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THE THIRD BOOKE OF MAISTER HESKINS PARLEA∣ment repealed by W. Fulke.

* 1.1The first Chapter entereth by Preface into the first text of S. Paule, that toucheth the sacrament, and expoundeth it according to the letter.

TThe Preface is out of Didymus, that di∣uine matters are to be handled with re∣uerence,* 1.2 and considering the difficultie of the scriptures by Hierome, that in matters of doubt, recourse must be had, by Irenęus his aduise, vnto the most auncient Churches, in which the Apostles were conuer∣sant. In so much that Irenaeus saith: Libro 3. Cap. 4. Quid autem, &c. And what if the Apostles, had left vs no writinges, ought we not to haue followed the order of tradition which they deliuered to them to whome they had committed the Churches? Wherevpon Maister Heskins gathereth, that not onely for matters conteined in scripture, but also for traditions vnwritten in the holie scriptures, the fathers are to be credited. But he goeth farre from Irenaeus minde, who confuted the heretiques both by the scriptures, and by the authoritie of the moste auncient Churches, whose traditions must haue beene all our institution, if there had ben no scriptures: But seeing y^t scriptures inspired of God by his gratious prouidence, are left vnto vs, al tradi∣tions are to be examined by them, & that is twise proued (after Irenaeus minde,) whiche is proued both by the scriptures, and by the authoritie of the Churches. Other∣wise the scriptures are sufficient of them selues. 2. Tim. 3. And no tradition or authoritie is to be receiued which is repugnant or contrarie vnto them. The text of Saint Paule, that he speaketh, is written, 1. Cor. 10. Brethren I would not haue you ignorant, that all our fathers were vnder the cloude, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptised by Moses in the cloude and in the sea, and did all eate the same spiri∣tuall meate, and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke, for they

dranke of the same spirituall rocke, which followed them, and the rocke was Christe. Where it is to be noted, that Maister Hes∣kins in steede of the same spirituall meate, and the same spirituall drinke, translateth one spiritual meate, and one spirituall drinke, as though the sense were, that the Fa∣thers did all eate & drinke of one spiritual kind of meate and drinke, but not of the same that we doe. Which is directly contrarie to the meaning of the Apostle, as it ap∣peareth by many reasons, whereof some I will set downe, because this one text of scripture, if it be rightly vnder∣stoode, is sufficient to determine all the controuersies that are betweene vs and the Papistes, concerning the sa∣cramentes. First therefore the argument of Saint Paule is of no force to conuince the Corinthians, except he shewe, that the fathers of the olde Testament, had the same sa∣craments in substance, that we haue, and yet pleased not God by meanes of their wicked life, no more shall we, hauing the same sacramentes if we followe their wicked conuersation. Secondly, except he had meant to make the fathers equal vnto vs in the outwarde signes or sa∣cramentes of Gods fauour, he would rather haue taken his example of circumcision, and the pascal lambe, which all men knowe to haue beene their principal sacraments: then of their baptisme and spiritual foode, which in them was so obscure, that except the spirite of God had by him reuealed it vnto vs it had beene very harde for vs to haue gathered. Thirdly, when he saith the fathers were all baptised, there is no doubt, but that he meaneth, that they all receiued the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ, for there were no reason, why they should re∣ceiue the one sacrament, rather then the other. Fourthly, seeing the Apostle saith expressely, they did eate the same spirituall meate, and drinke the same spirituall drinke, and after doth precisely affirme, that they dranke of the same rocke, which was Christe, it is moste euident, that their spiritual meate was our spiritual meate, namely the bodie of Christ, and their spiritual drinke was our spiri∣rituall drinke, namely the bloud of Christ.

And this place ouerthroweth transubstantiation, the car∣nal presence, the cōmunion vnder one kinde, the grace of the worke wrought, the fiue false sacramentes, the Popish consecration, the Popish reseruation for adoration, and in a manner, what so euer the Papistes teache of the sacra∣ments contrarie to the truth. For if we haue no preroga∣tiue aboue the fathers concerning y^e substance & outward signes of the sacramentes, then we receiue the bodie and bloud of Christ in the sacramentes, none otherwise then they did before his bodie was conceiued of the virgine Marie, and that is spiritually by faith, not carnally with our mouth. The rest of this Chapter is consumed in re∣hearsing out of Chrysostome, the general purpose of the Apostle in these wordes, which we haue shewed before, & it is most plaine, by the text as it followeth: Finally in declaring what temporall benefites the Israelites recey∣ued by the cloude, the sea, manna, and the water of the rocke. But that which is principall, and for which cause the Apostle alledgeth their example, namely, for the spi∣rituall grace that was testified by these outwarde signes, Maister Heskins speaketh neuer a worde.

* 1.3The second Chapter sheweth what these foure thinges done in the olde Law, did figure in the newe Lawe.

In this Chapter he laboureth to shewe, that these sa∣craments of theirs,* 1.4 were not in deed the very same in sub∣stance, that ours are, but onely figures of them. And for this purpose, he citeth diuers authorities of the fathers, es∣pecially Chrysostome, and Augustine, which cal them fi∣gures of our sacraments, whereof we will not striue with him. But he doth not consider, y^t in so calling them, they compare not the substance, or thinges signified by these auncient sacramentes, with the substance or thinges sig∣nified by our sacraments, but the outward signes of theirs with the substance and things signified by ours. As it ap∣peareth in sundrie places of S. Augustine, whose autho∣rities in this Chapter he citeth: which affirmeth that the

fathers also receiued, not only y^e signes of our sacraments, as bare figures, but also the grace and substance of them, whereof they were no counterfet seales. Neither doeth Chrysostome or Origen say any thing to the contrarie, for Chrysostme saith, that as all sortes of men, riche and poore were vnder the cloude, passed through the sea, and were fedde with the same spirituall foode, so in our sa∣cramentes of baptisme and the supper, there is no respect of persons, but all members of the Church are partakers of them alike.

And Origen saying that: Baptisme was then in a darke manner, in the clowde, and in the sea, but nowe in cleare man∣ner regeneration is in water and the holie Ghoste: Doeth both affirme the same sacrament to haue beene then, which is nowe, namely baptisme, and also sheweth the onely difference betweene this and that, when he sayeth, that was after a darke manner and this after a cleare manner. But Augustine is moste playne in many pla∣ces, namely: Tract. in Ioan. 26. speaking of the bread of life, in the sixt of Ihon, he sayeth: Hunc panem signifi∣cauit manna, hunc panem significauit altare Dei.

Sacramenta illa fuerunt: in signis diuersa sunt, sed in re, quae significatur, paria sunt. Apostolum audi. Nolo enim (inquit) vos ignorare fratres, quia patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt, & omnes mare transie∣runt, & omnes per Mosen Baptizati sunt in nube & in mari: & omnes eandem escam spiritualem manducauerunt: spiritua∣lem vtique eandem, nam corporalem alteram: quia illi manna, nos aliud: spiritualem verò, quam nos. This bread did manna signifie, this bread did the altar of God signifie. Those were sacramentes: in signes they are diuerse, but in the thing which is signified, they are equall. Heare what the Apostle saith. For I would not haue you ignorant brethren (sayeth he) that our fathers were all vnder the cloude, and all passed the sea, and were all baptised by Moses in the cloude and in the sea, and they did all eate the same spirituall meate: I say the same spirituall meate, for they did eate another corporall meate, for they did eate manna, and we another thing: but they

did eate the same spirituall meate that we doe.

Likewise in his exposition of the 77: Psalme vpon this very text in hand, he saith thus: Idem itaque in myste∣rio cibus & potus illorum, qui noster, Sed significatione idem non specie: quia idem ipse Christus illis in Petra figuratus: no∣bis in carne manifestatus. The same meate and drinke in mysterie was theirs, which is ours: but the same by sig∣nification, not in cleare manner: because the selfe same Christe was figured to them in the rocke, whiche is ma∣nifested in the flesh vnto vs.

The same S. Augustine also in his booke De vtililate poenitentiae Cap. 1. writeth thus, vpon the same text. Eundem inquit cibum spiritualem manducauerunt: Quid est eundem? Nisi quia cundem quene nos. They did eate (saith he) the same spirituall meate, what is the same? but the same that we eate? and a little after. Eundem (inquit) cibum spiritualem manducauerunt. Suffeceras vt diceret: cibum spiritualem man∣ducauerunt: Eundem inquit: eundem non inuenio quomodo intelli∣gam, nisi eum quem manducamus & nos. Quid ergò, ait aliquis•• Hoc erat manna illud quod ego nunc accipio? Ergo nihil modò ve∣nit si antè iam fuit. Ergo euacuatum est scandalum Crucis? Quo∣modo ergo eundem, nisi quod addidit spiritualem.

They did eate (saith he) the same spirituall meate.

It had suffised that he had said, they did eate a spirituall meate: he saith the same. I can not finde, how I should vnderstande the same, but the same whiche we doe eate. What then sayeth one? Was that Manna the same thing that I doe nowe receiue? Then is there nothing come nowe, if it were then before. Then is the slaunder of the crosse made voide? Therefore how should it be the same, but that he added spirituall? I coulde cite other places out of Augustine, but that I will not cloie the Reader, with two many at once.

"The last parte of the Chapter, would proue, that the baptisme of Iohn was not the baptisme of CHRIST, wherevppon I will not stande, because it is an other controuersie, out of the purpose of the booke, onely I will note these grosse absurdities: that hee denyeth

the baptisme of Iohn to be the very baptisme, and then it followeth, that CHRISTE was not baptised with the very baptisme, who was baptised of Iohn.

Secondly, he denieth, that sinnes were remitted in the Baptisme of Iohn, whiche is directly contrarie to the Scripture: Luke. 3. verse 3. He alledgeth Chryso∣stome for his proofe, but the blinde buzzarde can not see the difference betweene the ministerie of Iohn in his baptisme, and the worke of CHRISTE in the same, whiche maketh him with his fellowes to ima∣gine a difference of baptismes, by as good reason as they might make a difference betweene the Sup∣per whiche was celebrated by CHRISTE him selfe, and that whiche was ministered by his Apostles.

Finally, where the Apostle sayeth expressely, that the Fathers were baptised, hee is so bolde as to say, they were not baptised in deede, but onely recey∣ued a bare figure of baptisme, whiche is as muche for the Apostles purpose, as if hee hadde saide nothing at all.

The thirde Chapter expoundeth the residue of the texte: Et om∣nes candem escam spiritualem, &c.* 1.5

First he declareth that this one meate, whiche the Fathers did eate, was Manna,* 1.6 and that hee proueth by the authoritie of Saint Chrysostome, and Saint Au∣gustine, as his manner is to heape vppe testimonies of the Fathers, where no neede is of any proofe.

Secondly, he determineth wherefore it is called spi∣rituall meate, and the water that flowed out of the rocke, spirituall drinke. Namely, because it was gi∣uen vnto them miraculously, and not naturally, and for none other cause, whiche is altogether vntrue: for as it hath beene prooued before, both out of the text, and confirmed by the iudgement of Saint Augustine, man∣na was called spirituall meate, because it fedde the faithfull, not onely bodily, but also spiritually, with

the bodie of CHRISTE, and the water with his bloud. But Maister Heskins seemeth to builde vpon Chrysostomes authoritie, who in 1. Cor. 10. writeth thus. Quanuis, &c. Although those thinges that were giuen were perceiued by sense: yet they were giuen spiritually, not ac∣cording to the nature of consequences, but according to the grace of the gifte. By these wordes Chrysostome meaneth, that although Manna and the water were sensible things, yet had they a spirituall signification and vertue gi∣uen with them: for as they were not giuen by the or∣dinarie course of nature, but by speciall Diuine power: so they had more then a naturall propertie of nourish∣ment, and were to be esteemed according to the speciall grace, by whiche they were giuen. But Maister Hes∣kins will acknowledge nothing in this miracle of manna, but the feeding of their bodies, nor in the water of the rocke, but the quenching of their thirst, and ser∣uing their bodily necessitie. In whiche grosse mad∣nesse, hee maketh no difference betweene the faith∣full, and their brute beastes, whose thirst and bodily necessitie, that water did satisfie, as muche as their Maisters.

So that if the water bee called spirituall drinke, on∣ly because it was miraculously giuen, this horrible ab∣surditie will followe, that the cattell whiche dranke thereof, did also drinke of the spirituall rocke whiche followed them, which rocke was Christ: which euerie Christian man detesteth to heare. But contrariwise, see∣ing that water was a sacrament of the bloud of Christe, we may see no lesse then three heresies of the Papistes about the sacrament ouerthrowen thereby.

First, because all the people did drinke of the sacra∣ment of Christes bloud, and not the Priestes onely.

Secondly, that the elementes are no longer sacra∣mentes, then they be in vse of ministration. For the water which was a sacrament of Christes bloud vnto the Israelites, so often as they dranke of it, was no sacra∣ment when they occupied it to other necessarie vses.

Thirdly, that bruite beastes, as Dogges, Apes, and myse, eating and drinking the bread and wine that hath beene consecrated to the vse of the sacrament, doe not eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of CHRISTE. For the bruite beastes did drinke of this water, which to the faithfull was consecrated in the right vse thereof, to be the bloud of CHRISTE. Yet did not the bruite beastes touche the sacrament of his bloud.

But Maister Heskins will haue vs to note, That Saint Paule saith not, they dranke of that materiall rocke: but they dranke of a spirituall rocke which followed them, whiche spiritual rocke was Christe. And herevpon he condemneth Oeco∣lampadius, for abusing Saint Paules wordes. The rocke was CHRISTE, to make it a figuratiue speache, whereas the saide proposition is to be vnderstoode grammatically or li∣terally, and not tropically, or figuratiuely: And so is nothing like, to this proposition. This is my bodie. Perad∣uenture the Reader looketh for a newe transubstantia∣tion, when hee heareth Maister Heskins exclude all tropes and figures from this saying, The rocke was Christe. But vouchsafe to heare his reason, and you shall more maruell at his monstruous impudencie. Because it is called a spirituall rocke, therefore there is no trope or figure in the speache.

But admitte that Saint Paule had no relation to the materiall rocke, out of which the waters did flowe, is this a proper and essentiall praedication to say, Christe is a spirituall rocke? will not all the Grammarians, Lo∣gicians, and Rhetoricians in the worlde throwe stones at him, that will so affirme? But all men endewed with reason will confesse, that Manna and the rocke are in one sense of Saint Paule, called spirituall: but the materiall manna was the spirituall meate, by Mai∣ster Heskins owne interpretation, therefore the ma∣teriall rocke was the spirituall rocke out of whiche flowed the spirituall drinke.

But Maister Heskins hath another reason, to proue that the material rock was not called the spiritual rocke, be∣cause

the materiall rocke stoode still in the Wildernesse, but the spirituall rocke followed them. Although Saint Paule meane of the streames and riuers of water, which flowing out of the rocke, followed them all a∣long their iourneys in the wildernesse: Yet if wee vn∣derstande it (as he doeth) of Christe who rather went before them then followed them, it proueth not, that the materiall rocke was not called the spirituall rocke. For in sacraments, that is spoken of the signe often times, which is proper to the thing signified, & wrought by them, as baptisme is called regeneration, the Pascall Lambe, the passing ouer, so the spirituall rocke follo∣wed them, and was Christe. But he woulde faine father his monstrous absurditie, vppon Chrysostome, 1. Cor. 10. Cum dixisset, &c. When he had sayed, that they dranke spiritu∣all drinke, he added: For they dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them, and ioyned to it, and that rocke was Christ. For not of the nature of the rocke (sayeth he) flowed out the water, for then it would haue flowed out before that time, but a certeine other spirituall rocke, wrought all things, that is Christ, which being present euery where, did all the miracles, therefore he sayde following them.

In these wordes, Chrysostome putteth a difference be∣tweene the signe, and the thing signified, that is, the ma∣teriall rocke, and Christe whome because it represen∣ted, it was called a spirituall rocke, as Manna being a corporall foode, was called spirituall meate, because it represented Christes flesh, which is the spirituall meat of our mindes. Otherwise, that the materiall rocke was not called the spirituall rocke, Chrysostome sayeth not. But Saint Augustine, as wee haue shewed before, affir∣meth plainly, that which Maister Heskins denyeth im∣pudently.

Proceeding in his confutation of Oecolampadius his principle, that figures bear the names of things, of which they be figures, as the fierie tongues, the Doue, and the breathing of Christe vppon his Apostles, of the holie Ghoste, and Iohn Baptist, of Helias, he denyeth that any

of these examples doe proue it: for that neither any of these is called the holie Ghoste, nor Iohn called Helias. But he is fouly beguiled: for although hee quarrell at the aduerbe veluti, as it were fyerie, alledging Chryso∣stome to proue, that it was not naturall fyre, or winde, but the holie Ghoste: yet was that visible forme, called the holie Ghoste, as both in the seconde of the Actes, and in the eleuenth it is plaine: Hee sat vppon euery one of them.

If Maister Heskins were posed (as boyes bee in the schoole) who or what sat? hee may not saye the fierie tongues, which is the plurall number, but the holie Ghoste which was represented by them. And Actes. 11. Peter sayeth: The holie Ghoste fell vppon them, euen as vppon vs at the beginning, that is those visible signes, of his inuisible and incomprehensible presence. And whereas hee cauelleth, that the Doue is not called the holie Ghoste: I aske him howe could Iohn saye, he sawe the holie Ghoste which is inuisible, but that he sawe the bodily shape of a Doue, which was a sacrament of him? And as for the breathing of Christe, to signifie the ho∣lie Ghoste, and to bee so called: howe coulde the Apo∣stles vnderstande it otherwise, at that time, when gi∣uing them his breath, he sayde, receiue the holie Ghost, then when he gaue them bread, and sayed: receiue this, it is my bodie? for in both, by an outwarde and visi∣ble sacrament, hee testified, what he did giue them in deede, no more turning the breade into his naturall bo∣die, then his breath into the substaunce of the holie Ghoste.

But of all the rest, it is moste intolerable impudence, that he denyeth Iohn Baptist to bee Helias that was prophe∣sied by Malachie, affirming that the prophesie speaketh of the com∣ming of Helias before the seconde comming of Christ, which shall be to iudgement: saying that Christe doeth not assertiuely saye, that Iohn was Helias, but if ye will so take it, this is hee. But to knocke his blockishe ignorance, or rather serpentine mallice in the head, the Angel in Luk. 1. doth assertiuely

applye that Prophesie to Iohn Baptiste, saying: Hee shall goe before him in the spirite and power of He∣lias, to turne the heartes of the fathers vnto the children, which be the verie wordes of the Prophet. And our sa∣uiour Christe him selfe, Math. 17. and Marke the 9. doth assertiuely saye, that Helias was alreadie come, accor∣ding to the Prophesie, and his disciples vnderstoode, that he spake to them of Iohn the Baptist. What a shamelesse beast is this Heskins, to reason against so manifest a trueth, to mainteine so false an errour? But wee must aunswere his reasons, although no argumentes are to bee heard against the expresse authoritie of the scrip∣tures.

First, he sayeth, that Prophesie cannot be expounded of the first comming of Christ, because he sayth, Helias shall come before the greate and fearfull daye of the Lorde: whereas the first comming of Christe, was not fearfull, but peaceable, not to iudge, but to saue. But he will not vnderstand, that Christes comming, as it was moste comfortable to the penitent sinners, so moste terrible to the hypocrites and obstinate wicked men: witnesse Iohn Baptist him selfe, Math. 3. from the se∣uenth verse to the ende of the twelfth. What shoulde I spende time in so cleare a matter? His seconde reason is of the authoritie of Euthymius, and Chrysostome, which if they go against the plaine authoritie of Christe, who will receiue them? Although neither of them both in the places by him cited, affirme that hee sayeth.

For Euthymius, in 11. Math. Si vultis recipere quod suturum esse dictum est de hoc tempore, siue suscipere, id est, rebus animuni aduertere, ipse est Helias qui venturus erat, vtpote ipsum illi∣us ministerium perficiens: If you will receiue that which is sayed shalbee of this time: or if you will giue your myndes to marke the thinges, he is Helias, which was to come, as one perfourming his ministerie: which Maister Heskins hath falsified by translating thus: If ye will receiue that that is spoken to be done hereafter to be of this present time.

And although Euthymius do hold, that Helias shall come before the seconde comming of Christe: yet doth he affirme, that Iohn is called Helias for similitude of office: Sicut primus Helias, secundus praecursor dicitur:

ita sanè & primus praecursor secundus Helias appellatur, propter simile ministerium. As the firste Helias is called the second fore∣runner: so the seconde forerunner, is called the first He∣lias by reason of like ministerie.

The place of Chrysostome, although either the wor∣des going immediately before, or comming after, doe plainly expresse his minde, which Maister Heskins hath fraudulently concealed: yet as it is cited by him, it ma∣keth nothing for him, but against him. I wil only re∣hearse the place, and leaue the iudgement to the rea∣ders. Rectè apposuit, &c. He hath well added, if you will receiue it: I came not to compell any man:

that hee might seeme to require a thankefull minde of all men. And he signified that Iohn is Helias, and Helias is Iohn. For both they haue taken vppon them one administration, and both are appointed forerunners, wherefore he sayde not, this truely it Helias, but if ye will receiue it, this is hee:

That is, if with diligent studie, and with a gentle, not a contentious mynde, you will consider the dooings of them both.

Thus Chrysostome. And yet I am not ignorant, that else where, he supposeth that Helias the Thesbite shall come before the day of iudgement, which sauoureth of a Iewish fable, more then of a Christian trueth, as is plainly proued before.

The fourth Chapter beginneth to declare by the holy fathers of what things Manna and the waters be figures.* 1.7

He beginneth this Chapter, with a shamelesse lye:* 1.8 for he sayeth, that wee affirme Manna to be a figure on∣ly of the worde of God, which is vtterly false: for wee affirme, that it was a sacramentall figure of the bodye of Christe, and so a figure, that it was in deede the bo∣die

of Christ, after a spirituall manner, to them whiche receiued it worthelie. But Maister Heskins will haue it a figure, not onely of the worde of God, but also of the bodie of Christe in the sacrament, and so a figure, that is was nothing else but a bare figure, and not a sa∣crament.

And this hee hopeth to prooue out of Sainct Am∣brose ad Iren. Ep. 62. Quaeria•• me, &c. Thou askest mee, why the Lorde God did rayne Manna to the people of the fa∣thers, and doeth not nowe rayne it? If thou knowest, he rayneth and daily rayneth from heauen Manna to them that serue him. And that bodily Manna truely, is founde at this day in many places. But nowe it is not a thing of so greate miracle, becaus•• that which is perfect is come. And that perfecte is the breade from heauen, the bodie of the virgine, of which the Gospell doeth sufficiently teache thee. Howe much better, are these things then the former? For they which did eate that Manna, that is that breade, are deade. But whosoeuer shall eate this breade, shall liue for euer. But it is a spirituall Manna, that is, a rayne of spirituall wisedome, which is powred into them, that be wittie and searching is from heauen, and deweth the myndes of the Godly & sweeteneth their iawes.

Because there is nothing in this saying of Saint Am∣brose for his purpose, hee falleth into a greate rage a∣gainst Oecolampadius, for leauing out of this sentence: Quanto praestantiora sunt haec superioribus? Howe much more excellent are these, then the other aboue rehearsed? Which, howesoeuer it was, as I am sure, it was not of a falsi∣fying mynde, so no man in the worlde, might worse ex∣claime against falsifying of the doctours then Maister Heskins, as I haue often shewed, and doubt not but I shall shewe hereafter.

But to the purpose, it is euident, that Saint Am∣brose in the former sentence, speaketh of Manna, as a corporall foode, not as a sacrament, in which respect, there is no comparison between it, & the body of Christ. And he is so farre from saying, that Manna, as it was a sacrament, was but a figure of the bodie of Christ (as M.

Heskins belyeth him) that he saith not at all, that it was a figure.

But hee chargeth vs with two other wicked opinions, namely, That the sacramentes of the newe lawe giue no grace, and that they are of no more excellencie then the sacraments of the olde lawe. To the first we aunswere, and say, that the sa∣cramentes giue not grace of the worke wrought, as they teach, but that GOD giueth grace by his sacramentes in all his elect, wee affirme. And to the second, wee aun∣swere, that as in substaunce the sacramentes of the olde time were not inferiour to oures, so in cleerenesse of re∣uelation and vnderstanding, oures are farre more excel∣lent then theirs, and that the place of Saint Ambrose, which Maister Heskins doeth next alledge, doeth very well shewe. Oriente autem &c. The sonne of righteousnesse ari∣sing, and more bright sacramentes of Christes body and bloud shi∣ning foorth, those inferiour thinges or sacramentes should cease, and those perfect should be receiued of the people. Maister Heskins noteth, that if the sacrament were but a bare signe, it should not be so magnified by Saint Ambrose. But so often as hee chargeth vs with a bare signe, so of∣ten must we charge him againe with an impudently. For wee doe as much detest a bare signe or figure, as hee doth a signe or figure.

As for the three kindes of Manna that Maister Hes∣kins gathereth, is altogether out of Saint Ambrose his compasse. For hee hath no more but the bodily Man∣na, and the spirituall Manna, as the signe and the thing signified. And the rayne of spirituall wisedome, is the spirite of GOD, which sealeth inwardly in the heart, that whiche is expressed outwardly by the exter∣nall signes. I maruell Maister Heskins alledgeth not Saint Ambrose vpon this text 1. Cor. 10. whose woordes might seeme to haue more colour of his bare figure, al∣though they be flat against it in deede.

Manna & aqua∣quae fluxit de Petra, haec dicit spiritualia, quia non mundi le∣ge parata sunt, sed Dei virtute sine elementorum commixtio∣ne ad tempus creata, habentia in se figuram futuri mysterij

quod nunc nos summus in commemorationem Christi Domi∣ni. Manna, and the water which flowed out of the rocke, these he calleth spirituall, bicause they were not prepared by the order of the world, but by the power of God, with out commixtiō of the elements created for a time, hauing in them a figure of the mysterie to come, which nowe we receiue in remembraunce of Christe our Lorde.

By these wordes it is euident, that our sacraments do so differ from theirs, as a figure of that which is to come, and a remem∣brance of that which is past do differ. For all sacramentes haue their strength of the death of Christ. Secondly, we see that this father calleth our sacrament, a mysterie in re∣membrance of Christ: which speach is farre from a corpo∣rall manner of presence, that M. Heskins would main∣taine by his authoritie.

The other places cited out of Euthymius a late writer, as we haue often saide, affirme that Manna was the figu∣ratiue bread, and a figure, but not Christe which was the trueth. Howbeit, he meaneth nothing else, but that Christ was not in flesh present to the fathers in Manna, before he was incarnate, and so vseth the terme, figure, as a prefigu∣ration and shadowing, not of the sacrament, but of Christ him selfe, which is the matter of the sacrament, euen as Christ him selfe in the 6. of S. Iohn, opposing Manna a∣gainst the true bread that came downe from heauen, spea∣keth not of that spirituall meat which Manna was to the faithfull, but of the outward creature, which was onely considered of the wicked, to fill their bellies, and not to feede their soule.

But M. Heskins remitteth his reader, for al matters con∣cerning the 6. of Iohn, to the second booke 36. chapter &c. and so do I to the same places for answere. Neuerthelesse, he will touch a word of Oecolampadius, where he saith, that the inward man is fed by faith, which is so straunge to him, that he neuer read the like phrase in any authen∣tike authour.

By which woondring, he sheweth him selfe to be a great stranger in S. Augustine, who saith In Ioan. Tr. 25. &c. Vt quid paras dentes & ventrem? crede & māducasti.

Why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly? Beleeue, & thou hast eaten. Here faith feedeth the soule, for it feedeth not the belly.

The last text he citeth out of Chrysostom, is alledged more at large in the 30. Chapter of the second booke, where it is also answered.

The fift Chapter, teaching that Manna and the water of the stone be figures of the body and bloud of Christ, by Origen and Saint Ambrose.* 1.9

That the olde writers called Manna and the water, fi∣gures of the body and bloud of Christ,* 1.10 it shal be no con∣trouersie betweene vs and M. Heskins: but whether they denied them to be sacraments of the body and bloud of Christe, or affirmed them to bee nothing but prefi∣gurations of the sacrament, is nowe the question betwixt vs. And therefore these long sentences out of Origen and Ambrose make nothing for him, but much against him. But let vs viewe them: Origen is cited In Num. Hom. 7. Modo enim &c. Nowe when Moses came vnto vs, and is ioyned to our Aethiopesse, the lawe of God is not nowe knowne in figures and images as before, but in the very apparence of the truth. And those things, which were first set foorth in darke speaches, are nowe ful∣filled in plaine shewe and trueth. And therefore he, which declared the plaine forme of figures and darke speaches, saith, we knowe that all our fathers were vnder the cloude, and all passed through the sea &c. Thou seest howe Paule assoyleth the darke riddles of the lawe, and teacheth the plaine shewe of those darke speaches. And a little after. Then in a darke manner Manna was the meate, but nowe in plaine shewe, the flesh of the sonne of God is the true meat, as he himselfe saith▪ my flesh is meat in deed, and my bloud is drink in deede. M. Heskins thinketh, this is as plaine as neede to be, for his onely figure, and the bodily presence: and me thinke it is as plaine for the contrarie. For he affirmeth, that Manna was the same spirituall meate, that the flesh of the sonne of God is nowe, and layeth the difference in the obscure manner of deliuering the one, and the plaine manner of deliuering the other, which can not be vnder∣stoode

of the outwarde signes, which are in both of like plainenesse or obscuritie, but of the doctrine or worde annexed to the signes, which to them was very darke, and to vs is very cleere, that Christes fleshe and bloud are our meate and drinke. For it is well knowne, that Origen knewe neither the Popishe transubstan∣tiation, nor the bodily presence.

For writing vpon the fifteenth of Saint Matthewe, after hee hath shewed that the materiall part of the sacrament goeth into the bel∣lie, and is cast foorth, hee addeth: Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est, qui prodest non indignè comeden∣ti illum. Et hae•• quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore. Mul∣ta porro & de ipso verbo dici possent, quod factum est caro ve∣ríssque cibus, quem qui comederie omnino viuet in aeternum, quem nullus malus edere potest. Neyther that matter of the breade, but the woorde which is spoken of it, is that, which doth profite to him which eateth it not vn∣woorthily. And these thinges are of the typicall or symbolicall bodye: Many thinges also might bee sayde of the Worde it selfe, which was made flesh and the true meate, which hee that shall eate, shall vndoub∣tedly liue for euer, which no euill man can eate.

Doest thou not here see (Christian reader) what Origens minde was of transubstantiation, when hee speaketh of the matter of the breade whiche is eaten? And what his iudgement was of the bodily presence, when hee cal∣leth it the typicall and symbolicall, or figuratiue bo∣dye, distinguishing it from the woorde made fleshe, and the meate in deede? Finally, whether hee thou∣ght that any euill man could eate of the bodye of Christ, which is the spirituall part of the sacrament?

To Origen he ioyneth Ambrose, or rather disioyneth him, for hee diuideth his saying into two partes, pre∣tending to inueigh against Oecolampadius, for lea∣uing out the former parte, but in deede, that hee might raise a dust with his stamping and staring, least the latter part might be seene to be, as it is, a cleare interpretation of the former, and an application of the writers minde

concerning the corporall manner of presence,* 1.11 I will rehearse them both together. Ille ego ante despectus &c. Euen I before despised (speaking in the person of the Gentiles con∣uerted) am nowe preferred, am nowe set before the chosen. Euen I before a despised people of sinners, haue nowe the reuerend com∣panies of the heauenly sacramentes, nowe I am receiued to the ho∣nour of the heauenly table. The rayne is not powred downe on my meate, the spring of the earth laboureth not, nor the fruite of the trees. For my drinke no riuers are to be sought, nor welles. Christe is meate to me, Christe is drinke to me. The fleshe of GOD is meate to me, the bloud of GOD is my drinke. I doe not nowe looke for yearely increase to satisfie me: Christe is ministred to mee daily. I will not bee afrayde; least any dis∣temperature of the ayre, or barrennesse of the countrie shoulde hang ouer mee, if the dilligence of godly tillage doe continue. I doe not nowe wishe the rayne of Quayles to come downe for me, which before I did maruell at. Not Manna which earst they preferred before all meates, bicause those Fathers which did eate Manna, haue hungered. My meate is that, which doeth not fatten the bodye, but confirmeth the heart of man. Before, that breade which came downe from heauen, was woonderfull to mee. For it is written, hee gaue them bread from heauen to eate, but that was not the true breade, but a shaddowe of that was to come. The father hath reserued for me that true breade from heauen.

That breade of GOD descended from heauen to mee,* 1.12 which giueth life to this worlde. It hath not descended to the Iewes, nor to the Synagogue, but to the Church, to the younger people. For howe did that breade which giueth life, descend to the Iewes, when all they, that did eate that breade, that is Manna, which the Iewes thought to bee the true breade, are deade in the wilder∣nesse? Howe did it descend to the Synagogue: when all the Sy∣nagogue perished and fainted, beeing pyned with euerlasting hun∣ger of fayth? Finally, if they had receiued the true breade, they had not sayde: Lorde giue vs alwayes this breade. What doest thou require, O Iewe, that hee shoulde giue vnto thee? The bread which he giueth to all, which he giueth daily, which hee giueth alwayes, it is in thy selfe, that thou maiest receiue this bread.

Come vnto this bread, and thou shalt receiue it. Of this bread it is said, all they that estrange them selues from thee shall perish. If thou estrange thy self frō him, thou shalt perish. If thou come neere vnto him, thou shalt liue. He is the bread of life. He that eateth life can not die. For howe doth he die▪ whose meate is life? How shall he fayle, which hath that vitall substance? Come ye vnto him, and be satisfied, for he is breade. Come ye vnto him and drinke for he is a wel Come ye vnto him and be lightened, for he is light. Come ye vn∣to him, and be deliuered for where the spirite of the Lord is, there is libertie. Come ye vnto him, and be absolued, for he is remission of sinnes. You aske who this may be? Heare ye him selfe saying I am the breade of life, he that commeth to me shall not hunger, and hee that beleeueth in me, shall neuer thirst. You haue heard him, and you haue seene him, and you haue not beleeued him, therefore you are dead.

The latter part of this long discourse sufficiently ex∣poundeth the former. That Christe and the flesh and bloud of God (which M. Heskins noteth to be a plaine place for the proclamer) is so our true meate and drinke, as he is breade, as he is a well, as he is light, as he is liber∣tie, as he is remission of sinnes: that is, after a spiritual ma∣ner. And where he saith, Manna was a figure or shaddowe, and not the trueth of that which was to come: he mea∣neth of Manna, as it was corporall meate, and eaten of the vnfaithfull that are dead, and not as it was spiritual meat, and eaten of the faithfull which are aliue, as S. Augustine saith. Moreouer, it is to be noted, that S. Ambrose saith, that he which eateth this bread which is life, can not dye. Therefore no wicked man eateth this bread, this meate, this flesh of God, which with S. Ambrose are all one. As for the difference of our sacramentes, what it is, we haue shewed before, and this place sheweth none. For Ambrose speaketh of Manna as a corporall meat, and not as it was a spirituall meate and sacrament.

* 1.13The sixt Chapter declareth, that Manna was a figure, by the te∣stimonie of S. Cyprian and Chrysostome.

It hath bene often confessed,* 1.14 that Manna of the olde fathers is called a figure of the body of Christ, but that it was only a bare figure, and not the body of Christe vnto the faithful, that is it we deny. Cyprian is cited to litle or no purpose in ser. de Coen. Dom. Huius panis &c. Of this bread Māna was a figure, which rayned in the desert. So whē we are come to the true bread in the land of promise, that meat fayled. M. Hes∣kins saith, it is more manifest, then that it can be deny∣ed, that this bread he speaketh of, is the holy bread of the sacrament: in which he acknowledgeth to be no breade at all. Then as manifest as he maketh it, it was a figure of Christ, which is the spiritual matter of the sacrament, and not of any holy breade thereof. But this he saith, will be proued by the last wordes of that sermon, which in deede, proue the cleane contrarie to his purpose. Sed & nos ipsi &c. But we also being made his body, both by the sacrament, and by the thing of the sacrament, are knit and vnited vnto our heade, euery one being members one of an other, shewing the ministerie of loue mutually, do communicate in charitie, are partakers of one cup, eating the same meate, and drinking the same drinke, which flow∣eth and runneth out of the spirituall rocke, which meate and drinke is our Lord Iesus Christ. Here is a plaine place for the pro∣clamer, the meate and drinke is our Lorde Iesus Christe. But what proclamer denyeth, that our meat and drinke in the sacrament, is the body and bloud of Christe? This we deny, that the same is present after a bodily maner, or af∣ter a bodily manner receiued, but spiritually onely, or by faith: euen as the same writer faith immediatly before Haec quoties agimus &c.

As often as we doe these things, we sharpen not our teeth to eate, but with sincere faith wee breake and diuide that holy bread. But how can M. Hes∣kins auoyde this, that we are made the body of Christe, as we are partakers of his body in the sacrament?

whiche must needes be spiritually. Howe liketh he the distincti∣on of the sacrament, and the thing or matter of the sacra∣ment, when with Papistes, either there is no difference made betweene the sacrament of his body and his body it selfe, or else the sacrament is nothing else, but the acci∣dents

of breade and wine, by which we are neither made the body of Christ, nor vnited to him. But to auoyde our glose of spiritualitie, he fleeth backe to the saying of Cy∣rillus in 15. Ioan. which he hath so often repeated, and yet mangled and gelded, least the true sense might be ga∣thered out of it. Non tamen negamus &c.

Yet do we not denye, but that we are spiritually ioyned to Christ, by right faith and sin∣cere loue, but that we haue no manner of coniunction with him af∣ter his flesh, that truely we doe vtterly deny, and say it to be alto∣gether repugnant to the holy scriptures. For who hath doubted that Christe is also a vine, and we the branches, which from thence receiue life into vs. Heare what Paule saith, that we are all one body in Christ. For although we be many, yet are we one in him. For we all take part of one breade.

Or doeth he thinke, perhaps that the vertue of the mysti∣cal benediction is vnknown to vs? Which when it is done in vs, doth is not make Christ to dwell in vs corporally, by communication of the flesh of Christ. For why are the members of the faith∣full the members of Christ? &c. In these wordes Cy∣rillus reasoneth against an Arrian, which abusing this text, I am a Vine, and my father is the husband man, saide it was spoken of the deitie of Christ, and could not be ex∣pounded of his manhoode, which Cyrill denyeth, shew∣ing that we are not onely spiritually ioyned to Christe, as to God, but also corporally, that is, to his body as to man, yet after a spirituall manner, as the textes by him al∣ledged doe proue sufficiently, and namely the argu∣ment taken of the vertue of the mysticall blessing, which by communication of his fleshe, maketh vs his members of his body, which all men confesse to bee so after a diuine manner, that euen they which neuer receiued that sacrament, are yet members of Christe, hauing put him on, and beeing ingrafted to him in baptisme.

But Maister Heskins will tell vs the difference of the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, out of August. in deede out of the sentences of Prosper: Hoc est quod di∣cimus &c. This is that we say, that by all meanes we labour to

proue, that the sacrifice of the Church is made of two thinges, con∣sisteth of two thinges, the visible forme or kinde of the elementes, and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe, both of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament, that is, the bo∣dy of Christe. &c. This visible forme, Maister Heskins will haue to be the accidentes onely, then hee will haue a sa∣crifice, whereof one part by his owne interpretation is bare accidentes without a subiect: and thirdly, that it is the body of Christe corporally receiued. But let vs heare, not Prosper, an vncertaine Authour, but Augustine him selfe, declare these thinges vnto vs in Ioan. Tr. 26.

Huius rei sacramentum, id est vnitatis corporis & sanguinis Christi, alicu∣bi quotidie, alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Dominica mensa pręparatur, & de mensa Dominica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res verò ipsa, cuius sacramentum est om∣ni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps su∣erie. The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christe, in some places daily, in some places with certaine distaunces of dayes, is pre∣pared in the Lordes table, and from the Lordes table is receiued, of some persons to life, and of some to de∣struction. But the thing it selfe whereof it is a sacra∣ment, is life to euery man, and destruction to no man, who so euer shall bee partaker of it.

Nowe iudge whe∣ther S. Augustine esteemeth the sacrament to bee one∣ly accidentes, and the thing of the sacrament to bee a bodily presence, whiche the wicked can not bee par∣takers of: or whether the wicked receiue nothing, but the accidents to their destruction, seeing they re∣ceiue the sacrament, but not the thing of the sacra∣ment.

Chrysostome the second barron named in this Chap∣ter, is cited in dictum Apost. Nolo vos igno. Dixi enim quod. &c. For I saide, that the trueth must haue a certaine excellen∣cie aboue the figure. Thou hast seene concerning baptisme, what is the figure, and what the trueth. Go to, I will shewe thee also the tables, and the communion of the sacramentes, to be described there: if thou wilt not againe require of me the whole, but so re∣quirest

these things that are done, as it is meete to se•• in shadowes and figures. Therefore bicause he had spoken of the sea, and of the clo••d, and of Moses, he added moreouer: And they all did eate the same spirituall meate. As thou (saith he) comming vp out of the l••∣uer of the waters, camest to the table, so they also cōming vp out of the sea, came to a newe and wonderfull table: I speake of Manna. And againe, as thou hast a wonderfull drinke the wholesome bloud: so had they also a wonderfull nature of drinke. Here Maister Heskins gathereth, that our drinke is the whole∣some bloud of Christe, which we confesse spiritually re∣ceiued; as it was of the Fathers: likewise to proue that by the table, he meant the body of Christ, he citeth an other place. Sicut autem &c. Euen as he saide, that they all passed thro∣ugh the sea, so he prefigured the nobilitie of the Church, when he saide: They did all eate the same spirituall meat. He hath insinua∣ted the same againe: for so in the Church, the rich man receiueth not one body, the poore man an other, nor this man one bloud, and that man an other. Euen so then the rich man receiued not one Manna, and the poore man an other, neither was this man parta∣ker of one spring, and that man of a lesse plentifull. Not content with this, he addeth another sentence out of the same Ho∣mely. Sed cuius gratia &c. But for what cause doth S. Paule make mention of these thinges? For that cause which I tolde you at the first, that thou mayest learne, that neither baptisme, nor remission of sinnes, nor knowledge, nor the communion of the sacraments, nor the holy table, nor the fruition of the body, nor the par∣ticipation of the bloud, nor any other such thing can profite vs, except we haue a right life, and a wonderfull, and free from all sinne.

Heere Maister Heskins gathereth, that Christes bo∣dye and bloud may bee receiued of wicked men, but eyther hee must vnderstand Sainte Chrysostome spea∣king of the sacramentes, by the name of the thinges whereof they be sacramentes, or else hee will fall into a great absurditie, for he saith, forgiuenesse of sinnes shall not profite, by which he meaneth, the ceremonie of abso∣lution, and not the forgiuenesse of God in deede. Againe he must note an hyperbole or ouerreaching speach in this

sentence, or else whom shal the body and bloud of Christ profite, when no man is free from sinne? But we yet must heare a sentence or two more out of Chrysostome, in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 23. Quae autem &c. Those thinges that followe, doe signifie the holy table. For as thou eatest the Lordes body, so did they eate Manna. And as thou drinkest his bloud, so did they drinke wa∣ter out of the rocke. But here Maister Heskins playes his old part, for he leaueth out that which following imme∣diately expoundeth Chrysostome contrarie to his pur∣pose.

Quamuis in sensu quae dabantur, perciperentur, spiritualiter tamen dabantur, non secundùm naturae consequentiam, sed secun∣dùm muneris gratiam, & cum corpore etiam animam in fidem adducentem nutriuit. Although those thinges that were gi∣uen, were perceiued by sense, yet were they giuen spiritu∣ally, not according to the consequence of nature, but ac∣cording to the grace of the gift, bringing into faith, he nourished y^e soule also with the body. By these words it is most euident, that Manna and the water, were not bare figures or corporall foode onely, but also foode of the soule through fayth, howe so euer Chrysostome in other places speaketh of them as figures, and as corporall food, and in those respectes preferreth our sacramentes before them.

But let vs heare the last sentence: Qui enim illa illis &c. For he which gaue those things vnto them, euen he hath prepared this table: And euen he him selfe brought them through the sea, and thee through baptisme: And to them gaue Manna and water, and to thee his body and bloud. Vpon all these places of Chry∣sostome, Maister Heskins reasoneth, that the Fathers one∣ly receiued a figure, and we the veritie, or else there were no difference, if we both receiue a veritie spiritually, and a figure outwardly. I haue shewed the difference be∣fore, to be, not in the substance or vertue, but in the man∣ner of reuelation, which was to them obscure, to vs cleere, to them in expectation of that which was to come, to vs in assuraunce of that which is fulfilled, namely, the re∣demption by Christes death. For Iesus Christe was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde, and the

onely foode that came downe from heauen, to giue eter∣nall life to all them that did receiue him in all ages past and to come.

* 1.15The seuenth Chapter proceedeth to declare the same by Saint Hierome, and Saint Cyrill.

* 1.16In the beginning of this Chapter Maister Heskins maruelleth that we (whom he counteth the aduersaries of the truth) would leaue a doctrine so vniuersally taught and receiued, as though he had prooued their doctrine of the sacrament to be such, comparing the protestantes, to Esopes dogge that snatching for a shadowe lost the bone out of his mouth: neuerthelesse he will proceede on his matter, if there be any hope to reclayme vs. And first he will choke vs with the authoritie of Saint Hiero∣nyme In 1. Cor. 10. expounding that saying: They did eate the same spirituall meate, &c. Manna figura corporis Christi suit. Manna was a figure of the bodie of Christe. It is ve∣ry true, we neuer saide the contrarie. But the same Hie∣rome in the same place vpon that saying:

The rocke was Christe, Saith, that the rocke was a figure of Christe, which Maister Heskins vtterly denyeth. Quia Christus erat postmodū sequnturus, cuius figuram tunc Petra gerebat: idco pulchrè dixit consequente eos Petra. Because Christe was af∣terward to followe, of whom the rocke was a figure: ther∣fore he saide very fitly of the rocke, that followed them.

By which wordes it is most manifest, that by his iudge∣ment, they dranke of Christes bloud, who was to come, and consequently did eate his bodie, whereof Manna was a figure. But it followeth after in Hieronyme which Maister Heskins rehearseth at large, and to no purpose Omnia enim, quae in populo, &c. For all thinges, which at that time were done in the people of Israell in a figure, now among vs are celebrated in truth: for euen as they by Moses were deliuered out of Egypt, so are we by euerie priest or teacher deliuered out of the worlde. And then beeing made Christians, we are ledde through the wildernesse, that by exercise of contempt of the worlde, and abstinence, we may forget the pleasures of Egypt, so that we

knowe not to go backe againe into the worlde. But when we passe the sea of Baptisme, the diuell is drowned for our sake with all his armie, euen as Pharao was. Then wee are fedde with Manna, and receiue drinke out of the side of Christ. Also the clearenesse of knowledge, as a piller of fire, is shewed in the night of the worlde, and in the heate of tribulation, we are couered with the clowde of Diuine consolation. In these wordes Maister Heskins no∣teth two thinges, the applications of the truthes to the fi∣gures, and the drinke flowing out of the side of Christe. concerning the first, it is cleare, that he maketh their tem∣porall benefites, figures of our spirituall benefites, and in that sense he vseth the tearmes of figures and trueth: for otherwise hee confesseth, that those thinges were truely done among them, and in a figure were the same, that ours are, immediately before these wordes before rehearsed by Maister Heskins:

Ipsis verè facta sunt, quae in figura erant nostra, vt ••imeamus talia agere, ne talia incurramus. Those thinges were truely done vnto them, whiche in figure were ours, that we might feare to doe suche thinges, least we incurre such thinges. As for the drinke flowing out of his side, we confesse to be the bloud of Christe, as I haue shewed a hundreth times, receiued af∣ter a spirituall manner.

But Maister Heskins reasoneth wittily (as he thinketh) when he sayeth: as the Iewes did verily eate Manna, so we doe verily eate the bodie of Christ. But he marketh not howe Hieronyme saith: We are fedde with Manna, and we receiue drinke flowing out of the side of Christ. Wherevpon I will inferre, as we are fedde with Manna, so we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe: but are not fedde with Manna cor∣porally, but spiritually: so we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ, not corporally but spiritually. After this, least we should doubt of this authoritie, as falsly as∣cribed to Hierome, he returneth to Hierome Ad Hedibiam qu. 2. which we cannot refuse to be S. Hierome. But seeing that place is sufficiently answered in the 53. Chapter of the second booke, I wil not trouble the Reader with the repetition.

Likewise the place of Cyprian De Coena Dom. in the 17. Chapter of the first Booke. Likewise the other parcels of Chrysostome he citeth In Matth. 25. Hom. 83. In the 55. Chapter of the second Booke. The other named and not rehearsed be oftentimes answered throughout y^e Booke, and none of them all haue any thing in them for his pur∣pose. Now commeth Cyrill In 6. Ioan. Cap. 19. Non enim prudenter, &c. Those thinges that suffice but for a shorte time, shall not wisely be called by this name, neither was that bread of God which the elders of the Iewes did eate & are dead for if it had bene from heauen, and of God, it had deliuered the partakers of it from death. But contrariwise, the bodie of Christe is bread from heauen, because it giueth eternall life to them that receued it.

Here (saith M. Heskins) is a breefe and plaine testimo∣nie, that manna was a figure, and the bodie of Christ is the thing figured.

This is graunted, but that Cyrill meant to make it only a figure, or a bare figure, it is vtterly false, as appeareth in his commentarie vpon the same Chapter, Lib. 3. Cap. 34. Manna verò figura quaedam vniuersalis Dei li∣beralicatis, loco arrhae hominibus concessa. Manna truely, was a certeine figure of the vniuersall liberalitie of God gran∣ted to men, in place of a pledge, or earnest.

By these words you see, that Manna was not a bare figure, but an earnest, or assurance of all the bountifulnes of God.

And in the same place he saith. Sic enim planè videbitur quod verum Manna Christus erat, qui per figuram Mann•• priscis illis a Deo da∣batur. For so it shall plainely be seene, that Christ was the true Manna, which was giuen of God to those auncient fathers by the figure of Manna.

Thus it is moste eui∣dent, that Manna was not a figure onely of Christe, but that Christe in deede was giuen by that figure, as hee is by our sacrament, and so no corporall presence by his iudgement. Neuerthelesse M. Heskins harpeth on his old string, really, and substantially, and that by this authori∣tie of Cyrillus Cap. 14. in 6. Ioan. Quoniam, &c. Because the flesh of our sauiour is ioyned in the WORDE of God, which is naturally life, it is made able to giue life when we eate it, then haue we life in vs, beeing ioyned to him which is made life.

These wordes indeede doe declare, that whosoeuer ea∣teth the fleshe of Christ is partaker of eternall life, which M. Heskins will not graunt, but with his distinction, spi∣ritually: therefore this place maketh nothing for him, for Cyril speaketh generally. So that no man eateth Christe, but he that eateth him spiritually, and hath life by him. Then no wicked man eateth him, which hath not life, & consequently no man eateth him corporally. But heare what the same Cyril writeth in the same Booke & Chap∣ter.

Haec igitur de caussa Dominus quomodo id fieri possit non eno∣dauit, sed fide id quaerendum hortatur: sic credentibus discipulis fragmenta panis dedit dicens, accipite, & manducate, hoc est corpus meum: calicem etiam similiter circuntulit dicens: Bibite ex hoc om∣nes, hic est calix sanguinis mei, qui pro multis effunditur in remissi∣onē peccatorum. Perspicis quia, sine fide quęrentibus mysterij modum nequaquam explanauit, credentibus autem etiam non quęrentibus exposuit. For this cause thefore, the Lorde did not expound how that might be done, but exhorteth that it be sought by faith, so to his disciples which beleeued, he gaue peeces of bread, saying take ye, & eate ye, this is my bodie: like∣wise he gaue the cuppe about and saide: drinke ye all of this, this is the cuppe of my bloud, which shal be shed for many for remission of sinnes. Thou seest, that to them which inquire without faith, he hath not explaned the manner of the mysterie, but to them which beleeued, al∣though they inquired not, he hath set it foorth. In this saying of Cyril, beside that he teacheth y^t Christe his flesh & bloud are receiued in a mysterie, it is good to obserue that he calleth the sacrament, which Christ gaue to his Disciples fragmentes or peeces of bread, which vtterly o∣uerthroweth Popish transubstantiation.

The eight Chapter proceedeth in declaration of the same by S. Augustine and Oecumenius.* 1.17

The first place of Augustine he citeth, but nameth not where it is written, is this: Cathechumeni iam credunt, &c.* 1.18 The learners of Christian faith doe nowe beleeue in the name of Christ,

but Iesus committeth not him selfe to them, that is he giueth not vnto them his bodie and his bloud. Let them be ashamed therefore because they knowe not: let them goe through the red sea: let them eate Manna, that as they haue beleeued in the name of Iesus so Ie∣sus may commit himselfe vnto them. M. Heskins himselfe vp∣on this place saith: It is common by the name of the figure, to vnderstand the thing figured. Therfore as Manna is called the bodie of Christ, so is the sacramentall bread and wine called his bodie and bloud. What is here for a Papist? But Augustine in his Booke De vtilitate poenitentiae (as he weeneth) maketh much for him. I am ergo lumine illato &c. Now therefore the light being brought in, let vs seeke what the rest signifie? What meaned the sea, the clowde, Manna. For those he hath not expounded. But he hath shewed what the rocke is. The passage through the sea is baptisme, but because baptisme that is the water of health, is not of health, but beeing consecrated in the name of Christ, which shed his bloud for vs, the water is signed with his crosse, and that it might signifie this, the redde sea was that baptisme. Manna from heauen is openly expounded by our Lord himselfe. Your fathers (saith he) haue eaten Manna in the wildernesse and are dead. For when should they liue? For the figure might pronounce life, it could not be life. They haue eaten manna (saith he) & are dead. That is, Manna which they haue eaten could not deliuer them from death, not because Manna was death vnto them, but because it deliuered not from death. For he should deliuer thē frō death, which was figured by Manna. Surely Manna came from heauen, consider whome is figured: I am, saith he, the bread of life that came downe from heauen. M. Heskins ioyneth another place of Augustine Lib. Nou. & vet. Test. Quast. 65. Manna cypus est, &c. Manna is a figure of that spirituall meate, which by the resurrection of our Lorde is made trueth, in the my∣sterie of the Eucharistie. By this he will proue, that Manna in the former place, was meant to be a figure of the body of Christ in the sacrament.

But in spite of his beard he must vnderstande it of the spiritual maner of receiuing therof, by faith, w^t y^e benefites of his death which are made perfect in his resurrection, or else how saith he, y^t the figure was made trueth by the re∣surrection

of Christe? For the trueth of Christes bodie, did not depende vppon his resurrection, and the sacra∣ment was instituted before his death, but it tooke and taketh force of his death and resurrection. And concer∣ning the former sentence, I can but marueile at his im∣pudencie, y^t woulde alledge that treatise which is direct∣ly against him, as partly you may see by the places cited by mee out of the same, and followeth immediatly this place, in the second Chapter of this booke: partly by these places following, taken out of the same booke:

Patres nostri, inquis ••undem cibum spiritualem manducauerunt: & eun∣dem potum spiritualē biberunt. Erant enim ibi qui quod manduca∣bant intelligebant. Erant ibi, quibus plus Christus in corde, quàm Manna in ore sapiebat: Our fathers (sayeth he) did eat the same spirituall meate, and drinke the same spirituall drinke. For there were there, which did vnderstande what they did eate: There were there, to whom Christe sauoured better in their heart, then Manna in their mouth. And again: Breuiter dixerim: Quicun{que} in Manna Chri∣stum intellexerunt, eundem quem nos, cibum spiritualem mandu∣cauerunt: Quicun{que} autem de Manna solam saturitatem quae fie∣runt patres infidelium, ma••ducauerun•• & moriui sunt: Sic tui am eundem potum. Petra enim Christus. Eudem ergo potum quem no•• sed spiritualem: id est qui fide capiebatur, non qui cor∣por•• hauriebatur. I will saye briefely: whosoeuer vnder∣stoode Christe in Manna, did eate the same spirituall meate that wee doe. But whosoeuer sought onely to fill their bellyes of Manna, which were the fathers of the vnfaithfull, they haue eaten and are deade. So also the same drinke. For the rocke was Christe. They drinke therefore the same drinke that wee doe, but spirituall drinke, that is, which was receiued by faith, nor which was drawen in, with the bodie. And againe: Eundem ergo cibum, eundem potum, sed intelligentibus & credentib••s. Non intelligentibus autem illud solum Manna, illa fola aqua, ille cibus osurienti, potus iste suienti: nec ille, nec iste credenti: Credenti autem idem qui nunc: Tunc enim Christus venturus, modò Christus venit. Venturus & venit diuersa verba sims, sed

idem Christus. The same meate therefore, and the same drinke, be to them that vnderstoode and beleeued. But to them which vnderstoode it not, it was onely Manna, that was onely water: that meate to the hungrie: this drinke to the thirstie: neither that, nor this to the belee∣uer: But to the beleeuer, the same which is nowe: for then Christ was to come: nowe Christe is come. To come, and is come, are diuerse wordes, but the same Christe.

Let M. Heskins nowe go and saye, that Manna was a figure onely of Christe, and not Christ him selfe to the beleeuers: let him saye, that our sacraments in substance are not all one with theirs. Finally, that we eate Christ corporally, which eate him none otherwise then they did before he had a bodie. For in all these Augustine is directly contrarie to him, though he be not ashamed to abuse his name, as though he were of his opinion. Nowe followeth Oecumenius a writer, farre out of the com∣passe of the challenge. But what sayeth he in 1. Cor. 10. Comederunt nempe Manna, &c. They haue eaten Manna, as wee the bodie of Christ. They haue dronke the spirituall water flow∣ing out of the rocke or stone, as wee the bloud of Christ.

Maister Heskins inferreth, that the fathers did eate Manna, and drinke the water corporally, therefore wee eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe corpo∣rally. By the same Logike he may conclude, the fathers did eate manna visibly and sensibly, therefore wee eate the bodie of Christ visibly and sensibly. Or else, as the wordes of Oecumenius sounde, wee eate the bodie of Christe inuisibly, so the fathers did eate Manna inuisi∣bly. But euery man that hath but halfe an eye, seeth these grosse inconsequences, and yet they are as good as Maister Heskins argument and illation. Oecumenius therefore meaneth, that as Manna and the water were their sacraments, so we haue ours, whose spirituall sub∣stance is the bodie and bloude of Christ, the earthly sub∣stance, is bread and wine, and Manna and the water were to them sacramentes of the same Christ, whome wee re∣ceiue.

And whereas M. Heskins sayeth, that no catho∣like doctour teacheth the sacrament to be only a figure, we agree with him, for we hold him accursed that comp∣teth it to be onely a figure, or a bare figure, as he doeth often most iniuriously charge vs. The rest of the Chap∣ter is spent in vaine repetitions of sentences & collecti∣ons before set downe and aunswered.

The ninth Chapter, proceedeth in the declaration of the same by Haimo & Theophylact.* 1.19

Although neither Haimo nor Theophylact, speake more for M. Hesk. then the former auctors,* 1.20 yet because they are but burgesses of the lower house, which whe∣ther they giue their voyces with the bill or against it, it shall passe neuer the sooner, I will spende no time in aunswering their authorities. They are both but late writers. The patches of Chrysostome, Ambrose, & Cy∣prian are often aunswered at large in their proper places. But, whereas he challengeth the spirit of vnitie vnto the Papistes, and chargeth the Protestants with the spirite of diuision: it is well knowen, that in the cheefest arti∣cles of religion, we agree, God be thanked, better then the Papistes do, who haue not yet agreed, whether the Pope, or the counsell bee to bee followed in matters of faith, so that they disagree in the verie foundation of their religion. Finally, where he chargeth vs with the heresies of the Anabaptistes, we may be bolde to charge him with the spirite of Sathan, who was a lyer & a slaun∣derer of Gods Saintes from the beginning.

The tenth Chapter, proceedeth vpon the same text, by Ruper∣••us & Rich. Holkot and endeth with Gagnegus.* 1.21

If a man should vouchesafe to admitt such authorities as these, there should be no end of quarrelling.* 1.22 I am content to yelde them to Maister Heskins, and fiue hun∣dreth more such as they be: as for the sayings of Am∣brose

and Cyrill, which he enterla••eth, they are answered in other places, although that of Ambrose be flat a∣gainst him, the other of Cyrill nothing for him.

* 1.23The eleuenth Chapter declareth the prophesies of the sacra∣ment vnder the names of Manna & the water of the rocke.

* 1.24These Prophesies hee imagineth to be conteined in 77. Psalme, & 104. Psalme, which as the whole Psalmes declare to them that read them, be praises and thankes∣giuings for Gods benefites past, and not prophesies of things to come. The first sentence is this: Hee commaun∣ded the clowdes aboue, and opened the gates of heauen. And he rayned to them Manna to eate, and gaue them the bread of hea∣uen. So man did eate the bread of Angels. Vppon this text he citeth Hierome: Sed & fantem, &c. But the same stone also sheweth out the founteine of baptisme. For out of his side, when he was striken, came foorth water and bloud, which figured bap∣tisme and martirdome. Here he maketh the water a figure of baptisme and martirdom, not of the bloud of Christe in the sacrament, and much lesse a prophesie, except Maister Heskins be so madde, as to make a figure and a prophesie all one. But Hierom sayeth more: Panem C••••∣••i dedit &c. He gaue them the bread of heauen, man did eate the breade of Angels. Hee him selfe gaue meate vnto man, which saide, I am the breade of life, which came downe from heauen: he that shall eate of this bread, shall liue for euer.

This is so farre from a prophesie of the time to come, that hee de∣clareth, that God did feede the Israelites with the fleshe of Christe, which is the breade of life that came downe from heauen, figured in Manna, being the foode of all the Saintes of God, from the beginning of the worlde: as is moste manifest by the verie next wordes follow∣ing in Hierome, which Maister Heskins hath craftily left out: Ex hoc enim pane coeli, Sancti reficiuntur & Angeli: For of this breade of heauen, both the Saintes are fedd, and the Angels.

Where note also, that hee sayth: the Angels to be refreshed with this breade of life, euen a••

the Saintes are: but the Angels eate not the fleshe of Christe corporally, therefore neither do the Saintes.

Finally, Hierome in that place is so farre from a cor∣porall manner of eating and drinking, that he writeth thus:

Praestita sunt haec Haebries, sed & modò in ecclesia Prophe∣tis & Apostolis praecipitur, vt nobis verbum praedicationis, quo anima spiritualiter pascatur, annuncient. These things were perfourmed to the Hebrues: but nowe also in the chur∣che it is commaunded to the Prophets and Apostles, that they declare to vs the worde of preaching, where∣with our soule is spiritually fedd. In these wordes, hee maketh Manna and the water, figures of the prea∣ching of Gods worde, which is a spirituall foode of our soules.

Nowe vppon the other texte, Psalm. 104. Hee satisfied them with the breade of heauen: Saint Hierome sayeth: For, as they were refreshed by Manna rayning from heauen, so wee at this day are refreshed, receiuing the bodie of the Lambe. He brake the rocke, and the waters flowed. For that precious corner stone was striken, and brought foorth vnto vs vnmeasura∣ble fountaines, which washe away our errours, and water our drynesse. Here is as before, a comparison of Gods be∣nefites towarde them, and towarde vs, which he seemeth to make equall, as they were in deede in substance, and all matters perteining to aeternall life: but here is no prophesie spoken of, neither doeth Maister Heskins ga∣ther one worde out of it, for that intent.

The like is to be sayde of Saint Augustine vppon the 77. Psalme: Quid enim, &c. For he which commanded the clowdes aboue, and opened the gates of heauen, and rayned to them Manna to eate, and gaue them the bread of heauen, so that man did eate the breade of Angels: Hee which sent vnto them meate in aboundaunce, that he might fill the vnbeleeuers, is not vnable to geeue to the beleeuers, the verie true breade from hea∣uen, which Manna did signifie, which is in deede the meate of Angels, which WORDE of God feedeth them that are cor∣ruptible incorruptibly, which that man might eate, was made flesh and dwelled among vs.

Here is no worde of Prophesie, neither can Maister Heskins himselfe finde any, and the wordes which doe immediately followe, do plainly shewe that Augustine spake neither of corporall presence, nor corporall maner of eating:

Ipse enim panis per nubes Euangelicas vniuerso or∣bi pluitur, & apertis praedicatorum cordibus tanquam coelestib•••••• ianuis, non murmur anti & tentanti synagogae, sed credenti & in illo spem ponenti ecclesiae praedicatur. For this bread tho∣rough the cloudes of the Gospell is rayned vnto all the worlde, and the hearts of the preachers, as it were y^e hea∣uenly gates being opened, is preached, not to the mur∣muring and tempting synagogue, but to the church be∣leeuing and putting her trust in him.

Here Augustine sayth, that the VVORDE, which became fleshe, is ray∣ned from heauen, by the preaching of the Gospell, and eaten by faith: Vnto Augustine he ioyneth Cassiodorus, as he sayeth, and truely nothing dissenting from the for∣mer writers, but altogether from M. Hesk. purpose, he is cited in Psalm. 77. Et pluit illis, &c. And he rayned to them Manna to eate, he sayeth he rayned, that he might shewe the great plentie of the meat, which like vnto rayne came down from heauen. And lest thou shouldest doubt, what rayne that was, it followeth: To eate Manna: Manna is interpreted, what is this? which we verie fuly applye to the holie Communion: for while this meat is sought by wandring, the giftes of the Lordes bodie are de∣clared. He hath added. He gaue them the breade of heauen. What other breade of heauen is there, but Christe our Lorde, of whome the heauenly things receiue spirituall foode, and doe enioy inestimable delight? Finally, thus it followeth: Man hath eaten the breade of Angels. Therefore, Christ is saide to be the breade of Angels, because they are fedde with his eternall praise. For the Angels are not to be thought to eate corporall breade, but with that contemplation of our Lorde, with the which, that high cr••a∣ture is fedd, they are fedd: but this breade filleth the Angels in heauen, and feedeth vs on earth. In this exposition, it is wor∣thie to be noted, that Cassiodorus affirmeth, that Christe our Lorde was the breade from heauen, which God gaue to the fathers, in the sacrament of Manna. Also, that the

Angels in heauen, and we vppon earth are fedde with the same bread, which must needes be a spirituall foode: For as he saith, the Angels eate no corporall bread, so doe they not eate any corporall thing, or after any corporall manner. The last authoritie hee citeth out of fryer Titelman, I will not trouble the reader withall, al∣though, if he neuer had spoken worse, then in this sen∣tence, he were not greatly to be reprehended. But to M. Heskins, all is fishe that commeth to the nett.

The twelfth Chapter, proueth by occasion of that that is sayde with further authoritie, that the sacraments of the newe lawe, are more excellent then the sacraments of the olde lawe.* 1.25

The first reason is taken out of S. Augustines rule,* 1.26 cited in the firste booke, That all good things figured, are more excellent then the figures, which wee graunt: for Christ figured by Manna, was more excellent then. Manna, as he is more excellent then the breade & wine, by which he is likewise represented. The second reason he vseth is this, y^t if the bodie of Christe were not so pre∣sent in the sacrament, as they imagine, Manna shoulde be better then the sacrament: for Manna hath twelue wonders declared by Roffens. lib. 1. Chap. 12. The firste: that he that gathered moste, had but his measure. The seconde, that he that gathered least, had his measure full also. The thirde: that which was kepte vntill the next day, putrified, except on the Saboth day. The fourth: it was kept many yeres in the Arke vnprutrified. The fift: it would melt in the Sonne, and be harde in the fire. The sixth: it fell all dayes, sauing vppon the Sabboth day. The seuenth: that on the daye before the Saboth day, they had two gomers full, and all other days but one. The eyght: that whether they gathered more or lesse, they had that day two gomers full. The ninth: that measure sufficed all stomackes and appetites. The tenth: that to them that were good, it tasted to euery one, ac∣cording to his desire. The eleuenth: although to the godly it was a most pleasant taste, yet to the vngodly, it

wa•• lothsome. The twelfth: the children of Israel were fedd with it fortie yeres in the Wildernesse. Of some of these speaketh Chrysostom in dict. Apost. Nolo vos: which, because it is long and conteineth nothing more then is collected by Fisher, I will not set downe. Augustine al∣so witnesseth for one miracle, that Manna tasted to eue∣ry man as hee woulde. Hereuppon he concludeth, that Manna farre excelleth the sacramentaries sacramentall bread, which shalbe graunted, and so it doeth the Papists consecrated host, which is subiect to putrifaction, and in none of the twelue miracles comparable to Manna. But Manna for all this doth not excell the bodie and bloud of Christe, which is giuen vs that are faithfull with our sacramentall bread and wine. He sayeth the Iewes recei∣uing Manna, receiued Christe spiritually. Nowe at the length he sayth trueth. And we also receiuing the sacra∣mentall bread and wine receiue Christ spiritually. Nei∣ther are our sacraments, as I haue sayde, concerning the spirituall or heauenly substance more excellent then theirs, as our saluation is the same with theirs, but in clearnesse of signification more excellent, as the doctrine of our saluation, is more plainly reuealed vnto vs. But M. Hesk. replyeth, that if our sacramēts excel not theirs, then their sacraments and figures farre excell ours, and that in three things. The first: In excellencie of y^e thing signified. The second: in y^e fulnesse & liuelinesse of the signification. The third: in the worke of God about the same figures. But I aunswer, concerning the first, they are aequall: concerning the second, ours are superior & more excellent: and concerning the thirde, I distinguish of outward working of God, & inwarde. Concerning the outward work of God, about their sacraments & figures, it was meete it should be more notable, because the do∣ctrine was more obscure, & that the creatures themsel∣ues, that were the elements of their sacraments & figures should be more excellent & glorious, because y^e inwarde grace, was not so clearely reuealed: and it was meant, the sacraments & figures should be many more in nomber,

because the doctrine was much lesse manifest, then it is to vs. But concerning the inward working of God, there is no doubt, but it is as marueilous, & as wonderfull in our sacraments, as in theirs: and in respect of illumination, according to the doctrine, which is more lightsome, and of full assurance, as of that mysterie, which is alreadie ac∣complished, it is much more excellent & notable in our sacraments, which are (as Augustin sayth) in number most fewe, in matter most simple, in signification most excel∣lent. Ep. ad Ian. 118.

Primò ita{que} tenere te volo, quod est huius disputationis caput: Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, sicut ipse in euangelio loquitur, leui iugo suo nos subdidisse & sarcinae leui. Vnde sacramentis numero paucissimis, obseruatione facillimis, sig∣nificatione praestantissimis, societatem noui populi colligauit, sicut est baptismus Trinitatis nomine consecratus, communicatio corpo∣ris & sanguinis ipsius, & si quid aliud in scripturis canoni••is con∣tineatur. First therfore I would haue thee hold this, which is the head of this disputation: that our lord Iesus Christ, as he him selfe speaketh in the Gospell, hath submitted vs to his gentle yoke & easie burthen. Therfore, by sacra∣ments in number most fewe, in obseruation most easie, in signification most excellent, hee hath bound together y^e fellowship of the newe people, as is baptisme being con∣secrated in the name of the Trinitie, the communication of his bodie and bloud, & if any thing else be conteined in the canonicall scriptures. Thus you see, notwithstan∣ding the vaine cauils of M. Hesk.

wherein our sacra∣ments are equall with theirs, and wherein ours are more excellent then theirs: so that we haue no neede of his re∣all presence, to make a difference betweene y^e sacraments of the newe testament, & the sacraments of the olde fa∣thers, which though they liued vnder the old testament, yet were they saued by the newe testament, in the for∣giuenesse of their sinnes, by Christ as we are.

The thirteenth Chapter, proueth the same by scriptures & Do∣ctors.* 1.27

In the beginning of this Chapter,* 1.28 he rayleth against Luther, Oecolampadius, Caluin, &c. but without proofe

of any thing, and therefore I count it not worthie of aunswere. Secondly, he will proue, that the sacraments of the olde lawe, are weake and beggerly elements, not onely nowe when they be abrogated, but also when they were in their greatest strength, and therefore in no re∣spect equall with ours.

For proofe hereof, hee alledgeth the Apostle to the Hebrues, 7. that the lawe brought no∣thing to perfection, & Chap. 10. The law hauing the sha∣dowe of good things to come, and not the verie facion of the things them selues, can neuer with sacrifices which they offer, make the commers thereunto perfect.

But hee is verie ignorant, if he knowe not, as he pretendeth, or else verie obstinate, if he will not acknowledge, that the Apostle, as he writeth to the Hebrues, so he speaketh of the lawe, as the vnbeleeuers esteemed it, that is altoge∣ther seperated from Christ, & so of the ceremonies ther∣of: and not as the lawe and the ceremonies thereof, were considered of the faithfull, with Christ the ende and ac∣complishment of it and them. For otherwise Christ him selfe is called a minister of circumcision, for the trueth of God, to establish the promises of the fathers, Rom. 15. ver. 8 After this he gapeth and cryeth out vppon Oecolampa∣dius, for saying, that our bread is no better then y^e Lamb of the spirituall fathers. Whereas, if hee speake of the elements in both, there is no question, if of the heauenly parte, that he sayth is true, neuerthelesse, there is a digni∣tie, & an excellencie of our sacrament about these, and that is in clearnes of vnderstanding the mysterie therof, as I haue often shewed. And all the textes and authori∣ties that Maister Heskins citeth, proue nothing else. As first, Iohn Baptist was greater then all the Prophets, be∣cause he spake more clearly of Christ being present, whō they described to come, when he sayed: beholde the Lambe of God, that taketh away the sinne of the worlde: that confirmeth Chrysostome, in Math. Hom. 38. com∣paring Iohn to that noble man that commeth next to the King. And Oecumenius preferreth Iohn, because he prophesied of him, whome he sawe and baptized. Wher∣upon

Maister Heskins gathereth, that if Iohn were the more excellent Prophet, because he sawe Christ present, of whome he prophesied, then the sacrament must bee more excellent, because he was present whome it figured. By like reason, he may gather, that they y^t were baptized in Christs presēce were better baptized then we are now. But the reason holdeth (as I sayd before) not of the bo∣dily presence, but of the clearer doctrine, that was by meanes of his presence. So Abraham desired to see the day of Christ, and sawe it, Ioan. 8. yet blessed are your eyes (sayeth he) which see that you see, for many Pro∣phets & righteouse men, desired to see, & haue not seene the things that you see, that is, although they haue seene them by faith, yet not so clearely as you haue seen them, and so be the verie wordes of Chrysostome, which M. Hesk. citeth in 13. Math. Hom. 46. vpon that place: Manye Prophets and righteous men, haue desired, &c. that is saith Christ, My comming, presence, myracles, voice. For here he doth not onely preferre them before those lost and damned men, but also he affirmeth them to be more excellent and happie, then the Prophets & righteous men. Why so? Because they do not on∣ly see these things which they haue not seene, but also those things which they desired to see, these men sawe with their eyes. For they also by faith, did beholde these things, but these much more clear∣ly did see all things. You see therefore, howe vainly he ca∣uelleth against Oecolampadius and the trueth, when the texts and authorities he citeth, be al cleane contrarie vn∣to him selfe.

The fourteenth Chapter, proceedeth in the proofe of the same, by the Scriptures and doctors.* 1.29

His first proofe shalbe,* 1.30 that the sixt Chapter of Iohn is to be taken of the blessed sacrament, and this is proued in his second booke: where also I haue aunswered, how it is taken, and in what respecte it perteineth to the sacra∣ment: namely, as the sacrament is a seale of the doctrine conteined in that Chapter. To this proofe he addeth the consent of the church vntil Luther, in so much that when

the heresie of the Communion vnder both kindes wa•• raised in Bohemia, they grounded it vpon that Chapter. Note by the way, that the Communion vnder both kinds instituted by Christ, and practised in the Church a thou∣sand yeares after Christ, is called of Maister Heskins an heresie. The third proofe is, that Iohn spake nothing of the institution of the sacrament, bicause hee spake of it most plentifully in this Chapter by Augustines iudge∣ment. Ioannes &c. Iohn saide nothing in this place of the body and bloud of our Lord, but plainely in an other place he testifieth, that our Lord spake of them most plentifully. Here he will haue vs note, that Augustine calleth it not a signe or figure, but plainly the body and bloud of Christ, therefore it is not a figure or signe. By y^e same reason he may say, Augustine calleth it not a sacrament, therefore it is no sacrament. But Christ him selfe saith: Not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer. In which wordes M. Heskins noteth two thinges: The first, that Manna is a figure of Christe in the sacra∣ment, for proofe of which he sendeth vs backe to the 4.5.6.7.8.9. & 10. Chapters of this booke: The second is the excellencie of the body of Christ in the sacrament, aboue Manna, the eaters whereof are dead: but the eaters of the body of Christe in the sacrament shall liue for euer. M. Heskins saith he wot not what, for if you aske him whe∣ther all they that eat the body of Christ in the sacrament shall liue eternally, he will say no. For wicked men (as he saith) eate it, which shall not liue eternally. Againe, if you aske him, whether al they that did eat Manna are dead, he will say no. For though they be dead in body, yet bicause many did eate Christ spiritually by faith, they shall liue for euer. You see what pith is in his reason, and substance in his doctrine. But in very deede, Christe compareth his flesh with Manna, as it was a corporall foode only, and so all that did eate it are dead: but all they that eat the flesh of Christe, which is eternall life, shall liue eternally; for though they dye corporally, yet will be raise them vp in the last day.

And whereas Maister Heskins voucheth S. Augustine to warrant, De vtilita, poenit. Manna de coelo &c. I must send the reader to the eight Chapter of this booke, where that authoritie is cited and answered, to be flat contrarie to M. Heskins. Likewise, the sentence of Cyprian de Coen. Dom. Coena disposita &c. is handled in the first booke, Chap∣ter 17. and the other beginning Significata in Lib. 1. Cap. 39. The saying of Ambrose Lib. 4. de sacra. Cap. 5. is also a∣gainst Maister Heskins, as we shall plainely see. Ipse Do∣minus &c. The Lorde Iesus him selfe testifieth vnto vs, that wee receiue his body and bloud, ought we to doubt of his fidelitie and te∣stification? Nowe returne with me to my proposition. It was truely a great and a venerable thing, that he rayned Manna to the Iewes from heauen. But vnderstand which is the greater, Manna from heauen, or the body of Christe? The body of Christe truely, who is the maker of heauen. Further, he that hath eaten Manna hath dy∣ed, but he that shall eate this body, it shall be made to him remis∣sion of sinnes, and he shall not dye for euer. By the effectes of the sacrament, which are remissiō of sinnes & eternal life, M. Hes. saith, y^e excellencie thereof is proued aboue Man∣na. I answere, Ambrose folowing our sauiour Christ, doth not compare Manna the sacrament with our sacrament, but Manna the corporall foode, with the body of Christ the heauenly substance of our sacrament, & so it is more excellent without comparison.

But Maister Heskins skippeth ouer with a drye foote, that Ambrose saith, Whosoeuer shall eate of this body, it shall be made to him remission of sinnes, and he shall not not die for euer, by which words it is euident, that no wic∣ked man eateth this body, but they only which eat it spi∣ritually by faith. An other place of Ambrose hee citeth: De myster initiand. Cap. 9. Considera nunc &c. Consider nowe whe∣ther is better, the bread of Angels, or the flesh of Christ, which tru∣ly is the body of life. That Manna was from heauen, this aboue heauen: that of heauen, this of the Lorde of heauens: that subiect to corruption, if it were kept vntill the next day, this farre from all corruption, which who so euer shall taste religiously, he can feele no corruption. The water did satisfie them for an houre,

the bloud doth wash thee for euer. The Iewe drank and thirsteth, when thou hast dr••nke thou canst not thirst. And that was in a shaddowe: this in the trueth. And after a fewe wordes he saith. Thou hast knowne better thinges, for light is better then a shad∣dowe, the trueth then a figure, the body of the Authour then Man∣na from heauen. This place of Ambrose vtterly denieth the body of Christ to be receiued of the wicked which perish, and so consequently denyeth it to be corporally present. But least we should obiect that Ambrose speaketh not of the sacrament, he addeth a long discourse following im∣mediatly. Forte dica•• &c. which bicause it is contained in the 51. Chapter of the second booke, I will send the reader thither, where he shall see it aunswered by Ambrose him selfe, and in the same place, and in the tenth Chapter of the second booke, where some part of it is touched. For it were in vaine to trouble the reader with one thing so of∣ten as M. Heskins listeth to repeat it.

* 1.31The fifteenth Chapter prouing all our sacraments generally to be more excellent then the sacraments of Moses.

* 1.32First baptisme in respect of The noble presence of God the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, must bring with it some more noble gift, then a bare signe or token. See howe this impudent beast would make Popish fooles beleeue, that we teach baptisme to be nothing else, but a bare signe or token. We thinke and speake of it, as honourably as the scrip∣ture teacheth vs. Let the forme of baptisme vsed in the Church of England testifie, whether we make it nothing but a bare signe or token. Let our catechismies of al sorts beare witnesse of the same. But nothing will stop a slan∣derous mouth. Yet to aunswere the title of that Chapter, S. Augustine is cited, contra Faust. lib. 19. cap. 13. Prima sacra∣mēta &c. The first sacraments, which were obserued & celebrated by the lawe, were the foreshewing of Christ, that was to come, which when he had fulfilled by his cōming, they were taken away, & ther∣fore they were taken away, bicause they were fulfilled. For he came not to breake the law, but to fulfill it. And other are instituted grea∣ter in power, better in profite, easier to be done, fewer in number.

Maister Heskins asketh wherein bee they greater in power, but in this that the sacramenets of the olde lawe had no power but to signifie onely, oures not onely to signifie, but also to giue that they signifie? And I will aske him, seeing he maketh the sacraments in∣struments of Gods grace, by what instrument did they re∣ceiue the grace of God, if they receiued it not by the sacra∣ments? But Augustine, as I haue often shewed before, is farre from M. Heskins iudgement, wherefore in this place against the Manichees, which denyed the olde testament, he sheweth the abrogation of those rites, not bicause they were euill, but bicause their time was expired, and they fulfilled in Christ: who hath instituted newe sacraments, more effectuall and more profitable, bicause according to the doctrine whereof they be seales, they doe more liuely strengthen the faith of the receiuers, in respect of the mysterie of redemption already accomplished, then those olde sacraments did, which obscurely and darkely preached vnto the receiuers y^t redemption, which was not accomplished in acte, yet was as effectuall in power, for their saluation. And that this is Augustines minde, it ap∣peareth plainely in that which followeth immediately in the same booke, 14. Chapter.

Veruntamen si antiqui iusti, qui sacramentis illis intelligebant venturam pręnunciari reuelationem fidei: ex qua, licèt adhuc operta & abscondita munera pietatis tamen intellecta, etiam ipsi viuebant quia in hac vita nemo esse po∣test iustus, nisi qui ex fide viuit. Neuerthelesse, if those aunci∣ent righteous men, which by those sacraments vnderstood the reuelation of faith that was to come to be foreshew∣ed, by which, although the giftes of godlinesse were yet couered and hid, were notwithstanding vnderstoode, euen they also did liue: bicause in this life no man can be righteous, but he that liueth by faith.

And afterward in the same Chapter.

Tunc ergo & occulta erat fides: Nam eadem credebant, eadémque sperabant omnes iusti & sancti etiam temporum illorum, & promissiua erant illa omnia sacramenta, omnis{que} vitus ille sacrorum, nunc autem reuelata est fides, in quam conclusus erat populus quando sub lege custodi••batur,

& quod fidelibus promittitur in indicio, iam completum est in ex∣ample, per 〈◊〉〈◊〉, qui legem & Prophetas non venit soluere, fed ad∣implere. Then therefore saith was hid, for all the iust and holy men euen of those times beleeued the same thinges, and hoped for the same things, and all the sacraments and holy ceremonies of those times conteined promises, but nowe that faith is reuealed, into which the people was in∣closed while they were kept vnder the lawe, & that which is promised to the faithfull in iudgement, is already ac∣complished in the example, by him which came not to breake the lawe and the Prophetes, but to fulfill them. And following the same matter in the 16. Cap. Interim ad∣uersus calumniosam imperitiam Fausti demonstrare suffecerit, quanto errore delirent, qui putent signis sacramentis{que} mutatis, eti∣am res ipsas esse diuersas, quas ritus Propheticus pręnuncianis promissas, & quas ritus Euangelicus annunciauit impletas: aut qui censent cum res eaedem sins, non eas alijs sacramentis annunciari debuisse completas, quaem his quibus adhuc complendae praenuncia∣baentur. Si enim soni verborum, quibus loquimur pro tempore com∣mutantur, eadémque res aliter enunciatur facienda, ali••er facta, si∣cus ista ipsa duo verba quae dixi, Facienda & Facta, nec paribus morarum interuallis, nec ijsdem vel totidem literis sillabisue sonu••∣runt: quid mirum si alijs mysteriorum signaculis Passio & Resur∣rectio Christi futura promissa est, alijs iam facta annunciatur? quan∣doquidem ipsa verba futurum & factum, passurus & passus, resur∣recturus & resurrexit, nec tendi aequaliter, nec similiter fon••re po∣tuerunt. In the meane time against the slaunderous vnskil∣fulnesse of Faustus, it shall suffice to shewe, in howe great errour they doate, which thinke, that the signes and sa∣craments being chaunged, the thinges them selues bee diuers, which the Propheticall ceremonie foreshewed to be promised, and which the ceremonie of the Gospel hath declared to be fulfilled, or which thinke, that seeing the thinges be the same, they should not haue bene decla∣red to be fulfilled alredy by other sacraments, then those by which they were foreshewed as yet to be fulfilled in time to come. For if the sound of wordes which we vse in speaking, are changed according to the time, & the same

thing is pronounced otherwise when it shal be done, & o∣therwise when it is done, as these two very wordes which I spake it shalbe done, and it is done, haue not founded w^t like distance of spaces, nor with the same or equal num∣ber of letters and sillables: what maruell is it if the passiō & resurrection of Christ was promised to come by other signes of mysteries, and is declared to be accomplished by other? Seeing the very words, that shalbe and that is done, he shal suffer and he hath suffered, he shall rise againe & he is risen againe, could neither be equally extended nor sound alike. Thou seest now by these places, in what re∣spect he calleth our sacraments greater in vertue then the old sacraments: not that another thing is giuen in them, but y^e same after a more cleare maner of reuelation.

And consequently thou seest, how Christe is present in our sa∣cramentes. But M. Hesk. wil confute vs by the definition of a sacrament, which he saith by cōmon consent of lear∣ned men, to be this. A sacrament is a signe of an holie thing in such manner as it may beare the image, and be the cause. If we do admit this definition, being rightly vnderstood, what gai∣neth he thereby? Forsooth, that the sacrament is an instru∣mental cause by which God giueth grace. Wel, grant this, what then? Marie Then it is not a bare signe. Gods curse light on him, that teacheth Gods sacraments to be bare signes. And then sacraments giue grace. Nay M. Heskins holde you where you were before, God giueth grace by thē, but not Opere operato, of the worke wrought, which is all the ques∣tion, but to the elect freely, for grace is called so, because it is freely giuen. After much quarelling about this de∣finitiō, which is neither so cleare nor so perfect as y^t which Aug. giueth. A sacrament is a visible signe of an inuisible grace. He cōmeth to a large text of August. In prol. Ps. 73. Opportune non, &c. It came to passe fitly, not by our, but by Gods dis∣spensatiō, that we heard euen now out of the gospel, that the law was giuen by Moses, but grace & truth by Iesus Christ. For if we discern the two testamēts, the promises are not the same, yet most of the pre∣cepts are the same. Thou shalt not kil, Thou shalt not cōmit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Honor thy &c. Thou shalt beare no, &c. Thou

shalt not co••et thy neighbors goods, thou shalt not couet thy neigh∣bors wife is cōmanded to vs, and who doth not obserue these things, goeth out of the way, & is not worthie at all to obteine the holie hill of God, of which it is said: Who shal dwel in thy tabernacle, or who shal rest in thy holie hil? He that is innocent of hands, & of a cleane hart. These things we say most deare brethrē, that you may al learn out of the new Testament, not to cleane to earthly things, but to ob∣teine heauenly thinges. The precepts therefore beeing discussed, are found to be all the same, or else scarse any in the Gospel, which haue ben said of the prophets. The precepts are the same, the sacraments are not the same, the premises are not the same. Let vs see wherfore the praecepts are the same: because that according to them we ought to serue God. The sacramentes are not the same, because they be other sacraments giuing saluation, other promising the sauiour. The sacramentes of the new Testament, do giue saluation: the sacramēts of the old Testament promised the sauiour. Therefore now that thou holdest the thinges promised, what seekest thou things promising the sauiour, now hauing him? I say, holdest the things promised not that we haue already receiued eternall life, but because Christe is already come, which was foreshewed by the prophets. The sacraments are changed, they are made easier fewer, holsomer. Notwithstanding the vain exclamation of M. Hesk. vpon this place, (except we wil make S. August. contrarie to him selfe in y^e places before alledged) we may plainly see, how he expoundeth himself in the latter end of this long passage, whereof the greatest part might altogether haue ben spared. Namely y^t there is no difference in y^e substance of our sacramēts frō theirs, but y^e Christ is already come. And our sacraments do not giue saluation, as though we had eternal life deli∣uered by them in possession, but because Christ y^e authour of eternal life, y^t in the other was promised, is now come. Not y^t grace in them was only promised, & not giuen for them. M. Hesk. own definition of a sacrament should be false, wherin he wil not allow any thing y^t is superfluous, & much lesse vntrue. But M.H. is not content with this interpretation, saying y^t S. Augustine compareth y^e sacra∣ments of the olde lawe to childrens trifles in y^e same place: Numquid quiniam puero, &c. Because there are giuen to a childe

certein childish playing trifles, by which the childish minde is called away, are they not therefore plucked out of his hands, when he wax∣eth a great one? No more therfore God, because he hath plucked a∣way those things as childrens trifles, out of the handes of his sonnes by the new Testament, that he might giue thē something more pro∣profitable they beeing now waxed greater, is to be thought not to haue giuen those former things. Gentle Reader, I wish thee to turne ouer to this place in S. Augustine, and except thou be too much blinded in affection toward M. Hesk. thou wilt confesse that he hath aduouched a manifest vntruth, when y^u shalt see that Augustine vttereth not these words of the sacraments of the olde Testament, but of the pro∣mises of earthly benefites, made vnto the Fathers of those times. I can say no more, conferre and iudge.

The sixteenth Chapter proceedeth to the next text of S. Paule, which is: Calix cui Benedi.* 1.33

This text which he pretendeth to expound is written in 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we blesse,* 1.34 is it not the commu∣nion of the bloud of Christ? The bread which we breake, is it not the cōmunion or partaking of the bodie of Christ? This text (he saith) proueth the reall presence and sacrifice. And first he will haue no trope or figure to be vnderstoode in this place, but the very things themselues: with how grosse absurdi∣tie it is, I referre it to the iudgment of al reasonable Pa∣pists, that know what a trope meaneth. Secondly he saith, it is an euil manner of disputation, to go about to proue like effectes, of vnlike causes. Wherein I will agree with him. But what vpon this? Forsooth, then it followeth, that as the Iewes, of whom S. Paule taketh example, were par∣takers of the altar, because they did eate the sacrifices, so we are partakers of the bodie & bloud of Christ, because we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ corpo∣rally, and not because we eate a peece of bread and drink a litle wine. Againe, as the Corinthians, by eating meate offred to idols were made partakers of idols: so y^e Christi∣ans, because they did eate y^e bodie of Christ, are made par∣takers thereof. But to discusse this vaine cloude of sophi∣strie, I wil reason vpon his own Maxime: like causes, haue

not vnlike effectes: S. Paule saith, he would not haue the Corinthians partakers of Diuels by eating meate offered to idols, which in effect was offred to diuels. As they that were made partakers of Diuels, bycause they did eate meat offred to diuels, were not partakers of the substance and nature of diuels, neither did they eate the substance of diuels, no more doth it follow, y^t we eating & drinking the bread of thanksgiuing, & cup of thanksgiuing, which are a cōmunication of the bodie and bloud of Christ, do corporally eate and drink the bodie & bloud of Christ, or be made partakers corporally of the nature & substance of the bodie & bloud of Christ. The like I say of y^e altar. Now concerning the sacrifice M. Hesk. saith, y^t if S. Paule did not as well take the cup, & table of the Lord to be a sacrifice, as the cup and table of diuels to be a sacrifice, & as the sacrifices of the Israelites, he would not haue vsed like termes, but shewed a difference. I answer, if the sacra∣ment had ben a sacrifice, he would haue so called it, espe∣cially in this place, or at least in some other place, there∣fore it is no sacrifice: & he shewed a sufficient difference, when he called the one a sacrifice, and not the other. Al∣though if I shold grant it to be a sacrifice of thanksgiuing M. Hes. were neuer the neere of his propitiatorie sacrifice.

But the fathers of Christes Parleament house must be heard to establish this interpretation of M. Hes. and first Chrysost. In 1. Cor. 10. Maximè, &c. With these wordes he doeth get greatly to him selfe, both credite and feare. And the meaning of them is this, That which is in the cup, is the same, which flowed one of his side, and thereof we are partakers. And he called it the cup of blessing, because that when we haue it in our handes with admira∣tion and a certeine horror of that vnspeakable gift, we prayse him giuing thankes, because he hath shed his bloud, that we should not remaine in errour. Neither hath he onely shed it, but made vs all partakers of it. Therefore (saith he) if thou desirest bloud do not sprinkle the altar of idols with the slaughter of bruite beasts, but my altar with my bloud. What is more maruelous then this? Tell me I pray thee wha•• is more amiable? This also louers when they see those whom they loue allured with desire of other mens things, giue their owne vnto them, and counsel them to absteine from these. But

louers truely doe shewe this desire in mony, garments, possessions: no man euer in his owne bloud. But Christ in this hath shewed both his care, and his vehement loue toward vs. And in the olde Testament, when they were more vnperfect, that bloud which they offered to i∣dol•• he himselfe would accept, that he might turne them away from idols, which also was a signe of inspeakable loue. But here he hath prepared a much more wonderfull and magnificall sacrifice, both when he changed the sacrifice it selfe, and for the slaughter of brute beaste: commanded him selfe to be offered. Although M. Hesk. hath disioyned this place to make shew of varietie, I haue set it down whole and entire. Here M. Hesk. triumpheth not a litle, rayling against blessed Cranmer for abusing S. Paules words, because Chrysostome saith, that which is in the cup is that which flowed out of Christes side, ther∣fore it must needs be his bloud, & that corporaly receiued, neither can he abide to heare tell of a trope or figure in these wordes. Bu•• in spight of his heart, Chrysostom must be vnderstood with a trope or figure, because he saith im∣mediatly after y^t Christ willeth the Corinthians to sprin∣kle his altar with his bloud. I am sure M. Hesk. wold not dip his holiwater sprinkle in the challice, and shake it o∣uer the altar. Therefore the whole speech of Chrysostom is a continued trope and allegorie. And therfore neither M. Hes, his presence, nor his sacrifice cā be proued out of this place. Concerning the sacrifice, I haue often shewed, how the ancient fathers called the sacrament a sacrifice, namely of thanksgiuing. First, not of propitiation, & so we grant that Christ did institute a sacrifice in the sup∣per. Secondly vnproperly, as a remēbrance of Christes sa∣crifice, and so doth Chrysostome expound him selfe, vpon the tenth to the Hebrues: Non aliud, &c.

We offer not an∣other sacrifice, as the high priest, but y^e same we do always, but rather we worke the remēbrance of that sacrifice. An∣other place of Chrysostome he citeth out of his Ser. de Eu∣charist. in Enconija. Reputate salutarē, &c.

Esteeme that wholsome bloud to flowe, as it were out of his Diuine, and vnpolluted side, and so comming to it, receiue it with pure lippes. This (saith he) must needes proue a reall presence, because it is receiued

with lip••, as y^e spiritual receiuing is not. And these words must be spoken in a plaine maner without all figure, be∣cause he spake them in a sermon, to the common people. O blockish reasons: surely he hath not read this place in Chrysostom, but borowed it of some note book. For im∣mediatly before these wordes, is a place that hath a great shewe of transubstantiation, but in deede it cleane ouer∣throweth both y^e corporal maner of receiuing, & M. Hesk. two doughtie reasons. Num vides panem, num vi••um▪

No•••• ficut reliqui ••ibi in secessum vadunt? Absit ne sic cogites, quēaed••o•••• enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimulatur, nihil substantia vema∣net, nihil superfluit: sic & hic pu••a mysteria consumi corporis prae∣sentia, Prop••er, quod & accedentes ne putetis, quod accipiatis Diui∣num corpus ex homine, sed ex ipsis Seraphim forcipe ignē, quem sci∣lices Esaias vidit, vat accipere. What doest thou see bread or wine? Do they go into the drought like other meal? God forbid, that thou sholdest so thinke. Fo•• as waxe if it be put to the fire, is made like vnto it, none of the substance remaineth, nothing ouerfloweth: so here think the myste∣ries, to be consumed by the presence of y^e bodie. Therfore you that come to it, think not that you receiue the diuine bodie of a man, but that you receiue, the fier which Esaie saw with a paire of tongs of the Seraphims themselues.

If M. Hesk. will not allow any figures in this sermon, be∣cause it was made to the common people, that we receiue not the Lords bodie at the Priests hand, but fire from the altar by an Angels hande: and y^t Chrysostome allowed none but a spirituall receiuing of Christ, not corporally present on the altar, but in heauen, he teacheth sufficiētly, both by this place, & more plainely following y^e former place which M. Hesk. cited before In 1. Cor. 10. Ad hoc 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nos inducis sacrifici••on formidand•••• & admirabile, quod iubet nobis vt cum concordia & charitate maxima ad se accedamis, & aquilae in hac vita facti, ad ipsum c••lum euotemus, vel potius supra 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Vbi enim cad••uer, inquit, illic & aquilae. Cadauer Domini corpu•• propter mortem, nisi enim ille cecidisset, nos nō resurrexissemus A∣quilas 〈◊〉〈◊〉 appellat, vt oftendat ad alta eum oportere contēdere, qui ad hoc corpus ac••edit, & nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune,

neque ad inferiora trahi & repere sed ad superiora sēper volare, & in solem institiae intueri, mentisqué oculum acutissimum habere. A∣quilaerum enim non gracculorum hec mensa est. For vnto this do∣eth the fearefull and wonderful sacrifice bring vs, that he cōmandeth vs, that we come vnto him with concord and great charitie, and beeing made eagles in this life, we flie vp into heauen or rather aboue heauen. For where the car∣kase is, saith he, there are the Eagles. The Lords bodie is the carkas in respect of his death, for except he had fallen, we had not risen againe. And he calleth them Eagles, to shew, that he must get vp on high y^t cōmeth to this body, & must haue nothing to do with the earth, nor be drawn and creepe to the lower places, but alwayes to flie vp on high, and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse, and to haue a most cleare eye of the minde. For this is the table of Eagles and not of Iayes.

These words may satisfie a rea∣sonable man, that Chrysostom in this homily, ment none other, but a spirituall manner of receiuing of Christe in heauen, and not transubstantiated in the sacrament on the altar, in earth: y^e other places he soweth together after his manner, to peece out his Chapter, out of Cyprian De Coen. Chrysost. De prodition. Iudae. August. contra literas Pet. Iren. Lib. 4. Cap. 32. are answered at large before in seuerall pla∣ces, namely in order. Lib. 1. Ca. 17. Lib. 1. Cap. 18. Lib. 1. Cap. 19. and Lib. 2. Cap. 49. The place of Ambrose In prima oratione praepar. &c. Deserueth none answere, beeing none of his workes but a counterfet, as Erasmus, and all learned men do iudge, that be not wedded to their owne affection.

The seuententh Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by the exposition of Chrysostome and S. Hierome.* 1.35

Chrysostome is cited as before vpon this text In 1. Cor. 10. vpon these wordes: The bread which we breake,* 1.36 is it not the communication of the bodie of Christ? Quare non dixit participatio? Why said he not the participatiō? because he wold signifie somewhat more, for we do not communicate only in partici∣pation and receiuing, but in vnitie: for as that bodie is vnited to Christ, so are we by this bread ioyned together in an vnion. But why

doth he adde: Which we breake? This may we see in the Eucharisty but in the crosse not so, but altogether contrariwise. There shall no bone of his be broken, (saith he) but that he suffred not in the crosse, he suffereth in the oblation and permitteth for thee to be broken. Here first he misliketh y^e translation of the English Bible, that calleth it participation. A simple quarrel. I would see the Bible perfectly translated into English by the Pa∣pists. And yet the vulgar Popish Latine hath Participatio, & M. Heskins himselfe translateth it the partaking. But be∣side the communion whiche hee passeth ouer, M. Hes∣kins gathereth his reall presence and sacrifice. I will adde none other place of Chrysostome, to explane his mea∣ning, this is so manifest of it selfe against both. First whereas M. Heskins reasoneth for the reall presence of the communion, which is such with vs & Christ, as is with Christ and his bodie, and that is substantially, and not spi∣ritually: I answer he vtterly falsifieth Chrysostoms mea∣ning, for he speaketh of our coniunction one with ano∣ther, which is spiritually, & not of Christe with vs: we communicate (saith he) in vnitie, that we might be ioy∣ned one with an other in an vnion. Therefore M. Heskins argument holdeth not. Secondly, y^t he speaketh of brea∣king of Christ in the sacrifice, is so manifest to be vnder∣stood spiritually, that it ouerthroweth, both the presence and the sacrifice: for Christ is not broken but spiritually: therefore he is not present but spiritually. M. Heskins ••ombleth out the matter with a foolish caueat, y^t though Christ suffer & be broken in y^e sacrament, yet he suffreth no violence nor paine. But let him speake plainely, if he dare for his eares, that Christe is really and substantially broken, though w^tout pain, for that breaking of his body, which Christ speaketh of in the institution of y^e sacramēt was perfourmed really and substantially vpon the crosse. Wherefore vpon Chrysost. authoritie I will conclude a∣gainst all y^e Papistes in the world: Christ is so present in y^e sacrament, y^t he is broken therin, but he is not broken cor∣porally but spiritually, therefore he is not present cor∣porally, but spiritually. Beside this, it is to be noted in y^t

saying of Chrysost. that he compareth y^t bodie, with this bread. As that bodie is vnited to Christ, so are we by this bread ioyned together in an vnitie or vnion. Hoc & il••ud be spoken of diuers things, else he wold haue said: so by the same body we are ioyned in an vnion, but he saith, by this bread, ther∣fore the body is one thing, & this bread another thing in corporal substance. S. Hierom is cited 1. Cor. 10. Calix. bene∣dictionis &c. The cup of blessing, &c. Therefore he named the cup first, that he might dispute more at large of the bread. Is it not the cōmunication of the bloud of Christ, as our sauiour himselfe saith? he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud abideth in me & I in him. Here is nothing but y^t we do all confesse, sauing y^t M. Hes. will denie the bread y^t S. Hierome speaketh of, to al men, & y^e cup to all lay men. The other place of Hierome y^t he interlaceth after his maner, In Psal. 110. is answered before Lib. 1. Ca. 30. The third place followeth in Hierome immediatly after the first. Et panis quem frangimus nōne par∣ticipatio corporis Domini est? Ita & panis idolatrie, daemonū par∣ticipatio esse monstratur. And is not the bread which we breake a participation of the bodie of our Lord? Euen so also the bread of ido∣latrie is a participation of diuels. Here M.H. to mainteine his fond quarrel against the translation of the English Bible hath falsified S. Hier. & in steede of Participatio, set downe Cōmunicatio corporis, &c. a cōmunication of y^e body, &c. The place it self is directly against M. Hesk. bil, because y^e par∣ticipation of y^e Lords bodie is cōpared w^t the participation of diuels, which cannot be a corporal maner of partaking. And it foloweth: Omnes quidē de vno pane, & de vno Calice par∣ticipamus. Ita si cū idololatris de vno pane comedimus, vnū cūillis corpus efficimur. videte Israel secundū carnē. Carnalis Israel carna∣les hostias offerebat sicut spiritualis sacrificia spiritualia offert Chri∣sto. We al truly are partakers of one bread & of one cup, so if we eat of one bread w^t idolaters, we are made one bo∣dy with them. Behold Israel according to the fleshe. The carnal Israel did offer carnal sacrifices, euen as y^e spiritual Israel doth offer spirituall sacrifices to Christe. In these wordes obserue, that we are so made one bodie, by parta∣king of one bread and cup, as by eating one bread with i∣dolaters, which can not be after a corporall manner.

Secondly, that we offer not Christ in sacrifice, but offer spiritual sacrifice to Christ.

Finally he saith vpon y^e same Chapter: Non potestis calicem Domini bibere, & calicem Daemo∣niorum. Non potestis Dei & Daemonum esse particip••s. You can not drinke of the cup of our Lorde and the cup of diuels: you can not be partakers of God and of Diuels.

See nowe by S. Hieromes iudgement, y^t to be partaker of the cup of the Lord, is to be partaker of God, & not of the bloud of Christ after a corporal, but after a spiritual maner. For if the bloud of Christ were conteined locally & substantial∣ly in the cup, & that wicked men might drink y^e bloud of Christ, (as Papistes holde) then a man might be partaker both of the cup of the Lord, & of the cup of diuels, yea of the bodie of y^e Lord, & of the table of diuels, which Saint Paul doth so expresly denie. As touching his bald reason of the sacrifice, it is answered before, and out of Hierome euen now, and his real presence being taken away, it pas∣seth away with it.

* 1.37The eighteenth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Augustine, and Damascen.

* 1.38He citeth S. Augustine Contra Inimic. Leg. & prophet. na∣ming neither what booke nor Chapter, to cloake his shamefull corruption, and falsification. For in the very middes he leaueth out a sentence or two, beside that, he cutteth off the later parte, which doth clearely open Saint Augustines mind, & thus he citeth it: Nol•• vos socies Dae∣morum, &c. I will not that ye be made fellowes of Diuels. He did truely forbid them from idolatrie. For the which thing he would de∣clare to them, that they should euen so be made fellowes of diuels, if they did eate Idolathytes of the sacrifice, as the carnall Israel whiche did eate of the sacrifices in the Temple▪ was fellow of the altar. By occasion of that he began, that he would say this: wherefore my most beloued flye from the honouring of Idols. Afterward following he sheweth to what sacrifice they ought to appertein: saying, I speak as vnto wise men, iudge what I say, is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communication of the bloud of Christ? and is not the bread which we breake a communication of the bodie of our Lord? In this saying, after the worde, altar, he hath gelded out thus

much:

Ideo quippe addidit carnaliter, vel secundùm carnem, quia est Israel spiritualiter vel secundùm spiritum, qui veteres vmbras iam non sequitur, sed eam consequentem quae his vmbris praece∣dentibus significata est, veritatem. For therfore he added car∣nally or after y^e flesh, because there is a Israel spiritually or according to the spirite, which doth not now followe the olde shadowes but the trueth following, which was signified by those shadowes. All this is left out of the ve∣ry middest. From the end he cutteth of these wordes fol∣lowing. Quia vnus panis & vnum corpus multi sumus: omnes enim de vno pane participamus. Et propter hoc subiunxit, videte Israel secundùm carnem, nonne qui de sacrificijs manducant, socij sunt altaris? vt intelligerent ita se iam socios esse corporis Christi quemadmodum illi socij sunt altaris. Because there is one bread, and we beeing many are one bodie, for we are all parta∣kers of one bread. And for this cause he added: Behold Is∣rael according to the flesh, are not they which eate of the sacrifices fellowes or partakers of the altar? That they might vnderstand, that they are now so fellowes or par∣takers of the bodie of Christe, as those are partakers of the altar. What can be saide more playne, for the spi∣rituall manner of participation of the bodie of Christe?

Except M. Heskins will say, that the Iewes were really, corporally, and substantially partakers of the altar. And this is conteined in the first booke & Cap. 19. And wher∣as M. Hesk. iangleth of the sacrifice mentioned in this place, heare what sacrifice it may be, by Augustines owne wordes in the 18. Chapter of the same booke.

Sed nec lau∣dibus nostris eget, &c. But neither hath he need of our pray∣ses, but as it is profitable for vs and not for him, that we offer sacrifice to God, and because the bloud of Christe is shed for vs in that singular and onely true sacrifice, there∣fore in those first times God commanded the sacrifices of immaculate beastes to be offered vnto him, to prophecie this sacrifice by such significations: that as they were ima∣culate from faults of their bodies, so he should be hoped to be offered for vs, who alone was immaculate frō sins.

Here the sacrifice of death is y^e singular sacrifice, & the on∣ly

true sacrifice propitiatorie of the Church, otherwise for the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing, or for the sacra∣ment to be called vnproperly a sacrifice of the auncient fathers, I haue often confessed before. As for Damascenes authoritie, li. 4. Ca. 14. it is not worth the aunswering, be∣ing a late writer, more then 100. yeares out of the com∣passe, and full of grosse absurdities, and in the place by M. Hesk. alledged, denyeth that Basill calleth breade & wine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or exemplaria, exemplaries of the bodie and bloud of Christ after the consecration, which is an impudent lye: for before the consecration they are no sa∣craments, and so no exemplars of the bodie and bloud of Christe: therefore if he called them exemplars, it must needs be when they are sacraments, & y^t is after consecra∣tion: but such lippes such lettyce, he is a sufficient author for M. Heskins, and yet hee is directly against transub∣stantiation. For he saith: cum sit mos hominum edere panem & bibere vinum, ijs rebus adiunxit suam diuinitatem: whereas it is the manner of men to eate beead and drinke wine, hee hath ioyned his diuinitie to these things. In these words he acknowledgeth the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament, & the diuinitie of Christ to bee ioyned to them.

* 1.39The nynteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text, by Isidore & Oecumenius.

* 1.40M. Hesk. hath many friends in the lower house, as hee hath neuer a one in the vpper house that fauoureth his bil: Yet Isidorus saith litle for him, but rather against him. He citeth him, lib. 1. offic. Cap. 18. Panis, &c. The bread which we breake, is the bodie of Christ, which sayth I am the bread of life, which came downe from heauen, and the wine is his bloud, and this is it that is written, I am the true vine. M. Hesk. saith truely, that Isidore is the rather to be credited, because he alledgeth the scripture: and therefore, according to these two textes of scripture, he must be vnderstoode, but nei∣ther of both these texts, is to be vnderstood litterally, but figuratiuely: therefore his saying: the breade is the bo∣die, and the wine is his bloud, must be vnderstood figu∣ratiuely,

& not litterally, which M. Heskins perceiuing, would help him out by foysting in a place of Cyrillus in Ioan. Annon conuenienter, &c May it not be conueniently sayde, that his humanitie is the vine & we the branches, because wee be all of the same nature? For the vine & the branches be of the same nature: So both spiritually & corporally wee are the braun∣ches and Christ is the vine. In these wordes Cyrill reasoneth against an Arrian, as is more at large declared in y^e sixth Chapter of this third booke, y^t would interpret this place only of the diuinitie of Christe, to make him lesse then his father, as the vine is subiect to the husbandman. But Cyrill contendeth, y^t it may well be vnderstoode also of his humanitie, because we are not onely ioyned to the di∣uinitie of Christ, but also to his flesh, which is testifyed vnto vs by the sacrament, wherin we are spiritually fedd with the verie bodie & bloud of Christe, and so Christe is the vine both spiritually & corporally, that is both af∣ter his godhead & after his manhod. But Cyrillus would neuer denie that this saying: I am the true vine, is a fi∣guratiue speach, which is the matter in controuersie be∣tweene M. Hesk. and vs.

Oecumenius is alledged to as litle purpose as Isidorus, in 1. Cor. 10. Poculum vocat, &c. He calleth the cupp of the bloud of Christ, the cupp of blessing which we blesse, which hauing in our hands, we blesse him which hath giuen vs his bloude. Here is ne∣uer a worde, but I will willingly subscribe vnto it, & yet M. Hesk. sayth, it is a common manner of speache, that the vessel is named by the thing that it conteineth, hee dare not say, it is a figuratiue speach, lest while he would haue the bloud of Christ locally conteined in the cupp, he might be pressed with the figure in the worde bloud, which he cannot denye, though he dissemble in the word cupp. In the end he braggeth of an euident and stronger sentence of these writers, which when it commeth, wee shal examine it, in the meane time, they haue no voyce in the vpper house, and therefore we feare not greatly what they say.

* 1.41The twelfth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Haime & Theophylact.

It were losse of time, to quarrell about the testimo∣nies of these two burgesses of the lower house.* 1.42 Maister Heskins sayeth, that there wanteth nothing in Theo∣phylact, that is necessarie for a credible witnesse. At least, he should haue excepted, that he defended an here∣sie of the proceeding of the holie Ghost, against the chur∣che of Rome in 3. Ioan. As for his antiquitie, which hee maketh to be before the controuersie was moued by Be∣rengarius, although it were so, yet it were none argu∣ment of his trueth. But it seemeth, hee was much about the time of Berengarius Anno. 1049. Neither doth Peter Martyr, whome Maister Heskins rayleth vppon, so much esteeme his authoritie, that he would wrest it to his side, more then the verie words of Theophylact would beare, as the learned that read his workes can testifie.

* 1.43The one and twentieth Chapter, proceedeth yet vppon the same text by Anselmus & Bruno.

* 1.44Let M. Hesk. make the moste of those burgesses, the bill will passe neuer the sooner, though all the lower house allowed it, so long as it cannot be receiued into the higher house. The latter ende conteineth a vaine repeti∣tion of Cyprian and Prospers sayings so often aunswe∣red before, with a foolishe insultation against the pro∣claimer, as though he sawe not these doctors, as well as M. Heskins, who (I beleeue) neuer opened halfe the bookes of them, whose sayings he hath alledged, he hath cited the most of them so corruptly, not onely falsifying them, to serue his turne, but also, when there was no ad∣uantage for him, in his corruption.

* 1.45The two and twentieth Chapter, endeth the exposition of this text, by Dionyse & Gagneius.

Two worshipfull burgesses, vnto whome hee addeth Bishop Fisher for the thirde,* 1.46 after he hath made a shorte rehearsall of all those writers, whose authoritie he hath vsed, & abused, to mainteine this his exposition.

The three and twentieth Chapter, beginneth the exposition of this text: Quoniam vnus panis, &c.* 1.47

The text is this: Because there is one bread, and wee being many, are one bodie, for we are all partakers of the same bread,* 1.48 & of the same cupp. First. M. Hesk. sayeth, that the Apostle speaking of our Communion with Christ, and with our selues, declareth, that bread and the cuppe bee not taken for bare figures of the bodie & bloud of Christ, in which argument he fighteth with his owne shadowe, for we de∣test bare figures, as much as grosse transubstantiation. Secondly, he sayeth, our communion with Christ, is both spirituall and corporall: spirituall in baptisme, and cor∣porall in this sacrament, or else this sacrament was in∣stituted in vaine, if we haue none other communion with Christ thereby, then spirituall, which is in baptisme. I answere his argument is nought, for the diuerse dispen∣sations of the same grace, is testified and confirmed to vs by diuerse sacraments, our regeneration by baptisme, and our preseruation, as by spirituall foode, by y^e Lordes supper. As for the superstitious bread that was giuen in Saint Augustines time to those that were Catechume∣ni in steede of the sacrament, hee doeth well to compare to their popish holie bread, sauing that there is greate difference: for that was giuen onely to them that were not baptised, this altogether to them that are baptized, & many that haue receiued the other sacrament at their hands. But where he hath tossed his corporall communi∣on to & fro, at last he addeth a condition of receiuing worthily, so that he denyeth in effect, that he saide be∣fore, that by receipt of Christes bodie, men are incorpo∣rate to Christ, & forceth the wordes of the Apostle to be many, and not all, which is false, for he sayeth all y^t eate of this bread, though we be many yet are made one bo∣die. Finally, in that the Apostle sayeth, we all eate of one bread & drink of one cupp, M. Hesk▪ saith, that he tooke it not for bare material bread, for then it were not true: as for his bare bread, let him keepe to crome his pottage. But howe prooueth he, that Saint Paule spake not of ma∣teriall

bread, as the earthly parte of the sacrament? For∣sooth all do not eat one bread: for the Greekes eat leue∣ned bread, & the Latines fine & vnleuened bread. In the Popish church is giuen to euery communicant a sundrie bread, in the scismaticall church, euery conuenticle hath a sundrie bread, and sometimes diuerse breades, therfore it is no materiall bread, that S. Paule speaketh of, but the heauenly bodie of Christ. If I were as froward a rea∣soner, as M. Hesk. I would aske him whether the body of Christ be not a materiall body, because he maketh ma∣teriall & heauenly, diuerse differences, as though he were an Eutychian. But admitt that by materiall bread hee meaneth bread properly so called, and the heauenly bo∣die figuratiuely called bread, which he is loth to come to: what mad man woulde vnderstand that one breade which S. Paul sayeth, to be distributed in euery commu∣nion to all that are present, and whereof euery one ta∣keth parte in token of the communion or fellowship of many in one bodie, for all the kindes & fashions of bread that are vsed in all communions in the worlde? For the Apostles argument is grounded of y^e similitude of bread, which of many graines is made one bread, so wee being many are made one bodie. And therefore in vaine doeth he racke these wordes of S. Paul, to the meaning of Bar∣narde, whose authoritie we receiue not, or to the words of Chrysostome, which he falsly alledgeth to be in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 17. whereas they be in ad Hebraeos. 10. Hom. 7. which is nothing, but an obiection of his: the place is wholy ci∣ted in the first booke & 37. Chapter, where you shall see how much it maketh for M. Hesk.

* 1.49The 24. Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Chrysostom and S. Augustine.

* 1.50Chrysostome vpon this place is cited thus: Quoniam v∣nus panis & vnum corpus, &c. For there is one bread & wee be∣ing many are one bodie. For what do I call (saith he) a comme∣moration? wee are the selfe same bodie. What is the breade? the bodie of CHRIST, and what are they made

which receiue it? the body of Christ, not many bodies but one body. For as the breade is made one of many cornes, so that the cornes do not appeare, and yet there are cornes, but ioyned together, so that they can not be discerned: so are we ioyned one with an other, and with Christ. For thou art not nourished of one body, and he of an o∣ther▪ but all of the same, therefore he added all we, which doe par∣take of the same bread. Of these wordes Maister Heskins wil haue vs to learne three things. First, that communication is to be all of one body, which is true, so wee vnderstand a spirituall kinde of coniunction, by which wee are not only ioyned to Christ, as Chrysostome saith, but also one to an other in one body. Secondly, that it is the body of Christ, by the eating whereof we are made one body, and this also is true, for we contend not for the eating of Christes body, but for the manner of eating.

The third note I thinke hee maketh, that by Chry∣sostomes iudgement Saint Paule meant not materiall breade, but the body of Christe, which is proued to bee false and absurde by these two reasons. First, if Saint Chrysostome by breade meant not the sacramentall breade, but the body of Christe, then his question is no∣thing else in effect, but what is the body of Christe? And then he answereth, the body of Christe, which is ve∣ry absurde and ridiculous. Secondly, that he meaneth materiall breade vsed in the sacrament, it is manifest in that hee saith, it is made of many graines, but the body of Christe it not made of graines, therefore hee can not meane the body of Christe, but the sacramentall breade, which signifieth the body of Christe. But here Maister Heskins, as though hee were the first that espied the mat∣ter insulteth vpon him that translateth this part of Chry∣sostome, which was Franciscus Aretinus, whom either of ignorāce or of malice, he chargeth to haue falsified Chry∣sostome, and in steede of his wordes which according to the Greeke are, What is the bread? to haue turned it, What doth the bread signifie? For my part, although the Greeke copies cōmonly extant in print, are not as he hath transla¦ted it, yet I suppose, y^t he followed either some other copy

that I haue not seene, peraduenture printed, peraduentur•• written. For vndoutedly, although he were ignorantly or willfully deceiued, yet the sense of Chrysostomes words must needes be: what doth the bread signifie? which M. Heskins can not altogether dissemble, but then he will haue it not materiall bread, but the word, bread. But how friuolous that is, I haue shewed before, for this worde, Breade, is not made of cornes, but the materiall bread gi∣uen in the sacrament. Neither doth the other worde hee citeth, any thing helpe him. Non enim simpliciter &c. For hee hath not simplie giuen his body, but when the former nature of the flesh formed out of the earth, by sinne being made mortall, was for∣saken of life, he brought in an other (as I might so say) lumpe or leauen, that is, his flesh, in nature truely the same, but free from sinne and ful of life, which he giueth to all, that they might be made partakers of it, that being nourished with it, and the first that was dead being cast away, we might be ioyned together by this liuing & immortall table. Loe (saith M. Heskins) this is not a peece of dead breade, but a liuing and immortall meate, hee dare not say, table, as Chrysostome doth, for feare of a figure. But is he so blinde, that he seeth not the partaking and nourishing of the newe flesh to be such, as the casting a∣way of the olde is? which no man doubteth to be spiri∣tuall.

But seeing he braggeth so much of Chrysostome, and is such an enimie to signes and figures, let him heare what he writeth in Math. Hom. 83. Sed ficut in veteri, eodem h••c modo in beneficio reliquit memoriam mysteriorum colligendo & hinc haereticorum ora frenando. Nam quando dicunt vnde patet immolatum Christum fuisse, & alia multa mysteriae? Haec enim ad∣ferentes, eorum ora consuimus. Si enim mortuus Iesus non est, cu∣ius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est? Vides quancum ei stu∣dium fuerit, vt semper memoria tentamus pro nobis ipsum mortu∣um fuisse. But as in the olde Paschal▪ euen likewise here in this benefite hee hath left the memorie of the myste∣ries, by gathering, and hereof bridling the mouthes of he∣retikes. For when they say, howe is it knowne that Christ was sacrificed, and many other mysteries? For when we bring foorth those things, we soe vp their mouthes. For

if Iesus be not dead, of whom is this sacrifice a token and signe? Thou seest howe great care he had, that we might alwayes keepe in remembrance, that he dyed for vs.

There can nothing be spoken more plainly, to declare either what the sacrament is, or for what end it was or∣dained, or finally, what manner of sacrifice it is accounted of Chrysostome, and the auncient Fathers. But nowe fol∣loweth S. Augustine Ser. 2. Pasc. Quia Christus passus est &c. Bicause Christ hath suffered for vs, he hath commended vnto vs his body and his bloud in this sacrament: which also he hath made our owne selues. For we also are made his body, and by his mercy we are that which we receiue. I like this saying very well, it maketh altogether for the truth on our side. Yet M. Heskins no∣teth, that he saith not, he hath commended a figure or me∣moriall, but his body and his bloud. I agree well, but hee saith, that hee hath commended his body and bloud in a sacrament, hee doth not say, the sacrament is his naturall body present vnder the formes of bread and wine corpo∣rally, that I may followe M. Heskins negatiue argument. But especially let vs note what he saith, and not what hee saith not. He saith, we are the same that we receiue, but we are not his naturall body after a corporall manner, ther∣fore wee receiue not his naturall body after a corporall manner. The rest that followeth to moue vs to abide in this body of Christ, confirmeth the same. Dic mihi quid est &c. Tell me what is it whereof thou liuest? Doth thy spirite liue by thy body, or thy body by thy spirite? Euery one that liueth aunswe∣reth: I liue by my spirite. And he that can not answere this, I knowe not whether he liueth. What answereth euery one that li∣ueth? My body truely liueth by my spirite. Wilt thou therefore liue by the spirite of Christ? Be thou in the body of Christ. For whether doth my body liue of thy spirite? Mine liueth of my spirit, and thine liueth of thy spirit. The bodie of Christ can not liue but by the spirit of Christ. Hereof it is, that the Apostle Paul expounding this bread: One bread (saith he) we are one body. All men see, that this writer speaketh of our mysticall and spirituall coniunc∣tion with Christe, neither can M. Heskins him selfe make any other thing of it.

* 1.51The fiue and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Damascene and Haimo.

Maister Heskins store is farre spent, and therefore he maketh much of the remnants.* 1.52 Damascene and Haimo we haue before diuers times excepted against, as vnlawful witnesses, and therefore we will spend no time in exami∣ning their sayings. But whereas Maister Heskins, maketh great ado in this Chapter of our coniunction with Christ, both in soule and body, we knowe it, and doe reioyce in it, but for any thing that he saith, or all the Papistes in the world, it is not necessarie, that Christs body should be eaten with our mouth after a corporall manner, that we may haue coniunction with his body. For then infants which eate not the sacrament, should want a necessarie manner of the coniunction of their bodies with the body of Christe, and so be out of hope of resurrection. The places of Cyrill that hee citeth in 6. Ioan. Cap. 14. be cited before, the one Lib. 2. Cap. 17. the other Lib. 2. Cap. 34. where they are answered. Then followeth a discourse to proue that communion or fellowship ought not to be had with heretiques, which is very true, and therefore not to bee had with Papistes, the greatest heretiques that are. Af∣ter the saying of Haimo rehearsed, hee is angrie with vs, that we will reiect his authoritie, being as he saith, neare a thousand yeares of age, but surely in some Chronicles that I haue read he is an English man, generall or pro∣uinciall of Friers preachers, and I am sure there was ne∣uer a Dominike Frier in the world one thousand yeares after Christe, and they that make him oldest, make him to be 840. yeares since Christ. The parcell of Chry∣sostome in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. wherevnto he would com∣pare his Haimo, is rehearsed more at large Lib. 1. Cap. 18. and that of Cyrill Cap. 15. in 6. Ioan.

* 1.53The sixe and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text, by S. Cyrill and S. Thomas.

* 1.54Cyrill, whom vnfitly he matcheth with Thomas of A∣quine,

is cited in 17. Ioan. Cum trinitas vnum natura sit &c. For as much as the Trinitie in nature is one, let vs consider how we our selues also among our selues corporally and with God spiritually are one. The only begotten sonne comming out of the substance of God his father, and possessing in his nature the whole father, was made flesh according to the scriptures, and hath vnspeakably ioyned and vnited himselfe to our nature. For he that is God by nature, is made man in deede, not Theophorus, that is, hauing God in him by grace, as they that are ignorant of the mysterie do contend, but he is both very God and very man. So he hath ioyned together in him selfe that is one, those things which according to nature differ very much among them selues, and hath made vs partakers of the diuine na∣ture. For the communication of the spirite, and as I may say, the dwelling, was first in Christ, and from him hath perced into vs, when being made man, he him selfe annoynted and sanctified his temple with his owne spirite. The beginning therefore, and the way by which we are made partakers of the holy spirite, and are vnited to God, is the mysterie of Christ. For we are all sanctified in him. Ther∣fore that he might vnite euery one beetwene our selues & God, (al∣though we be asunder both in body and soul) yet he hath found out ae meane agreeable to the counsel of his father & his own wisdom. For blessing the beleuers by the mystical communion, by his body he hath made vs one body both with himself and also among our selues. For who shall thinke them straunge from this naturall vnion, which by the vnion of one holy body are vnited in one Christe? For if we all eate one bread, we are all made one body. For Christe suffereth vs not to be diuided and disioyned. Therefore all the Church is made the body of Christ, and euery one of vs the members of Christe after S. Paule, for being conioyned to one Christ by his body, bicause wee haue receiued him in vs which is indiuisible, our members be rather appropriated to him, then to vs. Concerning the vnitie of God the father with the sonne, of the two natures of God and man in Christ, and of the vnitie of the members of Christ with their head, which M. Hesk. noteth out of this place of Cyril, it shall be no neede to speake, seeing there is no controuersie betweene vs, but that these three vnities be there. Only of the maner how we be vnited, is the dif∣ference. We are vnited to y^e body of Christ, but whether by

eating the same with our mouthes, or by faith, through the vnspeakable working of Gods spirite, is all the que∣stion. All the holde, he catcheth of this place, is, that Cy∣rill calleth it a naturall vnion, as he doth also in the same place a corporall vnion, by which he meaneth, not that we are vnited after a naturall manner, or after a bodily manner, but that we are vnited vnto the very humane na∣ture and body of Christ, but after an heauenly and diuine manner. For thus it followeth in the same place, I meane in Lib. 11. Cap. 26. of Cyrill vpon the 17. of Iohn, which M. Hesk. note booke belike, did not serue him to set downe:

Quod autem corporalis haec vnio ad Christum, participatione car∣nis eius acquiritur, ipse rursus Paulus de mysterio pietatis differens testatur: quod alijs inquit generationibus non est agnitum filijs ho∣minum, sicut nunc reuelatum est sanctis apostolis eius & prophetis in spiritu, esse gentes cohaeredes, & concorpores, & comparticipes promissionis in Christo. Si autem omnes inter nos in Christo vnum sumus corpus, nec inter nos solùm, verùum etiam cum eo, qui per car∣nem suam ad nos transiuit, quomodo vniuersi & inter nos, & in Christ, vnum non erimus? And that this corporall vnion vn∣to Christ, is obtained by participation of his flesh, Paule him selfe againe doth testifie, disputing of the mysterie of godlinesse: which in other ages (saith he) was not kno∣wen to the sonnes of men, as it is nowe reuealed to his holy Apostles and Prophetes in the spirite, that the Gen∣tiles should be coheires and of the same body and com∣partners of the promise in Christe. If then we be all one body among our selues in Christe, and not among our selues only, but also with him which by his flesh is come vnto vs, howe shall we not be all one, both among our selues and in Christe?

This place of Paule by which the faithfull of the Gentiles are saide to be made one body with the faithfull of the Iewes, speaketh nothing of ea∣ting of the body of Christe in the sacrament, but of the spirituall incorporation by faith in the promises of the Gospell, nowe made common vnto the Gentiles with the Iewes, whereof the sacrament is not a bare signe, but a liuely and effectuall seale and confirmation.

Moreouer, the same Cyrill in the same booke Cap. 22. in 17. Ioā, writeth thus:

Nihil ergo mali accidere vobis potest, ai••, si carne alfue••o, cum deitatis incae potestas, quęe vos huc vs{que} serua∣uit, in posterum etiam seruatura fit. Hęc non ideo dicimus, quia Domini corpu•• non magni aestimemus, sed quia mirabiles hos effec∣tus gloriae deno••is attribuendos pat amus. Nam ipsum etiam Domi∣ni corpus coniu••cti virtue verbi sanctificatur, & ad benedictio∣nem mystica•• ade•• actiuum fit, vt possit sanctificationem nobis fuam im••••ttere. Therefore (saith he) none euill can happen vnto you, though I shall be absent in flesh, seeing the po∣wer of my Godhead, which hath saued you hitherto, shall also preserue you hereafter. We speake not these thinges therefore, bicause we doe not greatly esteeme the Lordes bodie, but bicause wee thinke that these maruellous ef∣fectes are to be attributed to the glorie of his Godhead. For euen the same body of our Lorde is sanctified by the vertue of the Worde, that is ioyned with it, and made so effectuall vnto the mysticall blessing, that it can send in to vs the sanctification thereof.

Note here gentle reader, that the flesh of Christ though it be absent, yet by the diuine power is able to make vs partakers of his sanctification. Absent I say, as concerning locall presence, after which it is in heauen, and not vpon earth, yet hath it these maruellous effectes by the glory of his Godhead, as Cyrill saith, that ioyning vs vnto it by faith, in the participation of the holy mysteries, it fee∣deth vs vnto eternall life. The place of Cyrill in 15. Ioan. Cap. is contained and aunswered in the 6. Chapter of this third booke, where you shall see that the proclamer de∣nyeth nothing, that Cyrill in that place affirmeth. As for the saying of Thomas of Aquine, one of the scholasti∣call sophisters in Diuinitie, I passe ouer, hee is cocke sure of M. Heskins side.

The seuen and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text, by Euthym. and Hugo.* 1.55

Concerning the antiquitie of Euthymius,* 1.56 I haue often

testified before, that he is no Lorde of the higher house. Notwithstanding, bicause he borroweth most of his mat∣ter of the elder writers, I will set downe his wordes which make nothing for M. Heskins purpose. In Math. 6. Quem∣admod••m &c. As breade do••h comfort, so the body of Christ doth the same and more also: it sanctifieth both the body and the soule. And as wine doth make glad, so the bloud of Christe doth the same, and moreouer is made a defence. And if all we that are faithfull doe partake of one body and bloud, we are all one by the participa∣tion of these mysteries, both all in Christe, and Christe in us all. He that eateth (saith he) my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, abideth in me, and I in him. For the word•• truely by assumption is vnited to the flesh: and this flesh again is vnited to vs by participation. This place seemeth to M. Heskins to be very plaine, and so thinke I: for there is nothing in it but I graunt to bee true, being rightly vnderstoode. M. Heskins saith, he ex∣poundeth the breade and the cuppe, to be the body and bloud of Christ, or else the text were cleerer then the ex∣position, in which fantasie he pleaseth him selfe excee∣dingly. We graunt, that the breade and cup in S. Paule, signifie the body and bloud of Christe, which we receiue in the sacrament, after a spirituall and diuine manner. Thirdly he noteth, that we are vnited by participation into the flesh of Christe, which he saith we deny, but hee lieth impudently, for we constantly affirme, that except we be partakers of the flesh and bloud of Christe, we can not be partakers of eternall life. But that this partaking is after a corporall manner, or only in the sacrament, that we deny. And that also doth Euthymius deny in effect, where he teacheth, that whereas we are vnited to Christe, & Christe to vs, so are we vnited together. but this is after a spiritual & ineffable manner: so is the other. We graunt y^t Cyril saith, we could not be partakers of eternal life ex∣cept we were ioyned to y^e body of natural or true life, that is, to the body of Christ, in Ioan. 6. li. 15. but we are ioyned otherwise then by y^e Lords supper, or els no infants shuld be partakers of eternall life. Finally where M. Hes. affir∣meth, y^t the words of Euthymius by no engin▪ can be wre∣sted

from his carnal maner of presēce, bicause he speaketh before of the transmutation of the bread & wine into the body & bloud of Christ, I answere, he speaketh of no such transmutation, but y^t we do graunt the same, namely a sa∣cramental change, such as is of the water in baptisme, of which also he taketh a similitude.

Siquidem in baptismo sen∣sibilis quidem est aqua: sed donum intelligibile, est regeneratio. Quo∣niā enim in nobis anima cōserta est corpori, in sensibilibus intelligi∣bilia tradidit nobis Deus. For in baptisme also, y^e water truely is a sensible thing, but regeneratiō is an intelligible gift. For bicause our soule is inclosed in our body, God hath deliuered vnto vs intelligible things in sensible things.

The water in baptisme is not chaunged into regenera∣tion, nor regeneration included in the water: and speaking of the same transmutation, hee saith, the breade and wine are transmuted into the body and bloud of Christe, and into the grace of them. But the substance of y^e bread & wine is not turned into the grace of the body and bloud, therfore neither into the body and bloud. And this is the great helpe he hath out of Euthymius. As for Cardinall Hugh, I will not trouble y^e reader with his saying, whose authoritie I vtterly refuse. In the latter end of this Chap. as he vseth to deale, when he hath such single witnesses in hand, he patcheth in a piece or two of his old stuffe, serued before, as that of Dionyse, falsly called the Areopagite, Eccle. Hierach. 1. part. cap. 3 answered before. Li. 1. Ca. 35. That of Ambrose de mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9. lib. 2. cap. 10. & ser. 2. and else where oftentimes. He nameth also Irenaeus Lib. 5. aduers. haer. but he setteth not downe his wordes.

The eight and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Oecumenius and Anselmus.* 1.57

In the beginning of this Chapter, he glorieth vainly of the multitude of writers of his side,* 1.58 but then they must be such as he nameth in y^e title that is, late writers, although Oecumenius hath nothing y^t maketh strongly for him, & the place y^t is here alledged in 1. Cor. 10. is in a maner the very words of Chry. which we had euen now in y^e cap. 24. Vnus panis &c. We are one bread & one body. For we are al parta∣kers

of one breade. He addeth a reason howe we are made the body of Christe. For what is the bread (saith he)? forsooth the body of Christe. And what are they made which partake it? Surely the body of Christe. For that maketh vs also partakers of the body of Christe. For one breade, is Christe. For of many graines (as for example we may speake) one breade is made, and we being ma∣ny partaking of that one, are made one body of Christe: For bi∣cause our olde flesh is corrupted vnder sinne, we had neede of a newe flesh.

I had not thought to haue noted Maister Heskins fal∣sification in this place, translating Corpus nempe Christi, Ve∣rily the body of Christe, but that hee would delude the ignoraunt reader afterwarde, and say, if it bee verily the body of Christe, it is not figuratiuely his body, as though nempe were the same that verè or propriè. But herein I will leaue him to children in the Grammer schoole to be derided, and boyes that neuer read three leaues of A∣ristotles Logike in the Vniuersities. The like follie hee sheweth in preuenting our aunswere, that Oecume∣nius speaketh of the mysticall body of Christe, bycause hee speaketh first of the breade that wee receiue, and af∣ter of vs that receiue it. But doeth hee not say, wee are made the same body, that wee receiue? Wherefore I will thus inferre, wee are made the same body that wee receiue, but wee are not made the same naturall body corporally, therefore we receiue not the same natural bo∣dy corporally.

Nowe let Maister Heskins make as much as hee can of Oecumenius authoritie, and ray••e as long as hee list against the disagreement of Luther, Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius, they shall bee found to agree better where they most disagree, then the Pope and al his clear∣gie agree with Christ and the trueth, when they all agree to persecute and oppresse. And as concerning these pro∣perties of a true Prieste, that hee gathereth out of Mala∣chie, the lawe of trueth in their mouth, peace and equitie in their wayes, and conuersion of men from iniquitie, notwithstanding Maister Heskins slanderous pen, shal be

found in them and in al the true preachers of our church in the iudgment of Christ, when the Pope and his Popish shauelings shal be condemned of false doctrine, crueltie, & abhominable life in them selues, and teaching the doc∣trine of licentiousnesse vnto others, I meane the doctrine of merites, satisfactions, purgatorie, pardoning, and such like. The authoritie of Anselme a professed enimie of Be∣rengarius I resigne to M. Hes. with ten thousand such as he is, not comparable in credite with one of the higher house, who only are me••te to determine this controuersie of the manner of Christes presence in the sacrament.

The nine and twentieth Chapter treateth of the same text by Theophylact and Dionyse, and endeth with Remigius.* 1.59

The last couple, saith M. Heskins, make vp a ful Iewrie,* 1.60 to passe for life and death, but we may lawfully chalenge the aray, being enpanelled by M. Heskins a partial shirif, and also we haue excepted against many of the Iewrors, and now do except against both these, namely Theophy∣lact of Bulgarie, as a late writer and an heretique, and Dionyse of the Charterhouse, as one of the feeid and fed seruants of y^e Pope. Although Theophylact being reaso∣nably expounded, according to his owne sayings in other places, saith nothing directly against vs. But in default of these, here is a third man taken, belike de circunstantibus, & that is Remigius, whome M. Heskins to make him a law∣full Iewrie man, affirmeth to haue liued Anno Dom. 511. and so within the compasse of y^e challenge. But if he deale so, wee must haue a writ against him de identitate nominis. For as we finde that there was in deede one Remigius bi∣shop of Remes about that time, so likewise we finde that the authour of this commentarie in 1. Cor. 10. was bishop Antisiodocensis almost 400. yeres after, namely about the yere of Christ. 894. Notwithstanding, bicause his words are almost the same which are before ascribed to Hierom Cap. 17. I will not spare to set them downe. Calix benedic∣tionis &c. The cup of blessing which we blesse, is it not the commu∣nication

of the bloud of Christe? Therefore he named the cup first, because he would afterward treate more at large of the bread. It is called the cup of blessing which is blessed of the priestes in the altar, & the cuppe it selfe is called a communication as it were a partici∣pation, because all do communicate of it, and receiue parte of the Lordes bloud which it conteineth in it. And the bread whiche we breake in the altar, is it not the participation of the Lordes body? Surely it is first consecrated and blessed of the priests, and of the ho∣lie Ghost, and afterward is broken, when as now although bread be seene, in trueth it is the bodie of Christ▪ Of which bread whosoeuer do communicate they doe eate the bodie of Christ. Because we being many, which eate that bread, are one bread, (vnderstand of Christ,) and one bodie of Christ. Maister Heskins noteth that the cup conteyneth the bloud of Christ, which speech may be al∣lowed, because the cup conteineth the wine, which is the bloud of Christ after a certeine manner, as S. Augustine saith. Secondly that though it seem bread, yet indeed is y^e body of Christ, he saith Lices panis videatur, Though bread be seene, yet Christ his bodie is present, after a spirituall and incomprehensible manner. But M. Heskins wil note, that all men did drinke the bloud of Christe out of the cup. And that he saith, the bread is broken, when it is the bodie of Christe, by which wordes he denyeth transub∣stantiation, as in the former, the communion vnder one kinde. Finally in affirming vs that eate that bread, to be the same bodie of Christ which we do eate: he doth clear∣ly ouerthrowe the carnall manner of eating Christes bo∣dy in the sacrament, as he doeth establish the spirituall manner of coniunction, that we haue with the bodie and bloud of Christ.

* 1.61The thirtieth Chapter, beginneth the exposition of this text, Ye cannot drinke of the cup of our Lorde and of the cup of diuels, by S. Cyprian, and Chrysostome.

* 1.62This text saith M. Heskins is a conclusion, therefore it must include sacrifice, that was in the premisses. But I de∣nie that sacrifice was any of the termes in the premisses,

of that argument wherof this is the conclusion, although it were named in the sacrifices of the Iewes, and of the Gentiles, euen as Israel, Gentiles, altar, temple, were like∣wise named, and yet not to be found in this conclusi∣on, because that although they were spoken of in the dis∣course, yet they were not in the premisses of this ar∣gument, for this it is: Who so euer is made one bodie with CHRISTE can not drinke of the Lordes cuppe and of the cuppe of Diuels: but you are made one bo∣die with Christe: therefore you cannot drinke the Lordes cuppe, and the cuppe of diuels. Now therefore to Saint Cyprian Ser. 5. de Lapsis. Contra Euangelij vigorem, &c. Against the force of the Gospel, against the law of our Lord and of God, by the rashnesse of some, communication is set as libertie to them that are vnprouided. Which is a vaine and a false peace, perillous to the giuers, and nothing profitable to the receiuers. They seeke not the patience of health, nor the true medicine by satisfaction. Repen∣tance is shut vp from sinners. The remembrance of a moste greeuous and extreeme offence is taken away. The woundes of them that are in dying are couered, and the deadly strype in the deepe and inward bowels is hidde with dissembled sorrowe.

Retourning from the altar of the diuell with handes filthye and defiled with the greasie sauour, they come to the holie of the LORDE. Almoste yet belching out the deadly meates of I∣dols, with their lawes yet breathing out their wickednesse, and sauouring of their deadly infections, they set vpon the Lords body: whereas the Scripture commeth againste them and cryeth, and sayeth: Euerie cleane person shall eate the fleshe: But if any eate of the fleshe of the wholesome sacrifice whiche is the Lordes, hauing his vncleanenesse vpon him, the same soule shall perishe from among his people. The Apostle also witnesseth and say∣eth: ye can not drinke the cuppe of the Lorde, and the cuppe of Diuels: Ye can not communicate of the table of the Lorde, and the table of diuels. In this sermon Cyprian reproued those men whiche had admitted to the communion, such persons as had sacrificed to idols, before they were throughly penitent, and had made satisfaction to the Church which was offended by them, contrarie to the

order of good discipline. Now saith Maister Heskins he would not so sharply haue reproued them, if the thing they receiued, had beene but a peece of bread. A wise rea∣son. What if a man at that time had come vnreuerently to baptisme, had it not ben an horrible offence, although the outward element of baptisme be nothing but a litle water? Although when we say▪ that bread is a parte of the sacrament, we neuer teache, that it is but a peece of bread, neither doe we say that baptisme is nothing but water. They that vnreuerently rush vnto the Lords sacra∣ments are punished for their presūption, not in respect of that they receiue, whether it be bread, wine, or water, but for that they receiue it vnworthily. Another thing he no∣teth out of Cyprian, is, that Christes bodie is a sacrifice, because he alledgeth the scripture of Leuiticus, which is spoken of a sacrifice, as though the scripture could not be rightly applyed, that spake of holie meate vnreuerenely receiued, vnto the vnreuerent receiuing of the sacrament, except the sacrament were a sacrifice: this is out of all compasse of reason. He might as well say, the sacrament is a burnt offring, because it is compared to a sacrifice which is a burnt offring, and an hundreth other absurdi∣ties may likewise be inferred, which for reuerence of the blessed mysteries, I spare to name. But it followeth in Cyprian immediately, where Maister Heskins leaueth:

Idem conu••••nacibus & pertinacibus comminatur & detr••••iciat di∣cens: quicun{que}, ederis panem aut biberit calicem Domini indignè, reus eri•• corporis & sanguinis Domini. Spretis his omnibus atque contemp••is, vis infertur corpori cius & sanguini eiut. Plus modò in Dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt, quàm cum Dominum ne∣g••uerunt. The same Paule threateneth and denounceth to y^e obstinate and froward, saying: whosoeuer shal eate of y^e bread & drink of the cup of the Lord vnworthily, shalbe guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. All these say∣ings being despised and contemned, violence is done vn∣to his bodie & his bloud. They do more offend against the Lord now with their hands & their mouth, then when they denied the Lord.

These wordes declare that Cyprian

calleth not the bread & cup the bodie & bloud of Christ▪ as M. Hesk. would haue it, properly, but figuratiuely: for no force or violence can be done to the bodie and bloud of Christe, but to the sacrament thereof there may, and Christ is iniured in the contempt of his mysteries: as the Prince in contumelious breaking & abusing of the broad seale by rebellious subiectes, though he suffer no vio∣lence in his owne person. Chrysostome is cited Ho. 11. ad Populum Antiochen. Quomodo sacrū videbimus pascha? &c. How shal we see the holie passeouer? How shall we receiue the holy sa∣crifice? How shall we cōmunicate in these maruelous mysteries with that tongue, with which we haue contemned the lawe of God? With that ••ong, with which we haue defiled our soule? For if no man durst take the Kings purple robe with foule hands: how shall we receiue the Lordes body with a defiled tonge? For swearing is of the wicked, sacrifice is of the Lord. Therefore what communication is there be∣tweene light and darknesse, what agreement between Christ and Be∣liall? Here saith M. Hesk. by the excellent titles he giueth the sacrament, is proued the reall presence. The holie sa∣crifice, wonderful mysteries, the bodie of our Lord, light, & Christ himself. But one of these titles is manifestly vn∣proper and figuratiue, namely that of light, and why may not y^e rest be so likewise? Baptisme hath honourable titles, yet is there no transubstantiatiō therin. The second note, to proue the reall presence is, that saying: how shall we w^t defiled tong receiue the Lordes body? Here the body is receiued with the mouth and tong, therefore corporally.

But if I should say, that Chrysostome by this interoga∣tion denyeth, that it can be receiued with a defiled tong, where were the strength of this place: but I will graunt, that he vseth so to speake, but vnproperly, that the hand & the tong receiue the bodie and bloud of Christ, and yet meaneth no carnall maner of presence, as Ho. 21. ad Pop. Antioch. Cogita quid manu capias, & ipsam ab omni auaritia & rapina liberam conserua. Consider what thou receiuest with thy hand, and keepe it free from all couetousnesse & ex∣tortion. This peraduenture pleaseth M. Heskins. But it followeth soone after.

Etenim perniciosum est tam tremendis

ministra••••em mysterijs linguam, & sanguine tal purpuratam, & factam aureum gladium, ad cornicia & contumelias & scurrilita∣tes transferre. For it is a pernicious thing to transferre that tonge which ministreth vnto so reuerend mysteries, & is died purple with such bloud, and made a golden sworde, vnto rayling, reuiling, and scoffing.

Here the tong doth not only receiue y^e bloud of Christ, but also is made red or purple with it, & is made by it a golden sword. If these be not figuratiue speeches, they be monstruous absurdi∣ties.

And yet againe in the same place: Sed rursum aduertens quod post manus & li••guam, cor suscipit horrendum illud mysteri∣••en, ne vnquam in proximū sumas dolum sed mensē tuam ab omni malitia mund••m conserua: fic & oculos & aures munire poteris. But againe considering that after thy handes & thy tong, thy heart receiueth that fearefull mysterie, neuer deuise any craft against thy neighbour, but keepe thy minde cleane from all malice, so maist thou defende thine eyes and thine eares.

And the like speeches he hath of the eyes and the eares. By which it is euident, that although he speak figuratiuely in the way of exhortation, yet he mea∣ned not to teache any other, but a spirituall manner of receiuing the bodie of Christ with the hart, although the eyes, eares, handes, and tong. were occupied about the sa∣crament thereof After M. Heskins noteth, that Chryso∣stome in the place by him cited, calleth the sacrament a sacrifice: so doth he an hundreth times elsewhere, but y^t proueth not a propitiatorie sacrifice, but rather a memo∣ry of Christes only sacrifice as he teacheth himself In Ep. ad Heb. Ca. 10. Hom. 17. And here he taketh vpon him to re∣fute the rule of Cranmer, or of him that set forth y^e book in his name, as though that learned father, was not able to set forth his booke himselfe as wel, as this blind buz∣zard Heskins, who hath nothing in effect, but y^t he hath stolne out of Gardiners M. Constantius. But let vs heare this wise refutation. A sacrifice of thanksgiuing, saith he, is not receiued of vs, but giuen from vs to God. No more is any sacri∣fice in y^t it is a sacrifice, O y^e vnlearned confuter of so lear∣ned a fathers rule, yet y^t which is receiued is called a sacri∣fice

in respect y^t it hath bene offered. So was y^e sacrament of the old writers called a sacrifice vnproperly, because it was a memorial of y^e only sacrifice of Christ once offered by him self, & in respect of y^t action of y^e administration, which is a sacrifice of thanksgiuing, & therefore of them was called Eucharistia, a thanksgiuing. Another reason to proue it no gratulatorie sacrifice, is, because he calleth it a wonderful sacrifice, but thanksgiuing is but an ordi∣narie duetie. Shore vp your drousie eyes M. Hesk. & you shal see, he calleth it a holie sacrifice, & so the sacrifice of thanksgiuing. He calleth it not a wonderfull sacrifice, but a wonderful mysterie, except mysterie & sacrifice be al one w^t you, but if he had called it a wonderful sacrifice, as else where he calleth it a fearfull or terrible sacrifice, doth y^t proue it to be no sacrifice of thankesgiuing? Hee calleth it fearful, terrible, reuerende, wonderful, in re∣spect of y^e diuine working of our sauiour Christ, to make vs partakers of his bodi & bloud, by receiuing these out∣ward creatures worthily, according to his appointment, as for the names I haue answered before, they proue no sacrifice propitiatorie. But now at lēgth M. Hes. (hauing builded on this place of Paule & Chrysost. which deny y^e partaking of y^e bodie & bloud of Christ to them that are made partakers of y^e table of diuels, or otherwise be wic∣ked men) giueth S. Paul & Chryso. a new interpretation. S. Paul (saith he) doth not absolutely deny, but conditio∣nally, saying, y^t men cannot be partakers of y^e Lords ta∣ble, & of y^e table of diuels: that is, y^t thei ought not, so y^t ye cannot, & ye ought not, is al one with M. Hesk. for ye cannot (sayth he) if you do wel. But thinketh this grosse expositor, to escape with this glose? I aske him whether light & darknes can agree, whether Christ & Belial can haue any felowship? Be these negatiues absolutly or cō∣ditionally? Is it now otherwise to be taken but light and darknesse ought not to agree, or cannot agree, if they do well? & Christ & Belial ought not to agree, or cannot agree if they do well? O blinde interpreter, or rather shamefull peruerter of the streight wayes of the Lord.

You see in despite of the diuell, the Popishe doctrine of the wicked receiuing Christ, manifestly borne downe by the authoritie of Gods worde, and of the auncient fathers, and consequently transubstantiation layde in the dust. And yet this arrogant expounder, as though hee had found out a sworde to cutt in sunder this Gordian knot, with like madnesse runneth at Origens saying, which he will not vouchsafe to quote, least any man shoulde reade it to his shame, and ouerthrow of his popish trans∣substantiation. But it is written in Math. cap. 15. Multa p••rro &c. Many things may be sayd also of the WORDE him selfe, that was made fleshe and verie meate, whome whosoeuer shall eate, shall loue for euer, which no euil man can eate. Firste, as he hath learned of brazen faced Gardiner, he will not certeinly admitt that worke to be Origens, which is an impudent shifte, when none of them can alledge anye reason, why they shoulde doubt of it: Secondly, he hew∣eth at it with his leaden sworde, saying: an euil man can not eat of it to his profite, but yet hee may eate of it.

But it followeth in Origen immediately: Etenim si fieri posset, vt qui malus adhuc perseuerat, edat verbum factum carnem, cum sit verbum & panis viuus, nequaquam scriptum fuisset: Quis∣quis ederic panem hunc viuet in aeternum. For, if it were pos∣sible, that hee which as yet continueth an euill man, shoulde eat the worde made fleshe: seing he is the worde and the breade of life, it had not beene written, whoso∣euer shall eate of this breade shall liue for euer.

Here Origen sayeth, that no man can eate him, but hee must take profit by him, so the knott is too harde for Master Heskins wodden dagger to cleaue a sunder. For as hee himselfe concludeth, betwixt God and Beliall is none a∣greement, neither can Dagon stand in the presence of the Arke, and much lesse wickednesse where Christ is recei∣ued, for he is the bread of life reiected of the wicked, but cause of eternall life to all that receiue him.

* 1.63The one and thirtieth Chapter, endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact and Anselmus.

I had thought to haue sayed nothing of these late wri∣ters,* 1.64 but that Maister Heskins will make Theophylact so auncient, as to be three hundred yeres elder then An∣selmus, which was Archbishop of Caunterburie almoste 500. yeres agoe, so that Theophylact shoulde be neere 800. yeres olde. But to confute his impudencie: Firste, you must vnderstande, that the Bulgars, of whom he was Bishop, were not conuerted to the faith before the yeare of Christe 865. and after their first conuersion, they a∣greed with the church of Rome, but in processe of time, they forsooke the church of Rome, and ioyned with the church of Constantinople. After this, Theophylact was there bishop, and although the histories bee not certeine what time he liued: yet it must needs be gathered, to be when the contention was hote betweene the Greekes & Romanes, about the proceeding of the holie Ghost, be∣cause that in his exposition vpon the thirde of Iohn, hee inueygheth against the church of Rome, defending the Greekes about the proceeding of the holie Ghoste, and this was about the yeare of Christ 1049 when Berenga∣rius liued and reproued the church of Rome for the car∣nall presence that then or not long before was begon to be grossely defended. But the chiefe matter he gathe∣reth out of Anselme is, that he expoundeth the table in Saint Paule, for an altare, whereupon Maister Heskins will make a discourse of Altares, and proue the vse of them, euen from the Apostles times: And firste he be∣ginneth with Dionyse the disciple of S. Paule, Eccl. Hier. part. 3. Cap. 3. Sed & illud, &c. But beholde that more reue∣rently, that after the venerable signes are layde vppon the altare, by which Christ is signified and receiued, there is present by & by a description of saintes or holy ones. It is meete that a false matter should begin with a counterfet doctour. I haue shewed before, that neither Eusebius, nor Hierome, nor Gennadius knewe any such Dionyse, by the space of fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Christ; therefore his testi∣monie must be so many hundred yeares short of the A∣postles times. But M. Hesk. wil not see that his Dionyse

calleth the sacrament signes, by which Christ is signified and receiued. He can see nothing but the altar in y^t say∣ing. Next to Dionyse, he bringeth Ambrosius in orat. prę∣par••t. ad missa••t, a meere counterfeit, as Erasmus hath ob∣serued, & therefore worthie of none answere. But before I proceede to the next author, that he citeth for the al∣tar, which is Augustine, I will set downe a manifest dis∣proofe of M. Hesk. proofe, that altars haue ben vsed since the Apostles times. Firste, it is certeine, that our sauiour Christ did institute this sacrament at a table, & at no al∣tar, whereas if it had bene a sacrifice, he would haue cau∣sed an altar to be made, which had bene soone done. Se∣condly, the Apostle Paul calleth it the Lords table, & ne∣uer calleth it an altar. M. Hesk. alledgeth for the sacra∣ment out of the actes of the Apostles, that the disciples continued in breaking of bread in euery house, but I suppose he wil not dreame, that there was an altar in e∣uerie house. In the primitiue church, when y^e people mett in corners & secrete places, no man of reason wil imagin they had altars set vp in those places. Nay it is certein by Origen & Amobius, they had neither altars, nor tēples, nor images. Origen.

Cont. Cel lib. 4. reporteth that y^e hea∣then man Celsus obiecteth against vs, y^t we haue no ima∣ges nor altars, nor temples. The like is in Arnobius. lib. 2. against y^t Gentiles, who declareth y^t they acuse vs, that we haue neither temples, nor images, nor altars.

By these auncient writers it appeareth, y^t it was a common obie∣ction of the heathen men, against the Christians, y^t they had no altars. The like sheweth Tertullian ad Scapulam.

Ita{que} & sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris sed Deo nostro & ip∣s••ut sed, quo modo pręcepit Deus, pura prece. Therfore we al∣so do offer sacrifice for the health of the Emperour, but vnto our God & his only, but, as God hath commaunded, with pure prayer.

These wordes of Tertullian declare, y^t the Christians had neither altar nor sacrifice, other then prayer. In Cyprians time also it was a table de cana Dom.

Inter Dominicae mensae cormuines, animalis homo non recipitur: the naturall man is not receiued among the guestes of the

Lords table.

And although of diuerse of the olde writers, it was called an altar, yet was it so called improperly, euen as the communion was called of them a sacrifice, for still it was a table and nothing like the popish altars, which are of stone & set against a wall, for they stoode in the midst of the church, so that y^e people came rounde about them as appeareth by Eusebius. lib. 10. ca. 4. ad Paulin. Tyr. Episc.

Absoluto templo & sedibus excelsissimis ad honorem prae∣sidentium, & subsellijs ordine collocatis, ornato, & post omnia sancto sanctorum, videlicet altari in medio constituto: The tem∣ple being finished, and garnished with high seates for y^e honour of y^e gouernours, & lower seates placed in order, & after all the holie of holies, that is to saye the altar placed in the middest. The like hath Augustine de verb. Dom. Ser. Ioan. Ser. 46. de eo quod scrip. qui manduc. Christus quotidie pascit: Mensa ipsiut est illa in medio constituta. Quid causae est ô audientes, vt mensam videatis & ad epulat non acce∣datis. Christ feedeth daily that is his table, which is placed in the middest. What is the cause O you hearers, that see∣ing the table ye came not to the feast. Hee speaketh to the nouices or Catechumeni.

Gregorius Nazianzenus calleth it a table ad imperator. Irasceus: shewing what intercessors he would bring to pa∣cifie the Princes displeasure, as the death, passion, resurre∣ction, & ascension of Christ.

Aut etiam mensam hanc ad quā communiter accedimus, & meae sabutis rypos, quos eodem celebro ore quo nunc fungor legatione sacram dico & ad superna ducen∣tem mystagogiam: or else euen this table, vnto which wee come all together, and the figures of my saluation, which I do celebrate with the same mouth, with which nowe I execute this Ambassage of intreatie, I meane y^t holy my∣sterie, leading to high things. Beside the table in the say∣ing of Greg marke what termes he vseth in describing the sacrament, he calleth it the types or figures of his sal∣uation, and a holy and heauenly mystagogie.

Chrysost. most commonly calleth it a table, for example, Hom, 45. in Ioan.

A mensa hac prodit fons qui fluuios spirituales diffundit.

From this table commeth a spring, which powreth forth spirituall riuers.

And in a great number of places, he cal∣leth it the holie table. But nowe wee must heare Maister Hesk. citing Augustine. lib. 9. Conf. Ca. 13. Illa imminente, &c. Shee, the day of her death being as hand, was not carefull to haue her bodie sump••uously buried, or to be spiced with spices, or coueted to haue a solemne monument, or to be buryed in her own country. These things shee did not commaunde vs, but onely shee desired, that remembrance of her should be made as thine altare, which shee without any dayes intermission, had serued. From whence she knewe, the holie sacrifice to be dispensed, by which the hand wri∣ting was put out that was against vs. In these wordes S. Au∣gustine calleth it an altar, reporting the superstitious request of his mother, according to the errour of that time. We make no question, but that they did call the table an altar, but we affirme, they called it so vnpro∣perly, euen as they did call the sacrament a sacrifice, and the minister a priest, and the deacon a Leuite.

And as they called it an altare, so there is fewe or none, but cal∣led it a table also, and so doth Augustine often times, as de cultur. agr. Dom. Mensa sponsi tui panem habet integrum & poculum sanctum. The table of thy spouse, hath whole bread and a holie cupp. And againe, Contra liter. Petilian. lib. 2. Chap. 47. Non dicunt ifta nisi qui de Mensa Domini vitai•• su••ru••nt sicut Petrus, non iudicium sicut Iudas. None say these things, but such as receiue life at the Lordes table, as Pe∣ter, and not damnation, as Iudas.

But Maister Heskins hath another place out of Saint Augustine, wherein hee calleth it the altare of God: Sermone ad infant. Hoc, quod videris in alcari Dei, &c. This that you see on the altare of God, you sawe the night last past. But what it was, what i•• mean•• of howe great a thing it conteined the sacrament, you haue not yet heard: therefore, that which you sawe is bread and a cuppe, which thing also your eyes doe tell you▪ But that your faith requireth to be instructed. The breade is the bodie of Christe, the cuppe is his bloud. Our Lorde Iesus Christe, wee knowe whence he receiued fleshe, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the virgine Marie. Hee was suckled being an infant, he was norished, he grewe, he came to the age of a young

man, he suffered persecution of the Iewes, hee was hanged on the tree, he was killed on the tree, he was buryed, he rose againe the thirde day. That day he woulde ascende into heauen, thither he lifted vp his bodie, from whence he shall come to iudge both the quicke and the dead. There he is nowe sitting at the right hand of the father. Howe is the breade his bodie? and the cuppe, or that which the cupp containeth, how is it his bloud? Brethren, these things are therefore called sacraments, because one thing in them it seene, another thing is vnderstoode, that which is seene hath a corporall shewe, that which is vnderstoode, hath a spirituall fruite. I doubt not but euery Christian man that readeth this saying, vnderstandeth it, to be verie cleere, against both transubstantiation, and the carnall presence, as is she∣wed before lib. 2. Cap. 37. which that Maister Heskins might obscure, he maketh a smoke, to bleare mens eyes, that they might not see any thing therin, but the altar. Wherefore he rayleth like him selfe against the proclai∣mer, charging him bothe to haue falsified S. Augustine, and also truncately to haue alledged him, because (saith he) he citeth him thus: Quod videtis in mensa, panis est: that ye see in the table is bread: whereas Augustine sayeth in the altar, and not on the table, which he durst not name for shame. But with what shame Heskins can so reuile and slaunder that godly learned father, you shall see by that which followeth immediately, where he leaueth in Au∣gustine, and iudge whether Master Heskins left out the wordes for shame, or else because his note booke serued him no further.

Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelligere, audi Apostolum dicentem fidelibus: vos estis corpus Christi & mem∣bra. Si ergo vot estis corpus Christi & membra, mysterium ve∣strum in MENSA positum est: Mysteria Domini accipitis ad quod estis, Amen respondetis, & respondendo subscribitis. Audis ergo corpus Christi & respondes Amen. Esto membrum corporis Christi vt verum sit Amen tuum: quare ergo in pane? nihil hic de nostro affiramus: Ipsum Apostolum item audiamus. Cum er∣go de isto sacramento loqueretur, ait, vnus panis, vnum corpus mul∣ti sumus. Intelligite & gaudete.

Therefore, if thou wilt vnderstande the bodie of

Christ, heare the Apostle saying to the faithfull: you are the bodie of Christ and his members. If you therefore be the bodie of Christ and his members, your mysterie is set on the TABLE: you receiue the Lords mysterie, wher∣unto you are, you aunswere, Amen: and in aunswering, you subscribe. Thou hearest therfore the bodie of Christ and thou aunswerest, Amen: bee thou a member of the bodie of Christe, that thy Amen may bee true. Why then in bread? let vs here bring nothing of our owne. Let vs likewise heare the Apostle. Therefore, when hee spake of this sacrament, he sayeth: There is one bread, wee being many are one bodie: vnderstand ye & reioyce ye.

I trust you see by this, that the altar he spake of, was a table, as you see also how the sacrament is the bodie of Christ.

But lest hee might replye, that the table was an al∣tar, I must further alledge Saint Augustines authoritie, that it was a table, for it was made of boordes and was remouable. For speaking of the Deacons of Rome in Quaest. vet. & non. test. q. 101 he sayth:

Vt antem non omnia ministeria obsequiorum per ordinem agant, multitudo fe∣cit clericorum: nam vtique & altare portarem, & vasa euis & a∣quam in manus sunderent sacerdoti, ficut videmus per omnes ec∣clesias. But that they doe not perfourme all the ministe∣ries of their seruice in order, the multitude of Clerkes hath caused: for surely they shoulde both carrie the altar and the vessels thereof, and powre water on the Priestes handes, as wee see it in all churches.

That they were of boordes and tymber, and not of stone, lest the Papistes should dreame of their Altare portatiue, that their hedge priestes carrie in their sleeues to say Masse in corners, the same Augustine writing to Bonifacius Ep. 50. sheweth in these wordes, speaking of the insurrection of the Donatistes against Maximianus a catholike bishop of Sagium: Stantem ad altare irruente•• horrendo impetu & furore crudeli, fustibus & huiusmodi telis, lignis denique eiusdem altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt. Ru∣shing in with an horrible violence and cruell furie,

they stroke him moste outragiously standing at the al∣tare, with staues and such like weapons: yea, euen with the boordes of the same altare, which they brake in pee∣ces. The like complaint maketh Optatus in his booke a∣gainst the Donatistes, sauing that he nameth not wood or bordes, yet it is plaine by the circumstance that hee spake of none other.

The place, as Maister Heskins ci∣teth it, is this: Quid est tam sacrilegum, &c. What is so great sacriledge, as to breake, scrape, or shaue, and remoue the altares of God? in which you also sometimes haue offered, on which the prayers of the people, and the members of Christ haue been borne, at which God almightie hath beene called vppon, where the holie Ghost being desired hath come downe, from which the pledge of aeternall life, and the sauegarde of faith, and the hope of resurre∣ction hath beene receiued of many: the altares I say vpon which our Sauiour hath commaunded the giftes of the fraternitie, not to be layde, but such as are made of peace. Lay downe (saith hee) thy gifte before the altare, and returne and firste agree with thy brother, that the Priest may offer for thee. For what is the al∣tar but the seat of the bodie and bloud of Christe? All these your furie hath either scraped, or broken, or remoued. What hath God done to you, which was wont to be called vpon there? What had Christe offended you, whose bodie and bloud dwelleth there at cer∣teine momentes? And what doe you offende your selues to breake the altars, on which long time before vs (as you thinke) you haue offered holily? Thus haue you followed the Iewes. They layde handes vppon Christe on the crosse: of you he was striken in the altar: of whome the Prophet Helias complaineth to the Lorde, speaking in the same wordes, with which you among other haue deserued to bee accused. Lorde (sayeth he) they haue broken downe thine altares. While hee sayth thine, he sheweth that the thing is Gods, where any thing is offered of any man to God. Vppon pretence of this place, Maister Hesk. char∣geth vs with great sacriledge, for pulling downe their popish altares, on which they committed idolatrie and moste horrible sacriledge. And therefore wee are commaunded to ouerthrowe such altares, to breake downe their pillers, & burne their images with fire,

Deut. 7. And whereas he compareth vs to one Iulianus an heathen man, that pissed against the altare, and ther∣fore was horribly punished, hee sheweth his wisedome. For there an idolater did vilanously contemne y^e Chri∣stians religion, & therfore was iustly plaged of God, but we as Christians haue obeyed the lawe of God, in o∣uerthrowing their antichristian & idolatrous altars. And yet I thinke the fact of Iulianus was not worse then the filthinesse of Pope Iohn, that lay with his whores vppon your altares. In the conclusion of this chapter he affir∣meth that the altar, & sacrifice are correlatiues, & there∣fore there coulde be none altars, but there was also sacri∣fice. I haue shewed sufficiently howe the old writers cal∣led the communion table an altare, and the sacrament a sacrifice, namely a sacrifice of thanksgiuing, and not of propitiation, and yet more must I saye vpon M. Heskins discourses that followe.

* 1.65The two and thirtieth Chapter vpon occasion that it is proued, that the primitiue Church vsed the altare, and reputed the bodie and bloud of Christ to be a sacrifice, beginneth to treate of the same sacrifice which we commonly call the Masse.

* 1.66Because the names of altar & sacrifice haue beene vn∣properly vsed by auncient writers (for wee haue shewed that their altar was a table, and their sacrifice a thankes∣giuing) therefore M. Hesk. will treat of the sacrifice of the Masse. And first of the name of Masse, which he saith we abhorre, and iustly, because it hath been vsed of ma∣ny yeres, to signifie a most blasphemous and idolatrous seruice. The name he will deriue in all the haste, out of the Hebrue tongue from a word that is called Mas, from whence the Latines haue deriued their worde Missa, be∣ing the same that the Greekes called Liturgia, and the La∣tines officium, which is in English a seruice. To this I aun∣swere: first, that if Missa or Masse be nothing but a ser∣uice, then Euen song may be called Masse, because it is a seruice. Secondly it carryeth no shewe of trueth, that

the Latines would borrowe their name of the Hebrues, rather then of the Greekes. Thirdly, that there is no such Hebrue worde, as Maister Heskins affirmeth to bee, Mas, signifying a seruice, as I report mee to all that haue but meane knowledge in the tongue. Fourthly, that although the name of Missa bee of some antiquitie in the Romane church, yet is it neither so auncient as he ma∣keth it, and that which is chiefely to be regarded, it is neuer founde in the holie scripture.

But nowe let vs consider his authoritie. First, Leo bi∣shop of Rome Epist. 79. sayeth thus: Necesse est vt quaedam pars populi sua deuotione priuetur, si vniut tantùm Missae more seruato sacrificium offerre non possunt, nisi qui prima diei parte conuenerint. It must needes be that some parte of the people bee depriued of their deuotion, if the manner or custome of our one∣ly masse being obserued, they cannot offer sacrifice, except such as came together the first part of the day. Vppon coulour of this place Maister Heskins will not onely prooue, that the name of Missa is auncient, but also that it is lawfull to saye more then one Masse in one church in one day, if two then three, if three then tenne, if tenne then fifteene, and so twentie, which the proclaimer sayed could not be proued. But you shall see howe lewdly hee abuseth his reader. The proclaimers challenge was of tenne or twentie priuate Masses sayed in one church and com∣monly at one time. Maister Heskins bringeth in au∣thoritie of Leo, which proueth, that when one commu∣nion coulde no serue any more, then so manie as the church woulde holde at one time, it was meete it should be celebrated twise, or as often as the same was filled with people, vntill all had receiued, which as wee con∣fesse to be true, so maketh it nothing in the worlde for the priuate Masse, but altogether against it, as is plaine by the whole treatie going before, which Maister He∣skins according to his accustomed synceritie hath cleane left out.

Vt autem in omnibus obseruantia nostra Concordet, illud quo{que} volumus custodiri, vt quum solennior festiuitas conuentum

populi numerosioris indixerit, & ad eam tanta multitudo con∣uenerit, quam recipere Basilica simul vna non possit, sacrificij o∣blatio indubitanter iteretur, ne his tantùm admissis, ad hanc deuo∣tionem, qui primi aduenerint, videantur hi qui posimodum conflux∣erint, non recepti, cum plenum pietatis at{que} rationis fit, vt quoties Basilicā pręsentia nonae plebis impleuerit, toties sacrificiū subsequēs offeratur. And that our obseruation may agree in al things, this also we will haue to be kept, that when a more so∣lemne festiuitie shall call together a greater assembly of people, and so great a multitude is gathered vnto it, that one great Church can not receiue them altogether, the oblation of the sacrifice without doubt may be done a∣gaine, least those only being admitted which came first, they which came together afterward, might seeme not to be receiued, whereas it is a matter full of godlinesse and reason, that how often so euer the presence of a newe peo∣ple shall fill the Church, so often the sacrifice following should be offered.

But M. Heskins vrgeth in the place by him cited, that the word missa is vsed, which is not denyed, but this was almost 500. yeres after Christ, about the yere 480. Secondly, that the Masse is a sacrifice. But he will not see that it is such a sacrifice, as all the people offer, which can not be a sacrifice propitiatorie, but of thankesgiuing. Howbeit, he saith, The Masse is a sacrifice, that is or ought by ioyne affection and deuotion of the people to the Priest, to be offered of them all. What affection or deuotion he would haue to the Priest, I do not well vnderstand, but let him shadowe him selfe, in what fond phrase of word he will, yet can he not auoyde, but that the people by the wordes of Leo, did offer sacrifice in as ample manner as the Priestes, and then they were all Priestes. Besides this, in the words of Leo he obserueth not, y^t it was a custome of y^e Church before his time to haue but one Masse or Communion in a day, so straightly kept, that vpon necessitie they would not relent therein, vntill he tooke this order with them. But Maister Heskins asketh what scripture the proclamer hath to the contrarie for twentie Masses in one Church in one day? I aunswere: Saint Paule willeth the Corinthians to tarie

one for an other 1. Cor. 11. for the Communion. By which it is euident, that it is not lawfull for euery man to haue his priuate Masse, as M. Heskins would most absurdly proue. As for y^e sacrifice propitiatorie of their Masse, hath all those scriptures against it, that set foorth the only pro∣pitiatorie sacrifice of Christ, and namely Heb. 9. & 10.

Furthermore, M. Heskins findeth the name of Masse vsed of Saint Ambrose, Ep. 33. Ego mansi in munere, missam fa∣cere coepi, orare in oblatione Deum vt subueniret. I did abide in mine office, I beganne to say masse, to pray to God in the sacrifice, that he would helpe. Howe faithfull a reporter of antiquitie Maister Heskins is to be coūted, this place among a great number doth sufficiently declare, and that he receiued not this text out of Ambrose him selfe, but out of some other mans collection or relation.

Ambrose in that Epistle wri∣ting to his sister Marcellina about deliuering of a church to the heretiques, which he refused to do at the Emperour Valentinianes request, writeth thus: Sequenti die (erat autem Dominica) post lectiones atque tractatum dimissis Catechu∣menis, Symbolum aliquibus competentibus in baptisterijs trade∣bam Basilicae. Illic nunciatum est mihi, comperto quòd ad Portia∣nam Basilicam de palatio decanos misissent, & vela suspenderēt, po∣puli partem eò pergere. Ego tamen mansi in munere, missam fa∣cere coepi. Dum offero raptum cognoui a populo Castulum quendam, quem Presbyterum dicerent Arriani. Hunc autem in platea o∣stenderant transeuntes. Amarissimè flere & orare in ipsa oblatio∣ne Deum coepi, vt subueniret, ne cuius sanguis in causa Ecclesiae fie∣ret, certè vt meus sanguis pro salute non solùm populi, sed etiam pro ipsis impijs effunderetur. Quid multa? Missis Presbyteris & Diaco∣nis eripui iniuria virum.

The day following, which was Sunday, when the lear∣ners of Catechisme were dismissed after the Lessons that were read, and the treatise made vpon them, I was instruc∣ting in the Creede certaine that desired Baptisme, in the baptizing place of the Church. There it was tolde me, after it was knowne, y^t they had sent officers from the Pa∣lace vnto the church called Portiana & hanged vp clothes (for y^e Emperor) y^t part of the people were going thither.

I for all that abid in mine office, I beganne to let it goe. While I offered, I vnderstoode by the people, that one Castulus was taken by force, whome the Arrians saide to be a Priest. Him had they found as they passed by in the streate. I beganne to weepe most bitterly, and to pray to God in the very oblation, that hee would helpe that no mans bloud might bee shed in the cause of the Church, and truely that my bloud might be shed, not onely for the sauegard of the people, but also for the vngodly them selues. What neede many wordes, I sent Priestes and Dea∣cons, and deliuered the man from iniurie.

I knowe M. Heskins will not allowe me to translate, missam facere, to let goe the Church, seeing they had entered vpon it, the rather bicause offero and oblatione doth followe. But not∣withstanding, seing Masse is neuer named in S. Augustin, Hierome, nor any other place of Ambrose in his or their authenticall writings, I can not of the onely colour and coniecture of oblation folowing be resolued, that S. Am∣brose vseth missam facere, to say Masse. For although I con∣fesse, that the name of Missa for the Communion, began neare about that time to be in vse, yet did they neuer vse that phrase missam facere, but missum or missarum solennia ce∣librare, to celebrate the Masse or the solemnities of Mas∣ses, for so they called the administration of the Commu∣nion. Whereas missam facere can not be translated to say Masse, but rather to make Masse. Againe, if the only cō∣iecture of offero and oblatione following, were sufficient to proue missa to signifie Masse, M. Heskins might by y^e like colour of Priestes and Deacons following, translate Missis, Presbyterie, & Diaconibus &c. with Masses, Priests and Dea∣cons, I deliuered the man from iniurie. But to take it at the worst that the name of missa is here vsed for Masse, yet was this within the time of the Bishops limitation, & no Popish Masse, but a Christian communion, although some abuses perhaps were in it.

And for the decrees of Thelesphorus, Sixtus, A∣lexander, and such like Bishoppes of Rome, bycause they bee meere mockeries, and counterfeted long af∣ter

their times, to get credite by the antiquitie of their names, I will loose no time in confuting them. And whereas M. Heskins saith, the proclamer reiecteth them without proofe, although it be not to be required, that in a sermon such matters should be debated at large, as in publique writings are throughly knowne to be debated and determined among the best learned: yet will I adde this one disproofe or two, of those Epistles to be forged. First Eusebius which was a most diligēt gatherer of such writings found none such in his time. Secondly, if there were nothing else, the very barbarous phrase of them all, and the false Latine that is in many, is sufficient to con∣uince them for counterfets: seing there was no vnlearned womā in Rome in those times, but spake better Latin thē these men feigne those learned Bishops to haue writen in those decretall Epistles. But M. Hesk. will proue Alex∣ander to be the Authour of that Epistle which is ascribed to him, and therein will vse neither bare wordes, nor faint likelyhoods. In deed, for likelihoods he vseth none, either faint or strong, but in steede of authoritie whereof he bo∣steth, he vseth none at all but very bare wordes. He onely quoteth in the margent, The 6. Counsel of Constantino∣ple, not naming so much as in what part or action thereof this matter is intreated of, the actes of that counsel, being contained in a great booke as large as M. Hesk. third book at the least. And surely, although I haue vsed some dili∣gence in search, yet I can finde no such matter, nor this A∣lexander once named in that Counsell. In deede I found long since, Dionysius authoritie cited by the name of Dio∣nyscus Areopagisa Bishop of Athens, which is the matter y^t perhaps deceiued M. Hes. or him y^t ministred notes of au∣thorities vnto him. But to be short, the assurance remai∣neth still vnshaken, which the proclamer made in his ser∣mon, that the name of Masse is not found in ancient wri∣ters, vntil 400. yeres after Christ. As for the Masse it selfe, if hee meane that forme of seruice vsed in the Church of Rome, and of them commonly called Masse, he knoweth it was not throughly peeced together, 600. yeares after

Christ. For Gregorie had no small share in it, and he con∣fesseth in this Chapter, that Telesphorus, Sixtus, Alex∣ander, Felix, added somewhat vnto it. As for the prepara∣torie prayers of Ambrose, hee doth well not to auouch them to be his, bicause no man of learning will acknow∣ledge them to be his. And seeing the Greeke Liturgies are very vnlike the Latine Masse, hee doth but mocke the ig∣norant readers, to say they be all one. Finally, hee doth most absurdly conclude, that his Masse should be within the compasse of Saint Augustines rule. ad Ian. Ep. 118. That those thinges, which the vniuersall Church obserueth throughout the worlde, we may vnderstand that they are retayned, as ordai∣ned either of the Apostles them selues, or of the generall Counsels, whose authoritie in the Church is most profitable. Illa que per orbem vniuersa obseruat Ecclesia, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apo∣stolis, vel a plenarijs concilijs, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrim a au∣thoritas statuta, retineri. Thus hath M. Hes. cited Augustine, to haue a starting hole vnder the name of the church, but

Saint Augustines wordes are somewhat otherwise. Illae autem quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quę quidem toto terrarum orbe obseruantur, datur intelligi, vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenarijs concilijs, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima autho∣ritas, commendata atque statuta retineri, sicuti quod Domini passio, & resurrectio, & ascensio in Coelum, & aduentus de Coelo Spiri∣tus sancti, anniuersaria solennitate celebrantur: & si quid eliud ••ale occurrerit, quod seruatur ab vniuersis quacunque se diffundat Ecclesia. Those things which we obserue being not writ∣ten, but deliuered, which truely are obserued throughout all the world, it is giuen to be vnderstoode, that they are retained as commended and decreed, either by the Apo∣stles, or by generall Counsels, whose authoritie in the Church is most wholsome, as y^t the Passion & resurrectiō of our Lord, and his Ascention into heauen, and the com∣ming of the holy Ghost from heauen are celebrated with yerely solēnitie, or if there be any such like matter, which is obserued of all men wheresoeuer the Church spreadeth her self.

But seing the Popish Masse was vnknowne to the world in Augustines time, & neuer vsed throughout the

worlde of all men: (for the orientall Churches neuer re∣ceiued it to this day) if it haue no better holde then it get∣teth by this place of Augustine, it must needes fall to the ground. And thus much concerning the name & fourme of the Masse. In the next Chapter we shall heare of the matter or substance of the Masse it selfe.

The three and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the Masse it selfe.* 1.67

Maister Heskins first with rayling tearmes,* 1.68 taketh ex∣ception to the proclaymers diuision of the Masse, into foure partes, Prayers, consecration, receiuing, doctrine, except he adde oblation as the fifte, or comprehend it vn∣der the name of consecration. Moreouer he saith, this is but a description of Masse in the large signification. But the Masse it selfe properly is the holie consecration of the bodie and bloud of Christ, the holy oblation and offring of the same, in the memoriall and remembrance of his passion and death, with humble and lowly thankes, lawdes and prayses for the same, and holy re∣ceiuing of that body and bloud so consecrated. Here is the Lions skinne couering the asse, but yet not so closely but the long eares may be seene hanging out. For as the forme of these wordes for the most parte may be applyed to the holy communion, so almost by euerie word, he vnder∣standeth another thing then either the scriptures or the auncient fathers do teache, as we shall best see in the exa∣mination of the partes which followe. First where he sayeth, the proclaymer cannot abide consecration, he say∣eth falsely, for both he graunteth consecration and the presence of Christes bodie and bloud, but not the Popish charming, nor their carnall manner of presence, whiche how they be proued by M. Heskins let the readers iudge. Oblation the second part, he sayeth is proued in the first book, and declaration of the prophesies of Melchisedech, Damascen, Malachie, and in the 37. Chapter. In the same places let the reader consider the answere.

In receiuing, which is the thirde part, two things (saith Maister Heskins) offend the proclaymer, that is; receiuing

vnder one kinde, and receiuing of the Priest alone. The former is defended by him Lib. 2. from the 64. Chap. to the end of 67. Chap. & there it is in this booke confuted. The priuate receiuing (he saith) shall be defended after∣ward. In doctrine the 4. part, he knoweth not what faulte the proclaymer can finde, wherein is greatest fault of all, but M. Heskins will haue nothing to be the doctrine of the Masse, but the Gospell and Pistle and o∣ther scriptures that are read in it.

In prayer the fift and last parte, he findeth two faultes, namely prayer to Saintes, and for the dead, for triall of these, he will haue recourse to the primitiue Church. It is well he can haue no recourse to the holie scriptures, nor to the most ancient Church, which is properly called the primitiue Church, although these two errors be of great antiquitie. But before M. Heskins vndertake these trials, he girdeth at the communion ministred in copes, and the proclaymer wearing Aarons garment for a bishoprick. If the Popish priestes had no more pleasure to say masse in their vestments, then the proclaymer to minister in copes, I thinke the common sort of Papistes would haue lesse deuotion to the Masses, then Gods people haue to y^e com∣munion, when it is ministred without any ceremoniall attyre. But Maister Heskins will proue (that neuer yet was heard off) that Christ himselfe saide Masse. For he in∣stituted the Masse in his last supper, and that he will proue by Cyprian, but why doth he not rather proue it by y^e E∣uangelistes? Forsooth, because the scriptures haue no such vnproper speech to make any shewe of the Masse, as Cy∣prian and the rest of the fathers haue. Well let vs heare how Cyprian affirmeth that Christ saide Masse. Maister Heskins saith: First for the consecration, Lib. 2. Ep. 3. He writeth thus: Vt in Genesi, &c. That the blessing in Genesis by Melchisedech the priest might be duely celebrated about Abraham, the image of the sacrifice appointed in bread and wine goeth before, which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling offered bread & the cup mixed with wine, and he that is that fulnesse hath fulfilled the veriti•• of the prefigured image: In these wordes M. Heskins

forgetting that Christ offred bread & wine, gloseth vpon the veritie of the image fulfilled by Christ, and expressed by Cyprian in other wordes. Obtulit, &c. He offred the same thing which Melchisedech had offered, that is bread and wine, euen his bodie and bloud. Here againe is bread and wine offered by Christe, which is his bodie and bloud after a spiritual manner, as it was offered by Melchisedech. Hitherto no worde of consecration, nor of the carnall manner of pre∣sence, but directly against it. Nowe let vs heare howe he proueth oblation. Quaerendum est, &c. It must be asked whom they haue folowed. For if in the sacrifice which is Christ none but Christ is to be followed, we must then obey and doe that whiche Christ did, and which he commanded to be done. Here Maister Heskins noteth y^t Christ is the sacrifice. I answere euen as the bread is his bodie & the wine his bloud. But y^t Christ commaunded the Church to offer this sacrifice in remem∣brance of him, he teacheth plainely (saith M. Heskins.) Yea sir, but where doth he teach, either plainely or ob∣scurely, that the Masse is a sacrifice propitiatorie for the quicke and the dead, which is the matter in question? And not the name of sacrifice vsed by Cyprian vnproperly & figuratiuely, meaning a remembrance and thankesgi∣uing for the onely once offered sacrifice of Christe. But let vs heare his words. Quod si nec minimia, &c. If it be not lawful to breake the least of the Lordes commaundements, how much more is it not lawful to infringe or breake things so greate, so weightie, so apperteining to the very sacrament of the Lords passi∣on, and our redemption, or by mans tradition to chaunge it into a∣ny other thing then is ordeined of God? For if Iesus Christ our Lord and God be himselfe the high Priest of God the father, and he him∣selfe first did offer sacrifice, and commanded this to be done in his remembrance, that Priest supplyeth the roome of Christ truly, which followeth that which Christ did. And then he offereth a true & full sacrifice in the Church to God the father if he so begin to offer, as he hath seene Christ him selfe to haue offered. Here M. Hesk. re∣proueth our ministration in two points: First, for that we minister with wine alone contrarie to Christes instituti∣on. But when he can proue that Christ added water to

his cup of wine, we will grant it to be a breach of his in∣stitution, and not before. Secondly he reasoneth, if it be so greate a matter to take away wine or water from the ministratiō, it is much greater to take away. Christes body there fro: but it is as false that we take away his bodie, as it is true, that they take away his bloud.

Now concer∣ning the tearme sacrifice, vsed by S. Cyprian, his wordes in the same Epistle declare plainely, that he vsed it (as I said before) vnproperly: Et quia passionis eius mentionem in∣sacrificijs omnibus facimus (passio est enim Domini, sacrificium•• quod offerimus) nihil aliud quàm quod ille fecit facere debemus. And because we make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices (for the sacrifice which we offer is the passion of our Lord) we ought to do nothing, but that he hath done.

By this you see, that the sacrifice is Christe, euen as it is the passion of Christe, that is to say, a sacramentall memoriall of Christes body, and of his passion, & not otherwise. But Maister Heskins taking occasion of the former saying of Cyprian by him cited, rayleth at his pleasure vpon the author of the apologie, for saying, the contention betweene Luther and Zwinglius, was about a small matter. And so it was in deede, in comparison of these cheefe and necessarie pointes of religion, in whiche they did agree. And if you make the moste of it, yet was it no greater, then the matter of rebaptising, wherein Cy∣prian his authour, dissented from Cornelius Bishop of Rome. Neuerthelesse Maister Heskins returning to vrge the image of the sacrifice, set foorth in Melchisedeches feast of bread and wine, bringeth in Tertullian Contra Marcion. Ita nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecrauit, qui sunc vi••••um in sanguine figurauit. So now he hath consecrated his bloud in wine, which then figured wine in bloud. He quoteth not the place, least his falsification might appeare. For first he applyeth this figure to Melchisedech, which Tertullian doth to Iuda, and translateth Vinum in sanguine figurauit. He figured wine in his bloud, whereas Tertullian speaking of the blessing y^t Iacob gaue to Iuda, that he should wash his garment in the bloud of the grape, sayeth, he figu∣red

wine by bloud, that is, by the name of bloud of the grape, he meant figuratiuely wine. As for the name of consecration in the true sense thereof, we neither abhorre nor refuse to vse. But he hath neuer done with Melchise∣deches bread & wine, & when all commeth to all, Christ offred neither bread nor wine, as they say. Yet M. Heskins affirmeth, (if he wold abide by it) that Christ offred bread & wine in verity. But if you aske him whether he mean bread and wine in truth and veritie, he will say no verily, so M. Hesk. veritie is contradictorie to truth. To draw to an end he citeth Ambrose In praefatione Missae in coena Do. Christus formam sacrificij perennis instituens, hostiam se primus obtulit & primus docuit offerri, &c. Christ instituting a fourme of perpetuall sacrifice, first offered himselfe for a sacrifice, and first taught it to be offered.

But where Maister Heskins founde this authority, I leaue to all learned men to consider, when there is not such a title in all the workes of Saint Ambrose that are printed, new or olde. Therefore whether he fayned it him selfe, or followed some other forger, he sheweth his honest and faithfull dealing. But if we should admitte this testimonie as lawfull, whereas it is but a counter∣fete: yet vnderstanding howe the auncient wryters abused the name of sacrifice for a memoriall of a sa∣crifice; and not for a propitiatorie sacrifice, it helpeth Maister Heskins nothing at all. Saint Ambrose him∣selfe very improperly vseth the name of Hostia, or sacri∣fice as De Virgine Lib. 1.

Virgo matris hostia est cuius quotidi∣ano sacrificio vis diuina placatur. A Virgine is the hoste or sacrifice of her mother, by whose daily sacrifice the wrath of God is pacified.

If Maister Heskins coulde finde thus muche in Saint Ambrose for the sacrifice of the Masse, he would triumph out of measure, that he had found it a propitiatorie sacrifice, euen for the quicke and the dead: and that those wordes of Christe: doe this in rememembraunce of me, were expounded of the Fathers for, offer a sacrifice propitiatorie. But who so listeth to heare the trueth, neede not to bee deceiued

in the word of sacrifice and phrase of offring vsed by the olde writers, which was not properly, but figuratiuely &c sometimes abusiuely. For further instruction of conse∣cration, and oblation he sendeth his Reader backe to the 2. book, 41. Chapter, to the end of the book. For the rest vnto the 1. booke, 33. Chapter, to the end of that booke. And euen in the same places shall the Reader finde mine answere.

* 1.69The foure and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the vse of the Masse vsed and practised by the Apostles.

* 1.70It is maruell the Apostles were such great sayers of Masse, and yet neuer make one worde mention of it in all their writinges. But we must see what Maister Heskins can picke out of them. And first he maketh another diui∣sion of his Masse into inward substantiall partes, whiche are consecration, oblation, and receiuing, instituted by Christ, and into outward ceremonies, prayers, gestures, & manners Instituted by the ministerie of the holie Ghost, but not of Christe. In these later he graunteth, that the Masses of S. Peter, of S. Andrew, of S. Iames, of S. Clement, of S. Dio∣nyse, S. Basil, Chrysostome, S. Ambrose do differ one from another, but not in the former substantiall partes: & spe∣cially in consecration, and oblation, wherein the contro∣uersie standeth: which M. Heskins wil proue adding two handmaides vnto them, that is, to consecration intention, and to oblation, prayer for acceptation. So by his Diui∣nitie, the intention of the priest, hath more force then the wordes of consecration to make the bodie of Christ pre∣sent, and when it is present and sacrificed, it hath neede of the priestes prayers for acceptation. But he will begin with S. Peters Masse, and that he proueth by this reason, the proclaymer confesseth (though in scorne) that some say S. Peter saide Masse at Rome, but no auncient writer saith, he did not say Masse, therefore it is true, that he did say Masse. This argument is of like force with this that I will bring: some say that Maister Heskins in King Ed∣wards

time married a Nunne, whiche no auncient wri∣ter denieth, therefore it is true y^t he married a Nunne, and so peraduenture it is, although it followe not vpon the assumption that no auncient writer denieth it. And as for S. Peters Massing, as there is no auncient writer that writte within 600. yeares of Christe that denieth it, so is there none that affirmeth it. But you shall heare another reason. S. Peter that sate 2••. yeares at Rome and had saide Masse at Antioche, is not like to haue neglected his due∣tie at Rome. Admit it were true, that he was at Rome, which is not all out of doubt, and that he sate as Bishop there 25. yeares, which is proued false by the scriptures, all though Hierome and Eusebius doe affirme it: yet howe proueth M. Hesk. that it was any part of his dutie to say Masse, either there or else where, or that he did say Masse at Antioche? His first witnesse is Hugo de S. Lib. 2. de Sacra. par. 8. Cap. 14. Who although he be a late writer, vnwor∣thie of credite in this cause, yet I wil set downe his words, that you may see howe much they make for M. Heskins cause. Celebratio Misse &c. The celebration of the Masse is done in commemoration of the Passion of Christ, as he commaunded the Apostles, deliuering to them his bodie and his bloud saying: This do ye in remembrance of me. This Masse S. Peter the Apostle is saide first of all men to haue saide at Antioch. In the which in the beginning of the faith, there were only three prayers saide. If this be true, none of the Apostles saide Masse at Hierusalem many yeare after Christ, but it is manifest, that they mi∣nistred the Lordes Supper, therefore the Masse is not the Lordes supper. But if he will restraine the words of Hugo to meane, that Peter was the first that saide Masse at An∣tioch, the consequence will be the same, for it is certeine, that the Gospell beeing first preached at Antiochia by those Cyprians, and Cyrenians that fled vpon the perse∣cution of Stephan, Barnabas, and Paul, sent thither by the Apostles, brought the Antiochians to be perfect Christi∣ans, in so much that the name of Christians began there, before Peter came thither to say Masse, but they could not be Christians, without the celebration of the Lordes supper, therefore the Lordes supper is not the Masse. A∣gaine

where he saith, there were but three praiers in S. Pe∣ters Masse, & some Popish writers affirme, that he vsed no praiers but y^e lords praier: if this were true, what liklyhod hath S. Peters Masse w^t y^e Popish Masse, but only y^t it plea∣seth them to cal the celebratiō of y^e Lords supper, (which Peter no dout ministred purely a••ter Christs institutiō,) by y^e name of their impure Masse? After the testimonie of Remigius, he bringeth in Isidorus, whom he confesseth to haue ben before Remigius, & yet he was w^tout y^t compasse of 600 yeres after Christ, whereas in other places before, he maketh Remigius almost 200. yeres elder thē Isidorus. But Isidorus affirmeth Li. 1. de Off. Ecc. Cap. 15. That the order of the Masse, or prayers with which the sacrifices offered to God are cōsecrated, was first instituted by S. Peter. Although he liued in an erronious, & superstitious time, yet he meaneth y^t S. Peter did appoint an order and forme of prayers, for y^e ce∣lebration of y^e Lords supper. But certeine it is, y^t the same order was not extant in his time, much lesse now. For Gregorie is made y^e institutor of the Popish Masse, whiche was not long before Isidorus. Next he will proue, that S. Paule said Masse, though no olde writer faith it: for (saith he) S. Paul did y^t he taught: but he taught the Masse: Ther∣fore he said Masse. He ministred the cōmunion, according to the doctrine he taught in those Chapters,* 1.71 in which in deede is mention of consecration, and receiuing, but no syllable of oblation of Christ in the sacrament. As for y^e order & forme of ministration, it was agreable to that doctrine: & when he said, Other things I wil set in order when I come, although it be not necessarily to be refer∣red to matters cōcerning y^e sacrament, sauing y^e authority of Hugo, Hierom, & Augustine: yet it is out of question, y^t he did dispose nothing contrary to the doctrine of y^t Epi∣stle, as all the Popish filthines is, which M. Hesk. would thrust vpō vs, vnder y^e name of those things, which S. Paul ordeined. But it is wonderful to see, his blockish froward∣nes, y^t he would proue out of Aug. y^t the order of the Masse now vsed, is y^e order of the Masse y^t S. Paul speaketh of: Ep. 118. Vnde datur, &c. Wherby it is giuē to be vnderstanded, because it was much, that in an epistle he shuld set forth all that order of do∣ing,

which the vniuersall Church through out the world obserueth, that it is ordeined of him, which by no diuersity of maners is altred. He speketh of receiuing of y^e cōmunion fasting, which M H. willfully hath corrupted, by a false translation, and by wrong pointing, & falsifying y^e relatiue Quod to make it a Coniunction, y^t he might apply it to y^e whole order of his Popish Masse, which Aug. speaketh but of y^t one ceremo∣nie of receiuing fasting, and not after supper. Augustines wordes are these: Vnde datur intelligi quia mulium erat, vt in Epistola totum agendi ordinem insinuaret, quem vniuersa per or∣bem obseruat Ecclesia, ab ipso ordinatū esse quod nulla morū diuer∣sitate variatur. Which M. Hes. hath corrupted thus: whereby it is giuē to be vnderstanded, that it was too much that in an epistle he should declare al that order of ministration, which the vniuersal Church throughout the worlde taketh to be ordeined of him, for as much as it is not, by any diuersitie of maners varied, or altered. But if it were as he fableth, y^t S. Paul ordeined the ceremonial part of the Masse y^t was vsed in Augustines time, y^e Popish Masse being not y^e same in ceremoniall partes, (as he will confesse,) that it was in Augustines time: it foloweth, that the Popish Masse is not y^t, which was ordeined of S. Paule: for it is well known, it was patched & peeced together by many peeces long since August. time. And as certein it is, y^t almost euerie Church in his time, had a seuerall forme of liturgie, and therefore by his owne words they cannot be that, which S. Paule set in order at the Church of y^t Co∣rinthians. The like impudēcie he sheweth in y^e next saying of Aug. which he citeth Et ideo non proecipit, &c. And therfore he cōmanded not in what order it should be receiued afterward, that he might reserue this place to the Apostles by whō he would set the Churches in order. It followeth which M. Hesk. hath omit∣ted, Etiamsi hoc ille monuisset, vt post cibos alios semper acciperetur, credo quòd eum morē nemo variasset. For if he had charged this, y^t it should always be receiued after other meats, I beleeue y^t no man would haue varied frō y^t maner. When August. speketh so expresly of that one order of receiuing y^e com∣muniō before meat, what boldness is it to say, y^t crouching, kneeling, & other dumb ceremonies, although they were not instituted by Christ, yet were ordeined by S. Paul, vpō

colour of Aug. authority, who in y^e same epistle, wished al such idle ceremonies vtterly to be abolished. The next Massemonger he maketh, is S. Andrew, out of whose le∣gend, written by I knowe not what priestes & deacons of Achaia, he wil proue, y^t S. Andrew did both say Masse, and also therin offer in sacrifice the bodie & bloud of Christ. But he is too much deceiued, if he thinke any man of rea∣sonable vnderstanding will in these dayes giue credite to such fabulous legends: after S. Andrew cōmeth in S. Iames with his Masse, said at Ierusalē, which is in print: but not heard of in y^e Church 600. yeres after Christ, yet M. Hesk. saith it is allowed & praysed by the proclaymer, which is vtterly false: for he proueth by a manifest argumēt, that y^e liturgie, which is in print vnder the name of S. Iames, is a coun••erfet, because therein is a special prayer conteyned, for such as liue in Monasteries, whereas there was neuer a monasterie in the world, many hundreth yeres after the death of S. Iames. And for a further proofe of the false in∣scription of that liturgie to S. Iames, I will adde this ar∣gument, that he vseth the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or consubstantial which, as the learned knowe, was neuer heard of in the Church, before the heresie of Arrius was condemned in the Nicene counsell, although y^e Catholike Church did alwayes confesse, y^t Christ was God of the same substance, equal with the father and the holy Ghost. In deede the B. of Sarum, confesseth, that there is more in those liturgies against the Papistes, then for them, as by examining these parcels which M. Heskins citeth, we shall easily perceiue. First the liturgie of Iames, hath these wordes. Dominus, &c. Our Lord Iesus the same right, in which he was betrayed, or rather in which night he deliuered himselfe for the life of saluation of the world taking bread into his holie, vndefiled, innocent & im∣mortall hands, looking vp into heauen, & shewing it to the God & father, giuing thankes, sanctifying, breaking, he gaue it to vs his dis∣ciples saying Take ye, eate ye, this is my bodie, which is broken for you, and giuen vnto remission of sinnes. Likewise after he had sup∣ped, he tooke the cup, and mingling it with wine and water, & loo∣king vp into heauen and shewing it to the God and father, giuing thankes sanctifying, blessing, filling it with the holy Ghost, he gaue

it to vs his disciples, saying, Drinke ye all of this: this is my bloud of the new Testament, which is shed for you and many, and giuen for remission of sinnes. This saith Maister Heskins was his ma∣ner of consecration, vnlike the manner of the newe mini∣sters in their communion, which only rehearse the words of Christ historically, not directing thē to God as a pray∣er, wherein he lyeth most impudently, as euerie man that heareth or readeth the praier immediately before y^e recei∣uing of the sacrament can testifie. Concerning the tearme of consecration. I haue often shewed, that in the true sense thereof, we both allow & vse it, although he wold make ignorant & obstinat papists, y^t wil neither heare our prea∣chings, nor read our writings, to beleeue y^e contrarie, only because he saith it. Another ridiculous cauil, he hath, that we take not y^e bread into our handes before we consecrate it, But let it lie on the table, as though we had nothing to do with it. Surely we do not acknowledge such holines in our hands, y^t it can consecrate the bread, but we pray to God to blesse those his creatures of bread & wine y^t they may be vnto vs the bodie and bloud of Christ his sonne our Lord. If the Papists haue such holy, vndefiled, and immortal hands, as this Iames speaketh of, it is more then we knowe, or will confesse, before they can proue it. In the consecration of y^e wine, he chargeth vs. y^t we mingle no water with the wine. But when he can proue, by the word of God, y^t our sauiour Christ did so, we will confesse our errour, otherwise we see no necessitie of the water, & so their own schoolemen do confesse. We acknowledge y^t in the primitiue Church, it was an ancient custome, to mingle water with the wine, but not as a ceremonie at the first, but as the cōmon vsage of al men y^t drank y^e hotte wines of the East countries: but afterward it grewe to be counted a ceremonie, including some mysterie, and at length with some it excluded the wine altogether, as with those that were called Aquarij, so daungerous a matter it is to vse any thing in Gods ser∣uice, more then is prescribed by himselfe.

But M. Heskins cānot be persuaded, that after al this sanctifying, blessing, and filling of the cup with the holy Ghost, there should bee nothing else but a bare hungrie figure. As though

there were no choyce, but either transubstantiation, or a bare hungrie figure.

In baptisme there is sanctification, blessing, and filling with the holie Ghost, as much as in the communion, is there therefore transubstantiation in baptisme, because there is not a bare hungrie figure? But if I might be so bold, as to examine him in his own fai∣ned Masse of S. Iames, I would aske him, how the cuppe is filled with the holie Ghost? essentially, so that y^e ho∣lie Ghost, or any parte of him is conteined in the cupp? I dare say he will say no. And why then may not the bo∣die of Christ be present, and yet not corporally nor lo∣cally conteyned in pixe, corporax, cupp, hand, or mouth, but after a spirituall manner, as the holy Ghost is in the cuppe, by his owne Iames his saying. The last quarrell he picketh, is to our ministers, who (sayeth he) haue none authoritie to consecrate, because they receiue it not from the catholike succession. As for that authori∣tie which we haue receiued of God by the outwarde cal∣ling of the church, wee minde not to exchange with the Popes triple crowne, and much lesse with Maister Hesk. shauen crowne. But to shape him an answere according to his lewde obiection: seeing many are suffered to mi∣nister in our church, which were made priestes after the Popish order of antichrist, why should he denye any of them, them at the least, to haue power to consecrate, according to the Popish diuinitie, though the wordes be spoken in English, so long as he hath intentionē consecran∣di, before he be of them disgraded, and hath his indebe∣ble character scraped out of his handes and fingers endes? I aunswere he is not able to defend his opinion, that thei cannot consecrate, neither in Sorbona of Paris, nor in the schoole of Louain. To shutt vp this Chapter, he flappeth vs in the mouth, with S. Mathewes Masse, testified by Ab∣dias in the diuels name, a disciple of the Apostles (as hee saith) but one that sawe Christ him selfe, (as M. Harding sayeth) in verie deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more then Caunterburie tales. And thinketh he that such fa∣bles, will nowe bee credited? except it bee of such as wilfully will be deceiued.

The fiue and thirtieth Chapter, sheweth the manner of conse∣cration vsed and practised by the disciples of the Apostles, and the fathers of the primitiue and auncient church.* 1.72

His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian,* 1.73 but a late writer, who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgie, which Peter, Paule, and the Apostles vsed. Al∣though that, which he rehearseth of Clemens his Li∣turgie, be to small purpose, & litle or nothing differing from that hee had before of Iames, yet Nicolaus Me∣thon, is too yong a witnesse to bee credited in this case. For he was not of yeres of discretion to discerne that for the authenticall writing of Clemens, which the more auncient church, by a thousand yeres could not haue per∣fect knowledge to be his. Neither doth the testimonie of Proclus help him any whit. For, as it is not to be doubted, but S. Iames & the other Apostles, & Clemens also ap∣pointed some forme of Liturgie for y^e churches by them planted & instructed, which is all that Proclus saith: yet how proueth M. Hesk. that those which we haue, were y^e same which were written by Iames, Clemens, or any o∣ther of lawful antiquitie, when wee bring manifest de∣monstrations for the contrarie? Againe, where he saith that Peter vsed the Liturgie of Clemens, he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which sayth that Peter vsed a Liturgie of his own, cōsisting of three praiers only. The next witnesse should be Dionysius falsly surnamed Areo∣pagita, but y^t he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstan∣tiation, carnal presēce, priuate Masse, or sole cōmunion, & therefore vnder pretence of his obscuritie he dare cite ne∣uer a sentence out of him. Then follow the Liturgies vn∣der the names of Basil & Chrysost. verie litle in words & nothing at al in matter, differing from y^t former Liturgie ascribed to S. Iames, which because M. Hesk. knoweth, we cannot receiue as y^e lawful writings of Basil & Chrysost. he would vnderprop them by y^e authoritie of Proclus B. of Constantinople, as he did S. Clem. & S. Iames masse e∣uen now. The reason alledged by Proclus, will cleane ouerturne his ground worke, & proue that none of these Liturgies, were writen by thē to whom they be ascribed.

For Proclus sayeth, that Basil and Chrysostom made the auncient Liturgies receiued from the Apostles shorter, cutting many things away frō them, because they were too long for the peoples colde deuotion to abide. First, this is a colde reason to alter the tradition of the Apo∣stles, so many yeres continued in the church, for want of the peoples deuotion. But be it, that they followed this reason, then doth it followe moste manifestly, that this Liturgie which is ascribed to S. Iames is none of his, be∣cause it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But, if M. Hesk. will defende that of S. Iames, then hee must needes refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it, & therfore none abridgements of it. After these Liturgies, hee addeth the testimonie of the sixt counsell of Constantinople, which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretike, wherein it is reported, y^e S. Iames, Basil & Chrysostome ministred, & in their Li∣turgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water. But this proueth not, that these Liturgies which we haue are the same, that were set forth by those fathers, & as for y^e wa∣ter, they striue not for it, but for wine to be vsed, & not water onely. Finally, where the fathers of that counsell call the celebration of the communion, an oblation and an vnbloudie sacrifice, they speake in the same sence, that the elder fathers vse the same termes, otherwise that counsell, being an hundreth yeres without the compasse of the challenge, hath no place but in the lower house a∣mong the Burgesses, whose speaches may be hearde, but they haue none authoritie to determine in this cause by M. Heskins order, according to the challenge.

Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latine church: as though Clemens, if he were bishop of Rome, and wrote a Litur∣gie, as he affirmeth before, that of his making might not serue the Latine church. But Ambrose is cited, lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca. 5. Vis scire, &c. Wouldest thou knowe, that the sa∣crament is consecrated with heauenly wordes? Marke what the wordes be. The Priest sayth: Make vnto vs (faith he) this obla∣tion

ascribed, reasonable & acceptable, which is the figure of the bodie & bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ, which the day before he suffred, tooke bread in his holie hands, looked vp to heauen to the holie father, almightie, eternall God, giuing thanks blessed it, brake it, & being broken gaue it to his Apostles and disciples saying: Take ye, & eat ye all of this: for this is my bodie, which shalbe broken for many. Likewise also he tooke the cupp, after he had supped, the day before he suffered, looked vp to heauen to the holie father, almightie, eternall God, giuing thankes, he blessed it, deliuered it to his Apostles & disciples, saying: Take ye, and drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud. M. Hesk. passeth ouer that the ob∣lation of the church, is the figure of the body & bloud of Christ, & for feare he should be espied & taken with such an assertion, he flyeth in all the haste to other words of Ambrose following. Vide, &c. See all those be the Euangelists words, vnto these words: Take either the bodie or the bloud, from thence they be the wordes of Christ. Note euery thing. Who (saith he) the day before he suffered, tooke breade in his holie hands. Be∣fore it be consecrated it is bread, but after the wordes of Christe be come vnto it, it is the bodie of Christ. Finally, heare him saying: Take ye & eat ye all of it, this is my bodie. And before the wordes of Christ the cuppe is full of wine & water, after the wordes of Christ haue wrought, there is made the bloud which redeemed the people. To the like effect be the words taken out of his treatise, de oration. Dom. Memini, &c. I remember my saying, when I entreated of the sacraments▪ I told you that before the wor∣des of Christ, that which is offered is called bread, when the wordes of Christ are brought forth, nowe it is not called bread, but it is cal∣led his bodie. Here M. Hesk. triumpheth in his consecrati∣on, & of the vertue therof.

But he must remember what Ambrose saith, De ijs qui myster, initiant. Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus, &c. Our Lord Iesus him selfe doth speake alowde. This is my bodie, before the blessing of the heauenly wordes, it is named another kinde, but after the conse∣cration, the bodie of Christ is signified. And lib. de Sac. 4. Cap. 2. Ergo didicisti, &c. Then hast thou learned, that of the bread, is made the bodie of Christ, & that y^e wine & wa∣ter is put into the cup, but by consecration of y^e heauenly

word, it is made his bloud. But peraduenture thou sayest, I see not the shew of bloud. But it hath a similitude. For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest y^e similitude of his precious bloud, y^t there may bee no horror of bloud, & yet it may worke the price of redemption.

Here M. Hesk. for all his swelling brags hath not gained one patch of his popish Masse, out of the auncient writers: for none of them vnderstoode consecration, to cause a transsubstantiation of the ele∣ments into the naturall bodie of Christe, but only a se∣paration of them, from the common vse, to become the sacraments of the bodie & bloud of Christ. As for y^e foo∣lish cauil he vseth against protestants refusing to follow the primitiue church, for loue & liking of innouation, is not worthie of any reputation, for in al things which thei followed Christ, most willingly we folow thē, but where y^e steps of Christs doctrin are not seene, there dare we not follow them, although otherwise we like neuer so well of them.

* 1.74The sixe & thirtieth Chapter declareth what was the intention of the Apostles & fathers in & about the consecratiō in the Mass.

* 1.75M. Hesk. will proue that their intention was to trans∣substantiate the bread & wine into the bodie & bloud of Christ. And first y^e idol of S. Iames is brought forth on procession in his Liturgie, which M. Hesk. had rather call his Masse: Miserere, &c. Haue mercie vpon vs God almightie: haue mercie vpō vs God our Sauiour: haue mercie vpon vs ô God, according to thy great mercie, & send down vpon vs, & vpō these gifts set forth, thy most holy spirit the Lord of life, which sitteth to∣gether with thee god the father, & the only begottē sonne, raigning together, being consubstantiall & coeternall, which spake in the law & the prophets, & in thy newe testament, which discended in the likenesse of a doue vpon our lord Iesus Christ, in the riuer of Iordan & abode vpon him, which descended vpon thy Apostles in the like∣nesse of fierie tongue in the parler of the holy & glorious Sion, in the day of Pentecost send down that thy most holy spirite now also ô lord vpon vs, & vpon these holie giftes set forth, that comming vpō thē with his holie, good, & glorious presence, he may sāctifie &

make this bread, the holy body of thy Christe, and this cup the preci∣ous bloud of thy Christ, that it may be to all that receiue of it, vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes, and life euerlasting. M. Heskins saith, he would not haue prayed so earnestly, that the holy Ghost might haue sanctified the bread and wine, to be onely fi∣gures and tokens, which they might be without the speci∣all sanctification of Gods spirite, as many things were in the lawe. As for only figures and tokens, it is a slaunder confuted, and denyed a hundreth times alreadie. But what a shamelesse beast is he, to affirme, that the sacraments of the olde lawe which were figures of Christe, had no speci∣all sanctification of y^e holy Ghost, or that baptisme which is a figure of the bloud of Christ, washing our souls, may be a sacrament without the speciall sanctification of Gods spirite? you see, howe impudently he wresteth and wringeth the wordes of this Liturgie, which if it were graunted vnto them to be authenticall, yet hitherto ma∣keth it nothing in the world for him.

But let vs heare how S. Clement came to the altar: Ro∣gamus vt mittere digneris &c. We pray thee that thou wouldest vouchsafe to send thy holy spirite vpon this sacrifice, a witnesse of the passions of our Lord Iesus Christ, that he may make this breade the body of thy Christ, and this cup the bloud of thy Christ. Here saith M. Heskins his intent was, that the bread and wine should be made y^e body & bloude of Christ. And so they be, to them y^t receiue worthily. But M. Heskins will not see, y^t he calleth the bread and wine a sacrifice, before it is made the body and bloud of Christ, by which it is plaine, that this Clemens, intended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice, as the Papistes pretend to do. S. Basil in his Litur∣gie, hath the same intention in consecration. Te postulamus &c. We pray and besech thee ô most holy of al holies, that by thy wel pleasing goodness, thy holy spirit may come vpon vs, and vpon these proposed gifts, & to blesse and sanctifie them, & to shew this bread to be the very honourable body of our Lorde God & Sauiour Iesus Christ, and that which is in the cup, to be the very bloud of our Lord god & sauiour Iesus Christ, which was shed for the life of the world. Of this praier M. Hes. inferreth, y^t Basil by y^e sanctification

of y^e holy ghost beleeued the bread and wine to be made Christes body & bloud, he meaneth corporally & trāsub∣stantially. But y^t is most false, for this praier is vsed in y^t li∣turgie, after the words of consecration, when by y^e Popish doctrine, the body and bloud of Christe must needes be present, imediatly after the last sillable vm, in hoc est corpu•• me••um, pronounced. Wherefore, seeing the Author of this Liturgie, after the words of cōsecration pronounced, prai∣eth that God will sanctifie the breade and wine by his spirite, and make it the body and bloud of Christ, it is eui∣dent, that he neither beleeued transubstantiation, nor the carnall presence, nor consecration, nor intention after the manner of the Papistes, as also by this that hee calleth the bread and wine after consecration, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, exempla∣ries or figures. You see therefore, howe with patches and peeces, rent off here and there, he goeth about to deceiue the simple readers, which either haue no leasure, or no boookes, or no skill, to trie out his falsifications and ma∣licious corruptions.

The like sinceritie hee vseth in citing Chrysostomes Masse, for so he calleth his Liturgie, in which is a prayer for Pope Nicholas, and the Emperour Alexius, which was seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostomes death, and ther∣fore could not possibly be written by him. Besides this, there be diuers copies in the Greeke tong, one that Eras∣mus translated, which is very vnlike that copie which is printed in Greeke since that time, as the learned sort doe knowe. The wordes he citeth, be in a manner the same that were in Basils Liturgie, sauing that in the end he ad∣deth, Permutans ea sancto spiritu tuo, changing them by the spirt. This change may well be without transubstantiation, as hath bene often shewed before. The saying of Ambrose is more at large in the Chapter next before. As for the prai∣er of the Popish Masse, that the oblation may be made the body and bloud of Christ, as it is vnderstoode of them, is nothing like the prayers of the elder Liturgies, although in sound of some words it seeme to agree. And as foolish∣ly as vniustly, he findeth fault with our praier in the com∣munion,

that wee receiuing the creatures of breade and wine in remembrance of Christes death according to his institution, may be made partakers of his most blessed body & bloud. S. Iames, S. Clement, and the rest (saith he) prayed not that they might receiue bread and wine. No more doe we, thou foolish sophister. But that receiuing bread and wine, we might be partakers of Christes body and bloud, and this did all the Apostolike and Primitiue Church pray, as we pray in baptisme, not that we may re∣ceiue water, but that receiuing water we may be borne a newe. Neither did they euer pray, that the breade and wine might be transubstantiated into the body & bloud of Christ, but that they might be made the body & bloud of Christ to thē, after a spirtual & sacramētal maner. But I am much to blame, to vouchsafe these childish sophismes of any answere. Next to this, he would knowe what au∣thoritie the Protestants can shewe, that the eating and drinking of bread & wine, is of Christes institution. That it is a part of his institution, the Euangelists & S. Paul do shewe most euidently. But though he tooke breade and wine in his hands (saith M. Heskins) he changed it before he gaue them, so that it was no more bread and wine, but his body and bloud, and therefore we charge Christ with an vntrueth: to say, that receiuing of bread and wine is of Christes institution. O Maister of impietie and follie! Christ made no such change in his handes, but that which was in the cup was still the fruit of the vine, as he himself testified, saying: I wil no more drinke of this fruit of the vine, vntill the day come when I shall drinke it a newe with you in the kingdome of my father. Math. 26. As for the praier of those Liturgies of Iames and Basil, That God would make them worthie to receiue the body and bloud of Christe, without condemnation, proueth not, that they meant to re∣ceiue the body of Christ after a corporall maner, nor that the very body of Christe may be receiued to damnation. The thirde Liturgie of Chrysostome, which Erasmus ex∣poundeth, hath it otherwise. Dignos nos redde potenti manu ••ua, vt participes simu•• immaculati tui corporis, & preciosi tui

sanguinis, & per nos, omnis populus. Make vs worthy by thy mightie hand, that we may be partakers of thy vndefiled body, and of thy precious bloud, and so may al the people by vs. This prayer is godly & sound, and so are the other, being rightly vnderstoode, namely, that they which eate of that bread, & drinke of that cup of the Lord vnworthi∣ly (as S. Paule saith) do eat and drinke their owne damna∣tion, not considering the Lords body. But M. Heskins vr∣geth, that the spiritual body of Christ, or Christ spiritual∣ly, cannot be deliuered by the Priestes to the people, but y^e real body may. Yes verily, much rather then the body of Christ corporally, euen as the holy Ghost may be deliue∣red, in baptisme, and as eternal life and forgiuesse of sinnes may be giuen in preaching the Gospell, and none of these feinedly, but truly, yet otherwise are they giuen by God, otherwise by this Ministers. But in this distinction of M. Hes▪ it is good to note, y^t he maketh Christ to haue a reall body, which is not spirituall, & a spirituall body which is not reall. Christ hath in deede a mysticall body, which is his Church, and y^t is not his natural body, but by spiritual coniunction vnited to his only true & naturall body. But of this mystical body, M. Hes. speaketh not. Further, he ta∣keth exceptions to our prayer, & affirmeth, that It is not the institution of Christe to receiue the creatures of breade and wine in the remembrance of his death. But notw^tstanding all his chil∣dish & blockish quarels, our prayer is waranted by the A∣postles words 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat of this bread, & drinke of this cup, ye shewe the Lords death till he come. In the last part of this Chap. he will determine of the in∣tention of the ministers of the new Church. And y^t is, that Desiring to receiue the creatures of bread & wine, they exclude the body and bloud of Christ. Who euer heard a more shamelesse lye, or a more inconsequent argument? But seing there be two sorts of ministers in this new founded Church, he wil speake of them both: one sort were made Popish Priestes, & so haue authoritie to consecrate, but they lacke inten∣tion, now they be fallen to heresie: there is a second sort; which thought they could not haue intention to conse∣crate,

yet being none of the greasie and blasphemous or∣der, they lack authoritie. But I wold there were not a third sort, of whom I spake in the last chap. y^t wer made popish Priestes, and so continue, but in outward dissimulation ioyne with vs, if these intend to consecrate when they mi∣nister the cōmunion, how can M. Hes. dissuade the Papists from receiuing of them, or count their sacramēt nothing but bare bread? And wheras M. He. seemeth in the end to inueigh against such, I will willingly confesse, that they are worse then he is, or such as professe what they are, but not worse then hee hath beene in King Henries & King Edwards dayes, when he dissembled and swa••e as deepely as any of them all. As for our intention, seeing it is to doe that which Christ commanded to be done, and to receiue that which he deliuered vs to be receiued, if the particular explication of our faith will not satisfie M. Hes. at least, let him after his owne Popish Diuinitie, holde vs excused for our implicite faith: or if his own principles can hold him no longer then he listeth, let him giue vs leaue to e∣steeme none otherwise of them, then he giueth vs example to do.

The seuen and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the oblation and sa∣crifice of the Masse, as it was vsed of the Apostles and Fathers.* 1.76

When not one of the Apostles or Euangelistes make one word mention, either of Masse or sacrifice therein,* 1.77 M. Heskins taketh vpon him much more then al the Papistes in the world can proue. Concerning the Fathers, as they vse the terme of sacrifice, so I haue often shewed, that they meane a sacrifice of thankesgiuing, and not of propitia∣tion, or else they vse the name of sacrifice vnproperly for a memorial of the onely sacrifice of Christ, which he once offered neuer to be repeated. Neither do any of these Li∣turgies, which M. Heskins calleth Masses, though they be falsly ascribed to Saint Iames, Saint Clement, Saint Ba∣sil, Saint Chrysostome, &c. shewe any other thing, but manifestly the same that I haue saide. First that which is falsly ascribed to Saint Iames, in these wordes: Memo∣res &c. Therefore we sinners being mindfull of his quicke∣ning

passions, of his healthfull crosse and death, his buriall and re∣surrection from death the third day, of his ascension into heauen, and sitting at the right hand of thee ô God the father, and of his se∣cond glorious and fearefull comming, when he shall come with glory to iudge the quicke and the dead, when he shall render to euery one according to his workes, we offer vnto thee ô Lord, this reuerend & vnbloudie sacrifice, praying that thou wilt not deale with vs accor∣ding to our sinnes. No reasonable man can vnderstand here any other but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing, or prayer, or a memoriall of the sacrifice of Christ. For he saith not, we offer the body and bloud of Christe, but being mindfull of his sufferings &c. we offer this reuerend and vnbloudy sacrifice, for such is the sacrifice of prayer and thankes∣giuing.

The like and more plaine is that which is ascribed to Clemens by Nicholas Methon. Memores igitur: Therefore being mindfull of his passion, death, and resurrection, returning into heauen, and his second comming, in which he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead, and to render to euery man according to his workes, we offer vnto thee our king and God, according to his insti∣tution, this bread and this cup, giuing thankes vnto thee by him, that thou hast vouchsafed vs to stand before thee, and to sacrifice vnto thee. This is so plaine against M. Heskins, for the o∣blation of Christes body and bloud &c. that he is enfor∣ced to flee to shamefull petitions of principles, the end of which is, that this bread is no bread, & this cup is no cup, but as Christe called bread in the 6. of Iohn, and S. Paule in the 1. Cor. 10. & 11. in exposition whereof lyeth all the controuersie. That Liturgie which is intituled to S. Basil, is yet more plaine for a spirituall oblation of thankesgi∣uing. Memores ergo &c. Therefore being mindfull ô Lord of his healthsome passions, of his quickening crosse, three dayes buriall, re∣surrection from death, ascension into heauen, sitting at thy right hand ô God the father, and of his glorious and terrible second pre∣sence, we offer vnto thee, tua ex tuis, thy giftes of thy creatures. M. Heskins saith, he abhorreth not from the name of sacri∣fice, as we do, but he falsly, belyeth vs, for if he will looke in our Liturgie or communion booke, he shall finde, that

we also offer a sacrifice of thankesgiuing, euen our selues, our soules and bodies, (as the Apostle exhorteth vs) to be a holy, liuely, and acceptable sacrifice to God. But he will not remember, that the sacrifice he speaketh of, is not the body and bloud of Christe, but tua ex tuis, thy creatures of thy giftes, or thy gifts of thy creatures, namely the bread and wine which also after consecration, he prayeth to be sanctified by Gods holy spirite, but the body of Christe hath no neede of such sanctification. Secondly, he noteth not, that his Basil maketh but two presences of Christe in the worlde, the first, when hee liued in humilitie in the the world, the second which shall be terrible and glori∣ous, by which he doth manifestly exclude y^e third imagi∣ned presence of Christ in the sacrament. To the same ef∣fect prayeth the Priest in the other Liturgie, ascribed to Chrysostome: Memores &c. Therefore being mindfull of this wholesome commaundement, and of all those things which are done for vs, of his crosse, buriall, resurrection, ascension into heauen, sit∣ting at the right hand, of his second and glorious comming againe, we offer vnto thee, tua ex tuis, thy giftes of thy creatures. Maister Heskins saith, he will not seeke the deapth of this matter, but only declare, that al these fathers did offer sacrifice. In which words he mocketh his readers egregiously, where∣as he should proue, that they offered the body and bloud of Christe to be a propitiatorie sacrifice, and that he pro∣ueth neuer a whit. Nowe that the meaning of y^t Liturgie was not, to offer Christ in sacrifice, this prayer therein vsed before y^e words of cōsecration (as they terme it) doth suf∣ficiētly declare: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. O Lord, receiue this sacrifice vnto thine hea∣uenly altar. So that it is manifest, they called the bread & wine a sacrifice, not the body & bloud of Christ. The like is that of Ambrose, The Priest saith: Therefore being mindfull of his most glorious passion, resurrection from death, and ascension into heauen, we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice, this reasona∣ble sacrifice, this vnbloudy sacrifice, this holy bread and cup of eter∣nall life. This vndefiled sacrifice (saith M. Heskins) must needes be the body and bloud of Christe, for else there is

nothing vndefiled, that a man can offer. But why may it not be as Ambrose calleth it here, the holy bread and cup of the communion, or as he calleth it a little before in the same place, the figure of the body & bloud of Christ? For the bread and the wine, which vnproperly he calleth a sacrifice, in steede of a memoriall of a sacrifice, in that they be the holy sacraments of Christes body and bloud, are holy, vndefiled, and the foode of eternal life. The same Ambrose, called the soule of his brother, an innocent sa∣crifice, and offered the same to God in his prayer: De obi∣•••• fratris &c.

To conclude, not one of all these Liturgies, no, not the Canon of the Masse it selfe saith, that the body of Christe is the sacrifice that they do offer, or that they offer a pro∣pitiatorie sacrifice, or that they offer any other, but a sa∣crifice of thankesgiuing, or a memoriall of the sacrifice of Christ, by which it is easie to iudge howe the doctrine that the Papistes do nowe holde of the propitiatorie sa∣crifice of the Masse, doth agree with the auncient Litur∣gies, ascribed to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church.

* 1.78The eight and twentieth Chapter treateth of the prayer for accep∣tation of the oblation or sacrifice made in the Masse and vsed as well by the Apostles, as the Fathers.

* 1.79That the Apostles and Fathers commended to God by prayers the sacrifice which thei offered, it is a manifest ar∣gument, that they offered not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe, for that needeth no com∣mendation of our prayers. They prayed therefore, that their sacrifice of thankes giuing, and duetifull seruice, ce∣lebrated in the memorie of Christes death, might be ac∣ceptable to God, as you shal see by al their prayers. First y^e Liturgie vntruly ascribed to Iames praieth thus: Pro obla∣tis. &c. For these offred and sanctified, precious, heauenly, vnspeak∣able, immaculate, glorious, feareful, horrible, diuine gifts, let vs pray to our Lord God, that our Lord God accepting them into his holy & heauenly, mentall and spirituall altar for a sauour of spiritual sweet smell, may giue vs againe, and send vnto vs the diuine grace and

gift of the most holy spirite. These sanctified giftes can not be the body and bloud of Christe, which are holy of them selue, but the bread and wine sanctified, to be a memori∣all of the death of Christe in a spirituall sacrifice of than∣kesgiuing. Saint Clement, if wee beleeue Nicholas Me∣thon, prayed thus: Rogamus &c. We pray thee, that with mer∣cifull and cheerefull countenaunce thou wilt looke vpon these giftes set before thee, thou God which hast no neede of any thing, and that thou mayest be pleased with them to the honour of thy Christ. These wordes are plaine that he offered not Christe, but the breade and wine to bee sanctified to the honour of Christe, namely that they might be made the body and bloud of Christe, to as many as receiue them worthily. In the Liturgie imputed to Basil, the Priest prayeth thus: Dominum postulemus &c. Let vs desire the Lorde for these offered and sanctified the most honourable giftes of our Lorde God, and for the profite of the goods of our soules, that the most mercifull God, which hath receiued them in his holy, heauenly, intelligible altar, for a sauour of sweete smelling, would send vnto vs, the grace and communion of his holy spirite. The same wordes in a manner be in the Liturgie fathered vppon Saint Chrysostome, though it be manifest that it was written seuen hundreth yeares after his death, as is shewed before. Pro oblatis &c. For the offered and sanctified precious giftes, let vs pray the Lorde, that our mercifull God, who hath receiued thē in his holy, heauenly, intelligible altar, may send vs therfore grace, & the gift of the holy Ghost. Maister Heskins would haue vs note, that these Fa∣thers seeme to pray for their sacrifice, which we note very willingly, for thereby is proued, that their sacrifice was not the very body of Christ, for that nedeth no commen∣dation of our prayers. Wel, S. Ambrose followeth. Lib. de Sacr. 4. Cap. 6. Petimus &c. We pray and desire, that thou wilt receiue this oblation in thy high altar by the handes of the Angels, as thou hast vouchsafed to receiue the gifts of thy seruant righteous Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which thy high Priest Melchisedech offered to thee. The very name of gods heauenly, mental, intelligible, holy, & high altar, do argue a spirituall sacrifice, and not a reall oblation of the

naturall body and bloud of Christ. Next to these Litur∣gies, Maister Heskins adioyneth the wordes of the Canon of the Popish Masse, agreeing in effect with these of Am∣brose, but nothing at all in vnderstanding. For that the Papistes esteeme their sacrifice to be very Christ, God, and Man, which none of the auncient fathers did. For which cause the Bishop of Sarum iustly reproued those three blasphemies in their Canon, not in respect of the words, but in respect of their vnderstanding of them. The first, that they seeme to make Christ in his fathers displeasure, that he needeth a mortall man to be his spokesman. The second, that the body of Christe should in no better wise bee receiued of his father, then a Lambe at the handes of Abel. The third, that they desire an Angel may come and carie away Christes body into heauen. These three blasphemies M. Heskins taketh vpon him to auoyde or excuse. To the first, after many lowd outcries and beastly raylings against that godly learned father of blessed m••∣mory, he answereth, defending it first by example of these auncient Liturgies: that they prayed for their sacrifice: but this helpeth him not, for they neither thought nor saide, that their sacrifice was very Christe, God, and Man, but a sacrament and memoriall of him. Afterward hee saith, the meaning of their Church, is not to pray for Christe, but by Christ, to obtaine fauour bicause they say in the end of euery prayer, per Christum Dominum nostrum, by our Lord Christ. But this hole is too narrowe for him to creepe out at. For he confesseth, that he prayeth for his sacrifice, and he affirmeth, that his sacrifice is Christ, ther∣fore he praieth for Christ.

To auoyde the second blasphemie, hee saith, that the meaning of their Church is not, to pray that God will accept the sacrifice, which is acceptable of it selfe, but their deuotion and seruice, and them selues the offerers, as hee did accept Abell and his sacrifice &c. and so flyeth to the example of the olde Liturgies: but that will not serue him. For their sacrifice was not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ, but a seruice and duetie of

thankesgiuing in remembrance of Christe. And therefore they might well pray that their sacrifice might be accep∣ted, as Abell and his sacrifice, as Noe and his burnt offe∣ring, and so of the rest, but this meaning will not stande with the wordes of their Canon, which are that God will accept the sacrifices, that is, the body and bloud of Christ, as hee accepted the giftes of his iust seruaunt Abell &c. Therefore they must either chaunge the wordes of the Canon: or his aunswere to the second accusation, by the meaning of their Church, can not stande, howe so euer Hugo & Heskins would seeme to salue or rather to daub vp the matter. To the third and last hee aunswereth, de∣nying that the meaning of their Church is, that the body of Christe should be caried by an Angel, but that their prayers should bee offered by an Angel or Angels in the sight of GOD, making a long and needlesse discourse, of the ministerie of Angels, and howe they offer our pray∣ers to GOD, which is nothing to the purpose. For the Maister of the sentences: affirmeth, that an Angel must be sent to consecrate the quickening body, or else it can not be called a Masse, which is nothing like to Maister Hes∣kins seruice? Lib. 4. dist. 13. In the end, he will ioyne issue with the proclamer that no Catholique euer thought, that Christes body was caried into heauen by an Angell. And it seemeth plainly, that they are all ashamed of the grosse absurdities and blasphemies of their Masse, and there∣fore are forced to feigne meanings and interpretations, which are cleane contrarie to the wordes thereof. The trueth is, that these and some other prayers of their Ca∣non, were vsed in the Romane Church, before the opi∣nion of transubstantiation, carnall presence, or propiti∣atorie sacrifice of the Masse were receiued, and this is the cause, that being nowe applyed to these monstruous er∣rours, they imploy such detestable blashemies, as all the Papistes in the world are ashamed to heare of, and not able to defend, whereas before these errours receiued, some of them were good prayers, some were tolerable.

* 1.80The nine & thirtieth Chapter treateth of the value of the Mas•••• to the quicke and the dead.

* 1.81Prayer for the dead beeing an auncient errour, Mai∣ster Heskins triumpheth out of measure, that he findeth some spottes thereof, in the auncient writers bookes. But there is great difference betweene praying for the dead, which is an errour rising of superstition and infide∣litie, and offring the bodie of Christe in sacrifice for the dead which is a most horrible blaspheming. Therefore he doeth maliciously wrest such thinges, as are spoken of prayer for the dead, or the sacrifice of prayer for the dead, yea and sometimes the sacrifice of thanksgiuing for the dead, to the oblation of CHRISTE for the dead.

Thus he abuseth first all the liturgies, falsely ascri∣bed to Saint Iame, Basil, Chrysostome. Which as we haue proued before, pretended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice, and therfore offred it not for the dead, although they offer prayers for the dead. And here it is to be noted that Clementes liturgie forsaketh him for prayer for the dead, or else we should surely haue heard of him as we did before. He would get credite to that whiche is vntruely ascribed to Saint Iames, by the proclaymers testimonie, because he saide it was full of knowledge, and full of er∣rours also. When Dionysius can say nothing for him, concerning the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable for the dead, he bringeth him in, speaking of prayers made for the partie deceassed at his buriall. Concerning the antiquitie of this Dionysius we haue shewed before, that he cannot be so olde by sixe hundreth yeares, as the Papistes would make him. That the Apostles taught not prayer for the dead in their writinges, he saith the cause was, that they needed not, for that the Iewes vsed both, prayer & sacrifice for the dead before Christes comming▪ by testimonie of the Booke of Machabees which (he say∣eth) S. Augustine alloweth canonicall, and by witnesse of one Antonie Margarita, a late conuerted Iewe to Papi∣strie. Touching the veritie of that historie of the Ma∣chabees,

though Augustine allowe it to be read, so it be soberly, yet doeth not he take it for Canonicall, and Hierome vtterly denieth it for Canonicall: Expre••at. in Prouerb.

But for as much as this controuersie of praying for the dead, is vnpertinent to this cause, and requireth a larger discourse then the answere to this Chapter may conteine, & also that Maister Heskins in the end ioyneth issue and maketh a newe challenge, I thinke it best, to referre the Readers to mine answere against Maister Allens Booke of Purgatorie, where he shall finde all those and a num∣ber more of places alledged and answered both touching prayers for the dead, and the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable to the dead, in the same also is some treatie of prayer vnto dead Saintes. In the meane season, this is suf∣ficient against all mans authoritie, that the worde of God prescribeth neither the one nor the other, but con∣demneth them both, for what so euer is not of faith is sin: and whatsoeuer is not of the word of God, is not of faith: therfore prayers for the dead and to the dead, beeing not of the worde of God are sinne. Neither were they vsed in y^e Church more then an hundreth yeres after Christ. And the first that maketh mention of any praiers for the dead, which is the elder errour by two or three hundreth yeres, is Tertullian, whē he was an heretike, who had receiued it with other heresies of y^e Montanistes, who were two hun∣dreth yeares after Christ: notwithstanding y^t Epiphanius & Augustine number it among y^e errours of Arrius, that he denied prayers for y^e dead, yet they both do also num∣ber it for one of the heresies of the Heracleonites, to re∣deeme their dead with inuocations, and other ceremo∣nies vsed at their buriall. How M. Heskins falsifieth the councel of Carthage, which made a decree that such as de∣nied to pay the oblations of the dead, should be excom∣municated as murtherers of the poore: I shall not neede to rehearse, vnderstanding dead mens legacies for the vse of the poore, for Masses saide for the dead. The same do∣eth M. Allen with this and other councels.

Likewise M. Heskins falsifieth Cyprian De Cerna Dom: In huius praesentia non superuacuè in endicant lachrymae veniam, nec vnquam patitur contriti cordis holocaustum repulsam. In presence of him teares do neuer begge pardon in vain, neither do∣eth the sacrifice of a contrite heart euer suffer repulse. Here doth he translate Huius of this sacrifice, and applyeth it to the sacrifice of the Masse for the dead, whereas there is not one worde in all that sermon, either of prayer or sacrifice for the dead. But leauing this argument of pray∣ing and offering for the dead, M. Heskins chargeth the y^e proclaimer with three vntrueths in one sentence, where he saide, that Saint Iames in his Masse preached and set foorth the death of Christ, but the Papistes in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe geastures, and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstande not and make no manner mention of Christes death. To the first he answereth, that they haue all thinges that S. Iames had in his Masse, by the proclaymers confessiō, who diuideth their Masse into holie prayer, holie doc∣trine, holy consecration, holy receiuing. See the impudent quarrelling of this froward sophister. The Bishop saith, y^e Papistes diuide their Masse into these partes, therfore he acknowledgeth their Masse to consist of these partes: and yet all these are but dumbe gestures and ceremonies, because the people vnderstand none of them, were they neuer so good, as a great parte of them is starke naught.

To the second he saith, that they them selues vnder∣stand not their owne gestures and ceremonies: he say∣eth that diuerse writers haue expounded euerie parcell of them, as Isidorus, Rabanus, Hugo, Hoffnester, Gare∣tius and others, he leaueth out Bonauentur, and Duran∣dus the cheefe, belike beeing ashamed of their ridiculous interpretations. But admitte these things to be set foorth in bookes, doth it therefore followe, that all or the moste priestes doe vnderstand them, whereof a great number, can neither conster the Latine of their masse, nor of those bookes? And generally it may be said, that they all vn∣derstand them not, because these writers themselues, doe not agree in the interpretation of them.

The thirde he saith, is A plaine lie that in the Masse they make no mention of Christes death, whereas the Masse setteth forth the death of Christe more liuely then the new communion. For with great outcries he saith, that there is mention of his death, where it is saide, The day before he suffred, and The bloud of the new Testament that it shed for you, and beeing mind∣full of his passion, resurrection, &c. and do this in remembrance of me. Here is all the preaching of Christes death, that he can finde in the Masse. But seeing he grateth vpon the wordes, No mention of his death, Which was not the Bishops meaning, but no profitable mention to the institution of the people, who vnderstand nothing although there were neuer so long a sermon of Christes death in Latine: yet I say, he hath not shewed the death of Christe once mentioned in the Masse, I say not by implication, but in fourme of wordes, whereof he taketh aduauntage, to charge the Bishop of a lie. But how open plaine, lowd, & impudent a lie it is, that The Masse setteth foorth the death of Christ more liuely then the new communion, as (he termeth it) I will not in one worde goe about to confute, least I should acknowledge any neuer so small shew of trueth to be in it.

The fortieth Chapter treateth of priuate Masses, as the proclay∣mer termeth them, and solueth his arguments.* 1.82

Maister Heskins first rehearsing the Bishoppes Argu∣ments, against the priuate Masse,* 1.83 first maketh this gene∣rall aunswere to them al, that they proue it is lawfull for the people to receiue with the Priest, but not, that it is ne∣cessarie. And first he chargeth him with falsifying of Hie∣rome In 1. Cor. 11. That the supper of the Lorde must be common to all the people, for Christ gaue his sacra∣ments to all his disciples that were present.

Where (saith Maister Heskins) he hath left out this worde equally, by whiche is meant, that poore men haue as good right to the sacrament, as riche men, but not that it is necessarie, that all men present at Masse, should receiue with the

Priest. In deed the words of Hierome are these: Conuenienti∣bus &c. Iam non est Dominica sed humana, quando vn••s quis quae tanquam caenam propriam solus inuadis, & alij, qui non obtulerit, non impereit. Ita vt magis propter saturitatem, quàm propter my∣sterium videamini conuenire. Caeterùm coena Dominica omni••us debes esse communis, quia ille omnibus discipulis suis, qui aderant, ęqualiter tradidit sacramenta. Coena autē ideo dicitur quia Dominu•• in coena tradidit sacramentum. Item hoc ideo dicit quia in ecclesia conuenientes, oblationes suas separatim offerabant: & post com∣munionem quae cunque eis de sacrificijs supersuissent, illic in Ecclesia communem coenam cōmedentes pariter consumebant. Et alius qui∣dem esurit, &c. Quicumque non obtulisset non communicabat, quira omnia soli qui obtulerunt, insumebant.

When you come together, &c. Nowe is it not the LORDES supper, but a mannes supper, when euerie one falleth to it alone, as it were his owne supper, and giueth no parte to another, which hath offered nothing: so that you seeme to come together, rather to fill your bellies, then for the mysteries sake. But the Lordes supper ought to be common to al men, because he deliuered his sacramentes to all his disciples that were present, equal∣ly. And it is therefore called a supper, because the Lorde at supper deliuered the sacramente. Also he saith this, therfore, for that when they came together in the Church they offered their oblations seuerally: and after the com∣munion, whatsoeuer was left to them of y^e sacrifice, euen there in the Church, eating a common supper, they con∣sumed it together. And one truely is a hungred: whosoe∣uer had not offred did not communicate, because they that had offred, consumed all alone. By this let the Rea∣der iudge, what falsifying the proclaymer vsed and whe∣ther Hierome that condemned seuerall communions of riche men, would allowe a singular partaking of y^e priest alone.

An other reason he hath of baptisme, whiche though it be common to all men, and that two speciall times in the yeare were appointed for the ministration there∣of, yet it may be ministred alone. But the example is no∣thing

like, for it was alwayes lawfull and often vsed, to baptise singuler persons at all times, so was it neuer of the Lordes supper, because the mysterie that S. Paul spea∣keth of, 1. Cor. 10. Many partaking of one bread, cannot bee expressed, when one priest receiueth alone. The third reason he bringeth, is a counterfet decree, ascribed to Fabianus of Rome 242. yeres after Christe, that people should receiue thryse in the yere, which had beene need∣lesse, if they receiued so often as the priest saide Masse. In deede the impudent forgerie of this decree is mani∣fest, when two hundred yeares after Fabianus the people of Rome, as both Saint Augustine, and Saint Hierome do write, and Maister Heskins cannot denye, receiued the communion euery day. As for the decree of once a yere receiuing, I knowe not when it was made, but wicked it was whensoeuer it was made. But Chrysostome, I wene doth make much for priuate Masses, for he writeth, but Maister Heskins dare not tell where for shame: Nonne per singulos dies offerimus? offerimus quidem, sed ad recorda∣tionem facientes mortis eius. Do wee not euery day (sayth hee) make oblation? we offer in deede, but doing it to the remem∣brance of his death. This question of Chrysos. is but an ob∣iection of the vsual phrase of offering, which he expoun∣deth to be nothing else, but a celebration of the remem∣braunce of Christs death: and therfore in the end of that discourse for a full resolution he setteth down:

Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex, sed id ipsum semper facimus, magis au∣tem recordationem sacrificij operamur. Wee offer not ano∣ther sacrifice as the holie priest, but the same alwayes: but rather wee make the remembraunce of that sacrifice.

This correction sheweth, what he meaneth by the name of sacrifice.

And whereas Maister Heskins vrgeth, that they mini∣stred dayly, & none were bound but priests to communi∣cate, aboue thrise in y^e yere, he concludeth the priest recei∣ued oftentimes alone. But he playeth the papist notably in taking, rather then begging two principles: one that the people were not bounde, which hee is not able

to proue; another, that there was but one Priest in a church, whereas at that time commonly there was but one church in a citie, in which were many priestes, which by his owne confession were bound to receiue as often as the sacrament was ministred, therefore one Priest did not eat vp all alone in Chrysostomes time.

To the saying of Ambrose which the Bishop alled∣geth in 1 Cor. 11. Inuicem expecta••••, &c. Ad inuicem expe∣ctandum dicit, vt multorum oblatio simul celebratur: & vt omni∣bus ministretur. He sayeth, they ought to tarie one for an∣other, that the oblation of many might bee celebrated together, and that it might be ministred vnto them all.

M. Heskins aunswereth, that this doctour doth onely re∣proue their want of deuotion, which is false: for he doth also shewe, that all ought to communicate together, or else it is not to eat the Lordes supper, vppon which wor∣des of the Apostle, he sayeth also: Murius enim oblatum to∣sius populi sit, quia in vno paene omnes significantur: per id quod enim vnum sumus, de vno paene omnes n••c sumere oportet. For the gift which is offered belongeth to all the people, be∣cause they are all signified in one bread: for in that wee are one, we ought to receiue all of one bread.

If al must, then one ought not alone. As for that balde shift hee flyeth vnto, that all priestes in seuerall places communi∣cate together, is too bad for a begger to vse, for so might the Corinthians whome the Apostle reproueth for not tarying one for another, say they communicated with them whome they left out, and with al Christians in the worlde. But now M. Heskins with full sayle in rayling seas inueigheth against the proclaimer, for falsifying & wrong translating of Leo, when hee doth not translate him at all; but onely doth gather the summe of his say∣ing in fewe wordes, and that truely: though hee name neither Masse nor sacrifice, which are in y^e saying of Leo, which, how little it maketh either for the popish Masse, or for the sacrifice propitiatorie, or finally for y^e priuate Masse, I desire the reader to returne to the 32. Chapter of this booke, where he shall finde the place at large set

downe and vrged, which therefore I thought it in vaine to repeat in this Chapter. After this hee defendeth, that by the Masse booke they are not bounde to haue a com∣munion, but one priest may receiue alone. And where∣as the Bishop rehearseth diuerse exhortations to prayer, vsed in the Masse, as: Oremus, let vs praye: Orate pro me fratres & sorores, pray for me brethren and sisters, &c. And after the Agnus Dei: haec sacro sancta, &c. This holie commixti∣on and consecration of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ be vnto mee & to all that receiue it, health of mind & bo∣die: All which sayings import a number present, & the last a number receiuing, whereas in the priuate Masse, there is neuer a brother or sister present many times, but one sorie boy, that helpeth y^e priest to Masse, & though they be present, yet vnderstād they not that they are bid∣den to pray for the priest, when he turneth about: Maister Hesk. trifleth vpon the former prayers, separating them from the last, and affirming that they may pray toge∣ther, though they do not receiue together. For he saith: there be two communions in the Masse, beside the recei∣uing, (and therfore-belike that is not needefull) the one of prayer, the other of sacrifice, and as for the last prayer for them that receiue, is not ment onely of them that re∣ceiue in the church at that time, but for all receiuers of all places and times, when and wheresoeuer. But what reason hath he to persuade vs, that those brethren & sis∣terne whome the priest firste exhorteth to pray for him, that their sacrifice might be acceptable to God, are not the same, which ought to receiue with him? neuerthe∣lesse in the ende, supposing the priestes prayeth with li∣mitation of time and place, he sayth it is no reason, that if the people will not receiue, the priest should not: ye as verily, because Christe instituted a communion of many participantes in one time and place, and not one priests breakefast in a corner by him selfe. Againe, the wordes of the Masse: Omnibus sumentibus, to all which do receiue, and quae sumpsimus, which wee haue receiued, doe proue a number of receiuers, and which haue receiued at tha••

time, and in that place, or else the Priest should saye, to mee which receiue it, and which I haue receiued. And whereas Maister Heskins chargeth the proclaimer, for adding the worde, Consecration, which is not in their Masse booke, I confesse I knowe not whether it be in all coppies omitted, but I am persuaded, the bishop had some ground of his saying, or else it might be the faulte of the Printer. But whereas the proclaimer alledgeth y^e Canons of the Apostles, and decrees of the bishops of Rome, Maister Heskins sayth, as odious as the Popes be to him, faine he is to praye ayde of them. But he is al∣together deceiued, God be thanked the holy scriptures are sufficient for vs, both to proue al trueth, and to disproue all errours. But if either counsels or Popes decrees, be al∣ledged, it is to beat downe the Papistes with their owne weapons, and to cast their owne doung in their owne faces, as the Prophet sayeth. But let vs heare the Canon of the Apostles, Can. 9. Fideles, &c. The faithfull, which come to the Church and heare the Scriptures, and receiue not the holye communion, let them be excommunicated, as men that disquiet the church. Here he doth most impudently charge y^e pro∣claimer with falsification, which he himself committeth, alledging it, not out of the booke of Canons, but out of the Popes dirtie decrees: Omnes fideles, &c. All Christian men that in the solemne seruice come together to the church, let them heare the scriptures of the Apostles & the Gospell. And such as continue not in prayer vntill masse be all done, nor do receiue the holie communion, it is meete they be excommunicated, as such as moue disquietnesse to the church: but that the learned reader, may see how syncerely y^e bishop hath dealt, & how falsly Hesk. belyeth him, I wil set down the Canon in Greek, as it was firste written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. All the faith∣full or Christians which enter into the church, and heare y^e Scriptures, but tarrie not out the prayer & the holie cō∣munion or participation, ought to be separated, as cau∣sers of disorder in the Church. Here you see no mention

of Masse at all. And if any ignorant papist dare not trust my translation out of Greeke, let him vnderstand y^t in y^e book of councels, he shal find two translations of this & the rest of those Canons, called the Canons of the Apo∣stles, of which y^e bishop hath followed the one, but Hesk. neither of both: for as I said before, there is no mention of the Masse in any of them. Therfore, what is the falsifica∣tion committed in the Popes lawe, out of which he ci∣teth it, how honestly in so doing, & reprouing the bishop for following the trueth, let the readers iudge. But for al y^t he foysteth in the name of his Masse, yet can he not ex∣clude y^e necessitie of receiuing the cōmunion, of all y^e lay people, which is the matter in question. And therefore it is a verie shame to report, what an absurde interpretation of the Canon he would make, namely, that it was not de∣creede against good Catholike people, which ioyned in prayer and receiued when deuotion serued them, but against licentious & yet dissembling heretikes and schismatikes, which being present in the churche, would not communicate, either in prayer or in re∣ceipt of the sacrament. For confutatiō of which blind mea∣ning: first, I woulde aske, whether omnes fideles, all the faithful (as the Canon sayeth) doth signifie all licenti∣ous and dissembling heretikes and scismatikes? Second∣ly, when the Canon is made expressely against them that after thei haue heard the scriptures, depart when y^e prayer & celebration of y^e communiō beginneth, whether those y^t be present & ioyne not in prayer & participation can be vnderstood? Thirdly (if he knew what kind of Censure this was, y^t is spoken of) whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or separa∣tion were a sufficient punishment, for men knowne to be licentious, dissembling, heretikes, & scismatikes? But hee wil father his feyned vnderstanding, vpon the councel of Antioch, which (saith he) expoundeth it so almost, word for word: Omnes qui ingrediuntur, &c. All that come into the Church of God, & heare the holie scriptures, & communicate not in prayer with the people but of a certein wantonnesse turne them selues away from the receiuing of the holie communion, let them be remoued from the church, vntill by confession they shewe fruites of repentance, and by prayers obteine pardon.

But with excommunicate persons it is not lawfull to communicate, neither may we pray with such, as go from house to house auoy∣ding the prayers of the church. But who will graunt to M. Heskins, that this should be an interpretation of the for∣mer Canon, contrarie to the wordes thereof? Secondly, when this Canon consisteth of two partes, and in deede comprehendeth two of those Canons of the Apostles, the former parte concerning all men that come into y^e chur∣che, the later onel•• excomunicate persons, and scisma∣tikes: who is so deuoyde of reason, to graunt that this Canon was made onely against heretikes & scismatikes? But in the ende, as it were forsaking his holde, he claspeth another rotten post, that the Canon was made against the slacknesse of the people, and not against the deuotion of the priest: so that if none of the people would com∣municate, the priest might receiue alone. Surely y^t pri∣uate Masse is such a monster, as it is not credible, that it once entred into any of their heads, that decreede those Canons. But seeing they would not suffer any smal num∣ber of Christians to withdrawe them selues from y^e com∣munion, is it like they would suffer all not to receiue? And seeing the worde of God was the ground of their decree: Tarrie one for another, 1. Cor. 11. &c. who doub∣teth, but that if the peoples deuotion serued them not, the priest was as well bound to tarrie for the people, as one lay man for another? So that all the congregation ought to communicate together, and none to be left out, but such as either be vnworthie, or haue some necessarie impediment. Finally, if the Papistes were grieued at the seeldome receiuing & communicating with the priest, as they pretende, why do they not execute the censures of these Canons against all that be present at their Mas∣ses, and do not receiue with them?

But M. Heskins proceeding in confutation of the pro∣claimers arguments, first chargeth him to father a decree vpon Calixtus, which was decreede by Anacletus, as though one thing might not be decreed by two bishops, and as though in the Canon lawe and other like-re∣cordes,

one lawe is not fathered vppon diuerse bishops. And Gratian ascribeth it to both, and namely to Calixtus dist. 2. Cap. Peracta. The words are these: Peracta consecratio∣ne, &c. When the consecration is done, let euery man receiue the communion, vnlesse he wilbe put from the vnitie of the church. For this thing the Apostles haue ordeined, and the holy churche of Rome continueth the same. Two great faultes M. Hesk. fin∣deth in this allegation. First, he doth detort, abuse, and wrest the place: secondly he doth mutilate it, and cutt it off by the knees. Here be vehement accusations, but in the tryall you shall see the bishop clearely discharged, & all the slaunder verified vpon the accusers owne dealing. For first to reproue the bishops allegation, which was brought out of a decree of Calixtus, hee bringeth in an Epistle of Anacletus. Secondly, he will not alledge the wordes of the Epistle, but the report of Bartholomewe Garanza, a common falsifier of Canons & decrees, and thus he citeth it: Sacerdotes quando, &c. The priestes when they do offer sacrifice vnto our Lorde, they ought not to do it alone, but let them take witnesses with them, that they may be proued to sacrifice perfectly vnto the Lord in places dedicated to God, accor∣ding to that of Deutron. 12. Take heede thou offer not sacrifice in all places that thou seest, but in the place that thy Lord God hath chosen. Let a bishop sacrificing to God haue witnesses with him, & more then another priest, with whome when the consecration is done, let all the ministers communicate, which will not bee for∣bidden the entrie of the church. Maister Heskins in his translation hath falsifyed the wordes, for where y^e La∣tine is Non soli hoc agere debent, The Priestes ought not to do it alone, he hath turned it, they shall not do it alone: & where the Latine is, sed testes secum adhibeant, he turneth it, but they shall haue witnesses with them: wheras hee should saye, let them take witnesses with them. His pollicie is easie to espye. Hee would haue it seeme to the Englishe reader, that witnesses are appoynted, which if they faile to bee present, the Priest might notwithstanding saye his pri∣uate Masse alone, whereas by the wordes of the decree, the Priestes are commaunded to get witnesses, and it is

tolde them, they ought not to do it alone. But M. Hesk. to iustifie the falsification of his spanish Garanza, which saith: omnes ministri communicent, let all the ministers com∣municate, as though the commaundement were to them, & not to the people, bringeth forth a patch or two, out of the Epistle of Anacletus.

But that the trueth of the pro∣claimer, & the falshood of this exclaimer may be more manifest, I will set downe all the discourse of this matter, out of that Epistle set forth vnder y^e name of Anacletus, by Peter Crabbe, as errant a Papist as Bartholomew Ga∣ranza for his heart: nothing therein by diuersitie of letter, y^t which M. Hesk. hath rent out from the rest. Ipsi autem quando Domino sacrificant, non soli hoc agere debent, sed testes se∣cum adhibeāt vt Domino perfectè in sacratis Deo sacrificare locis probentur. Ait nam{que} authoritas legis Diuinę: Vide ne offeras ho∣locausta tua in omni loco quem videris, sed in loco quem elegeris Dominus Deus tuus. Episcopus Deo sacrificans testes, vt praefixum est, secum habeat, & plures quàm alius sacerdos. Sicut enim maio∣ris honoris gradu fruitur, sic maioris testimonij incrementatione indiget. In solennioribus quippe diebus aut septem, aut quin{que} aut tres diaconos, qui eius oculi dicuntur, & subdiaconos at{que} reliquos ministros secum habeat, qui sacris induti vestimentis in fronte & a tergo, & presbyteri è regione dextra laeuá{que} contrito corde & humiliato spiritu, ac prono stent vultu, custodientes eum à maleuo∣lis hominibus, & consension eius praebeant sacrificio. Peracta auē consecratione omnes cōmunicent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus. Sic enim Apostoli statueruns, & sancta Romana tenes ecclesia. And when the priestes do sacrifice, they ought not to do it alone, but let them take witnesses with them, y^t they may be proued to do sacrifice to the Lord perfectly, in places dedicated to God. For the authoritie of Gods law sayeth: Take heede thou offer not thy burnt offe∣rings in euerie place which thou shalt see, but in y^e place which the Lord thy God shall choose. Let a bishop sacri∣ficing to God haue witnesses with him, as is before sayed, & more then another priest. For as he enioyeth a degree of greater honor, so he hath need of the increase of grea∣ter testimonie. For in more solemne dayes, let him haue with him either seuen, or fiue, or three deacons, which are

called his eyes, & the subdeacons and the rest of the mi∣nisters, which being cloathed in the holie vestimentes, let them stand before and behind him, & the priests ouer a∣gainst him on the right hand & on the left hande with contrite heart, & humbled spirite, & sober countenaunce, preseruing him from malicious men, & let them giue their consent to his sacrifice. And when the consecration is ended, let al communicate, which will not be depriued of entrie into the church. These be the wordes of that Epistle which M. Hesk. mangleth and falsifieth thus:

Episcopus, &c. The bishop doing sacrifice vnto God, let him in the solemne dayes haue either seuen, or fiue, or three deacons which be called his eyes, & subdeacons & other ministers. First, he leaueth out, That, no priest ought to sacrifice alone, but must take witnesses w^t him. Secondly, that a bishop ought to haue more then another priest at all times. Thirdly, hee citeth the words so, as though the bishop should haue no neede of witnesses, but only on solemne dayes. Fourthly, he leaueth out, how the deacons & other ministers should stand before and behind the bishop, which will not agree with his popish altar: for who can stande before the po∣pish priest, except he stand in the windowe, or vppon the altar? Finally, wheras omnes may reasonably be vnder∣stood of al present, he restraineth it onely to y^e ministers, which if it were so, yet it ouerthroweth the Popish priuat Masse. For, if there be twentie or fortie priests & clarkes, as there be often so many at Masse, & sometimes an hun∣dreth & more, as at a Synode, yet not one of them wil re∣ceiue with y^e priest, neither are they banished y^t refuse to cōmunicate. But to proue y^t this word, all, should be re∣ferred to all the clergie, he citeth the Can. 9 Apost. Si quis episcopus, &c. If any bishop, &c. when the oblation is made, do not communicate, either let him shew a cause, that if it be reasonable he may obteine pardon, or if he shew none, let him be excommunica∣ted, as one that is cause of offence to the people, giuing suspition of him which did sacrifice, that he hath not wel offered it. This Canō must be no interpretatiō of y^e Epistle, and though it were, yet is his priuate Masse in neuer the better case: for here are still a number necessarily bounde to communicate

with the Priest, vnder paine of excommunication. But M. Hesk. sayeth: possible it might be, that when the bishop had bene three attendant vpon him, or such small number, they might all haue cause to absteine. This is a possibilitie not to like to come in esse, or being, once in 20. yeares. For where findeth he y^t the bishop might haue but three with him? The decree before cited, requireth three deacons at the least, beside subdeacons & other ministers: of which in the auncient church, there was great store & diuerse functions, as aco∣lytes, exercistes, readers, dorekeepers, &c. But admitt it were possible, that all these should absteine (yet saith he) there is no prohibition for y^e priest to receiue alone. The decree sayeth they ought not to sacrifice alone, and both it & the Canon, commaund all Christians, & especially the Clergie that be present to cōmunicate: yet M. Hesk. sayeth, they are not prohibited to saye Masse alone, or y^t it is not sayd, y^t the priuate Masse is naught. What reason is in these aunswers let the readers iudge. But for cleare proofe & ouerthrow of y^e proclaimers challēge, M. Hesk. sayth, that in the Masse of Chrysost. there is a plain rule giuen, what was to be done, when the priest receiued a∣lone, & that the Proclaimer had not learned so farre, as to know this. Indeed this is an high point of learning (M. Hesk.) that y^e proclaimer could neuer attain vnto, to play with your readers noses so impudently, which cannot smell out your falshod, when you beare them in hande y^t that was Chrysostomes Masse, which was written seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostome was dead, as appeareth plainly by the prayer for Pope Nicolas, & the Emperour Alexius that is in it, which the proclaimer as vnlear∣ned as you make him, yet had wit to finde out & laye a∣brode to your open shame, and to all their shames that vse the same Liturgie, as authenticall & rightly to be a∣scribed to Chrysostome. The issue that you ioyne, that priuate Masse is not naught, nor prohibited in scripture, councel, or catholike writer, is tryed alreadie by suffici∣ent euidence, giuen by the B. of Sarum against Harding, & by answere to your counterfet and false euidence vtte∣red

in this chapter & in the next. As for the receiuing of a sicke man alone, hath nothing to do with priuate Masse, which sole receiuing if it were admitted, yet a case of ex∣treme necessitie, approoueth not an vsuall & dayly con∣tempt of Christes holy institution.

The one and fortieth chapter prooueth that the masse may bee said and the Sacrament receiued▪ without a number of communi∣cantes at one time in one place.* 1.84

When all is saide and done (saith M. Hesk.) the Masse shalbe holy and good, and this shalbe a trueth,* 1.85 y^t a priest saying Masse, or any other man godly disposed, sicke or whole, may receiue the holy sacrament alone: & for profe of this, he vseth this reason: All things forbidden vs to do (as the aduersarie sayth) be conteyned in the scripture, priuate Masse & sole receiuing are not forbidden in scri∣pture, therefore they may be done. His Maior is groun∣ded vpon the authoritie of his aduersaries. But which of his aduersaries sayeth that all things forbidden are for∣bidden by name? In deede we say that all things that are contrarie to Gods commaundment are forbidden, so are priuate Masse & sole receiuing, therefore they are for∣biddē. That priuate Masse & sole receiuing are contrary to Gods commaundement, it is manifest by the instituti∣on of Christ, which is of a communion, & not of a pri∣uate Masse or sole receiuing. Vnus panis, &c. One bread we being many are one bodie, &c. After this fond argu∣ment, which is returned vpon his own neck, he cauilleth at y^e proclaimers words, because he saith, he knoweth they haue such replyes, y^t as there be many things spoken in y^e old doctors of y^t communion, so as many things or mo, are spoken by them of y^e priuate Masse: but this latter part saith M. Hesk. he passeth ouer & will not rehearse one. I cannot blame M. Hesk. if he would faine haue the Bishop find something for him in y^e doctors, y^t soundeth for the priuate Masse, because hee can finde nothing him self. But when the bishop sayeth, hee knoweth they haue such replyes, he doth not graunt, that their reply is true, but denyeth it, as false, and if it were so, that any thing

were in the old Doctours that might seeme to fauour the priuat Masse, yet what obligation hath M. Hes. of the bi∣shop, wherein he is bound to shewe it forth in a sermon. I vse more words about this cauil, then the matter needeth▪ only to shew y^e foolish frowardnes & peruerse foolishnes of this man, y^t wil seek a knot in a rush, to take occasion to rayle and slander: But to the purpose, M. Hes. confessing, y^t in the Primitiue Church the people did often cōmunicat, addresseth him self to proue, y^t the sacrament may lawful∣ly be receiued of one alone, and y^t by Iustinus, whom both Cranmer & the proclamer (he saith) doth pitifully abuse, and truncatly alledge: but he him selfe doth falsifie and truncatly alledge, as we haue shewed before. But first I wish the reader to consider, y^t he hath forsaken his priuat Masse, for which is no shew in the Doctours, and fleeth to sole receiuing in cases of necessitie, or in superstitious a∣buse, which proue not y^t any priuat Masse was said. Iustin{us} he citeth thus: Diaconi distribuunt &c. The Deacons deliuer of the consecrated bread and wine and water to euerie one that is pre∣sent, and if there be any away, they carie it home to them. In this translation he leaueth out ad participandum, to be receiued, which is in his Latine text, and only maketh mention of y^e deliuerie, omitting for what vse it was deliuered.

In deede the Greek is otherwise, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The distribution and participation of those thinges, for which thanks hath ben giuen, is made to euery one, & to them y^t are not present, by the Deacons there is sent.

First I say, as there is a communion confessed of them that are present, so it was not cleare y^t that which was caried to thē y^t were absent, was caried as y^e sacrament, but as almes: but admit it were caried as the sacrament, yet it foloweth not, y^t it was receiued of euery man alone, but of euery family, which vpon necessarie cause was absent from the whole congregation, or of diuers families meting in one, which could not meete in the common assembly, so that here is no priuat Masse said, but a communion ministred, neither is there so much as any sole receiuing proued, which if it were, yet proueth it not the priuat Masse. And therefore

all M. Heskins babbling of the sacrament to be one, that is ministred or receiued in diuers places, and at diuers times, is vaine, and to no purpose, and most fond it is, that he compareth it to the sacrament of baptisme, which is but one to all men. For of that I may thus reason: tho∣ugh euery mans baptisme is not a diuers baptisme, but all is one baptisme, as there is one faith and one God, yet as no man is baptized by other mens baptisme, but by his owne, so no man communicateth with other commu∣nions but onely in that action wherein he is a communi∣cant him selfe. Therfore M. Heskins fantasie of one Priest communicating with all Priestes in all places, is ouer∣throwne by his owne argument and similitude. But he wil proue sole receiuing by Tertullian, S. Cyprian, Basil, and Hierome, by whom (he saith) it may be gathered, that the godly brought with them, a fine linnen cloth, or a pretie boxe to carie it home. I finde the sacramentall breade in some old writers of credite, caried in a cloth or a wicker basket, but I remember not any pretie boxe. For they had not such pretie cakes sixe hundreth yeres after Christ, as M. Heskins imagineth the pretie boxe serued to ca∣rie them in. In the superstitious Dialogues of Pope Gre∣gorie Lib. 4. Cap. 56. we reade of two cakes called Coronae, which should haue bene giuen to a poore man in almes, for his seruice done in the Bathe, but this supposed poore man being a ghost, desiered that the same might be offe∣red in Masse to redeeme him out of that his purgatorie: Out of this fable which Gregorie rehearseth, this truth is proued, that the breade they saide Masse withall at that time, was so great, y^e two of these cakes wold giue a poore man his dinner at the least: for two of the Popish singing cakes would haue done him small pleasure for his bodily reliefe, for which at the first it was meant to be bestowed. But let vs heare Tertullian, who writing to his wife, and dissuading her from marrying with an Infidel after his death, saith thus: Non sciet maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustes? Et si sciuerit panem non illum credet esse, qui dicitur. Shall not thy husband knowe what thou doest secretely eate before all meate? And if he knowe it to bee breade, hee will

not beleeue it to bee that breade, which it is saide to bee. I passe ouer howe M. Heskins hath corrupted Tertullian by false pointing, howe be it he can gather nothing of this place, but y^e superstitious receiuing of women in corners, and that in time of persecution. But their superstition proueth neither sole receiuing to be good, & much lesse priuate Masse to be lawfull. That this custome was su∣perstitious and naught, M. Heskins can not deny, for it was abolished by ancient councels, and the Papistes them selues do not obserue it, nor suffer it to be vsed, else why send they not ouer their consecrated cakes to their frends, as they doe their Agnus Dei, their graines of the Trinitie, and such other gaudes and bables? But Saint Basil hee weeneth giueth a notable testimonie, who writing to a Gentlewoman called Caesaria Patritia, which feared to touch the sacrament with her owne hande, saith thus. Cōmunicare per singulos dies &c. To communicate euery day, & to participate of the holy body and bloud of Christ, it is a godly thing and very profitable, as hee saith manifestly. Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, hath life eternall. For who doub∣teth, but the often participation of life, is nothing else but many ways to liue? Wherefore we communicate foure times in euery weeke: On Sunday and Wednesday, on Friday and Saturday, and on other dayes, if there be the memorie of any Saint. But that it is no gree∣uous thing, that any man should be constrained by necessitie in times of persecution, when the Priest or the Minister is not present, to take the Communion with his owne hand, it is superfluous to de∣clare, for so much as it is by the very vse of the thing confirmed by a long custome. For all they that lead a solitarie life in the wil∣dernesse where there is no Priest, keeping the Communion at home, doe receiue it of them selues. But in Alexandria and in Aegypt, eue∣ry one of them which are of the people for the most part, hath the Communion in his owne house. For after the Priest hath consecra∣ted the sacrifice and distributed it, we must beleeue worthily to par∣ticipate and receiue it. For in the Church the Priest giueth part, & he which receiueth it, taketh it with all libertie, and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand. Therfore it is the same in vertue whe∣ther any man take one part of the Priest, or many parts together.

Here M. Heskins vrgeth, that euery man in his own house receiued the sacrament in time of persecution. But this proueth not a sole receiuing, if priuate men haue the Communion in their house, for they might receiue many together. But concerning the Hermites that dwelled in dens & caues alone, he saith they could haue no cōpanie, and therevpon insulteth against the proclamer, for saying the Indians, Arabians, Armenians, Grecians, &c. neuer re∣ceiued nor vsed the priuat Masse. And hath he proued the priuate Masse by the receiuing of the Hermites, which were Lay men, and no Priests? No forsooth. For he is feine to fasifie the wordes of this epistle in translating, to proue that they receiued alone. The wordes are in Greeke thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in Latine a se ipsis cōmunicant. Which he turneth falsly. They communicate by them selues, as though they did receiue it alone, whereas he should say, they receiue the Communion of them selues, that is one of an other, for it is well knowne, they were not so solita∣rie, but they had meetings at sometimes, as appeareth by the histories. As for other things that M. Heskins noteth out of this place, bicause they are noted and aunswered in other partes, where some of these sentences are alledged, I will spend no time in repeating of them here. Only con∣cerning y^e authoritie of this fragment of an Epistle, which is not extant in al S. Basils workes, I giue the reader to vn∣derstand, that it may be doubted of what antiquitie it is, whether it were written by the ancient Basilius surnamed the great, or by some other of y^t name of much later time. Next is brought in Hieronyme, to testifie that y^e like hath ben vsed in Rome in his time, in time of persecutiō. I mar¦uel why M. Hes. addeth in time of persecution, for in Hie∣romes time there was no such persecution at Rome, & he speaketh not of it as a shift in time of persecution, but as a custome in time of peace. Belike M. Hes. would haue the custome excused by necessitie of persecutiō, which other∣wise he can not allow to be good of it self. But what saith Hier. ad Iouin. Apoll. Scio Romae hanc esse consuetudinem &c. I I know this custome is at Rome, that the faithfull do always receiue

the body of Christ, which thing I do neither reprehend nor allowe. For euery one aboundeth in his owne sense. But I appeale to their conscience, which the same day after carnall copulation do commu∣nicate, and as Persuis saith, purge the night with water: Why dare they not goe to the Martyrs? Why come they not into the Chur∣ches? Is Christe one in the publique place, an other in the priuate houses? That which is not lawful in the church, is not lawful at home. Nothing is hid from God, yea, the very darknesse is bright with him. Therefore let euery man examine him selfe, and so let him come to the body of Christ.

Here hee vrgeth that the people did communicate in their houses sometimes, namely after companie with their wiues, when they durst not come to Church. But this custome doth Hierom seuerely reproue, & would not haue them communicate, but when they might come to the Church without scruple of conscience. So that Maister Hesk. bringeth in an vnlawfull custome, to proue his pri∣uate Masse to be lawfull, which yet is neuer y^e neerer, al∣though this custome were good: for therby is not proued so much as sole receiuing, nor reseruation as we haue shewed before, bicause nothing appeareth to the contra∣rie, but that they might haue the Priest to consecrate and minister to them at home. As for the admonition he gi∣ueth to married persons, to abstaine from companie with their wiues &c. I passe it ouer, as not worthie y^e rehearsal. Married men are to be exhorted to temperance and cha∣stitie, and further to prescribe times &c. it may be Popish Diuinitie, but it hath no ground in the word of GOD. As for the married Priestes, he hath little to doe with them, let him take thought for his vnmaried Priestes.

But Chrysostome he thinketh saieth much for the pri∣uate Masse in Cap. 1. ad Ephe. Hom. 3. Frustra habetur quoti∣diana oblatio, frustra stamus ad altare. Nemo est qui participet. The daily oblation or sacrifice is done in vaine, we stand at the altar in vaine. There is no man that will partake with vs. By this (hee saith) it is euident, that Masse was sayde in the Greeke Church, though there were no communicants with the Priest▪ But this euidence is false (Maister Heskins) for first

there was a number of y^e Cleargie which always did com∣municate: although none of the people would receiue, as was proued before by the ancient canons cōmonly called of the Apostles. And where as you labour to proue, that y^e Masse was not in vain, although no man did receiue with the Priest, because the Masse had two ends: the one of ob∣lation, the other of receyuing, so that although it were in vain in respect of the receiuing, yet it was not in vaine in respect of oblation, I pray you look back again to Chry∣sostoms words, & see if he do not say, y^t was done in vaine, whiche you labour moste to proue could not bee in vaine, namely Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, The dai∣ly offring or sacrifice (as you turne it) is done in vaine. For make what respectes you can, the oblation is in vaine to them that do not receiue it. And where you would proue that Chrysostome saide Masse, though no man receiue with him, because he saith: Nemo est qui parti∣cipet: There is no man to participate: you may as well say that Chrysostome himselfe did not participate, be∣cause he saith generally no man, and then he sayde no Masse by your owne rule, for you holde it necessarie that the priest himselfe should receiue. But to shewe that Chrysostome meaneth not generally as the worde soun∣deth, that none of the people did communicate, it ap∣peareth by the whole circumstance of his discourse in y^t sermon.

For immediately before the wordes cited by M. Heskins he sayeth Multam video huius rei inaequalitatem. In alijs quidem temporibus saepenumero, ne{que} cum mundi estis acceditis, in paschate verò etiamsi quid temerarium vobis sit commissum ni∣hilominus acceditis: ô cōsuetudinem, ô praesumptionem. I see great inequalitie of this matter. At other times truely oftimes you come, not whē you are cleane, but at Easter although you haue committed any rash thing neuerthelesse ye come: O custome, O presumption. By these wordes it ap∣peareth y^t he rebuketh the neglecte of some in cōming to the cōmunion but seldom, & yet cōming rashly at Easter, to such therfore y^e celebratiō of y^e cōmunion was in vaine.

And therfore exhorting thē to prepare themselues he ta∣keth

away their obiection Non es oblatione atque commu••on•• dignus? Igitur neque precatione. Art thou not worthie o•• the oblation and the communion? Then neither art thou worthie of the prayers.

Yea, he is very earnest, that al they that do not communicate, should departe with the peni∣tentes and Catechumeni, and compteth them impudent whiche tarry and doe not communicate with the rest.

Quisquis enim mysteriorum consors non est, impudent & improbu•• ••stat. For whosoeuer is not partaker of the mysteries, in standing by, he is impudent and wicked.

Thus by Chry∣sostoms iudgement all they that heare Masse, and do not communicate w^t the priest, are impudent and wicked per∣sons.

Againe to proue that many did alwayes commu∣nicate he saith: Ita tu quoque aduenisti, hymnum cecinisti cum omnibus reliquis, ex corum te numero esse, qui digni sunt, hoc ipso confessus es, quòd non abcessisti. Quomodo cum manseris, de mensa∣ista non participas? Indignus sum, inquis: indignus es igitur & ea communione, quae in precibus est. Thou also art come, thou hast sung the hymne with all the rest, thou hast profes∣sed thy selfe to be of the number of them that are wor∣thy euen by this, that thou hast not departed. Seeing thou hast tarried, how hast thou not participated of this table? Thou sayest, I am vnworthie: therefore thou art vnworthie of that communion, which is in prayers.

By this place it is manifest, that a great number did alwayes receiue, although many did refraine. And that Chryso∣stomes communion was nothing like a priuate Masse, mumbled in a corner, (as M. Heskins most impudently affirmeth,) but such a one, as all the people sung hymnes together at it, and they were counted wicked and impu∣dent, which stoode by and did not communicate.

Finally that Chrysostome compted it not lawfull for any to be present, which did not communicate, he saith also: Post acta mysteria accedere licet ac videre: praesentibus verò mysterij•• abito. Nihil hic tibi quàm Catechumeno plus licet. When the mysteries are ended, thou mayst come neere and see, but when the mysteries are present, depart. It is no more law∣ful for thee to be here, then for a learner, that is not bapti∣sed.

Thus Chrysostome you see maketh nothing for the priuate Masse, but altogether against it. His next argu∣ment is of Serapion, who being sick at the point of death, for his comfort, (because he had beene excommunicated) desired to receiue, at which time the minister was also sicke, which should haue receiued with him, and therfore sent him the sacrament by his boy. So that here is a case of extreame and double necessitie, for sole receiuing, to proue what might lawfully be done where no necessitie vrgeth: Euseb. Lib. 6. Cap. 34.

Concerning S. Augustines priest, that saide Masse in a priuate house, to driue away spirits, we shal heare more in the next Chapter. After this followeth the counterfet de∣cree of Soter, that no priest should say Masse except two were present to aunswere him, when he saith Dominus vo∣biscum, which yet the Popish priestes doe not obserue, for they say Masse, when they haue but one boy with them, or their Parish clearke, and sometimes perhaps none at al. Here saith M. Heskins some are commaunded to be pre∣sent, but none are cōmanded to cōmunicate. An argument like the authoritie of the decree, howbeit if a man would stand to reason w^t him, there is like cause, why they should communicate, as why they should be present, for as the priest saith: The Lorde be with you, therefore two must be present: so he saith of the sacrament, Quod sumpsimus, which we haue receiued, which is not true, when he onely hath receiued. To this decree, he ioyneth a Canon of the councell of Agatha. Wherein the people are com∣maunded to heare Masse euerie Sonday, and to tarrie to the end, but they are not commanded to communicate.

First I aunswere this Canon is not found in the aun∣cient recordes, as Peter Crabbe honestly confesseth. Se∣condly, where it is found, it is Missas die Dominico secularibut tenere, which signifieth, that seculer men are commanded to frequent the assemblies, (for so Missae of olde time did signifie,) for which Maister Heskins turneth it, Missas tota•• audire, &c. That they are commanded to heare the whole Masses, which is the corruption of Gratiane. The like de∣cree

he bringeth out the councel of Orleans: That the peo∣ple should not departe before the solemnitie of the Masse be ended.

All which proue not a priuate Masse: for either they meant, that the people should communicate that were present, or else at the least the Cleargie receiued with the Bishop. For long after the time of these councels, it was decreed, that al persons both men and women should re∣ceiue euerie Sonday.

As Matisconense. 2. Cap. 4. Decerni∣mus vt omnibus diebus Dominicis, altaris oblatio ab omnibus vi∣ris & mulieribus offeratur tam panis, quam vini: vt per has immo∣lationes & peccatorum suorum fascibus careant & cum Abel vel caeteris iustè offerentibus promereantur esse consortes. We decree that euerie sunday, the oblation of the altar be offered of all persons men and women, both of bread and wine: that by these offrings, they may be loosed of the bandes of their sinnes, and with Abel and the rest offering righte∣ously, they may be worthie to be companions.

The last authoritie he citeth, is out of the Popes lawe, intituled to S. Augustine, but not to be found in all his workes, not sauouring of his stile, or of any mans mean∣ly learned, and therfore I will not vouchsafe such a grosse counterfet of any answere. The rest of the Chapter, bee∣ing spent in rayling, I will answere with silence, con∣cluding that as here is little for sole receiuing, contei∣ned in this Chapter, so for priuate Masse, here is nothing at all.

* 1.86The two and fortieth Chapter proueth the trueth of those mat∣ters of the sacrament, by that it hath pleased God to confirme the same with miracles.

* 1.87First M. Hesk. compareth himselfe with Helias, which challenged the Priests of Baal to shewe a miracle, so he challengeth the Lutherans and sacramentaries to bring forth first some miracle. But he could neuer heare of any sauing one, and that was of Luther, which he reporteth of himselfe (as he saith) in his Booke of the priuate Masse,

and as Prateolus sayeth, in his Booke De Missa Angulari, but where it is written I could neuer yet finde, though I haue made some searche for it. Luther reporteth that the Diuell awaked him out of his sleepe at midnight, and disputed with him that the priuate Masse is horrible idolatrie, &c. For any thing that I can perceiue, by the wordes cited by Maister Heskins, there is no miracle at al spoken of by Luther, but only he confesseth what inward temptations of Sathan he susteined, for saying priuate Masse, by the space of 15. yeares together. Which the Pa∣pistes after their accustomed synceritie doe interprete, as though he boasted of a miracle, as though he were per∣suaded by the diuell, to forsake the priuate Masse, as a thing abominable. But Luther in deede in this booke written against the priuate Masse, vtterly reiecteth all mi∣racles, that are alledged to mainteine false doctrine con∣trarie to the worde of God, and namely those miracles that are reported to haue beene done, to confirme the cre∣dite of the priuate Masse, which either were feigned (as a great number were) or else wrought by the sleight of Sathan, to establish idolatrie, as in all Heathen nations, the diuell hath thus wrought miracles to confirme the people in their errours.

Thus therefore we are to iudge of miracles, that they are euen as the doctrine, for which they are alledged, so that if Maister Heskins can not proue his priuate Masse, and other heresies by scripture, they will be made neuer∣thelesse by miracles. But let vs heare in order, what wor∣shipful miracles he alledgeth. First a feigned fable out of a counterfet writer called Amphilochius, that a Iewe sawe in Saint Basils hand a childe diuided. Then a tale out of Vituspatium of as good authoritie as Legen∣da Aurea, that the sacramente was turned into blou∣die fleshe to a doubting olde man. Next out of Opta∣tus Libro 2. Contra Donat. That dogges after they had eaten the sacrament, caste vnto them by the Dona∣tistes, ranne madde and werried their Maisters.

Which last might be a true & iust punishment of God

against the Donatistes, for their heresie, yet proueth it not that the dogges did eate the body of Christe, which God forbid that any Christian man should thinke. Another miracle is reported by S. Augustine, Lib. 22. De ciuitate. Dei Cap. 8. That one of his priestes saying Masse in a house, that was molested with the power of the diuell, deliuered the house from such disquietnesse. This belike is alled∣ged for the priuate Masse. But that proueth nothing. For Augustine in that place nameth no Masse: he saith, he of∣fered there the sacrifice of the bodie of Christe, praying that the house might be deliuered from that molestatiō, and so it came to passe. Now it is nothing credible, that he offer••d that sacrifice alone, but that the owner of the house and all his familie did there communicate with him, and therefore here is nothing to helpe the priuate Masse in this miracle.

Next vnto this, interlacing certeine sentences of Ber∣narde of the vertue of the sacrament, he returneth to mi∣racles, and then telleth a tale out of Paule the Deacon, of a noble woman of Rome for whom S. Gregorie by pray∣er, turned the sacramental bread into the fourme of A ve∣ry bloudie fleshly litle finger. A faire miracle I promise you, but if it had beene true, Gregorie that was so light of cre∣dite, to beleeue and report so many miracles, would haue written it him selfe. But Gregorie, though otherwise full of superstition, was not yet come to the carnall manner of presence. Two miracles are rehearsed of his reporte, one of a prisoner that was deliuered out of his chaynes, when Masse was saide for him by his wiues procurement, supposing he had ben dead. Gregorie in deede speaketh of sacrifices, whiche perhaps were prayers, and not the Masse. But if he speake of that prophanation of the sa∣crament, that in his time tooke some strength, to offer it for the dead, yet he speaketh of another maner of offring, then the Papistes vse. For thereof he saith, in the same place as Maister Heskins confesseth: Hinc ergo, &c. Of this decree brethren gather you certeinely, how great a band of consci∣ence in vs the holie sacrifice offered by our owne selues, is able to

loose, if beeing offered for another it could in another loose the bandes of the body. These wordes declare, the sacrifice was such as euerie one might offer for himselfe, which coulde not be the sacrifice of y^e Masse, which only the priest of∣fereth. The last miracle is of Agapetus, that by giuing the sacrament to a dumb man, restored him to his speech.

Admitting this to be true, it maketh nothing for the carnal manner of presence, which the Church of Rome at that time had not receiued. And although such miracles might now be wrought by Papistes, we would giue no more credite vnto them, then they could winne by Gods worde: for so we are taught by God him sefe. Irenaeus a moste auncient writer of great credite testifieth, Lib. Cap. 9. that Marcus the heretike by his sorcerie caused the wine in the cup at his ministration to appeare purple and redde like bloud, that the people might thinke, that Christ dropped his bloud into his cup through his pray∣er: likewise he wrought so cunningly, that he multiplied the wine, so that out of a litle cruse, he filled a great pot, so ful that it ranne ouer. But the Church of God was not moued by these lying miracles, to giue credite to his false doctrine, or to think that he had the bloud of Christ in his challice for all that counterfet shewe of bloud, which he made: no more wil we beleue the Papistes pre∣tending miracles cōtrarie to the word of God. And as for diuers of these miracles, which he alledgeth to confirme the dignitie of the Masse, they were done, or at least said to be done, before the Masse was throughly shapen, and therfore if they be true, yet they confirme not the doctrin of y^e Masse, which was afterward inuented. Finally wher∣as he vrgeth the proclaymer to bring one miracle, for the confirmation of his religiō, although it were an easie matter to bring foorth many signes of more certeintie, and better credite then the Papists can bring any, shewed by God since the restitution of the Gospell: yet because our doctrine is the same, that was confirmed by all the miracles of Christ and his Apostles, we seeke no confir∣mation thereof by later miracles, but onely by the scrip∣tures.

And herein we followe the example of S. Augu∣stine, who vrgeth y^e Donatistes to proue themselues to be the Church of God, only by Canonicall scriptures & not by miracles, whereof they boasted more then the Catho∣likes: Lib de vnitate Ecclesiae Cap. 16. Et sic ostendat, vt non dicat verum est, quia ego hoc dico: aut quia hoc dixit ille collega meut, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 illi collegae mei, aut illi Episcopi vel clerici vel laici nost••i aut ideo verum est, quia illa & illa mirabilia fecit Donatus, vel Pontius, vel quilibet alius: aut quia homines ad memorias mortuorum nostrorum orant & exaudiuntur, aut quia illa & illa ibi contingunt, aut quiae ille fraeter noster, aut illa soror nostra tale visum vigilans vidit, vel tale visum dormiens somnianis. Remoueantur ista vel figmen∣ta mendacium hominum, vel portenta fallacium spirituun: ut eni•••• non sunt vera quę dicuntur, aut sihęreticorū aliqua mira facta sunt magis canere debemus. And so let him shewe the Churche, that he do not say, this is true, because I say it, or because such a one my fellowe saide it, or those my fellowes, or those our bishops or clearkes, or laymen: or it is therfore true, because Donatus or Pontius, or any other hath done those and those miracles: or because men pray at the me∣mories of our dead men, and are heard, or because those thinges & those things happen there, or because this our brother or that our sister sawe such a vision waking, or dreamed such a vision sleeping. Let these thinges be set a¦side, which are either the counterfetting of lying men, or els y^e wonders of deceiuing spirits: for either those things are not true that are told, or else if any miracles are done of heretiques, we ought the more to beware of them. And after a litle he saith in the same Chapter. Sed verum ipsi Ec∣clesiam teneant, non nisi diuinarum scripturarum canonicis libria ostendant, quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credere oportere, quòd in Ecclesia sumus, quia ipsam quam tenemus commendauit Mileuitanus Optatus, vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius, vel alij innu∣merabiles nostre cōmunionis episcopi, aut quia nostrorum Collegarū concilijs ipsa praedicata est, aut quia per totum orbem in locis san∣ctis quae frequentat communio nostra, tanta mirabilia vel exauditi∣onū vel sanitatum fiant, ita vt latentia per tot annos corpora Mar∣tyrum (quod possunt a mu••tis interrogātes audire.) Ambrosio fuerint

reuelata, & ad ipsa corpora caecus multorum annorum ciuitati Me∣diolanensi notissimus oculos lumén{que} reciperet, aut quia ille somni∣um vidit. & ille spiritu assumptus audiuit, siue ne iniret in partem Donati siue vt recederet à parte Donati. Quęcun{que} talia in Catho∣lica fiunt ideo sunt approbanda quia in Catholica fiunt, non ìdeo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia haec in ea fiunt. But whether they holde the Churche or no, let them shew none otherwise, but by the Canonicall Bookes of the holie scriptures: for neither do we say, that men ought therfore to beleeue vs that we are in the Church, because Optatus of Mileuitum, or Ambrose of Millain or innumerable other Bishops of our fellowship haue commended this Church whiche we holde, or because it is set foorth and praysed in the coun∣cels of our fellowships, or because y^t in holy places tho∣rough the world, which our fellowship doth frequent, so great miracles are done, either of hearing mens prayers, or of restoring to health, so y^t the bodies of Martyrs which haue been hidden so many yeres (which thing if they wil ask they may heare of many) were reuealed to Ambrose, & at the same bodies one that had ben blind many yeres, very well knowen to the citie of Millain, receiued his eyes and sight, or because this man saw a dreame, or that man was taken vp in spirit and heard either that he shold not go into the faction of Donatus, or that he should de∣part from it. Whatsoeuer such things are done in the Ca∣tholike Church, they are therefore to be allowed, because they are done in the Catholike Church, but the Church it selfe is not therby proued Catholike because these things are done in it.

And thus much concerning miracles. The issue that M. Hesk. ioyneth is tried by all Catholike & an∣cient Doctors, that the Masse is idolatrie, because it is a worshipping of creatures in steed of the creator, although none of the olde writers call the Masse Idolatrie, whiche had neither name nor being in their dayes.

The three and fortieth Chapter maketh recapitulation of the conference of the Masses of the Apostles, and Fathers of the primi∣tiue Church, and of the Catholike Church that now is, with a breef••* 1.88

confutation of the conference made by the proclamer, betweene th•• Masse of Saint Iames, and that is now vsed.

* 1.89The recapitulation conteining nothing but that, which is confuted in the discourse at large, I will omitte it, and come to the conference, that the Bishop made betweene the liturgie falsely ascribed to S. Iames, and the Popishe Masse, beeing content for the time to call it Saint Iames Masse, as Maister Heskins doth, although neither it is a Masse, nor such as it is, was it writtē by S. Iames the Apo∣stle, but by some of much later time as appeareth by the prayer therein conteined, for such as liue in Monasteries, and other thinges fauouring of the errours of that time, in which it was written. The first point of the conference is, that S. Iames saide Masse in the common tong vnderstoode of the people, the Papistes say Masse in a straunge tonge. M. Heskins answereth, that this point toucheth not the substance: for the Masse may be good, though it be not vnderstood: but he himselfe maketh y^e doctrine of the Masse, to be of the substance of it, wherefore seeing there lacketh doctrine in the Masse, there lacketh one of the foure substantiall partes. But he would make the reading of the epistle and Gospel in Latine Doctrine, and good doctrine. What doctrine that is, by which the people are not taught, let reasonable men iudge, for although all the Masse were nothing but scripture, yet it were not good to be read in the Church, in a straunge tong: 1. Cor. 14. because it were not profitable for edifying. His childish sophismes of Pla∣to, his substance and his accidents, I disdaine to rehearse: the trueth is manifest.

The second comparison S. Iames spake out of the words of consecration. They in their Masse suppresse them and keepe them close. Maister Heskins aunswereth, this is a small fault, and from the Masse of S. Iames, flyeth to S. Basils Masse, Where it is said, the Bishop prayeth secretly, yet he spake the wordes (as they call them) of consecration openly. The thirde comparison S. Iames in his Masse ministred the communion to the people, The Papists in their Masse, receiue them

selues alone. To this he aunswereth, denying that S. Iames did always minister the communion to the people, which is an impudent shift, except he will denie the fourme of that liturgie, which prescribeth the ministration to the people after the consecration. His reason is, because in Chrysostomes liturgie, which was written more then a thousand yeares after S. Iames, and falsely beareth the name of Chrysostome, there is a rule what the priest shall doe when there are no communicants.

The fourth comparison: S. Iames ministred the com∣munion to the people vnder both kindes: The Papists in their Masse in one kinde onely. Here hath he none other refuge, but to say, that S. Iames did not alwayes minister vnder both kindes. Then let him denie the credite of the liturgie, which prescribeth the cōmunion to be ministred in both kindes.

The fift comparison: Saint Iames preached and set foorth the death of Christ: They in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe gestures and ceremonies, which they themselues vnderstand not, and make no manner of mention of Christes death. M. Hes. complay∣neth of the Bishops repetitions, imputing them to want of stuffe, when he himselfe moste absurdly repeateth his three vntruthes surmised to be in this assertion, which he set downe before in the 39. Chapter, whither I referre the Reader for the answere. Only this I wil note, that he can finde no other preaching to the people, but the Aulbe to signifie the white garment that Christe was sent in from Herode: the vestiment, the garment that he was mocked in, in the house of Pilate: the Crosse vpon the vestiment signifieth the crosse of Christe which he did beare, as the priest doth on his backe: the eleuation signifieth the lif∣ting vp of Christe on the crosse: he might say by as good reason, the Priests hands signified the two theeues, & the Priest himselfe the tormentors, that did lift him vp to the crosse. Beholde this is the preaching of Christes death in the Masse, whether it be an impudent vntruth, (as Maister Heskins tearmeth it) to call these dumbe gestures and ceremonies, or M. Heskins an impudent beast to defend

these dombe signes for preaching of Christes death, let the reader in Gods name consider and iudge. The sixth comparison: S. Iames Masse was full of knowledge: their Masse is full of ignorance. M. Heskins aunswereth, that there is as much knowledge in their Masse, as in S. Iames Masse, be∣cause in substance it is all one: which if it were true, as it is most false, yet what knowledge can be, when al is done in a strange language, and no preaching, but by dombe signes, as we heard before? The seuenth: S. Iames Masse was full of consolation: their Masse is full of superstition. To this he aunswereth, they haue as much consolation, which cannot be when they haue no preaching of the Gospel: & how can he say that they haue no superstition, when they haue an hundred idle ceremonies and gestures, which Christ neuer instituted, and therfore are meere will wor∣ship and superstition. The eyghth comparison, he saith, is all one with the third: that the people resorted to receiue the communion, when S. Iames sayed Masse. Although it followe of the thirde, yet is it not all one with it, for as S. Iames was readie to minister, so the people ordinari∣ly were readie to receiue, which is not looked for of the popish priestes, because they reach them that it is neede∣lesse so to doe. The last comparison: Saint Iames in his Masse had Christes institution: they in their Masse haue well more nothing else but mans inuention. To this he aunswereth, that they haue Christes institution for their Masse, which is an impudent falshood, either for their carnall maner of presence, or for their sacrifice, or for their priuate recei∣uing, or for their depriuing the people of all doctrine, but such as is by dombe signes, which he is not afrayde to ascribe to the inuention of the holy Ghost, as though the spirite of God in ceremonies, would be contrary to him selfe in the scriptures.

After this he reporteth the substantiall differences, betweene the Masse, and the newe communion as he cal∣leth it, which because they be all set foorth and aunswe∣red before in the 34.35.36. Chapters of this booke, I will leefe no time about his vaine recapitulation, or re∣petition

of them, contayning nothing but rayling and slaundering.

The foure and fortieth Chapter returning to the exposition of S. Paul expoundeth this text: As often as ye shal eat of this bread, &c. by S. Hierom & Theophylact.* 1.90

M Heskins hauing wandred abroad to seek the Masse in auncient writers,* 1.91 nowe is come home againe to his text, and that is this: As often as you shall eat of this bread & drinke of this cupp▪ you shall shewe forth the Lordes death vntill be come. Vpon this text (saith he) the ministers of Sathan (for so it pleaseth him to call vs) haue grounded two arguments against the reall presence: One that the sa∣crament is a memoriall of Christe, and therefore Christ is absent; because a memoriall is of a thing absent: the o∣ther, that it is bread, for so the Apostles called it, & not the bodie of Christ. The solution of the first argument is, that the receipt of the sacrament is not a memoriall of Christes bodie, but of his death and passion. This is a no∣ble distinction, but when Christ sayeth: do this in remē∣brance of mee, whether is the remembrance of Christe, the remembrance of his bodie, or onely of the tempo∣rall act of his dying and suffering, which is past? I think all Christian men will confesse, that the communion is a memoriall of Christ that was crucified, and not of his crucifying onely. But when Saint Paul sayeth: vntill he come, how can he say that he is present in bodie, which is yet to come in bodie? To the seconde argument he aun∣swereth, that Saint Paule calleth it breade, as Christ cal∣leth bread his flesh, and therfore he calleth it, this bread, signifying a speciall bread. No man sayeth the contra∣rie, but that it is a speciall bread (and as Saint Augustine sayeth) after a certeine manner the bodie of Christe. But if Maister Heskins in this place may denye breade to bee taken in the proper sence for breade, why doth hee ex∣clame against them, that in these wordes: This is my body, denye the worde body, to be taken in the proper signification thereof, for a naturall bodie?

But let vs take Maister Heskins interpretation of bread, to signifie the bodie of Christe, then the sense of Saint Paules wordes shalbe this: As often as ye eat of the bo∣die of Christ, and drinke his bloud, you shall shewe the Lordes death vntil he come. How is he that is to come distinct from him that is present? for Saint Paule ma∣keth an exposition of this breade & this cuppe which are present, to shewe the Lordes death, that is to come. But let vs heare what Saint Ieronyme sayeth, that may helpe him in 1. Cor. 11. Ideo hoc, &c. Therefore our Sauiour hath deliuered this sacrament, that by it we might alwayes remember, that he dyed for vs. For therefore also when we receiue it, wee are warned of the priestes, that it is the bodie and bloud of Christ, that we might not be thought vnthankefull for his benefites. I like this saying verie well, which teacheth that the sacramēt is therefore called the bodie & bloud of Christ, y^t there∣by we might be put in minde of the benefite of Christes death, to be thankfull for it.

And y^t his meaning is none otherwise, his owne wordes shal declare, going both be∣fore and after. Vpon these wordes: Gratias egit, &c. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus vltimam nobis commemorationem sine memoriam dereliquit. Quemadmodum si quis peregre profi∣ciscens, aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat, vt quotiescun∣que illud viderit, possit eius beneficia & amicitias memorare: quod ille si perfectè dilexit, sine ingenti desiderio non potest videre vel fletu. That is blessing or giuing thankes, euen when hee was to suffer, he left to vs his last commemoration or re∣membrance. Euen as a man going into a farre countrey, doth leaue some pledge to him whome he loueth, that so often as he seeth it, he may remember his benefites and frendship, which pledge he (if he loued perfectly) cannot beholde without great desire or weeping.

In these words you see S. Hierom compareth the sacrament to a pledge, which is left in remembrance of loue & benefites recei∣ued of him, that in person is absent.

The same writer vpō the same words of our text donec venerit vntill he come, thus writeth: Tam diu memoria opus est, donec ipse venire dig∣netur: So long we haue neede of a remembraunce, vntill

he him selfe vouchesafe for to come. Nothing can bee more plaine to shewe his meaning, not to be of a carnall or bodilie presence:

although as Christ hath giuen vs the president, he call the bread and cuppe by the name of the bodie and bloud of Christe. The testimonie of Theo∣phylact being a Greeke Gentleman of the lower house, I haue hetherto refused to admitt, and therefore in this place also will not trouble the reader with him. The challenge was made of writers within sixe hundreth yeares after Christe, this man liued about a thousande yeres after Christ, yet if I would wrangle about his wor∣des, he hath nothing that may not bee reasonably con∣strued on our side without any wresting.

The fiue and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text by S. Basil & Rupert.* 1.92

S. Basil is alledged, de baptismo: Oportet accedentem, &c.* 1.93 It behoueth him that commeth to the bodie and bloud of our Lord, to the remembrance of him that was dead for vs, and rose againe, not onely to be pure from all vncleannesse of bodie and soule, lest he eate and drinke to his owne condemnation, but also to shewe euidently, and to expresse the memorie of him that hath dyed for vs and risen againe. And what sayeth Basil in these words, that we do not graunt, vnderstanding purenesse by faith, and repentance? Maister Hesk. sayeth, in steede of that S. Paule sayde: this bread and this cupp, he sayeth the bo∣die and bloud of Christe, although I might stande with him, that this is no interpretation of Sainct Paules wor∣des, but an exhortation, which Basil maketh to the wor∣thie receiuing of the sacrament, what inconuenience is it to graunt that it is both bread and wine, and also after a spirituall manner his verie bodie and bloud which is re∣ceiued of the faithfull? But either Maister Heskins note booke serued him not, or els his malice against y^e trueth would not suffer him to see what the same Basil writeth not many lines before these wordes, which he citeth vpō the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ, of the institution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* 1.94The sixe & fourtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text. Whosoeuer therefore shall eate of this bread & drinke of the cupp, &c.

* 1.95The text is this: Whosoeuer shall eat of this bread & drink of this cupp of the Lord vnworthily, shalbe guiltie of the bodie and

bloud of the Lorde. M. Heskins requireth to the worthie re∣ceiuing two things, faith, and charitie, and therefore he concludeth, that neither heretikes nor scismatikes can re∣ceiue worthily, which we confesse to be true. Afterward he chargeth vs with abusing this text in two points: The one, that we affirme material bread to remaine after con∣secration, the other that we deny that wicked men can re∣ceiue the body and bloud of Christ, and both these errors he promiseth to confute, but in the end you shal see they be so assured truthes, that all the smoake and mist of his confutation can not darken the light of their veritie. The first witnesse he citeth for interpretation of the text, is S. Cyprian, Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra Euangelij legem &c. They a∣gainst the lawe of the Gospell, and your honourable petition, before repentance shewed, before open confession made of a most grieuous and extreme offence, before hands laid on by the Bishop and the cleargie vnto repentance, are so bolde as to offer for them, and giue them the Eucharistie, that is, to prophane the holy body of our Lord, seeing it is written, Whosoeuer shall eate of the bread, and drinke of the cup of the Lord vnworthily, shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lord. Of these wordes M. Heskins gathereth, that the body of Christe is deliuered, and not materiall bread, for if materiall bread, and not the body is deliue∣red, then the bread is prophaned, and not the body. A pro∣per collection. If the Kings seale for a benefite be deliue∣red to the Kings enimie or a traitour, that receiueth it vn∣reuerently and vnthankfully, is not the King iniuried, and his fauour abused? I thinke al wise men wil graunt, and not say the waxe and parchment only is iniuried and abused, bicause the Kings body is not deliuered, but waxe and parchment. Moreouer, I maruell howe M. Heskins can auoyd blasphemie, when he saith in the literall sense, the body of Christe is prophaned or vnhallowed, for to speake properly, the body of Christe can not be propha∣ned or vnhallowed, but the sacrament of his body which beareth the name thereof may, and the abuse of the sa∣crament is iustly counted an iniurie vnto his body and bloud, whereof it is a sacrament, although his body in

deed can suffer no iniurie or hurt. But y^e Cyprian acknow∣ledged bread and wine to remain in the sacrament, many places of his writings do clearly shew, namely lib. 1. ep. 6. ad Magnum.

Deni{que} vnanimitatē Christianam firma sibi at{que} in∣superabili charitate connexam, etiā ipsa domini sacrificia declarant. Nam quando Dominus corpus suū panē vocat de multorū granorū adunatione congestū, populū nostrū, quem portabat, indicat adunatū. Et quando sanguinem suum vinum appelat, de botris at{que} acinis plurimis expression atque in vnum coactum, gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum. Finally, euen our Lords sacrifices doe declare the Christian vna∣nimitie, which is knitted vnto him with an insuperable vnitie. For when the Lorde calleth bread, which is made one by the gathering together of many cornes, his body, hee declareth our people which he did beare to be vnited together. And when he calleth wine, which is pressed out of many clusters and grapes, and so gathered into one, his bloud, hee doth likewise signifie our flocke, coupled together by cōiunction of the multitude that is brought into one. Here you see y^e bread which is now y^e sacrament, and is called the body of Christe, to be made of many graines: likewise the wine to be pressed out of many grapes, by which nothing can be vnderstoode, but materi∣all bread and wine.

The same Cyprian Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caeci∣lium thus writeth, Sic verò calix Domini non est aqua sola, aut vinum solum, nisi vtrumque sibi misceatur, quomodo nec corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi vtrumque aduna∣tum fueris & copulatum, & panis vnius compage sclidatum, quo & ips•• sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus. So water onely, or wine onely, is not the Lordes cup, vnlesse both be mingled together, euen as onely meale, or onely wa∣ter, can not be the body of Christe, except both be ioy∣ned and coupled and compacted together in one breade, by which very sacrament our people is shewed to be v∣nited. Here bread made of meale and water, is called the body of Christ, therefore material bread.

The next autho∣ritie M. Hesk. citeth is Chrysostome Hom. 83. in 26. Matth. Non permittam &c. I will not suffer these things to be done, I will

first deliuer vp my life, before I wil deliuer the lords body to any per¦son vnworthily, and I will suffer my bloud to be shed rather then I will giue that most holy bloud to any other then to a worthie recei∣uer. Out of this saying he gathereth, y^t the body of Christ may be receiued of an vnworthie & wicked person. How be it, no such thing followeth of these words, for though Chrysostome deliuer the body of Christ, it followeth not that they receiue it which receiue the sacrament vnwor∣thily, which is as much as to refuse it. Chrysostome in the same Homely, saith, this sacrament to be a symbole and signe of Christ crucified, and speaking of the cup, he saith:

Sed cuius gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit? Perniciosam quandam hęresim radicitus euellere voluit eorum, qui aqua in mysterijs vtuntur, ita vt ostenderet quia & quando hoc my∣sterium traderet, vinū tradidit, & iam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensa, vino vsus est. Ex germine autem, ait, vitis, quae certè vinum non aquam producit. But wherefore did hee not drinke water but wine after his resurrection? Hee would plucke vppe by the rootes a certaine most pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the mysteries, so that he would shew, y^t both when he deliuered this mysterie, he deliuered wine, & nowe after his resurrection in the bare table of the mysterie, he vsed wine. And he saith of y^e fruit of y^e vine, which truly bringeth foorth wine & not water.

Now compare these two sayings of Chrysost. in one ser∣mon: Christ deliuered wine, Chrysost. would not deliuer the body & bloud of Christ, & see whether the later proue any transubstantiation or carnall manner of presence. Besides this, it is good to note that Chrysostome saith, that Christ vsed wine in the sacrament after his resurrec∣tion, contrarie to all the Papistes, which holde that he mi∣nistred to the two disciples at Emaus in bread only. And bicause M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of Christes body to the wicked, and thereby will gather, that the wic••ed re∣ceiue the very body of Christe, let him heare also what Chrysostome saith in the same place, speaking of the vn∣worthy comming to the sacrament:

Illud enim pessimum est, ficus Paulus ait, Christum conculcare, & testamenti sanguinem du∣cere

communem, & spiritus gratian contemnere. For this is the worst thing that can be, as Paule saith, to tread Christe vnder feete, and to esteeme the bloud of the couenaunt as vncleane, and to contemne the grace of the spirite.

Will he say that very body of Christe is troden vnder the feete of the vnworthie receiuer?

And bicause he standeth so much of the word, body and bloud, Chrysostome saith further. Nullus communicet, nisi ex discipulis sit: nullus impuro a∣nimo sicut Iudas, panem assumat, ne similia patiatur. Corpus Christi etiam hęc multitudo est: quare cauendum tibi est qui hęc mysteria ministras, ne Dominum irrites, corpus hoc non purgando, ne acutum gladium pro cibo praebeas. Let none communicate except he be of the disciples: Let no man with an vnpure minde as Iudas, receiue the bread, least he suffer the like punish∣ment. Euen this multitude also is the body of Christe: wherefore thou that doest minister these mysteries, must take heede, that thou prouoke not the Lorde, by not pur∣ging this body, least thou deliuer a sharpe sword in steed of meat.

In this saying, let the indifferent reader obserue, that Iudas receiued bread, and wicked men receiue bread: that the multitude of Christians is the body of Christe, as the sacrament is: finally, that the minister to a wic∣ked man deliuereth a sharpe sword in steede of spirituall meate: and let him iudge, howe honestly M. Heskins vr∣geth the deliuerie of the body and bloud of Christ to the wicked, to exclude bread, and to proue that they receiue the very body of Christ.

His third witnesse is Origen Hom. 5. in diuorsos. Quando sanctum cibum, illud{que} incorruptum epulum accipis &c. When thou receiuest that holy meat, and the vncorrupt banquet, when thou in∣ioyest the bread and cup of life, thou eatest and drinkest the body and bloud of the Lord, then the Lord entreth vnder thy roofe, and do thou then humbling thy selfe, followe this Centurion, and say: Lorde, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnder my roofe. For where he entreth vnworthily, there he entereth to the condem∣nation of the receiuer. Here M. Heskins first noteth the pre∣sence of Christe: secondly that the sacrament it not bare bread, both which are graunted: thirdly that the body of

Christe may be receiued of euill men. But all men will confesse, that this is an Alegoricall and figuratiue ma∣ner of speaking, that Origen vseth, and may be wel vnder∣stoode according to the rule of sacraments: which beare the names of those things whereof they be sacramentes. And seeing Origen doth else where expresly affirme, that euill men do not, neither can eate the body of Christe, in Matth. Cap. 15. it is great vnshamefastnesse, to wrest his fi∣guratiue saying in these wordes, contrarie to his plaine meaning vttered in plaine wordes. Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth this may be obiected, and referreth vs to the thirtieth Chapter of this booke for the answere, whither I also referre the reader both for the place it self, and for the replie to M. Heskins answere.

The seuen and fortieth Chapter proceedeth in the vnderstan∣ding of the same, by S. Basil and S. Hierome.* 1.96

Saint Basil is alledged de baptism. Li. 2. Quęst. 93.* 1.97 Quoniam Deus in lege &c. For so much as God in the lawe hath ordained so great a paine against him, that in his vncleannesse dare touch the holy things, (for it is written to them figuratiuely, but for our ad∣uertisement:) And the Lord saide vnto Moses, say to Aaron and his sonnes, that they take heede to the holy things of the children of Israel, and they shall not defile my name what so euer they sancti∣fie to me, I am the Lorde. Say to them and to their families, Euery man that is of your seede, and commeth to the holy things, what so euer the children of Israel shall sanctifie vnto the Lord and his vn∣cleannesse be vpon him, that soule shall be rooted out of my pre∣sence, I am the Lord. Such threatnings are set foorth against them, that only come to those thinges, that are sanctified by men. But what shall a man say against him, which dare be bolde against so greate and such a mysterie? For looke howe much greater a thing then the temple is here, according to the Lords saying, by so much the more greeuous and fearefull it is, in the filthinesse of his soule, to touch the body of Christ, then to touch Rammes or Bulles (for so the Apostle hath saide) wherefore he that eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup of the Lorde vnworthily, shall be guiltie of the body and bloud

of the Lorde. But more vehemently and also more horribly, he doth set foorth and declare the condemnation by repetition, when hee saith: Let euery man examine him selfe, and so let him eat of this bread, and drinke of this cup. For he that eateth and drinketh vn∣worthily, eateth and drinketh his condemnation, not discerning the Lordes body. If then he that is onely in vncleannesse, (and the pro∣pertie of vncleannesse we learne figured in the lawe) hath so hor∣rible a iudgement, howe much more he that is in sinne, and presu∣meth against the body of Christ, shall draw vnto him selfe horrible iudgement?

First, I will note M. Heskins falsifications, which are two, the one as it seemeth, partly of ignoraunce of the Greeke tong, partly of greedinesse to drawe Basils wordes to his vnderstanding, for where the Greeke is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Heere is a thing, or one greater then the tem∣ple, he turneth it, looke howe much greater this is then the temple, as though hic which is an Aduerbe, were a Pronoune. The other is altogether of malitious corrup∣tion, for he translateth his Latine, Contra corpus Christi audet: which is, He dareth presume against the body of Christe, hee translateth it, Hee dareth to presume vpon the body of Christ, as though he receiued the body of Christe. Nowe he noteth two differences in these wordes of Basil, the one of the sacrifices of the olde lawe which were Bulles and Rammes, the other of the newe lawe, which is the body of Christ. But in the wordes of Basil, there is no mention of any sacrifice of the newe lawe, onely he compareth the ce∣remonies of the olde lawe, with the heauenly part of the sacrament of the newe Testament, which we confesse to be the body and bloud of Christ.

The second difference is, the vncleannesse of the lawe made vnworthie partakers of the sacrifices, but deadly sin maketh men vnworthie receiuers of the body of Christe. Yet hath Basil no such wordes of receiuing the body of Christ by wicked men. Onely he denounceth their grie∣uous punishment, that presume against y^e body of Christ, when with vnreuerence and vnrepentance, they presume against such and so high a mysterie, as the blessed sacra∣ment

is, and this is the plaine sense of his wordes without any cauilling. If M. Heskins will vrge their touching of the body of Christ, it is a very nice point, and must either be referred to a figuratiue speach, or else it will breede in∣finite absurdities. Basils mind is plaine, the wicked ought not to presume to touch the blessed sacrament, which af∣ter a certaine manner of speaking, is the body of Christe. But he annexeth an other place of Basil: Domin{us} dicens &c. The Lorde saying: Here is one greater then the temple, teacheth vs that he is so much more vngodly, that dare handle the body of our Lorde, which hath giuen him selfe for vs, to be an oblation and offe∣ring of sweete sauour, by howe much the body of the onely begotten sonne of God exceedeth Rammes and Bulles, not in reason of com∣parison, for the excellencie is incomparable.

This place saith Maister Heskins proueth well, that the receiuer of the sacrament receiueth the body of the onely begotten sonne of God, and not a bare figure, for else howe should hee sinne incomparably, by receiuing vnworthily? I aunswere, hee sinneth incomparably, not bicause he receiueth the body of Christe vnworthily, but bicause the body of Christe being offered vnto him to be receiued, he doth contemne it, & refuse it most vnthank∣fully and iniuriously. Againe, Basil doth here compare the outward signes or elements of the old sacrifices, with the thing represented and offered by our sacrament, the like speaches he hath of Baptisme.

But that you may heare him (saith Maister Heskins) by most plaine wordes teach that the body of Christe is receiued of euill men, hearken what he saith, de baptism. lib 1. cap. 3. Si verò is qui &c. If he that for meate offendeth his brother, falleth from charitie, without the which both the workes of great giftes, and iustification do nothing auayle: What shall a man say of him, which idly and vnprofitably dare eate the body, and drinke the bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ?

But M. Heskins to make it seeme more plaine on his side, hath cut off those wordes which doe plainly declare, that Basil speaketh not of wicked men that are voyde of the spirite of God, but of such as be not zealous and

earnest ynough, to practise mortification, & reuocation, therefore it followeth immediatly: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: And thereby much more gree∣uing the holy spirite: which wordes being added to the former, doe plainely testifie, that Basill speaketh not of wicked and vngodly persons, but of the faithful in whom the spirite of God was, and yet they had not so great care of profiting in newnesse of life as they ought to haue. For against the wordes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, idly and vnprofita∣bly, he opposeth afterwarde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, earnestly and effectu∣ally, so that those Aduerbes idly and vnprofitably, are spoken in comparison, and not simply, as if he saide, they take nothing such paines in mortification as they should, they profite nothing in comparison that they might by the Lordes body, which labour not to be renewed accor∣ding to his spirite, and as he saith, they grieue the spirit of God, (whereby they are sealed to eternall life,) when they doe not with more earnestnesse and profite come to the Lordes table.

The second Authour Hierome, is cited in Psal. 77. Haec de his &c. These wordes are spoken of them which forsooke GOD after they had receiued Manna, For nowe in the Church, if any man be fed with the flesh and bloud of Christ, and doth decline to vices, let him knowe that the iudgement of God doth hang ouer him: as Paule the Apostle saith, He that shall take the body and bloud of our Lorde vnworthily, shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde.

I maruell what Maister Heskins meaneth, to al∣ter the wordes of Hierome, for he citeth them thus: Qui acceperit corpus & sanguinem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis & sanguinis Domini. Wheras the words of Hierome be. Qui acceperit corpus & sanguinem Christi indignè iudicium sibi su∣mis & bibit. Hee that shall receiue the body and bloud of Christe vnworthily, receiueth and drinketh iudgement to him selfe.

To aunswere to the iudgement of GOD, which hee saide did hang ouer him, that after hee is fed with the body and bloud of Christe, declineth to vices: not meaning wicked reprobates, but Gods elect chil∣dren, whiche are sometimes ingratefull to GOD for

his mercies, and fall into grieuous sinnes, but yet by Gods grace rise againe: as the wordes immediatly fol∣lowing do most plainly declare:

Et electos Israel impediuit. Impedumtur & nunc electo Ecclesiae, si ne ipsi quoque sacerdotes innocenter haec sacramenta percipiunt. And hee hindered the elect of Israel. The elect of the Church are nowe also hindered, if the Priestes them selues doe not receiue these sacraments innocently. In which wordes he sheweth the cause, that many of the elect do decline to vices, after the sacrament receiued, euen by the euill example of the Priestes, and therefore worthily are to be awaked out of the sleepe of sinne and securitie, by this sentence of Paul.

Nowe whereas M. Hes. excuseth S. Hierome, for altering the words of Paule, and in steede of the bread and the cup, placing the body and bloud of Christe, it is nothing so needfull, as that he should render a reason why hee doth him selfe alter the words of Hierome: except hee thinke he may be as bold to chaunge the wordes of Hierome, as Hierome was to chaunge the words of Paule. Although M. Hes. is lesse to blame in this place, where he chaungeth the words without any great alteration of the sense, then in almost an hundreth places beside, where hee falsifieth the wordes, and peruerteth the meaning also.

The eight and fortieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same text, by Chrysostome and S. Augustine.* 1.98

Chrysostome is cited Hom. 45. in Ioan.* 1.99 Qui enim manducat &c. For he that eateth and drinketh the bloud of our Lord vnwor∣thily, eateth and drinketh iudgement to him selfe. For if they which defile the kings purple are none otherwise punished, then they which rent it: what maruell if they which receiue the body of Christ in an vncleane conscience, suffer the same punishment that they did which fastened him with nailes to the crosse Two things M. Hes. no∣teth out of these words, one that the body of Christ is re∣ceiued in the sacrament, the other, that euill men receiue the sacrament. Concerning the first, there is no doubt, but that the bodie of Christ is receiued in the sacrament

after a spirituall manner of faith, and touching the latter, this place proueth not, that wicked men receiue the body of Christ with their mouthes wherin is the controuersie: for neither doth Chrysost. here speake of reprobates, but of the faithfull that were sinners, which receiued Christes bodie in an vncleane conscience, & not carnally with their mouthes. But admitte he did speake of reprobates and wicked persons, yet he speaketh of the sacramentes, that are called the bodie and bloud of Christ, and not of the natural bodie and bloud of Christ, and therefore he vseth the similitude of the Kinges purple, whereunto he com∣pareth the sacrament. For euen as he that abuseth by ren∣ding or defyling the Kings purple robe, though he touch not his person, yet is he punished as a traitour: so he that abuseth the sacrament, either as an open contemner, or as a prophane receiuer, is guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ. And to put the matter out of question he faith, not three lines before, speaking of the bloud of Christ:

Qui huius sanguinis sunt participes, cum Angelis, & Archangelis, & supernis virtutibus commorantur, ipsam regiam Christi stolam induti spiritualibus armis muniti (sed nihil dixi) immo ipsum induti sunt regem. They that are partakers of this bloud, do dwell with Angels, & Archangels, and the high powers, hauing put on the very royall robe of Christ, being armed with spiritual armour (but I haue said nothing) yea they haue put on the King himselfe.

By these words it is plaine, that euerie one that is partaker of the sacrament, is not parta∣ker of the bloud of Christ.

But Maister Heskins will bring forth other places of Chrysostome wherein he doeth plainely affirme, that Iu∣das the traitour did receiue the bodie of Christ with the other Apostles. But suspend thy iudgement gentle Rea∣der, vntill thou haue read his places. The first is Hom. ••0. de proditione Iuda. Cum manducarent & biberent, &c. When they did eate and drinke, Iesus tooke bread and brake it and saide: This is my bodie. They that be consecrated to the diuine mysteries, knowe what I speake. And againe he tooke the cup and saide, This is my bloud, and Iudas was present when Christ spake these wordes:

This is my bloud. Say Iudas, whom hast thou solde for thirty pence? Is this the bloud for which thou hast made a bargaine before with the Pharisees: O the mercie of Christ! O the madnesse of Iudas! He bargained that he might sell him for thirtie pence, and Christ offe∣red him the bloud which he hath solde, that he might haue forgiue∣nesse of sinnes, if he would not haue bene vngodly. For Iudas was present, and was partaker of that sacrifice. Here we see plainely that Christ offered his bloud to Iudas, that he might haue remission of sinnes, but no worde that Iudas receiued the bloud of Christ. It is saide, that Iudas was partaker of y^t sacrifice, that is of the outwarde sacrament (for so Chry∣sostome often calleth it) but not of the bodie and bloud of Christ. And whereas Maister Heskins noteth, that be∣cause Christ offred the same bloud that Iudas solde, ther∣fore the sacrament is the naturall bloud of Christ, it is a most friuolous reason. For euerie childe vnderstandeth, y^e selling of Christes bloud is a figure of betraying Christ, euen as the bloud whiche he offered is a figure of that, which was betrayed, and so the reason maketh altoge∣ther against him. But Chrysostome hath other wordes in the same sermon.

Nullus igitur fictus accedat &c. Therefore let no feigned person come: Let none be so bolde with a counterfet mind to come neere so great mysteries least he be condemned, deserue sentence, and suf∣fer that which Iudas suffered. For after the partaking of the table, the diuell entred into him, not because he despised the Lordes bodie, but because the impudencie of Iudas and the maliciousnesse of his minde, caused that the aduersarie dwelled in him. By these words M.H. would proue, y^t y^e Lords body had entred into Iudas, before the diuel, but y^e contrarie may more probably be gathered: for Chrysost. answereth a secret obiection, that might be made vpon the appellation of y^e sacrament, to be y^e bodie of Christ. It might seeme y^e diuel contemned the body of Christ, y^t he entred immediatly after y^e bodie of Christ receiued, but he saith, he contemned not y^e body of Christ (for Iudas was so full of wickednes, that y^e bodie of Christ entred not into him) but y^e diuel before had posses∣sed him.

And y^t this is more agreable to y^e mind of Chryso.

his wordes in the Hom. 45. In Ioan. doe declare: Daemones cum Dominicum sanguinem in nobis vident, in fugam vertuntur. When the diuels doe see the bloud of our Lorde in vs, they are put to flight.

This proueth, that Iudas receiued not the bloud of Christ, seeing immediately after the re∣ceipt of the sacrament (as he sayeth) the Diuel entred into him. Therefore the other place, which Maister Heskins alledgeth out of Chrysost. Ho. 83. In Mat. is likewise an∣swered: Caenantibus, &c. When they were a•• Supper: Iesus tooke bread, & blessed it, and brake it, and gaue it to his disciples: O the blindnesse of that traitor, which when he had bene partaker of the vnspeakable mysteries, he remained the same man, and being ad∣mitted to Gods table, would not be changed into better, which Luke signified saying: that after this, Satan entred into him, not because he despised the Lordes bodie, but because he laughed to scorne the folly of the traytor. These vnspeakeable mysteries M. Hesk. saith can not be a bare piece of bread, and a cup of wine, but must needes be the bodie and bloud of Christ. But sa∣uing his authoritie, is not the baptisme, wherewith wic∣ked men are baptised, an vnspekable mysterie? and yet no wicked man in baptisme, receiueth the spirite of regene∣ration.

But Chrysostome proceedeth in the sentence be∣fore alledged: Maius enim peccatum vtra{que} ratione fiebat: quia tali animo mysterijs susceptis, nec timore, nec beneficio, nec honore melior factus est. For his offence was made greater both wayes: because, that hauing receiued the mysteries with such a minde, neither with feare, nor with the benefite, nor with the honour, he was made better.

Chrysostome saith, he receiued the mysteries, he doth not say he receiued the bodie of Christ. Now iudge whether Chrysostome doth plainely affirme, that Iudas receiued the bodie of Christ, with the other Apostles, or whether M. Heskins doth lye, that so affirmeth of Chrysostome and can no better proue it then you haue heard. Now followeth S. Aug. In Ep. con∣tra Donatist. post Collat. Quisquis autem, &c. Who so euer shall liue wel in this church, other mens sinnes do nothing hinder him: for in it euerie one shall beare his owne burthen, as the Apostle saith: and whosoeuer shall eate the bodie of Christ vnworthily, eateth and

drinketh iudgement to himselfe: for the Apostle him selfe hath writ∣ten this. In these wordes Augustine calleth the sacrament of the bodie of Christe, the bodie of Christ, as it follow∣eth immediately after:

Cum autem dicit, iudicium sibi mandu∣cat, satis oftendit, quia non alteri iudicium manducat sed sibi. Hoc nos egimus & ostendimus & obtinuimus, quia communio malorum non maculat aliquem participatione sacramentorum, sed consensio∣ne factorum. And when he saith, he eateth iudgement to himselfe, he sheweth sufficiently that he eateth not iudge∣ment to another but to himselfe. This haue we treated, & shewed and proued, that the fellowship of euill men doth not defile any man by participation of the sacramentes with them, but by consent of their deedes.

Likewise he tearmeth the sacrament by y^e name of the bodie of Christ. Cont. Donat. Lib. 5. Cap. 8. Sicut enim &c. As Iudas to whom our Lord gaue the morsel, gaue place himselfe to the diuell, not by recei∣uing an euill thing, but by receiuing is amisse: so any man receiuing vnworthily the Lordes sacrament, causeth not, because he him∣selfe is euill, that it should be euil, or because he receiueth it not to saluation, that he receiueth nothing. For it was neuerthelesse the bo∣die and bloud of our Lord, euen to them whom the Apostle saide: He that eateth & drinketh vnworthily, eateth & drinketh iudge∣ment to himselfe. In these wordes, he reasoneth against the Donatistes, that saide, that baptisme ministred by here∣tikes, was no sacrament, which he confuteth by example of the other sacrament of Christes bodie & bloud, which Iudas and other wicked men receiued. So that in these wordes the bodie and bloud of the Lorde, are to be taken for the sacrament of the bodie & bloud of Christ. Which sacrament as Augu. saith, Tract. 26. in Ioan. is receyued of some to destruction:

Res verò ipsa, cuius sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicun{que} eius particeps fuerit. But the thing it selfe whereof it is sacrament, is vnto life to euerie man & to destruction to no man, who∣soeuer shall be partaker therof. But M. Heskins flyeth to his distinction of receiuing spiritually and corporally, as though Augustine euer saide, that the bodie of Christe was receiued corporally of any man.

But let vs heare his

owne wordes, whiche M. Heskins hath cited in the same treatise. Quantum pertinet ad illam mortem &c. As touching that death, of which the Lorde saide that their fathers be dead: Moses also did eate Manna, & Aaron did eate Manna, & Phinees did eate Manna, & many did eate, which pleased the Lord, & died not. Wherfore? Because they vnderstoode the visible meate spiri∣tually, they hūgred spiritually, they tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For we also at this day haue receiued a visible meate. But the sacrament is one thing, the vertue of the sacrament another thing, which many do receiue of the altar & doe die, & in receiuing doe die. Wherefore the Apostle saith, he eateth & drin∣keth his owne iudgement. In these words Augustine teacheth, that the visible (meate which is the sacrament) may be ea∣ten to condēnation, which is y^e thing we affirme, & as for eating the body of Christe, otherwise then spiritually, he speaketh not one worde. But M. Heskins would learne of y^e aduersarie, what Augustine meaneth by this word Ver∣tue, which many do dye in receiuing it: and therefore it cannot be the vertue of his passion, so it must needs be his very bodie. So that by this conclusion, Christs bodie may be receiued w^tout the vertue of his passion. But if it please him to learne what Aug. meaneth by this word Vertue in y^t place,

I answere he meaneth force or efficacie, which is either to life or to death, as the receiuer is affected that taketh the sacrament, for immediatly after, he saith: Nam bucella Dominica venenum suit Iudae, & tamen accepit. For the Lords morsel was poyson to Iudas, & yet he receiued it.

You see therefore a double vertue in the sacramēt, one to saluation, another to condemnation, & no bodily pre∣sence necessarie for either of them. Another place he citeth In Ioan. Tr. 6. Recordamini vnde sit scriptū. Remember frō whence it is written, Whoso euer shal eat the bread and drinke the cup of our Lord vnworthily, shalbe guiltie of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde. For when the Apostle saide this, he spake it of them which receiued the bodie of our Lord vndiscreetly and negligently, as they wold do any other meat. Whersoeuer he borowed these words they are not to be found in y^t treatise of Aug. which he ci∣teth. But if they be August, in any place, they haue none

other sense then before is expressed, y^t such men are said to eate the bodie of Christ, which eate the sacrament therof, whiche in some manner of speache is called the body of Christ. The words that I find in Augustine sounding any thing like, are these:

Et sancta possunt obesse: in bonis enim sancta ad salutem insunt, in malis ad iudicium: Certè enim fra∣tres nouimus quid accipiamus, & vtique sanctum est quod accipi∣mus, & nemo dicit non esse sanctum. Et quid ait Apostolus? Qui autem manducat & bibit indignè, iudicium sibi manducat & bibit, Non ait quia illa res mala est, sed quod ille malus, malè accipien∣do, ad iudicium accipit bonum, quod accipit. Non enim mala buc∣cella erat quae tradita est Iudae à Domino. Absit: medicus non da∣ret venenum: Salutem medicus dedit, sed indignè accipiendo ad perniciem accepit. Euen holy things may hurte. For in good men holy things are vnto saluation, in euill men vnto condemnation. For surely brethren, we know what we receiue, and no man sayeth that it is not holy. And what sayeth the Apostle? He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily, eateth and drinketh his owne condemnati∣on. He sayeth it not because that thing is euill, but be∣cause that euill man by euill receiuing receiueth vnto condemnation that good thing, which he receiueth. For the morsell was not euill which was deliuered by our Lorde to Iudas. God forbidde: the Phisition woulde not giue poyson: the Phisition gaue health, but hee by receiuing vnwoorthily, receiued to his destruction. To this iudgement of Augustine wee doe subscribe, that wicked men receiue a holye thing, namely the sacra∣ment, for prophaning whereof, they heape vp damnati∣on to them selues, besides their other sinnes.

But that the naturall bodie of Christe voyde of his quickening spirite, entreth into the mouth of any man, wee doe vt∣terly denye: and of the same iudgement is Augustine, as we haue shewed in this Chapter, & in many other places.

The nine and fourtieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by Isychius and Sedulius.* 1.100

In the beginning of this Chapter, by a saying of Au∣gustine hee exhorteth vs to heare the doctoures of the* 1.101

Catholike church, affirming y^t he hath alreadie brought sixe plainely expounding this texte of the bodie of Christ, and more will bring hereafter, whereas the pro∣claimer required but onely one. But what trueth is in his affirmation, the reader I doubt not, will be able to discerne, that is not blinded with affection. Isichyus is ci∣ted in Leuit. Cap. 26. Propter quod, &c. Wherefore let vs feare his holie place, that we neither defile our bodie, nor rashly come to the bodie of Christe, in the which is all sanctification (For in him abydeth the fullnesse of the godhead) without diligent exami∣nation of our selues, but rather let vs examine our selues re∣membring him that sayde: Whosoeuer shall eate the breade or drinke the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily, shalbe guiltie of the bo∣die and bloud of the Lorde. Because Maister Heskins kno∣weth not what to gather out of these wordes with any shewe of likelyhood to mainteine his cause, he runneth into another matter altogether impertinent and neede∣lesse, to shewe out of Theophylact, how the fullnesse of the Godhead doth dwell in Christe. At length he com∣meth to ridiculous questions, why should he dehort wic∣ked men from eating the bodie of Christ, if they cannot eat it at all? As though their presumption may not bee condemned, which cannot attaine their purpose. Why shoulde wicked men bee dehorted from seeking the o∣uerthrowe of Christe and his church, seeing it is impos∣sible for them to preuayle either against the one or the other? yet Maister Heskins thinketh him selfe wittie, when he sayeth: It were strange to persuade a man not to pull downe heauen, or to eat the starres, because it is vaine to moue men not to doe that, which is impossible to be done. But because Maister Heskins is so angrie with a peece of breade in the sacrament, let him heare what the same Hesychius, or as he calleth him Isichius writeth in Leuitic. lib. 2. Cap. ••.

Propterea carnes cum panibus comedi praecipient, vt nos intelli∣geremus illud ab eo mysterium dici, quod simul panis est & caro. Therefore commaunding the flesh to bee eaten with the breade, that wee might vnderstande, that he spake of that mysterie, which is both bread and fleshe together.

You see that Hesychius acknowledged breade to bee in the mysterie naturallye, as the fleshe of Christe is spiri∣tually.

Nowe let vs heare Sedulius: Accipite, &c. Take ye, this is my body. As though Paule had sayed: take heede ye eate not that bodie vnworthily, seeing it is the bodie of Christe. You shall eate this vnworthily, if you shame the poore, and if you eate any meate before the spirituall meate and the supper of the Lorde.

Here againe he noteth, that the bodie of Christ may be receiued of vnworthie persons, hee meaneth wicked persons, for otherwise all men are vnworthie of it, but no such thing can followe of the wordes of Sedulius, both because hee speaketh of receiuing the sacrament, which after a certeine manner, is the bodie of Christe, & also because he speaketh not of wicked persons and re∣probates, but of faithfull persones offenders, and that not in greate matters, namely, in shaming the poore with their plentifull feastes, and eating bodily meate before they receiue the Lordes supper. This place is cited be∣fore, lib. 2. Cap. 55. The argument that wee bring of the inseparable coniunction of Christe with his spirite, he sayeth is vaine, for though Christe bee neuer disioy∣ned from his spirite, yet his spirite is not alwayes effe∣ctuall, which is as absurde, as the other, to saye that the quickening spirite of Christe, together with his bodye, is in the wicked and worketh not life. But hee weeneth Cyprian shall stande with him whose wordes he citeth In Sermone de Coena: Sacramenta quidem quantum in se est, &c. The sacraments truely, as concerning them selues, cannot be with∣out their proper vertue. Neither doeth the Diuine maiestie by any meanes absent it selfe from the mysteries. But although the sacraments doe suffer them selues to bee taken or touched by vn∣worthie persons: yet cannot those be partakers of the spirite, whose infidelitie or vnworthinesse gaynsayeth so great holinesse. And therefore those giftes are to some the sauour of life vnto life, vnto some the sauour of death vnto death. For it is altogether meete, that the contemners of grace should be depriued of so great a benefite, and that the puritie of so greate grace shoulde not

make a dwelling for it selfe in vnworthie persons. I am verie wel content, y^t this place shal determine the controuersie betweene vs. Cyprian sayeth, the maiestie of GOD doth neuer absent it selfe from the sacramentes, but ei∣ther hee worketh saluation or damnation by them; as well in baptisme, as in the Lords supper, for hee spea∣keth of both in the plurall number. And seeing infi∣dels and wicked persons cannot bee partakers of the spi∣rite of Christe, it followeth they cannot bee partakers of the bodie of Christe, for Christ his bodie is neuer se∣parate from his spirite.

But Augustine contra Crescen. is alledged, the place is not quoted, but it is lib. 1. Cap. 25. Quid de ipso corpore, &c. What shall wee saye euen of the bodie and bloude of our Lorde, the onely sacrifice for our health? Although the Lorde him selfe doeth saye: Except a man doe eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud he shall haue no life in him: doeth not the Apostle teache, that the same is made hurtfull to them, that vse it amisse? For he say∣eth: whosoeuer shall eate the breade and drinke the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily, shalbee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde.

But it followeth imediately: Ecce quemadmodum obsint diuina & sancta malè vtentibus. Cur non eodem modo baptis∣mus? Behold how diuine and holy things do hurte them that vse them amisse: why not baptisme after the same manner?

By which woordes it appeareth, that Augu∣stine speaketh of the sacrament, and not of the thing si∣gnifyed by the sacrament. For he compareth baptisme ministred by heretikes, with the Lordes supper vnwor∣thily receiued, which comparison cannot stande, except you vnderstande the outwarde parte of the sacrament in bothe. Baptisme is ministred by heretikes, that is to say, the outwarde sacrament of baptisme, the bodie of Christe is receiued vnworthily to destruction, that is, the outwarde sacrament of the bodie of Christe: for as wee heard in the last Chapter, Res ipsa sacramenti, the thing it selfe of the sacrament is receiued of euery man to life, & of no man to destruction whosoeuer doth receiue it.

The fiftieth Chapter sheweth the vnderstanding of the same ••ext by Effrem & Primasius.* 1.102

Effrem is cited in tract. de die Iudicij: Si procul a nobis est Siloe, &c. If Siloe, whither the blinde man was sent,* 1.103 be farre from vs, yet the precious cuppe of thy bloude full of light and life, is neere vs, beeing so much neerer as hee is purer that com∣meth vnto it. This then remayneth vnto vs, O mercifull Christ, that being full of grace, and the illumination of thy knowledge, with faith and holinesse wee come to thy cuppe, that it may pro∣fite vs vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes, not to confusion in the day of iudgement. For whosoeuer being vnworthie, shall come to thy mysteries, hee condemneth his owne soule, not cleansing him∣selfe, that hee might receiue the heauenly king and the immor∣tall brydegrome into the moste pure chamber of his brest. For our soule is the spouse of the immortall bridegrome, and the hea∣uenly sacramentes are the couple of the marriage. For when wee eate his bodie, and drinke his bloude, both hee is in vs, and wee in him. Therefore take heede to thy selfe brother, make speede to garnish continually the chamber of thine heart with vertues, that hee may make his dwelling with thee, with his blessed father: And then thou shalt haue praise, glorie, and boasting before the Angels and Archangels, & with great ioy and gladnesse thou shalt enter into Paradise.

This saying being directly contrarie, both to the corporall manner of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christe, and also to that absurde opinion that the wicked receiue the body of Christe: Maister Hes∣kins is not ashamed, not onely to alledge it as making for him, but also tryfleth off the nearnesse of the bloud of Christe, which hee sayeth wee denye, when wee af∣firme Christe to bee alwayes in heauen. As though the bloude of Christe cannot purge and clense vs, ex∣cept it come downe from heauen, and bee powred in at our mouthes. As though faith cannot make Christ him selfe to dwell in vs.

But where Effrem sayeth, his bloud is so much the

neerer, as hee is purer that commeth vnto it, why can∣not M. Hesk. vnderstand, that the more vnpurer the re∣ceiuer of the cup is, the further off the bloud of Christ is, and so farthest of all from them that be most vnpure, that is, the wicked and the reprobate? But hee woulde haue the bloud of Christ to be as neere the wicked, as the godly. Againe when Ephrem saith: when wee eate and drinke his body and bloude, hee is in vs and wee in him: with what face can Maister Heskins or any papist in the worlde saye, that the wicked receiue the bodye and bloud of Christe, in whom Christe is not, nor they in him?

The like syncerity hee vseth, in racking the wordes of Primasius: Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in mee and I in him: As though he should saye: they that so ea•••• as it is to bee eaten, and so drinke as my bloud is to be dronken. For many, when they seeme to receiue this thing, abide not in God nor God in them, because thei are affirmed to eate their own damna∣tion: M. Hesk. hath so corrupted this place in transla∣tion, that you may see hee ment nothing but falshood & trechery. The latine text, he citeth thus. Qui edit meane carneus & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet & ego in eo, pro eo ac si diceret: qui sic edent vs edenda est, & sic bibent vs bi∣bendus est sanguis meus. Multi enim cùm hoc videantur acciper••, in Deo non manent, nec Deus in ipsis, quia sibi iudicium manducare perhibentur. He translateth in English thus. He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in mee and I in him: As if he should say, they that so shal eate my flesh as it is to be ea∣ten, and shall so drinke my bloud as it is to be dronken. For many when they are seene to receiue this sacrament, neither dwell they in God nor God in them, because they are witnessed to eate and drinke their owne damnation.

Now let the reader, though hee bee but a meane La∣tinist, iudge whether he haue not corrupted Primasius in translation, especially where hee sayeth: Multi cùm hoc videantur accipere, whiche is, manye when they seeme to receiue this thing, namely the body and bloud

of Christe, of whiche hee spake, Maister Heskins turneth it into manye, when they are seene to receiue this sacrament. Many seeme to bee Christians, that are not: many seeme to bee baptized with the holy Ghoste, which are not: so many seeme to eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christe, which doe not, because God dwelleth not in them, nor they in God. Therefore, take awaye Maister Heskins false (translation, and this saying of Primasius is directly against him, that wic∣ked men receiue not the bodie and bloude of Christe. And wheras hee noteth that the sixte of Iohn and Saint Paule in this texte speake of one thing, it is cleane con∣trarye: for Christe speaketh of that, which is testifyed and giuen in the sacrament to the faithfull, Paule of the sacrament receiued vnworthely. And Primasius ioyneth them to shewe the diuersitie of these textes, and not as though they signified one thing. For by Saint Paule hee prooueth, that not all eating and drinking, is the eating and drinking of the bodie and bloude of Christe, but the eating and drinking worthily.

The one and fiftieth Chapter, abydeth in the exposition of the same texte, by Cassiodorus, and Damascene.* 1.104

Cassiodorus is cited in Psalm. 110. vppon this verse:* 1.105 Tu es sacerdos, &c. Thou arte a priest after the order of Melchizedeche, in these wordes: Cui enim putest veracitet & euidenter aptari, nisi Domino & saluatori, qui corpus & san∣guinem s••um in pani•• & vini erogatione salutariter consecrauis. Sicut ipse in Euangelio dicit: nisi manducaueritis carnem filij ho∣minis & hiberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vo∣bis? Sed in ista carne & sanguine nil cruentum, nihil corrupti∣bile mens humana concipiat (ne sicut dicit Apostolus: Qui enim corpus Domini indignè manducat, iudicium sibi mandueas) sed viuifica••ricem substantiam atque salutarem. & ipsius verbi pro∣priam factam, per quam peccatorum remissio & aeterno vitae do∣napraestuntur. For vnto whome may it bee truely and euident∣ly

applyed, but to our Lorde and Sauiour, which hath healthsont∣ly consecrated his body and bloude, in the giuing foorth of breade and wine? as he him selfe sayeth in the Gospell: except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and d••inke his bloud you shall haue no life in you, but in this fleshe and bloud, let the minde of man conceiue nothing bloudie, neither corruptible (left as the A∣postle sayeth: For he that eateth the Lordes bodie vnworthily, ea∣teth his owne damnation) but a substance giuing life and health, and made proper to the WORDE himselfe, by which remissi∣on of sinnes, and the giftes of eternall life are perfourmed. This saying being directly contrarie to all Maister Heskins three assertions, namely, transsubstantiation, carnall ma∣ner of eating, and the wicked receiuing Christes bodye, hee hath cloked the two firste with a false translation, the last with a needelesse excursion into y^e heresies of Marcion, Manicheus, &c. For where it is firste mani∣fest by Cassiodorus, that when Christe gaue the sacra∣ment to his disciples, hee gaue foorth breade and wine, Maister Heskins translateth: Corpus & sanguinem suum in panis & vini erogatione salutariter consecrauit: In the giuing foorth of breade and wine to our health, hee consecrated his bodie and bloud: whereas euery litle boye, will teach him, that the Aduerbe must be ioyned with the Verbe in constru∣ing, to declare his signification. Therefore his mea∣ning must needs be as I haue translated it: he did helth∣somly or profitably consecrate his bodie and bloud in giuing forth of breade and wine, therfore he gaue forth breade and wine.

Touching the seconde of the carnall manner of presence, whereas Cassiodorus sayeth: In ista carne & sanguine nil cruentum, nihil corruptibile mens huma∣na contipia••, which is: In this fleshe and bloude, let the minde of man conceiue nothing bloudie, nothing cor∣ruptible, Maister Heskins translateth it:

Let not the minde of man conceiue any thing grosse, any thing corruptible: whereas the mynde of the author is, seeing we must in this fleshe and bloud conceiue nothing bloudie, we must not con∣ceiue the flesh of Christ to be present carnally, nor the bloud of Christ to be present bloudily, but spiritually,

and as he addeth a quickening and healthfull substance, giuing forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life, to all that receiue it. And therefore impertinent is al that discourse that Maister Heskins maketh afterwarde, against y^e olde heretikes, of which some denyed the humanitie, some the diuinitie of Christe, and ridiculous is that rayling of his, by which hee woulde charge vs with their heresies, for mainteining the trueth against their carnall manner of presence, which in deede sauoureth of the heresie of the Marcionistes, Mannyches, and Eutychians. Finally, where Cassiodorus sayeth, he that eateth the bodye of our Lorde vnworthily, eateth his owne damnation, it is manifest, that hee calleth the sacrament by the name of that which it signifieth, as many of the fathers doe. But where he sayeth, that forgiuenesse of sinnes and eter∣nall life are giuen by the fleshe and bloud of Christe, it followeth, that the wicked which are not partakers of the one are not partakers of the other.

Concerning Damascene a corrupt writer, farre out of the compasse of the challenge, who writeth so mon∣strously of this sacrament, that the Papistes them selues do not receiue him in all thinges, as I haue alwayes re∣fused his authoritie, so nowe I will not trouble the rea∣der with it.

The two and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this texte by Theodoret and Anselmus.* 1.106

In the beginning of this Chapter, he maketh much a∣doe that Damascenes authoritie might be receiued,* 1.107 and so he shoulde haue twelue which make a quest, to giue verdict in this matter. But seeing Damascene cannot be taken, hee presumeth him selfe to bee the foreman of the quest, and to speake for all the rest. But because he was neuer impannelled, nor returned foreman of the quest, wee will not take the verdicte or rather the falsedict at his mouth, but as the manner of Lordes of the parleament is, to let euery man giue his verdict for him selfe, so I wish the reader to consider their seue∣rall sayinges, and hee shall finde, that not one of them,

being rightly vnderstoode, speaketh on Maister Hes∣kins syde.

But Theodoret (hee sayeth) though Cranmer would deceiue the people by his authoritie, is altogether on their syde. Hee citeth him in. 1. Cor. 11. Hic eos quidem pungit, &c. Here truely he pricketh them that were sicke of am∣bition. Also he pricketh him, which had committed fornication, and with them, those that without any difference were par∣takers of those thinges that were offered to idols. Besides them, also vs, which with an euill conscience, dare receiue the diuine sa∣craments. As for that hee sayeth: He shalbe guiltie of the bodie and bloud, signifyeth this, that as Iudas betrayed him, and the Iewes mocked and reuyled him: euen so doe they dishonour and disworship him, which receiue his moste holie bodie with filthie handes, and put it into a filthie and defiled mouth.

Here Maister Heskins noteth, that the bodie of our Lorde is receiued with hande and mouth, cleane or vncleane. In deede the sacramentes, which are called by the name of that whereof they bee sacramentes, are so receiued, and of them doeth Theodoret speake, by expresse wordes. Another sentence hee alledgeth out of the same Chapter: Sacram illam & ex omni parte beatam noctem, &c. Hee calleth againe to memorie that holye, and by all meanes blessed night, in which hee both made an ende of the figuratiue passeouer, and shewed the true paterne of the figure, and also opened the gates of the wholesome sacrament, and gaue not onely to the eleuen Apostles, but also to Iudas the traytour, his moste precious bodie and bloud. To this I aunswere, as before, that hee calleth the sacrament which hee gaue, the precious bodie and bloude of Christe, not that hee meant that y^e bread and wine in the sacrament are turned into the bodie and bloude of Christe, and so giuen to good and badd, but that the signes beare the names of the thinges signifyed, as shall moste plainly appeare by the woordes of Theodoret him selfe in his firste dia∣logue called Incommutabilis.

Orthodoxus: Scis quòd De∣us suum corpus appellauit panem? Eranistes. Scio. Orthodox∣us. Porro etiam alibi carnem tritieum nominauit.

Eran. Hoc etiam scio. Audiui enim eum dicentem, venit hora vt glorificetur filiut hominis. Et nisi granum tritici, quod cecidit in terram, mortuum fuerit, solum manet: sin autem mortuums fue∣rit, fert multum fructum. Orth. In mysteriorum autem traditio∣ne corpus panem appellauit, & id quod in calito infusum & com∣mixtum est, sanguinem. Eran. Itae nominauit. Orth. At∣qui & quod est secundùm naturam corpus, corpus iure vo∣cabitur: & itidem sanguis. Eran. In confesio est. Orth. Ser∣uator ceriè noster nomina commutauit: & corpori quidem, id quod erat symboli & signi, nomen imposuit: symbolo autem quod erat corpuris. Ita cùm se vitem nominasset, sanguinem id, quod erat symbolum appellauit. Eran. Hoc quidem verè dixist••. Vellem autem scire causam mutationis-nominum. Orth. Manifestum est institutum ijs qui sunt diuinis mysterijs initiati. Volebat enim eot qui sunt Diuinorum mysteriorum participes, non attendere naturam eorum quae videntur: sed propter nomi∣num permutationem, mutationi, quę fit ex gratia, credere. Qui enim quod natura est corpus, triticum & panem appellauit, & vi∣tem se rursus nominauit: is symbola quae videntur, appellatione corporis & sanguinis honorauit, non naturam quidem mu∣tans, sed naturae gratiam adijciens. Eran. Et mysticè mysti∣ca dicta sunt, & apertè declarata quae non sunt nota omnibus. Orth. Quoniam ergo in confesso est, & Patriarcham corpus Domini vestem & indumentum nominasse, ad dicendum autem de Diuinis mysterijs ingressi sumus, dic per veritatem cuius sym∣bolum, & figuram esse existimas alimentum sanstissimum? Di∣uinitatis ne Domini Christi, an corporis & sanguinis? Eran. Clarum quod illorum, quorum appellationem susceperunt. Orth. Corporis & sanguinis dicis. Eran. Ita dico. Orth. Vi decet amicum veritatis dixisti, Etenim Dominus cum acce∣pisset symbolum aut signum, non dixit, Hoc est Deitas mea: sed, hoc est corpus meum. Et rursus hic est sanguis meus.

Et alibi: Panis autem quem ego dabo, caro mea est quam ego da∣bo pro mundi vita. Eran. Vera sunt haec. Sunt enim diuina eloquia Orth. Si ergo vera, corpus vtique habuit Dominus.

In English thus:

Orthodoxus. Knowest thou that God called his body breade? Eranistes. I knowe it. Orth. Moreouer, in in one place he called his flesh wheate. Eran. This also

I knowe. For I haue heard him, saying: The houre is come, that the sonne of man shall be glorified. And ex∣cept the graine of wheate which is fallen into the earth do dye, it remaineth alone: but if it dye, it bringeth forth much fruit. Ortho. And in the deliuerie of the myste∣ries he called breade his body, and that which is powred in the cup and mingled, his bloud. Eranistes. He called it so in deede. Orthodoxus. Why then, that which is a naturall body, shall of right be called a body, and like∣wise bloud. Eranistes. That is confessed. Orthodoxus. Certainely our Sauiour chaunged the names: and gaue that name to his body, which was the name of the token or signe: and to the token, that which was the name of his body. So when he called him selfe a vine, hee called his body that which was the token thereof. Eranistes. This thou hast saide truely. But I would knowe the cause of the chaunge of the names. Orthodoxus. The pur∣pose is manifest to them that are made partakers of the Diuine mysteries. For hee would haue them, which are partakers of the Diuine mysteries, not to regard the na∣ture of those things that are seene: but in respect of the chaunging of the names, to giue credite to that chaunge which is by grace. For hee which called his naturall bo∣dy wheate and breade, and named him selfe againe a vine: euen hee hath honoured the tokens that are seene, with the name of his body and bloud: not chaunging their nature, but adding grace vnto the nature. Erani∣stes. Those mysticall things are both vttered mystically, and those things are openly declared, which are not kno∣wen to all men. Orthodoxus. Therefore seeing it is con∣fessed, that the Patriarch called the Lordes body a vesture and a garment, and we are entred to speake of the Diuine mysteries, tell truely, whereof doest thou thanke this most holy foode to be a token and figure? of the God∣head of our Lorde Christe, or of his body and bloud? Eranistes. It is cleare to be of them whose names they haue receiued. Orthodoxus. Thou saiest of his body and bloud. Eranistes. So I say. Orthodoxus. Thou hast saide

as becommeth a louer of the trueth. For when our Lord had taken the token or signe: he saide not, This is my Godhead: but, this is my body. And againe: This is my bloud: and in an other place: The breade which I will giue is my flesh, which I will giue for y^e life of the world. Eranistes. Those things are true. For they are the word of God. Orthodoxus. Then if they be true, our Lord had a body.

This discourse of Theodoret is so plaine, as I neede to adde no exposition thereof, to declare what his iudge∣ment was. As for the authoritie of Anselmus, which hee adioyneth, there is no more reason why we should ad∣mit it, then why Maister Heskins will not receiue the au∣thoritie of Cranmer, which was Archbishop of Canter∣burie as well as Anselmus. Hee anueth also a saying of Oecumenius, but both bicause he is a late writer, and his wordes in a manner are the same that he alledged out of Theodoret, of whom it seemeth that Oecumenius bor∣rowed them, I omit them as already aunswered, in aun∣swere to Theodoret.

The three and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the next text of S. Paule, which is, Let euery man examine him selfe, and so let him eate.* 1.108

In this Chapter Maister Heskins promiseth to teach men howe to examine them selues,* 1.109 that they may receiue worthily. And two things he requireth in due examina∣tion, vprightnesse of faith, and puritie of life. And this faith hee determineth to be the Apostolique and Catho∣lique faith, which must be learned of hearing, as Saint Paule saith, Faith commeth of hearing, and as he saith, it must bee learned of the Elders, and so bee continued by tradition. But Saint Paule saith: Hearing must be of the worde of God, for Elders may erre, as well as youngers, but the worde of GOD can not erre, neither can he erre that followeth the doctrine of the worde of GOD in a∣ny thing.

Vnto purenesse of life he requireth confession, alledging the confession of Augspurge for the confirmation there∣of, as though Christian confession and the Popish shrift, were all one. As fond it is, that he saith, the Apostles were instructed by Christe in the faith of the sacrament before the institution thereof, by the miracle of the fiue loaues, and in purenesse of life by washing of his disci∣ples feete. Where yet was neither contrition, confession, nor satisfaction. After this he rayleth vpon Luther, for saying that onely faith maketh men pure and worthie to receiue, as though by so saying, he did exclude the fruites of repentance and reformation of manners, which neces∣sarily do followe of a true and liuely faith, which onely maketh vs righteous in the sight of God, and worthie re∣ceiuers by reputation or acceptation, which in the con∣clusion, Maister Heskins himselfe confesseth to be all the worthines, that any man hath or can haue, to be partaker of the body and bloud of Christ.

* 1.110The foure and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the Fathers vpon the same text with Saint Hierome and Saint Chryso∣stome:

* 1.111S. Hierome is alledged in 1. Cor. 11. Si in linteum vel vat sordidum non illud mittere audeat &c. If a man dare not put that thing into a soule cloth or vessell, howe much more in a defiled hart, which vncleannesse God aboue all things detesteth, and which is the only iniurie that can be done to his body? For euen therefore did Io∣seph that righteous man burie the Lordes body? wrapped in a cleane linnen cloth, in a newe tombe, prefiguring that they which should receiue the Lords body, should haue both a cleane minde and a new. M. Heskins saith, these wordes make plaine for the pre∣sence of Christ, in that Hierome saith, we receiue the bo∣dy of Christe. And who denyeth either the presence of Christ, or that we receiue the body of Christ in the sacra∣ment? Only we differ, whether Christ be present bodily, and whether we receiue his body after a corporall man∣ner, or after a spirituall or heauenly manner. It is pitie he

can not see in Hieromes wordes, that Christes body must be receiued in a cleane sort, as in a cleane vessell. And whereas Maister Heskins translateth mittere illud, to put that body into a foule cloth or vessell, it is maruell he considered not, that which aunswereth in similitude to a foule vessell, namely a foule heart. He thought by that translation, or rather falsification, to make it seeme, that wicked men receiue the body of Christe with the mouth, but his authour saith, with a filthie heart, which is the only iniurie that can be done to the body of Christe, therefore he speaketh of the wicked presuming to receiue the sacrament of his body and bloud, not affirming that they do it in deede. For vpon these wordes, He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily, eateth and drinketh his owne damnation, he saith:

Dupliciter reus effectus, presumptionis sci∣licet & peccati: Being made twise guiltie, namely of pre∣sumption and sinne: and vpon those words:

He shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of our Lorde.] hee saith:

Quia tanti mysterij sacramentum pro vili despexerit: bicause he hath despised the sacrament of so great a mysterie as no∣thing worth.

But Maister Heskins citeth another place of Saint Hie∣rome, against y^e licentious doctrine of Luther, as he saith, that would haue none other preparation but onely faith: also to maintaine his carnall presence: Lib. 1. Apoll. contra Iouinian. Probet se vnusquis{que} &c. Let euery man examine him self, and so let him come to the Lords body: He would not (saith he) call it the body of Christe, if it were but bread. Howe often shall I tell him, that it is one thing to say, it is breade, an other thing to say, it is but breade. The for∣mer we say, and also that it is Christes body: the latter we vtterly deny.

But Saint Hierome more at large is cited, in 1. Cor. 11. vpon these wordes of Saint Paule: Who so euer shall eate of this breade, and drinke of this cup of the Lorde vn∣worthily, shall be guiltie: of the body and bloud of our Lorde: Sicut scriptum est: Omnis mundus manducabit &c. As it is written, Euery cleane person shall eate it, and againe: The

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

vncleane soule that shall eate it, shall be rooted out from his people. And our Lorde him selfe saith: If before the altar thou shalt re∣member, that thy brother hath any thing against thee, leaue thy gif•• before the altar, and goe and be reconciled to thy brother. There∣fore the conscience must first be searched, if it doe in nothing repre∣hend vs, and so we ought either to offer, or to communicate. There be some that say, he doth not here forbid an vnworthie person from the holy thing, but him that receiueth vnworthily. If therefore the worthie person comming vnworthily he drawne backe, howe much more the vnworthy person which can not receiue worthily? Wher∣fore it behoueth the idle person to cease from vices, that he may ho∣lily receiue the holy body of our Lord.

In these wordes Maister Heskins noteth the preparati∣on required, against Luthers onely faith, and the thing receiued to be the holy body of our Lorde. I haue aun∣swered before, that Luthers onely faith doth not exclude, but of necessitie drawe with it all things requisite to a due preparation. And that the holy body of our Lorde is re∣ceiued of the faithfull, wee doe willingly confesse, but not of the vnfaithfull and wicked persons. For the same Hierome in the Chapter before cited, vpon this say∣ing of the Apostle, This is my body, writeth thus:

Qui manducat corpus meum, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet & ego in eo. Vnde agnoscere se debet quisquis Christi cor∣pus edit, aut sanguinem bibit, ne quid indignum ei faciat cuius cor∣pus effectus est. Hee that eateth my body and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him. Wherefore hee ought to knowe him selfe, who so euer either ea∣teth the body of Christe, or drinketh his bloud, that hee doe nothing vnworthily, to him whose body hee is made.

This sentence plainely declareth, both howe the bo∣dy and bloud of Christe are eaten and dronken, and of whome, namely, they are so receiued, as hee that recei∣ued them is made the body of Christe, that is of neces∣sitie spiritually, and they are receiued of them, in whome Christe dwelleth, and they in him, therefore of no wic∣ked men.

Nowe let vs heare Chrysostome whom hee citeth in foure places, but the two first are one compt In 1. Cor. 11. Probet seipsum &c. Let a man examine himselfe, whiche thing also he sayeth in the second Epistle: proue your selues whether you be in the faith: examine your owne selues, not as we doe now•• comming rather for the times sake, then of any earnest de∣sire of the minde. Neither doe we come as full of compun∣ction prepared to purge out our vices, but we consider that wee may bee at the solemnities when all men are presente. But Paule doeth not so commaunde, but he knewe one time in whiche we should come to the purenesse of communication and conscience. For if we would neuer communicate at a sensible table, if wee be sicke of an ague, and doe abounde with humours, least we should be caste away: muche more wickednesse it is to touche this table, being intangled with noysome lustes, which are more greeuous then feuers. And when I speake of noysome lustes, I speake of lustes of the bodie, and of money, and of anger, and of wrath, and plainely all lustes that be naught. All which he that commeth to receiue, must auoide, and so touche that pure sacrifice, not to be slouthfully disposed, nor miserably to be compelled for the solemnities sake to come. Neither againe beeing penitent and pre∣pared, to be hindered because there is no solemnitie. For solem∣nitie is an euident declaration of good workes, purenesse of soule, certeintie of life, whiche thinges if thou hast, thou mayest al∣wayes celebrate a solemnitie, and alwayes come, therefore (sayth he) let a man examine him selfe, and so let him eate. It fol∣loweth immediately:

Non iubet vt alter alteri probetur, sed ipse sibi, non publicum faciens iudicium, & sine teste argu∣tum. He doth not commaunde that one should be exa∣mined of an other, but eache man of him selfe, making the iudgement not publike, and the accusation without witnesse. Maister Heskins alledged the place to proue the necessitie of preparation, which no man denieth, but these last words of Chrysostome doe clearly ouerthrow auricular confession, which Maister Heskins comp∣teth for a necessarie parte of repentance.

He noteth fur∣ther, that the sacrament is called of him a pure sacrifice, and the bodie of Christ. How it is called either a sacrifice,

or the body of Christ, we haue often shewed before, yet he will presse vs, with an other place, out of his Hom. Oporte•• haereses, &c. Deinde vbi multum, &c. Then when he had dispu∣ted much of those, which vnworthily are partakers of the mysteries, and had gre••uously rebuked them and shewed, that they should suf∣fer the same punishment, that they did which had slaine Christe, if they receiue his bloud and body without examination & rashly, he turneth againe his communication vnto the matter in hande.

Of these wordes M. Heskins will needes gather both his carnall presence, and the presence of Christ vnto the wicked receiuer, but seeing Chrysostome expressely na∣meth the partaking of the mysteries, it is plaine in what sense, y^e bodie of Christ is said to be receiued vnworthily, namely whē the mysteries y^t is his sacrament are receiued vnworthily. But our doctrine (he saith) is without all ground of scriptures, y^t only faith maketh Christe present in the sacrament: in deed meaning either such a presence as he fantasieth included in the sacrament, or suche an on∣ly faith, as he slandereth vs withal, neither do we affirme it, neither is it in the scriptures to be found, but that Christ dwelleth in our heartes by faith, both in the receiuing of the sacramentes, and in receiuing of the word of God, the Apostle teacheth vs, Eph. 3. and our sauiour Christ testi∣fieth, Ioan. 6. that whosoeuer eateth his flesh and drin∣keth his bloud hath life euerlasting, euen as he saide be∣fore he that beleeueth in him hath life euerlasting, wher∣vpon Augustine In Ioan. Tract. 26. doeth rightly gather, Credere in eum, hoc est manducare panem viuum: To beleeue in him, that is to eate the bread of life: and Tra. 25. Vt quid paras dentes & ventrem, crede & manducasti. Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie, beleeue and thou hast eaten it.

Yet another place of Chrysostome M. Heskins heapeth vpon vs Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Eph. Considera nunc &c. Consider now what great sobrietie of life those partakers of the olde sacrifice did vse. For what did they not? They were purified euerie time. And doest thou comming to this wholsome sacrifice, which the An∣gels them selues doe receiue with trembling, measure so great a

thing with the compasse of times? With what face wilt thou appeare before the iudgement seate of Christ, which hast beene so bolde with vncleane handes and lippes so impudently to touch his bodie? Thou wouldst not choose to kisse the King if thou hast a stinking mouth: & doest thou shamelesse man, kisse the King of heauen with thy soule so stinking of vices? Surely this maner of thing is a cruell reproche. Tell me wouldest thou take vpon thee to come to so honorable a sa∣crifice with vnwashed handes? I thinke not, but as I coniecture, thou haddest rather altogether to refraine from comming, then to come with foule hands. And whylest thou art so religious in so small a thing, thou commest hauing thy soule defiled with the myre of vi∣ces, and darest thou touch it thou impudent man? Although a man for the vncleanenesse of his handes doe withholde himselfe for a time yet to cleanse his soule, from the filthie puddle of all vices, let him returne altogether. Maister Heskins noteth in this fi∣guratiue speeche, three thinges, first the corporal presence of Christes bodie, that it may be touched with handes or lipps. And he is not ashamed to cite the saying of Christ: handle me and see that a spirite hath no fleshe and bones, as you see we haue: as though any man either by sight or feeling, could discerne Christe corporally present in the sacrament. But what a shamelesse man is this, to vrge the kissing of Christ with a foule mouth, which is a figura∣tiue and vnproper speech, when it followeth, that he is kissed of the wicked with a foule soule? Like impu∣dencie is in the second note, that the bodie of Christe may be touched and receiued of him, that hath a filthie soule, which Chrysostome saith not, but inueyeth vehemently against their presumption, that hauing a filthie soule, would presume to receiue the sacrament. The thirde, that it is an wholsome sacrifice, which the Angels do honour, doth no more proue the corporall presence of Christ on earth, then the same Authors wordes soone after do proue the corporal presence of the receiuers in heauen.

Dic quae∣so si rex quispiam praecepisset ac dixisset, si quis istud vel istud fe∣cerit, mensa mea abstineat, an non huius gratia omnia fecissetis? In coelot nos vocauit Deus, ad mensam magni & admirandi Regis, & recusamus, & moras nectimus, ad rem tantam nec festinantes, nec

accurrentes? Tel me I pray thee If any King had comman∣ded and said: if any man haue done this or that, let him not come to my table, wouldest not thou haue done any thing for his sake? God hath called vs into heauen, vnto the table of the great and wonderfull King, and doe we refuse, and make delayes, neither making haste nor com∣ming to so great and excellent a matter?

This place of Chrysostome doth teach vs, that Christes bodie commeth not downe corporally to vs, but that we are called vp in∣to heauen, to receiue him there spiritually by faith. This is in deede a great and wonderfull mysterie, which Chry∣sostome doeth garnish with many figures (as he was an eloquent preacher) to make the people to haue due reue∣rence thereof.

Neither is Luthers doctrine one hayre breadth diffe∣ring from Chrysostoms iudgement concerning the prepa∣ration necessarie for all them, that shall receiue the sacra∣ment worthily, howsoeuer it pleaseth Maister Heskins neuer to haue done railing and reuiling him, & charging him with y^t, which I thinke the holy man neuer thought, certeine I am he neuer did teach, but the contrarie. And because this is the last testimonie he citeth out of Chry∣sostome, I thought good to set downe one place also di∣rectly ouerthrowing his transubstantiation, for which he striueth so egerly.

It is written, Ad Caesa. monachum. Et Deus & homo est Christus: Deus propter impassibilitatem: homo propter passionem: vnus filius, vnus Dominus: idem ipse procul dubio, v∣nitarum naturarum vnam dominationem, vnam potestatem possi∣dens, etiamsi non consubstantialiter existant & vnaquaeque in∣commixta proprietatis conseruas agnitionem, propter hoc quod in∣confusa sunt duo. Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus: Diuina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione, etsi natura panis in ipso remansit & non duo corpora sed vnum filij corpus predicatt••r: sic & haec Diuina inundante corporis natura vnum filium, vnam perso∣nam vtraque haec secerunt. Christe is both God and man, God because of his impassibilitie, man for his passion: be∣ing

one sonne and one Lord: he himselfe doubtlesse pos∣sessing one domination, one power of the two natures being vnited, although they haue not their being consub∣stantially, and either of them vnmingled doeth keepe the acknowledging of his propertie, because they are two vnconfounded. For euen as the bread before it be sanctified is called of vs bread, but when the grace of God doth sanctifie it, by meanes of the priest, it is in deede deliuered from the name of bread, and is comp∣ted worthie of the name of our Lordes bodie, although the nature of the bread hath remained in it, and it is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne, so both these, the diuine nature ouerflowing the body haue made one sonne, one person.

I knowe Stephan Gardener when he can not aunswere this place denyeth it to bee written by Iohn Chryso∣stome, ascribing it to an other Iohn of Constantinople, but seeing it cā not be denied to be an ancient authoritie, it is sufficient to proue the doctrine of transubstantiati∣on, to be newe and vnknowen to the Churche of God in the elder times.

The fiue and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same by Isi∣chius and S. Augustine.* 1.112

To garnishe his Booke, with the name of Isichius,* 1.113 he continueth his most vniust and slaunderous quarrell a∣gainst Luther, as though he denied all preparation re∣quisite to the woorthie receiuing of this holie sacra∣ment, which is so impudent an vntruth, that all the world doth see it, And God in time will reuenge it. Isichius is cited In 26. Leuit. Probet autem &c. Let a man examine him selfe and so let him eate of that bread, and drinke of that cuppe. What manner of examination doeth he speake of? It is this, that in a cleane heart and conscience, and to him that inten∣deth to repent those thinges wherein he hath offended, men should participate of the holy things to the washing away of their sinnes. M. Hesk. would make men beleeue, that Luthers doctrine

were contrarie to this saying, and multiplieth his slaun∣ders against him, which seeing they be without al proofe, yea and manifest proofe to the contrarie, it shall suffice to denie them, and so to consider what he will bring foorth of S. Augustine.

He citeth him Ad Iulianum Ep. 111. Whereas in deede ther is no such Epistle in any good edition of Augustine, and the treatise he speaketh of, may rather be called a Booke then an Epistle for the length of it. But the stile of it, is as like vnto the stile of Augustine, as our Asse is to a Lyon. It hath no inscription to whom it should be dire∣cted, and therefore some say to Iulianus, some to Bonifa∣cius. It beginneth O mi frater, &c. and so continueth in such balde Latine that Erasmus hath not only reiected it out of the number of Augustines Epistles, but also out of his authenticall workes, such iudgement or honestie M. Heskins vseth in citing the fathers, all is fishe that com∣meth to his nette. I will set downe the wordes: Ab ijs pietas, &c. From them let the pietie of our Lorde Iesus Christe deliuer vs, and giue himselfe to be eaten, who saide I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen, he that eateth my flesh, & drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting life in him. But let euerie man before he receiue the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ, exa∣mine himself, and so according to the commandement of the Apostle, let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that vn∣worthily eateth the bodie and bloud of our Lord, eateth and drin∣keth his owne condemnation, making no difference of the bodie of our Lorde. Therefore when we shall receiue, we ought before to haue recourse to confession and repentance, and curiously to searche out all our actions, and if we finde in vs any punishable sinnes, le•• vs hasten quickely to washe them away by confession and true re∣pentance, least we with Iudas the traytor hyding the diuell within vs, doe perish protracting and hyding our sinnes from day to day. And if we haue thought any euill or naughtie thing let vs repent vs of it, and let vs make hast to scrape that speedily out of our heart.

This is the saying of this counterfet and forged Au∣gustine, out of which Maister Heskins gathereth not on∣ly his manner of presence, to be such as the wicked receiue

the bodie & bloud of Christ, but also his auricular con∣fession.

But what the iudgement of the true Augustine is, you haue hearde before concerning the former: as for the later question is neuer touched in all his owne workes. De ciuit. Dei Lib. 21. Cap. 25.

Non dicendum eum manducare cor∣pus Christi, qui in corpore non est Christi. It is not to be saide, that he doth eate the bodie of Christe, which is not in the bodie of Christe. Againe: Vnus panis, vnum corpus multi su∣mus, qui ergo est in eius corporis vnitate, id est, in Christianorum compage membrorum, cuius corporis sacramentum fideles commu∣nicantes de altari sumere consueuerunt, ipse verè dicendus est manducare corpus Christi, & bibere sanguinem Christi. There is one bread we being many are one bodie, he therfore that is in the vnitie of his bodie, that is, in the coniunction of Christian members, the sacrament of which the faithfull communicating are accustomed to receiue from y^e altar, he is truely to be saide to eate the bodie of Christ, and to drinke the bloud of Christ. And againe: Nec isti duo ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi. Vt enim alia taceam, non possunt simul esse & membra Christi & membra meretricis. Deni{que} ipse dicent, Qui manducat carnem meam & bibit sanguinem meum in me manet & ego in eo, ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus sed re∣uera corpus Christi manducare & eius sanguinem bibere: Hoc est enim in Christo manere, vt in illo maneat & Christus. Sic enim hoc dixit tanquam diceret: qui non in me manet, & in quo ego non maneo, non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum, aut bi∣bere sanguinem meum. Neither are those two sortes of men to be saide to eate of the bodie of Christe, because they are not to be accompted among the members of Christe.

For, that I say nothing of other matters, they can not be both the members of Christ, and the members of an harlot. Finally he himselfe saying: he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him, sheweth what it is (not in the sacrament only, but in very deede) to eate the bodie of Christ, & to drinke his bloud. For this it is to abide in Christ, y^e Christ may abide

in him. For so he spake this, as if he had saide: he that a∣bideth not in me, and in whom I doe not abide, let him not say or think that he eateth my body or drinketh my bloud.

Thus much for Saint Augustines iudgement. As for the matter of Auricular confession which Maister Heskins without warrant of Gods worde, is so bolde to call Gods ordinaunce, vpon the authoritie of his forged Augustine, I thinke it not worthie any answere, if any man list to see the three properties of a Ghostly Father, and two commodities of confession, let him resorte to Maister Heskins booke for them. Other reason or autho∣ritie he bringeth none for them, but this Iewde foolishe and barbarous counterfet, whome he called moste falsely and iniuriously S. Augustine.

* 1.114The sixe and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theodoret, and Anselme.

* 1.115Theodoret whom he greatly commendeth, he citeth in 1. Cor. 11. vpon this text in hand. Sic tui ipsius Index, &c. So thou being thine owne iudge exactly iudge thine owne life: searche and examine thy conscience, and then receiue the gifte. As this saying is good and godly, so it excludeth auricular con∣fession, as Chrysostome doth vpon the same place. But that you might knowe what Theodoret meaneth by the gifte, he citeth him in Dialog. 2. Quid appellas donum quod of∣fertur post sanctificationem? Orthodoxus. Corpus Christi, & sanguinem Christ. Eranistes. Et credis te participem fieri Christi corporis & sanguinis? Orthodoxus. Ita credo. What doest thou call the gift, which is offered after sanctification? Orthodoxus. The bodie of Christe and the bloud of Christ. Eranistes. And doest thou beleeue that thou art made partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christe? Orthodoxus. So doe I beleeue.

Thus much Maister Heskins vouchsafeth to rehearse out of Theodoret, and saith it is a plain place for the pro∣claymer, both for reall presence and sacrifice. But howe plaine it is, and howe honestly Maister Heskins rendeth this peece from the rest, to abuse Theodorets name, you

shall perceiue by the whole discourse, which I will set downe.

Orthodoxus. Dic ergo, mystica symbola quae Deo à Dei Sacerdotibus offeruntur, quorumnam symbola esse dicis? Eranistes. Corporis & sanguinis Domini. Orthodoxus. Corporis eius quod verè est, an eius quod verè non est? Eranistes. Quod verè est. Orthodoxus. Optimè. Oportet enim imaginis esse exemplar Archerypum. Etenim pictoret imitantur naturam: & eorum quae videntur pingunt imagines. Eranistes. Verum. Orthodox∣us. Si ergo Diuina mysteria corpus, quod verè est, repraesen∣tant, ergo corpus etiam nunc Domini quoque corpus est, non in Diuinam naturam mutatum, sed impletum Diuina gloria. Era∣nistes. Opportunè accidit vt verba faceres de D••uinis mysterijs. Nam & ex eo ipso tibi ostendam corpus Domini mutari in aliam naturam. Responde ergo ad mea interrogata? Orthodoxus. Respondebo. Eranistes. Quid appellas donum quod offertur ante inuocationem sacerdotis? Orthodoxus. Non oportet ap••rtè di∣cere: est enim verisimile, adesse aliquos mysterijs non initiatos. Eranister. Respondeatur aenigmaticè? Orthodoxus. Id, quod fit ex huiusmodi seminibus nutrimentum. Eranistes. Aliud eti∣am signum quomodo nominamus? Orthodoxus. Commune etiam hoc nomen, quod potus speciem significat. Eranistes. Post san∣ctificationem autem quomodo ea appellas? Orthodoxus. Cor∣pus & sanguinem Christi. Eranistes. Et credis te fieri par∣ticipeni Christi corporis & sanguinis? Orthodoxus. Ita credo. E∣ranistes. Sicut ergo symbola corporis & sanguinis Domini, alia quidem sunt ante inuocationem sacerdotis, & post inuo∣cationem mutantur, & alia siunt: ita etiam corpus Domini post assumptionem mutatur in Diuinam substantiam. Ortho∣doxus. Quae ipse texuisti, retibus captus es. Neque enim signa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à natura sut. Manent enim in priori substantia, figura & forma: & videri & tangi possunt sicut prius. Intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt, & creduntur & adorantur, vt quae illa sint, quae creduntur. Confer ergo imaginem cum exemplari: & videbis similitudi∣nem? Oportet enim figuram esse veritati similem. Illud enim corpus priorem habet formam, & figuram & circumscriptio∣nem & vt semel dicam corporis substantiam.

Immortale autem post resurrectionem factum est, & potentius, quàm vt vlla in illud

cadat corruptio, & interitus, sessione{que} ad dextram Dei digna∣tum est: & ab omni creatura adoratur, vt quod appelletur corpu•• naturae Domini. Eran. Atqui symbolum mysticum priorem muta•• appellationem. Neque enim amplius nominatur, quod vocabatur prius: sed corpus appellatur. Oportet ergo etiam veritatem, Deum, & non corpus vocari. Ortho. Ignarus mihi videris esse. Non enim corpus solùm sed etiam panis vitae nominatur. Ita enim Do∣minus ipse appellanit. Porro autem ipsum corpus Diuinum cor∣pus appellanus, & viuificum, & Dominicum: docentes non esse commune alicuius hominis, sed Domini nostri Iesu Christi: qui est Deus & homo. Orthodoxus. Say then, the mysticall tokens which are offered to God by the Priestes of God, of what thinges sayest thou they are tokens? Eran. Of the body & bloud of our Lorde. Orth. Of that bodie which truely is? Or of such a bodie as truely is not? Eran. Which truly is. Ortho. Very well. For it behoueth the patterne to be example of the image. For painters doe followe nature: and do paint the images of those thinges which are seene. Eran. It is true. Orth. Then if the Diuine mysteries doe represent that bodie which is a bodie in deede, therefore our Lordes bodie is euen nowe also a-bodie not beeing chaunged into his Diuine nature, but filled with Diuine glorie. Eran. It came well to passe that thou diddest speake of the Diuine mysteries. For euen out of the fame will I shewe vnto thee, that our Lordes bodie is chaunged into another nature. Therefore aunswere vnto my questi∣ons. Orth. I will answere. Eran. What doest thou call the gifte, which is offered, before the inuocation of the Priest? Orth. I may not speake it openly, for it is like that some are present, that are not admitted to the mysteries. Eran. Then answere darkely. Orth. That meate which is made of such kinde of seedes. Eran. And how doe we cal the other signe? Ortho. That is also a common name which signifieth a kinde of drinke. Eran. But after sancti∣fication how doest thou call them? Ortho. The bodie and bloud of Christ. Eran. And doest thou beleeue that thou art made partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ? Orth. So I beleeue. Eran. Therefore euen as the tokens

of the bodie and bloud of our Lord are other things be∣fore the inuocation of the priest, and after the inuocation are changed and made other thinges: euen so the Lordes bodie after y^e assumption is changed into his Diuine sub∣stance. Orth. Thou art taken with thine owne nets which thou haste made. For the mysticall signes after sanctifi∣cation, do not departe from their nature. For they remain in their former substance, figure, and shape: they may be both seene and handled, euen as before. But they are vn∣derstoode to be those thinges, which they are made to be, & are beleeued, & reuerenced, as those which are the same thinges that they are beleeued to be. Compare therefore the image with the examples, and thou shalt see the simi∣litude. For the figure ought to be like to the trueth. For that same bodie hath the former shape and fashion, & cir∣cumscription, and to speake at once the substance of a bo∣die. But it is made immortall after his resurrection, and more mightie, then that any corruption or destruction can befall vnto it, and it is made worthie to sit at y^e right hand of God: and is worshipped of euerie creature, as that which is called the naturall bodie of our Lorde. Eran. But yet the mysticall token changeth the former name. For it is no more called that it was called before: but it is called the bodie. Therefore the trueth also ought to be called, God, and not a bodie. Orth. Thou seemest vnto me to be ignorant. For it is not only called the body, but also the bread of life. For so our Lorde himselfe called it. But his very bodie, we call a Diuine bodie, & a quic∣kening, and our Lordes bodie: teaching that it is not a common bodie of any man, but of our Lord Iesus Christ, which is both God and man. By this discourse of Theo∣doretus, you may see both howe syncerely Maister Hes∣kins hath cited his authoritie, and also what the writers minde was both concerning transubstantiation and the carnall manner of presence.

The authoritie of Anselmus Bishop of Canterburie, I passe ouer as I haue done al∣wayes with Burgesses of the lower house. But Maister Heskins affirmeth that the preparation we are comman∣ded

to make for the receipt of the sacrament, & the dan∣ger of vnworthie receiuing, do argue the reall presence: for such preparation and perill should not be for recei∣uing a peece of bread. And if we aunswere, that by faith we receiue Christs bodie & bloud verily, but yet spiritu∣ally, he will confute vs by that wee affirme, the fathers to haue receiued Christ as verily as we doe, who yet had not like preparation, nor like punishment for vnwor∣thie receiuing. For their preparation was onely in out∣warde things, their punishment onely bodily and tem∣porall.

But who is so grosse of vnderstanding, as M. Heskins, that will not acknowledge that the fathers of the olde Testament by that purifying and preparation in bodily things, were admonished that inward & spiritually pure∣nesse was more necessarie? And wheras he sayeth, the vn∣worthie receiuers of those auncient sacraments were pu∣nished only with temporal death, how often doth those threatenings occurre in the lawe: That soule shalbe roo∣ted out from my face: that soule shall perish from his people, he hath broken my couenant &c? Wil ye make vs beleeue that God threateneth onely a temporall and not an eternall death to the contemners of his ordinan∣ces? Finally, when the same punishment of condemnati∣on remaineth to them y^t receiue baptisme vnworthily, which abydeth them that receiue the Lordes supper vn∣worthily, how will hee proue a reall presence more in the one sacrament then in the other?

* 1.116The seuen and fiftieth Chapter expoundeth this text: For this cause manie are weake and sicke, &c. by Origen & Saint Am∣brose.

* 1.117Origen is cited in Psalm. 37. Iudicium Dei parui pendis? &c. Settest thou little by the iudgement of God? and despisest thou the church admonishing thee? Thou are not afraide to communi∣cate the bodie of Christ, comming to the Eucharistie, as cleane and pure, as though nothing vnworthie were in thee, and in all these thou thinkest that thou shalt escape the iudgement of God. Thou

doest not remember that which is written: that for this cause ma∣ny among you are weake & sick, & many are fallen a sleepe. Why are many sicke? Because they iudge not them selues, neither exa∣mine themselues, neither do they vnderstand what it is to com∣municate with the church, or what it is to come to so great and so excellent sacraments. They suffer that, which men that be sicke of agues are wont to suffer, when they eat the meates of whole men, and so cast away them selues.

Here Maister Heskins noteth, firste, that Origen calleth the sacrament in plaine wordes the bodye of Christe, therefore it is no breade, figure, or signe, of the bodie of Christ. Secondly, he calleth it mysteries, there∣fore it is two sacraments, & whole Christ bodie & bloud, is vnder eche kind. Thirdly, sicke men sometimes will eate whole mens meate, therefore euil men receiue the bodie of Christ. These be all as good reasons as y^t▪ comon iest: The staffe standeth in the corner, therefore y^e good man is not at home. As for the saying of Origen, we re∣ceiue it willingly, for hee speaketh of such receiuers as Saint Paule doth, that is not wicked and reprobate per∣sons, but such as for their offences were chastened of the Lord, that they might not be condemned with y^e worlde. But he will presse vs with a more vehement place of O∣rigen: Hom. 13. in 25. Exod. Volo vos admonere, &c. I will admonish you with the examples of our own religion. You that are wont to be present at the diuine mysteries doe knowe howe you re∣ceiue the Lords bodie, you giue heede with all warinesse and reue∣rence, that no little portion of it should fall downe, that no parte of the consecrated gift should fall away, for you beleeue your sel∣ues to be guiltie, and you beleeue rightly, if any of it should fall from you through negligence. If then you vse so great wari∣nesse about the conseruing of his bodie, and worthily do vse it, howe do you thinke it is lesse offence to haue neglected the worde of God then his bodie?

Maister Heskins noteth two things in this sentence: First, a playne saying for the proclaimer, that without mention of figure, signe or sacramentall bread, hee say∣eth the people receiued the bodie of Christe.

Secondly, that he commendeth the reuerend vsage of the same. Concerning the first, there is expresse mention of the Diuine mysteries, and not that onely, but then in y^t he calleth the sacrament the bodie of Christe, it appea∣reth both that there is bread, and that it is not so his bo∣die, as the Papistes do deeme. For whereof be those litle portions, that may fall away, partes? of the breade, or of the bodie of Christe? I thinke he is not so madde to say, that peeces may fall off from Christes holy and naturall bodie. Then it remaineth, that they bee peeces or crommes of breade that may fall away. And seeing that whereof peeces may fall away is called the bodye of Christe, it is manifest that hee meaneth not the naturall bodie of Christe to be corporally present, from which no peeces can fall away. Finally, seeing Origen maketh it as great a fault to neglect the worde of God, as to ne∣glect the sacrament, it followeth that Christe is none o∣therwise present in the sacrament, then in his worde, & that is spiritually, and after an heauenly manner. As for the other matter, that Origen alloweth the reuerence of the people in handling the sacrament, we also do al∣lowe the same, so farre as neither idolatrie nor supersti∣tion be mainteined. And whereas he raileth against vs, for our vsage of that breade and wine, which remaineth after the ministration of the communion, he sheweth his wisedome and charitie. For that, which remaineth on y^e table when the ministration is ended, is no more the sacrament then it was before the ministration began: and therefore may be vsed as all other bread, whatsoeuer the Popes decrees are to the contrarie. Now let vs heare what he can say out of S. Ambrose against vs. He citeth him in 1. Cor. 11. Vt verum probaret, &c. That he might proue that there is a iudgement to come of them which receiue the Lords bodie, he doth nowe shewe a certeine image of the iudgement vp∣pon them, which vnaduisedly had receiued the bodie of our Lord, while they were punished with feuers and infirmities, and many dyed, that by them the rest might learne, and being terrified by the example of a fewe, they might be reformed, knowing that to

receiue the bodie of our Lorde negligently, is not left vnpunished, but if his punishment be here deferred, that he shalbe more grie∣uously handled hereafter, because he hath contemned the exam∣ple. Here againe M. Heskins chargeth Ambrose to saye, that the sacrament is the naturall bodie of Christe, and that it hath bene receiued of euil men, when hee sayeth neither of both: for he speaketh of them that were faith∣full, and that might bee reformed, whereas the wicked reprobates be vncurable. And as for the carnal manner of presence, howe farre he was from it, let his owne wor∣des in the same place declare. Vppon this texte: You shewe the Lordes death vntill he come.

Quia enim mor∣te Domini liberati sumus, huius rei memores, in edendo & po∣tando, carnem & sanguinem, quę pro nobis oblata sunt, significa∣mus: Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lord, being mindfull of this thing, in eating and drinking, we do signifie his fleshe and bloud, which were offered for vs: And in the same place a little after: Testamentum ergo sanguine constitutum est, quia beneficij Diuini sanguis testis est: in cuius typum nos calicem mysticum sanguinis, ad tuitionem corporis & animae nostrę percipimus. The testament there∣fore is established by bloud, because his bloud is a wit∣nesse of the diuine benefite, in figure of whose bloude, wee doe receiue the mysticall cuppe to the preseruation both of our bodie and of our soule. These sentences are plaine to declare to any man that wilbe satisfied with reason, that this writer acknowledged, not a carnall, but a spirituall manner of presence.

But Maister Heskins will vrge vs with another place that followeth: Deuoto animo & cum timore accedendum ad communionem docet, vt sci∣at mens reuerentiam se debere ei, ad cuius corpus sumendum ac∣cedit: He teacheth vs to come to the communion with a deuoute minde and with feare, that the minde may knowe that it oweth reuerence to him, whose bodie it commeth to receiue.

Maister Heskins sayeth, here be plaine termes for the proclaimer: in deede, I woulde wish no playner for the spirituall manner of presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament, because this author sayeth, the minde must

yeeld reuerence to him whose body it cōmeth to receiue. If the minde receiue the body of Christ, it must needs be spiritually, for the minde can receiue nothing corporal∣ly.

And there followe as plaine termes in the next sen∣tence immediatly: Hoc enim apud se debet iudicare, quia Domi∣nus est cuius in mysterio sanguinem petat, qui est testis beneficij Dei. For this it ought to consider with it selfe, that it is the Lorde whose blood it drinketh in a mysterie, which blood is a witnesse of the benefite of God.

In the for∣mer sentence the minde receiued the body of Christ, now in this it drinketh the blood of Christ in a mystery, which is a witnesse or assuraunce of the benefite of God, name∣ly the redemption of the world by the blood of his one∣ly sonne our Lorde Iesus Christ.

* 1.118The eight and fiftie chapter endeth the exposition of the same text by Theophylact and Anselme.

* 1.119Theophylact saith nothing but of the temporall pu∣nishment that God layeth vppon the contemners of his mysterie. Anselme borrowed his wordes of Ambrose ci∣ted in the last chapter. And both Theophylact and An∣selme, though great prelates in their lyfe, yet in this ac∣compt of Master Heskins, they are burgesses of the low∣er house, and liued much about a time.

To fill vp the chapter, he citeth certaine miracles re∣ported by Sainte Cyprian Sermone, 5. De lapsis: to shewe howe God punisheth the vnworthie receiuing of the sa∣crament, although they doe not all shewe it, for the first example is of an infante that coulde not brooke the sa∣cramentall wyne, after it had tasted of breade and wine offred to Idolles, where the negligence of the parentes was rather punished then the vnworthinesse of the child. The whole story is at large set downe in the last chapi∣ter of the second booke.

The seconde example is of a woman, who receiuinge vnworthily, was striken with sodaine death.

The third of a woman who kept the sacrament in her coffer, and when she woulde with vnworthie handes open the cof∣fer, in which was the holy thing of the Lorde, there sprange out a fire by which she was so terryfied, that she durst not touche it. A iust punishment for her reseruing of that, which should haue bene receiued. The fourth miracle is of a man who presuming to receiue the sacrament vnworthily, coulde neuer eate the holy thing of God nor handle it. For when he had opened his hand, he sawe nothing in it but ashes. This is a maruei∣lous thing saith Master Heskins. Whereby is declared that God is not willing that his holy sacrament shoulde be receiued of a fil∣thie sinner, for so muche as sodeinly it pleaseth him to chaunge it into ashes, he himselfe departinge from it. In deede this is a straunge and miraculous transubstantiation. But if I might be so bolde to aske M. Heskins, what is that which is chaunged, if there be no bread in the sacrament? God he saieth is departed from it, there remaineth the acei∣dentes onely of breade and wine, and so belike the acci∣dentes are chaunged into ashes. O monstrous muta∣tion.

But why doeth not M. Hes. gather by this miracle, that if the sacrament could not be receiued of a wicked man much lesse the body of Christ, and so doeth Cyprian ga∣ther of it. Documento vnius ostensum est, Dominum recedere cum negatur, nec immerentibus prodesse ad salutem quod sumitur, cum gratia salutaris in cinerem sanctitate fugiente mutetur. By example of this one it is shewed, that the Lorde doeth depart when he is denyed, neither doeth that which is receiued profit to salua∣tion the vnworthie persons, seeinge the wholsome giftes, the holi∣nesse departing from it, is chaunged into ashes. Cyprian gathe∣reth by the chaunge of the outwarde sacramente, before it was receyued, that Christ departeth from them y^t denye him, and is not receyued at all. But M. Hes. would learne forsoth, what one thing is in the sacrament receiued that profiteth & hurteth, he aunswereth it cānot be the bread & wine (for they profit alike to al men) therfore it must needes be the body of Christ: a wholsome conlusion, by whiche the bodye of Christe is made a hurtefull thing:

but if it please him to vnderstand our aunswere, we deny that there is any thing included in the bread or wine, that either profiteth or hurteth to saluation. It is the grace and spirite of God, which worketh as well by this sacrament our spirituall nourishing, as by baptisme our spirituall regeneration. And that, which hurteth the wicked man, is in him selfe, and not in the sacrament, euen his owne wickednesse and detestable presumption, to defile the ho∣ly sacraments of God. Wherefore it is diuelish and blas∣phemous, that M. Heskins affirmeth the body of Christ to be hurtful to any, bicause the vnworthy receiuing of the sacrament, hurteth him that receiueth, by his owne acte, and not by any thing that is receiued.

* 1.120The nine and fiftieth Chapter treateth of these wordes of Saint Paul. We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones: by Irenaeus and Hilarius.

* 1.121Irenaeus is cited Lib. 5. Quomodo carnem negant esse ca∣pacem &c. Howe doe they deny that the flesh is able to receiue the gift of God, that is, eternall life, which is nourished with the bloud and body of Christ, and is made a member of him, euen as the Apo∣stle saith, in that Epistle which is to the Ephesians: Bicause we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, speaking this not of any spirituall and inuisible man (for a spirite hath neither flesh nor bones) but of that disposition which is after the nature of man, which consisteth of flesh, and sinewes, and bones, which is nourished of the cup, which is his bloud, and is increased of the bread, which is his body. That both our bodies and soules are nourished vnto eternall life, by eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christe, we doe most willingly confesse and ac∣knowledge. But withall we affirme, that as our bodyes are not naturally nourished and increased with the body of Christ, but spiritually after a diuine manner, so onely spiritually and after a diuine manner, we doe eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ, and not after a car∣nall, naturall, or papisticall manner. And this is the plaine sense and meaning of Irenaeus his wordes. As our bodyes

are naturally nourished and increased with the bread and wine of the sacrament, so are our bodyes and soules spiri∣tually nourished and increased vnto eternall life. For M. Heskins him selfe denyeth, that our bodyes are naturally nourished and increased with the body and bloud of Christ, when he saith, The flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh, which must needes be, if we vnderstand that Irenaeus saith, our flesh is nourished and increased of the body of Christ, but he saith, of the bread which is his body, and of the cup which is his bloud, our flesh is nourished and in∣creased. Therefore there is naturall and very bread in the sacrament, for our flesh can not be nourished and increa∣sed by accidentes, euen as certainely, as there is the body and bloud of Christe after a spirituall manner dispensed vnto the faithfull, which are the members of Christ, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. Therefore also the wic∣ked receiue not the body and bloud of Christe, bicause they are no members of his body. That I haue not in this interpretation varied from the mynde of Irenaeus, his plaine words shall testifie, Lib. 4. Cap. 34.

Quemadmodum enim qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & coelesti: sic & corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam, iam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. Euen as that bread which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God, is not now comon bread, but the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing, consisting of two thinges, an earthly thing and an heauenly thing: so also our bodyes recei∣uing the Eucharistie, are not nowe corruptible, hauing the hope of resurrection. The place that Maister Heskins citeth out of Cyril in 15. Ioan.

Non poterat aliter &c. agreeth in effect with Irenaeus, and is set downe and aunswered in the second Booke and foureteenth Chapter, whither I remit the reader.

The places of Hilarius are also aunswered in the 20. and 24. Chapters of the second Booke, yet bicause hee applyeth them to an other text, I will set them downe here also. They are in the eight Booke De trinitate, though

Maister Heskins quote not the place: Eos qui inter patrem & filium &c. I aske them that bring in the vnitie of will betweene the Father and the Sonne, whether Christe be nowe in vs by veritie of nature, or by agreement of will? For if the worde was verily made flesh, and if we doe verily receiue the worde made flesh in the Lords meate, howe is he not to be thought to abide in vs naturally, who being borne man, did both take our nature nowe inseparable vpon him, and also hath admixed the nature of his flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder the sacrament of his flesh to be communicated vnto vs? For so we be all one, bicause the Father is in Christe, and Christ is in vs. Whosoeuer therfore shall deny the Father to be na∣turally in Christ, let him first deny, that he himself is not naturally in Christ, as Christ in him, bicause the Father being in Christe, and Christe in vs, make vs to be one in them. Therefore if Christe haue truely taken vpon him the flesh of our body, and that man which was borne of Marie, was truely Christe, and we doe truely vnder a mysterie receiue the flesh of his body, and by this we shall be one, bi∣cause the Father is in him, and he in vs.

Here Maister Heskins cutteth off the conclusion, which is this: Quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit vnitatis? Howe is the veritie of Will maintained, when the natu∣rall propertie by the sacrament, is a sacrament of perfect vnitie?

Hilarie reasoneth against the Arrians that saide, God was not naturally or essentially in Christe, but by vnitie of wil, as God is in vs, but he proueth that Christe is naturally ioyned to vs by his incarnation, and doth also communicate his flesh vnto vs by the holy sacrament, which (as hee expoundeth him selfe in the last sentence, that M. Hes. hath cut off) is a sacramēt or mysterie of our perfect vnitie with Christ. Therefore he doth not simply say, y^t we do naturally eat y^e flesh of Christ, but vnder a my¦sterie, vnder a sacrament, by which he meaneth, y^t we doe not eate the flesh of Christ carnally, but spiritually, not after a corporall manner, but after a spirituall maner. Fi∣nally he saith, that Christe is so naturally in vs, as we are naturally in Christ, but we are onely spiritually in Christ, therefore Christ is onely spiritually in vs. For naturally

as he vseth it for essentially, is not contrarie to spiritual∣ly. But he alledgeth another place of Hilarie, where he af∣firmeth, that Christ is in vs both carnally and corporally: Haec idcirco a nobis commemorata sunt &c. These thinges are for this cause spoken of vs, bicause the heretiques falsely affirming an vnitie of Will onely to be betweene the Father and the Sonne, did vse the example of our vnitie with GOD, as though we being vnited to the Sonne, and by the same to the Father, onely by obe∣dience and will of religion, no propertie of naturall communion should be giuen by the sacrament of his naturall flesh and bloud, seing that both by the honor of the sonne of God giuen to vs; and by the sonne of God carnally abiding in vs, and we being corporally and inseparably vnited in him, the mysterie of the true and naturall vnitie is to be declared. By the words of corporally and car∣nally, he meaneth essentially, as he did before by the word naturally, both bicause Christe tooke our nature verily vpon him, and also doth communicat vnto vs by the same, his eternitie. And that he meaneth not carnally and cor∣porally as the Papistes doe, it is manifest by that he saith, we are not onely corporally, but also inseparably vnited in him. For there, corporall coniunction maketh not an inseparable vnion, bicause they say, that Christ is as natu∣rally; carnally, and corporally vnited to the wicked, from whome he is separated, as to the godly, wherefore it is left of necessitie, that this naturall, carnall, corpo∣rall, or essentiall dwelling of Christe in vs, is not after a naturall manner, but after a wonderfull manner, not after a fleshly but after a spirituall manner, not after a bodily, but after a diuine and heauenly manner. To con∣clude, howe plaine these places be for the proclamer, and plaine against Maister Heskins the exclamer, let the rea∣ders iudge. The proclamer doth admit these sayings ac∣cording to the minde of the writers, and not according to Maister Heskins falsifications and gloses.

The Sixtieth Chapter treateth vpon this text of S. Paule to the Hebruer: We haue an altar &c.* 1.122

The text is written Heb. 13. We haue an altar, of which is it not lawful for them to eat, which serue in the tabernacle. By which he meaneth, that none can be partakers of the sacrifice of Christe, that remaine in the ceremoniall obseruation of the Leuiticall lawe. But Maister Heskins vnderstandeth it, that we haue the body of Christe in the sacrament, of which it is not lawfull for any Iewe abiding in Moses lawe to eate. And this he wil proue by Isichius and The∣ophylact. Isichius he citeth in Leuit. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Omnem sanguinem &c. He commaunded all the rest of the bloud of the calfe to be powred out about the foote of the altar of the burnt of∣fering, which is in the tabernacle of witnesse. Let vs againe vnder∣stand, the altar of the burned sacrifice, to be the body of Christ. For as he is the Priest and the sacrifice, so he is the altar. And knowe that S. Paule doth vnderstand the intelligible altar to be the body of Christ: for he saith we haue an altar, of which they haue no power to eate, which doe serue in the tabernacle, that is to say, the body of Christ. For of that it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate M. Heskins would haue it plaine, that he meaneth the reall presence of Christes body in the sacrament, when neither the Apo∣stle, nor Isichius speake one worde of the sacrament, but of the spirituall participation of the sacrifice of Chri∣stes death, for he saith, Christ is the Priest, the sacrifice, and the altar. Therefore hee speaketh of that sacrifice that Christe him selfe did offer, not of that sacrifice, which the Papistes do imagine their blasphemous Priestes do offer. And whereas M. Heskins trifleth of M. Hoopers glose of edere and credere, that, to eate is to beleeue, although to eat the flesh of Christe be the effect of faith, bicause that by faith we eate Christ, yet may we more aptly say, to eate is to beleeue, then the Papistes say, that men may eat Christ which doe not beleeue at all. And it is a very childish so∣phisme, out of which M. Heskins woulde gather, that if to eate be to beleeue, and it be not lawfull for the Iewes to eate Christe, it is not lawfull for them to beleeue in Christ. For continuing in Iudaisme they can no more be∣leeue in Christ, then they can eate the flesh of Christe. But contrariwise by their doctrine, if the sacrament be giuen

to a Iewe, that is no Christian, yet he eateth the body of Christ as he that beleeueth in Christe. The testimonie of Theophylact, although it make little for M. Hesk. yet as alwayes before, so nowe at the last I will refuse to exa∣mine, bicause I will not yeeld to his authoritie, he being a late writer. But M. Hesk. noteth vpon y^e Apostles words, We haue an altar, that y^e Church hath but one altar, which is the body of Christ, and that is very true, of the true Ca∣tholique Church: but the hereticall and schismaticall Church of Rome hath many thousand altars, which they can not say are all one altar, although they cauill that their infinite multitudes of hostes, are one sacrifice of Christes body. Therefore the Church of Rome is not the Catholique Church of Christe, by his owne reason. And the saying of Hierome, which he citeth, Lib 2. in Hose. Cap. 8. and wresteth against vs, doth very aptly condemne him selfe and his felow Papistes for heretiques: Vnum esse altare &c. The Apostle teacheth, that there is in the Church but one altar, and one faith, & one baptisme, which the heretiques forsaking haue set vp to themselues many altars, not to appease God, but to increase the multitude of sinnes, therefore they are not worthie to receiue the lawes of God, seeing they haue despised them, which they haue receiued before. And if they shall speake any thing out of the scrip∣tures, it is not to be compared to the words of God, but to the senses of Ethnikes. These men do offer many sacrifices, and eate the flesh of them, forsaking the only sacrifice of Christ, nor eating his flesh▪ whose flesh is the meat of the beleeuers, whatsoeuer they do counterfeting the order and custom of the sacrifices, whether they giue almes, whe∣ther they promise chastitie, whether they counterfet humilitie, and with feigned flatterings, deceiue simple persons, the Lord will receiue nothing of such sacrifices. We forsake not the only sacrifice of Christ once offred, but our whole trust is in the merits of that sacrifice, therefore we set vp no newe altars. The Pa∣pistes set vp an other sacrifice, and therefore other altars. If our allegation & interpretation of y^e scriptures may not be warranted by the spirite of God, iudging in the same scriptures by other textes, that are plaine and euident: we desire not that any man shall receiue them, as the Papistes

doe, whatsoeuer the Popish Church doth define, though it be contrarie to the expresse word of God. And although wee admitte not that grosse and carnall manner of Chri∣stes body in that sacrament that they doe hold, yet do we eate the flesh of Christ verily after that maner, which the Papistes themselues do confesse to be the only profitable eating thereof, namely that which is spirituall. What our workes be, I referre them to the iudgement of God, wee boast not of them. And although fasting for merite bee iustly punishable by statute, yet godly and Chri∣stian fasting is not cleane exiled out of our Church, tho∣ugh not so often perhaps vsed, as meere it were it should. Our doctrine of fasting is sound and agreeable to the word of God, and therefore we dare iustifie it, our doing wee will not iustifie, nor excuse our faultes, but humbly submitte our selues to his iudgement, who knoweth our hearts, of whome we craue pardon for our offences, and grace to keepe his commandements. But now to conclude this matter, I will produce one testimonie of Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome, which I thinke shuld be of great weight with al Papists, if they giue in deed such reuerence either to y^t See, or to antiquitie as they pretend.

And thus he writeth Cont. Eusychet. Certè sacramēta, quae sumimus corporis, & sanguinis Christi, diuina res est: propter quod & per eadē, diuinę efficimur consortes naturae: & tamen esse non desinit substantia & natura panis & vini▪ Et certè imago vel similitudo corporis & san∣guinis Christi in actione mysteriorū celebratur. Satis ergo nobis eui∣denter ostēditur, hoc in ipso Domino Christo sentiendū, quod in eius imagine, {pro}fitemur, celebramus & sumim{us}. vt sicut hęc in diuinā trā feūt spiritu sancto {per}ficiente substantiā {per}manent tamen in suę {pro}pri∣etate naturae: sic illud ipsū mysteriū principale, cuius nobis officientiā veritatem{que} veraciter repręsentat, ex ijs quibus conflat, propriè per∣manentibus, vnū Christū, quoniam integrū verū{que} permanere de∣monstret. Certainly, the sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ which we receiue, are a diuine thing: & therefore by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature, and yet the substance & nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be. And surely, an image or similitude of the body

and bloud of Christ, is celebrated in y^e action of y^e myste∣ries. Therfore it is shewed vnto vs euidently ynough, that we must iudge y^e same thing euen in our Lord Christ him selfe, which we professe, celebrate, & receiue, in y^t which is an image of him: y^t as by the working of the holy Ghost, they passe into a diuine substance, & yet abide stil in y^e pro∣pertie of their owne nature: euen so y^e same principal my∣sterie doth shew, that one Christ abideth whole and true, whose efficiencie & truth, it doth truly represent vnto vs, those thinges of which he consisteth properly still remai∣ning. Thou seest, gentle reader, y^t this auncient Bishop of Rome, first doth vtterly ouerthrowe transubstantiation, when he saith, that the substance & nature of the bread & wine do remaine still in the sacraments, although they be a diuine thing.

Secondly, that he excludeth y^e carnall ma∣ner of presence, when he saith, we celebrate & receiue an image and similitude of the body & bloud of Christ in y^e sacraments, & lastly, y^t he aduoucheth y^e spiritual & diuine maner of presence of Christ, when he saith, y^t the sacramēts are turned into a diuine substance, which he meaneth not of y^e substance of y^e deitie, but of y^e heauenly & wonderful manner of presence, by which Christ vouchsafeth to giue vnto his faithfull members, his very body and bloud in a mysterie. And y^t the Church of Rome in much later times did not acknowledge this carnall presence, it shal appeare euen out of the Popes own Canon law, euen in y^e decrees.

De Consecrat. distinct. 2. Cap. Hoc est. Coelestis panis qui Christi caro est, suo modo nominatur corpus Christi, cum reuera sit sacramentū corporis Christi. Vocatur{que} ipsa īmolario carnis, que sacerdotis ma∣nibus fit, Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, nō rei veritate, sed significā∣te mysterio. The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ, after a peculiar maner, is called the body of Christe, when as in very deed it is y^e sacramēt of the body of Christ. And euen y^e oblation of his flesh, which is done by y^e hands of y^e priest, is called the passion, death, & crucifying of Christ, not in truth of y^e thing, but in a signifying mysteri. Those words which are borrowed out of August. into y^e decrees, the glose doth thus vnderstand, Coeleste sacraementū, quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè.

Vnde dicitur, suo modo sed non in veritate, sed significante mysterio•• Vt sit sensus: vocatur corpus Christi, id est significat. The heauen∣ly sacrament, which doth truly represent y^e flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but vnproperly. Therefore it is saide to be: after a peculiar manner, but not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mysterie. So that the sense is: it is called the body of Christe, that is, it doth signifie the body of Christe.

If these testimonies, that are taken out of the Romish Bishops owne writings, decrees, and gloses, that are so plaine will not satisfie the Papistes, that their doctrine of transubstantiation and carnall presence is neither true, ancient, nor Catholike, it is in vaine to spend more wordes with them, as with men that are ob∣stinate, and will not be satisfied with any truth contrarie to their presumed heresie.

* 1.123The one and sixtieth Chapter maketh a recapitulation of that, that is done in this worke.

* 1.124Seeing this Chapter containeth no argument or autho∣ritie to defend his cause, but only rehearseth what he fan∣tasieth, that he hath brought in other places throughout all his booke for the maintenance of the same, I referre it to the indifferent readers iudgement, what I haue done in this breefe confutation of the same. And here I conclude this acte of repeale, that notwithstanding this bill offe∣red to the Parleament by Tho. Hesk. in the lower house hath many friends, so that the greater part of voyces, if the house were diuided, might seeme to ouercome the better: yet for as much as in the higher house, the greatest num∣ber haue spoken directly against his bill, and no one lord of that house, which liued within the compasse of 600. yeres of the challenge, hath giuen his voyce to allowe it, not only the pretensed acte of Parleament set forth by the said Tho. Hesk. is proued to be false, forged, & counterfet, but also the bill that he hath put in to be considered, is vt∣terly reiected & condemned, & spurned out of the house.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Hesk.
• * 1.2

  Fulk.
• * 1.3

  Hesk.
• * 1.4

  Fulk.
• * 1.5

  Hesk.
• * 1.6

  Fulke.
• * 1.7

  Hesk.
• * 1.8

  Fulke.
• * 1.9

  Hesk.
• * 1.10

  Fulk.
• * 1.11

  In Ps. 118. Serm. 18.
• * 1.12

  Here begin∣neth Oeco∣lampadius.
• * 1.13

  Hesk.
• * 1.14

  Fulke.
• * 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

  Fulk.
• * 1.25

  Hesk.
• * 1.26

  Fulk.
• * 1.27

  Hesk.
• * 1.28

  Fulk.
• * 1.29

  Hesk.
• * 1.30

  Fulke.
• * 1.31

  Hesk.
• * 1.32

  Fulk.
• * 1.33

  Hesk.
• * 1.34

  Fulke.
• * 1.35

  Hesk.
• * 1.36

  Fulke.
• * 1.37

  Hesk.
• * 1.38

  Fulke.
• * 1.39

  Hesk.
• * 1.40

  Fulk.
• * 1.41

  Hesk.
• * 1.42

  Fulk.
• * 1.43

  Hesk.
• * 1.44

  Fulk.
• * 1.45

  Hesk.
• * 1.46

  Fulke.
• * 1.47

  Hesk.
• * 1.48

  Fulk.
• * 1.49

  Hesk.
• * 1.50

  Fulk.
• * 1.51

  Hesk.
• * 1.52

  Fulke.
• * 1.53

  Hesk.
• * 1.54

  Hesk.
• * 1.55

  Hesk.
• * 1.56

  Fulke.
• * 1.57

  Hesk.
• * 1.58

  Fulk.
• * 1.59

  Hesk.
• * 1.60

  Fulke.
• * 1.61

  Hesk.
• * 1.62

  Fulke.
• * 1.63

  Hesk.
• * 1.64

  Fulk.
• * 1.65

  Hesk.
• * 1.66

  Fulk.
• * 1.67

  Hesk.
• * 1.68

  Fulke.
• * 1.69

  Hesk.
• * 1.70

  Fulk.
• * 1.71

  1. Cor. 10. & 11.
• * 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

  Hesk.
• * 1.83

  Fulke.
• * 1.84

  Hesk.
• * 1.85

  Fulke.
• * 1.86

  Hesk.
• * 1.87

  Fulke.
• * 1.88

  Hesk.
• * 1.89

  Fulk.
• * 1.90

  Hesk.
• * 1.91

  Fulke.
• * 1.92

  Hesk.
• * 1.93

  Fulk.
• * 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

  Fulk.
• * 1.112

  Hesk.
• * 1.113

  Fulke.
• * 1.114

  Hesk.
• * 1.115

  Fulke.
• * 1.116

  Hesk.
• * 1.117

  Fulk.
• * 1.118

  Hesk.
• * 1.119

  Fulk.
• * 1.120

  Hesk.
• * 1.121

  Fulk.
• * 1.122

  Hesk.
• * 1.123

  Hesk.
• * 1.124

  Fulk.