we shewed before in aunswere to y^t place Cap. 14. But least he shuld lacke sufficient proofe of this matter, he confirmeth his exposition by the erronious practise of the Church of Aphrica, from Saint Cyprians time vnto Saint Augustines time at the least, which imagined such a necessitie of tha•• sacrament by this place: Except ye eate &c, that they mi∣nistred the Communion to infants, he might haue added that some did minister it to dead folkes. But this absurdi∣tie, which followeth of the exposition, will rather driue al wisemen from that exposition, then moue them to receiue it. And although the Bohemians vsed this text, to proue

the communion in both kindes, yet doth it not followe, that it is properly to be expounded of the sacrament.

* 1.34The seuenteenth Chapter expoundeth the next following by S. Augustine and Cyrill.

The text he will expound, is: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud,* 1.35 hath life in him. That this text is not to be expounded of the sacrament, it is manifest by this reason, that many doe eate the sacrament that haue not life in them: as Augustine whom he alledgeth most plainly affirmeth. But let vs see his profes for his expositi¦on. First Augustine. Tr. 26. in Ioā. Hanc non habet &c. He hath not this life that eateth not this bread, nor drinketh this bloud. For without is men may haue temporall life, but eternall they can not. He therefore which eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his bloud, hath no life in him, and he that eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud, hath life eternall. He hath answered to both, in that he saith, life e∣uerlasting. It is not so in this meate which we take to sustaine the life of this body. For he that shall not take it, shall not liue. Nor yet he that shall take it shall liue. For it may be, that by age or sicknesse, or any other cause, many which haue taken it may dye: but in this meat and drinke, that is, the body and bloud of our Lord, it is not so. For both he that taketh it not hath not life, & he that taketh it hath life, and that eternall. Although there be not one word spo∣ken here of the sacrament, and M. Heskins him selfe al∣ledgeth the words following, in which he confesseth that Augustine expoundeth this meate and drinke of the soci∣etie of Christ and his members, which is his Church: yet either so blinde or obstinate he is, that with vaine gloses he will go about to drawe Augustine to his side. First (he saith) though this meate signifie the mysticall body of Christe, yet it signifieth not that alone, but his naturall body in the sacrament, whereof he hath neuer a worde in this treatise of S. Augustine: secondly, Augustine did not go about to instruct the people what they should receiue, but how wel they shuld receiue it. Which is vtterly false, for hee doth both, and there is no better way to instruct

men howe well they should receiue the sacrament, then to teach them to consider what they do receiue. And ther∣fore the conclusion of this treatise, which he cyteth, is al∣together against him. Hoc ergo totum &c. Let all this therfore auayle to this end most welbeloued, that we ea••e not the flesh and bloud of Christ onely in a sacrament, which many euill men doe, but that we eate and drinke euen to the participation of the spirit, that we may remaine in the body of our Lorde as his m••mbers, that we may be quickened by his spirite, and not be offended, although many do nowe with vs eate and drinke the sacraments temporally, which in the end shal haue eternal torments. O••t of these wordes M. Hes doth gather, that Augustine doth acknowledge both spiritual and corporal receiuing: by like, bicause he saith that many euil men do eat and drinke the body & bloud of Christ in a sacrament, but what he meaneth is plain by his owne words in the same treatise.

Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam & illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, & illum ma∣nentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec māducat spiritualiter car∣nem eiu••, nec bibit eius sanguinem, licèt carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus saecramentum corporis & sanguinis Christi: sed magis tantae rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat & bibit. This it is therefore to eate that meate, and to drinke that drinke, to abide in Christ, & to haue him abiding in him. And by this he that abideth not in Christe, and in whome Christ abideth not, out of dout neither eateth spiritually his flesh, nor drinketh his bloud, although carnally and visibly, hee presse with his teeth the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ: but rather eateth and drinketh to his owne damnation the sacrament of so excellent a thing. And that the wicked receiue not Christ at all, nei∣ther spiritually nor corporally, he writeth in the 59. Tr. in Ioan. Illi manducabant panem Dominum, ille panem Domini contra dominum, illi vitam, ille poenam.

They (meaning the Apostles) did eat the bread which was our Lorde, but he (meaning Iudas) did eat the Lords bread against the Lord, they did eate life, hee did eat punishment. Here he denyeth that Iudas did eat Christe, who did only eat the bread which

Christ gaue him, and not that bread which was Christe as the rest did. But nowe let vs see howe Cyrillus doth expound this text of the sacrament In 15. Ioan. Mariet enim &c. Both the natures abide inuiolated, and of them both Christ•• is one, but vnspeakably, and beyonde that mans mynde can vnderstand. The woorde conioyned to the manhoode hath so reduced it wholy into him selfe, that it is able to giue life to thinges lacking life. So hath it expelled destruction from the nature of man, and death, which by sinne was very strong, it hath destroyed. Wherefore he that eateth the flesh of Christ, hath euer∣lasting life. For this flesh hath the word of God, which is naturally life. Therefore he saith, and I will raise him againe in the last day. He said I, that is, my body that shall be eaten, shall raise him again. For he is none other then his flesh. I say not that, bicause he is none other by nature, but bicause after his incarnation he suffereth not him selfe to be diuided into two sonnes: I therefore (saith he) which am made man, by my flesh in the last day, will raise them vp, which do eat it.

But yet an other place of Cyrill In 6. Ioan. Cap. 14 Opor∣tet &c. Truely it must needes so haue bene, that not only the soule by the holy Ghost should ascend into blessed life, but also that this rude and earthly body by a like natured taste, touching, and meate, should be brought to immortalitie. In neither of both these sentences is one worde of the sacrament, and therefor•• they fauour M. Hesk. exposition as much, as nothing at al.

* 1.36The eighteenth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text in the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn by Origen and S. Ambrose.

The text is: My flesh is verily meat, and my bloud is verily drinke.* 1.37 And here hee maketh a fond and childish discourse of the difference of verus cibus, true meate, and verè cibus, meate in deede, or verily meate. Which distinc∣tion is confounded by Origen, one of his pretended ex∣positors, in the very text by him alledged, and in many other places of his workes, where he speaketh of this text. But to the exposition before he commeth to Origen, hee toucheth a place of Chrysostome, That reipsa conuertimur in

••arnem Christi in very deede we are turned into the flesh of Christ. Which wordes, if they be not vnderstoode of a spirituall conuersion (good Lord) what a monstrous transubstanti∣on shall we haue of our flesh into the flesh of Christ? But Papistes had rather mingle heauen and earth together, then they will depart from their prodigious absurdities. But to Origen in Num. Hom. 7. Lex Dei, &c. The lawe of God is not nowe knowen in figures and images, as before: but euen in plaine trueth, and such things as were before set forth in a dark speache, are nowe fulfilled in plaine maner & trueth. Of which things, these that followe are some,

Antea in aenigmate fuit baptismus, in nube, & in mari: nunc autem in specie regeneratio est in aqua & Spiritu sancto. Tunc in aenigmate erat Manna cibus: nunc autem in specie caro verbi Dei & verus cibus, sicut ipse dicit: Caro mea verè est cibus & sanguis meus verè est potur. Before Baptisme was in a darke manner in the clowde and in the s••••: but nowe regeneration is in plaine manner in water and the holie Ghost. Then Manna was the meate in a darke manner: But nowe the fleshe of the worde of God is the true meate in a plaine maner, as he him selfe sayth: my fleshe is meat in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede. In these wordes Origen teacheth that the sacramentes of the Gospell are cleare and plaine, whereas in the lawe they were obscure and darke. Neither doth he denye that the Gospell hath figures, but affirmeth it hath none other figures, but such as serue to open and set forth the myste∣ries more plainly, whereas the ceremonies of the olde lawe did rather hide and couer them. And if it be true (as M. Heskins sayeth) that the Gospell hath no figures, I woulde knowe, what be all the ceremonies of the Po∣pish Church, figures of the Gospell? or false inuentions of men? But if wee will beleeue him, our onely spiri∣tuall receiuing is impugned by Origen In what wordes good sir? he answereth: The fleshe of the sonne of God is ea∣ten in verie plaine manner. And may not this be spiritu∣ally, as well as regeneration is spiritually wrought in baptisme, and yet in the same playne manner, that this eating is spoken of?

But let vs heare what Orig••n him

selfe will say in the same booke, Hom. 16. Bibere autem di∣cimur sanguinem Christi non solùm sacramentorum ritu, sed cum sermones eius recipimu••, in quibus vita consistit sicut & ipse di∣cit &c. We are sayde to drinke the bloud of Christe, not onely in the ceremonie of the sacramentes, but also when wee receiue his sayings in which life consisteth, as he him selfe saith:

In these wordes hee teacheth such a drink∣ing in the sacramentes, as in beleeuing his woorde, and therefore it must needes bee spirituall and not carnall. And as the cloud and Sea was baptisme, so was Manna the body of Christe, by Origens owne wordes, and there∣fore the proclamer sayde truely, that wee receiue Christe none otherwise in the sacrament, then the Iewes did in Manna concerning the substaunce of the spirituall meat. And Maister Heskins saith falsely, That we excell the Iewes for our incorporation in Christ, and therefore receiue him corpo∣rally, as though the Iewes also were not incorporated in∣to Christe, and were not liuely members of his body in as great excellencie as we, yea, and with a prerogatiue of the first begotten, and of the naturall oliue wherein wee are inferiour.

The place of Ambrose hee cyteth Lib. 9. cap. 1. De sacra∣mentis. Sicus verus est Deifilius Dominus noster Iesus Christus, &c. As our Lorde Iesus Christe is the true sonne of God, not as men by grace, but as a sonne of the substance of his father: euen so it is true flesh, which we receiue (as he him selfe saith) and very drinke. This is noted for an other plaine place for the proclamer, as though the proclamer did not graunt that we receiue the true flesh and bloud of Christe in the sa∣crament, but spiritually and by faith, not carnally nor transubstantiated. But Ambrose is the best expounder of him selfe, who in the 6. booke and Chap. 1.

De sacramentis, hath these wordes, Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent, veluti quidam esset horror cruoris, sed maneret gratia redemptionis, ideo in simi∣litudinem quidem accipis sacramentum, sed verae naturae gratiam virtutémque consequeris. Therefore least more should say this, as though there were a certaine horrour of bloud, but that the grace of redemption might remaine, there∣fore

thou receiuest the sacrament truely for a similitude, but thou obtainest the grace and vertue of his true na∣ture.

By which Ambrose expresseth the whole substaunce of the sacrament, that it is a similitude of the body and bloud of Christe, but not a similitude onely, but such a one, as by which we receiue the grace and power of that true nature which is resembled by it. This place would satisfie a sober minde, but a froward heart will admit no wisedome.

The nineteenth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Eu∣sebius Emiss. and S. Augustine.* 1.38

Eusebius is cyted out of Hom. 5. pasch.* 1.39 Quia corpus assump∣tum &c. Bicause hee would take his assumpted body from our eyes, and bring it into heauen, it was necessarie that in the day of his supper, he should consecra•••• vnto vs a sacrament of his body and bloud, that it might be celebrated continually by a mysterie, which was offered for our price, that bicause the daily and vnwea∣ried redemption did runne for the health of all men, the oblation of the redemption might be perpetuall, and that eternall sacrifice should liue in memorie, and that true, onely, and perfect sacrifice, should be present in grace, to be esteemed by faith, not by shewe, neither to be iudged by outward sight, but by inward affection. Wherevpon the heauenly authoritie confirmeth, that my flesh is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede. This sentence being directly against him as euery man that readeth it, may easily perceiue, he is neither ashamed to alledge it, hauing nothing to gather out of it for his purpose, nor yet (y^t is worse) most breastly to corrupt it by false transla∣tion and wrong distinction or pointing, committing that childish sophisticatiō which is called ab accentu. For where the Latine is, Et perennis victima illa viueret in memoria, & semper pręsens esset in gratia vera, vnica, & perfecta hostia, fide aestimanda non specie &c. hee hath dismembred it by this translation: And that perpetuall sacrifice should liue in memorie, and alway be present in grace. A TRVE ONE ONLY AND PERFECT SACRIFICE, to be esteemed by faith, and not by outward forme, &c. And al bicause he would not acknow∣ledge

y^e presence of Christ y^t onely true sacrifice by grace, which is absent in the bodie, as the purpose of Eusebius is to shewe. And therfore those words that follow are to be vnderstoode by them that goe before. Let all doubtful∣nesse of infidelitie therefore departe, seeing hee that is the Au∣thour of the gift, is also witnesse of the trueth. For the inuisible priest with his worde by secrete power conuerteth the visible crea∣tures into the substance of his bodie and bloud. The former sen∣tence sufficiently declareth, that he speaketh of a spiritual and not a carnall conuersion, because his body which is absent from vs, and carried into heauen, is present with vs by grace and not otherwise.

Saint Augustine is cyted Tr. 26. in Ioan Cum enim cibo & potu, &c. For as much as men by meate and drinke, do this desire▪ that they should neither hunger nor thirst: nothing perfourmeth this truely, but this meate and drinke, which maketh them of whom it is receiued immortall, and inco••••uptible, that is the fellowship of the Saints where peace shalbe & full and perfect vnitie. For there∣fore truely (as the men of God haue vnderstoode it before vs,) our Lord Iesus Christ commended his bodie and bloud in those thinges, which of many are brought to one certein thing. For the one is made into one of many graynes & so consisteth: the other cōmeth into one of many grapes. Because this sentence is clean contrarie to y^e carnal presence, & transubstantiation, you must cal to re∣mēbrance, the glose of a certeine blind Authour, that there be three things in y^e sacrament to be considered. The first the sacrament only, which is a signe of an holy thing, and y^t is the forme of bread. The second the thing signified, & conteined, that is y^e very bodie of Christ. The third is sig∣nified but not conteined, that is the mysticall bodie of Christ. But this balde distinction, is so farre of Augustines minde, that he cleane ouerthroweth two partes of it. First the carnall presence of Christes bodie conteined, & when he affirmeth that this meate maketh them of whome it is receiued, immortall and incorruptible, whiche are onely them that receiue it by faith, for if it were conteined, wic∣ked men should also receiue it: but they receiue it not, therefore it is not conteined. Secondly, he ouerthroweth

transubstantiation, when he saith that Christe commen∣ded his bodie in such thinges, as are made one of many, as one bread of many graines, and one wine of many grapes. For the fourme, by which Heskins meaneth the accidents of bread, is made neither of graynes nor of grapes. Ther∣fore the fourme of Bread is none of those things in which Christ commended his body and bloud.

But when nothing is in Augustine, then the collecti∣ons of Prosper must helpe on this manner. Hoc est quod di∣cimus, &c. This it is which we say, which by al meanes we labour to approue, that the sacrifice of the Church, is made by two meanes, and consisteth of two thinges: the visible kinde of the elementes, and the inuisible fleshe and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe, both of the sacrament, and of the thing of the sacrament, that is the bo∣die of Christ: as the person of Christ consisteth of God & man see∣ing Christ himselfe is very God▪ and verie man. Because euerie thing conteineth in it the nature and trueth of those thinges of which it is made: but the sacrifice of the Church is made of two, the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, that is, the bodie of Christ, therefore there is the sacrament, and the thing of the sa∣crament. This last sentence M. Hesk. hath not translated. But he noteth three things in these words affirmed which y^e sacramentaries denie: that is, that the Church hath a sa∣crifice, that therein is a sacrament, which is the fourmes of bread and wine, and that there is present the very body and bloud of Christ, which he calleth the thing of the sa∣crament. Concerning the tearme of sacrifice, it is a stale quarrell, whereby he meaneth the sacrifice of thankes gi∣uing, or the Eucharistie. For the formes of bread & wine, that is (as Maister Heskins meaneth) the accidentes, it is false, he hath nothing tending to that end, he saith, Spe∣cie elementorum, that is the kinde of elementes, which is the substance, and not the accidentes of bread and wine. And for the presence, heare his owne wordes in the same booke.

Escam vitae accepit & poculum vitę bibit, qui in Christo manet, & Cuius Christus habitator est.

Nam qui discordat a Chricto, nec panem cius manducat, nec sanguinem bibit, etiamsi tanto rei

sacramentum ad iudicium suę praesumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat. He hath receiued the meat of life, and drunke the cuppe of life, which abideth in Christ, & in whom Christ dwelleth. But he that disagreeth from Christ, neither ea∣teth his bread nor drinketh his bloud, although he re∣ceiue euerie day indifferently the sacrament of so great a thing, vnto the condemnation of his presumption.

This place is plaine against the corporall eating of Christe and M. Heskins wise distinction, seeing the wic∣ked by the iudgement of Prosper out of Augustine, eate onely the sacrament that is bread and wine, and not the bodie & bloud of Christ, which is not eaten but by faith.

* 1.40The twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Saint Hilarie, and Euthymius.

Hilarius is cited Lib. 8. de Trinitat. Que scripta sunt, &c. Let vs reade those thinges that be written,* 1.41 and let vs vnderstande those things that we shall read, & then shal we performe the dutie of perfect faith. Such thinges as we learne of the naturall trueth of Christ in vs, except we learne of him, we learne foolishly and vn∣godly. For he him selfe saith: my flesh is meat in deed, & my bloud is drinke in deede. He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him. There is no place left to doubt of the trueth of his flesh and bloud. For now by the profession of our Lord himselfe it is verily fleshe and verily bloud. And this beeing taken and dronken, bring this to passe, that Christ is in vs, and we in Christ. Out of these wordes he noteth three thinges. The first, that the text is spoken of the sacrament conteyning the bodie and bloud of Christe, of the veritie whereof there should be no doubt: The second is the corporall recei∣uing of Christ in the sacrament: The third is, that there∣by Christ is in vs and we in him. To the first note, this text is none otherwise spoken of the sacramēt, as we haue often shewed, then as the sacrament is a seale of this eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud which is also without the sacrament. And that we should not doubt of the trueth of his fleshe and bloud, it is true, we confesse he hath true flesh & true bloud, & with the same doeth feede

vs, but that this flesh and bloud is conteined in the sacra∣ment, Hillarie saith not, but Heskins. Neither doeth he speake of any corporall receiuing of Christe in the sa∣crament, which is the second note, but seeing he dwelleth in all them that receiue him (which is the thirde note) there is no place for the corporal receiuing, which the Pa∣pists confesse to be common to the wicked, in whome Christ dwelleth not, nor they in him.

But to proue the corporall receiuing, he hath another place out of the same booke. Si enim verè, &c. For if the WORDE was verily made flesh, and we doe truely eate the worde made flesh in the Lordes meate, how is he not to be thought to abide naturally in vs, which being borne a man hath taken vpon him the nature of our flesh now inseparable, & hath admixed the nature of his flesh, vnto the nature of eternitie, vnder the sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated vnto vs. This with him is a plaine place, and much adoe he maketh about this worde, natu∣rally, by which he meaneth nothing else but truly, for o∣therwise M. Heskins (if he be in his right wittes) wil con∣fesse, that the abiding of Christe in vs, is not naturall nor after a naturall manner, but spirituall, and after a Diuine manner. And although he spake plain ynough of the par∣ticipation of his flesh vnder a sacramēt, yet more euident∣ly in the same booke in these wordes.

Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit, & verè homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est, nos{que} verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, & per hoc vnum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, & ille in nobis, quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacra∣mentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit vnitatis.

If therefore Christe did verily take vpon him the flesh of our bodie, & that man, which was borne of Marie, was verily Christ, and we doe verily receiue the fleshe of his body vnder a mysterie, and thereby shall be one, because the Father is in him and he in vs, howe is the vnitie of will affirmed, when the naturall propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie. Here he saith we do ve∣rily eate the flesh of his bodie: but if you aske how? He aunswereth vnder a mysterie, as before he said vnder a sa∣crament.

Therfore to take that absolutely (as M. Heskins doth) which of him is spoken but after a certeine manner as vnder a sacrament, or a mysterie, is a grosse abusing both of the authour and of the readers.

Euthymius is cited In Ioan. Caro mea, &c. My fleshe is meate in deede. It is true meate: or moste conuenient meate, as which nourisheth the soule, which is the moste proper part of man. And likewise of the bloud: or else he saide this, confirming, that he spake not obscurely or parabolically.

I maruel what Maister Heskins gayneth by this place. Forsooth y^t this is no figuratiue speech, but a plain speech, signifying none otherwise then the wordes sound. Well, yet we must not cast away that which Euthymius saide in y^e beginning of the sentence, that it is a meate to nourish the soule, and not for the bodie to receiue, neither recei∣ued, but where it nourisheth the soule. And that ouer∣throweth the corporall manner of eating.

* 1.42The one and twentieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by Chrysostome and Lyra.

* 1.43Chrysostome is cited Hom. 46. in Ioan. The same wordes almoste that were before ascribed to Euthymius, who borrowed them of Chrysostome. Quid autem, &c. But what meaneth this saying: my fleshe is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede? Either that he is the true meate, whiche saueth the soule: or that he might confirme them in that he said be∣fore, least they should thinke he spake darkely in parables. If this be spoken of the fleshe of Christe in the sacrament, then none receiue the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, but they whose soules are saued, but many receiue the sacrament, whose soules are not saued, therefore this is not spoken of the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament. Ye, but are ye adui∣sed y^t this is a plaine place for M, Iewel, that these words: My fleshe is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in is no figuratiue speeche? Let it be as plaine as you will, it must be meate in deede, and drinke in deede to feede our soules, and that must needes be spiritually, for our soules cannot eate carnally. As for Lyra a late Popishe

writer, I haue often protested, that I will not stay vpon his authoritie, let him be on M. Heskins side.

The two and twentieth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by S. Cyrill, and Dionyse.* 1.44

S. Cyrill is alledged Lib. 4. Cap. 16. in Ioan. Vmbram & fi∣guram nosti, &c.* 1.45 Knowest thou the shadowe and the figure? Learne the very truth of the thing. For my flesh (saith he,) is meate indeed and my bloud is drinke in deede. Againe he maketh a distinction be∣tweene the mystical benediction and manna, the streames of water out of the rocke, and the communication of the holie cuppe, that they should not more esteeme the miracle of manna, but rather re∣ceiue him which is the giuer of the heauenly bread, and of eternall life. For the nourishment of Manna brought not eternall life, but a short remedie of hunger. Therefore it was not the true meate. But the holie bodie of Christ is a meate nourishing vnto immortalitie & eternall life. Also that water out of the rocke easied bodily thirst for a short time, neither brought it any thing beside. Therfore it was not that true drinke: but the bloud of Christ, by which death is vt∣terly ouerthrowen and destroyed, is the true drinke. For it is not the bloud of a man simply, but of him, which being ioyned vnto a natural life, is become life. Because M. Heskins cannot tell what to gather out of this place for his purpose, he taketh vp yes∣terdayes colde ashes, of the authorities cited before, by light of them to wrest this place to his purpose, but all re∣maineth still darke and dyme for his intent. Of the ex∣cellencie of the fleshe and bloud of Christe aboue Manna & the water as they were corporal foode, there is neither doubt nor question, nor yet that the same is eaten in the sacrament of the faithfull, but whether it be eaten corpo∣rally or spiritually is all the question. And Dionyse the Charterhouse Monke, whome he matcheth vndiscretely with Cyrill, denieth also that the body of Christ is recei∣ued corporally in the sacrament. Verè est cibus animae non corporis, quia non visibiliter nec corporaliter sumitur, quamuis ve∣rum corpus sumatur. It is meate in deede, but of the soule not of the bodie, because it is not receiued visibly nor corporally although the very body be receiued. So that the Papistes them selues

do not al agree of the maner of receiuing. In this Chap∣ter beside these two expositors are also cited Augustine & Chrysostome. Augustine in Saint Prosper, to auouch the phrase of formes of bread and wine. Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in sacramento accipimus: & sanguis eius est, quem sub vini specie & sapore potamus. It is his flesh, which we receiue in the sacrament couered with the fourme of bread, and it is his bloud, which we drinke vnder the kinde and taste of wine. Beside that this collection of Prosper is not to be found in any of Augustines owne workes, I denie the names of For∣ma and Species to be taken for accidentes in that sense the Papistes doe: but for a figure or signification, as by the wordes immediately following it is most manifest, which M. Heskins hath moste lewdly suppressed:

Caro videlicèt carnis: & sanguis sacramentum est sanguinis: carne & sanguine, vtro{que} inuisibili, spirituali, intelligibili, signatur spirituale Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile, plenum gratia omnium virtu∣tū & diuina Maiestate. That is, the flesh is a sacrament of y^e flesh, and the bloud is a sacrament of the bloud, by both of them beeing inuisible, spirituall, intelligible, is signi∣fied the spirituall bodie of our Lord Iesus Christe which is palpable, ful of the grace of all vertues, and diuine Ma∣iestie.

In these wordes, he calleth the elementes of bread & wine, flesh and bloud, which are sacramentes of his true glorious & palpable bodie which is in heauen: as it is yet more plaine by that whiche followeth:

Sicut ergo coelestis panis, qui caro Christi est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum reue∣ra sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet quod visibile, quod palpabile, quod mortale in cruce positum est, vocatur{que} ipsa im∣molatio carnis, quae sacerdotis manibus sit, Christi passiō, mors, cruci∣fixio, non rei veritate sed significāte mysterio: sic sacramentum fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, fides est. As y^t heauēly bread which is the flesh of Christ, after a certeine manner, is called the body of Christ, when in very deede it is y^e sacrament of the bodie of Christ, which beeing visible, which beeing palpable, which beeing mortall, was put on the crosse, & the very offring of his flesh, which is done by the hands of the priest, is called the passion, death, and crucifying of

Christ, not in trueth of the thing, but in a signifying mysterie: so y^e sacrament of faith, which is vnderstood to be baptisme, is faith. In these words he affirmeth, the ele∣ments to be the bodie & bloud of Christ, as the action of the Priest is his passion, death, & crucifying: & as baptis∣me is faith, not in trueth of the thing, but in a signifying mysterie.

Chrysostome is alledged to proue y^t the whole bodie of Christe is in the sacrament. Hom. 24. in 10. ad Cor. 1. Et quando, &c. And when thou seest that thing set foorth, say with thy selfe, for this bodie, I am no more earth and ashes, this bodie being crucified and beaten, was not ouercome by death. This same bodie being bloudied and wounded with a speare, hath sent foorth founteines of bloude and water wholesome to all the world. Here is much a doe, the same bodie is in the sacra∣ment which was crucified. Wee knowe Christ hath no more bodies but euen that one, that was crucifyed, & the same is eaten in the sacrament as in a mysterie, signi∣ficatiuely, as the same Chrysostome in the same place doth testifie. Quid enim appello inquit communicationem?

id ipsium corpus sumus. Quid significat panis? Corpus Christi. Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christi? non multa, sed vnum corpus. For what do I call it (saith he) a participation? We are the verie same bodie. What doth the bread sig∣nifie? the bodie of Christ. What are they made that re∣ceiue the bodie of Christ? not many bodies but one bo∣die. Lo here the breade signifyeth the bodie of Christe, which was crucified.

And the faithfull that receiue it, are made the same bodie of Christ that was crucified, but all this in a mysterie, not carnally or corporally. What rea∣der of Cambridge he girdeth at, that alledged obiectiōs of Duns against the carnall presence, I knowe not. Duns might frame or reherse more arguments against it, then with al his subtilties he could aunswere: but my thinke M. Hesk. should not enuie this practise, when he himselfe hath neuer an argument nor authoritie almost out of the doctors, but such as he hath of other mens gathering, and not of his own reading, as his manifold mistakins do de∣clare, beside wilfull corruptions and falsifications.

* 1.46The three and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact & Beda.

Of these two being both of the lower house, the te∣stimonie of Theophylactus maketh nothing for him,* 1.47 the saying of Beda maketh much against him. Concerning Theophylact, let them that list read his sentence, for I compt it superfluous to rehearse their testimony, whose authoritie in this matter I will not stand to. But because the opinion of carnall presence was not receiued in this church of England in the age of Beda, nor long after, I thinke it not amisse, to consider his authoritie. He wri∣teth therefore in Ioan. Dixerat superiùs &c. He had sayde be∣fore: he that eateth my fleshe & drinketh my bloud, hath life eternall. And that he might shewe howe great a difference is be∣tweene corporall meate, and the spirituall mysterie of his bodie & bloud, he added: my fleshe is meate in deede, & my bloud is drink in deede. Here Beda calleth the sacrament a spiritual my∣sterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ, which although it be playne against the carnall presence, yet M. Heskins would cloke it with a fonde definition of a mysterie, to be that, (I wot not what,) which conteyneth couertly a thing not to be perceiued by sences or common know∣ledge, and so the sacrament is a mysterie, conteyning the verie bodie of Christ. Besides that, he remembreth not that Beda calleth it not onely a mysterie, but a spirituall mysterie, I would wit of him, what it is that Beda cal∣leth a spirituall mysterie? if he say y^e sacrament, I would further knowe, what he calleth the sacrament? he will aunswere, the formes of breade & wine, for so they de∣termine forsooth. Well, then Christ would not shewe the difference of the spirituall foode of his flesh & bloud which is the thing conteined, but of the accidents of bread and wine, from the corporall foode. O foolishe conclusion of Beda! or rather, O false definition & coun∣terfet exposition of Hesk! For Beda sheweth the excel∣lencie of the spirituall mysterie of Christes bodie and

bloud, which is our spirituall foode, aboue the corpo∣rall foode, and neuer dreamed of M. Heskins mysterie.

The foure and twentieth Chapter beginneth the ex-position of the next text in the sixt of S. Iohn by S. Hillarie & S. Augustine.* 1.48

The text is:* 1.49 He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee, and I in him. For vnderstanding of this text, he premiseth a destinction of two manners of abyding in Christ, that is spiritually and naturally: spiritually, by right faith and sincere charitie, as S. Cyrill doth teache, and naturally by receiuing of Christes fleshe, as S. Hil∣larie teacheth. This distinction not being made by any doctour, but deuised vpon occasion of termes vsed by the doctours, to ouerthrowe the meaning of the doctours, he pleaseth him verie much therein. I haue shewed before, that Hillarie by the worde naturally, meaneth truelye, that as Christ is truely ioyned vnto vs by taking on him our fleshe, and we are truely ioyned to him, by eating & drinking his flesh, vnder a sacrament, and vnder a myste∣rie, (for both these termes of restreint he hath, to shewe the manner of our eating to be sacramentall and mysti∣call, not as M. Heskins would, carnall and naturall) so Christ is truely one with God, not in vnitie of will on∣ly, but in vnitie of Godhead, in substance of diuinitie, in essence of eternitie. But let vs heare his owne wordes. lib. 8. de Trinit. Quod autem in eo, &c. But that we be in him, by the sacrament or mysterie of his fleshe and bloud, which is com∣municated vnto vs, he testifieth him selfe saying: And this world doth not nowe see mee, but you shall see mee for I liue, and ye also shall liue, because I am in my father, and you in mee, and I in you, &c. But that this vnitie in vs is naturall, he hath wit∣nessed saying: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, abi∣deth in mee, & I in him. For there shall no man be in him, but in whome he shalbe, hauing onely his assumpted flesh in him, who hath taken his. By this place out of which he would buyld his destinction of naturall and spirituall abyding, the same is manifestly ouerthrowne. For the drift of that

distinction (as he confesseth) is to shewe, that Christe may abyde naturally, where he doth not abyde spiritu∣ally, as in the wicked. But the place of Hillarie is plain, that where this naturall vnitie is, Christe abydeth eter∣nally: therefore this naturall vnitie, is not in the wic∣ked. Thus, while Maister Heskins harpeth greedily vp∣pon the terme naturally, for the naturall presence of Christes bodie, he looseth his distinction, and with all his naturall presence also. For if his bodie be not natu∣rally receiued of the wicked, it is not naturally present in the sacrament, as all Papistes do confesse. And fur∣ther, that this natural vnitie, is after a spirituall manner, it appeareth by the last wordes of the sentence. That he in whome Christ dwelleth, hath onely the assumpted flesh of Christ in him. But this must needes be after a spirituall man∣ner, as the holie and innocent fleshe of Christe is made oures, therefore this naturall vnitie he speaketh of, is not in that sense naturall, that Maister Heskins immagi∣neth, but after a diuine and vnspeakable manner. For otherwise, Godly men haue fleshe of their owne, yea, and sinfull fleshe, which is not of the singular substance of the fleshe of Christe, though it be of the nature and kinde thereof, but corrupted with sinne, as his neuer was. Thus the shewe that Maister Heskins would make, by snatching at one worde misunderstoode, by a little diligence vsed in discussing the sentence, is turned alto∣gether against him, both in shewe and purpose of the author. The other place he citeth, though he citeth it truncately, contrarie to his promise in his preface, I will cite it whole, as I did before in the 20. Chap. of this book. If the worde in deede be made flesh, and we do verily eat the word made fleshe, in the Lordes meate, howe is he not to be esteemed, to dwell naturally in vs, which being borne a man, hath taken vppon him the nature of our fleshe nowe inseparable, and hath ioyned the nature of his fleshe vnto the nature of aeternitie vnder a sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated to vs. For so wee are all one, because the father is in Christ, and Christ is in vs. Therefore, whosoeuer shall denye the father to be naturally in

Christ, let him first denye, that either he is naturally in Christe, or Christ is in him. For the father being in Christ, and Christ in vs, do make vs to be one in them. Therefore if Christ did verily take vppon him the fleshe of our bodie, and that man which was borne of Marie is verely Christe, and we do verily receiue the fleshe of Christe vnder a mysterie, and by this, shalbe one, because the fa∣ther is in him and he in vs, how is the vnitie of will affirmed, when the naturall propertie by a sacrament, is the sacrament of perfect vnitie. In these wordes the fleshe of Christe is communicated vnto vs, but vnder a sacrament, wee eate the fleshe of his bodie, but vnder a mysterie: the naturall propertie by a sacrament, is a sacrament of perfecte vnitie.

And besides all this, marke, that this naturall vni∣tie is such, as thereby we are vnited to the father, and being vnited to the father by Christ, it must needes fol∣lowe, that we are made partakers of eternitie, which no wicked men are, therefore wicked men receiue not Christ naturally nor spiritually, and so the distinction remaineth without a difference. But nowe we come to S. Augustine, of whome he borroweth the other parte of his distinction, Tract. 26. in Ioan. Deni{que} iam. Nowe at the last he expoundeth, how that may be done, which he speaketh, and what it is to eate his bodie and drinke his bloud. He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloude, abydeth in mee & I in him. This it is therefore to eat that meate, and to drinke that bloude, to abide in Christ, and to haue him abyding in him. And by this, hee that abideth not in Christ, and in whome Christe abydeth not, out of all doubt, neither eateth his fleshe spiritually, nor drinketh his his bloude, although carnally, and visibly he presse with his teeth sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christe. But rather hee ea∣teth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his condem∣nation, because he being vncleane, presumed to come to the sa∣craments of Christe, which no man receiueth worthily, but hee which is cleane of whome it is sayed: blessed are the cleane of hart, for they shall see God.

S. Augustine in these words maketh a distinctiō of ea∣ting the sacrament of the bodie & bloud of Christ, & of

eating the bodie and bloud of Christ: and not onely of eating spiritually & eating carnally, shewing that spiri∣tually the fleshe of Christ is eaten, carnally the sacra∣ment, which were vaine, if bothe were one. And y^e whole discourse of that treatise is against that carnall eating of the bodie and bloud of Christ, which M. Heskins him∣selfe confesseth to be vnprofitable, yea, damnable with∣out the spirituall eating, whereas the spirituall eating, vndoubtedly causeth eternall life. But better to vphold this distinction of Christes naturall & spirituall aby∣ding, he citeth a testimonie out of the 11. Sermon de ver∣bis Dom. in Euangelio vnder the name of Augustine, which whether it be rightly intituled to him, I will not con∣tende.

The wordes are these: Illud etiam, &c. This also that he sayeth: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, abydeth in mee & I in him, how shall we vnderstand? Can wee take them here also, of whome the Apostle sayth, that they eate and drinke their owne damnation, when they eat that fleshe and drinke that bloude? Did Iudas also, the seller and vngodly betrayer of his maister, although he did eat and drinke that first sacrament of his flesh and his bloud made with his own hands, with the rest of the disciples, as Luke the Euangelist declareth more plainly, did he a∣byde in Christ, or Christ in him? Finally, many which either with fained heart do eat that fleshe and drinke that bloud, or when they haue eaten and dronken they become Apostataes, do they a∣byde in Christ or Christ in them? But truely there is a certeine manner of eating that fleshe and drinking that bloude, after which manner he that shall eate and drinke, abydeth in Christ, & Christ in him. We must receiue this authoritie, so that it may stande with all the rest of the vndoubted workes of Augustine, we must be as bold to distinguish the words, fleshe and bloud, as M. Heskins is the spirituall and na∣turall eating. By flesh and bloud aequiuocally, he vnder∣standeth the sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christe, as where he sayeth, that Iudas did eate the sacrament of his flesh and bloud, he doth him selfe declare. And then he distinguisheth of the manner of eating, for the sacra∣ment,

(as Augustine sayth) is eaten of both wicked and godly, but the matter of the sacrament, is not eaten but to eternall life. And that Iudas did not eate the breade that was the Lorde, as we alledged before, and Prosper in his collections out of Augustine plainly defineth:

He that disagreeth from Christe, neither eateth his breade, not drinketh his bloud, although he dayly receiue the sacrament of so excellent a matter vnto condemnation of his presumption. Wherefore, although we shoulde receiue this authoritie, yet it proueth not, that wicked men receiue the fleshe of Christ, but onely the sacra∣ment thereof, which is in some manner of speaking called the fleshe of Christ, as Augustine euery where af∣firmeth.

Finally, what a blasphemous absurditie is it, to say, that Christ dwelleth naturally in wicked men, in whome he is not spiritually, and that his flesh is there, where his quickening spirite doth not worke?

The fiue & twentieth Chapter, proceadeth in the exposition of the same, by Chrysostome & S. Gregorie.* 1.50

Chrysostome is cited Hom. 45. in Ioan. Qui manducat,* 1.51 &c. He that eateth my fleshe & drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in mee & I in him, which he sayeth, that he may shewe him selfe to be ioyned vnto him (M Heskins translateth, mingled) with him, And what this mingling is, he willeth vs to remember, what this author sayeth in the same Homilye: that wee should not onely by loue, but in verie deede be turned into his fleshe, it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath giuen vn∣to vs. I will aske no better interpretation, for this must either be a spirituall and vnspeakeable manner of con∣uersion, or else it would be a monsterous and blasphe∣mous transmutation of our flesh into the flesh of Christ, as I haue diuerse times before noted of this place. But what sayeth S. Gregorie? in Iob. Cap. 6. Natus Dominus, &c. Our Lorde being borne is layd in the manger, that it might be si∣gnified, that the holie beaster, which long vnder the lawe were founde fasting, should be filled with the haye of his incarnation.

Being borne, he filled the manger, who gaue him selfe to be meate to mennes mindes, saying: he that eateth my fleshe, and drinketh my bloud, abydeth in me and I in him. What winneth M. Heskins by this place? it is the meate of the soule, there∣fore it must be spiritually receiued. Or if hee will not haue it onely spiritually receiued, wherefore serueth the text alledged, which he affirmeth to be verified onely in them that receiue spiritually? But we must heare further out of Gregorie in Hom. Pasc. Quid nam{que}, &c. For what the bloud of the lambe is, you haue not nowe learned by hearing, but by drinking, which it put vpon bothe the postes, when it is not dronke onely with the mouth of the bodie, but also with the mouth of the heart. What newes haue we here? forsooth, Christes bloud dronke with mouth of bodie, and mouth of heart. I heare him say the bloud of the Pascall lambe, which he sayth, doth figure the sacrament, is so dronke, but not the naturall bloud of Christ. Why then marke what he sayeth soone after: Qui sic, &c. Hee that so taketh the bloud of his redeemer, that he will not yet followe his passion, he hath put the bloud on the one post. In this allegorie, if he call the sacrament of Christes bloude, the redeemers bloud, as he calleth it, the bloud of the lambe, what great marueile is it, or what great matter is it? the whole speache being figuratiue, both allegoricall, and meto∣nymicall.

* 1.52The sixe and twentieth Chapter, continueth this exposition by Saint Cyrill and Lyra.

* 1.53Cyrill is cited in Ioan. Cap. 15. Qui manducat, &c. Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, abydeth in mee & I in him. Whereuppon it is to be considered, that not by disposition onely, which is vnderstoode by charitie, Christ is in vs, but also by a naturall participation. For, as if a man do so mingle waxe that is melted with fire, vnto other waxe likewise melted, that one thing seeme to be made of them both: so by the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christe, he is in vs, and wee in him. For this corruptible nature of our bodye coulde not otherwise bee

brought to incorruptiblenesse and life, except the bodie of natu∣rall life were ioyned to it.

By these wordes Cyrill teacheth, that wee are ioyned to the naturall fleshe of Christe, so that by participati∣on thereof, wee are made one with him: but wicked men are not made one with Christe, nor partakers of incorruptiblenesse, therefore wicked men are not ioy∣ned to Christe by that naturall participation he spea∣keth of, and consequently, Christe is not corporally re∣ceiued of them, nor of any other. Yet Maister Hes∣kins noteth, as his manner is, a plaine place for Maister Iewell, when he saith, we do partake the naturall flesh & bloud of Christe. Which wee alwayes confesse, but wee partake it spiritually, by faith: and haue eternall life thereby: therefore wicked men partake it not, which want both the meane and the effect. Thus Cyrill beeing aunswe∣red, wee force not vpon Lyra. As for that which follo∣weth in the Chapter, to shewe that by participation of Christes fleshe, wee are not deliuered from temporall death, but from eternall destruction, being no matter of question, I passe ouer as needelesse.

The seuen and twentieth Chapter, abydeth in the same exposi∣tion by Theophylact and Ruperius Tuicen.* 1.54

Although there is no greate matter in the speache of the two Burgesses, to helpe maister Heskins purpose,* 1.55 yet because they are too young to beare witnesse in this cause, I will not trouble my selfe, nor my reader, ei∣ther to rehearse them, or to make aunswere to them.

The eyght and twentieth Chapter, endeth the exposition of this text by Haimo & Euthymius.* 1.56

As for fryer Haimo, I leaue him to M. Hesk. although in the words cited by him,* 1.57 he sayeth nothing greatly to his intent. But for as much as Euthymius Zigabonus▪ doeth often borrowe his expositions of the old doctours,

though he him selfe be not so auncient a writer, I will rehearse his testimonie in Math. 26. Si de vno, &c. If all we that are faithfull do partake of one bodie and bloud, wee are all one, by the participation of these mysteries, and we are all in Christ, and Christ is in vs all. He sayth, he that eateth my fleshe & drinketh my bloude, dwelleth in mee and I in him. For the WORDE by assumption was vnited to flesh, and againe, the flesh is vnited to vs by participation. Here M. Heskins no∣teth a plaine proofe of the presence, against the proclai∣mer. How so? the naturall fleshe was vnited to the sonne of God, and the sonne is vnited to vs by participation. What else? but this participation is by faith, and causeth vs to bee one with Christe, and Christe in vs all, and is not in the wicked, which thing Maister Heskins with a dry foote passeth ouer, as also in translation, he omitteth the word fideles, all wee that are faithfull, because he woulde haue the ignorant to thinke that the vnfaithfull do partake the same flesh, as truely as the faithfull.

* 1.58The nine and twentieth Chapter, expoundeth the next texte that followeth in the sixt of Saint Iohn, by Saint Augustine, and S. Cyrill.

* 1.59The text is this: As the liuing father sent mee, and I liue for the father, and he that eateth mee, shall liue al∣so for mee, or by the meanes of mee: In exposition of this text, he will onely declare by Saint Augustine: Howe Christ liueth by the father: which because it is no mat∣ter of controuersie betwixt vs, I do altogether omitt, & come to Cyrillus, whose wordes concerning an•• thing our question are these, for the rest, as impertinent, I passe ouer. Quemaedmodum ego factus, &c. As I am made man by the will of my father, and liue by the father: because I haue naturally flowed out of that life which is so of nature, & per∣fectly do keepe the nature of my father, so that I also am natural∣ly life: euen so he that eateth my fleshe, shall liue for mee, being wholly reformed vnto mee which am life, and am able to giue life. And he sayeth, that he him selfe is eaten, when his fleshe is

••aten. Because the worde was made fleshe, not by confusion of natures, but by the unspeakable manner of vnion. Here Maister Heskins noteth, that Christe is eaten when his fleshe is eaten, as a man doth see when his eye, or rather his soule by the eye doth see, &c. For the godhead is not eaten, therefore it cannot be spiritually eaten, but verily. Still he maketh spirite and trueth contrarie, as though what soeuer were done spiritually, were not done verily. But he remembreth not that Cyrill sayeth, that he which eateth this fleshe, is wholy refourmed or fashioned a∣newe into Christe. Whereby hee doth not onely ex∣clude wicked men, but also teache a spirituall eating, as the reformation is spirituall. And as the worde was made fleshe by an vnspeakable vnion, so wee by ea∣ting that fleshe, are ioyned to him, by an vnspeaka∣ble vnion.

Finally, where Maister Heskins sayeth, that Christs fleshe cannot be verily eaten but in the sacrament, he exclu∣deth all them from the benefites of his fleshe, which are not partakers of the sacrament, and so condemneth all children not come to yeares of discretion. O cruell transsubstantiation.

The Thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the nexte text by Saint Ambrose and Chrysostome.* 1.60

The text is:* 1.61

This is that breade that came downe from heauen, not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse, and are dead. He that eateth this bread shal liue for euer. Saint Ambrose is alledged, lib. 8. de initi∣andi, but I thinke he should saye Capit•• 8. de mysterijs initi∣andis: Reuera mirabile, &c.

Truely, it was maruellous, that God did rayne Manna to the fathers, and that they were fedd with dayly foode from heauen. Wherefore it is sayde, man did eate the breade of Angels. But yet they that did eate that breade in the wildernesse are dead. But this breade which thou receiuest, this breade of life, which came downe from heauen, giueth the substance of eternall life. And whosoeuer shall eat this breade,

shall not dye for euer. And it is the body of Christ. M. Heskins noteth, that he calleth it the body of Christ, as though a∣ny man doubted thereof:

But the same Ambrose rea∣cheth, that it must bee spiritually receiued, in the same booke, Chap. 9. In illo sacramento Christus est, quia corpus est Christi, non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritualis est. In that sacra∣ment Christ is, bicause it is the body of Christe, therefore it is not corporall but spirituall meate.

If it be spiritu∣all meate, it must be spiritually receiued and not corpo∣rally, as it is no corporall meate.

Now followeth a long sentence of Chrysostome, Hom. 46. in Ioan. which Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth to make no great mention of the sacrament, yet bycause he saith it followeth vpon his iudgement of the sacrament, I will set it downe to be considered. He saith therefore, he that eateth my flesh shall not perish in death, he shall not be dam∣ned. But he doth not speake of the common resurrection (for all shal ri••e again) but of that cleere and glorious which deserueth reward. Your fathers haue eaten Manna in the wildernesse, and be deade. He that eateth this bread, shall liue for euer. He doeth oft repeate the same, that it might be imprinted in the mindes of the hearers. This was the last doctrine, that he might confirme the faith of the resurrection and euerlasting life: wherefore after the promise of e∣ternall life, he setteth foorth the resurrection, after he hath shew∣ed that shall be. And howe is that knowne? By the scriptures, vnto which he doth alwayes send them to be instructed by them. When he saith, it giueth life to the world, he prouoketh them to emulati∣on, that if they be moued with the benefite of other men, they will not be excluded them selues. And he doth often make mention of Manna, & comparing the difference, allureth them to the faith: For if it were possible that they liued fourtie yeares without haruest & corne, and other things necessarie to their liuing, much more nowe when they are come to greater things. For if in those figures they did gather without labour the things set foorth nowe truely, much more where is no death, and the fruition of true life. And euery where he maketh mention of life. For we are drawne with the de∣sire there of, and nothing is more pleasant then not to dye. For in the olde Testament long life and many dayes were promised, but

nowe not simply length of life, but life without end is promised. Herevpon hee noteth, that we are come to greater things in the sacrament, then the Iewes did in Manna. I graunt the faithfull come to greater thinges then the vnbelee∣uing Iewes, of whome and to whome our sauiour Christ speaketh. Otherwise they that were faithfull, did eate the same spirituall meate in Manna that we doe in the Sacrament. 1. Cor. 10. But if the reall presence be not in the sacrament (saith Maister Heskins) Manna is greater then a bare peece of breade. This comparison is topsi∣turuie. Chrysostome compareth bare Manna, which the wicked receiued, with the body of Christ, which the god∣ly take: Maister Heskins compareth Manna to bare breade.

The one and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Hierome and S. Cyrill.* 1.62

Hierome is cyted, Ad Hedibiam quęst. 2. Si ergo panis, &c.* 1.63 Then if the bread, which came downe from heauen, is the body of our Lorde, and the wine, which he gaue to his disciples, be his bloud of the newe Testament, which was shed for many in remission of sinnes, let vs cast away Iewish fables, and let vs ascend with our Lorde into the great parler, paued and made cleane, and let vs take of him aboue, the cuppe of the newe Testament, and there holding the Passeouer with him, let vs be made dronke by him with the wine of sobrietie: for the kingdome of GOD is not meate and drinke, but righteousnesse and ioye and peace in the holy Ghoste. Neither did Moses giue vs the true bread, but our Lord Iesus, hee being the guest, and the feast, hee him selfe eating, and which is euen.

(S. Hierome proceedeth with y^t which M. Hes. omit∣teth.) His bloud we drinke, and without him we can not drinke it, and daily in his sacrifices we tread out new redd wine of y^e fruit of the true vine, and of the vine of Sorech, which is interpreted chosen: and of these wee drinke the wine new in the kingdome of his father, not in the olde∣nesse of the letter, but in the newenesse of the spirit.

By these words, & more that foloweth, it is most euident, that

Hieronyme speaketh of spirituall eating by faith: as al∣so by that he saith, we ascend with Christ into the parler, by which he meaneth heauen, and there aboue, we receiue the cup of the newe Testament. Maister Heskins noteth that the bread which descended from heauen is the body of our Lorde. But he must beware he say not, that the na∣turall body of Christ descended out of heauen. Againe, he forgetteth not to repeat that that bread is the body of Christe: but he will not see in Hieromes wordes, that Christ gaue wine to his disciples. Cyrillus is cyted thus, Non enim prudenter, &c. Those things which suffice for a short time, shal not wisely be called by that name: neither was that bread good, which the Elders of the Iewes did eate and are dead. For if it had bene from heauen, and of God, it had deliuered the parta∣kers of it from death. Contrariwise, that body of Christe is bread from heauen, bicause it giueth the eaters of it eternall life. Cyrill saith, the body of Christe is the bread that came downe from heauen, and which giueth eternall life being eaten, euen in the sacrament, all this we confesse alwayes. But as the body of Christe did not naturally descend from heauen, which he receiued here on earth, no more spea∣keth he of a carnall presence, or corporall manner of ea∣ting, but yet of his very flesh and bloud, eaten spiritually by faith.

* 1.64The two and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by S. Augustine and Theophylact.

* 1.65Saint Augustine is cyted, Tract. 26. i•• Ioan. Hic est pa∣nis &c. This is the bread which came downe from heauen, that by eating thereof, we might liue, bicause we can not haue eternall life of our selues. Not (saith he) as your Fathers did eate Man∣na, and are deade. He that eateth this bread▪ shall liue for euer. Therefore that they are dead, he would haue it so to be vnderstoode, that they should not liue for euer. For truely they also die tempo∣rally that ea•• Christ, but they liue eternally, bicause Christ is eternall life. Maister Heskins wondereth what gloses the aduersa∣ries inuent vpon this saying, but I maruell what hee can

picke out of it for his purpose, except it bee this, that who so euer eate Christ, shall liue for euer, but that I am sure, hee will none of. The saying of Theophylact, (but that I stand not on his authoritie being a late wri∣ter) seemeth to be directly against him. For hee saith, that The Lorde by his flesh which he tooke of the Virgine Marie, shall preserue our spirituall nature. Which as it is very true,* 1.66 so must it needes inforce a spirituall receiuing. For our spirituall nature can not receiue carnally or corpo∣rally: but onely spiritually. And yet the wise man noteth in his margent, a plaine place for the proclamer, which is plaine against his owne purpose.

The three and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the next text in the sixt of S. Iohn.* 1.67

The text is, that when our Sauiour had taught this doctrine in the synagogue in Capernaum,* 1.68 diuers of his disciples were offended, and saide: This is an hard say∣ing: who can abide it? Hee aunswereth out of Saint Au∣gustine In Psal. 98. They were hard, and not the say∣ing. The like out of Theophylact. In Ioan. 6. Who beeing carnall, can eate spirituall meate, and the bread which came downe from heauen, and the flesh which is eaten? &c.

For bicause they had flesh, they thought he would compell them to be deuourers of flesh and bloud. But bicause we vnderstand him spiritually, we neither are deuourers of flesh, but rather we are sanctified by such a meate. This place for any thing that I can see therein, is directly against the carnall ea∣ting of the Papistes, sauing that Theophylact lyuing in a corrupt time, writeth in other places suspiciously, of the carnall presence and transubstantiation. Nowe where Maister Heskins chargeth vs, to be Caparnaites, whome he calleth Sacramentaries, and derideth our carnall vn∣derstanding, bycause wee can not conceiue howe Chri∣stes very body should bee in the sacrament, except it should occupie a place and bee felt with our senses, let the world iudge whether our vnderstanding or theirs

bee more spirituall or else more grosse, and like the Ca∣pernaites.

* 1.69The foure and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text: Si videritis, &c. by Saint Augustine and Saint Cy∣rill.

* 1.70The text is this: What if you see the sonne of man as∣cend where he was before? Ere he enter into his expo∣sition, hee moueth this doubt: howe Christe doth say: the sonne of man shall ascend where he was before, see∣ing concerning his humanitie hee was neuer in heauen, before he spake these wordes? For answere, he bringeth a long sentence of Saint Augustine, which containeth this in effect, that Christ concerning his humanitie, would as∣cend thither where he was before concerning his diui∣nitie. For by reason of the vnion of two natures in one person of Christe, that is often spoken of the whole per∣son, which is proper either to the diuine nature onely, or to the humane nature onely.

For exposition hee cyteth Augustine, Tr. 27. in Ioan. Quid est hoc? Hinc soluit &c. What is this? by this he resol∣ueth them, whome he knewe, by this he hath opened whereby they were offended, by this plainely, if they would vnderstand. For they thought that he would giue foorth his body: but he saide, that he would ascend into heauen whole. When you shall see the sonne of man ascending where he was before, certainly euen then at least you shall see, that he giueth not foorth his body after that manner, that you thinke: certainly euen then at least you shall vnderstand, that his grace is not consumed with bytinges. Although this place is so directly against him, that nothing can bee more plaine: yet hee is not ashamed to cyte it for his purpose. Affirming, that Augustine by these wordes, denyeth not the giuing of Christes bodye, but the man∣ner of the giuing of his bodye. This wee confesse, but what manner of giuing doth hee denye? Maister Hes∣kins saith: onely the giuing of it by lumpes and peeces, as the Capernaites did imagine. But that is false, for

he denieth, not onely the giuing of Christes bodie by lumpes, but also al corporall and carnall manner of gi∣uing thereof, as both these wordes aboue cited, and the whole discourse of that treatise doth shew most euident∣ly. First he saith, that Christ by telling them of his ascen∣tion, doth clearely resolue them, and open plainely where at they were offended: Which is very true. For when they should see that he carried his naturall bodie, whole into heauen, they might well perceiue, that he would not giue that bodie to be eaten after a corporall manner, either in peeces, & much lesse in the whole. For y^e giuing thereof in whole, is much more monstruous, then the giuing therof in peeces. And if there remained a corporall receipt of his whole bodie, notwithstanding his absenting thereof from the earth, the doubt by his ascention is nothing at all re∣solued, but by an hundreth times more increased. Againe where he saith after his ascention: Then you shall see, that he giueth not his bodie after the manner that you thinke, then you shal vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitings. By these wordes, he doeth plainely determine, of the man∣ner of giuing, that the Iewes thought, which was corpo∣rall, whether it were in whole or in peeces, and after what manner Christes bodie is giuen, namely by grace. But Maister Heskins citeth another place out of Augustine In Psalm. 98. to proue, that he denieth the giuing of his bodie by lumpes or peeces. But the place is altogether a∣gainst him, if he had alledged the whole, and not cut it off in the waste. Tunc autem, &c. Then when our Lorde setting foorth this had spoken of his flesh, and had saide, except a man eate my flesh, he shall not haue in him life euerlasting. Some of the se∣uentie were offended and saide: This is an harde saying, who can vnderstand it? And they departed from him and walked no more with him. It seemed a harde thing to them which he saide: Except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue eternall life. They tooke it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and they thought that our LORDE would cut certeine peeces of his bodie and giue them, and they saide: this is an harde saying. Here stayeth Mai∣ster Heskins: but it followeth in Augustine.

Ille a••tem instruxit eos, &c. But he instructed them, and saith vnto them: it is the spirite that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life. Vnderstand you spiritually that which I haue spoken. You shal not eate this bodie which you see, & drinke that bloud which they shal shed, which shall crucifie me. I haue commended vnto you a certeine sacrament or mysterie, which beeing vnderstoode spiritu∣ally shall giue you life. Although it be needefull that it be celebrated visibly, yet it must be vnderstoode in∣uisibly.

In these wordes Augustine denieth, not onely the giuing of his bodie in peeces, but all maner of corpo∣rall eating of his naturall and visible bodie, and aduou∣cheth onely a spirituall vnderstanding of this text, that we haue beene so long in expounding. But M. Heskins willeth vs not to triumph before the victorie, for Augu∣stine In sermo. ad Neophy. hath a plaine place for M. Iewel. Hoc accipite in pane, &c. Take ye this in the bread, that did hang on the crosse: Take ye this in the challice, that was shed out of the side of Christ. He shall haue death not life, that thinketh Christe a lyar. If M. Heskins had expressed in what booke or ••ome, I should haue sought for this sermon Ad Norphil. he might haue spared me a great deale of labour which I haue lost in searching for it and yet cannot finde it. There are many homilies and sermons of Augustine Ad Neo∣phyl: and yet in none of them can I reade that whiche he aduouched out of him. It seemeth therefore that this place is taken out of some later writer y^t without iudge∣ment ascribeth it to Augustine, which is not to be found in his workes: And yet the saying is not such but y^t it may haue a reasonable interpretatiō, for y^e bread (after a certein maner as Augustine speaketh) is y^t which did hang on the crosse, & the wine is y^t which was shed out of his side, y^t is sacramētally, but not naturally or after a bodily maner. S. Cyril followeth ca. 22. sup. 6. Ioan. Ex imperitia multi, &c. Many that folowed Christ for lack of knowledge, not vnderstanding his wordes, were troubled. For when they had hearde, Verily, verily I say vnto you, Except you shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man

and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you: they thought they had bene called by Christ to the cruell manners of wilde beastes, and prouoked that they would eate the rawe flesh of a man, and drinke bloud, which are euen horrible to be heard: for they had not yet knowen the fourme, and most goodly dispensation of this mysterie. This also (moreouer) they did thinke: howe shall the flesh of this man giue vs eternall life? Or how can he bring vs to immortalitie? Which things when he vnderstod to whose eyes all things are bare and open: he driueth them to the faith by an other maruelous thing: Without cause (saith he) O syre are ye troubled for my words. And if you will not beleeue that life is giuen by my bodie vnto you, what will you do, when you see me flie vp into heauen? I doe not onely say that I will ascend, least you should aske againe how that should be, but you shall see it with your eyes so to be done. Therfore what will you say when you see this? Shall not this be a great argument of your madnesse? For if you thinke that my fleshe can not bring life vnto you, how shall it ascend into heauen like a birde? How shall it flye into the ayre? For this is a like impossible to mankinde. And if my fleshe beside nature shall ascende into heauen, what letteth but it may likewise beside nature giue life? Cyrill noteth (as M. Heskins saith) two vaine thoughtes of the Capernaites, one of eating raw the flesh of Christ, the other how y^t flesh shuld giue life, the latter he answereth at large, the other breefely, they vnderstoode not the fourme and dispensa∣tion of the mysterie, by which he meaneth the spirituall & mysticall maner of receiuing his bodie, cleane contra∣rie to their grosse imagination, for otherwise the ascen∣tion of Christe would not answere that doubt, but in∣crease it. Maister Heskins citeth another text, to shewe the power of Christes fleshe, whiche is needelesse, for it is confessed of vs to be such, as he himselfe hath decla∣red it to be. Non verbo soliù, &c.* 1.71 He did not onely with his worde raise dead men, but also with his touching, to shewe that his bodie also doth giue life. If then with his onely touching, corrupted thinges are made sound: how shall we not liue, which doe both tast and eate that fleshe? it will without all doubt refourme againe to immortalitie the partakers thereof. Neither doe thou inquire after the Iewish manner, how? But remember that although water by

nature be colde, ye•• by comming of fire to it, forgetting her coldene••, it boyleth with heate. Here M. Heskins will not allowe vs our glosse, that Cyril speaketh of the spirituall receiuing of Christes flesh, because he teacheth more then once, that we are ioyned to Christ not onely spiritually, but also af∣ter the flesh, and that by eating the same flesh: as though we could not truely be partakers of the fleshe of Christe▪ by a spirituall receiuing of him, not onely in the sacra∣crament, but also by faith, without the sacrament. And Cyril saith, we doe both taste and eate his flesh, whiche of necessitie imployeth a spirituall manner of receiuing, for other tast we haue not of Christes flesh, but spirituall and by faith. In the ende of the Chapter to deliuer him∣selfe & his fellowes from the grosse errour of the Caper∣naites, he scoffeth finely at our spirituall sifting of the sa∣crament so fine, that we leaue nothing but the bare bran of the signifying signe in our owne hand, whiche is the grosse bread we feede on. If we taught a bare signe or bare bread in the sacrament, there were some place for Maister Heskins ieaste. But when we teache that presence and receiuing, which Maister Heskins so often confesseth to be onely profitable, and which we finde in the scrip∣tures and auncient doctors, we haue the sacrament so per∣fectly boulted and fined to our hand, that we acknow∣ledge no branne or drosse at al to be in the bread, neither yet any dregges at all in the cuppe, whatsoeuer there is in the Popish challice, which the priest hath sucked and lic∣ked so drie, that there is not one droppe of the bloud of Christe in it, to quench the thirst of the poore people.

* 1.72The fi••e and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth, in the exposition of the same text, and endeth it by Euthymius, and Petrus Cluniacensis.

* 1.73Euthymius is cited In 6. Ioan. following the expositi∣on of Cyrillus, as he doth often of the olde Greeke wri∣ters. Si ergo videritis, &c. If therfore ye shal see, the sonne of man ascending where he was before, what will you say? He speaketh of the assumption of him selfe into heauen, ascending according to his

humanitie, where he was before, according to his Diuinitie. For he that can make this fleshe heauenly, can also make it meate of men. Maister Heskins inferreth vpon this saying, that the argu∣ment of the ascention vsed by Christ, is vaine to proue the spirituall eating, but good to proue the reall eating of his fleshe. Note here first, that he counteth the argument of his ascention expounded and vsed by Augustine in the Chapter next before, to be vaine. Secondly although Cy∣rillus vseth the argument of Christes ascention, to prooue that Christes flesh being eaten, may as well giue life, as it could ascend into heauen, doth it therefore proue a reall, corporal, or carnal presence, & eating of Christes bodie, which is taken away by his ascention? But he saith, The flesh of Christ was spiritually the meate of the holie fathers in the olde lawe, therefore that needed not to be proued possible, which was knowen so long before. A wise reason, as though Christ had to doe with faithfull Iewes, and not with Infidels, that nei∣ther knew nor beleeued, any such matter: or, if hee had spoken to the Patriarches them selues, as though they had knowne and vnderstoode the mysteries of Christ so distinctly and plainly, that Christes instruction had bene needelesse to them. But Maister Heskins in all his argu∣ments and expositions almost, setteth downe that, as cer∣teine and granted, which is the whole matter in contro∣uersie. His meate is flesh in deede, his flesh is not eaten spiritually, &c. He must haue an easie aduersarie, or else he shall gaine litle by such petition of principles. The saying of Pe∣trus of Clunie, though he be but a late writer, conteineth more against him, then for him, for he denieth the man∣gling of Christs flesh after the Capernaites imaginations, and teacheth, that it is Diuided without paine, parted without diminution, and eaten without consumption, because it is the spirite that quickeneth, and because his fleshe beeing so receiued and vn∣derstoode, giueth eternall life. What can we here vnderstand but a spirituall receiuing?

The sixe and thirtieth Chapter createth of the next text by Au∣gustine, & Chrysostome.* 1.74

* 1.75This text is this: it is the spirite that quickeneth, the fleshe profiteth nothing. This text is made so familiar (he saith) that boyes and girles can blatter it against Christes presence in the sacrament, as though they denied the ver∣tue of his fleshe, that denie your carnal presence in the sa∣crament. But we must heare Saint Augustine. Tract. 27. In Ioan. Quid est quod adi••ngit, &c. What is that he ioyneth? It is the spirite that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing? Let vs say vnto him for he suffreth vs not gainsaying but desirous to know) O Lord good Maister, how doeth not the flesh profite any thing, when then hast said: except a man eate my flesh, & drink my bloud, he shal not haue life in him? Doth not life profite any thing? And wherfore are we that that we are, but that we may haue eternal life, which thou doest promise by thy flesh? What then is it: it profiteth not any thing? The flesh profiteth nothing, but as they vnderstoode it. For they vnderstoode fleshe so, as it is rent in peeces in a dead bodie, or solde in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit: It is ther∣fore so saide: the flesh profiteth nothing, as it is saide: knowledge puffeth vp a man. Shall we nowe then hate knowledge? God forbid. And what it is then? Knowledge p••ffeth vp? beeing alone without charitie. Therefore he added: But charitie doth edifie. Therefore adde charitie to knowledge, and knowledge shalbe profitable, not by it selfe but by charitie So now likewise the fleshe profiteth nothing, that is the fleshe alone. But let the spirite come to the flesh, as chari∣tie commeth to knowledge, and it profiteth verie much. For if the flesh had profi••ed nothing: the worde should not haue beene made flesh that it might dwell in vs. If Christ haue profited vs much by his flesh, how doeth the flesh profite nothing at all? But the spirite by the flesh hath done some thing for our health. The fleshe was that vessel, marke what it had in it, not what it was. The Apostles were sent, did their flesh profite nothing? If the flesh of the Apostles profited vs not, could our Lordes flesh not profite vs? For how came the sound of the word vnto vs but by the voyce of the flesh? From whence the stile? From whence the writing? All these workes be of the flesh, but the spirite mouing it as his instrument. Therefore it is the spirite which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. As they vnderstoode flesh, so do I not giue my flesh to be eaten. Maister Heskins doth glorie that he bringeth not this sentence

truncately as the heretiques do, but wholy, that the reader should not be defrauded of S. Augustines right meaning, vpō this scripture. And here again he repeateth his rotten distinction, that Christ giueth not his flesh by lumpes & peeces, yet giueth it corporally, & that S. Augustine mea∣neth none otherwise. But as long a sentence as he rehear∣sed, he hath omitted the very interpretation of his text in hand. Which Augustine maketh in these wordes: Quid est spiritus & vita? Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt. What is spirite and life spiritually to be vnderstanded: neither is there one worde in all that treatise for the corporall presence, or receiuing. And yet we cōfesse that Christ truly giueth vs his fleshe, & we are truely fed therewith, but not after a corporall maner, but after a spiritual & vnspeakable ma∣ner. Chrysostome is cited hom. 46. In Ioan. Quid igitur? caro, &c. What then? Doth the fleshe profite nothing? He speaketh not of the very flesh, God forbid, but of them that carnally take those things that are spoken. And what is it to vnderstand carnally? Sim∣ply as the thinges are spoken, and not to thinke any other thing of them. For th••se thinges that are seene, are not so to be iudged, but all mysteries are to be considered with inwarde eyes, that is spiritu∣ally. He that eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my bloud, hath no life in him selfe. How doeth the fleshe profite nothing without the which no man can liue? See that this particle (The flesh profiteth not any thing) is not spoken of the fleshe it selfe, but of the carnall hearing. M. Hesk. saith that Chrysostome needeth no ex∣positor, to open his exposition. And I am of y^t same iudg∣ment. For he is so plaine against al grosse and carnal ima∣gination, about these mysteries, that nothing can be plai∣ner. He saith to vnderstand these thinges in y^e sixt of Iohn simply, as they are spoken, is to vnderstād them carnally, which ought not to be, for all mysteries must be vnder∣stood spiritually, the receiuing of Christ in the sacrament is a mysterie, therfore it must be vnderstāded spiritually.

The seuen and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text, by Theophylact, & S. Bernarde.* 1.76

Theophylacte following Chrysostome,* 1.77 as he doth very much, whē he is not carried from him by the corruption

of his time, saith That the wordes of Christ must be vnderstood•• spiritually: Whervpon M. Hesk. maketh an obiection, how those words may be vnderstood spiritually, & yet y^e carnal presence & receiuing retained? He answereth, y^t the Papists also confesse, the words of Christ must be vnderstode spi∣ritually, and first alledgeth Theophylacte, to proue that he allowed the carnal presence, which though they do not vndoutedly proue it, yet considering y^e time in which he liued, it may be granted that he did allow it. What then? Marie spiritual vnderstāding letteth not y^e carnal presence. But I haue shewed before y^t while Theophylact wold fol∣lowe Chrysost. & yet mainteine the errour of his time, no maruel though he were contrarie to himself. But spiritual vnderstanding by M. Hesk. definition, is to vnderstand, y^t these thinges are not done by any naturall meane, but by the spirit of God, namely transubstantiation & such like. But Chrysostom as we sawe in the Chapter before, deter∣mined otherwise of spirituall vnderstanding of this scrip∣ture, namely, that the sayings must not be taken simply as they are spokē, but as mysteries be considered w^t y^e inward eyes. But M. Heskins hath a plaine place for the proclay∣mer out of S. Aug. serm. Ad Infant: Quod videtis in altari pa∣nis est, &c. That which you see on the altar is bread and the cuppe, which also your eyes do shew you. But that faith requireth to be in∣structed: the bread is the bodie, the cup is the bloud. In the mind of some man such a thought may arise, Our Lorde Iesus Christ we know whence he receiued flesh, namely of the virgin Marie, he was nourished, grewe vp, was buried, rose again, & ascended into hea∣uen, thither he lifted vp his bodie, from whence he shall come to iudge both the quick & the dead. There he is now siting at the right hand of the father, how is therfore bread his bodies? or that which is in the cuppe how is it his bloud? Brethren, therefore those things are called sacraments, because one thing is seene in them, another thing is vnderstanded. That which is seene, hath a corporall forme, that which is vnderstoode hath a spirituall fruite. What plainnes is in this place, except it be against transubstantiation, and the reall presence, let the readers iudge. And withal I must ad∣monish them, that M. Hesk. citeth it farre otherwise then

it is in Augustine, beside y^t he leaueth out that which fol∣loweth, & maketh all the matter as plain as a pack staffe, which are these words: Corpus ergo Christi, &c.

Therfore if y^u wilt vnderstand the body of Christ, heare the Apostle say∣ing to the faithful: you are the bodie of Christ & his mē∣bers. If you therefore be the bodie of Christ & his mem∣bers, your mysterie is set on y^e table, you receiue y^e Lords mysterie, you answer Amen to y^t which you are, & in an∣swering you consent. Thou hearest therefore the body of Christ, & thou answerest Amen. Be thou a mēber of the bodie of Christ, that thy Amen may be true. Why then in bread? Let vs here bring nothing of our owne. Let vs also heare the Apostle. Therfore when he spake of this sacra∣ment he saith: One bread, we being many are one bodie.

Vnderstand this and reioyce. By these wordes it is moste manifest that Augustine excludeth the carnall presence, affirming the elementes to be the bodie and bloude of Christ, euen as we are the bodie and members of Christ, and that is spiritually & mystically: & as we are y^e bread, namely by significatiō, & not by transubstantiation. The testimonies of Algerus and Bernard I leaue to M. Hesk. for that they are without the compasse of the challenge.

The eight and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Euthymius and Lyra.* 1.78

Euthymius is cited In 6. Ioan. in these words: Spiritus est qui viuificat, &c. It is the spirite that quickeneth.* 1.79 Now he calleth the spirit, the spiritual vnderstanding of those things which are said: likewise the flesh, to vnderstand them fleshly. For the speech is not now of his flesh which quickeneth. Therefore he saith: to vnderstand these thinges spiritually, giueth that life, which I spake of before: but to vnderstand them carnally it profiteth nothing. Maister Hesk. wold fain make Euthymius to speak for him, if he could tell how to wring him in, but it wil not be. Spiritual vn∣derstanding is, as Chrysost. before in the 36. Chap. hath declared, & not as M. Heskins would racke it, to make it stand with his grosse and carnal vnderstanding. From the iudgement of Lyra as no compotent Iudge, I appeale, al∣though in this place he speake nothing for M. Heskins,

but rather against him, for he agreeth with the rest that the wordes must be spiritually vnderstanded.

* 1.80The nine and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text by S. Augustine and Cyrill.

* 1.81The text is this: the wordes that I speake vnto you are spirite and life, of which Augustine writeth thus: Tra. 27. In Ioan. Quid est, &c. What is it, they are spirite and life? They are spiritually to be vnderstoode. Hast thou vnderstoode them spiri∣tually? they are spirite and life. Hast thou vnderstoode them car∣nally? Euen so also they are spirite and life, but not to thee. M. Heskins hauing once made a blind determination of spi∣rituall vnderstanding, taketh spirituall vnderstanding wheresoeuer he findeth it for carnal vnderstanding, & car∣nall vnderstanding for spirituall vnderstanding, without all ryme or reason.* 1.82

But still Chrysostome lyeth in his way: to vnderstand carnally, is to vnderstand things sim∣ply as they are spoken, for all mysteries must be vnder∣stood with inward eyes, that is, spiritually. When the in∣ward eyes see the bread they passe ouer the creatures, nei∣ther do they thinke of that bread, which is baked of the baker, but of him, which called himselfe the bread of e∣ternal life.

Cyril is cited Cap. 24. In 6. Ioan. Verba quae, &c. The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life. He shew∣eth that his whole bodie is full of quickening vertue of the spirite. For here he called his very fleshe, spirite, not because it lost the na∣ture of flesh, & is changed into the spirite: but because beeing per∣fectly ioyned with it, it hath receiued the whole power to quicken. Neither let any man think, this to be spoken vndecently, for he that is surely ioyned to the Lorde, is one spirite with him. How then shal not his flesh be called one with him? It is after this manner there∣fore which is saide: you thinke I said this earthly and mortall bodie of his owne nature to be quickening or giuing life, but I spake of the spirit & life. For the nature of the flesh of it self cānot quicken, but the power of the spirite hath made the fleshe quickening. There∣fore the words, which I haue spokē, that is those things which I spoke vnto you are spirite and life, by which my fleshe also liueth and is quickening. Cyrill hauing his minde still bent against the

Nestorians, earnestly auoucheth y^e trueth of Christes flesh vnited to his Diuinitie, but for M. Hesk. purpose he saith nothing at all, I meane for the carnal maner of receiuing Christes fleshe in the sacrament. The name of Capernaites M. Hesk. so much misliketh, that he would turne it ouer to vs, if he could inuent any balde reason to proue it a∣greeing to our doctrine. The sacramentaries he saith are carnal and grosse, because they say that Papistes receiue nothing but bare flesh, and not the flesh of Christe, which is vnited to the Deitie, and giueth life. But indeed the Pa∣pistes say as much, when they say that the flesh of Christ is receiued, where it giueth no life. As for those whome he calleth sacramentaries they wil not graunt, y^t the Papistes (although they prate so grossely of flesh & bloud,) yet re∣ceiue any thing, but a wafer cake, & a draught of wine.

The fortieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text, and so of the processe of the sixt of S. Iohn by Euthymius, and Lyra.* 1.83

Euthymius to end this long and tedious processe,* 1.84 is ci∣ted, as before In. 6. Ioan. Verba quae, &c. The wordes which I speake vnto you are spirite and life, they are spirituall and quicke∣ning. For we must not looke vpon them simply, that is vnderstand them carnally. But imagine a certeine other thing, and to beholde them with inward eyes as mysteries, for this is spiritually to vnder∣stand. Euthymius affirmeth the same, that Chrysostome doeth Hom. 46. In Ioan. and almoste in the same wordes, neither can M. Hesk. drawe any thing out of thē to serue his humor, but that the sacramentes are mysteries, and therefore some other thing must be present, then is seene with the outward eye: which is true, so it be such a thing as may be seene onely with the eyes of the mind, of which the authour speaketh. But the bodie of Christ, as Aug. saith, euen immortall and glorified, is stil visible. Ep. 85. Consentio. To wrangle about y^e sentence of Lyra it were losse of time, who although he wil haue a real presence, yet he wil haue The flesh of Christ to be eaten in the sacrament after a spirituall maner, because the spirite by the power of God v∣nited to the flesh is refreshed. Wherevpon M. Hesk. reiecting

the true spirituall manner of eating Christes fleshe in y^e sacrament by faith, as hereticall, which he hath so often before allowed, as onely profitable: setteth vp three o∣ther spirituall manners of Christes presence in the sa∣crament for three causes. First, because it is wrought by the spirite of God. Secondly, because, although it be ve∣rily present, it is not knowen by corporall sence, but by spirituall knowledge of faith. Thirdly, because our spirite by the power of God, is vnited to the fleshe: of these deuises he maketh Lyra the author, and he may bee well ynough. For such blinde teachers, while they wran∣gled about words, they became altogether vaine in their imaginations, and lost the true sence and meaning, both of the worde of God, and of the sacraments. The ray∣ling stuffe wherewith he concludeth this Chapter, and this worthie expositiō continued in 36. Chapters, I passe ouer as vnworthie of any answere.

* 1.85The one and fortieth Chapter beginneth, the exposition of these wordes of Christ: this is my bodie, after the minde of the aduer∣saries.

The first part of this Chapter conteyneth a fonde and lewde comparison of the doctrine of the Sacramentaries,* 1.86 with the temptation of the diuell, vsed to our firste pa∣rents▪ which, because it sheweth nothing but M. Hesk. witt and stomake, I omitt. It hath more colour of rea∣son that he bringeth in afterward: namely that there are two things, which ought to moue men to resist the tem∣tation of the sacramentaries: their contrarietie to the worde of God, and their contrarietie among them selues. Their contrarietie to the worde of God, he sayeth to bee, where Christ sayde: This is my bodie, Sathan sayth, it is not his bodie. In verie deede, if after Christe hath sayde, the bread and wine are his bodie & bloude, any man shuld rise vp & saye, they are not his bodie & bloud at al, we might well iudge y^t he spake by the spirite of Sathan: as when Christe sayeth, drinke ye all of this, & the Pope sayth to the people, there shall none of you all drink of

this, we may easely acknowlege the spirit of Antichrist. But we (whome he calleth sacramentaries) doe with all reuerence & humilitie confesse, that the bread & the wine ministred according to Christes institution, are the body & bloud of Christ, in such sence, as he saide they were. And we say with S. Augustine:

Per similitudinem Christus multa est quae per proprietatem non est. Per similitudinem & pe∣trae est Christus, & ostium est Christus, & lapis angularis est Christus, &c. By similitude, Christ is manie things, which he is not by propertie. By similitude the rocke is Christ, y^e dore is Christ, the corner stone is Christ, &c.

Wherfore, we affirme nothing contrarie to the words of Christ, but al∣together agreeable to his meaning. For contrarietie of Sacramentaries among them selues, he citeth a saying of Luther written in his frowardnesse, that there shoulde be eyght seuerall disagreeing spirites among the Sacra∣mentaries, from which, if you take away Carolostadius, Swenkfeldius, Campanus, and the eight without name, which is belike H. N. opinion, that euery man may think of it what he list, whose opinions the godly, whome hee calleth sacramentaries, did euer more detest as wicked & vngodly: there remaineth y^e interpretation of Zwing∣lius, of the wordes of Christ, This signifieth my bodie: & of Oecolampadius, This is a token of my bod••e: & two other, Receiue the benefits of my passion: and Take this as a monument, or remembrance of my bodie crucified for you, which differ in forme of wordes, and are all one in deede and meaning. So is the iudgement of Melancthon: this is the participation of my bodie: And of Caluine, yet not as Heskins like a lewde lyer slaunde∣reth him, to say, This is the verie substance of my bodie, but it is not my bodily substance, but agreeing in effect with all the rest, that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued, but not after a carnall or bodily manner, but after a spirituall & vnspeakable manner. As for the fiue sectes numbred a∣mong the Lutherans, which dissent from vs in this point, we make none accompt of them.

Thus, where M. Hesk hath gathered, as he reckoneth,

sixteene seueral sectes, foure of them being condemned of vs for hereticall, with the authors of them, fiue agree∣ing with the papistes in the carnall presence, and Luthers owne secte, if he dissent from them, as Heskins maketh him to doe, the sixt, tenne are of vs generally refused. The other sixe, that remaine in Maister Heskins num∣ber, are falsely forged to disagree, when they holde all one thing in effect, although they expresse the same thing in diuerse formes of wordes, as it is not possible for diuerse interpreters, though they agree in sense and interpretation, to iump all in one forme of words, for then all commentaries should be one. But as God gi∣ueth his giftes diuersely, some expound the scriptures briefely, some more at large, some more plainly, some more obscurely: so all these, and fiue hundred more, (God be thanked) learned men either in writing, or in preaching, haue shewed the vnderstanding of Christes wordes, hardly fiue of them agreeing in all termes and phrases, yet all moste sweetely consenting in one sense, and meaning, which consent and agreement is more no∣table, when it is vttered in so many diuerse formes of wordes. And yet, to take away all cauels and flaunders, all the churches for the moste parte in Fraunce, Scotland, Sauoy, Heluetia, Germanie, Hungarie, Piemont, Polo∣nia, &c. beside the persecuted Churches of Italians, Spa∣nyards, and others, haue subscribed to one forme of con∣fession, concerning not onely the sacrament, but all o∣ther principall poyntes of religion, which wee do like∣wise receiue in this Church of England. And if disagre∣ing of men among themselues, were a matter of such importance, it were no harde thing, to shewe the bat∣tels of the schoole doctours among the Papists, not one∣ly about other matters, but euen about the manner of the presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament, & trans∣substantiation. If you say, all these, whome you reiecte, as the Lutherans in this poynt, the Swinkefeldians, Ana∣baptistes, Libertines, Henrinicolaites, and such other, do all disagree with you, from the Catholike church of

Rome, therefore you are all together naught. By this reason, all Christianitie might bee condemned of the Iewes and Gentiles, because so many sectes and heresies as be vnder the name of Christianitie, together with the true Church of Christe, be all against Iudaisme & Gen∣tilisme. But agreeing or disagreeing of men among themselues, is a weake argument, to proue or disproue any thing, onely agreeing with the trueth, is a sure rea∣son to allowe, and disagreeing from the trueth, is a cer∣teine argument to refuse, either men, or matter propoun∣ded by them.

The two and fourtieth Chapter, beginneth the exposition of the wordes of Christe, after the Catholike manner, with certein proues of the same.* 1.87

First,* 1.88 he setteth downe the sayings of the three Euan∣gelistes, Mathew, Marke, and Luke, and of the Apostle Paule, in which they describe the institution of the sa∣crament: of which he sayeth, not one maketh any men∣tion of tropes, figures, or significations, wherein hee v∣seth a shamelesse kinde of Sophistrie: for although they name no tropes, or figures, or signification, yet by the Papistes owne confession, Saint Luke, & S. Paule, vse manifest tropes, figures, and significations, namely, where they say: This cupp is the newe testament in my bloud. First, it is a trope or figure, to saye, the cupp, for that which is conteined in the cup, vnlesse they will say, that the cupp, of what metall or matter so euer it was, was likewise transubstantiated into the bloud of Christe.

Likewise, where he sayeth: this cuppe is the newe testa∣ment or couenant, he must either acknowledge a signi∣fication, this cuppe signifieth the newe testament, or else he must make the newe testament to be nothing else but a cuppe.

Finally, where he sayeth, this cuppe is the newe te∣stament in my bloud, except hee acknowledge a trope or figure, he will vtterly denye that, which is in the cup, to be the bloud of Christe.

And out of all controuersie, this manner of speache v∣sed by Saint Luke and Saint Paule, is a manifest inter∣pretation of the wordes vsed by S. Mathewe, and Saint Marke, this is my bloud, which are all one in sence and meaning, and teache vs howe the wordes spoken of the breade are to be interpreted, this is my bodie, this is the newe testament in my bloude, which is as much to saye, this is a seale, and confirmation of the newe couenaunt, (which is remission of sinnes) purchased by the breaking of my bodie, and the shedding of my bloud for you. This breade and this cuppe receiued of you, shall assure you, that you are truely incorporated into my bodie, & so made partakers of eternall life. This interpretation hath in it nothing farre fetched, or strange, from y^e words of Christ, & y^e vsuall maner of speaking in the scripture.

But nowe M. Heskins will proue, that the wordes of Christ are to be vnderstanded without trope or figure, by the slaunders of the Infidels, which defamed y^e Chri∣stians in the primitiue Church, for eating the fleshe of men and of children, as appeareth in Euseb. lib. 5 Cap. 2. & 3. in the storie of Blandina and Attalus martyrs: when they did eate the flesh of Christ. But none of them, nei∣ther in Eusebius, nor yet Iustine, Origen, Tertullian, or any other that haue written Apollogies, defended the Christians, by the commaundement of Christ, to eat his bodie, but vtterly denyed and derided the slaunder, that they were sayde, to eat the fleshe of men or children, as they did other slaunders, which had no ground nor si∣militude of trueth, as that they worshipped an Asses head, y^t they companyed together in the dark like brute beastes, and such like: whereas, if they had eaten the na∣turall fleshe of Christ, as the Papists teache, they woulde neither haue simply denyed y^e eating of a mans flesh, nor yet haue spared to shewe, how it was eaten vnder the formes of bread & wine, to auoide all crueltie and loth∣somnes. As for the legend of S. Andrewes passion, which M. Heskins sayeth was written per Presbyteros & diaconos Achaie, is of as good credit, as y^e booke of Beuis of Hamp∣ton,

y^e like I say of y^e fable of Amphilochius a newe found olde writer: concerning the Iewe, that sawe a childe di∣uided when the sacrament was broken. The Legend and festiuall haue many such miracles. But why did he not see a man diuided, seeing Christe is not nowe a childe, but a man? Belike the authours of those miracles thought, that if they feigned him to be a little child like Tom Thumb, their miracles should be more credited, that such a one should be conteined in their cake, rather then a tall man of perfect stature. O impudent asses! But it proueth wel the reall presence (saith M. Hes.) that Auerrois a Philoso∣pher saith: I haue walked ouer the world, I haue found diuers sectes, and yet haue I found none so foolish a sect. is is the sect of the Christians. For they deuour with their teeth their God whome they worship. Hereof it is easie to perceiue (saith he) that y^e fame was, that they did receiue and eate Christ, whom they ho∣noured. But herein M. Hes. bewrayeth either his falshood, or his ignoraunce. For hee speaketh as though Auerrois were an ancient Philosopher, that liued in the dayes of the primitiue Church, whereas he was a Spanish Mahometist, or rather Athist, not past three or foure hundreth yeres a∣go, when Poperie was in y^e greatest pride, and Idolatrie co∣uered the face of the earth. His saying therfore proueth no∣thing, but how great an offēce y^e popish Idolatrie did giue to y^e Heathen, Turkes, and Iewes. And whereas Iustinus in his Apollogie to the Emperour, declareth whatsoeuer was done in the assemblies of the Christians, he well dischar∣geth them of all slaunders that were raised against them, but defendeth not the corporall eating of mans flesh by the commaundement of Christ, although he confesse that they receiued that breade not as common bread, nor as common drinke: but as their flesh and bloud was nouri∣rished by that foode, so they were persuaded that it was the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ for the spiritual foode of their soules.

As for the curse that Rupertus threatneth to them that adde vnto the word of God▪ pertaineth not to them y^t giue the true sense of the word of God, whether it be in more

wordes or fewer. And whereas Rupertus saith these words of Christ, I am a vine, and this is my body, be no like spea∣ches: I confesse, they are not in euery respect, bicause in the one he did institute a sacramēt, in the other he taught as by a similitude, the true end, vse, and signification of the sacrament. Yet are they not altogether vnlike, bicause they are both figuratiue, and so iudged and compared to∣gether by the auncient Fathers. But Rupertus will proue by two reasons, that the latter is no figure. First, bicause in the former, there is a continuation of the Allegorie, which proueth it to be a figure, in the other there is none such. This is a fond reason, for both we haue shewed a continuation of the trope, where he saide, this cup is the newe Testament, and although there were none, yet that can not exclude a figure, no more then when baptisme is called regeneration, when the lamb is called the Passeo∣uer, which be sacramentall speaches and such like, where no continuation of the figure followeth. The other rea∣son of Rupertus, M. Heskins diuideth into two parts. The first is, to note the enunciation of both scriptures, for he doth not take a braunch of a vine, and say, I am this vine, or this vine is my body, but he saith of the bread, this is my body. A strong reason: he saith (as signanter) by a cer∣taine demonstration of substaunce, and speaking of the same sacrament, That rocke was Christe, and in the time when it was a sacrament, it was and might be truely said, pointing to the rocke, this is Christ, and to the water issu∣ing out of it, this is the bloud of Christ, and so no doubt, Christ spake by his spiri••e in the consciences of the faith∣full. The second part of Rupertus reason is, that y^e wordes which followe, which is giuen for you, &c. can not be ap∣plied to the figure, therefore the sense of that place is pro∣per, and not figuratiue. But contrariwise, these wordes can not be applied to the sacrament, therefore the speach is not proper but figuratiue, and shewe howe the breade and the cup are the body and bloud of Christe, namely, as his body is broken and his bloud shed for vs, for the ver∣tue of the sacrament standeth in his passion, by which his

body and bloud offered in sacrifice for our sinnes, are made a spirituall foode of our soules. The conference that Rupertus maketh betweene the words of Christ, and the wordes of the serpent, I passe ouer, as containing no argument in them for the proofe of M. Heskins bill, but onely shewing the corrupt iudgement of the authour, whose reasons I am content to weigh, but I esteeme not his authoritie, as being a late prop of the Popish church.

The three and fortieth Chapter beginneth to proue the vnder∣standing of Christes foresaid wordes not to be figuratiue, by the au∣thoritie of the Fathers. And first by Alexander and Iustinus.* 1.89

Iustine is alledged in this second Apologie in a cor∣rupt Latine translation,* 1.90 which he maketh worsse by falsi∣fying the same in his English translation. The place hath bene already considered in the first booke Chap. 27. ac∣cording to the originall Greeke copie. I will nowe re∣hearse the same after his Latine translation, and after∣ward shewe M. Heskins falsification. Cum autem &c. When he that is ouerseer hath giuen thankes, and all the people haue as∣sented, they which are called Deacons with vs, do distribute to euery one that is present, that they may take part in the breade in which thankes is giuen, and of the wine and water, and carie it to those which are not present. And this foode which is called thankes giuing: Of which it is not lawfull for any other to take part, but he that beleeueth those things to be true which are taught by vs, and which is washed in the lauer vnto remission of sinnes and regene∣ration, and so liueth as Christ hath taught. Neither do we take these thinges as common bread and a common cup: but euen as by the word of God Iesus Christ our sauiour being incarnate, had both flesh and bloud: so we are taught that the foode through the prayer of his word being consecrated by thankesgiuing, of which our flesh & bloud by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh & bloud of Iesus Christ, which was incarnate. For the Apostles in their cōmentaries, which are called Gospels, haue taught that he did so cōmaund them, That when he had taken bread & giuen thanks, he said, Do this in remembrance of me, this is my body. And likewise when he had ta∣ken the cup and giuen thankes that he said: This is my bloud, and gaue first to them alone. M. Heskins hath falsified this author

in his translation. First, where he turneth is qui pręest, the prieste, as though there were Masse priestes in that time. Secondly, quae docentur a nobis, that be taught of vs, as though none should receiue the sacrament, but they which beleue the real presence, which he surmiseth to be taught to thē.

But more notably, where he translateth these wordes: Sie verbi sui oratione, consecratum gratiarum actione alimentum, ex quo caro nostra, & sanguis per transmutationem aluntur, ipsius in∣carnati Iesu Christi & carnem & sanguinem esse educti sumus. Into this English, with foysting in a parenthesis, and chaunging his letter. EVEN SO WE BE TAVGHT THAT THE FOODE (wherewith our flesh and bloud be nourished by alteration) WHEN IT IS CONSECRA∣TED BY THE PRAYER OF HIS WORD, TO BE THE FLESH AND BLOVD OF THE SAME IE∣SVS INCARNATED.

In this beastly racking & per∣uerting, he hath left out thank••giuing, not knowing wher to place it. The cause of this falsification is, for that he can not abide, that the food after it is consecrated, shuld nou∣rish our bodies, which Iustin{us} doth most expresly affirme. But before I proceede to his collections, I will gather my selfe out of this place, that which the Papistes wil not wel like of, and yet although they would burst for anger, thei can not auoyde, but that they be necessarie collections. First, that there was no priuate Masse in his dayes, for all that were present did communicate. Secondly, that the people, as well as the ministers, receiued in both kindes. Thirdly, that the things wherof they were partakers, were bread, wine, and water, which after they were consecrated, were the nourishment of their bodies. Now let vs heare M. Hes. collection for the reall presence. First he saith not, these things were signes, figures, tokens: therefore they were none. A tried argument of the authoritie, of a man negatiuely. Secondly he saith, they were taught that by consecration, they were made by y^e power of Gods worde, the flesh and bloud of Christ that was incarnated. We be∣leue the same likewise. Thirdly M. Hes saith, the real pre∣sence was as certaine to the primitiue Church, as the incar∣nation.

So saith not Iustinus, neither that the sacrament was the same substance of naturall flesh and bloud of Ie∣sus that was incarnat by that diuine & wonderful means, by which he was incarnate, and this do we most constant∣ly beleeue. And therefore here is no plaine place for the proclamer to proue the reall presence, whereof Iustine speaketh none otherwise, then the proclamer did speak, & beleeue while he liued.

But M. Heskins, although there was neuer seene a more impudent falsifier of the Doctours sayings and meanings, and euen in this place as I haue plainely dis∣couered, most lewdly corrupted the authours wordes by false translation: yet he shameth not to slaunder holy and learned Cranmer of the same crime. But what should an harlot do? but after she hath plaied the strumpet, call euery honest woman shee meeteth whore first? Cranmer (saith he) reporteth, as though Iustine should say, the sa∣crament is but called the body of Christe. This is first an intollerable lye. For Cranmer saith, it is called the body of Christ, he saith not it is but called so, that is only called so. Secondly Cranmer saide out of Iustinus, that these creatures after they be consecrated do nourish the bodies, and are chaunged into them. And therein he saith most truely, and as the wordes of Iustine are, and as the La∣tine translation is, and Maister Heskins most falsely hath corrupted them, as I shewed before. Of which falsificati∣on being guiltie in his owne conscience, he fleeth from his former Latine translation which is true in this point, to the translation of Petrus Nannius a Papist, which yet helpeth him not, but by false pointing and displacing of the wordes, Ita quoque per preces verbi illius, cibum ex quo caro nostra & sanguis per immutationem aluntur cum benedictus fu∣erit, Iesu ipsius incarnati, carnem & sanguinem didicimus esse. But the Greeke Article is so placed, as it can abide no such patcherie: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Euen so we are taught that that foode after thankes are

giuen for it by prayer of his word, of which our flesh and bloud by permutation are nourished, is the flesh and bloud of that Iesus which was incarnated. So are the very wordes of Iustine.

But to helpe out the matter, Ambrose is alledged. Lib. 4. de sacra. Cap. 5. Before it be consecrated it is bread, but when the wordes of Christ are come to it, it is the body of Christ. But the same Ambrose in the same booke and Chapter, saith of the sacrament in the prayer of the Church:

Fac nobis, in∣quit, hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilē: quod est figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi. Make vn∣to vs (saith the priest) this oblation ascribed, reasonable, acceptable: which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. By these wordes it is manifest, how Ambrose and the Church in his time, tooke the breade to be the body of Christ.

The like may be said of Augustine, whose wordes M. Heskins cyteth, De verbis Domini, ser. 8. Before the wordes of Christ that which is offered is called breade, when the words of Christ are spoken now it is not called breade, but is called his body. Who seeth not y^t these words are vttered by comparison, it is not caled bread, but his body, that is, it is rather called his body then bread, as S. Paule saith, Christe sent me not to baptise, but to preach, that is, ra∣ther to preach then to baptise?

But nowe commeth in the authoritie of Alexander somtime Byshop of Rome, to which I will not vouchsafe to make any answere, bicause it is a meere forgerie and counterfet Epistle, as all y^e pack of these decretall Epistles are, y^t are feined in the name of those auncient holy Mar∣tyrs, sometimes Bishops of the citie of Rome, by some lewde Losel, that could not write true Latine, as is easie to see of all men that will take paines to read such beastly baggage. I will giue you a taste of this counterfet Alex∣ander, speaking of holy water: If the ashes being sprinkled with the bloud of a heifer did sanctifie the people, much more shall water sprinkled with salt, and hallowed with godly prayers. See howe the brutish blasphemous Asse, transferreth the argument of the Apostle, Heb. 9. from the precious bloud

of Christ to his beggerly holy water. I wil therfore leaue M. Heskins rooting with his groyne in this draffe sacke, and passe to the next Chapter.

The foure and fortieth Chapter by occasion of the wordes of A∣lexander, treateth of the adoration and honouring of Christes bo∣dy in the sacrament.* 1.91

It is a worshipfull Alexander, that gaue you the occa∣sion of this discourse by his wordes. But let the occasion goe, we will looke to the matter. First he rehearseth halfe a side of M. Iewels wordes against the adoration of the sacrament, out of which he gathereth two arguments, the one thus: Christ neuer gaue cōmandement to worship the sacra∣ment: ergo, it is not to be done. This argument he answereth is negatiue, and therfore concludeth nothing. But vnder correction of his great Logike, when God chargeth vs to do that onely, which he commaundeth, an argument of negatiues of Gods commaundement concludeth al things to be vnlawfull, which God hath not commaunded. Hee bringeth examples of many that worshipped Christe, yet had they no commaundement of him so to doe. A great number worshipped him not as God, but as the Prophete of God, for which they had commandement in the lawe, and they that worshipped him as God most especially. But M. Heskins will make the like argument, Christ gaue the sacrament of his body to the Apostles onely, and gaue no com∣maundement that all people should receiue it indifferently, where∣fore it ought not to be done. Reuerend M. Doctour, I denye your antecedent, for ye can not proue, that he gaue it only to his Apostles, nor that he gaue no commaundement, for he gaue an expresse commaundement to continue y^e same ceremonie vntil his comming againe, as S. Paule doth te∣stifie. Therefore your argument is as like, as an apple is like an oyster. But to passe ouer the rest of his babbling against the proclamers learning, too well knowne, to bee defaced by such an obscure Doctours censure: I come to his second argument. S. Paule that tooke the sacrament at

Christes hand, and as he had taken it, deliuered it to the Corinthi∣ans, neuer willed adoration or godly honour to be giuen to it. This argument he will not vouchsafe to aunswere, as conclu∣ding nothing, but he denyeth the antecedent, saying, It is false, that S. Paul deliuered no more to the Corinthians then Christ did. First he will make Paule a lyar, when he saide, that which I receiued I deliuered, &c. But howe will he proue that he deliuered more then Christ did? If you can spare laughter in reading, I could not in writing. Forsooth S. Paule deliuered to the Corinthians, that the vnwoorthie receiuer shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of Christ, whereas Christ when he instituted the sacrament gaue no such lawe. O noble Diuine! as though that if Christ at his supper had vsed no longer discourse of this sacrament, then those fewe words, which the Euangelistes doe rehearse, as a summe thereof, yet it was not necessarily to be gathered, that the vnworthie re∣ceiuer contemning the body & bloud of Christ, which is offered to him, is guiltie of haynous iniurie against the same, and therefore it is necessarie that euery one that re∣ceiueth it, should examine him selfe that hee receiue it worthily. Whether Christ receiued Iudas or no, which is not agreed vpon: but if he did, knowing him by his di∣uine knowledge to be a reprobate, though not yet dis∣couered to the knowledge of man, hee gaue vs none ex∣ample to receiue notorious wicked persons, whome wee as men knowe to be vnwoorthie without repentance.

But to make the matter out of doubt, Saint Paul, though not by the terme of adoration, yet willed honour to be giuen to the sacrament. When he saith, let a man examine him selfe, and so let him eate of this bread, and drinke of this cup. For a man cannot ex∣amine him self without great honor giuē vnto the sacrament. And for more manifest proofe, Saint Paule referreth the honour or dishonour that is done by woorthie or vnwoorthie receiuing, not to the grace of GOD, or merite of Christes passion, but to the sacra∣ment. Who so eateth this breade, and drinketh this cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily, shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ. Nay rather, hee referreth the honour or contempt of the sacrament to the body and bloud of Christe, whose sa∣crament

this is, as the wordes are plaine. But who would thinke that Maister Heskins would play the foole so e∣gregiously, to abuse his reader with ambiguities and ae∣quiuocations? as though there were no difference be∣tweene adoration and honouring, that is, giuing of due reuerence vnto the sacraments, and worshipping them as Gods. But S. Augustine (I trowe) helpeth him, Ep. 118. ad Ian. Placuit &c. It hath pleased the holy Ghost, that in ho∣nour of so great a sacrament, the body of Christ should enter into the mouth of a Christian man before other meates. I holde him as blinde as a beetle, that seeth not honour in this place to signifie reuerence, which is giuen to holy things, and not adoration, which pertayneth onely to GOD. His last reason to proue, that Saint Paul taught the adoration of the sacrament, is that, which is the whole controuersie, that Saint Paule taught the carnall presence, but that re∣maineth to bee proued afterward.

The fiue and fortieth Chapter proueth by the same Doctours, that the proclamer nameth, that the sacrament is to be honoured.* 1.92

This is a meere mockerie, the Bishop speaketh against adoration of the sacrament as God, M. Heskins proueth,* 1.93 that it is to bee honoured, that is to say, reuerenced as a holy ceremonie. And none otherwise then the sacra∣ment of baptisme, as wee shall see by his proofes. First, Chrysostom being one that is named by the Bishop, ma∣keth so cleere mention thereof, as M. Heskins thinkes, the reader will maruell, hee was not ashamed to name him. And what saith he? De sacerdotio lib. 6. thus he writeth: Quum autem ille &c. But when he (meaning the Prieste) hath called vpon the holy Ghost, and hath finished that sacrifice, most full of horrour and reuerence, when the common Lord of all men is daily handled in his handes: I aske of thee in what order shall wee place him? Howe great integritie shall we require of him? How great religion? For, consider what handes those ought to be, which doe minister, what manner of tong, that speaketh those words. Finally, then what soule, that soule ought not to be purer and holier, which hath receiued that so great and so worthie a spirit? At that time euē the Angels do set by the Priest, and all the order of heauenly powers

lifteth vp cryes, and the place neere to the altar in honour of him which is offered, is full of the companies of Angels. Which thing a man may fully beleeue, euen for the greate sacrifice which is there finished. And I truly did heare a certain man reporting, that a cer∣taine wonderfull olde man, and one to whome many mysteries of re∣uelations are opened by God, did tell him, that God did once vouch∣safe to shewe him such a vision, and that for that time he sawe as farre as the sight of man could beare, soudenly a multitude of An∣gels clothed in shining garments compassing the altar, finally so bowing the heade, as if a man should see the souldiers stand when the king is present, which thing I do easily beleeue. In these words Chrysostom doth hyperbolically amplifie the excellen∣cie of the Ministers office, vnto which no man is sufficient. But notwithstanding, he rehearseth a vision by hearesay, of angels reuerencing the presence of God, to aduance the dignitie of the ministerie, yet speaketh he not one worde, that the sacrament is to be worshipped & adored as God. And therefore M. Heskins maketh a poore consequence, the ministration of y^e sacrament is honourable: ergo, much more a man ought to honour the sacrament. The mini∣stration of baptisme is honourable, doth it therefore fol∣lowe, that the water of baptisme is to be worshipped as God? An other testimonie he cyteth out of Chrysostomes Liturgie, which he calleth his Masse, which though it be out of doubt none of Chrysostomes penning, yet maketh it nothing for the adoration of the sacrament: Thou that fittest aboue with the father, and art here present with vs inuisibly, vouchsafe to giue vnto vs thy vndefiled body, and thy precious bloud, and by vs to al the people. Then the Priest adoreth, and the Deacon in the place where he is, thrice sayth secretly. God be mer∣cifull to me a sinner. And all the people likewise with godlinesse and reuerence do adore. It is said here they doe adore, but not the sacrament, but God. For here haue passed no words of the consecration as yet by the Papistes owne rule, therefore this adoration can not be referred to the sacrament. And yet M. Heskins is so blockish to gather, that he fitteth in heauen, and yet is here present, as though he were present in body before they had prayed that he would giue them

his body, &c. But yet an other place of Chrysostome, Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. Christus suam, &c Christe hath giuen v•• his flesh, that we might be filled therewith, whereby he hath allured vs very much into his loue. Let vs therefore with feruencie and most vehement loue come vnto him, that wee suffer not a more gree∣uous punishment. For the greater benefite we take, so much more shall wee bee punished, when wee shall appeare vnwoorthie of it. This body did the wisemen reuerence in the manger, and being both vngodly men and barbarous, after they had ended a long iourney with much feare and trembling did worship it. Let vs therfore that are citizens of heauen folow those strangers. For they when they did see only that manger and cottage, and none of those things which thou nowe beholdest, came with great reuerence and horrour. But thou seest it not in the manger but in the altar, not a woman which holdeth it in her armes, but the Priest present, and the spirite so aboundantly powred vpon the sacrifice that is set foorth. Neither doest thou see a simple body, as they did, but thou doest acknowledge his power, and all the administration. And thou art not ignorant of any of the thinges that by him were made, and t••ou art diligently instructed in all thinges. Let vs be stirred vp, and tremble, and declare more godlinesse then those barbarous men▪ Note here▪ reuerence and trembling, but no wor∣shipping of the sacrament, no, not although he saith the wise men did worship his body in the manger, yet dare hee not conclude, that wee ought to adore it in the sacra∣ment. Wherefore it is intollerable, that M. Heskins ga∣thereth that in the first place, he declareth that it is to be honoured, in the second, he declareth the practise of him selfe, his ministers, and all the people in worshipping it, & in the last y^t he prouoketh al men to honor it in the al∣tar by the example of the wise men. For none of these three can be concluded out of y^e same places. Next folow∣eth Ambrose, De spiritu sanct. lib. 3. cap. 12. Per scabellum terra &c. By the footstoole the earth is vnderstood, and by the earth the flesh of Christ, which as this day also we do adore in the mysteries which the Apostles, as we haue saide before, did adore in our Lorde Iesus: For Christ is not diuided, but one. By adoring, he meaneth the reuerent vse of the mysteries, and not worshipping y^e

sacraments as though Christ were present in them, as he is in heauen, for that he acknowledgeth not, but only a sa∣cramentall presence, as hath beene shewed often already, & more shalbe, as occasion serueth. And he saith we wor∣ship or reuerence the flesh of Christe in the mysteries, he saith not we worship the mysteries as the flesh of Christ. Finally we worship Christ in the sacramentes as we do in the word, and yet we imagine no carnal presence in either of them. Yea, we honor him, his ministers, both ciuil Ma∣gistrates, and Ecclesiasticall teachers, & yet we haue none of thē as transubstantiated into Christ. The last is S. Au∣gustine In Psal. 98. Adore ye the footestole of his feete, for it is holie. But see brethrē what he biddeth vs to adore. In another place the scripture saith: Heauen is my seate, & earth is the footestoole of my feete. Then he commandeth vs to adore the earth, because he said in an other place, that it is the footestoole of God. And how shall we adore the earth? when the scripture saith plainely, thou shalt a∣dore the Lord thy God, and here he saith, adore his footestoole. And expoūding to me what is his footstoole, he saith: the earth is my foot∣stoole, I am made doutful, I am afraide to adore the earth, least he condemne me, which hath made heauen and earth. Againe, I am afraid not to adore the footstoole of my Lord, because the Psalme saith to me, Adore ye his footstoole. Thus wauering vp and down I turne me vnto CHRISTE, because I seeke him here, and I finde howe without impietie the earth may bee adored, with∣out impietie his footestoole may be adored. For he hath taken on him earth of the earth, because flesh is of the earth, & of the flesh of Marie be tooke flesh. And because he walked here in that flesh, and gaue that flesh to be eaten of vs to saluation: And no man eateth that flesh except, he do first adore it, it is found out how such a footestoole of the Lord may be adored, and we should not onely not offend in adoring, but offend in not adoring. The Papists make no small accompt of this place, and yet there is no place in al S. Augustines workes, y^t maketh more against them then this, if it be wel marked with that whiche fol∣loweth. For first he saith not that the sacrament must be, or may be worshipped as God, but that the flesh of Christ may be worshipped as the earth, which is Gods footstool,

whereunto Diuine honour is not to be giuen, but reue∣rence as to an holie thing, & no man eateth his flesh, but he that before hath worshipped it, not as really present in the sacrament, but he that hath reuerently acknowled∣ged his incarnation, passion, and giuing of his flesh to be holsome vnto vs. But to put al out of doubt, he so maketh the sacrament Gods footestoole, that he doeth expressely denie speaking in the person of Christ, y^t his bodie which was seene and crucified should be eaten, but a sacrament which being spiritually vnderstood, should quicken them or giue them life. The place hath beene already once or twise set downe. Non hoc corpus quod videtis mandicaturi estis, &c. You shall not eate this bodie which you see, &c. The corporall presence therefore being flatly taken away by S. Augustine in that place, it is easie to see what kinde of worship is left to the sacrament.

But he is cited againe Lib. Confess 9. Cap. 13. speaking of his mother. Illa imminente, &c She when the day of her depar∣ture was at hand, tooke no care to haue her bodie sumptuously buri∣••d, or to be spiced with sweete spices, neither did she couet a chosen monument, or cared for her fathers sepulchre. She did not giue vs in charge any of these thinges, but onely she desired that remembrance shold be made of her at thine altar, which she without any dayes in∣termission had serued, from whom she knew that holie sacrifice to be dispensed, by which the hand writing that was against vs, was put out, by which triumph was obteined against the enimie. Maister Heskins would learne of the proclaymer what seruice she did, was it not the seruice of Christ her Lord God? Yes, and why did she it at the altar, and not in heauen? Haue you heard of such a blind question? While she liued on earth, although she worshipped him that is in heauen, yet she serued him in the place appointed for publike prayer and administration of the sacramentes, and she serued him with prayer and thankesgiuing, not with knocking and kneeling to the sacrament, which is the thing he would haue if he could tell howe to bring it about: as for the carnall presence it was spoken off euen in the place next before cited out of the 48. Psalme.

After this he saith, the same that the Christians did ho∣nour Ceres and Bacchus, proueth their adoration of the sa∣crament. A substantiall proofe I promise you. It may ar∣gue they had some vse of bread & wine in their religion, but no adoration of it. For the Heathē men did not take bread and wine to be Ceres and Bacchus, but Ceres and Bacchus to be the Gods of bread and wine. S. Augustine is cited Contra Faust. Lib. 2 Cap. 13. Quomodo &c. How then do∣est thou compare our bread and cuppe, and sayest that errour which is farre differing from the trueth to be like religions beeing more madde then some which for the bread and the cuppe thinke vs to honour Ceres and Bacchus? The Heathen did offer bread and wine to Ceres and Bacchus, so they imagined y^t the Chri∣stians did, not that they honored bread and wine, as Mais∣ter Heskins dreameth. The like is to be saide of the other place. Si••ut a Cerere, &c. As we are farre from Ceres and Bac∣chus the Gods of the Pagans, although we imbrace after our man∣ner the sacrament of the bread and the cuppe, which you haue so praysed as you would be equall with vs: so our fathers were farre from the chaynes of Saturne, although for the time of the prophesie they haue obserued the vacation of the Sabbaoth. Because there is nothing in this place for the purpose, M. Heskins after his accustomed manner, hath falsified the worde by wrong translation, to deceiue the vnlearned. For he hath transla∣ted, Quamuis amplectamur sacramentum, although we honor the sacrament. Yet again S. Augustine is cited In Psal. 48. Edent pauperes, &c. The poore shall eate and be satisfied. What eate they? That which the faithful know. How shall they be satisfied? In following the passions of their Lord, and not without cause taking their price. What do the riche? They also do ease: but how do they eate? All the riche of the earth haue eaten and worshipped. He saith not, they haue eaten and are satisfied: but they haue eaten and wor∣shipped. They do in deede adore God, but they will not shewe bro∣therly humanitie, they eate and adore, these eate and are satisfied, yet all do eate. Augustine saith expresly the rich adore God, but of adoring the sacrament he speaketh neuer a worde. Last of all he citeth him Ep. 120. ad Honoratum. Neque enim frustra ita distincti sunt, &c. Neither are they without purpose so

distincted, that before it was said of the poore: The poore shall eate and be satisfied: And here all the riche of the earth haue eaten and haue worshipped. For they also are brought to the table of Christ, and receiue of his bodie and his bloud, but they doe adore onely, they are not also satisfied, because they doe not followe. For eating the poore men, they disdaine to be poore because Christ suffered for vs leauing v•• an example, that we should followe his steppes. This place being the same in effect, that the next before, hath neuer a worde of adoring the sacrament, but that Maister Heskins in his drowsie head dreameth, that where menti∣on is made of eating and worshipping, it must needes fol∣lowe that those thinges are worshipped which are eaten. And thus you see how pithily he hath proued the adora∣tion of the sacrament, out of those Authours, whome the proclaymer named, as making no mention thereof.

The sixe and fortieth Chapter proueth by other Doctors that the sacrament is to be adored.* 1.94

First he taketh this principle,* 1.95 that if Christe verie God and man, be there, he is to be honored: but that is the mat∣ter in question, although it doeth not followe, if he were there, that the sacramēt is to be worshipped. The doue was an vndoubted sacrament of the presence of the holie Ghost, so was the fiery tongs, yet none of them worship∣ped. For God wil not be worshipped in outward shapes, as he hath often testified in the lawe, otherwise then he hath appointed, therefore would he not appeare in any visible fourme vnto the people, least they should be deceiued to worship God therein. But to his Doctours. The first is E∣rasmus who pleaseth him wel, in affirming that he would still worship Christe in the Eucharistie. Then he pres∣seth his principle of the reall presence, and that he will proue by Algerus, that was more then 400. yeres before him, & then by Paschasius that was more then 200. yeres before Algerus, and last of all by Leo that was more then 400. yeares before Paschasius. As for Algerus and Pas∣chasius as being farre without the compasse of the chal∣lenge

I wil passe ouer and come to Leo: sauing that I wil note, that though Paschasius alledgeth Hilarie, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyrill, and the counsell of Ephesus, he doeth but wrest their sayings, as the Papists do now to vphold y^e errour y^t was not so olde in his time. The wordes of Leo are Ep 22. ad Constant. Separentur & huiusmodi, &c. Let such men be separated from the holy member of the bodie of Christ, nei∣ther let the Catholique libertie suffer the yoke of the vnfaithfull to be laide vpon it. For they are to be accounted without the house of Gods grace, and without the sacrament of mans health, which de∣nying the nature of our flesh in Christ, doe both speake against the Gospell, and striue against the Symbole. Neither doe they perceiue through their blindenesse, that they are brought into such a steepe place, that they stand neither in the truth of the Lords passion, nor of his resurrection for both is made voide in our sauiour, if flesh of our kinde be not beleeued to be in him. In what darkenesse of igno∣rance, in what sluggishnes of sloth haue they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hitherto, that they would neither learne by hearing, nor acknowledge by reading that, which in the Church of God, in the mouth of all men, is so agreeably spoken? That not as much as of the tongues of infantes, the veritie of the bodie and bloud of Christ is vnspoken of among the sacraments of the common faith: for in that mystical distribution of that spi∣rituall foode, this thing is giuen foorth, this thing is receiued, that receiuing the vertue of that heauenly meate, we may goe into his fleshe, which was made our fleshe.

First M. Heskins as his fashion is, to make the matter more cleare on his side, falsely translateth, Hoc impertitur, hoc sumitur, this bodie is giuen forth, this bodie is receiued. Where as Hoc is either taken absolutely for this thing, or else at the least, must haue relation to Sacramentum, which is the next substantiue of the neuter gender in any reasonable construction.

Secondly, it is manifest that Leo speaking against the heretiques Eutyche•• and Dioscorus, setteth forth the truth of Christs bodie & bloud, as one of the common knowen sacraments or mysteries of Christian faith: & saith neuer a word of his carnall presence in the mysterie of his sup∣per, but contrariwise teacheth that it is a mystical distri∣butiō,

a spiritual food, an heauēly meat, which words im∣port not a carnal maner, but a spiritual maner of presēce & eating. Thus real presence (as he termeth it) being not yet proued, y^e adoration cannot follow, as he pretendeth.

The seuen and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the proofe of the adoration of the Sacrament by doctors.* 1.96

The first doctor named,* 1.97 is Dionysius Areopagita dis∣ciple of S. Paule (as he sayeth) Eccles. Hierarch. 3. parte. Cap. 3. who maketh this prayer to the sacrament: O verie god∣ly & holie mysterie, opening fauourably the couerings of signify∣ing signes, wherewith thou art couered, shine openly and apertly vnto vs, & fill our spiritual eyes with the singuler & open bright∣nesse of thy light. That this Dionyse, although of some an∣tiquitie, yet is not that Dionyse, that was conuerted by S. Paule, nor any that liued 600. yeres after, at the least, it is plaine by this reason; that neither Eusebius, nor Hie∣ronyme, nor Gennadius, which wrote the Catologs of all ecclesiasticall writers, that were before them, or were fa∣mous in the church in their time, nor yet any other wri∣ter within the compasse of 600. yeres after Christe, ma∣keth any mention of any such Dionyse, to be a writer of those bookes, which are saide to be written by him. Now touching his supposed prayer, it is but an exclamatiō re∣thoricall, named apostrophe, not vnto the bread & wine, but to him, that in that mysterie is represented, which is Christ, that he would vouchsafe to open him self, & shine in the hearts of the faithfull, as the outward signes are seene w^t the outwarde eyes. And that he allowed no tran∣substantiation, it is manifest by that he saith in the same place, that the Bishop doth after consecration, cut in pee∣ces the vndiuided bread, & speaking of y^e sacrament, doth often affirme, that by those symboles or signes, wee are changed into God & Christ, meaning, we are renewed by his spirite, but neuer affirmeth, the bread & wine to bee turned into the bodie & bloud of Christ. Howbeit, what I iudge of his authorite & antiquitie, I haue declared be∣fore. The next is Gregorie Nazianzen in Epitaph. Gorgo∣niae sororis. Quid igitur, &c. What then did the soule both

great & worthie of greatest things, and what remedie had shee a∣gainst her infirmitie? For nowe the secreat is disclosed, when shee had dispaired of all other, shee flyeth to the Phisition of all men, and taking the solitarinesse of the night, when the disease had gi∣uen her a little respite, shee fell downe with faith, before the al∣tare, and with a lowde voice and all her might, shee called vppon him which is worshipped at is, and vnto him shee rehearsed all the myracles that he had done of olde time. M. Heskins imma∣gineth, that it was such an altare as they haue in the po∣pish Churches, which is vntrue, for it was a table, & men stoode round about it, as is to be proued by many testi∣monies of antiquitie. Secondly, he immagineth, that y^e sacrament was hanged ouer the altare to be worshipped, as it is among them, but that is vtterly false: for it was receiued at such time as it was consecrated, except some remanents that were kept to be eaten. Therfore, though shee made her prayer at the altare, shee made no prayer to any thing vppon the altare, but to God, whome shee did worship and reuerence, and whose mysteries shee v∣sed to receiue at the same altare. Therefore M. Heskins falsifieth Gregories words, which are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. but thus they are turned by him into latine, ante altare cum fide procubuit, & illum quem super altare veneraba∣tur &c. Shee prostrated her selfe with faith before the altar, and called vpon him whome shee worshipped vpon the altare. But Gregorie sayeth: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in it, or at it, meaning the al∣tare where shee prayed.

And to put all out of doubt, y^t shee worshipped not the sacrament vppon the altare, it followeth afterwarde? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And if her hand had layde vp any where, any parte of the figures of the precious bodie, or of the bloud, that shee mingled with teares, O marueilous thing! and immediatly departed feeling health.

By these wordes it appeareth, that shee brought this remanent of the sacrament with her, which Gregorie calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the signes or tokens, or figures

of the bodie and bloud of Christ, and not the verie na∣turall bodie of Christe: and those shee worshipped not, but wett them with teares, whether superstitiously let the Papistes iudge, for they them selues will allowe no such fashions, nor yet reseruation for such purposes, but as for adoration of the sacrament, which is the matter in∣tended, here is none spoken of in this place. After this, he toucheth the facte of Satyrus the brother of S. Am∣brose, which is aunswered before, lib. 1. Cap. 24. whose hope was in God, and not in the sacrament. Although Satyrus as a young nouice, not throughly instructed in Christian religion, cannot simply be defended, though he may be excused, howsoeuer by his brother Ambrose he is highly commended. Then followed Eusebius Emis∣ser••us Hom. Pascal. Because he woulde take away his assumpted bodie from our eyes, and carrie it into heauen, it was needefull that this day he should consecrate vnto vs the sacrament of his bodie and bloud: vs coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in precium: that it might be continually worshipped or exercised by a mysterie: (for colere signifieth both) whiche was once offered for our price.

M. Heskins gathereth hereof, that the same bodie, should be honoured by mysterie, whose visible presence not his bodie, was taken away from the earth. But Euse∣bius sayeth, not onely that he would take his bodie from our sight, but also place it in heauen, and in steede ther∣of, he leaueth the sacrament of his bodie and bloude, which no man doubteth, but it ought to be honoured, as so high a mysterie deserueth, but not as God or Christe. The other saying of Eusebius, which hee addeth, doeth shewe, howe it is to be honoured: When thou commest to the reuerende altare to be satisfied with heauenly meates, beholde with faith the holy bodie and bloud of thy God, honour it, wonder at is, touch it with thy minde, take it with the hande of thy heart, and cheefely, receiue it with the inwarde draught. What can be layed more plainely for the spirituall receiuing, and the like reuerence to be giuen to so holie a sacrament? But because M. Heskins thinketh this saying to make more

against him, then for him, therefore he sayeth, to auoyde cauilling, Eusebius proceedeth sone after in these words: Sicut autem, &c. As any man comming to the faith of Christe, be∣fore the wordes of baptisme, is yet in the bands of the olde deis, but when the words are spoken, is foorthwith deliuered from all dreg•• of sinne: So when the creatures are set vppon the holie altares to be blessed with heauenly words, before they be consecrated by inuo∣cation of the most highest name, there is the substance of bread & wine, but after the wordes of Christ, the bodie & bloud of Christ. This is a plaine place for M. Iuell, what else? But if it be rightly vnderstood, it is a plaine place against M. Hesk. for he sheweth the change or transubstantiation that is in the Lordes supper, to be the same, that it is in baptisme, which is spirituall, and not carnall, and so doth verie fit∣ly compare them together, or else his similitude were to no purpose, if it were not to shewe by that which is don in baptisme, what is likewise done in the other sacra∣ment.

M. Heskins still blattereth of a bare figure, which is of vs always denyed. Consequently he citeth Bernarde, whose authoritie I leaue vnto him, being a burgesse of y^e lower house, in which he hath many voices, as he hath neuer a one in y^e vpper house, though he wrest their spea∣ches most iniuriously. To confirme some phrase of Ber∣nard, he rehearseth certein phrases of the old writers like to them in words, but not in sense, which haue bene aun∣swered alreadie, as Hierom. ad Hed. qu. 2. Our Lord Iesus is the feaster, & the feast: he that eateth and which is eaten. Ambrose in praepara. ad miss. which is none of his, but falsly intituled to him: Thou art the Priest and the sacrifice, wonderfully and vnspeakably appointed. And Augustine in Psal. 33. He was borne in his owne hands. But he leaueth out a worde, which expoundeth both Augustine, and all the rest that speake so: quodam modo, after a certeine manner Christ was borne in his owne hands, is the feast & that which is eaten, & the sacrifice. I say quodam modo, therefore not simpliciter. Last of all, he wil ioyne issue, to subscribe on this point, that the proclaimer can bring but one auncient doctor, that saith

the sacrament is not to be adored. To whome I answer, that forasmuch as in the primitiue church, the opinion of transubstantiation was not knowen, there neuer grew any question of the adoration of the sacrament, as y^t Pa∣pistes nowe do vse it and commaund it.

The eyght and fortieth Chapter, confuteth the rest of the pro∣claymers wordes before rehearsed, against the honouring of Christ in the sacrament.* 1.98

The words which he taketh vpon him to confute,* 1.99 are these: It is a newe deuise to worship the sacrament. About three hundreth yere past, Pope Honorius commaunded it to be lifted vp, and the people reuerently to bowe vnto it. How doth he con∣fute these words? First, he saith it is no newe deuise, but y^e contrarie, that is, the denying of the adoration, is not past fourtie yeres old, and yet he confesseth before, that some infected with the heresie of Berengarius & Wickliffe, might whisper it in corners, yet Berengarius and Wick∣liffe preached openly, & be••ore them Bertrame wrote a booke to Charles the great, wherein he confuteth the re∣all presence, which began in that time to be receiued of some, as it seemeth, & vpward euen to Christ, al the aun∣cient fathers are against that carnall presence, & conse∣quently against adoration. But to proceede: Admitting that Honorius was the first y^t commaunded it to be wor∣shipped, which was 300 yeres agoe, yet is he elder then Oecolampadius & not defamed of heresie as Oecolam∣padius was: yes M. Hesk he is defamed of more then heresie, and proued to bee an antichrist. As for the con∣tinuance of 300. yeres in an errour can make no prescrip∣tion against y^e trueth. But he saith, it is a fond argument of the proclaimer: Because Honorius commaunded the adoration of the sacrament, therefore it was neuer in vse before. But if it were generally beleeued & vsed in all ages before, as M Hesk. would beare vs in hande, what neede had Pope Honorius to commaund it? He saith: in like manner the fleshly sort of them dispute to mainteine their shamelesse abode with their women it is a newe deuise that priests should not marrie, inuented by Vrban and Gregorie.

Whether M. Heskins were marryed, or else had a shame∣lesse abode with a woman, I leaue to be tryed by God & the countrie, in the countie of Cambridge. But to the purpose, I haue not heard any affirme, these late Popes to be the first forbidders of marriage, and therefore it is to no purpose, that he citeth Syluester before them, and Calixtus before him, and the counterfet Canons of the Apostles before them all. And yet by the prohibition of the latest Popes, it is certeine, that Priestes were mar∣ried vntill their time. And for as much, as the scripture alloweth their marriage, and condemneth the forbid∣ders thereof, and the eldest fathers in the primi••iue church confesse no lesse, it is not to bee regarded, al∣though a whole hundreth Popes in a rowe, did euery one forbid it. The like example he bringeth of fasting in Lent, decreede in the eight Toletane counsell, neere 700. yeres after Christe, but yet affirmed of Hierome, to be a tradition of the Apostles (For so they vsed to father such ceremonies and vsages, as they knewe not the be∣ginning of them, vpon tradition of the Apostles) neuer∣thelesse, he cannot shewe any Pope, or any councell be∣fore Honorius, that did commaund adoration of the sa∣crament, wherefore the wordes are vnconfuted vntill the contrarie can be shewed.

After this, the Proclaimer, (sayth he) falleth to moc∣king the Scholasticall doctours, as S. Thomas, Duns, Durand, Hol∣cos and such like to make it seeme a dangerous thing to honour the sacrament, for that the people cannot discerne the accidents from the bodie of Christ, and so may committ idolatrie in honou∣ring the outwarde formes, in steede of Christ, or if the priest do ••mitt consecration. This M. Heskins calleth a mocking, but he is not able to auoide it in good earnest. He cal∣leth it a phantasie, like to that which ioyned with aua∣rice, pulled downe all the Abbeys in England. The like phantasie, he sayth, might moue vs, not to honour Christ in heauen, and much more the Apostles that honoured Christ in the flesh, percase not sufficiently discerning the humanitie from the Deitie, and so likewise others that

worshipped Christ & yet doe, euen some of the proclay∣mers schollers, vnderstand not these quiddities. Shal they therefore fly the honor of Christ in heauen? A wise com∣parison, betweene Christe both God and man, who no doubt is to be worshipped both as God & as the media∣tor of God & man, and the accidents of breade & wine, or bread and wine, when they are not consecrated. Christ in the flesh is to be worshipped, because he was incarnate and ioyned to the humanitie in a personall vnion, but he is not to be worshipped in bread & wine, or in y^e acci∣dents of bread & wine, because he is neither impanated, nor inuinated, nor inaccidentated, that is, not ioyned to any of them in a personall vnion. To these doubtes that are moued by his owne schoolemen, what if the Priest do not consecrate? what if he speake not the wordes of con∣secration? what if he had none intention to consecrate? in all which cases, the schoolemen define, that the people committ idolatrie if they worship their hoste. First hee sayeth: he goeth about to shake the foundation of this sacrament, as Brentius doth of baptisme. Concerning Brentius, although it were easie to defende his assertion euen by the schoolemen, yet because it is no matter of our controuersie, I will briefely passe it ouer. Brentius helde that Christ hath not bound vs to baptise in certein forme of wordes to be pronounced by the minister, so the meaning be obserued, that he baptise into the name of the Father, & of the Sonne, & of the holie ghost. Here∣vpon, charitable M. Heskins rayleth on him, that he im∣pugneth the forme of baptisme, and reiecteth y^e wordes of baptisme, which is vtterly false: and then he reaso∣neth, that if the wordes of baptisme may be without daunger o∣mitted, why may not the words of consecratiō likewise? as though Brentius sayeth, they might be omitted, where he spea∣keth of altering the forme of wordes, when the same sense remaineth. Next to this he farceth in another slaun∣der of vs, that we agree not in the number of the sacra∣ments, some admitting three, some two, some foure, and some neuer a one. The world knoweth what we holde

herein. After this, he sheweth out of Basil & Damascen y^e necessitie of the forme of baptisme, which wee confesse, & Brentius him self doth not denye. At length he defineth contrarie to y^e scholemen, y^t if consecration be omitted, y^e danger is to the priest, & not to y^e people that worship an idol. Finally, he wil moue the like doubt of our ministra∣tion, what if the minister of y^e communion, doe neither speake y^e words of consecration, nor haue intent to mini∣ster, what do the people receiue? I aunswer, w^t his intentiō wee haue nothing to doe, but for asmuch as nothing is whispered, or mumbled in our Communion, but so vt∣tered, y^t all men may heare and vnderstand, if any thing be omitted that is necessarie to the consecration of y^e sa∣crament, if y^e people communicate with him, they are in as great fault as he. As for Richerus, whome he calleth a Caluenist, y^t forbiddeth to pray to Christ, and reiecteth y^e wordes of consecration, if any such be, let him aunswere for him self, we haue nothing to do with him. Although we acknowledge not any mumbling of wordes, but the whole action according to Christes institution, to be the forme of consecration of the sacrament.

* 1.100The nine and fortieth Chapter, proceedeth in the vnderstan∣ding of Christes wordes, by Irenaeus & Tertullian.

* 1.101Irenęus is cited, lib. 4. Cap. 32. Sed & discipulus, &c. But al∣so giuing counsell to his disciples, to offer to God the first fruites of his owne creatures, not as to one that hath neede, but that they also should neither be vnfrutefull nor vnthankefull: he tooke that bread which is of the creature, & gaue thankes saying: this is my bodie, & likewise he confessed the cupp, which is of the creature that is among vs, to be his bloud & taught the newe oblation of the newe testament, which the church receiuing of the Apostles in all the worlde, offereth to God.

Here M. Hesk. choppeth off y^e taile, for it followeth: Euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs, the first fruites of his giftes: which words do both open the purpose of Irenaeus, & shewe that the oblation was of bread & wine, & not the naturall bodie of Christ, as M. Hesk. gathereth, together with the reall presence.

But for clearer proofe, he addeth another testimonie out of Ire∣nęus,

which he quoteth lib. 5. but it is lib. 4. ca. 34 which it seemeth he redd not him selfe in the author, both be∣cause he knewe not where it was writen, & also because he omitteth some wordes in it. Quomodo autem constabit eis, &c. he leaueth out autem & eis: but thus the wordes are in English. But how shall it be knowen vnto them, that that bread, in which thankes are giuen, is the bodie of their Lorde and the cupp of his bloud, if they say not that he him selfe is the sonne of the maker of the worlde? &c. And how againe do they say, that the fleshe commeth to corruption, & receiueth not the life which is nourished of the bodie & bloud of our Lord? Out of these pla∣ces he noteth, that y^e sacrament is the bodie and bloud of Christ, & that our flesh is nourished by the same bodie & bloud. This we confesse, so he meane spiritually, but y^t he will not haue. And therfore, to drawe the places to his carnall presence, & nourishing, he sayth that Irenaeus hereby impugned two heresies: One, that Christ was not the sonne of God that made the world, but a man liuing in Iewrie, which dissolued the law & the Prophets, & all the works of God that made the world: The other, that the soule only should be sa∣ued & not the bodie. And therefore to confute the former, he ma∣keth an argument of the real presence, How could a bare naturall man compasse, that his bodie should so be, if he were not the sonne of God that made the world? &c. This proceedeth of grosse ignorance, or rather of intollerable mallice, to deceiue the ignorant. For the heresie against which he writeth, was not y^t Christ was a bare man, & not the sonne of God, but y^t he was the sonne of another God, then he y^t made y^e world, for they made two gods, one y^e maker of y^e world, which they sayd was God of y^e old testament, & another y^e father of Christ, which they said, was God of the newe testament. Now Irenaeus proueth by institution of y^e sa∣crament, in the creatures of bread & wine, y^t Christ is the sonne of God y^t created y^e world, & of none other God, to which purpose he sayth in the 57. Chapter of that fourth booke:

Quomodo autem iustè Dominus si alterius patris existens, huius conditionis quae est secundiòm nos accipiens panem fuum corpus confisebatur, & temperamentum calicis sui

sanguinem confirmanit? How did our Lorde iustly, if being sonne of another father, taking bread which is of this creation that we are▪ confesse it to be his bodie, and the temperament of the cuppe he confirmed to be his bloud?

Thus you see neither in the one place, nor in the other, he reasoneth of the diuine power of Christe, to make a reall presence, or transubstantiation, but of the inconue∣nience that Christ shoulde ordeine his sacrament in the creatures of another God. The seconde heresie he impu∣gneth in deede, by the receipt of the bodie and bloude of Christe in the sacrament, by which our fleshe is nouri∣shed vnto immortalitie, which nourishing, M. Heskins in no wise will haue to be vnderstoode spiritually, but corporally, and sayeth, it doth inuincibly proue the re∣all presence. I will not rippe vp what absurdities do fol∣lowe, if wee say, that Christes fleshe doth nourish our flesh corporally, or after a carnall manner, as of the con∣coction and digestion thereof, to be turned into our nature, where he sayed before, that our flesh is turned into his fleshe: but I will proue out of Irenaeus, that he meant nourishing spiritually and not corporally. For lib. 5. he hath these wordes.

Quando ergo & mixtus calix, & factus panis, percipit verbum Dei, fit eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus auge∣tur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia: quomodo carnem ne∣gant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna, quae san∣guine & corpore Christi, nutritur & membrum eius est.

When therefore the cuppe that is mixed, and the bread that is made, receiueth the worde of God, it is made the Eucharistie of the bloud & bodie of Christe, of which the substance of our fleshe is increased and consisteth: howe do they denye, that the flesh is capable of the gift of God, which is eternall life, which is nourished with the bodie and bloud of Christ, and is a member of him.

Here you see plainly, that our fleshe is so nourished of the bodie and bloud of Christ, that it is increased of the same, and so consisteth of them, that wee are his mem∣bers, but our bodies are not increased, &c. but spiritu∣ally:

therefore they are not nourished but spiritually, & after an heauenly manner.

But moste plainly, for impugning of both the here∣sies aforesaide, and other heresies more of transubstanti∣ation and the carnall presence, and the sacrifice propitia∣torie of the masse, he writeth, lib. 4. Cap. 34.

Nostra autem consonans est sententia Eucharistiae, & Eucharistia rursus confir∣mat sententiam nostram. Offerimus enim ei quę sunt eius, con∣gruenter communicationem & vnitatem praedicantes carnis & spiritus. Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & caelesti: sic & corpora nostra percipientia Euchaeristiam, iam non sunt corruptibilia, spem re∣surrectionis habentia. Offerimus autem ei non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes donationi eius, & sanctificantes creaturam. But our sentence is agreeable to the Eucharistie or sa∣crament of thankesgiuing, and the Eucharistie againe doth confirme our sentence. For wee offer vnto him those things that be his owne, agreeably setting foorth the communication and vnitie of the fleshe and the spi∣rite. For as the breade which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God, is not nowe common bread, but the Eucharistie consisting of two things, an earthly thing & an heauenly thing: euen so our bodies also receiuing the Eucharistie, are not nowe corruptible, hauing hope of resurrection. And wee offer to him, not as to one ha∣uing neede, but giuing thankes for his gifte and sanctify∣ing the creature.

By this place is transubstantiation ouerthrowen, where" he sayth, the sacrament consisteth of two things, an earth∣ly and an heauenly, the carnall presence, when hee defi∣neth it to be a heauenly thing, that is a diuine and spi∣ritual communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ, the propitiatorie sacrifice, when he sayeth, that the crea∣tures of breade and wine were offered for a thankes gi∣uing, &c. That Melancton defending the popish pre∣sence abused the authoritie of Irenaeus against Oeco∣lampadius, it ought to be no preiudice to vs, especially

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

seeing as M. Heskins before confessed, that Melancthon him selfe forsooke that opinion in the end.

Now come we to Tertullian, whose testimonie, tho∣ugh it bee flatly against him, yet hee hath laboured if it were possible, by wrestling and wrangling, to make it serue his turne, or a least to auoyde it, that it should not hurt his cause, Lib. 4. contra Marcionem. Professus itaque, &c. When therefore he had professed that with desire he desired to eate the Passeouer, as his owne (for it was vnmeete that God shuld de∣sire any thing pertayning to an other) the breade that was taken and distributed to his disciples, he made it his body, saying. This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. But it had bene no figure except his body had bene of trueth.

Here M. Heskins cutteth off: but it followeth in Tertullian, Caeterum &c. For a vaine thing which is a fantasie could receiue no figure. Or if therefore he feigned the bread to be his body, bi∣cause he lacked the trueth of a body, then ought hee to haue giuen the breade for vs. It would haue made for Marcions vanitie, that the breade should haue bene cru∣cified.

The alteration, falsification, and truncation of Tertullians wordes, which Maister Heskins vseth, was no∣ted in the first booke partly, and it wearieth me to note these faultes so often as he committeth them. But here he turneth these wordes: Figura autem non fuisset nisi verita∣tis esset corpus. But it had not bene a figure except it were a body of trueth. As though the breade were both a figure and a body of trueth, which cleane peruerteth the sense of Ter∣tullian, and is contrarie to his purpose, as you may see by that which followeth. For Marcion agreed with Valen∣tinus, against whome Irenęus writte, that Christ was not the GOD of the olde Testament, and moreouer affirmed, that Christe had not a true body, but a fantasticall bo∣dy. Against both these hereticall opinions, hee reaso∣neth in this sentence. First he saith, Christe desired to eat the Passeouer, therefore it was of his owne instituti∣on, for it was vnmeete that God should desire any thing of an other Gods institution. And that Christe had a true bodye, hee proueth by the institution of the sa∣crament,

which was a figure of his body, for a fantasticall body, or a vaine thing, can haue no figure, for a figure hath a necessarie relation to a thing of trueth, whereof it is a figure, the sacrament is a figure of Christes body, therefore Christe hath a true body.

That this is the true meaning of Tertullian, it appea∣reth plainely by the wordes before alledged, and by these that followe, and by the whole discourse of his worke, Lib. 5. hee saith.

Proinde panis & calicis sacramento iam in E∣uangelio probauimus corporis & sanguinis Dominici veritatem aduersus phantasma Marcionis. Therefore by the sacrament of the breade and the cuppe, nowe in the Gospell we haue proued, the trueth of the body and bloud of our Lorde, against the fantasie of Marcion. But M. Hes. interpretation of Tertullians meaning, is not onely false, but also ridi∣culous.

He saith, that Tertullian to proue that Christ had a true body, bringeth in the institution of the sacrament, saying, that Christ made the breade his true body, there∣fore hee had a true body, as though Marcion, whiche woulde not beleeue that Christe had a true body when he liued on the earth, would acknowledge that Christe had a true body in the sacrament. But Marcion acknow∣ledged the sacrament to be a figure of Christes body, and therevpon Tertullian inferreth that hee had a true body, whereof the sacrament was a figure.

But nowe it is a sport to see howe M. Heskins taketh vpon him To open Tertullian, and to deliuer him from the sacra∣mentaries. His saying hath two partes, the one that Christe made the breade his body, the other that he saith: This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. Nowe hee will require of y^e aduersarie, whether of these two parts he will receiue? and he is certaine they wil not receiue y^e for∣mer part, bicause Zuinglius, Oecolāpadius, & Bullinger, with the rest, denieth the bread to be the naturall body of Christ. But he is fouly beguiled, for al these & we with thē will neither receiue the first part by it selfe, nor the latter part by it selfe, but both parts together, as they are vttered by Tertullian, that Christ so made the bread his body, y^t

hee made it a figure of his body. That is to say, that hee made it a sure & vndoubted pledge of his body. And we agree with Cyprian De cae••. Deu••. that The bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples to be eaten, being not cha••nged in shape, but in nature, by the almightie power of the word was made flesh: and with S. Ambrose. li. 4. de sacr. cae. 4. That this bread before the wordes of the sacrament is bread, but when the consecration commeth to it, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Places often answered before by interpretation of the same Authours. And we do so vnderstand Tertullian, as he is not contra∣rie to him selfe, nor to any Catholique writer of his time in this matter, which is Maister Heskins rule to vnder∣stand a Catholique Authour, And we so vnderstand the sacrament to bee a figure, as it is not a bare figure. But nowe, bicause Maister Heskins must needes acknowledge the sacrament to be a figure, he maketh two kindes of fi∣gures. A figure of a thing absent, and a figure of a thing present. Bicause there is no doubt of the former, I will touch onely the latter. An example of a figure of a thing present, he maketh in these wordes: As the spouse beholding her very husband, and seeth the scarres and tokens of wounds that he suffered for her defence and safegard, and of his children and hers: is brought in remembrance of his louing kindnesse, and of the dangers sustained for her sake. In which case although the substance of the man be present, yet to his wife he is a figure and token of re∣membraunce of him selfe absent, in condition of a man nowe in fight & dangered with sore and deepe woundes. For nowe he is no such man, but whole & sound, & a perfect man. Haue you not heard a wise similitude thinke you? Is the substance of the man present, a figure of his actiōs & passions absent? or rather the scarres present, a token of his wounds suffered, and ac∣tes passed? If hee be so grosse, that he cannot distinguish betweene substance and accidents, and the properties and effectes of them both, yet very children can plainely see, that the substance of the man occasioneth no such remē∣brance as he speaketh of, but the scarres of the woundes: neither do they bring the substance of the man in remē∣brance, but the actions and passions of the man. And ther∣fore

this is too blockish an example, that a figure may be of a thing present in substance. But Augustine Lib. sentent. Prosperi. doth helpe this matter as he weeneth: Caro carnis, &c. The flesh is a sacrament of the flesh, and the bloud is a sacra∣ment of the bloud. By both which being inuisible, spirituall, and in∣telligible, is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Iesus Christ, full of the grace of all vertues, and diuine Maiestie. M. Hes. noteth, that the inuisible body of Christ in the sacrament, is a figure of the same visible. Very good. But let me goe with him. Although S. Augustine or Prosper speake not of an inui••ible body. But he saith directly, that the flesh and the bloud in the sacrament, are both spirituall and intelligible flesh and bloud, which is as much as I aske. Then the spirituall flesh of Christe which is in the sacra∣ment, doth signifie y^t visible and palpable body of Christ, then the which nothing can be said more plainly against the corporall presence, nor for y^e spiritual presence. But he obiecteth further, y^t the scriptures also vse such speaches, saying, that Christe was made in the likenesse of a man. Ph. 2. When he was a man in deede, and so Tertullian might well cal it a figure, although it be the body it self. As though S. Paule in that place speaketh of the substance of his humanitie, & not rather of the base shewe and con∣dition that he tooke vpon him in his humanitie, whereas he might haue behaued him self as God, being both God and man. Yet Augustine hath two places, by conference whereof this thing shall appeare; that the sacrament is both a figure and the very thing it selfe. The first place is in Psal. 3. speaking of Iudas the traytour, which place M. Heskins read not in Augustine, but in some other mans collections, for both he cyteth it truncately, & also addeth wordes both in the Latine and the English, which are not in Augustine, although he do not alter the sense. But Au∣gustines wordes in deede are these. Et in historia &c.

And in the historie of the newe Testament, the patience of our Lord was so great and woonderfull, that he suffered him so long as though he had bene good:

Whereas he was not ignorant of his thoughtes, when he had him present at the feast, in

which he commended and deliuered to his disciples, the figure of his body and his blo••d. The other place is cyted Ep. 162. Our Lorde him selfe doth suffer Iudas, a diuill, a theefe, and his seller. He letteth him take among his innocēt disciples, that which the faithful know, our price. But when Augustine him selfe saith, y^e sacraments beare the name of those thinges whereof they are sacra∣ments, it is no maruell, if the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, be called our price, whereof it is a figure or sacrament, especially seeing Augustine flatly denyeth, that Iudas did receiue the bread which was the Lorde, but only the Lords bread. This conference therefore maketh against him, not for him: As for Theophylactes authori∣tie, which he calleth a plaine place for the proclamer, wee refuse, although it is not so plaine as he pretendeth, for we also affirme, that the sacrament is not a bare figuration of the flesh of Christ, but his flesh in deede, spiritually recei∣ued. Finally, Tertullians place De resur. Car. is nothing at all for him. Ca••o corpore &c. The flesh eateth the body and bloud of Christ, that the soule may be fed with God. For by the body and bloud of Christe, he meaneth the sacrament of them, which is called by the name of that is figured or signified by it. As for the last shift, that No Catholique Doc∣tour saith, that the sacrament is only a figure, is too childish for a Doctour to vse; for in these words of Tertullian: Cor∣pus meum, id est▪ figura corporis met, my body, that is to say, a figure of my body, there needeth not to be added the exclusiue onely, for the latter part is a description of the former, which must containe all that is in the thing des∣cribed, or else it is nothing worth: as for example. If I say M. Heskins is a man, that is to say a soule, it were fond and ridiculous, but when I say he is a man, that is to say, a reasonable ••ight, I neede not say he is onely so, for I haue said before as much as he is, and so hath Tertulli∣an: Meaning that the sacrament is a figure, but not a com∣mon or bare figure, but a diuine and mysticall token, not only to signifie, but also to assure vs, of the spirituall fee∣ding of vs with the body and bloud of Christ.

The fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by S. Cyprian and Athanasius.* 1.102

First he alledgeth Cyprian de cęna Domini in these words,* 1.103 Significata olim a tempore Melchisedech, &c. For vnderstāding of which place, seeing he referreth his reader to the first booke and 29. Chapter, where he handleth it more at large, thither also will I referre him for answer, where the place is at large rehearsed and discussed. But out of the same sermon of S. Cyprian, he hath a plaine place for M. Iewel: Which is this: Non•• est ••uius sacramenti doc∣trina, &c? The doctrine of this sacrament is newe, and the Euangelicall schooles first brought foorth this manner of teaching, and Christ beeing the teacher. This learning was first made knowen to the worlde, that Christian men should drinke bloud, the eating whereof the authoritie of the olde lawe doeth most straitly forbidde. For the lawe forbiddeth the eating of bloud, the Gospell comman∣deth that it should be dronke. In which commandem••••t•• this moste cheefely ought the Christian religion to discerne, that the bloud of beastes differing in all thinges from the bloud of Christe, hath onely the effect of temporall releefe, and the life of them ha••h an end ap∣pointed without reuocation.

Hereupon he noteth y^t the Chris∣tians drinke the bloud of Christ, which I graunt: but spi∣ritually: for so Cyprian expoundeth himselfe in the same sermon: vt sciremus quòd mansio nostra in ips•• fit manducatio, & potus quasi quaedam incorporatio. That we should knowe that our eating is our dwelling in him, and ou•• drin∣king it as it were a certeine incorporatio•• in him: And againe: Esus igitur carnis huius quaedam auiditas est & quod∣dem desiderium manendi in eo, &c. Therefore the eating of his flesh is a certeine desire to abide in him, &c. These and such like places doe proue a spirituall eating and drin∣king of his bloud, and none other.

He noteth further, that this is called of Cyprian, a new doctrine, and therefore it can not be the drinking of the figure of the bloud of Christ, for that was olde. I answere briefly, it was so new, as the gospel is the new Testament,

whiche yet was preached to Adam and Eue, but not so clearely and distinctly as since the time of Christ, and so was the eating of the bodie and bloud of Christe, all one with that it is now, differing but in manner of reuelatiō, and not in substance of spirituall foode.

Athanasius is alledged as he is cited in Theodoret Dial. 2. in confus. Corpus est, &c. It is therfore a bodie to whom he saith: for them on my right hand. Whereof the diuel was enimie, with the euill powers, and the Iewes and the Greekes. By which bodie, he was in deede and so was called an high priest and Apostle, by that mys∣teria which he d••liuered to vs saying▪ This is my bodie whiche is broken for you. And the bloud of the new Testament, not of the old, which is shedd for you. The Godhead hath neither bodie nor bloud, but man, which he did take of the virgine Marie. He meaneth nothing lesse, than that y^e sacrament was his natural body and bloud, but that he could not haue instituted a myste∣rie of hi•• bodie and bloud, except he had ben a very man, which hath bodie and bloud, for the godhead hath none. And therfore the rule that M. Heskins giueth, that scrip∣tures must be alledged in their literal sense in matters of faith, is to litle purpose, although it may stand well in this place. For the mysterie of his bodie proueth his hu∣manitie, without any allegorie or other figure, as I haue shewed before. Athanasius is likewise alledged in the se∣cond Nicen counsell: Serm. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Iesu in Berito.

How tru∣ly I will not say, but thus he is reported to say of y^e bloud of Christ, which was said to be in many places, which he deniet•• to haue come frō Christ, but from an image that was crucified Nec esse aliter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a vere Catholicis prae∣••••r id quod 〈◊〉〈◊〉 à nobis, quasi ex carne & sanguine Christi ali∣q••id pas•••• i•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 inu••••iri, nisi 〈◊〉〈◊〉, quod in aera altarit per ma∣nus sacerdanu•• quoti••ie spiritualiter officitur. Neither is it o∣therwise to be thought of true Catholiques, then is writ∣ten of vs, as though any part of the flesh & bloud of Christ may be found in the world, but that which on the altar is euerie day made spiritually by the handes of the priestes. I do not cite this, as the vndoubted authoritie of Athana∣sius, but thinke rather it was forged in his name, as many

other thinges were in that wicked idolatrous counsel, yet it appeared that the maker of that sermon, & so y^e Church in such time as he liued, had not receiued the Popish cor∣porall presence.

The one and fiftieth Chapter sheweth the minde of Iunencus, & Euseb. Emissen, vpon the wordes of Christ.* 1.104

Iuuencus a Christian Poet is cited Lib. 4. Euang. Histor. Haec vbi dicta dedit palmis sibi frangere panem, &c.* 1.105 When he had thus said, he tooke bread in his handes, and when he had giuen thankes he diuided it to his disciples, and taught them that he deli∣uered vnto them his owne bodie. And after that our Lorde tooke the cuppe filled with wine, he sanctified it with thankesgiuing, and giueth it to them to drinke, and teacheth them that he hath diuided, to them his bloud, and saith this bloud shall remitte the sinnes of the people. Drinke you this my bloud. Because this Poet, doeth but onely rehearse the historie in verse, without any exposi∣tion and interpretation, and saith no more then the Euan∣gelistes say: I will not stand vpon him, onely I will note the vanitie of Maister Heskins, which like a young child that findeth miracles in euerie thing he seeth, still noteth a plain place for Maister Iewel, a plaine place for the pro∣claymer: when either there is in it nothing for his pur∣pose, or as it falleth out oftentimes, much against him.

Euseb. Emissen is cited Hom. 5. Pasc. Recedat omne, &c. Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie depart. For truely he which is the auctour of the gifte, is also the witnes of the trueth. For the inuisi∣ble priest by secrete power doth with his worde conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie & bloud saying thus: This is my bodie. And the sanctification repeated: take and drinke saith he, this is my bloud. This place hath beene often answered, to be ment of a spirituall and not a carnall conuersion, as di∣uerse other places out of y^e same homilie alledged by M. Hesk. himself, doe proue. First it foloweth immediately. Ergo vt, &c. Therfore as at the will of our Lord sodenly comman∣ding, of nothing the height of the heauens, the depths of the waters, the wide places of the earth were in substantiall beeing: euen so by

like power in the spirituall sacramentes, vertue is giuen to the word and effect to the thing. Therefore how great and notable thinges, the power of the Diuine blessing doeth worke, and how 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ought not seeme to the too strange and impossible that earthly and mortall thinges are chaunged into the substance of Christ, aske of thy selfe which now art borne againe into Christe. Here saith M. Heskins, he proueth the chaunge possible, I graunt, and with all sheweth what manner a chaunge it is, euen such a one as is in regeneration, namely spirituall. The same is shewed in the other places following. Non dubites quispi••••, &c: Neither let any man dout, that by the wil of the Di∣uine power, by the presence of his high maiestie, the former crea∣tures may passe into the nature of the Lordes bodie, when he may see man himselfe by the workmanship of the heauenly mercie, made the bodie of Christ. And as any man comming to the faith of Christ, before the wordes of baptisme, is yet in the band of the olde debt, but when they are rehearsed, he is forthwith deliuered from all dregges of sinnes: So when the creatures are set vpon the holie altars to be blessed with heauenly wordes, before they be consecrated by inuocation of the highest name, there is the substance of bread and wine, but after the wordes of Christe, the bodie and bloud of Christ. And what maruell is it, if those things, which he could create with his word, beeing created, he can conuerte by his worde? Yea ra∣ther it seemeth to be a lesse miracle, if that which he is knowne to haue made of nothing, he can now when it is made, chaunge into a better thing. Vpon these sayings Maister Heskins vrgeth the chaunge. I acknowledge the chaunge, and vrge the kinde or manner of chaunge to be spirituall, according to the examples of baptisme & regeneration. Vnto these authorities hee annexeth a large discourse of transub∣stantiation, and citeth for it diuers testimonies olde and newe, what the olde are, we will take paynes to viewe, as for the younger sorte, we will not sticke to leaue vn∣to him.

First Gregorie Nicene is cited, Serm. Catech. de Diuin. Sacram. Sicut antem qui panem videt, quodammodo corpus videt humanum, &c. And as he that seeth bread, after a certeine man∣ner, seeth a mans bodie, because bread beeing in the bodie becom∣meth

a bodie: so that diuine bodie, receiuing the nourishment of bread, was after a certeine manner the same thing with that meate, (as we haue said) beeing turned into the nature of it. For th••t, which is proper to all flesh, we confesse to haue apperteined to him. For euen that bodie was susteined with bread, but that bo∣die, because God the WORDE dwelled in it obteined Diuine dignitie. Wherefore we doe nowe also rightly belieue, that the bread sanctified by the worde of God, is chaunged into the bodie of God the WORDE. Maister Heskins after his vsuall manner translateth Quodammodo in a manner, if not false∣ly, at the least obscurely. But that worde Quodammodo, that is after a certeine manner, looseth all the knotte of this doubt. For euen as the bodie of CHRISTE was bread after a certeine manner, because it was nourished with bread, and bread was after a certeine manner the bodie of Christ: euen so we beleeue, that the sacramen∣tall bread is after a certeine manner chaunged into the bodie of Christ, that it may be the spirituall foode of our soules.

Ambrose is cited De his, qui initian. Cap. 9. Where Mais∣ter Heskins beheadeth the sentence, for it is thus:

Prior enim ••ux quàm vmbra, veritas quàm figura, corpus authoris quàm manna de coelo. For light is before the shadowe, the trueth before the figure, the bodie of the authour before manna from heauen. Which wordes we may vnderstand, howe he taketh the bodie of Christe, that sayeth it was before manna, namely, for the effecte of his death and sacrifice perfourmed by his bodie.

But M. Heskins beginneth at these wordes. Forte dicat, &c. Peraduenture thou mayst say. I see another thing. How doest thou assure me that I take the bodie of Christ? And this remaineth for vs to proue. Howe many examples therefore doe we vse, that we may proue this not to be that which nature hath formed it, but which the blessing hath consecrated, and that there is greater force of blessing, then of nature, for by blessing nature it selfe is chaunged?

Moses helde a rodde, hee cast it do••ne, and it was made a serpent. Againe, he tooke the serpent by the tayle, and it re∣••••rueth into the nature of the rodde. Thou seest therefore by the

prophets grace, the nature of the serpent and of the rodde to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 beene twise changed: And after many exāples: Quod si, &c. If then the benediction of man was of so great power, that is chaunged nature, what say we of the very diuine consecration, where the very wordes of our Lorde and Sauiour doe worke. For this sacrament which thou reciuest is made with the worde of Christ. And againe. Thou hast read of all the workes of the worlde, that he saide & they were made, be commanded and they were created. Therefore the worde of Christ which could of nothing make that which was not, can it not change those thinges that are, into that they are not? For it is no lesse thing to giue newe natures to thinges, then to chaunge natures. Hitherto you haue heard Ambrose speaking ear∣nestly for a change of nature, in the sacrament, now heare him expound it in the same place for a spirituall change:

Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est: ve∣rè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est. Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus: Hoc est corpus mo••m: ante benedictionem verborum coelestium, ali•• species nominatur, post consecrationem, Corpus Christi significatur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum, ante consecrationem a••ud dicitur, post. consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. It was the verie fleshe of Christ which was crucified, which was buried: therefore this is truely a sacrament of that flesh, our Lord Iesus cri∣eth out saying, This is my bodie. Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes, it is called another kinde, after the consecration, the bodie of Christ is signified. He him∣selfe saith, it is his bloud, before consecration it is called another thing, after consecration it is called bloud. And in the same place againe. In illo sacramento Christus est, quia corpus est Christi, non ergo corporalis esca, sed spirituali•• est. In that sacrament Christ is, because the bodie of Christe is. Therefore it is not corporall meate but spirituall meate. Wel then, y^e bread is chaunged from the nature of cōmon bread, to be a true sacrament of the bodie of Christ, wher∣by Christ his bodie is signified, and to be spiritual meate, and this is the change and conuersion he speaketh of, and nor the Popish transubstantiatiō.

Next is alledged Chry∣sostome, Hom. 83. in Matth. Non sunt, &c. These are not the works of mans power, he that then in that supper made these things,

he also now worketh, he performeth them. We holde the order of ministers, but it is he which doth sanctifie and change these things. Here is a change or transmutatiō, but no word of y^e ma∣ner of y^e chaunge, therfore it maketh nothing for Popish transubstantiation, and this place hath beene more then once answered before, by Chrysost. authoritie. After him he citeth Cyrillus ad Colosirium in these words. V••uificati••••em, &c. The quickening WORDE of God vniting himselfe to his own flesh made that also quickning. How when the life of God is in vs, the WORD of God being in vs, shall our bodie also be able to giue life? But it is an other thing for vs to haue the sonne of God in vs after the manner of participation: and an other thing, the same to haue beene made flesh, that is, to haue made the bodie which he tooke of the blessed virgin his owne bodie. Therefore it was meete, that he should be after a certeine manner vnited to our bodies, by his holie flesh & precious bloud, which we receiue in the quickening blessing, in bread and wine. For least we should abhorre fleshe and bloud set vpon the holie altars, God condescending to our fragili∣ties, inspireth to the thinges offered, the powre of life, turning them into the trueth of his owne flesh, that the bodie of life may be found in vs all, certeine seede giuing life. Here Maister Hes∣kins in his translation cleane leaueth out Quodammodo, af∣ter a certeine manner Christe is vnited to our bodies by the sacrament, and so is this chaunge made after a spiritu∣all manner, for otherwise this place is directly against transubstantiation, where he saith we receiue the flesh and bloud of Christ in bread and wine.

Euthymius is the next In Matth 26. Quemadmodum, &c. As he did supernaturally Deifie (as I may so say) his assumpted flesh, so he doeth also vnspeakably chaunge these thinges into his quickening bodie and his precious bloud, and into the grace of them. When he saith the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of his bodie and bloud, it is easie to vnderstand, that he meaneth a spirituall chaunge, and the last clause is an exposition of the former, they are chaunged, into the bo∣die and bloud of CHRISTE, that is, into the grace of them.

Remugius followeth 1. Cor. Cap. 10. The fleshe whiche the

worde of God the father tooke vpon him in the wombe of the vir∣gin in vnitie of his person, and the breade which is consecrated in the Church, are one bodie of Christe, for as that flesh is the body of Christ: so this bread passeth into the bodie of Christe, neither are they two bodies but one bodie. He meaneth, that the bread is a sacrament of the very and onely true bodie of Christ, otherwise his antiquitie is not so great, to purchase him authoritie, but as a Burgesse of the lower house, what so e∣uer he speake. The rest that remaine although I might well expound their sayings so, as they should not make for Popish transubstantiation, which the Greeke Church did not receiue: yet beeing late writers out of the com∣passe, as Damascen, Theophylact, Paschasius, I omit them. But of all these doctors, M. Heskins gathereth, that it is a maruelous and wonderfull worke, that is wrought in this chaunge of the sacramentall bread and wine, therefore he would proue it cā not be into a bare token, or figure, but it may well be into a spirituall meate, to feede vs into e∣ternall life, which is a wonderful and great work of God, as likewise that the washing of the bodie in baptisme, should be the washing of the soule from sinne. And ther∣fore be saith very lewdly, y^t the institution of sacramental signes, as the Pascall lambe, and such like, is no wonder∣full worke of God, and as fondly compareth he the insti∣tution of sacramentes with bare signes and tokens of re∣membrance, as the twelue stones in Iordane, &c. And yet more lewdly, with the superstitious bread vsed to be gi∣uen to the Cathechumeni in Saint Augustines time, that had no institution of God. Finally touching the de∣termination and authoritie of the late Laterane counsell for transubstantiation, as we doe not esteeme it beeing contrarie to the worde of God: so I haue in y^e first booke shewed what a grosse errour it committed, in falsification of a text of scripture, out of Saint Iohns Gospell.

* 1.106The two and fiftieth Chapter openeth the minds of S. Basil, & S. Ambrose vpon the wordes of Christ.

* 1.107Basil is cited Quaest. comp. explic. qu. 17••. In aunswere to

this question, with what feate, what faith or assured cer∣teintie, and with what affection the bodie and bloud of of Christ should be receiued? Timorem docet, &c. The A∣postle teacheth vs the feare saying: He that eateth and drinketh vn∣worthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, but the credite of our Lords words bringeth in the perfection of certeintie, who said: This is my bodie which is giuen for you, doe this in remembraunce of me. In this aunswere, seeing he bringeth no exposition, but onely citeth the bare wordes of the text, there is no∣thing that maketh for M. Heskins. He saith the wordes are plaine inough, and neede none other interpretation. It is true, before the worlde was troubled with the here∣sie of carnall presence, the text seemeth plaine ynough, & these wordes: Do this in remēbrance of me, were thought a sufficient interpretation of those words: This is my bo∣die: and so doth Basill vse them.

But S. Ambrose he saith, is so plaine, that if his mother the Church had not beene good to him, he should haue bene shut out of the doores. For Oecolampadins reiected his book of the sacraments, as Luther did the Epistle of S. Iames. Touching Luther, although he were too rash in y^t censure, yet had he Eusebius for his author, twelue hun∣dreth yeres before him. And not only Oecolāpadius, but many other learned men do thinke both the phrase, and the matter of that booke to be vnlike S. Ambrose. But for my part let it be receiued, I hope M. Hesk. shal gaine litle by it: he hath noted many short sentences which I wil rehearse one after another. First Lib. 4. Ca. 5. Antequam. Before it be consecrated, it is bread, but when the wordes of Christe are come to it, it is the bodie of Christ. Finally heare him saying: take & eate ye all of it, This is my bodie. And before the words of Christ, the cuppe is full of wine and water, when the wordes of Christe haue wrought, there is made the bloud which redeemed the people. Ibi. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Tu forte. Thou peraduenture sayest my bread is vsuall bread, but this bread is bread before the wordes of the sacramentes, when consecration is come to it, of bread it is made the fleshe of Christ. And againe in the same Chapter. Sed audi, but heare him saying that sayeth: he saide and they were

made, he commanded and they were created. Therefore that I may answere thee. Before consecration it was not the bodie of Christe. But after consecration I say vnto thee, tha•• now it is the bodie of Christ. He saide and it is made, he commanded, and it is crea∣ted. And in the same booke Cap. 5. Ipse Dominus, Our Lord Iesus himselfe testifieth vnto vs, that we receiue his bodie and bloud, shall we doubt of his trueth and testification? Out of these places, he concludeth not onely that figures be ex∣cluded, but also that the tearme of consecration is vsed se∣riously. I graunt, but not in such sense as the Papistes vse it, but as the worde signifieth, to hallow or dedicate to an holie vse. How figures be excluded, and how these pla∣ces are to be taken, that are so plaine, as he pretendeth, I pray you heare what he writeth in the same bookes of sa∣cramentes.

Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Ergo didicisti quòd ex pane corpu•• fiat Christi, & quòd vinum & aqua in calicem mittitur, sed fit san∣guis consecratione verbi Coelestis. Sed fortò dicis speciem sangui∣nis non video. Sed habet similitudinem. Sicut enim mortis simili∣tudinem sumpsisti: ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis, vt nullus horror cruoris sit, & precium tamen operetur redemptio∣nis. Didicisti ergo quia quod accipis, corpus est Christi. There∣fore thou hast learned that of the bread is made the body of Christ, and that the wine and water is put into the cup, but by consecration of the heauenly worde, it is made his bloud. But perhappes thou sayest, I see not the shewe of bloud. Yet hath it the similitude. For as thou hast re∣ceiued the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud, that there may be no horror of bloud, & yet it may worke the price of re∣demption. Thou hast learned then y^t, that which thou ta∣kest is the bodie of Christ. Here you see it is so the bodie of Christ, as it is the similitude of his death, & so y^e bloud, as it is y^e similitud of his bloud. Moreouer in y^e same book Ca. 5. Dicit sacerdos, &c. The priest saith make vnto vs, (saith he) this oblation, ascribed, reasonable, acceptable: which is the figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. And Cap. 6. Ergo memores, &c. Therefore beeing mindefull of his most glorious passion and resurection

from hell, and ascention into heauen, we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice, this reasonable sacrifice, this vn∣bloudie sacrifice, this holie bread and cup of eternall life. And againe Lib. 6. cap. 1. Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris, sed maneret gratia redemptionis, ideo in similitudinem quidem accipi•• sacramentū, sed verae naturae gra∣tiam virtus émque consequeris. Therfore lest any man should say this, and there should be a certeine horror of bloud, but that the grace of redemption might remaine, there∣fore truely, thou takest a sacrament for a similitude, but thou obteinest the grace & vertue of his true nature. Thus Ambrose hath spoken sufficiently to shewe him selfe no fauourer of Maister Heskins bill, although (as the scrip∣ture teacheth,) he call the sacrament the bodie & bloud of Christ and declareth why it is so called, because it is a figure, similitude, and a memoriall thereof.

The three and fiftieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of Christes wordes by Gregorie Nicene, and S. Hierome.* 1.108

Gregorie Nicene is cited,* 1.109 Ex serus. Catatholico. De Diuinis sacram. Qua ex causa panis in eo corpore mutatus, &c. By what cause the bread in that bodie beeing chaunged, passed into the di∣uine power, by the same cause, the same thing it done now. For as there the grace of the word of God maketh that bodie, whose nou∣rishment consisted of bread, and was after a certeine maner bread: So bread as the Apostle saith, by the word of God and prayer, is sanctified, not because it is eaten, growing to that that it may be∣come the bodie of the WORDE, but foorthwith by the worde it is chaunged into the bodie, as it is saide by the WORDE. This is my bodie. This place saith Maister Heskins ouerthrow∣eth three heresies. The first of Luther or Lutherans: that the sacrament is not the bodie of Christ, except it be re∣ceiued. Gregorie saith, it is not the bodie of Christ, because it is eaten. But that is no ouerthrow to Luthers assertion, for Gregorie meaneth, that the sacrament by nourish∣ing our bodies, is not made the bodie of Christe, as the breade that a man eateth is turned into his bodie, and

so was the bread y^t our sauiour did eat, turned into y^e sub∣stance of his bodie while he liued, but by the power of God, & this notwithstanding, it is made that bodye of Christ, only to the worthie receiuer. Of which a••sertion M. Hesk. saith, they haue no substantial grounde in scrip∣tures: as though an argument framed out of the scrip∣ture, of the end & vse of y^e sacrament, were not a substan∣tial ground. And as for the popish counsell of Florens, is a sorie ground without scripture. Although 〈…〉〈…〉 nor, (as he slaundereth vs) y^t the power of consecration depen∣deth vpon the will of the receiuer, but vpon the wonder∣full worke of God, with such practice as he requireth. The second supposed heresie, to be ouerthrowen, is, that the substance of bread & wine do still remaine, because Gregorie sayth, it is changed into the bodie of Christe. But this change is not of substance, but of vse, for as hee sayth, it is changed into the bodie, so he sayth it is chaun∣ged into the diuine vertue, which words, though Maister Hesk. would racke to signifie the diuine flesh of Christ, yet cannot he auoyde a manifest figure in the speache of Gregorie, & therfore it is nothing so plaine for him, as he pretendeth. To this he adioyneth a defence of the terme of transubstantiation, which he confesseth to be but new, (as in deede the doctrine therof is) but yet he compareth it with the terme vsed of olde by the fathers Homou∣sion, to signifie that Christe is of the substance of the fa∣ther. But to be short, for termes, we will not striue, let him proue transubstantiation so olde as he pretendeth, & we will acknowledge the terme. The thirde pretended heresie to be ouerthrowen, is, that he teacheth a reall pre∣sence, and therefore the wordes: This is my bodie, are to be vnderstood without trope or figure. But this is auoy∣ded in aunswere to the seconde, and so we leaue him dis∣charged of M. Hesk. cauils.

Hierome is alledged ad Hedibiam. qu. 2. the place hath bene alreadie handled, & proued to be against M. Hesk. in the 31. Chap. of this booke, whither I referre the rea∣der for breuities sake, only in this place I wil deale with

such points as were not spoken of there, and rehearse the whole discourse of S. Herome together, & not in patches as M. Hesk. hath done, interlacing his fond gloses. Que∣stio secunda. Quomodo accipiendum sit, &c.

The second que∣stion. How that saying of our sauiour in Mathew is to be taken: I say vnto you, I will not drinke from hence forth of this fruite of the vine, vntil that day, in which I shal drinke it newe with you in the kingdome of my fa∣ther. Out of this place, some men build the fable of a thousand yeres, in which they contend, that Christ shall raigne corporally, & drinke wine, which hee hath not dronke from that time, vnto the end of the world. But let vs heare, that the bread which our Lord brake & gaue to his dis∣ciples, is the bodie of our Lord & sauiour, as he saith vnto them.

Take & eat ye, this is my bodie, & that the cupp is that, of whiche he spake againe: drinke ye all of this: this is my bloud of the new testament, which shalbe shed for many, &c. This is that cupp, of which we read in the Prophet: I will take the cupp of saluation. And in another place, Thy cup inebriaeting is verie noble. If ther∣fore the bread, which came downe from heauen, is the bodie of our Lord: and the wine, which he gaue to his disciples, is his bloud of the new testament, let vs reiect Iewish fables, & ascend with our Lord into the great parler, prepared & made clean, & let vs receiue of him aboue, the cup of the new testament: & there holding passouer with him, let vs be made dronke with the wine of sobrietie. For the kingdome of God is not meat & drinke, but righteousnesse, & ioy, & peace in the holy ghost. Neither did Moises giue vs the true bread, but our Lord Iesus, he being the guest & the fest, he him∣selfe eating, & which is eaten. His bloud we drinke, & without him we cannot drinke it, & daily in his sacrifices, wee tread out of the generation of the true vine & the vine of Sorec, which is inter∣preted chosen, the redde newe wines, and of them wee drinke newe wine of the kingdome of his father, not in the oldnesse of the letter, but in the newnesse of the spirite, singing a newe song, which none can sing, but in the kingdome of the Churche, which is the king∣dome of the father.

This bread also did Iacob the Patriarch couet to eate, saying: if y^e Lord shalbe with me, & giue me bread to eat,

and rayment to couer mee. For as many of vs as are bap∣tised in Christ, haue put on Christ, and do eat the breade of Angels, and do heare our Lorde saying: My meate is, that I may do the will of him that sent mee, my fa∣ther, that I may accomplish his worke. Let vs there∣fore do the will of his father which sent vs, and let vs ac∣complish his worke: and Christ shall drinke with vs his bloud in the kingdome of the Church.

This is the whole discourse of Hierome, and by the distinction of y^e letter, you see what Maister Heskins hath left out, both in the beginning, and in the ende, and yet he raileth at y^e pro∣claimer, for snatching truncately a fewe wordes, to make a shew to deceiue his auditorie. But by this whole trea∣tise, you may see what the question is, and howe it is an∣swered, namely, that the promise of Christ must bee vn∣derstoode, of a spirituall drinking in the Church, which vtterly ouerthroweth the popish fantasie of real presence. For Christ is so present at euery celebration of the supper in his church, that he eateth his bodie, and drinketh his bloud, as Hierome sayth: which no man, except he bee mad, wil say to be otherwise then after a spirituall man∣ner, and in the end, Hierome openeth what is his meate, and how he drinketh his bloud with vs, and that wee so eat his bodie, as we put him on for a garmēt in baptisme, and as Iacob did eat it, which must needes be spiritually. More collections, if any man desire, let him resort to the 31. Chapter of this second booke.

* 1.110The foure & fiftieth Chapter testifyeth the vnderstanding of the same words by Isychius, & S. Augustine.

* 1.111Isychius is alledged in Leuit. lib. 6. Cap. 2••. vpon this text. He that eateth of the holie things vnwittingly, shall put the fifth parte thereunto, and giue vnto the Priest the hallowed thing. Sancta sanctorum, &c. The most holie things properly are the my∣steries of Christ, because it is his bodie, of whome Gabriell said vn∣to the virgin: The holy ghost shall come vpō thee, and the power of the moste highest shall ouershadowe thee, therefore that holy one that shalbe borne of thee, shalbe called the sonne of God. And Esay also: The Lord is holie, & dwelleth in the heightes, that is to saye,

in the bosome of his father. For from this sacrifice he hath forbid∣den, not onely strangers and soiourners & hyred seruaunts, but hee commaunded also, not to receiue it by ignorance. And he taketh it by ignorance, which knoweth not the vertue and dignitie thereof, which knoweth not that this bodie and bloud is according to the trueth, but receiueth the mysteries, and knoweth not the vertue of the mysteries. Vnto whome Salomon sayth, or rather the spirite which is in him: When thou sittest to eat with a Prince, attende diligently, what things are set before thee. He also compelling o∣penly and constraining him that is ignorant to adde a fifth parte. For this fifth parte being added, maketh vs to vnderstande the di∣uine mysteries, intelligibly. Nowe, what the fifth parte is, the wordes of the Law giuer may teache thee. For he sayth: he shall add a fifth parte, with that he hath eaten. And howe can a man adde a fifth parte of that which he hath alreadie eaten and consumed? For he biddeth not another thing, or from any other where. But a fifth parte to be added of it, or with it, or as the 70. interprete vpon it. Then the fifth parte of it, vpon it, is the worde which was vttered by Christ him selfe vpon the Lordes mysterie. For that being added, deliuereth and remoueth vs from ignorance, as to thinke any thing carnall or earthly of those holie things, but de∣creeth, that those thinges shoulde bee taken diuinely & spiritually, which is properly called the fifth part, for the diuine spirite which is in vs, and the worde which he deliuered, doth sett in order the senses that are in vs, and doth not onely bring foorth our taste vnto mysterie, but also our hearing & sight and touching & smel∣ling, so that of these things which are verie high, we do suspect, no∣thing that is neare to lesse reason or weake vnderstanding.

This place M. Hesk. noteth, that the mysteries are called a most holy thing, and a sacrifice. We confesse it is a most holy thing, & a sacrifice of thanksgiuing, for so y^e fathers meant, and not a propitiatorie sacrifice. Moreouer he noteth, that it is called the verie bodie and bloud in verie deede. Although the wordes of the author sounde not so roundly, yet let that be graunted also, what is then the conclusion? Marie then, haue ye a plaine place for the proclaimer, & issue ioyned thereupon, that no one writer of like auncientie, sayth, it is not the verie bodie. For thè

plainesse of the place, I wish always, that the author may be his own expositor. First, where he sayth, that the fifth part added, maketh vs to vnderstand the mysteries intel∣ligibly (that is as he vseth the terme) spiritually & mysti∣cally, although M. Hesk. translate intelligibiliter easily.

Secondly, where he sayth, wee must thinke nothing car∣nally or earthly of the holy things, and that the worde of God decreeth, that they should be taken diuinely and spiritually. As for the issue it was ioyned & tryed in the one and twentieth Chapter of the first booke. But wee must heare what Hesychius sayth further. Quicunque ergo sanctificata &c. Whosoeuer therfore shal eat of the things sancti∣fied by ignorance, not knowing their vertue (at we haue saide) shall adde a fifth parte of it vpon it, and giue it to the Priest into the sanctuarie. For it behoueth the sanctification of the mysticall sacri∣fice, and the translation or commutation from thinges sensible to things intelligible, to be giuen to Christ, which is the true Priest, that is, to graunt and impute to him the miracle of them, because that by his power and the worde vttered by him, those things that are seene, are as surely sanctified, as they exceede all sense of the flesh. Out of these words M. Hesk. would proue transub∣stantiation, because he saith, there is a translation or cō∣mutation from things sensible to intelligible, y^t is, from bread, which is perceiued by y^e senses, to y^e body of Christ, which in this manner is not perceiued by senses. But M. Hesk. must proue the bodie of Christe to bee no sensible thing, but a thing which may be perceiued by vnderstan∣ding only, or else his exposition wil not stand, for here is a diuision & exposition of things sensible & intelligible, which is a plaine ouerthrow of popish transubstantiatiō, & carnall presence, for y^t wherunto the things sensible are changed, is not a sensible thing, as the naturall bodie of Christ is, but they are changed into things intelligible▪ y^t is, which may only by vnderstanding be conceiued, & so is the spiritual feeding of our soules by faith, with y^e verie body & bloud of Christ. Next Augustin is cited in Ps. 33 a place which hath ben cited & answered more then once alreadie. Et ferebatur, &c. And he was carried in his own bāds.

Brethren how could this be true in a man? &c. I will remit the reader to the 10. Chap. of this second book, where it is an∣swered by Aug. him self, & in the same exposition. Christ caried himself, saith Aug. in his hands, quodam modo, after a certaine manner, but not simply. Maister Hesk. iang∣ling of an onely figure, hath bene often reproued: wee make not the sacrament such an onely figure, as Dauid might carrie in his handes of him selfe, for Dauid could make no sacrament of him selfe, but such a figure, as is a diuine and heauenly worke, to giue in deede, that it re∣presenteth in signe. An other place of Augustine, is cy∣ted De Trin. lib. 3. cap. 4. but truncately (as he termeth it) for he neither alledgeth the heade nor the feete, by which the scope of Augustines wordes might be perceiued. But the whole sentence is this. Si ergo Apostolus Paulus, &c.

If therefore the Apostle Paule, although hee did yet carrie the burthen of his body, which is corrupted and presseth downe the soule, although he did as yet see but in part, and in a darke speach, desiring to be dissolued and to bee with Christ, & groning in himself for the adoption, way∣ting for the redēption of his body, Could neuerthelesse preach our Lord Iesus Christ by signifying, otherwise by his tong, otherwise by his Epistle, otherwise by the sacrament of his body & bloud for neither his tong, nor the parchments, nor the ynke nor the signifying sounds vttered with his tong, nor the signes of the letters written in skinnes, do we call the body and bloud of Christ, but only that which being taken of the fruits of the earth, & being consecrated with my∣sticall prayer, we do rightly receiue vnto spiritual health, in remem∣brance of our Lords suffring for vs: which when it is brought by the hands of mē, to that visible forme, it is not sanctified that it shuld be so great a sacramēt, but by the spirit of god working inuisibly:

whē God worketh al these things which in that work are done by corporall motions, mouing first the inuisible parts of his ministers, either the soules of men, or of secret spirits y^t are subiectes seruing him: what maruel is it, if also in the creature of heauen & earth, the sea, & al the ayre, God ma∣keth what he wil both sensible and inuisible things, to set forth him selfe in them, as he him selfe knoweth it shuld

be:

his owne substaunce as it is not appearing, which is altogether vnchangeable, and more inwardly and secretly, higher then all the spirites which he hath created.

He rayleth vpon Oecolampadius, for leauing out of S. Augustine that which maketh against him, as though hee him selfe hath not an hundreth times done so as he char∣geth him. Although it is not to be thought, that Oeco∣lampadius vsed any fraud, when he tooke as much as ser∣ued his purpose for which he alledged it, and nothing fo∣lowed, that was contrarie to it, for all M. Heskins lowde crying out. For Paule preached Christe by signifying in the sacrament, which is called the body & bloud of Christ, bicause it is a sacrament thereof, whereas his tong, nor his parchment, nor ynke, nor sound of words, nor figures of letters were no sacraments, and yet he preached the same Christ by signifying, in speaking, writing, and ministring the sacrament. But besides this, M. Heskins would haue vs note two things. That the bread is sanctified and made a great sacrament: and that it is sanctified and made by the inuisible worke of the holy Ghost. The first (he saith) is a∣gainst Oecolampadius & Cranmer, that say, the creatures receiue no sanctification, but the soules of men. They meane, that holinesse is not included in the creatures, but consisteth in the whole action, and so Augustine ad∣deth to the consecration the due receiuing in remem∣brance of Christes death, without which the bread is no sacrament. But M. Heskins would learne what he meaneth by calling it a great sacrament, and what the worke of the holy Ghost is in it? If it please him to vnderstand, the ho∣ly Ghost working inuisibly, maketh it a greate mysterie of our saluation, assuring our consciences, that we are fed spiritually with the body and bloud of Christ, as our bo∣dies are corporally with bread and wine. As for S. Iames his Masse, and other such ma••king disguisings, I will not vouchsafe to aunswere, being meere forgeries and coun∣terfetings.

But howe S. Augustine did expound these wordes, M. Heskins if he durst, might haue cyted this place, Contra

Adimantum.

Nam ex eo quod scriptum est sanguinem pecoris a∣nimam eius esse, pręter id quod supra dixi, non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris anima, possum etiam interpretari praeceptum il∣lud in signo esse positum: non enim Dominus dubitanit dicere: hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. For of that which is written, that the bloud of a beast is the life thereof, be∣side that which I said before, that it pertaineth not to me what becommeth of the life of a beast, I may interprete that commandement to be giuen in a signe: for our Lord doubted not to say: this is my body, when he gaue the signe of his body.

This place is plaine, and will not suffer M. Heskins glose, that the accidents are called a signe of his body, for then it is nothing like to the text, which he compareth to this: bloud is the life of the beast. Let this place expound Augustine, when so euer he nameth the sa∣crament the body of Christ.

The fiue and fiftieth Chapter tarieth in the exposition of the same wordes by Chrysostome and Sedulius.* 1.112

Chrysostome is cyted In 26. Math. Hom. 83.* 1.113 Credamus v∣bique &c. Let vs beleeue in euery place, neither let vs resist him, although it seemeth to be an absurde thing to our sense, and to our cogitation, which is saide. Let his word I beseech you ouercome both our sense and our reason, which thing let vs do in all matters, and specially in mysteries, not looking vpon those things only which lye before vs, but also holding fast his wordes. For we can not be decei∣ued by his wordes, but our sense is most easie to be deceiued: they can not be false, but this our sense is often and often deceiued. Therefore bicause he hath saide: This is my body, let vs be held with no dout∣fulnesse, but let vs beleeue, and throughly see it with the eyes of vn∣derstanding. Here M. Heskins noteth that it passeth not rea∣son, to make present a figure of his body, as though the mysterie of the sacrament were nothing, but a figure of his body. Secondly, that Chrysostome willeth Christes wordes to be vnderstanded as they be spoken. No doubt, but he would haue them to be vnderstoode as they were meant by Christe, and that is spiritually, for which cause he willeth vs to beholde the matter with the eyes of our

vnderstanding and by faith. And whereas M. Heskins doth further alledge this Doctours wordes In Marc. 14. Hom. 51. Qui dixis &c. He that saide, This is my body, did bring to passe the thing also with his worde. We confesse he did so, but thereof it doth not followe, that al figure is wiped away, as he saith: neither is there any plaine place for the pro∣clamer, or in any thing that followeth in the same Ho∣mely. Quando igitur &c. When then thou seest the Priest giue the body, thinke not the hand of the Priest, but the hand of Christe is put foorth vnto thee. Surely in these wordes, we must ei∣ther say that the Priestes hande is transubstantiated into the hande of Christ, or else we must acknowledge a figu∣ratiue speach. It followeth in Chrysostome, for more per∣suasion. Qui enim maius &c.

For he that hath giuen a greater thing for thee, that is to say, his life, why will he disdaine to deliuer his body to thee? Let vs therefore heare both Priestes and other, howe great and how woonderfull a thing is graunted to vs. Let vs heare I pray you, and let vs tremble, he hath deliuered his flesh vnto vs, him selfe offered hath he set before vs. What satisfaction there∣fore shall we offer, when after we are nourished with such a foode, we doe offend? When eating a lambe, we are turned into woolues? when beeing satisfied with sheepes flesh, we rauine as lyons? M. H. noteth, y^t here be termes to plaine for figuratiue speaches, & yet in spite of his nose, he must cōfesse al this speach to be figuratiue, or else he must make Chrysost. Authour of grosse absurdities. I will only speak of one, which is most apparant. Chrysost. saith, it is a greater matter that Christ gaue his life, then y^t he giueth his body. Let me aske him this question. Doth hee giue a dead body in the sacra∣ment, or a liuing? If hee giue a liuing body, hee giueth his life in the sacrament, and then howe is it lesse, when hee giueth both his life and his body? But Chrysostome meaneth, that he suffered death, which is a greater mat∣ter, then that he giueth vs his body in the sacrament, for that is a memoriall of his death, and receiueth all the ver∣tue from his death, & so the giuing of his life is a greater matter, then the giuing of his body in the sacrament, for y^e was in acte, this in mysterie.

But let vs followe M. Hes.

The sacrament is a wonderful thing, therefore no figure, nor spiritual receit only, which are not wonderfull. This argument is false, for sacramentall figures and spirituall things are great wonders, thought not sensible myracles. As for eating the Lamb, the Sheepe, and such other, are so plaine figures, that impudencie her selfe would not deny them to be figures. Finally he noteth, that sinners receiue the bodye of Christe in the sacrament, which hee saith, the Protestantes denye, which is as grossely, for except sinners should receiue Christe in the sacrament, no men should receiue him.

But the Protestantes say, that wic∣ked men or reprobate men, vngodly men, vnpenitent sinners, receiue not the body of Christe, which though it haue bene sufficiently proued before, yet I will adde one more testimony out of Saint Augustine De ciuitate Dei. Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi. De∣nique ipse dicens: Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sangui∣nem meum, in me manet & ego in eo, ostendit quid sit, non sa∣cramento tenus, sed reuera corpus Christi manducare, & eius sanguinem bibere. Neyther is it to be saide, that these men (meaning heretiques & other wicked men) doe eate the bodie of Christ, bicause they are not to bee accounted among the members of Christ. Finally he himself saying: He y^t eateth my flesh & drinketh my blud, abideth in me & I in him: sheweth what it is, not touching y^e sacramēt on¦ly, but indeed to eat y^e body of Christ, & drink his bloud.

But now let vs returne to Chrys. who Hom. 83. in 26. Math. hath these words, Praecipuā &. He dissolueth their chiefe solem∣nitie, and calleth thē to another table ful of horror saying: Take ye and eat ye, this is my body. How then wer they not troubled hearing this? bicause they had heard many & great things of these before. Here M. Hes. troubleth him self very much & his readers more, to proue y^t by the doctrin which they heard before, vttered in the sixt of Iohn, they were so instructed as they were not troubled, which we confes to be true, although that doctrine doth none otherwise pertaine vnto the sa∣crament, then as the sacrament is a seale of the doctrine.

But Chrysostome saith further in the same Homely. Hac de causa &c. For this cause with desire I haue desired to eate this passeouer with you, that I might make you spirituall. He him self also dranke thereof, least when they had heard his wordes, they should say: what then do we drinke bloud and eate flesh? and so should haue bene troubled. For when he spake before of those things, many were offended only for his wordes. Therefore least the same thing should happen nowe also, he him selfe did it first, that he might in∣duce them with quiet minde, to the communication of the mysteries. Here M. Heskins falleth into a sound sleepe, and then dreameth a long dreame of the reall presence, and the trouble of the Apostles, and lothsomnesse of bloud, the contradiction of Chrysostomes wordes, and I wote not what beside▪ But to a man that is awake, Chrysostom spea∣keth plaine ynough. He saith, this was y^e cause, why Christ desired to eate the Passeouer with them, which he taketh to be, that hee did first drinke before them &c. that hee might make thē spirituall, that is, y^t they might not haue carnall imaginations of eating his body and his bloud as the Capernaites had, but vnderstande those thinges spi∣ritually, the rather when they sawe him eate and drinke of them, which if he had eaten his owne naturall body, and drunk his owne natural bloud, would haue troubled them more, then if he had not tasted of them. And how so euer M. Heskins drumbleth and dreameth of this matter, Cranmer saith truely, that if Christ had turned the breade into his body, as the Papistes affirme, so great and woon∣derfull a chaunge, should haue bene more plainely set∣foorth in the scripture, by some of the Euangelistes.

Sedulius for varietie of names is cyted In 11. pri. ad Cor. Accipite hoc est corpus meum &c. Take ye, this my body, as though Paule had saide, take heede ye eate not the body vnworthily, seeing it is the body of Christ. What is there here that the procla∣mer will not confesse? and yet is there nothing to binde him to subscribe, for the proclamer would neuer denye, that the sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ, tho∣ugh after an other sort, then it is affirmed by the Papistes.

The sixe and fiftieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Theophylus and Leo.* 1.114

Theophylus Alexandrinus is brought on the stage in this shewe, cyted Lib. 2. Pasch. Consequens est &c.* 1.115 It is conse∣quent, that he that receiueth the former things, should also receiue those things that follow. And he that shall say, that Christ was cru∣cified for diuels, must allowe also that it is to be saide vnto them: This is my body, and take ye, this is my bloud. For if he be crucified for diuels (as the author of new doctrine doth affirme) what priui∣ledge shall there be, or what reason that onely men should commu∣nicate with his body and bloud, and not diuels also for whome he shed his bloud in his passion? Hee saith here is no mention of tropes and figures. A substantiall reason, therefore none are vsed. It is a good reason that Theophylus vseth: that Christ died not for the diuels, bicause he giueth them no participation of his body and bloud, but it hangeth on a rush that M. Hes. concludeth. Such as are partakers of his reall body, may be made partakers of his spirituall body: but diuels can not of his reall body, therefore not of his spirituall body be partakers. See how this peruerse man, maketh the sacrament to be the reall body of Christ, and that which was crucified, his spirituall body. By which he doth not only make Christe haue two bodies, but also o∣uerthroweth the truth of the one, to establish the falshod of y^e other. But the same writer in y^e first booke, doth more certainly auouch the real presence, & deny the figures in these wordes: Dicit spiritum sanctum &c. Origen saith, that the holy Ghost doth not worke vpon those things, which are without life nor commeth to vnreasonable things. Which when he saith, he thinketh not that the mysticall waters in baptisme by the comming of the holy Ghost to them are consecrated, and that the Lords bread by which our sauiours body is shewed, and which we breake for san∣ctification of vs, and the holy cup which are set on the table, and be things without life, are sanctified, by inuocation and comming of the holy Ghost to them. M. Hes. translateth quo saluaioris corpus ostenditur, in which the body of our Sauiour is shewed, but it is plaine ynough, Theophylus meaneth, that by the breade the body of Christe is shewed, that is signified,

or figured, or represented. As for consecration, which terme he giueth to the waters in baptisme, Maister Hes∣kins chattereth I wot not what about it, nor to what pur∣pose. Certaine it is, that he vseth not the terme as the Pa∣pistes doe, for they apply it only to the sacrament of the altar, as they call it.

Leo is cited Serm. 7. de pass. dom. Iesus confisij sui certus &c. Iesus being at a point with him selfe, and ready to doe his fathers disposition without feare, finished the olde Testament, and made the newe Passeouer. For his disciples sitting with him to eate the mysticall supper, while they in the house of Caiphas were treating howe Christ might be slaine, he ordaining the sacrament of his bo∣dy and bloud, did teach, what manner of sacrifice should be offered to God, and from this mysterie remoued not the traytour. This place being against Maister Heskins, where hee cal∣leth it the sacrament of his body and bloud &c. hee would aunswere the matter by this principle, that olde writers did so call the very naturall body of Christ in the sacrament, which is all the matter in question. But hee will proue it by an other saying in the same place. Vt vmbrae &c. That shaddowes might giue place to the body, and images might ceasse vnder the presence of the trueth, the olde obseruance is taken away with a newe sacrament, the sacrifice passeth into the sacrifice, bloud excludeth bloud, and the festiuitie of the lawe while it is chaunged, is fulfilled. These wordes must needes bee referred to the passion of Christe, whereof the sacrifice is a memoriall: for the sacrifice of Christe, and his bloud shedding on the crosse, was the very fulfil∣ling of the shaddowe and image of the Paschall Lambe in the olde lawe, and not the institution of the sacrament, whiche is a figure or sacrament thereof. And so the groundwork of al M. Hes. building is quite ouerthrown.

* 1.116The seuen and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same wordes by S. Cyrill and S. Gregorie.

Cyrillus is cited, as he is often, ad Colosyrium. Non dubi∣tes an &c.* 1.117 Doubt thou not whether this be true, when hee saith manifestly, This is my body: but rather receiue the worde of our Sauiour in faith. For seeing hee is the trueth, hee doth not lye.

Maister Heskins inferreth, that the wordes of Christe are manifest, and so to be taken in the literall sense with∣out figure, bicause he vseth these wordes, Christ saide ma∣nifestly, this is my body: but this is a childish mockerie. Christe saide manifestly, I am the doore. Doeth it there∣fore followe, that it is no figuratiue speach, and that the woordes of Christe are manifest, and therefore to bee ta∣ken in the literall sense? And yet I beleeue, bicause Christ saide manifestly, I am the doore, that he is in deede the doore, though not literally but figuratiuely taken. It gre∣ueth M. Hes. that the proclamer should play with Duns his indiuid••um vagum, saying, that by the like meanes, hee might disgrace the faith of the trinitie, to open the quid∣dities of distinctions, and relations of persons, that bee spoken thereof. And I thinke the same, if hee shoulde teach that holy mysterie after the schoole manner, & not after the word of God. But he returneth to an other place of Cyrill. Ne horreremus carnem & sanguinem. Bicause this place is already rehearsed more at large, and answered in the 51. Chap. of this booke, I will send the reader backe, to consider it in that place.

Gregorie is cited Lib. 4. dialog. cap. ••8. Debemus ita{que} prae∣sens sęculum &c. We ought therfore, seing we see this present world to be passed away, with al our mind to contemne it, to offer to god the daily sacrifices of teares, the daily sacrifices of his body and bloud. For this sacrifice doth singularly saue the soul from eternal destruc∣tion, which repayreth to vs the death of the only begotten, by a my∣sterie. Who although since he arose from death, he doth not now dy, and death shal haue no more dominion of him: yet liuing in him self immortally & incorruptibly, is sacrificed againe for vs in this my∣sterie of the holy oblation. For his body is there receiued, his flesh is diuided for the health of the people, his bloud is shed, not nowe vpon the hands of the Infidels, but into the mouthes of the faithfull. Hereof therefore let vs consider, what sacrifice this is for vs, which for our deliuerance doeth followe the passion of the one∣ly begotten Sonne. For which of the faithfull ought to haue any doubt, that in the same houre of the immolation, the heauens are opened at the Priestes voyce? that the companies of

Angels are present in the mysterie of Iesus Christ? That the low∣est things are coupled to the highest: earthly things are ioyned to heauenly thinges, and that one thing is made of thinges visible and inuisible? Of these last wordes of ioyning high and lowe, heauenly and earthly thinges, he maketh a greate matter, which is (saith hee) that Christe is ioyned to the earthly formes of breade and wine. Where note (I praye you) that he nameth the accidents of things, for the thin∣ges them selues, which is a toy to mocke an ape. And yet he pleaseth him selfe so well therein, that he would drawe Irenaeus, which is cleane contrarie to transubstantiation, to bee a great patrone thereof:* 1.118 Irenaeus saith as wee haue shewed before more at large, that Eucharistie consisteth of two thinges, earthly and heauenly. Nowe hee inqui∣reth of vs, what is the heauenly part of the sacrament? And he reasoneth that it is neither the grace of God, nor thanksgiuing, nor the worde of God, nor sanctification. Well: what is it then? Gregorie saith, it is the bodye of Christ, and so say we, spiritually receiued. But if I shuld aske M. Hes. what is the earthly part of the sacrament, hee wil say, the accidents of bread & wine, but sauing his wis∣dome, accidents be neither earthly not heauenly, but the earthly thing must needs be a substantiall thing, & what other earthly substance can there be, but the substance of bread and wine? He saith, that corporall receiuing is here auouched by Gregory. Then must he tel me how in these words, the sacrifice of teares, is matched with the sacrifice of his flesh and bloud, and how the death of Christe is re∣paired by a mysterie, howe the fleshe of Christ is diuided or parted, if this can not bee done, but spiritually, then Christes body can not be eaten, but spiritually.

The iudgement of Barnard which followeth, we leaue to be weighed according to the corruption of the age in which he liued.

* 1.119The eigth and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition among the eldest Fathers by Euthymius and Isidorus.

* 1.120Although neither of these writers are within the com∣passe

of the challenge, yet bicause Euthymius vseth much to followe auncient Doctours, and Isidorus was neere the time of the challenge, I will set downe their places and examine their wordes. Euthymius is cyted In 26. Math. Sicut vetus testamentum &c. Euen as the olde Testament had sa∣crifices and bloud: so hath the newe, namely the body and bloud of our Lorde. Nowe he did not say: These are the signes of my body and my bloud: but these thinges be my body and bloud. Therefore we must not looke to the nature of those things that are set foorth, but to the vertue of them. For as he did supernaturally deifie (if I may so speake) his assumpted flesh: so doth he also vnspeakably transmute these thinges into the same his quickening body, and into his precious bloud, and into the grace of them. And the bread hath a certaine similitude vnto the body, and wine to bloud. For both the bread and body are earthly: but the wine and the bloud are airie and hote. And as bread doth comfort, so the body of Christe doth the same and much more, it sanctifieth both the body and the soule. And as the wine doth make glad: so the bloud of Christ doth the same, and moreouer is made a defence. Although the chiefest partes of this place are answered in the 17. Chapter of the first booke, and in the 51. Chap. of this second booke: yet as M. Hes. gathereth here two other matters, so I wil make answere to them. First he saith, That the figuratiue glose of the sacramētaries is flatly denied: But by what words I pray you▪ Marrie where he saith: Christ saide not these be signes of my body and bloud, but these are my body and bloud, if this be a flat deniall of a figure, bicause Christe saide not so, then is it likewise in these speaches, he saide not the rocke was a signe of Christe, but the rocke was Christe, the Lambe is the Passeouer &c. Euthymius meaneth not to exclude all figures from the saying of Christ, but to shew that the sacrament is not a bare, naked, and vaine signe, but a true signe of the very body and bloud of Christe, giuen to the faythfull in the administration of the sup∣per.

The second matter that Maister Heskins noteth, is, of the vnspeakable transmutation, and that must needes bee meant of transubstantiation of the breade and wine into

the naturall bodie and bloud of Christe, by this reason: there be foure thinges called the bodie of Christ. 1. The figure. 2. The Church. 3. The merite, fruite, or vertue of his passion. 4. And his bodie naturall, but it can not be into the figure, nor into the Churche, Nor into the spirituall bodie of Christe, I meane the merite, vertue, and grace of Christes passion, Ergo it must needes be spoken of the naturall bo∣die of Christ. But vouchsafe (gentle Reader) to runne o∣uer once againe these wordes of Euthymius, which in La∣tine are these. Ita & hec ineffabiliter transmuta•• in ipsum vini∣fic•••••• corpus, & in ipsius pręciosum sanguinem si••on, & in gratiam ipso 〈◊〉〈◊〉: Euen so he doth vnspeakably transmute and change thes•• thinges into the same his quickening bodie, and into his owne preci∣ous bloud, and into the grace of them. Now tell me whether M. Heskins doth flatly denie, that which Euthymius doeth flatly affirme, that the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of the bodie and bloud of Christ? By whiche words he doth sufficiently expound, what kind of change he meaneth of them into the bodie and bloud of Christ, not a corporall but a spirituall transmutation. To the rest of the sentence which is a good exposition of the for∣mer parte, shewing both the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament, and for what cause they are vsed to re∣present the bodie and bloud of Christe, namely, for the similitude they haue vnto the bodie and bloud of Christ: Maister Heskins sayeth nothing. But let the reader weigh it well, and he shall see it cleane contrarie both to transubstantiation, and the carnall presence.

Nowe we come to Isodorus, whom he confesseth to be somewhat out of the compasse of the challenge, and his wordes De Offi. Eccle. Lib. 18. are these. Sacrificium, &c. The sacrifice that is offered of the Christians vnto God, Christe our God and Maister did first institute, when he commended to his Apostles his bodie and his bloud before he was betrayed, as it is read in the Gospel: Iesus tooke bread and the cuppe and blessing them gaue vn∣to them.

In this place is nothing for the carnall presence, but that Isydore calleth the sacrament the bodie and bloud of

Christ, which we also do, and acknowledg to be so right∣ly called. And Maister Heskins can conclude nothing but vpon a negatiue, he saith not he gaue a figure, so may I conclude, he saith not he gaue his naturall body, and no figure. After this he reasoneth as fondely of Christes blessing of the bread, which although the Euangelistes do expound to be giuing of thanks, yet admit blessing to signifie consecration, and what hath he gayned? Forsooth Christ wold not haue blessed it to make but a figure: still he playeth the foole with that bable, but a figure, onely a figure, a bare figure, which we vtterly doe forsake. But toward the ende of the Chapter, he falleth to gathering his voyces, and affirmeth that none of the olde fathers cal the sacrament a figure, except Tertullian onely, wherein he lyeth impudently, for beside Ambrose, and Augustine, which both vse the very worde figure, we haue shewed in due places, that both they & in a manner al the rest of the fathers, haue either written plainely against the carnall presence, or else nothing for it. As for his last challenge, that all the protestants must bring forth when any coun∣trie did professe the same religion that is now preached, is vaine: and hath beene sufficiently aunswered in other treatises. It is certein, that all nations y^t were conuerted by the Apostles, before they were corrupted by heresie and Antechristianitie, professed the same religion that we doe. As for the alterations in King Henries time, King Edwardes, and the Queenes Maiesties, that now is, it is easie to answere. King Henrie began the worke, whiche King Edwarde finished, and the Queene repayred and vpholdeth in spight of the diuel and the Pope. As for the consent and peace of the Popishe Church, it proueth no∣thing, but that the diuell had then all thinges at his will, and therefore might sleepe on both sides, but now hee is disturbed of possession of the house, nowe he stormeth, and of Robin good fellowe, which he was in the Popishe time, is become playne Sathan the Di∣uell.

* 1.121The nine & fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the same text by the fathers of the latter days, & first Damascen, & Haymo.

* 1.122Before M. Heskins begin his pretended exposition, he chargeth Luther, to be a proude contemner of the fathers, who reuerenced them as much as it was meet they should be reuerenced, although he preferred one authoritie of scripture, before a thou••••nd Cyprians & Augustines. Next to Luther, he rayleth on the bishop of Sarum, whō he cal∣leth the proclaymer, charging him with mocking of the holie fathers, whereof some he saith be saintes in heauen, what the rest be he doth not determine, he meaneth Sil∣uester, Isodore, Innocentius, Betram, Durand, Holcot Dunce, &c. Which if they haue written any thing that is ridiculous, in defence of Poperie, it were better men should laugh at their follie, then be still deceiued with their errours. But whereas M. Hesk. will set a player on a stage, and a boy in the Pa••••is to answere the Bishop, I weene it be more then the reuerend M. Doctor Heskins reuested in Doctoralibus and inthronized in his Doctours chayer, dare well take vpon him to doe. That whiche followeth in this Chapter, is consumed in cyting and vr∣ging of the forenamed wryters, whose authoritie we doe not admitte, appealing alwayes from the lower house of punys Burgesses, to the higher house of auncient Ba∣rons.

* 1.123The sixtieth Chapter proceedeth in exposition of the same text by Theophylacte and Paschasius.

* 1.124Although we might demurre vpon the vnderstanding of those wordes of Theophylact, In 14. Matth. That the bread & wine are transelementated into the vertue of his flesh & bloud: yet considering the corrupt time in which he liued, his authoritie is not worth the striuing for. And whereas Maister Heskins would make him so say no more then the olde fathers, Hilar. Iren. Cyril. Chrysost. &c. Seeing we haue already considered their testimonies, it were su∣perfluous

to repeate them againe in this place, and as of∣ten, as it pleaseth Maister Heskins to abuse their names.

The one and sixtieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of the same wordes by Oecumenius and Anselmus.* 1.125

Oecumenius saith litle to the purpose, too or fro. But Anselmus goeth more roundly to y^e matter,* 1.126 as one y^t was y^e scholler of Lanfrācus, which wrote against Berengarius. Neuerthelesse vpon these wordes of his, riseth some other matter: Neque eminet. For we do neither altogether exclude a fi∣gure frō this sacrament, nor admit an only figure. This place M. Hesk. would haue to expound Tertullians figure, but we haue shewed before, it will not serue. Vnto this he addeth Augustine, cited in the Popes decrees, but not to be found in his workes in these wordes. The bodie of Christ is both the trueth and a figure: The trueth whyle the bodie and bloud of Christ in the vertue of the holie Ghost is made of the substance of bread and wine: but that is the figure which is outwardly perceiued. De cons. Dist. 2. Cap vtrum. When these wordes are found in a∣ny worke of S. Augustines, we will make aunswere to them, otherwise we may not receiue them of the onely credit of the Popes law. Vnlesse they haue such meaning as the saying of Hilarius B. of Rome which followeth. Corpus Christi, &c. The bodie of Christ which is takē at the altar is a figure, whyle the bread & wine are seene outwardly, and a truth, while the bodie and bloud of Christ inwardly are beleeued. It see∣meth to me this saying to be playne ynough, that the sa∣crament is an outward figure of the bodie and bloud of Christ, which is inwardly receiued spiritually by faith.

As Gratian also reporteth the wordes of the same Hilarie. De Cons. Dist. 2. Vbi pars est. Non enim est quantitas visibilis in hoc aestimanda mysterio, sed virtus sacramenti spiritualis. The vi∣sible quantitie is not to be regarded in this mysterie, but the spirituall vertue of the sacrament. But M. Heskins proceedeth, and by Anselmus authoritie he will auoide the trifling sophysticall argument, made by Maister Pil∣kinton in the open disputation holden in Cambridge.

By like Maister Heskins had not learned the solution at that time, and therefore nowe he sendeth it ouer the sea to him. The argument was this: Christe tooke bread, he blessed bread, he brake bread, wherfore he gaue bread to his disciples: if he gaue bread, then not his bodie. M. Heskins saith, he so vseth the words, as though by the actes which the verbes expresse, nothing had beene done. Yes M. Heskins he chaunged the vse, but not the sub∣stance. But by the like sophisme (saith Maister Heskins, he might proue that he gaue no sacrament of his bodie. For that he deliuered which he tooke, but he tooke bread, no sacrament: therfore he deliuered bread, no sacrament.

But by his patience, this sophisme of his, is nothing like Maister Pilkintons argument. For in one proposi∣tion, he speaketh of the substance, in the other of another qualitie or affection beside the substance, as in this ex∣ample: that which you bought in the shambles you haue eaten, but you bought cowe fleshe, therefore you haue eaten caulfes fleshe. Euerie childe seeth this fol∣loweth not. But if I speake of the substance in both a∣like, it followeth as thus. That which you bought in the market, you haue eaten, but you bought mutton, ther∣fore you haue eaten mutton. Vpon the premises graun∣ted, this argument followeth of necessitie, and such is the argument of Maister Pilkinton, which all the Papistes in Louayne can not answere.

* 1.127The t••o and sixtieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Rupertus, and Nicholaus Methonen.

* 1.128In this whole Chapter is nothing worth the reading, and much lesse the aunswering, for he doeth nothing but cite and vrge the sayings of these two late writers, of whose authoritie he knoweth we make none account, as there is no reason why we should, they being members of the Popish Church. For the auncient writers whome he nameth, their sayinges haue beene already weyghed and aunswered.

The three and sixtieth Chapter, taryeth in the exposition of the same wordes by Innocentius & Germanus.* 1.129

The authoritie of Pope Innocent the third, which cal∣led the Laterane Counsell,* 1.130 in which transubstantiation was first decreede, must needes be of great credite with vs. But Germanus, bishop of Constantinople, the Popes sworne enimie, I marueile why hee is ioyned with the Pope. For that he saith, is small to M. Heskins purpose, and therefore he helpeth him out with Damascen: yet he confesseth his saying subiect to cauilling. For where he writeth, that in the sacrament, Dominus & conspicitur &c. Our Lorde is both seene and suffereth him selfe to be touched, by the fe••••full and holy mysteries, &c. and so sayeth Chryso∣stome, thou seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him, &c.

Maister Heskins sayeth we reason (and so wee maye in deede) that we eat him, as we see him, which is onely by faith: But M. Heskins with profound Logike, wil aun∣swere this argument, that a thing is sayde to bee seene, when the outwarde formes are seene: and so Christe is seene, when the formes of bread and wine are seene. But by his fauour, a thing is seene: when the proper formes & accidents thereof are seene, but the forme or accidents of bread and wine are not the proper formes of Christes bodie, therefore Christes bodie is not seene by them, no more then I see a man, when I see the house wherein he is, or then I see a knife, when I see the close case or sheath wherein it is. And the words of Germanus can a∣byde no such boyish sophisme, for hee sayeth: Christ is seene by the fearefull and holie mysteries, but neyther bread nor wine by M. Heskins confession, & much lesse the accidēts of them are fearfull & holie mysteries, ther∣fore the whole sacrament is so called, by which Christ is seene, & touched, and eaten, but with the eye, hand, and mouth, of faith.

The foure and sixtieth Chapter, sheweth the exposition of Pe∣true Çluniacensis & Bessarion vpon the same,* 1.131

In this Chapter, beside the sayings of this Dan Peter of Clunye & Bessarion, which for a Cardinals hatt in the counsell of Florence, forsooke the vnitie of the Greeke church, he maketh a short repetition of all the authors names & sayings, whom he hath cited vpō this text: This is my bodie, which because I haue aunswered at large, it were needelesse to recapitulate in this place. I trust the indifferent reader will confesse, that not one of the high∣her house hath giuen a cleare voyce on his syde, but all are most cleare against him.

* 1.132The fiue and sixtieth Chapter, treateth of the bread, blessed, and giuen by Christ to the two disciples in Emaus, and proueth by The∣ophyl••st & Bed••, that it was the sacrament,

It shalbe easily graunted him, that not only these two whome he nameth of late time,* 1.133 but also diuerse of the auncient doctours, are of opinion, that Christ did giue y^e sacrament at Emaus, but yet it followeth not, that it was so. For no certeine circumstance of Scripture, can leade vs or them so to thinke. Beda in 24. Luke writeth thus: ••erti mysterij causae, &c. It came to passe for the cause of a cer∣tein mysterie, that another shape shoulde bee shewed to them in him, and so they should not know him but in the breaking of bred▪ left any man should say, that he hath knowen Christ, if he bee no•• partaker of his bodie, that is to say, of his Church, whose vnitie, the Apostle commendeth at the sacrament of the bread, saying: one bread, we many, are one bodie, that when he reached to them the blessed bread, their eyes were opened, that they might know him. This place indeed sheweth, y^t Beda his opinion was, that y^e sacrament was there giuen, but either for transubstantia∣tion, or the real presence, or for the communion in one kinde, he sayth nothing. For the English church in his time knewe none of all these monsters.

* 1.134The sixe & sixtieth Chapter, proueth the same by S. Augustine and Chrysostome.

* 1.135I sayd before, we confesse, that not Augustine onely, but other also of the fathers were of this opinion. The

place of Augustine hath ben alreadie cited & considered. I would also omit the place of Chrysostome, but that he gathereth further matter out of it, then the pretence of this Chapter. He is cited in Hom. 17. in Math. Quia de san∣ctis, &c. Because we haue begon to speake of holy things, it is not to be left vnspoken, but that sanctification is one thing, and the thing sanctified another: For that is a sanctification that sanctifi∣eth another thing: but that which is sanctifyed cannot sanctifie an∣other thing, although it selfe be sanctified. As for example, thou ••ignest the bread which thou eatest, as Paule saith, it is sanctifyed by the worde of God & by prayer. Thou hast sanctified it, thou hast not made it sanctification. But that which the priest giueth from his hand is not onely sanctified, but also it is sanctification, because that onely is not giuen which is seene, but also that which is vnderstoode. Of the sanctified breade therefore it is lawfull to cast to beastes, and giue it to infidels, because it doth not sanctifie the receiuer. But if that which is taken of the hande of the priest, were such, as that which is eaten at the table, all men would eate of the table, and no man receiue it of the priestes hands. Where∣fore our Lord also did not onely blesse the bread in the waye, but gaue it with his hand to Cleophas & his fellowe. And Paul fasting did not onely blesse the bread, but also reached it with his hande to Luke, and the rest of his disciples.

Three things M. Heskins noteth. First, that Chryso∣stome calleth the sacrament, not only a sanctified thing, but also sanctification it selfe. And here he would haue the aduersarie to answere him, where this sanctification resteth? in the bread, or in the priest. I answere in neither of both, but in Christ, which is the heauenly matter of y^e sacrament receiued by faith: for if sanctification rested in the bread, then all they that receiue the bread should bee sanctified, but all they that receiue the bread, receiue not sanctification, neither be they sanctified, therefore sancti∣fication resteth not in the breade: and so consequently, y^e bodie of Christ is not in y^e bread. And whereas M. Hesk. reasoneth, that y^e priest giueth sanctification, I answere, y^t is said, because he giueth the outward sacrament, as Iohn baptised, yet speaking properly of the ministerie of man,

he restraineth it to the washing of water. The seconde thing he would haue noted, is, that Christe deliuered the sacrament to Cleophas and his fellow, wherof, as Chry∣sostome hath no ground in the scripture, so that which he affirmeth, that Paule in the ship should minister the sacrament (which is the third thing M. Hesk. obserueth) is vtterly false, and confuted by the text. For his exhor∣tation was to the whole multitude, whereof the greatest parte, and almost all, were infidels. And the text sayeth, that they did all receiue foode; & being satisfyed, cast the rest ouer borde to lighten the shippe. But the place, Actes 2. that they continued in the doctrine of the Apostles & communication, & breaking of bread & prayers: I con∣fesse may well and aptly be vnderstood of the participa∣tion of the Lords table, & yet nothing lesse may be ga∣thered out of it, then that horrible sacriledge of robbing the church of the Lords cupp, because bread is onely na∣med, as in the next Chapter shalbe shewed.

* 1.136The seuen and sixtieth Chapter, proueth by the scripture••, and practises in the last Chapter handled, that the Communion vnder one kinde is lawfull and good.

* 1.137It aunswereth to one parte of the challenge (he saith) to proue, that the communion was ministred within 600 yeres after Christe in one kinde onely. And this he will do verie easily. For he beginneth with Christ himselfe, whome moste impudently and blasphemously, he affir∣meth to haue ministred the Communion in one kinde onely, to the disciples at Emaus. First, although diuerse of the olde writers are of opinion, and yet wthout as∣seueration, that Christe there gaue the sacrament, yet none of them is so bolde, to gather any such diuision of the sacrament out of that place. Secondly, notwithstan∣ding their opinion, it is most probable, that hee neuer ministred the sacrament after his first institution thereof, not onely, because there is no mention thereof, but be∣cause he gaue that as the last pledge of his presence with them, immediatly before he departed from them. And

although after his resurrection hee appeared to them at sundrie times, by the space of fourtie dayes, eating and drinking with them, to shewe the certeintie of his resurrection, speaking of the kingdome of God: yet is there no worde of celebrating of the sacrament with them. And it is altogether vnlikely, that he would giue y^e sacrament, the comfort of his absence, at his first returne againe to them, and that he woulde celebrate the same to two disciples, and not to the whole number of his A∣postles, who had as great neede to be confirmed in faith, as those two.

Finally, if euer he had repeated the vse of y^e sacrament, it is moste probable, he woulde haue done it immediat∣ly before his assention, but then he did not (which S. Luke, who sheweth that storie exactly, would not haue omitted) therefore there is no likelihood, that he did it before. But admitt that he did then minister the com∣munion, doth it followe because bread is onely named, therefore the cuppe was not giuen? But Maister Hes∣kins woulde haue it proued, that the figure Synechdoche is here vsed, that is, part named for the whole. For profe, the institution of Christe, and practise of the church, for more then a thousand yeres after Christ, may serue a rea∣sonable man.

Also the vsuall phrase of the scripture, which by bread meaneth whatsoeuer is ioyned with it to be receiued: as Math. 15. & Mark. 7. The disciples are accused for eating bread with vnwashed handes, &c. shall wee here exclude meat and drinke, because bread is onely named? Also, Marke the 3. they had no leysure to eat breade: & Luke 14. Christe came into the house of the Pharizee to eate bread. And Iohn. 6. You seeke mee not because you haue seene the signes, but because you haue eaten of y^e breade and are satisfied. And 2. Cor. 9. He that giueth seede to the sower, shall minister bread for foode. And 2. Thess. 3. wee haue not eaten our breade freely. And in the same Chapter, the disordered persons are exhorted, to labour and eat their owne bread.

In all these places and a great number more, breade onely is named, in which it were mere madnesse to af∣firme, that only bread is spoken of, & not meat or drink. So the whole supper of Christ cōsisting of bread & wine, for the outwarde or earthly parte: vnder the name of breade, the cuppe also is comprehended. Wherefore the practise of Christ is not contrarie to his institution, as M. Heskins most arrogantly, wickedly, and vnlearnedly affirmeth. The second reason he vseth is, that the institu∣tion perteineth onely to priestes, because Christ did then minister it onely to priests. But first, that is not proued nor like to be true: for, seeing our Sauiour Christe did minister the communion in the house of one of his dis∣ciples, with whom he did eat the passeouer, it is not like that he excluded him from the sacrament of the new te∣stament, with whome he was partaker of the sacrament of the olde testament. For proofe that both he and his familie were partakers of the Passouer with him, it is ma∣nifest, that it was not possible for thirteene persons to eate vp a whole sheepe and other meat also at one meale. For it was a sheepe of a yeare olde, although it were a verie small one, and must be eaten with the head, feete & the purtenaunce, and nothing reserued vnto the mor∣rowe. But graunt that onely the Apostles were parta∣kers of the first institution by the same reason, y^t the one part of the sacrament perteined to them only, the other parte also might be left to them onely, and so the peo∣ple should haue neither of both kindes, because one∣ly priestes had both kindes deliuered vnto them.

Further he sayeth, the doctrine of Saint Paule is not sufficient to proue, that the sacrament ought to bee mi∣nistred in both kindes: for Saint Paule doth but onely set foorth the institution without an exclusiue, excluding all other ma∣ners but this. O shamelesse dogge: is not the instituti∣on of Christe an exclusiue of all other manners? take example of baptisme, is it lawfull to baptise with any other lycour then water? into any other name, then the name of the Father, the Sonne▪ and the holy Ghost? yea,

it is sayed in the Actes, that the Apostles baptised in the name of Iesus Christe: and yet no man will saye, y^t they brake the institution of Christe, and baptised onely in the name of Christe, excluding the father and the holy ghoste. Euen so it is sayde, they continued in breaking of breade, shall wee not vnderstande this after the insti∣tution, as well as the other? Againe, if the institution of Christ, had not heene an exclusiue of all other man∣ners, howe doth the Apostle, by the institution of Christ, reproue another manner brought in by the Corinthians? Finally, when the holy Ghost by Saint Paule, commaun∣deth euery Christian man and woman to trye themsel∣ues, and so not onely to eate of that breade, but also to drinke of that cupp: what Lucifer is that, which wil op∣pose him selfe against the flatt commaundement of the holie ghost, 1. Cor. 11. and saye, the lay people shall not drinke of that cuppe, or may be without the cupp well ynough? But the doctrine of the Catholike church (as he sayeth) is, that the whole sacrament is in either of both kindes, the bloude is in the bodie, and the bodie in the bloud. But this is neither the doctrine of Christ, nor the doctrine of the church of Christ. For Christ to shewe, that he is a perfect nourish∣ment vnto vs, which of necessitie consisteth of meate and drinke, and neither of both can be lacking, for the nou∣rishment of our bodies: hath instituted his sacrament both in bread and drinke, to testifie vnto vs, that wee are perfectly fedd in him, and therefore hath deuided the sa∣crament into two signes, the one to signifie his bodie, as meate, the other to represent his bloud, as drinke: and therefore confounded be he, y^e confoundeth these things, which his heauenly wisedome hath thus mercifully di∣stinguished. Iustinus also a moste auncient writer of the church affirmeth, that the sacrament consisteth of a drye and moyst nourishment, in Dialog. Cum. Tryphone aduersus Iudęos.

And euen this verie diuision of the sacrament, suf∣ficiently confuteth both transubstantiation & the carnal presence. For, if he had purposed to giue vs his naturall

bodie in the forme of bread, or otherwise in the bread, he would not haue deuided his bloud from his bodie. But euen hereby he taught vs, that hee spake of an hea∣uenly, mysticall, and spirituall manner of eating his bo∣die, and drinking his bloud by faith, and not of a swal∣lowing or gulping in of the same at our mouth and our throte. But the cuppe (saith Maister Heskins) is the bo∣die of Christ, and howe is it consecrated? by these words, This is my bloud. Why? where is nowe the plaine wor∣des of scripture, where bloud is taken for a whole bodie? But seeing Christ sayth further, This is my bloud which is shed for you, and that bloud, which was shed for vs, was separated from his bodie, therefore this bloud in y^e cuppe is separated from his bodie. And in verie deede, the mysterie of the cuppe is sett forth, in that he sayeth, his bloud was shedd for vs, and not as it remayned in the veynes of his bodie: for, not his bloud in his bodie, but the shedding of his bloud, hath washed our consci∣ences from dead workes, to serue the liuing God. So the breaking of his bodie on the crosse, hath made it a spi∣rituall meat for vs to feede vppon, and therefore he saith: this is my bodie which is giuen for you.

And so sayeth Hesychius verie well of the crosse, Quae etiam superimposi∣tam Dominicam carnem esibilem hominibus reddit: nisi enim su∣perimposita fuisset cruci, nos corpus Christi nequaquam mysticè perciperemus. The crosse maketh our Lordes fleshe layde vpō it eatable of men: for except it had been layde vpō the crosse, we should not receiue mystically the bodie of Christ in Leu. lib. 2. Cap. 6.

But M. Heskins by miserable detorting of a worde or two, woulde make the auncient fathers patrones of his monstrous sacriledge, as though they taught whole Christ to be vnder eche kinde, of which opinion, there is not one title to be found in all their workes. First, Cy∣prian de Cana Domini, Panis iste communis in carnem & sangui∣nem Domini mutatus, pro••urat vitam. This common bread being changed into the bodie and bloud of our Lorde, procureth life. But here Maister Heskins playeth his olde parte most impu∣dently,

falsifying the wordes of Cyprian, by adding Do∣mini, and leauing out that which followeth, and ma∣keth all out of doubt, that Cyprian speaketh not here of the sacramentall bread, but of common breade.

His wor∣des are these: Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem mutatus, procurat vitam & incrementum corporibus, ideo{que} ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas, sensibili ar∣gumento edocta est, visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae ęternae ef∣fectum, & non tam corporali, quàm spirituali transitione nos Christo vnitos. This common breade being chaunged in∣to fleshe and bloud, procureth life and increase to our bodies: therefore the weakenesse of our faith being hol∣pen by the accustomed effect of thinges, is taught by a sensible argument, that in the visible sacrament, is the effect of eternall life, and that wee are vnited to Christ, not so much by a bodily, as by a spirituall transition.

You see therefore, howe shamefully hee abuseth Cy∣prian.

Who seeing hee was so vehement against them that vsed water onely in the cuppe, would he (think you) al∣lowe, that neither wine nor water shoulde be giuen? Especially, when hee giueth a generall rule, that the in∣stitution of Christe bee precisely obserued, and that no∣thing else is to be done concerning the cuppe, then that Christe him selfe did before vs, lib. ••. Ep. 3. Caecilio. But are Papistes ashamed of forgerie, to mainteine their false doctrine of transubstantiation?

After Cyprian, hee depraueth the wordes of Irenaeus lib. 5. Calicem qui est creatura suum corpus confirmauit.

The cuppe which is a creature, he confirmed to be his bodie: but it followeth, which he craftely omitteth, Ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando ergo & mixtus Calix & factus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis, & corporis Christi, &c. Of which hee doeth increase our bodies. When then the mixed cuppe and breade that is made, re∣ceiueth the worde of God, the Eucharistie or sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christe is made.

Whether there bee eclipsis or synechdoche in the for∣mer

wordes, thou mayst see plainly here, that hee meant not to exclude the bread, but that they both together make the sacrament. But Maister Heskins alledgeth fur∣ther out of Irenaeus: Sanguis non est nisi a venis, & carni∣bus & reliqua quae est secundùm hominem substantia. Bloud is not but of vaines and fleshe, and other substance of man. By these wordes which he vseth to proue, that Christe had a true bodie, because he had bloud, M. Heskins like a wise man would proue that wheresoeuer bloud is, there must be fleshe, and vaines also, wherein all the pudding wiues of Louayne will holde against him. In deede, bloude commeth from vaynes and fleshe, (as Irenęus sayeth) but it doth not followe, that where bloud is, there must be vaines and fleshe. As for the saying of Bernarde, wee are as little moued withall, as M. Heskins with Melan∣cthon, to whome in his brauerie, he sayeth vale, and will cleaue to the substantiall doctrine of the fathers for the communion in one kinde, of which he is not able to bring one. But to conclude this Chapter, If he be asked why Christe did institute the sacrament vnder both kindes, if it bee sufficient to receiue one: he aunswereth, to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion. But all Christian men ought to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion, therefore he did institute it, for all Christi∣an men to receiue vnder both kindes. And so S. Paule concludeth, as often as you eate of this bread, and drink of this cuppe, you shewe the Lordes death vntil he come. Wherefore the scripture is directly contrarie to the sa∣crilegious decree of the Papistes, of receiuing the sacra∣ment in one kinde onely.

* 1.138The eyght and sixtieth Chapter, proueth the same receipt vn∣der one kinde to be lawfull, by the auncient practise of the Church.

Before these substantiall proues come in, he taketh vpon him to aunswer the obiections of the aduersaries.* 1.139 And first of the Bohemnians, who vsed that place out of the sixt of S. Iohn, Except you eat the fleshe of the sonne of

man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you. These & such like textes out of that Chapter, must needes be in∣uincible argumentes against the Papistes, which holde that those sayinges are to bee vnderstoode of the sacra∣ment, first and principally. And otherwise, for as much as the Lordes supper is a seale and sacrament of that do∣ctrine and participation of the fleshe and bloude of our sauiour Christ, which he there teacheth: we may necessa∣rily gather, y^t seeing he ioyneth eating and drinking in y^e thing, we may not omitt either of them in the signe.

And where as y^e Papistes would shift off that matter with their concomitans of bloud with the bodie, it will not serue, seeing he requireth drinking, as necessarily as ea∣ting, euen as he is a perfect foode: and therefore, is not meate without drinke, but both meate and drinke.

Therefore, diuerse counsels, and specially Bracarense tertium Capitul. 1. and it is in the decrees De Con. Dis. 2. cum omne, as it reformed many corruptions, that were crept into the Church about the ministration of the cup, so this was one, which they reproued, that they vsed to dippe the breade in the cup, and so deliuer it to the peo∣ple.

Illud verò quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tra∣dunt eucharistiam populis, nec hoc probatum ex Euangelio testi∣monium receperunt, vbi Apostolis corpus suum commendauit & sanguinem, Seorsim enim panis & seorsim calicis commendatio memoratur. Nam intinctū panem alijs Christum praebuisse non le∣gimus, excepto illo tantùm discipulo, quem intincta buccella magi∣stri proditorem ostenderet, non quae sacramenti huius institutio∣nem signaret. That also is to be condemned, that to make perfect the communion, they deliuer to the people, the sacrament dipped in the cupp, neither haue they recei∣ued this testimonie brought out of the Gospell, where he deliuered to his Apostles both his bodie & his bloud, for seuerally of the breade, and seuerally of the cupp, the deliuerie is mentioned. For we read not that Christ gaue dipped bread to others, except that disciple only, whome the dipped soppe shewed to be the traitour of his maister, but did not set forth the institution of this sacrament.

Note here the iudgement of this Counsell, that the in∣stitution of Christ is to be obserued. Secondly, that they are condemned, that receiue not the testimonie of that first institution, as an onely rule to followe in the mini∣stration of the sacrament, as the Papistes do. Thirdly, that the bloud must not be deliuered in the bread, and the bo∣dy in the cuppe, but seuerally the breade, and seuerally the cup must be deliuered. Fourthly, that the communi∣on is not perfect, without both kindes, which euen they confessed, that dipped the bread in the wine, and so gaue it foorth. Fiftly, consider if this Counsel could not al∣lowe the ioyning of both kinds in one soppe, what would they haue thought of taking one kinde cleane away?

But to follow Maister Heskins. The second obiection, and that presseth him hardest, is the saying of Gelasius bishop of Rome: That the diuision of one and the same myste∣rie cannot be done without great sacriledge. To auoyde this most manifest and cleare authoritie, he thinketh it suffi∣cient to shewe, that the decree was made against other he∣retiques, namely, the Manichees & Eutychians, as though it were sacriledge in one kinde of heretiques, and lawful in an other. He saith, the Manichees, to cloake their he∣resie, would dissemblingly receiue the breade, and would not receiue the cup, bicause they held that Christ had but a fantasticall body, without bloud. And the Eutychians ioyned with them, which receiued the breade as a sacra∣ment of the diuine body of Christe, in which was no bloud.

Concerning the Eutychians, there might bee some such fantasie, if they ioyned with the Manichees in this point, which presently I doe not remember that I haue read. But concerning the Manichees, it is certaine, there was an other cause of their refusall of the cup, bicause they condemned all drinking of wine. And of them it see∣meth, that Leo spake, Serm. 4. de quadra. which M. Hes∣kins rehearseth. Abducunt se &c. They withdrawe them selues from the sacrament of the health of man, and as they deny Christe our Lorde to be borne in the veritie of our flesh, so they doe not be∣leeue,

that he did verily die, and rise againe, and therefore they con∣demne the day of our health and of our gladnesse, with the sadnesse of their fasting. And when to couer their infidelitie, they are so bold to be present at our mysteries, they so temper them selues in the communion of the sacraments, that sometimes they are more safely hidden. With vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe, but the bloud of our redemption they altogether refuse to drinke: which thing we will your holinesse to vnderstand for this cause, that suche kinde of men may be knowne to you and by these tokens, and that they whose sacrilege and dissimulation shall be found out being no∣ted and bewrayed, by the Priestly authoritie, may be banished the societie of the Saints. This M. Hes. confesseth to be spoken a∣gainst the Manichees. And I wold he would further note, that Leo chargeth them with dissimulation ioyned with sacriledge, which yet is more tollerable, then the Papistes open impudencie and violent sacriledge. But here he no∣teth a plaine place for the proclamer, in that Leo saith: with vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe, but that Leo so calleth y^e sacrament of the body of Christ, which after a certaine manner is the body of Christe, and not simply or absolutely, it appeareth by that which fol∣loweth imediatly, that those heretiques refuse to receiue the bloud of our redemption, whereby hee meaneth the cup and the sacrament of his bloud, for if hee should not meane the outward sacramentes, but the body and bloud of Christ indeed, how could his body be receiued without his bloud? Therefore it is manifest hee speaketh of the signes and not of the things signified euen by their owne rule of concomitance.

And nowe followeth the whole saying of Gelasius, Comperimus autem &c. We haue found out of a certaintie, that certaine men after they haue receiued a portion of the holy body, do abstaine from the cup of the holy bloud, who (bicause I knowe not by what superstition they are taught to be withholden) let them without all doubt receiue the whole sacramentes, or else let them bee forbidden from the whole. For the diuision of one and the same mysterie, can not be done without great sacri∣ledge. Maister Heskins to shift off this place, saith, it was

written against the Manichees. But that is altogether vnlike, for then Gelasius would not haue saide, he knewe not by what superstition they were led, for he knewe well the blasphemies of the Manichees. Wherefore it is cer∣taine, they were other such superstitious people, as the Papistes be nowe. But if it were written against the Ma∣nichees, the Papistes following their steppes, shall gaine nothing, but proue them selues to ioyne with the Mani∣chees.

Secondly Maister Heskins saith, the diuision of one my∣sterie, is not the diuiding of the cuppe from the breade, but of the body of Christ from his bloud, which the Ma∣nichees did. Although hee bee worthie to be knocked in the head with a mall, that will not vnderstand Gelasius, to speake of the sacrament, yet there is no shadowe of rea∣son to shrowde him most impudently affirming the con∣trarie. For the Manichees did not diuide the body of Christe from his bloud, but vtterly denyed him to haue either body or bloud. Againe, when hee saide imme∣diately before, that they should eyther receiue the whole sacramentes, or abstaine from the whole, hee addeth this for a reason. For the diuision (sayth hee) of one and the same mysterie, can not bee done without greate sacri∣ledge. Hee therefore that denyeth him to speake one ti∣tle of diuiding the one kinde from the other, is woorthie to bee diuided in peeces, and to haue his partes with hy∣pocrites, where shall bee weeping and gnashing of teeth. But as though he had not passed impudencie her selfe al∣readie, hee falleth on rayling against the proclamer, that had not brought foorth past halfe a score wordes of this place, suppressing the rest for very shame, they make so much against him. Surely, in all reasonable mens con∣sciences, what so euer hee left out of this place, hee left the aduauntage of his owne cause, and no title againste him.

But let vs see here what Maister Heskins, a man of in∣uention passing Sinon the Gręcian, hath gathered out of it. There bee two thinges in this place plainely

taught: The first is, the reall presence of Christes body and bloud, in that he so reuerently calleth the sacrament vnder one kinde, the portion of the Lords body, and the other he calleth the cup of the ho∣ly bloud. For the spiritual bloud is not contained in external or ma∣terial vessels. No syr, but the sacramēt of his natural bloud is, wherof he speaketh: as it is manifest by the words im∣mediatly before, the portion of the Lords body, for his natural body is not broken into portions, but the bread which is a sacrament thereof, is broken, and therby is shewed, what wicked men receiue both in this saying of Gelasius, & in the other of Leo, not the naturall body of Christe, which cannot be receiued in portions, but a portion of the sacra∣mental bread, which is therfore called the body of Christ, bicause it is so indeed to them that receiue it worthily, & is consecrated to that vse, that it may be the cōmunication of the body of Christ. And as it hath ben often shewed, sa∣craments beare the names of the very things wherof they are sacramēts. The second thing that he teacheth (saith M. Hes.) is, that he calleth not these two kindes, Sacramentum, a sacrament, but, Sacramenta, sacramentes, in the plural number signifying ther∣by, that each of them is a whole sacrament. O new Diuinitie! thē ye Papistes haue eight sacraments. But are you such a pru∣dent gatherer M. Hes? it appeareth you wil lease none ad∣uantage for the taking vp. I commend you. But for all y^t, doth not your Authour Leo call both kindes sacramentum a sacrament? and that is more (for it is too too childish, to reason of the singular number) doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kindes, Vnum idémque mysterium, one and the same mysterie? And when he vseth y^e plural num∣ber, the ground of your Achillean argument, doth he not say, Integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Let them take the whole sacramentes, or else let them be kept from the whole, signifying, that they which tooke the bread onely, tooke but halfe the sacramentes, and none took the whole, but they that tooke the cup also.

But nowe for the practise of the Primitiue Church to haue receiued in one kinde: he saith, that in time of per∣secution, the Priest deliuered them of the sacrament wrap∣ped

in fine linnen clothes to carie home with them, and to receiue it secretly by them selues, and this could bee none other, but the sacrament vnder the fo••ne of breade. Admit it were so, that they caried home the sacrament, yet it followeth not, but they might as well carie the wine in a faire pot, as they caried the breade in a faire cloth. And although Tertulliā writing to his wife, name bread only, yet doth it not followe, but that he compre∣hendeth the cup also. The wordes of Tertullian are be∣fore rehearsed and answered, Lib. 1. cap. 24. & 27.

Next is brought in Basil. Episto. ad Caesareant patriciam. Illud autem &c. As for that to be a grieuous thing in the times of persecution, any man to be inforced to receiue the communion with his owne hand, the Priest or Deacon not being present, it is more then nedeth to proue, for bicause the same thing is by a long custome, and by the very vse of things established. For all they that in the wildernesse lead a solitarie life, where there is no Priest, keeping the communion at home, communicate of them selues. But in Alexan∣dria and Ae••ypt, euery one of the people for the most part, haue the communion in their owne house. For when the Priest doth conse∣crate the sacrifice and distribute it, we must well beleeue to partici∣pate and receiue it. For in the Church the Priest giueth part, and he that taketh it receiueth it with all libertie, and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand It is therfore the same thing in vertue, whether a man take one part of the Priest, or many parts together. Of the credite and authoritie of this Epistle, which being cited in the name of Saint Basil, is not to be found in all his workes, I haue spoken before sufficiently, as also of the reseruation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first booke cap. 27. But for the communion in one kinde, I see nothing that he saith, sauing that Maister Heskins gathereth, that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hote countries conueniently in their own kind such long time, as they were forced to reserue the sacrament in the wildernes and else where. But I aunswere him, that such strong wine as they haue in those hote countries, will bee kept longer from sowring, then the breade will bee from moulding, and therefore his gathering is altogether fond & ridicu∣lous.

But now you shall heare a more plaine testimoine for this re∣ceipt vnder one kinde, if you will hearken to S. Cyprian. He is ci∣ted In sermone de Lapsis, a long saying & to litle, yea to no purpose at all. Praesente ac teste meipso, &c. Heare what came to passe, my selfe beeing present and witnesse. The parentes of a childe flying by chaunce, while for feare they tooke no good aduisement leaft their young daughter vnder the cherishing of a nource, the nource brought her so left, vnto the Magistrates. They before an Idole where the people were gathered, because for her age she could yet eate no flesh, gaue vnto her bread mixed with wine, which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish. Af∣terwarde the mother receiued her daughter. But the litle mayde could no more speake and declare the offence, that was committed, then vnderstand it before and forbidde it. Through ignorance ther∣fore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her, whyle we were sacrificing. But truely the girle beeing among the Saintes, not abiding our prayer and supplication, sometime was constrained to crie out, sometime with vehement greefe of minde was tossed here and there, euen as though a tormentor compelled her, the ignorant soule, by such tokens as she could, acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those yong and tender yeres. But after the solemnities beeing accomplished, the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present, and when the rest had receiued, and her place was next, the little one by the instinct of Gods Maiestie, turned away her face, pressed her mouth with her lippes stopped, refused the cuppe. Yet the Deacon persisted, and though it were against her will, powred in somewhat of the sacrament of the cuppe. Then followed belking and vomite. In a bodie, and a mouth that was defiled, the Eucharistie could not remaine. The drinke sanctified in the bloud of our Lord, brake out of her polluted bowels, &c. Out of this Hi∣storie, Maister Heskins gathereth two thinges.

First, that the sacrament in that time was ministred to infantes which was in deede a great abuse, contrarie to the worde of God. Secondly, that this childe receiued onely the cup, which is false, for though she was not so troubled at the receipt of the bread, yet it followeth not that she receiued no bread, but contrariwise Cyprian saith, the Eucharistie (by whiche wordes the fathers alwayes vnderstand the

whole sacrament) could not remaine in her bodie.

And whereas he reasoneth foolishly, that if she had receiued the bread, she should like wise haue beene troubled: he must vnderstand, that when God worketh a miracle, he taketh times and occasions at his pleasure. And it is like he would not discouer her pollution that come by bread and wine, before she had receiued both bread and wine as the sacrament. If I should vrge vpon this place, as the scoole men doe, whether this that was vomited, was the bloud of Christ, and what should be done with it, or what was done with it in this storie, I should trouble him more then he could easily answere.

Another tale he telleth out of Sozomenus. Eccl. hist. lib. 8. Cap. 5. Ioanne Constantinopolitanum, &c. When Iohn Chry∣sostome did very well gouerne the Church of Constantinople, a cer∣teine man of the Macedonian heresie, had a wife of the same opi∣nion. When this man had heard Iohn teaching what was to bee thought of God, he praysed his doctrine, and exhorted his wife to be of the same minde with him. But when she did more obey the words of noble women, then his conuersation, and after many admonitions her husband had profited nothing: Except (quod he) thou be a cōpa∣niō with me in Diuine matters, thou shalt not be hereafter a parta∣ker of liuing with me. When the woman heard this, & promised her consent dissemblingly, she cōmunicated the matter with a certeyne maide seruant, which shee iudged to be trustie vnto her, and vseth her seruice to deceiue her husband. And about the time of the mys∣teries, (they that be receiued to them know what I say) she keping that she had receiued, fell downe as though she would pray. Her maide, standing by, giueth her priuily, that which she brought in her hand with her, which thing, when it was put to her teeth, it congeled into a stone. The woman beeing astonnied fearing least a∣ny euil should happen to her, for that thing whiche came to passe from God, made hast to the Bishop, and bewraying her selfe, sheweth the stone, hauing yet vpon it, the markes of her bit, and shewing an vnknowen matter, and a wonderful colour, and also desiring pardon with teares, promised that she would agree with her husband. And if this matter seeme to any man to be incredible, this stone is a wit∣nesse which is kept to this day among the Iewels of the Churche of

Constantinople. If this storie be true, as it is no article of our beleefe, yet proueth it not, that the communion was ministred in bread only, to all the rest, that would re∣ceiue the cuppe, although I wote not what was turned in∣to a stone, before the time came she should receiue the cuppe. If M. Heskins will vrge, she could not haue any thing to conuey into her mouth in steede of the wine, I answere, she might easily counterfet the drinking, by kis∣sing the cuppe, and so letting it passe from her, without tasting thereof. Wherefore this is but a blind and vnrea∣sonable coniecture of Maister Heskins, that the sacra∣ment was ministred in one kinde, because she that had dissembled in the receipt of one kinde, was punished with depriuation from both kindes.

The last reason he vseth, Is that it is testified by learned men, that the manner of receiuing vnder one kinde, which is vsed in all the Latine Church vpon good Friday, on which day the priest receiueth the hoste consecrated vpon maundie Thursday, hath been so vsed from the primitiue Church.

But what learned men they be, except such as him selfe, and what proofes they haue of this vsage, he sayeth not so much as halfe a word. The whole matter standeth vpon his owne credite. But if he, and all the learned of that side, should fast from good Friday vntill they haue shewed proofe of such an vse in y^e primitiue church, (not as they vse to fast in Lent,) but from all manner of nourishment, there would not one learned Papist be left aliue on gang Monday to shew what proofes they haue found.

Thou hast seene (Reader) what his reasons and authorities are, iudge of the answers according to thy discretion.

¶ The end of the second Booke.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Hesk.
• * 1.2

  Fulk.
• * 1.3

  Hesk.
• * 1.4

  Fulke.
• * 1.5

  Hesk.
• * 1.6

  Fulke.
• * 1.7

  Hesk.
• * 1.8

  Fulk.
• * 1.9

  Hesk.
• * 1.10

  Fulke.
• * 1.11

  Hesk.
• * 1.12

  Fulke.
• * 1.13

  Hesk.
• * 1.14

  Fulk.
• * 1.15

  Hesk.
• * 1.16

  Fulk.
• * 1.17

  Hesk.
• * 1.18

  Fulk.
• * 1.19

  Hesk.
• * 1.20

  Fulke.
• * 1.21

  Hesk.
• * 1.22

  Fulk.
• * 1.23

  Hesk.
• * 1.24

  Fulke.
• * 1.25

  Hesk.
• * 1.26

  Fulk.
• * 1.27

  Sermo, de oration. Dom.
• * 1.28

  Hesk.
• * 1.29

  Fulke.
• * 1.30

  Hesk.
• * 1.31

  Fulke.
• * 1.32

  Hesk.
• * 1.33

  Fulke.
• * 1.34

  Hesk.
• * 1.35

  Fulk.
• * 1.36

  Hesk.
• * 1.37

  Fulke.
• * 1.38

  Hesk.
• * 1.39

  Fulk.
• * 1.40

  Hesk.
• * 1.41

  Fulke.
• * 1.42

  Hesk.
• * 1.43

  Fulk.
• * 1.44

  Hesk.
• * 1.45

  Fulk.
• * 1.46

  Hesk.
• * 1.47

  Fulke.
• * 1.48

  Hesk.
• * 1.49

  Fulke.
• * 1.50

  Hesk.
• * 1.51

  Fulke.
• * 1.52

  Hesk.
• * 1.53

  Fulke.
• * 1.54

  Hesk.
• * 1.55

  Fulk.
• * 1.56

  Hesk.
• * 1.57

  Fulk.
• * 1.58

  Hesk.
• * 1.59

  Fulk.
• * 1.60

  Hesk.
• * 1.61

  Fulke.
• * 1.62

  Hesk.
• * 1.63

  Fulk.
• * 1.64

  Hesk.
• * 1.65

  Fulk.
• * 1.66

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.67

  Hesk.
• * 1.68

  Fulk.
• * 1.69

  Hesk.
• * 1.70

  Fulke.
• * 1.71

  In Ioan. 14.
• * 1.72

  Hesk.
• * 1.73

  Fulk.
• * 1.74

  Hesk.
• * 1.75

  Fulke.
• * 1.76

  Hesk.
• * 1.77

  Fulke.
• * 1.78

  Hesk.
• * 1.79

  Fulk.
• * 1.80

  Hesk.
• * 1.81

  Fulk.
• * 1.82

  Hom. 46. in Ioan.
• * 1.83

  Hesk.
• * 1.84

  Fukle.
• * 1.85

  Hesk.
• * 1.86

  Fulke.
• * 1.87

  Hesk.
• * 1.88

  Fulk.
• * 1.89

  Hesk.
• * 1.90

  Fulk.
• * 1.91

  Hesk.
• * 1.92

  Hesk.
• * 1.93

  Fulke.
• * 1.94

  Hesk.
• * 1.95

  Fulke.
• * 1.96

  Hesk.
• * 1.97

  Fulk.
• * 1.98

  Hesk.
• * 1.99

  Fulk.
• * 1.100

  Hesk.
• * 1.101

  Fulke.
• * 1.102

  Hesk.
• * 1.103

  Fulk.
• * 1.104

  Hesk.
• * 1.105

  Fulke.
• * 1.106

  Hesk.
• * 1.107

  Fulke.
• * 1.108

  Hesk.
• * 1.109

  Fulk.
• * 1.110

  Hesk.
• * 1.111

  Fulke.
• * 1.112

  Hesk.
• * 1.113

  Fulk.
• * 1.114

  Hesk.
• * 1.115

  Fulk.
• * 1.116

  Hesk.
• * 1.117

  Fulke.
• * 1.118

  Li. 4. ca. 34.
• * 1.119

  Hesk.
• * 1.120

  Fulk.
• * 1.121

  Hesk.
• * 1.122

  Fulke.
• * 1.123

  Hesk.
• * 1.124

  Fulke.
• * 1.125

  Hesk.
• * 1.126

  Fulke.
• * 1.127

  Hesk.
• * 1.128

  Fulke.
• * 1.129

  Hesk.
• * 1.130

  Fulk.
• * 1.131

  Hesk.
• * 1.132

  Hesk.
• * 1.133

  Fulk.
• * 1.134

  Hesk.
• * 1.135

  Fulk.
• * 1.136

  Hesk.
• * 1.137

  Fulk.
• * 1.138

  Hesk.
• * 1.139

  Fulke.