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

THIS Burgesse for the citie of Rome, D. Fulke. hauing in purpose to make a speake in the Popish Parleament, for the matter of the sacrament of the Masse: and dou­ting least his tale should not be long ynough, if he vttered nothing but that might seeme directly to appertaine to his cause, begin­neth with a pretie preamble of eight Chapters long, of the difficultie of the Scriptures, and the vnderstanding of the same. And bicause he hath not aduauntage sufficient of any wordes or writing of the B. of Sarum to inlarge his speach by confuting thereof: he feigneth vnto him selfe, a monster to fight withall, out of Luthers booke, De seruo arbitrio, who teacheth (as he saith) That the Scrip­tures of them selues be easie of all men to be vnderstanded, and neede none interpreter, for that we be all taught of God and of his spirite, &c. Of which minde he imagineth his aduersa­rie to be, In that he would the scriptures to be common to all men. How false & slanderous this his report is of Luther, may sufficiently appeare by that one worde, Theodidac­ti, taught of God, by which it is most manifest, that Luther affirmeth the scriptures to be easie to be vnderstood, not [Page 2] of all men in generall, but onely of all them that are taught of God, and of his spirite, by which they were in­dighted. But nowe our Burgesse will make plaine by dis­cussion, that the scriptures be obscure, darke, and hard to be vn­derstanded, and for that cause not of all men indifferently to be read, and that by seuen arguments. Although it followeth not, that the scriptures are not to be read, bicause they are hard, but the contrarie; yet let vs weigh these seuen arguments.

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

The second: The very disciples of Christ, besides the Iewes, vnderstoode not Christes owne words before they were written. Ioh. 6. Much lesse we the same written. To passe ouer the vn­godly difference you make, betweene Christes wordes proceeding out of his owne mouth, and the same writtē by inspiration of his owne holy spirit, call you them the very disciples of Christ, which offended with that speach departed from him, or them that abid the interpretati­on of them, and tarried still with him? Such disciples as the former were be you, and your sect, which when the scripture serueth not your purpose, accuse it of difficul­tie and vncertaintie, as the olde Heretiques the Valenti­nians did: as witnesseth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. But Chry­sostome I suppose helpeth you much, Chrys. in. 6. Io [...]. where hee saith: Quid ergo? est durus? difficilis intellectu, & quem capere non pos­set [Page 3] eorum imbecillitas plenus formidinis. What then? is this word hard? difficult to be vnderstoode, and such as their weaknesse could not receiue, full of fearefulnes. Here is the name of the words of Chrysostome, but to what purpose? when no doctor more often, or more earnestly exhorteth all Lay men that are Christians, to read the scriptures of God, affir­ming thē also to be easie to be vnderstood for the most part, and not onely without daunger, but also verie pro­fitable, euen where they be hard to be vnderstoode. I wil rehearse one or two places of a great number.

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

The third: If the scriptures be plaine and easie for euery mā to vnderstand, it was no great benefit that Christ did open his A­postles witts, that they might vnderstand the scriptures, nor that he did interpret Moses and the Prophetes, to the disciples that went to Emaus, wherefore we conclude with S. Peter, that as he witnessing the Epistles of S. Paule be hard: so be the rest of the scriptures hard. O blundering Burgesse! Who did euer af­firme that the scriptures were easie to be vnderstād with­out the spirit of Christ? Or what asse of Acarnania, wold [Page 4] brave out suche a reason? The Apostles could not vn­derstand the scriptures sufficiētly to teach all the world, without a singular gift of interpretation, therefore no Christian man may learne by reading the scriptures, howe to knowe God to his eternall saluation, without the same extraordinarie gift. But by your leaue maister speaker, (for the office you take vpon you, I know not howe you came vnto it) you misreport S Peter being a Lord of the higher house as you count him, for he saith not that the Epistles of S. Paule be hard, but that among those things which he wrote of the second comming of Christ, some things are hard to be vnderstoode. Where­fore neither his authoritie, nor your reason, will be suf­ficient to conclude your cause.

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

The fift. The Apostles them selues vnderstoode not Christe speaking of his passion and resurrection. Iohn. 16. After a while, &c. therfore if the liuely voyce of Christ was dark, much more is the same now written in dead letters, dark & hard to be vnder­standed. The Apostles by speciall dispensation, not yet so wel lightned, that they vnderstood their master, not on­ly [Page 5] at this time, but at many other times also, bewrayed their naturall ignorance, that the grace of God in their illuminatiō in due time afterward, might appeare more glorious. But doth it therefore followe, that the sayings of Christe were hard, or their vnderstanding darke? A blinde man can not see the Sunne, is it therefore a good conclusion, that the Sunne is darke, and not easie to be seene? Howbeit, it is well to be marked, that once againe hee putteth difference betweene the liuely voyce of Christ, and his word written in dead letters, making op­position betweene The liuely voyce in the eare, and the deade: letter in the eye. As though the vnderstanding of the scrip­ture, consisted either in the eare or in the eye, when nei­ther the eye hath seene, nor the eare hath heard, neither haue they ascended into the heart of man, such things as God hath prepared for them that loue him. 1. Cor. 2. Es. 64. But God hath reuealed them vnto vs by his spi­rit, which spirit searcheth out al things, euen the depthes or greatest secretes of God. Neuerthelesse, here is bro­ught in Hieronyme ad Paulinum. Habet nescio quid latentis e­nergiae viua vox &c. The liuely voyce hath I knowe not what hidden vertue, and being vttered frō the mouth of the author, in­to the eare of the disciple, soundeth more strongly. Wherfore Aes­chynes when he was banished at Rhodes, and that Oration of De­mosthenes was read, which he made against him, when all men did woonder at it, and praise it sighing he said: What if ye had heard the beast himself sounding out his owne words? This writeth Hieronyme to persuade Paulinꝰ, not only to satisfie him self with his writings, but also to trauel that he might so him, & heare him, whom he had known before only by his writing, & that by the example not only of heathen Philosophers, but also of holy men of the Church, as the next wordes following immediatly do plainely te­stifie: Haec non dico quod sit in me aliquid tale &c. I say not these things, for that there is in me any such matter, whi­che either thou mayest, or art desierous to learne: but bicause thy feruent heate, and desire of learning, ought to be commended euen without vs. Thy wit is pregnant [Page 6] and commendable without a teacher 3. So farre is it off that Hieronyme meant to compare the word of Christ spoken, with that which is writen, whose force is as great by his spirite in the scriptures, which this dogge calleth the deade letters, as it was in his voyce when it was vtte­red. But howe impudently the name of Hieronyme is abused against his plain iudgment, wherby he not only alloweth lay men to read the scripturs, but also confes­seth that they receiue great fruit therby, may appeare by this one place amōg many, written in Esaiam libro. 4. cap. 11. Frequenter euenit vt homines soeculi. It commeth to passe verie often, that lay men being ignorant of the mysti­call sense, are yet fedde with the plaine and simple rea­ding of the scriptures. 33. And in his epistle vpō the same ‘Cōmentarie, he affirmeth, that Ignoratio scripturarum, ig­noratio Christi est.’ Ignorance of scriptures, is the igno­rance of Christ. Shortnes will not suffer me to point the places only, to the confusiō of the aduersary: if any dout or would see more, let them reade the places at the full.

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

The seuenth, God hath ordeined first Apostles▪ secondly Pro­phetes, thirdly teachers, &c. Now if the scriptures be easie for eue­rie mans vnderstanding, then either these states be superfluous, or else euerie man is a teacher and prophete, but this were a great absurditie, therfore the scriptures are hard & full of diffi­culties. [Page 7] If a yong Sophister had D. Heskins in the scholes at Cambridge, where somtime he hath been a Sophister, he would with one common warde, which is Nego con­sequentiam, auoyde the pikes of all these seuen argu­ments. Alas poore man, is there no vnderstāding of the scriptures, but such as may make a man a teacher, & an extraordinarie prophete? are there no degrees of know­ledge but either the highest perfection, or the depest ig­norance? Will this reason follow? Men may profite in knowledge by reading, therefore teaching is super­fluous: or this, teaching is necessarie, therfore reading is vnprofitable. What shall I say to these reasons, but that they are giuen ouer into a reprobate minde, which are so furiously bent to withstand the trueth, that they set not foorth so much as any shadowe of reason.

The second Chapter to proue that the scriptures be not ea­sie, reciteth certaine harde and obscure places of the olde Testa­mente. Hesk.

The purpose of this Chapter, as of the next also, Fulk. is al together foolishe and vnreasonable, for who is so mad to denie, but that ther are diuerse places both in the old and newe Testament, which bee obscure and hard to be vnderstode, not onely of the ignorant, but euen of the best learned, yet doeth it not therefore followe, be­cause something is harde, therefore all is so: or because some places in the scripture are harde, therefore there is no profite in reading of all the rest. But let vs see these places recited. First he nameth all the prophetes, the books of Iob, the book of Psalmes, the Preacher, & the song of Salomon, Al which books in his iudgement are so hard, as they cannot be vnderstoode without an inter­preter. Wel, let vs graunt great difficultie to be in these books, as in diuers other, is all time lost therfore that is spent in reading of them? The harder they be, the more diligently they are to be red, y ^t they may be vnderstood. The difficultie to good scholers will not dull but whe [...] [Page 8] [...]hei [...] desire to learne▪ to [...] to [...] to conferre to se [...]e [...] to find Cōcer [...]ing Genesis he alledgeth out of Hieronyme, the tradition of the vnbel [...]uing Iewes, that they might not read it before they were 30 yeres olde. But Hieronyme him self wold haue yong childrens ten­der tongs seasoned with sweet Psalmes▪ and exercised in studie of the scriptures and Prophets, which you M. Hes­kins professe to be so difficult. For he instructing Laeta [...] she should bring [...]p her daughter, saith▪ ‘ Adhuc tenera lingua, Psalmis dulcibus imbuatur. let her tong when it i [...] yet but tender be seasoned with sweete Psalmes, & when she groweth to yeares of discretion, Quaerant eam; &c. let them seeke her in the iourney of the worlde, a­mong the flockes and companies of her kinsfolkes, but let them finde her no where else, but in the closet of the scriptures, asking counsell of the Prophets and Apostles of her spirituall marriage.’ But more agreeing with the title of this Chap. you alledge the 49. Chap. of Gene. & one speciall place of that Chapter, namely the blessing of Iuda. What if this Chapter be harde, and this place especially in the Chapter: is it therefore hard, which Moses writeth in the beginning of this booke. In the beginning God created Heauen and Earth. And shal all the profitable and necessarie doctrine of this booke be vnread for the difficultie of one Chapter?

In Exodus and Leuiticus, although many things re­quire a ripe iudgement, yet are many thinges also very easie and plaine, and the same scripture also teacheth vs, that all figures were referred to the patterne shewed in the mount, which is Christ. Exod. 25. Acts 7. Heb. 8. But these sayings offendeth M. Heskins, and seemeth to him to haue almost no reason in them, where God forbiddeth them to suffer their cattel to gender with a contrarie kinde, or sowe their fielde with mingled seede, Leuit. 19. or to weare a garment of linsiwoolsie. Which positiue lawes me thinkes do plainly teach, that God loueth purenesse, and abhorreth all vnholy mix­tures. As likewise, those wordes Deut. 23 of sowing the vineyard with diuers seeds, and plowing with an oxe & [Page 9] an asse. The law Deut. 22. of leauing the old bird when a man taketh her yong out of the nest, was a good rudi­ment to teach them to abhor either couetousnes, or cru­eltie, or both. Which law, when the heathen men had by the light of nature, as appeareth in Phocylides, I mar­uell why it seemeth so straunge to M. Heskins, which would be taken both for a Christian and a Diuine. As for the moosling of the oxe, that treadeth the corne, is yet more plaine, when the Apostle doth gather a strong argument out of that place, from the lesse to the more, that God which would haue men to consider bruite beastes, with humanitie, would not haue the Ministers of his word neglected at their handes. But ô noble Di­uine. Doth the high prouidence of God occupie it selfe in making ordinances for birds nestes? Yea M. Doctour, and in teaching birdes to make their nestes, and in feeding their young birds that cal on him, although these ordinances cōcer­ning birdes nestes, were not made for birds, but for men. Or doth the wisedome of God ioyne such rewardes of prosperitie and long life to such trifles? O M. Doctour, obedience before God, is better then sacrifice, though it be in neuer so small matters.

But Salomon in his Ecclesiastes pleaseth not M. Hes­kins, where he saith, that Where much wisedome is, there is also much trauell and disquietnesse &c: herevpon the vnlear­ned, he saith, might take occasion to contemne wisedome, and much more by that which followeth. cap. 2. If it happen to the foole as to the wiseman, what needeth me to labour any more for wisedome. And herevpon he sweareth, that he heard a man of worship grauitie, wisedome, godly life, competent learning, able to vnderstand, and exercised in the scriptures, earnestly say to him, that it was a naughtie booke. When Salomon doth so excee­dingly not onely in his other bookes, but also in that same booke, and place, set foorth the commendation of wisedome, it was a very spiderlike iuyce that your wise Gentleman (M. Doctour) gathered out of that booke, and such as no Bee would sucke out of so-sweete and wholesome flowers. As for The title Inci [...]ament vnto ver­tue, [Page 10] that you suppose to appeare in the ballattes of Salomon, yea rather how vngodly and wanton they seeme to be, rather in the outward face teaching and prouoking wantonnesse, then godli­nesse of life, Declareth how reuerently you iudge of the holie scripture And that offence you dreame off (belike not most chastly affected) is most easily auoyded: for what vnlearned man indued with common sense, rea­ding in so many other places of the scriptures, all wan­tonnesse of life expressely forbidden, will not immedi­ately conceiue, that this is some spirituall and mysticall loue, which is set forth in these ballats, rather then lewd or wanton songes, prouoking to wickednesse? But then followeth the sonne of Syrach, With his vnseemely wordes describing the wickednesse of an harlot Cap. 62. Which an ho­nest man would be ashamed to speake, and you ashamed to write, if they were not scripture. Like as one that goeth by the way, and is thirstie, so shall she open her mouth, and drinke of euery next water that she may get. By euery hedge shal she fit her downe, & open her quiner to euery arrowe. Then what trifling, resting, and pastime you haue seene and heard vpon the reading, and re­hersall of this text, and what vnchast wordes haue fallen out vp­on the same. It appeareth you haue beene in good compa­ny, where you haue often heard such wholsome talke. But once againe you sweare, that This text being spoken in the presence of a good vertuous gentlewomā, the book turned & the place read, she exclamed & said, that if the scripture had such bawdie wordes, she would no more beleeue the scripture, for it was naught, with mo such like wordes. To passe ouer the blas­phemous nicenes of this your Gentlewoman, and your iudgement of their goodnes and vertue, with their ho­nestie, that troubled her with this place: I pray you maister Heskins, was it the darkenes of the place, that did so much offend her, or else because she thought it to be too plaine a description of suche a matter? You see therefore, or if you do not, all the worlde beside do­eth, that while you seeke to bring the reading of scrip­tures into contempt and hatred, you forget your selfe so much, that you bring examples of one contrarie for [Page 11] another. Although if I may speake of mine experience, as well as you, I do very well remember, that I hearde a sober and chaste matron, of her owne accorde, not pro­uoked thereto by any meanes, but the only hearing the same place read, affirme, that it was a modest descripti­on of so vile manners as an harlot vseth.

To conclude this Chapter, you bring in a long tes­timonie of Origen. 10. lib. Strom. Who to defend his wicked allegorizing vpon the scriptures, goeth about to proue by some examples and sentences, that the litteral sense is not profitable, but rather hurtfull. As the incest of Iuda, & the polygamie of the Patriarks, the dronken­nesse of Noe, and such like, which are not commended in histories, but reproued. The sacrifices of Leuiticus he imagineth should prouoke men to idolatrie, but without all colour of reason. He addeth the iudgement of God against Babylon and her children in the Psalme. 136. and the iustice that Dauid doeth promise to exe­cute against al the wicked of the land. Psalm. 101. to in­courage men to cruelty and contention, but all in vaine: like as his purpose (for which he alledgeth them,) was wicked, namely to ouerthrowe the true and naturall sense of the scripture. But yet the same Origen is direct­ly against maister Heskins, in that cause for which he is alledged, as appeareth plainely in Leuitici cap. 16. Hom. 9. An tu putas qui vix diebus fectis ad Ecclesiam venis, &c. ‘Thinkest thou whiche scarcely commest to the Church vpon the holy dayes, & giuest no heede to heare the wordes of God, nor takest any paines to fulfill his commandements, that the Lordes lot can come vppon thee? Yet we wish that after you haue heard these things you would take paines not only in the Church to heare the wordes of God, but also at home in your houses to be exercised, and to meditate in the Lawe of the Lorde day and night. Go your wayes now and boaste of O­rigens authoritie, that the scriptures are not to be read of all men, when in a publique Sermon he exhor­teth all the people to the diligent reading of them, [Page 12] and sharply reproueth them for their negligence in this behalfe.’

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

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

The Euangelistes Matthewe and Luke seeme to varrie in the Genealogie of Christ, therefore all is not easie. What then? They both doe manifestly agree in that, which is mate­riall for our faith, [...]hat Christe was the seede of Abra­ham, and the sonne of Dauid. In the rest, what straunge matter is it, if one pedegree be brought from one prin­cipall ancester by seuerall discents, lineall, and collate­rall, natural, and legall, by the male and by the female▪

For the second obscure place, Chrysostome is alled­ged, who Numbereth it among the hid thinges, howe Elizabeth being of the tribe of Leuie, may be called the cousen of Marie. ‘A perillous doubt, in solution whereof, though a number be ignoraunt, yet I doubt not but they may be saued. And yet by conference of the stories of scripture it is ea­sie to finde, that men of the tribe of Iuda might marrie of the Priestes daughters, and the Priestes did marrie e­uen of the Kings daughters of Iuda. By which mariages cousenage might easily be vnderstoode to growe be­tweene the two tribes▪ notwithstanding the lawe of Num 36.’ Which did forbid only those marriages, by which the inheritances might be confounded.

The third doubtfull place is in Marke. 13. Where it is said, that Of that day and houre knoweth no man, no not the [Page 13] Angels in heauen, nor the sonne him selfe, but the father. And Chrysostome is againe alledged, to shewe that this is a doubtful place: and yet a simple Christian that kno­weth the two diuers natures in Christ, humane and di­uine, can easily solute it, and say, that although Christe by his godhead knoweth all things, yet as he was man he knewe not all things.

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

[Page 14]Another doubt is, howe Marke saith the women came to the sepulchre when the Sunne was rysen, and then saith, Marie Magdalene came early in the morning when it was yet darke. A woman sitting at her distaffe, woulde easily solue this doubt, and say that it was darke when they set foorth of their dores, but the Sunne was risen by that time they came to the Sepulchre.

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

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

Hesk.The fourth Chapter conteineth certeine hard places of the Epistles.

Fulke.M. Heskins taketh great paines in those Chapters, to proue that which no man doubteth of, that there be some hard and darke places in the Scriptures, and yet it followeth not, but that the Scriptures are a light vnto our steppes, & a lanterne vnto our feete, & the worde of the Lord giueth wisedome vnto the simple. But let vs follow him whether he leadeth vs. In the Epistle to the Ro­manes be mo obscure, then plaine places, yea, the matter of iustifi­cation how hard it is, the controuersies thereupon risen may suf­fise to declare. Such is M. Heskins diuinitie, that he coun­teth al scripture obscure, that cā not easily be wrested to [Page 15] maintein poperie. Otherwise ther is nothing more clere then the doctrin of iustification: though the Owles & Battes of our time, either can not, or will not see it. But it is no easie matter to reconcile the saying of S. Paul Rom. 3. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the lawe, & that which Iames saith: Iac. 2. what auayleth it my brethren, if a man say he haue faith, if he haue no workes, can faith saue him? And after he concludeth: euen so faith if it haue no workes it is dead in it selfe. It is an easie matter to recon­cile these places to him that can put a differēce between him that hath faith in deede, & him that onely saith he hath it: betweene a true liuely faith, & a false & dead faith: finally, between the cause of iustification that go­eth before, & the effectes therof that followe after.

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

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

[Page 16]A like difficultie he findeth betweene these places: God will haue all men to be saued and [...] to the knowledge of the trueth ▪ 1. Tim. 2. and that Rom. 9. Who can resist his will. And againe: Many are called, fewe are chosen. If master Heskins would vnderstande like a man, and no [...] like a childe, the verie wordes following would teache him, that in the first sentence, by all men, are meant all forces of men, as well Kings and Princes, as inferior subiectes.

After this he repeateth another doubt of Algasia: What Paule meaned to wish him selfe accursed from Christ, for the Iewes, which doubt is increased by an obiection of Hieronyme, that he had sayed before: I am sure that neither death nor life, &c. nor any other creature can separate vs from the loue of God. In which saying he seemeth to affirme that he so feruently loued Christ, that nothing could separate him from his loue, in the other he seemeth for the loue he bare to the Iewes, to wish that he were sepaerated from Christ, as though he loued the Iewes bet­ter then Christ. A short aunswere is best. Although his desire was exceeding vehement, yet it was more for zeale of Gods honour, then for loue of the Iewes. And al­though he loued Christ feruently▪ yet the boast he ma­keth of assurance, was not of that loue wherewith he lo­ued Christ, but of that loue wherwith Christ loued him. And yet there is another doubt moued by Algasia vpon the wor­des of Paule Rom. 5. For scarse will any man dye for a righte­ [...]us man. But yet for a good man it may be that one dare dye. The obscuritie of which place, hath moued two contrarie here­tikes, to take their heresies thereof. Marcion, who made two Gods, a iust GOD of the Lawe, for whome fewe dyed, and a good God of the Gospell, Christ, for whome innumerable Martyre haue suffered. Ar [...]ius contrarywise calleth Christ the iust God vppon the Psalme 71. Lord giue thy iudgements to the King, and thy righteousnesse to the Kings sonne. The good God he called father of heauen, of whome Christ saide, none is good but God. These doubtes Master Heskins moueth, but he aunswe­reth none. The place is not so darke, that eyther such doubt should be made of it, or such farre fetched expo­sitions sought as the heretikes made. For a man may [Page 17] be righteous in some case, for which he is condemned to dye, which is not simply a good man, and for such a one will hardly any man giue his life, although peraduenture for a very good man, some woulde venture to dye: But Christ dyed for vs, being his enemies, iustly condemned, & altogether naught or wicked, which no man would e­uer do but he. The douts of Algasia are matched with the foure questions of Amandus, of which one was, of that place 1. Cor. 15. He must reigne till he haue put all things vnder his feete. The last enimie that shalbe subdued is death. For he hath put all things vnder his feete. But when he sayeth, all things are put vnder him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things vnder him. When all things are subdued vnder him, then shall the sonne himselfe also be subiect vnto him that put all things vnder him, that God may be all in all▪ The question is, howe the sonne shalbe subiect to the father when he is equall with him. And this doubt is answered by Hillarius lib. 11. de Trin. M. Hes­kins doth often declare, that he had rather men should be taught by him to doubt, then to be resolued in doub­tes, for he vouchsafeth not so much, as to recyte the aun­swere of Hillarius, but onely to cyte the place. But the aunswere is easie by the distinction of the two natures in Christ: for he shall neuer be subiect in his diuinitie, but in his humanitie, wherein he is nowe exalted, & reigneth vntill all his enimies be put vnder his feete.

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

Then the Epistle to the Hebrues hath two sore senten­ces. Heb. 6. & 10. For it is not possible that they which were once lightened, and haue tasted of the heauenly gift, and were made partakers of the holie Ghoste, and haue tasted of the good worde of God, and of the power of the world to come, if they fall away, should be renewed againe by repentance, seeing they crucifie againe to [Page 18] them selues the Sonne of God and make a mocke of him. And a­gaine. For if we sinne wilfully after we haue receiued the know­ledge of the trueth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinnes, but a fearefull looking for of iudgement, and violent fire which shall deuour the aduersaries. The difficultie of these places resteth in one point, and in a manner in one worde in eche of the sentences. For the Apostle excludeth not from re­pentance euery one that falleth and sinneth, but him one­ly which sinneth so wilfully, that he falleth cleane away from Christ. For then there is no repentance nor remis­sion, because he sinneth against the holie Ghost, as did Iu­das, Alexander the coppersmith, Iulian the Apostata, & such like.

The contention of Hieronyme & Augustine about Pe­ters dissimulation is the last example of difficultie, Gal. 2. which did not arise of any obscuritie of the place, but of Hiero­nymes immoderate and ouer great zeale to defend Peter, where the holie Ghost saith plainly, he was worthie to be reprehended. But for as much as these two great doctors, could not agree about the exposition of this place, it doth not so much declare the hardnesse of the Scriptures, as it doth discourage vs, to finde the certeine exposition of them at all times in the iudgement of the doctours: which both in this place and many other, are not onely diuers, but oftentimes contrarie one to another. The conclusion of the Chapter is not all amisse, wherein he dissuadeth not men from reading the scriptures, but from rash­nesse of iudgement, and exhorteth the readers of them to humilitie and modestie, that so the spirite of GOD may rest vppon them, which will leade them into all trueth.

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

It is not ynough for this bold Burgesse, to trouble the house, Fulk. in prouing that which no man doth gainesay, but he wil also charge men with impudencie and arrogancie, [Page 19] which giue him no occasion of this his long and vaine speache. But herein, he sheweth his witt more then his honestie. For, bicause he can not disproue that which they say, he laboureth to proue that which they do not denie. And nowe of the doctours, (substantially no doubt) Ori­gen must beginne, who saith: That these wordes of Paule: Brethren, you are called into libertie. Gal 5. is an hard place, and that the holy Ghost must be found in the scriptures, with much la­bour and sweat &c. We say likewise with Dauid, that the godly mans studie must be in the lawe of the Lorde day and night. But that Origen would not for the difficultie of the scriptures, dissuade any Lay man from reading of them, is manifest by this place in Gen. Capit. 26. Hom. 12. ‘ Tenta ergo & tu ô auditor habere proprium puteum, & proprium fontem, vt & tu cum apprehenderis librum scripturarum, incipias etiam ex proprio sensu proferre aliquem intellectum, & secundum ea, quae in Ecclesia didicisti, tenta & tu bibere de fonte ingenij tui. Assay therefore thou ô hearer, to haue a pit of thine own, a spring of thine owne, that euen thou also, when thou ta­kest in hand the booke of the scriptures, maiest beginne to bring foorth some vnderstanding of thine owne wit, and according to those thinges which thou hast learned in the Churche, assay thou also to drinke of the spring of thine owne witte. Here Origen will not only haue men to reade the scripture, but also incourageth them to seeke out the interpretation by their owne studie.’

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

And although he confesse the questions of Algasia [Page 20] to be full of difficulties, yet he both commendeth her studie in the scriptures, and desire to be resolued in her doubtes.

Yet Basill teacheth that all the scriptures are not to be published and made common. Basil. lib. Sp. 5. cap. 27. For there are poyntes of learning, or of doctrine that are to be kept close, and the obscuritie which the scripture vseth is a kinde of silence so framing those points of learning, that a man may hardly vnderstand them.

The wordes of Basil are these [...]. That is, (according to Erasmus translation) exercising a minde vnapte for the contemplation of this doctrine, and that for the profite of them that exercise them selues in the scriptures. Which last wordes, M. Heskins hath frau­dulently left out, and so he is cleane contrarie to M. Hes­kins purpose. Although Basill speaketh not expressely of reading the Scriptures by the faithfull, but of publi­shing the mysteries of Christian religion that were recei­ued by tradition without Scripture. ‘For in his short de­finitions [...]: to this question, whether it be ex­pedient that they which are new come to the faith, should be instructed in the holie Scriptures? he aunswereth [...], &c. This question may be dissolued by those things that were sayde before. For it is both con­uenient & necessarie, that euery man for his neede should learne out of the diuine Scriptures, both for the certeine persuasion of godlinesse, & also that he be not accustomed vnto mans traditions.’ lib. 7. E. 44. But S. Ambrose also in fewe words saith much to this matter, calling the Scripture of God the great sea, ha­uing in it a deepenesse without bottome of deepe senses & vnder­standings, into the which many floods do enter. But this letteth not S. Ambrose vpon 118. Psal. Serm. 1. to exhort the laye people to read the Scriptures. ‘ Et tu lege prophetam vt videat, lege vt apperiat os tutum. And thou also read the Prophet, that thou mayst see, read that he may open thine eyes. And againe: Quod sisugias lectionem propheticam, si domi non legas, in ecclesia audire nolis, &c. But if thou flye from the reading of the Prophetes, if thou read not at home: [Page 21] thou wilt not heare in the Church, but while thou feinest to heare those things that are read, &c. And if in your iud­gement he said much for you, when he cōpareth the scrip­ture to the sea, I thinke he saith more against you, where he compareth the Church to the sea.’ Hexam. lib. 3. cap. 3. ‘ Vnde bene mari plerum (que) comparatur ecclesia, quae primo ingre­dientis populi agmine totis vestibulis vndas vomit: deinde in ora­tione totius plebis tanquam vndis refluentibus stridet: tum respon­sorijs. Psalmorum, cantus virorum, mulierum, virginum, paruulorū, consonus vndarum fragor resultat. Whervpō the Church is oft times verie wel compared vnto the sea, which first by the cōming in of the multitude, floweth out waues frō euery porch or entrie: and then maketh a noyse with the pray­er of the whole people, as it were with the ebbing or flowing backe of the waues: last of all, with answerings of Psalmes, singing of men, women, virgines, and little children, a well tunable sound of the waues reboundeth.’ By this place it appeareth, that all sorts of people were ad­mitted to the reading of the scriptures, and that no tong was vsed in the Church, but such as was cōmon to all the people. Chrysostome succeedeth Ambrose, who saith: Hom. 44 in Matth. The scriptures are darke that they are found out with labour, but not shut that they can not be found out at all, and that the priestes ought to be the keykeepers of the scriptures, not to shut them vp, but to open them, &c. I would oppose some testimonie of Chrysostome to explane his meaning, not to be to dis­courage men frō reading the scriptures, but that M. Hes­kins doth soone after confesse the same, of his owne ac­cord, in these wordes: I am not ignorant (gentle reader) that Chrysostome doth so, that is, that Chrysostome in a number of places most earnestly exhorteth men to the reading of the scriptures, and doth not feare them with the obscuritie, and difficultie thereof. I aske no more against M. Heskins, but his own confession of Chrysostomes iudgement to be against him, whervnto we must returne anon, after a little consideration of Gre­gories iudgement. Gregorie sheweth, that the obscuritie of the scriptures is for great profite, for exercising the vnderstanding, for auoyding of wearines, idlenes, contempt, and for great delight, when [Page 22] it is found out with labour. Augustine hath the like sentence, but this maketh much for our cause, that the obscuritie of the scripture, where, it is darke: is very profitable for the diligent reader. To conclude, if all the scripture were ne­uer so darke, yet seeing it is necessarie to be knowne of al men, it ought to be read and studied of all, & the more & the oftener, where it is more hard to vnderstand, y ^t long & diligent search may find out, y ^t which sildome & slight reading would passe ouer. As for the last testimonie of Hieronyme ad Paulinum, concerning the Canonicall E­pistles, That they are both short and long so that there be not many which are not blind in them. Bicause we had the like be­fore, I will referre it to the former answeres. The rest of the rayling stuffe, charging vs with cause of heresies, arro­gance, and ignorance, in suffering and allowing the peo­ple to reade the scriptures, affirming them to be easie, when they be hard &c. is more meete for M. Heskins to write, then vs to answere. But to return to the obiection, that he maketh of the iudgement of Chrysostome and E­rasmus, whom he confesseth to be against him, let vs see his wittie answeres. To Chrysostome he answereth, That there were two causes why he would haue the scriptures read, one, that they might the better vnderstand his expositions in the Chur­che, the other that they might reade them to followe them: to these purposes he graunteth it were tollerable they should be read, but not to frame newe doctrines out of them, nor to cont [...]mne the learned teachers, &c. And who (I pray you) would haue them read to other purpose? Not Luther, not Iewell, nor any man whom you most spyte at. But see the force of truth, and the malice of an enimie therof. Heskins hauing reasoned in fiue Chapters, against the reading of scriptures, nowe graunteth to it: but yet that which is most conuenient & of al, most necessarie, he vouchsafeth to cal it but tollera­ble. To Erasmus he replyeth, first, y ^t seeing he confesseth in diuers places the scriptures to be hard to vnderstand, he maruelleth that he would exhort ignorant men to the reading of them. But Erasmus would easily turne backe M. Heskins reason vpon his owne head. Seeing they are [Page 23] hard, they are the more often and diligently to be read & studied. Secondly, he thinketh Alphonsus good ynough to oppose against Erasmus, who affirmeth, That although it were meete the people should read the scriptures in Chrysostomes time, yet it is not meete nowe, bicause lawes are changed as the times and manners of men are. And it is no more meete that the people should nowe read the scriptures, then that the Vigils should be kept as they were in Hieronymes time, or that Infantes should re­ceiue the Communion as they did in Augustines t [...]me, or men shuld abstaine from bloud and strangled as in the Apostles time, or dis­cipline and publique penance should be vsed as in the old dayes. If the maners of men be worse nowe, they haue more neede of the knowledge of God, whereby they might be refor­med, wherefore the similitudes are nothing like. And be­sides this, note also the errour of the Church in S. Augu­stines time confessed, and the want of discipline in the Popish Church acknowledged.

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

The vnderstanding then of y ^e scriptures is necessarie, Eulk. se­ing God as you cōfesse, which ordeineth nothing in vain, hath appointed a meane, wherby the people should come to the vnderstanding of the scriptures. So by the way we haue gained thus much: that ignorance is not the mother of Christian deuotion, as was most impudently affirmed by all the Bel weathers of Papistrie, in the conference of Westminster, to the perpetuall shame & ignominie, both of them selues, and al the Popish Church. But nowe to the meane appointed by God, which you say, Is, that the lawe should be in the mouth of the Priest, and the people should learne it at his mouth. A very godly order in deede, but yet such as neither promiseth, that the lawe shal be alwayes in the Priestes heart, nor bindeth the people to learne it only at his mouth. And therefore nothing in the world letteth, but that the godly man should meditate in the lawe of God day & night, Psal. 1. and haue it so familiar vnto him, that he shuld teach his childrē therin, talke of it at home, [Page 24] & abroad, vprising, and downlying, and write on the postes of his doores, and vpon his gates, that he may learne to do it. Deut. 4. & 11. Wherefore all the places that M. Hes­kins alledgeth, to shewe that the Priestes should be lear­ned, and the people instructed by them, serue to proue nothing that is in controuersie, but is confessed of al men: except it be to condemne the Clergie of Papistrie, which for the most part are ignoraunt, not onely of Gods lawe, but of all honest knowledge, and vpon very necessitie, open a gate vnto the people, to seeke instruction them selues, where the ordinarie passage is stopped, through the ignorance of the Ministers.

The first place by him alledged, is Deu. 17. That if there rise a matter too hard for the people in iudgement betweene bloud and bloud, &c. they shall come to the Priestes, and stand to their iudgement on paine of death, &c. Although I might answere, that this ordinaunce appertaineth to iudiciall causes, of which God gaue his lawe also, yet if it be taken general­ly, so long as the Prieste determineth according to the lawe, it is well ynough. But this proueth not, that the peo­ple must haue no vnderstanding, beside the priests mouth. For the decree is onely of matters that are difficult, and such as cannot be decided at home. No more do the wor­des of Malachie, That the lips of the Priest shall keepe the law, and men shall require it at his mouth. And much lesse the commaundement in Aggee: Enquire the lawe of the Priestes, And least of all that Christ commaundeth the Scribes and Pharisees to be heard sitting in the chaire of Moses. These places proue, that it is the Priestes duetie to be learned in the lawe of God, but repel not the general lawe, wherby euery man is cōmanded also to studie in the law of God, yea, though the Priestes neither would nor could teach him. For if the blinde followe the blinde, they both fall into the ditch: which our sauiour Christ willeth all men to take heede of. Hieronyme in the place by you alled­ged (M. Heskins) gathereth rightly of these places, [...]n Agge. 2. that it is the Priestes office to know and expound the scriptures: but I muse how the greatest number of your Priestes can [Page 25] brooke those words of his: If he be ignorant of the law, he pro­ueth him selfe to be no Priest of God. Much more against your cleargie, & your cause is that large sentence you set down out of Hieronyme, thē to hurt your aduersaries, where he concludeth out of 1. Tim. 3. & Tit. 1. that both by the new Testament and the old it is the priests office to know and teach the lawe of God. As is also that which you adde out of 1. Cor. 12. that God hath appointed some Apostles, some Prophets, some pastors, & teachers, as though these orders might not stand with the peoples reading of the scriptures: whē euen in the Apostles time, the Thessaloni­ans or Berrhoeans wer cōmended, for that thei did not on­ly heare the Apostles, but also cōferred their doctrin with the scriptures Actes. 17. Hauing rehearsed your texts, you fal to collecting of three things out of thē. 1. That it is the dutie of a Priest to be learned in the law of God, and god­ly life also, which euerie man confesseth. 2. That there be doubts and hard matters in the law. And that also shal be confessed. But withall out of the same place it is proued, that there are many plaine and easie pointes in the lawe, because the decree was not for all the lawe, but onely for harde cases of the lawe. Thirdly, that the people must bee taught them and learne of the priestes, and this also shall be granted to the vttermost, so that you will allow the peo­ple to learn such things as are easie, not only of the priests, but also of their own reading, study, & conference with thē that are no priestes. And this is no inuerting of Gods or­der, M. Heskins, how much soeuer you enuie the peoples instruction. For it is gods commaundement, as I shewed before, that his people shoulde not onely reade the lawe themselues, but teach the same to others, yea parentes are commaunded to teach the lawe of God to their chil­dren, and yet I weene you will not say that all parents be priestes. But the marke you shoote at, is easie to see, the ignorance of the people is more for your worshippe and gaine then their knowledge. The examples you bring, of the people teaching Aaron, of Chore, Dathan, & Abi­ram; rebelling against Moses and Aaron, and of the Israe­lites [Page 26] in deposing Samuel and desiring a king, are of no force to dissuade men from reading of the Scriptures, no thoughe they haue learned and true teachers: much lesse, when they are vnder dumbe dogges and heretikes, as all popishe priestes are: nor to abridge the authoritie of lawfull magistrates, in banishing and suppressing all v­surped power and false teachers, nor to shake off the yoke of Antichrist to submit thēselues vnto a king. There is too great oddes betweene the Pope and Samuel, betweene Mo­ses and Aaron & the popish cleargie, that they which with­stande the Pope and his Prelates, should be in the case of Dathan and his complices, or of the people that refused the regiment of Samuel. The saying of Augustine Ep. 118. Although it come in here out of season, yet it maketh no­thing against vs. (He saith, It is most insolent madnesse to dis­pute, whether that is to be done, which the Church throughout all the worlde doth obserue:) Excepte M. Heskins can shewe, what is obserued of the Church throughout the worlde; which we doe not obserue, or deny to be obserued. For S. Augustine in that place speaketh of Ceremonies.

Hesk.The seuenth Chapter declaring the same by examples of the Fa­thers and authorities of the Doctours of the Church.

The title of this Chapter pretendeth to declare, howe the people shall come to the vnderstanding of the scrip­tures, Fulk. but the examples are most of the preachers and tea­chers, how they shall atteine to knowledge sufficient to discharge their office. But the first argument whervpō al­most all the rest of the Chapter doth runne, is a maruel­lous conclusion God commaundeth the children of Israell, 32. Aske thy father and he will shewe thee, thy Elders and they will tell thee. Ergo God did not sende all the people, only to the fiue books of Moses to learne, but willed them to learne of their Elders: So now, all men may not be sent to the scriptures to learne, but they must learne of their Fathers, what be the goodly workes of God con­teined in the Scriptures. Why M. Heskins, you forget not on­ly lodgike, but common reason? We would not haue men to learne, onely by reading the scriptures, but muche more by hearing their teachers, first their Pastors, and then [Page 27] all other, whom God hath indued with any gift of know­ledge. And wil you conclude w ^t shame, that because men were not sent, only to the fiue Bookes of Moses, men may not now be sent at all to the scriptures? And are you so blinde that you cannot see, this text to ouerthrowe the purpose of both your sixth and seuenth Chapters after this manner, by necessary conclusion? Men must learne of their fathers, therefore not only of the Priestes. The rest that followeth for certeine pages, is so tedious a proofe of that which is not at all in controuersie, that it yrketh me to abridge it, but for orders sake. The Apostles learned of Christ in three yeares study, prayer is required to the vn­derstanding of the scripture by Origens iudgement. The Fathers of the Church learned of their Elders, as Clemens, Marke, Linus, Cletus, of Peter: Titus, Timotheus, Luke, & Dionise, of Paule: and so one of an other. Basil and Gre­gorie Nazianzen studied thirteene yeres in a monasterie. Hieronyme learned of y ^e Hebrues, & trusted not his own iudgement, wherefore all rashe readers and arrogant tea­chers may be abashed, which take vpon them, to teach be­fore they be learned, whereas no man, may be his owne teacher in the scriptures. All this, and much more shall be graunted to M. Heskins without any strife at all. But y ^t which he also granteth, (though it be not very liberally) yet, it must not be refused. That in S. Hieronymies time many did study the scriptures, which if the people coulde nowe reuerently and meekely vse might be tollerated. Well then, the allowance of antiquitie is of our side, and the conditional tollerati­on of M. Heskins: for I may not say of the Popish Church, knowing what horrible persecution they practise against thē, which haue but a book of the scriptures in their mo­ther tonge, found in their hand or house, although it can­not be proued, that they read it. Wherefore, it is most ab­surd, that hee chargeth the proclamer, with slaundering their Churche, to bring hir in hatred with the lay peo­ple, as though she had nowe forbidden them to read the Scriptures, in their owne tongue: whereas he knoweth no suche prohibition, giuen to the lay people vniuersal­ly. [Page 28] But the reason is most monsterous. For if there had bene any such prohibition, there should not haue bene so many lay men, which haue both read and written of the scriptures in their natiue tongues, &c. As thoughe learned lay men, coulde not haue readd the scriptures but in their mother tongue. But the church fearing the abuses of the scriptures by the vnlearned lay men, forbad them. But such lay men as vnderstād the scrip­tures in Hebrue & Greeke, the Church wil allow them to read thē in English. O wise & prouident Church! Nay mer­uell not at this. For the learned if they be rashe fall into heresies: much more the vnlearned. And the learned also, yea and phi­sitians themselues sometimes take surfeites, therefore it were a sure way for the people neuer to eate meate. No­ble men and wisemen somtime haue their houses burned, therefore it is much more dangerous for poore and sim­ple men to haue fire in their houses.

The knowledge of Mysteries muste not bee made common to all men for the Iewes would not suffer Genesis, and Cantica to be redde of young men before 30. yeares of age. The heathen men also, as the Romanes & Philosophers, kept close their secrets: the one Sibyllaes bookes the other Morall philosophie, & especially Metaphysike. If I had time I might make sporte with this Metaphysical ar­gument, In Matth. H. 44. that Christian men must folow the practise of In­fidels. But I must passe ouer to the rest. Chrysostom in the Greeke Church, as wel as Hieronyme in the Latine, wold haue the people to learne by hearing their teachers, and not onely by reading them selues, because the scrip­tures are darke, and are a storehouse not common for all men, but out of which the stewardes must deliuer to euerie man his portion. Remember all this notwithstan­ding, that M. Heskins confessed before, that Chrysostome doth often earnestly exhort the lay and vnlearned people to the diligent reading of the scriptures.

Then followe similitudes of young children and vnthriftes, the one if they feede thēselues, the meate runneth about their mouth, bosome, and clothes, the other spende their fathers goods in suites, and quarels, and contention with their brethren: So men without witte & grace abuse the scriptures to the hurt of others, & no pro­fite [Page 29] of themselues. Except all laye men want witt and grace, these similitudes proue nothing. For many priestes also want wit & grace, whō you admit to read the scriptures. After similitudes come examples. Valdo an vnlearned man caused Bookes of scripture to be translated, and so beganne the sect of Valdenses, or Pauperes de Lugduno. Out of the same founteine of ignorance sprang the heretikes, called Begradi Turrelupini. Valdo was a godly man, & seeing the ignorance and vngodlines of the Priests, did very wel to procure the translatiō of the scripture, and vppon good groundes departed from the Church of Rome vnto the Church of Christ, what the o­ther were as stories are vncertein, so I leaue them in doubt.

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

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

Hauing vomited his malice against Luther & Zwing­lius, he inueyeth with mayn sayle of open rayling against [Page 30] the people of our time, for the rashnesse and disorder of some. As though there were no talke, but rash babbling of predestination, free wil, iustification, yea God to be the au­thor of sinne, of the number of y ^e sacraments, & especially the sacrament of the altar, and no where, but in Tauernes, Innes, Alehouses, and Barbarshops, in streetes, highwayes, and fieldes, and in the mouthes of women, boyes, and girles. God be thanked, this slaunder is false. Although there be great rashnesse in some, and vnreligiousnesse in more: yet the true members of Christ, profite much by reading of his word. We confesse with Gregorie Nazian­zene, that it is not for euery man rashly to dispute of God, nor yet of diuine matters, but with humilitie and sobrie­tie, which they shal learne no where so well, as in the holy scriptures of God. The other cauil that followeth, of lay men artificers, preaching in open places, & ministring the sacramentes deserueth no answere, for if they be admitted to the office, beeing worthy thereof, there is no doubt, but they may as well now, as in all ages of the Church they haue done, neither are they to be takē for laymen, though they haue beene artificers. Yet if they presume without calling and admission of the Church, they are no more borne withall among vs, then suche as counterfet them­selues to be Priestes among the Papistes. As Englishe Ioan did to clyme to the Papacie, & as of late a lewd fel­low in Italie feigned himselfe to be a Cardinall, as Ste­phanus in his defence of Herodotus doth witnesse. We condemne according to the scriptures, not only all in­trusion of men without calling, but all ambitious and symoniacall practises, to procure the outward calling. So farre off is it, that we allowe euerie man of his owne fan­tasie, to intrude himselfe, as this man doth most vainely slaunder vs.

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

Fulke.If there were nothing in this Chapter, but answering to the title thereof: I would willingly subscribe vnto it. But after he hath exhorted as he promiseth, by the counsell of [Page 31] Iames, Salomon, and Hieronyme, that we should heare & learne of them, whom God hath appointed, pastors and teachers in his Church: he dissuadeth men also, by the authoritie of Paule, and Ecclesiasticus, to appoint vnto them selues Elders, or maisters, to be carried about with new and straunge doctrines: & decreeth, That they only are lawfull Elders, that haue learned of their fathers. For whiche cause Luther was no good Elder, allowing women to teach openly, contrary to Paul, 1. Cor. 14. which is an impudent slaunder of Luther, who by no meanes would haue women to teache, except it were extraordinarily, as the prophetesses of the olde time did namely Debora, Holda, & such like. Such stuffe is in the other slaunders, That contrition maketh a man more sinner, where Luther meaneth of y ^t, which is without faith, & therfore must needs be sinne. That a righteous man in euery good worke sinneth mortally, where he meaneth that sinne and imperfection is mixed, euen with the best works, not that good workes are sinne. That is also a detestable lye, that Luther should teach, Euery Christian man, to be a priest for the common or publique ministery, wheras he neither thought nor spake otherwise, then the scripture speaketh, which hath made vs Kings & Priests. Apoc. 1. And no lesse is y ^e slander of Zwinglius, That he taught, that originall offence is no sinne, whereas the worlde knoweth, that Zwinglius taught the contrarie, and the Papistes come neerer to that errour, whiche define it to be no sinne in the regenerate: it is as false that he taught, That Christian mens children neede not to be baptised, As it is true, that if they dye without baptisme, (without any cōtempt of their part,) it is no cause of con­dēnatiō vnto them. The saying of Christ, except a man be borne againe of water & of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heauē, maketh no more for the baptisme of infantes, then his saying also, except ye eate the fleshe of y ^e sonne of man, & drinke his bloud, ye haue no life in you, maketh to proue, that infants must receiue y ^e cōmu­nion, for neither in the one speaketh he of the sacramēt of baptisme, nor in the other place, of the sacramēt of his sup­per. But where Luther doth often protest y ^t he will not be [Page 32] taught by man, but by God, he doeth as euerie Christian man ought to do, and yet excludeth not the ministerie of men, but the authoritie, doctrines, traditions, and inuenti­ons of men, which by Luciferian pride take vpon them to teache that they haue not learned of God. But howe shall we vnderstand this saying of Maister Heskins, speaking in despight of Luther: This is another Paule. As though only Paul wer called of God without the ministery of mā, whē all the Apostles were so, or as though it were a reproche to be so called as Paul was: if God do extraordinarily stir vp any man, as he did the Apostles & Euāgelistes. After his deriding of Paul, Zwinglius is condemned, by that which Maister Heskins hath saide, for writing a booke De clari­tate verbi Dei, How wisely and iustly, let the godly Rea­ders iudge. Next followeth generall rayling against Oe­colampadius, Bullingerus, Caluinus, Bucer, of whom his aduersarie (meaning I thinke the B. of Sarum) learned his heresies: then he returneth to vnlearned artificers, teaching in corners. All which he would haue to be auoyded: I sup­pose because he hath rayled vpon them, and called them heretiques, for other reason he bringeth none. Except this be one, that Hieronyme thinketh it not sufficient, if a man say, he loueth God, and yet breaketh the vnitie of the Church. The Church once named, by and by all is his. As though it were no cōtrouersie at this day, whether the Sy­nagogue of Rome be the Church of God or no. And as though all Christendome, had bene at all times, and in all places obedient to the Churche of Rome, before these fewe yeares. And therfore he is bolde to demaunde where it was taught in the Christian worlde, that Christes natu­rall bodie is not in the sacrament, nor to be offered, nor receiued, nor honoured? Nay Maister Heskins, where was this taught in the affirmatiue for fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Christe? As for your other questions of pray­er for the dead, and prayers to the dead, if you bring any reasons for thē in this your Omnegatherū, they shal be an­swered otherwise the readers for me shall resort to other treatises where they be handled of purpose. But seeing men [Page 33] must learne the law of their mother, that is the Church, they must follow Hieronyme, which neuer ceased from his youth, to seeke knowledge of learned men, and trauelled to Alexandria to be in­structed of Didym [...]s. So did Augustine to Millain to learne of Am­brose. No wise man will mislike this counsell. But this one thing especially is notable: That Damasus being bishop of Rome, did send to S. Hieronyme to be answered in certein doubts, and disdained not to learne of him. I had thought the Pope, had had all knowledge In scrinio pectoris, in the closet of his brest, that he had the spirite of trueth, to resolue all doubtes, so that he could not erre, and that Hieronyme hauing him at Rome, needed not to haue sought know­ledge at Alexandria. But Damasus, although euen in that time, a ioly stately Prelate, as appeareth by some of his Epistles, (if they be not counterfet) yet shew­ed himselfe farre from that Antichristian pride, which the Popes of Rome, (I cannot say his successors,) did shew afterward, and yet to this day do holde.

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

The rest of the Chapter conteineth a repetition of that he hath handled in these eight Chapters, with a promise that after this prety preamble, he will goe immedi­ately to his purposed matter, to bee debated in this highe Court of prattlement. And yet I weene as you haue [Page 34] had a preamble, so you shall haue a preface of other mat­ter, for three or foure Chapters more, or euer you come to the principall matter. In deede great solemnitie be­commeth a parleament.

Heskins.The ninth Chapter declaring that our redemption was prenun­ci [...]ed by promises figures, and prophesies, and what the promises be, and to whom they were made.

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

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

Fulk.In this Chapter as in the former, following the autho­ritie of the holy scriptures, he sheweth that the concepti­on of Sampson, was a figure of the incarnation of Christ: [Page 35] Ioseph, of his betraying: Isaac, of his suffering: the priest­hood of Aaron, and the sacrifices, of his priesthoode & sa­crifice: Ionas, of his resurrection: & Elias, of his ascention. Wherein I see nothing worthie of reprehension, except peraduenture in some collation, there be more subtil cu­riositie, then sound stedfastnesse.

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

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

The twelfth briefely toucheth a prophesie or two of the resurrec­tion, and ascention of Christ. Hesk.

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

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

This Chapter promiseth more then it performeth, Fulk. for it sheweth in deed, and as the trueth is, that Melchisedech was a figure of christ, but it scarse toucheth his priesthod, and speaketh not one worde of his sacrifice, as by a briefe collection of the whole Chapter, and euerie parte thereof shall appeare. First he there declareth, that as the mysterie of our redemption was promised, figured, & prophesied in the olde Testament, and accomplished in the New: so was the memorial of y ^t redemption: which Newe Testament being euerlasting, hath an euerlasting Priest, & an euerlas­ting sacrifice. The euerlasting priest he cōfesseth to be our [Page 36] sauiour Christ. But the euerlasting sacrifice (he saith) is the very body & blod of the same, our sauiour Christ. Which as he according to the order of his priesthood, did sacrifice in his last supper, vnder the formes of bread & wine: so did he giue authoritie & cōmandemēt, to the Apostles & ministers of his Churche to do the same, saying: Hoc facite in meā cōmemorationem. This do ye in the remēbrance of me. Beside that these thinges of the euerlasting sacrifice, be vttered without all proofe, or shadowe thereof, marke one horrible blasphemie, and an other detestable absur­ditie. For in as much as he affirmeth, the euerlasting sa­crifice, to be Christes body and bloud offered in the sup­per, and it is manifest by the scripture, that Christe neuer offered but one sacrifice, and that but once: Heb. 9.25.10.14. it is euident, that he vtterly excludeth the sacrifice of his body vpon the Crosse, as not being done, according to the order of his euerlasting priesthoode. For a prodi­gious absurditie note this, that he graunteth the euerlas­ting priesthood to Christ, (Which as the Apostle witnes­seth is without succession) Heb. 7.24. because it is euer­lasting in him: and yet he maketh the Apostles and mi­nisters of the Church, partakers of that Priesthod, to offer that sacrifice, which none could offer, but he himselfe, which is an euerlasting priest, after the order of Melchise­dech, that is, both a King and Priest.

He proceedeth and affirmeth, that Of this new Priesthood and sacrifice, there were figures, and prophesies, which must aswell be performed, as the other were of the instituter of them. The other figures and prophesies ended in Christ touching the fact, but not touching the efficacie and vertue which is eternall. The newe Testa­ment with the new priesthood, and the new sacrifice are begon, and confirmed in the bloud of Christ, but must continue alwayes, whereof there be figures in the lawe of nature, and in the lawe of Moses. In the lawe of nature, albeit that Seth, Noe, and other did offer sacrifi­ces vnto God: yet were they not figures of this sacrifice now vsed in Christes Church, but rather of Christes sacrifice offered vpon the crosse after the manner of Aaron. Here marke first, that he maketh Christ to haue two sacrifices, this sacrifice whi­che is now offered, (I can not tell after what manner,) and [Page 37] that which he offered on the Crosse, after the manner of Aaron.

Secondly, that he maketh Christ a Priest after the ma­ner of Aaron, which the holy Ghost in expresse words de­nyeth Heb. 7.11.

But the first that figureth both the priesthood and sacrifice of the new law, is Melchisedech. So that this priesthood is peculiar only to our sauiour Christe, as both Dauid, Psal. no. and the Apostle to the Hebrues the 7. do proue it: there is no doubt but Melchisedech was a figure of Christ: But what sacrifice hee offered, the scripture maketh no mention, neither is M. Heskins able to shewe. For first, he hath re­hearsed the historie of him, which is written in Gen. 14. And Melchisedech king of Salem brought foorth breade & wine: and he was a priest of the most high God, Ther­fore he blessed him, saying: blessed is Abraham of God most high, possesser of heauen and earth: and blessed be the most high God, which hath deliuered thine enimies into thine hande. And Abraham gaue him tithe of all. In which words, there is no mentiō of any sacrifice. Afterward he compareth him in all those points, in which the Apo­stle to the Hebrues doth Heb. 7. Which are these: that he was king of rightuousnesse, and king of peace, without father, without mother, without kinred on earth. Hauing neither beginning of dayes, nor end of life, but is likened to the sonne of God, and continueth a Priest for euer: that he blessed Abraham, and that Abraham payde tythes vn­to him. In all which applications, there is not one worde of any sacrifice. Neither in the apostle, nor in M. Heskins: therefore as I sayde in the beginning, M. Heskins hath not satisfied the title of his Chapter. And verily, the Apo­stle in these two pointes, onely considereth the Priest­hoode of Melchisedech, y ^t he blessed Abraham which had the promises, and receiued tythes of him, in whose loynes Leuie the father of Aarons Priesthoode was tythed: who vndoubtedly would not haue omitted the sacrifice of breade and wine, if there had bene any, when he applyed the interpretation of his name, which was a great deale [Page 38] lesser matter. And surely it seemeth, that Maister Heskins could not handsomely frame an application thereof, else would he not haue admitted so plausible a matter, and so commonly prated of among the Papistes. He sawe first in the text was no mention of oblation, secondly if there had bene oblation of bread and wine, it would not well haue figured that sacrifice, wherein they say, is neither bread nor wine.

Hesk.The fourteenth Chapter declareth, after the minde of Chryso­stome that Iob was a figure of Christ, for the desire his seruants had to eate his flesh.

Fulk.Maister Heskins doth well to adde, after the minde of Chrysostome, for it is plaine by the text, that the words of eating his flesh, are meant of hatred and not of loue. Either that Iobs seruaunts shewed their desire to be reuenged of their maisters enimies, of whō he speaketh in y ^e two ver­ses before, or else as Saint Hieronyme thinketh, that he had procured his seruants hatred for his intertainment of straungers, and other vertues mentioned in the next verse following. Pro hospitalitatibus eius & virtute, quae & caeter [...] sancti Deo placuerunt odium seruorum contraxerat. So that this matter standeth not vpon any certaine figure of the scrip­ture, but onely vpon Chrysostomes minde, vnto which, you heare the contrarie minde of Hieronyme. But [...]owe let vs consider what the authoritie of Chrysostome ma­keth for him: his wordes are as he cyteth them out of Hom. 45. in 6. Ioan. Vt autem non solùm per dilectionem &c. But that we should be conuerted into that flesh, not onely by loue, but al­so in deede: it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath gi­uen vs. For when he would shewe his loue toward vs, he hath mixed himself with vs by his body, and made himself one with vs, that the body might be vnited to the hed These last words. For this is the maner of them that loue especially, in M. Heskins trāslation are left out, I know not for what causes, peraduenture of neg­ligence. This did Iob signifie by his seruants of whome he was lo­ued especially, which declaring their loue, did say: Who would giue [Page 39] vs, that we might be filled with his flesh. Which thing Christe did, that he might binde vs to him with g [...]ter loue: and that he might shewe his desire that he had to vs, suffering him selfe not onely to be seene of them that desire, but also to be touched and eaten, and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh, and all to be filled with the desire of him. Wherefore let vs rise from that table as Lyons brea­thing fire, terrible to the diuell, and let vs knowe our heade, and what loue he hath shewed vnto vs. Parents haue oftentimes gi­uen their children to be nourished of other: but I doe feede with mine owne flesh. I giue my selfe vnto them, I fauour all, I giue an exceeding good hope to all of things to come. He that giueth him self so vnto vs in this life, much more in the life to come. I would be your brother, and I tooke flesh and bloud with you for your sakes. and by what thinges I am ioyned to you, the same I haue giuen to you againe. In this long speach of Chrysostome, what is there that maketh for Maister Heskins bill, that hee hath promoted into the Parleament house? and not rather altogether against it? For first, it can not bee necessarily concluded out of this place, that Chrysostome speaketh of the Lordes supper, but rather of that table, meate, gi­uing and eating of Christes flesh, which is spoken of in the sixt of Saint Iohn, where no worde is of the sacra­ment or supper, which at that time was not instituted. Se­condly, if we should neuer so much vnderstand this speach of the sacrament, yet must we graunt it to be figuratiue, or else there wil folow infinite absurdities, beside such as M. Heskins affirmeth. Wherfore I will reason thus: Christ by this saying of Chrysostome, is none otherwise eaten then he is seene: but he is not seene corporally, but spiri­tually by faith, therefore he is not eaten corporally but spiritually by faith. And likewise thus: as Christ is tou­ched and teeth fastned in his flesh, so is he giuen or eaten, but he is not touched corporally or naturally, nor teeth fastned in his flesh corporally but spiritually, therefore hee is not giuen nor eaten in the sacrament corporally, but spiritually.

The maiors of these argumēts are Chrysostoms words, the minors are y ^e confessions of the Papistes, which affirme [Page 40] Christes body to be in the sacrament inuisibly, and doe correct the recantation of Berengarius, where he affir­med, that the body of Christ is torne with the teeth: the conclusions I trust be rightly inferred. But nowe let vs see what handsome stuffe M. Heskins gathereth out of this text of Chrysostome.

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

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

After this he noteth, that Christes flesh is not digested [Page 41] in vs, as other meates are, which is needlesse to note, if our fleshe be digested or turned into his: adding this reason, that As it is a celestiall meate, beeing now a glorified bodie, so it draweth vs vp to it, conuerting and turning vs into it, according to the nature of a celestiall thing. Howe vayne this reason is, by whiche hee would auoyde the digestion, and proue his new transubstantiation and conuersion, appeareth by this, that the body of Christe in the Sacrament, was as effec­tuall, while hee liued in his passible bodie on earth, in which he instituted this sacrament, as it is nowe beeing a glorified bodie in heauen. And whereas hee chargeth, I knowe not what Stercoranites of our time, to affirme that the fleshe of Christ, passeth through the bodie as o­ther meates, I thinke verilie, he lyeth most impudently. For I neuer heard, or read of any that so affirmed. Al­though, I woulde wishe men to speake reuerently of so high mysteries, yet the importunitie of the Papistes with their matter of transubstantiation enforceth them not to affirme of them selues, but to report, what they reade in the fathers, concerning the breade, beeing the terrestriall or outwarde parte of the Sacrament, that it is digested & passeth through, as all other naturall meates do, where­of Origen writeth in Math. Chap. 15. Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os in ventrem abit, & in sesession eijcitur: & ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Deipér (que) obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale, abit & in sesessū eijcitur. If what soeuer entereth into the mouth goeth into the bellie, and is cast foorth into the draught: euen that meate also which is sanctified by the worde of God and by prayer after that which it hath materiall, goeth and is cast foorth into the draught. This douteth not Origen to speake of the materiall parte of the Sacrament, by which it is mani­fest, that he knew no transubstantiation. The cheefe thing that M. Heskins vrgeth vs to marke, is that, Whereas the Sacramentes woulde haue onely a spirituall receiuing, this holy fa­ther teacheth that we are framed to Christ not onely spiritually by loue, which may bee without receiuing of meate, but, re ipsa, in deede by receyuing of meate. But I praye you M. Heskins, [Page 42] where saith Chrisostom that our coniunction vnto Christ is not onely spirituall. In deede he saide, not onely by loue, but in deede, but he opposeth not spiritually and really as you doe. And where you vrge that this coniunction is by meate, and this meate is his bodie, and therevppon conclude that it is a corporall coniunction, and Christ is ioyned corporally: I aunswere, that if Chrysostom may expound himselfe, this meate and this body is a spirituall meate, therefore a spirituall coniunction, and Christ is ea­ten spiritually. De prod. Iud. Nemo sit Iudas in mensa: hoc sa­crificium cibus spiritualis est. Nam sicut corporalis cibus, &c. Let no man be Iudas in this table: this sacrifice is a spirituall meate. For as corporall meat when it findeth a bellie, pos­sessed with humors contrarie to it, it hurteth and offen­deth more, and helpeth nothing at all: euen so this spiri­tuall meate, if it finde any man polluted with wickednes, it destroyeth him the more, not of it owne nature▪ but through the fault of him that receiueth it. Thus far Chry­sostome, for the meate to bee spirituall. Finally the last obseruation that Christ doth giue vs in y ^e sacrament, is the same fleshe, by which he was ioyned vnto vs, therefore his verie substantiall body and bloude, auayleth him no­thing: For wee contende not, of the substance of the thing, that is giuen, but of the manner of the giuing, the thing is the verie body and bloude of Christ, but not after a corporall or naturall manner, but after a spirituall and diuine maner, or as the olde writers haue saide. Modo ineffabili, after an vnspeakeable manner, as so many fi­guratiue speaches that are spoken therof do declare, whi­che to expound literally or grāmatically, were little bet­ter then extreme madnesse.

The other place which you adde out of Ho. 24. in 10.1. Cor. helpe them nothing at all, that Christ hath giuen vs his flesh &c. That this body the wisemen did reuerence in the māger. You might haue added out of the same place: Quod est in calice, id est quod a latere fluxit, that which is in the cuppe is the same that flowed out of his side, and thereof we are partakers. But that all these are figuratiue spea­ches [Page 43] it is manifest by this interrogation, that followeth in the same homilie. ‘ Quid enim appello inquit communicati­onem? id ipsum corpus sumus. Quid significat panis? corpus Christi. Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christs: non multa sed vnum corpus. For what do I cal it (saith he) a participation? We are the selfe same bodie. What signifieth the bread? The bodie of Christ. And what are they made which re­ceiue the bodie of Christ? Not many bodies but one body. And in y ^e same homilie. Sed quare, Addit quem frangimus? hoc in Eucharistia videre licet, in cruce autem minimè sed omnino con­tra. Os enim eius non conteretur. Sed quod in cruce passus nō est, id in oblatione patitur, & propter te frangi permittit. But why? doth he adde (speaking of the breade) which wee breake, that you may see in the sacrament of thankesgiuing, but not on the crosse, but altogether the contrarie. For there shall no bone of him be broken.’ But that which he suffered not on the crosse, he suffereth in the oblation, (for so they called the ministring of the communion, because it was a sacrifice of thanksgiuing) and for thee suffereth himself to be broken. In these places Chrysostome affirmeth the Church to be the same bodie, which the breade doth sig­nifie, and which the faithfull doe receiue, and in the lat­ter place, he sheweth manifest difference, betweene the na­turall body of Christ that suffered on the crosse, and the spirituall receiuing of him in the supper, in whiche his bones are broken, which (he saith) was not on the crosse, which must needes bee figuratiue. I passe ouer the large allegorie he continueth in the same homilie, affirming that we must be Eagles to flye vp into heauen, and feed of Chrstes bodie where it is, for where the bodie is, thether the Eagles will be gathered.

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

There is no doubt but the killing of the pascall lamb was a figure of the killing of Christ, Fulke. and of the eating of the lambe, was a sacrament of the eating of Christe our pascal lamb, but not properly a figure of y ^e Lords supper. [Page 44] For Christe is eaten not onely in the sacrament, but also by faith, which the vse of the sacrament is to confirme, as he himselfe teacheth Ioan. 6. It is true also, that this sa­crament is succeeded in the place of that. But that the ea­ting of the Lambe, was a figure of our eating of the Sa­crament, no scripture teacheth. For first your compari­sons will not serue M. Heskins, The lambe was verily eaten, therefore Christ is verily eaten, the lambe was substantially and re­ally eaten, therefore Christ was really and substantially eaten. For I may reason as well, the lambe was a naturall lambe; therefore Christ was a naturall lambe: or as you doe of the age of the lamb: the lamb was but one yere old, ther­fore Christe was but one yeare olde: or rather and more properly thus, if you will algates haue it a figure of the sacrament, the lambe was called the passouer, and yet it did but signifie the passouer, so the breade is called the body of Christe, and yet it doth but signifie the body of Christe: or thus, the eating of the lambe was a figure of the eating of Christ, so the eating of the bread is a figure of the eating of Christ. As for the desire that Christe had to eate the passouer, proueth not, that he called his sup­per so, but the olde passouer, which he so desired to eate, bicause it was the last & should be fulfilled, and then was in fulfilling, in the suffering an oblation of his body. The other text alleadged out of S. Paule, 1. Cor. 5. (Christ our passouer is slaine, therefore let vs feaste, not in the olde leauen, nor in the leauen of malice and wickednesse, but in the vnleauened bread of sinceritie and truth) is ma­nifestly wrested vnto the eating of Christ in y ^e supper: wherof, the Apostle speaketh not, but of the whole course of our life, wherein we must holde the feast in the vnleaue­ned breade of sinceritie and trueth.

The rule borowed out of Augustine in Psalm [...]ts. 77. will doe you little pleasure: for graunte that the thing figured in good thinges, is better then the figure, and in euill thinges worse, what haue you gained? Yes forsooth verie muche: For then the passouer figured must needes bee better then the passouer the figure. If the passouer [Page 45] which is nowe eaten, be but a peece of bread, a bare signe, a figure, (as the sacramentaries affirme:) then the pascall Lambe is a figure of a peece of bread, which is not better then it. Of this argu­ment no small accompt is made, for it is continued in sixe long tedious chapters following. But howe soone will all this smoke be blowen away? yea, euen with one breath. For admitte that the Pascall lambe was a signe of the Lordes Supper, which is not yet prooued by Scrip­ture: yet shall the thing figured be better then the fi­gure. For the supper of the Lorde consisteth of the bo­die and bloud of Christe, and not of a peece of breade, (a bare signe or figure,) although bread and wine are ele­ments which do liuely represent that, which Christe in his supper doeth feede vs withall. And he doeth more then beastly belye them, whome he calleth Sacramen­taries, to affirme that it is but a peece of breade, a bare signe or figure. They affirme that it is bread, but they affirme not, that it is nothing but a peece of bread: they saye it is a signe and a figure, but they saye not, it is a bare signe, and nothing but a figure: except baptisme be a bare signe, and nothing but a figure, because it is a signe and a figure. Therefore, when you come to your con­clusion (M. Heskins) you may well conclude, that the Sacrament is not a bare figure: but you falsly cogge in, that by Christes institution, it is consecrated to be offe­red: for Christ was offered vp but once, and that by him selfe only. Likewise, (verie vnlike a diuine,) you say, the Pascall Lambe was but a bare figure, which is vntrue: for it should not haue beene called the Passouer, except it had truely assured the worthie receiuers of their spiri­tuall deliuerance. But where you make it such an ab­surditie, that one figure shoulde be figure of another: there is no such inconuenience as you immagine, but that one thing may be the signe of another thing, which shall be a figure of the third thing. As in this very ex­ample, if you will call your wittes together, I am sure you will confesse, that the Pascall Lambe was a figure, of the deliuerance of the Israelites, from the destruction of [Page 46] Aegypt, and the same deliuerance of their bodies was a figure of the spirituall deliuerance of our soules. Because Dionysius (whom you cal the Areopagite) sayth nothing to the matter in controuersie, I will passe him ouer vntil some other time.

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

Fulk.This Chapter neither prooueth substantially that it promiseth, nor gaineth any thing if it proued it. For, if y ^e Pascall Lambe were a figure of Christes supper, yet that proueth not, as was shewed before, that the bodie of Christ is there eaten corporally, and after a corporal ma­ner. Tertullian, a noble man in Christes Parleament Cont. Mar­cion lib. 4. writeth thus. Professus igitur se concupiscentia con­cupiscere edere pasca, vt su [...]m (indignū enim vt quid alienum con­cupiscat Deus) acceptum panem, & distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit. Therefore, when he had professed that with de­sire he desired to eate the Passouer, as a thing of his owne: (for it was an vnworthie thing, that God should desire that pertained to another) that bread which he tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his bodie. This saying M. Heskins hath most vn­tollerably abused: first, by false translating, and then by leauing out that which expoundeth the mind of Tertul­lian most clearely. For the true vnderstanding of this place, we must note two things: firste, that Marcion, a­gainst whome he writeth, affirmed that the God of the lawe, was not the God of the Gospel: secondly, that Christ had not a true bodie, but a fantasticall bodie. Against both these errours, he reasoneth in this sentence. A­gainst the first, when he saith, he desired to eate the Pascal lambe of the olde lawe, which was his owne, namely of his owne institution, (for it was absurd that Christ being God, shoulde desire that which was another Gods insti­tution) as the heretike sayde, the lawe and all ceremo­nies thereof were. And this is directly contrarie to M. Heskins purpose, who ioyning with the heretike, deny­eth that he did desire to eat the Pascall of the lawe, and that it [Page 47] was not properly his owne, and for this intent, to make it serue his turne, he translateth falsly vt suum, as his owne Passouer, & alienum, any strange thing. Against the seconde, Tertul­lian reasoneth in the same sentence, which words, because M. Heskins could not abyde, he hath cleane cut off. ‘The wordes are these, Acceptum panem, & distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit, quia corporis ca­ [...]ebas veritate, ergo panem dibuit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis crucifigeretur. The bread which he tooke & distributed to his disciples, he made his bo­die, saying, this is my bodie, that is to saye, a figure of my bodie. And it could haue bene no figure, except his bo­die had bene of trueth. But a vaine thing which is a phan­tasie, cannot receiue a figure. Or else, if therefore he made breade his bodie, because he lacked the trueth of a bodie, therefore he should haue giuen bread for vs. It made wel for the vanitie of Marcion, that bread should haue beene crucified. There can nothing bee more euident, then that Tertullian by this place, ouerthroweth both the transubstantiation and also the carnall presence, maintai­ned by the Papistes.’ This M. Heskins because he coulde not brooke, he brake off the sentence, and commeth out of the matter also, to raile against Cranmer of holy me­morie; first, doubting whether the booke set forth in his name were made by him, as though Cranmer was not wel enough knowen to be as well able to write a booke as Heskins: then that he affirmeth, the Papistes vnable to shewe one article of faith, so directly contrarie to our senses, that all our senses shall by daily experience affirme a thing to be, and yet our faith shall teach vs the contrarie.

Maister Heskins like a wilie Pye, obiecteth the arti­cle of the resurrection, where our senses teacheth vs, that mens bodyes be dead, and faith teacheth, y ^t they shall rise againe. But the subtile sophister doth not see, I weene a difference betweene it & is in M. Cranmers assertiō, & is [Page 48] and shalbe in his balde obiection. Faith teacheth, that shalbe, which our sense teacheth nowe not to be. But faith teacheth not that to be white, which our sense tea­cheth to be blacke. But he hath another wise instance. The senses taught, that the wounde which Christe had in his side, after his resurrection was verie sore, but faith taught the con­trarie, because his bodie was glorified. Seeing the wounde was made after his death, reason would iudge, that it was insensible, especially when he was risen againe frō death, by his diuine power. And Thomas was not so rude, that he would haue thrust in his hand, if he thought it shold haue hurt him, and when he did thrust in his hande, he perceiued by his senses, that it did not hurt. But it is pittie to spende any time about so vaine a matter: sore­nesse being not the thing, but a certeine affection of the thing, which cannot alwayes be knowen by another mans senses, but by his onely that feeleth it, as in him that hath the Palsey, if his legge were cut off, he feeleth nothing, yet some such wise man as M. Heskins, would thinke it were verie sore. But he woulde-faine excuse the matter, why he cutteth off Tertulian by the waste, promising in another place to do it, and willeth you in the meane time to consider, that Christes bodie is giuen in the sacrament, and further alledgeth out of Tertul­lian in another place, which is in his booke De resurre­ctione carnis: That the fleshe doth eate the bodie and bloud of Christ, that the soule may be fedd of God. Where hee mea­neth none otherwise, then in the former place, cal­ling the sacrament a figure of Christes bodie, and so an ende with Tertullian. Then commeth Isychius disciple of Gregorie Nazianzene, who firste dissuading men from vsing of the Iewes ceremonies, affirmeth that which M. Heskins denyed, that Christe did eat the le­gall Passouer in his last supper. His wordes that are materiall are these: ‘ Christus primùm celebrauit figuratum Pasca. Post canam auem intelligibidem tradit. Christ did first celebrate the figuratiue Passeouer, but after supper he deliuered the intelligible supper.’

[Page 49]Then followe diuers places, to shew that by intelligible, he meaneth figured. But being graunted that the supper was figured, by the pascall Lambe, which is the egge that he is so long in brooding, yet he is neuer the neerer, for the carnall presence and corporall manner of eating, no not with that whiche Isychius saith: That he tooke the in­telligible bloud first in the mysticall supper, In Leuit. lib. 2 cap. 8. and afterward gaue the cuppe to his Apostles, and that he dranke himselfe, and giuing to his Apostles to drinke, then he powred the intelligible bloud vpon the altar, that is to say, his body. Now the body of Christ is the Church and all his people. He that seeth not, that this Father doeth vse figuratiuely these wordes: bloud, body, altar, powre, drinke, &c. is worthy to weare a cockes combe, & a bell. Yet Maister Heskins noteth in the margent, Christ dranke his owne bloud, and gaue it to his Apostles. Which if it be true in the litterall sense, as he meaneth, then it is as true, that he powred his owne bloud vpon his owne body in the literall sense. For the same bloud, which he dranke, and gaue, he powred on his body. But he powred not his natural bloud vpon his body, therefore he neither gaue nor dranke his naturall bloud in the litterall sense. But you will say, his body signifieth his Church and peo­ple, for whom he powred forth his naturall bloud. Well, beside that you are inforced to acknowledge a figuratiue speeche, you are neuer the neere. For although he pow­red out his bloud for them, yet he powred it not vpon them. And your Authour saith, he dranke none other bloud, but that he powred vpon them. Here is also alled­ged Chrysostomes name, for Christes drinking of his bloud, but his wordes are referred to another place. Then followeth a conclusion: If Christ drank his owne bloud, he drank it spiritually, or corporally: spiritually he could not: wher­fore he dranke it corporally. This is very round dealing M. Heskins. But if he could drinke his bloud, I pray you why could he not drinke it spiritually, as well, & rather, then corporally? For if he dranke his owne bloud, he also did eate his owne body, which if it sound not grossely in your eares, it is, because you haue a grosse vnderstanding.

[Page 50]In this Chapter two Lordes of the Parleament beeing required of their iudgment, haue giuen their voices both directly against his bill for the carnall presence.

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

Maister Heskins, in his Epistles, and prefaces, promi­seth great sinceritie, Fulke. and euery where obiecteth impuden­cie, and insinceritie against the proclaymer, and his com­plices. But see what sinceritie he vseth, that matcheth Eu­thymius, scarse worthy to be a burgesse of the lower house, [...]ith Cyprian one of the most auncient Barons of the vpper house. And yet afterward he him selfe placeth him in the lower house, that is, among the writers within the compasse of nine hundreth yeres. Wheras the higher house consisteth of them that writ within 600. yeares af­ter Christ, as the Bishop whom he tearmeth the proclay­mer, maketh his challenge. And certeinely Euthymius was neuer accounted for a Lord of the parleament, before he was called thereto by Maister Heskins writte, which of what force it is to make a Baron, let the readers iudge.

For he liued about the yeare of our Lord 1170. Not­withstanding we will examine his voyce as it commeth in order. But we must first consider the voyce of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage. Which is this. The supper therefore be­ing ordered among the sacramentall meates, De coena Domini. there mette together the newe ordinances and the olde. And when the lambe was consu­med or eat [...]n, which the olde tradition did set foorth, the maister did set before his disciples the inconsumptible meat [...]. Neither are the people now bidden to feastes, painefully wrought with expenses and cunning: but the foode of immortalitie is giuen, differing from common meates, reteyning the kind of appearance of corporall sub­stāce, but prouing by inuisible efficiencie, the presence of Gods power or the diuine vertue to be there. In this saying, First there is neuer a worde, to proue that the Pascall Lambe was a figure of the Lordes supper, which is the purpose of the Chapter, but onely that the newe institution succeeded [Page 51] the olde, which is manifest by the history of the Gos­pell: Euen as Baptisme succeded circumcision, and yet was not circumcision a figure of Baptisme, Secondly note, that he doeth not affirme, the reall presence of Christes naturall bodie, but the inuisible working of his diuine power. And so his voyce is flatly againg Mais­ter Heskins bill. Nowe let vs consider his fonde col­lections. First that Christ gaue inconsumptible meate, the sacra­mentaries giue consumptible meate? For they giue but bread. This is a false slaunder, a thousand times repeated, for they giue not bread only, but euen the same inconsumptible meate, by the inuisible working of his diuine power, which Cyprian affirmeth, that Christe gaue his Disciples. But he vrgeth, That it was put before them, taken by hande, & laid in sight, which the merite and grace of his passion could not be. See I pray you how this man agreeth with Cyprian: Cy­prian saith, it was by inuisible working of Gods fauour, he saith it was put before them, (for so he translateth ap­ponit) taken by hand, and laide in sight.

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

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

[Page 52]His third collection, that it is called The foode of immor­talitie, which cannot be bare materiall bread. A true collection, for the sacrament is not bare material bread, but the bo­dy and bloud of Christ, represented by materiall bread, as a materiall lauer is the water of regeneration, but not bare materiall water.

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

But he proceedeth to another speech of Cyprian, which is in deede a more apparant speeche for his purpose, the wordes are these: Panis iste, quem Dominus Discipulis porri­gebat, non eff [...]gie, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. Et fiout in persona Christi humanitas videbatur, & late­ba [...] diuinitas: ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter se diuina infudie essentia. This bread which our Lorde did reache vnto his disci­ples, beeing chaunged not in shape, but in nature, by omnipo­tencie of the worde is made fleshe. And as in the person of CHRISTE, the humanitie was seene, the diuinitie was hidden, euen so the diuine essence hath powred it selfe vnspea­kably into the visible sacrament. The Papistes esteeme this place to be an inuincible bulwarke of their transubstan­tiation, but alas it is soone ouerthrowne, when the mea­ning of Cyprian is boulted out, not onely by sentences going before and after this saying, but also by the very [Page 53] wordes of this same sentence. For he maketh a manifest difference, betweene the visible sacrament and the diuine essence, which is inuisible. Whereas the Papistes by their transubstantiation, haue no visible sacrament, but onely accidents of breade and wine, which they, nor none other can call a visible sacrament. Moreouer, the word diuine es­sence, answering to the word flesh, in the former sentence, plainely expoundeth what he meaneth thereby, namely the diuine power which the flesh of Christ hath, to giue life, and not the diuine nature or substance, as M. Hes­kins translateth it, and much lesse Christ, God and Man, as he expoundeth it. For if we take the diuine essence, for the diuine substaunce of Christes Godhead, it will bee a grosse absurditie, and a blasphemous heresie, to make any infusion or powring of that into the visible sacrament, which filleth all places. Wherefore of necessitie it signifi­eth the propertie or efficacie, euen as the worde nature, in the former clause doth signifie. For the former shape of the breade is not chaunged, but the nature or propertie is altered, namely to feede the soule and not the body only, as before it was made a sacrament, it serued to do. But M. Hesk. liketh not this glose, but wil haue nature to signifie substance, and not propertie, as it doth very often: as when we say, the nature of hearbs, of stones, of beastes, we mea­ne the properties. But whether he will or no, it must be so taken, seing it may be so taken, or else Cyprian should be contrarie to him selfe: who distinguisheth the visible sacrament from the diuine essence, who calleth that diuine essence (a word more vsuall for substance) which is but di­uine efficacie or propertie, who, if he had meant, that the bread had bene turned into the naturall body of Christe, wold neither haue cōpared it with the diuinitie of Christ hid vnder his humanitie, nor haue said, euen so the diuine essens, infundeth it selfe in the sacrament, but euen so the bodie of Christ is hid vnder the formes of bread & wine. But that there should be no doubt of his meaning, thus he writeth in the same sermon, a litle after: Haec quoties a­gimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide syncera panem [Page 54] sanctum franginus & partimur. As often as we do these thin­ges, we doe not sharpen our teeth to byte, but with a sin­cere faith we breake and diuide this holy breade. What can be more plaine to expresse the meaning of this doc­tour, then that wee receiue not the body of Christe with our mouth, but with our heart, not with the instrument of our teeth, but with the instrument of our faith. ‘In the same Sermon, hee writeth Panis est esca, sanguis, vita, caro, substantia, corpus, Ecclesia: Corpus, propter membrorum in v­num conuenientium: panis, propter nutrimenti congruentiam: san­guis, propter vinificationis efficientiam: caro, propter assumptae humanitatis proprietatem. The breade is foode, bloud, life, flesh, substaunce, his body, the Church: his body, for the agreement of the members in one: bread, for the aptnes of nourishment: bloud, for the efficiencie of quickening: flesh, for the propertie of his humanitie that he tooke on him.’ These places do sufficiently expound the meaning of Cyprian, howe the breade is chaunged into flesh, not after any change of substance, but of qualitie and proper­tie, as in so many figuratiue termes is more thē manifest.

Let vs nowe come to Euthymius aduaunced by Mai­ster Heskins into the higher house. And he in deede see­meth to affirme the purpose of this Chapter, that the Paschall lambe was a figure of the sacrament, and yet not very plainely, but rather it was a figure of the true Passeouer, which the sacrament doth represent, but that is no materiall point of our controuersie, whether one sa­crament did figure an other, his wordes are: Christe in the same table described the figuratiue and shadowing Passeouer, and set before them the true and perfect Passeouer. Herevpon hee inferreth that Christe was not truely and perfectly giuen to the Iewes in the Paschall Lambe as we teach, but onely a figure and signe of him, but in the sacrament he is giuen to vs truely and per­fectly, that is by a true and reall presence. But it is pitie that hee seeth not that his authour compareth the thing signified by our sacrament, with the outward signe of the Iewish sacrament, as also the scripture doth oftentimes, against them that depended vpon the outward ceremonies. Not [Page 55] that a false or vnperfect Christ was figured and receiued of the faithfull by them, but to shewe a difference be­tweene the shadowe and the trueth, the figure and the thing figured, when y ^e Iewes so sticked in the figure, that they considered not the thing signified.

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

The eighteenth Chapter treateth of the same matters by S. Hie­ronyme and Chrysostome.

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

And therevpon we will not striue, but that it is often [Page 56] taken to shewe by a figure or signe, hee him selfe can not denie, and that it must be so taken here in this place, appeareth by this reason. The comparison will not else stand betweene Melchisedech and Christe (which all though it bee not grounded on scripture, Hierome often maketh) except Christe offered breade and wine in a figure or representation, as Melchisedech did in a prefi­guration.

M. Heskins enforceth the word Truth, that he should not meane a figure, for then he would haue saide (as he imagineth) that he also must represent his body and bloud, and not that he also might represent the truth of his body. But if you marke the force of this word, quoque, also, you shall see, that Melchi­sedech did prefigurate the truth of his body likewise. For it importeth an equalitie of both their doings, Melchise­dech by breade and wine did represent or prefigurate the truth of his body, and Christ also by breade and wine did represent the truth of his body. For Christ could not doe also, that which an other had not done. Therefore very foolish are M. Heskins oppositions, of typicall passeouer, and true passeouer, and figure and truth, where the argu­ment is a consentaneis, and not a dissentaneis. The other fri­uolous interpretation, that he maketh of the bread com­forting mans heart, being both out of the minde of Hie­ronyme, and out of his purpose, I omit. At length hee commeth to an other place of Hieronyme ad Heliodorum Ep. 1. Absit vt de ijs quicquam sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gra­dui succedentes: Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt. God forbid that I shuld speake any euil of thē, which succeeding the apostolike degree, doe make the body of Christ with their holy mouth. M. Heskins translateth it, which do consecrate, bicause in the word, make, which Hieronyme vseth, hee should be enforced to ac­knowledge a figuratiue speach. But let him turne ouer all his vocabularies, Calepines, and dictionaries, vnto which he sent vs ere while, and he shall not finde this Verbe conficio, signifying to consecrate, but to make, to dispatch, or to kill. Likewise he leaueth out these wordes which folowe immediatly, Per quos & nos Chri­stiani [Page 57] sumus, by whome wee also are Christians. It is euident that Hieronyme speaketh hyperbolically of the dignitie of priestes, for as to speake properly, we are not made Christians by them, no more is the bodie of Christ made by them. But where he speaketh properly, he vseth proper tearmes, as Contra Iouin. lib. 2. In typo sangui­nis sui non obtulit aquam, sed vinum. In the figure of his bloud he offered not water, but wine. Here he calleth the sacrament, the type of his bloude, and saith it is wine. ‘And in the same booke, he saith of Christ, that al­though it be written of him, that he hungred and thristed and went often to diner, yet excepto mysterio, quod in typum suae passionis expressit, & probandi corporis veritate, nec gulae scribitur seruisse, nec ventri. Excepting the mysterie whiche he expressed in figure of his passion, and in prouing the trueth of his bodie, it is not written that he did serue his throte or bellie. Meaning that it is not saide expressedly what he did eate and drinke, but onely a [...] his last sup­per, and after his resurrection to proue the trueth of his body.’

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

Out of Chrysostom are alledged two long testimonies, the one out of his homilies de prodit. Iudae. But by that al­so an other greater benefit was shewed, that that lamb was a signe of the lambe to come, and that bloude shewed the comming of the Lordes bloude, and that sheepe was an example of the spirituall sheepe. That lambe was a shadowe, this lambe the trueth. But af­ter [Page 58] the sunne of righteousnesse shined, the shadowe was put away by the light. And therefore on the same table both the passeouers were celebrated, both that of the figure and that of the trueth. For as painters are wont to shadowe the table that is to be painted, with certayne lineamentes, and so with varietie of colours to make it perfecte. Euen so Christ did in the table. Hee did both describe the figure of the Passeouer, and shewed the passeouer of trueth: Where wilt thou that wee prepare for thee to eate the passouer? That was the Iewish passouer, but let the passouer giue place to the light, and the image be ouercome of the trueth. If this place be well considered, it maketh altogether against the Bill of tran­substantiation. For the similitude of the Painters Table, hauing in it shadowes and colors, applyed vnto the pascal lambe and the sacrament, declareth that they both toge­ther make a perfect image, to shew and represent the true lambe Christ which was offered for vs, the olde pascall, being the shadowing, & the new sacramēt which he calleth also a passouer, being the varietie of colors, by which the passouer of trueth is discribed and plainely shewed. Therfore M. Heskins collections are vaine, and from the authors meaning. For his purpose is not, to make y ^e pascall lamb a figure of y ^e sacramēt, but of christ, and both y ^e lamb & the sacrament, figures of Christ: but yet the lambe a sha­dowing figure, like the first draught of a painter, y ^e sacra­ment a cleare demonstration like an image in colors. It is therfore verie babish, y ^t he groūdeth vpon the word of the Passeouer shewed in the table, that the bodie of Christ was really present on y ^e table in y ^e sacrament, wheras it is plain, that Chrysostom speaketh of shewing by signes, as by co­lours an image is set forth in a painted table. As childish it is, that he will oppresse the proclamer to tell him why Hierome and Chrisostom call not the Iewish pascal, light, trueth, & veritie, as they doe our pascall, seeing by it they receiued Christ [...] as well as wee in our sacramente. A sore matter. The Iewishe pascall represented (if I may vse that tearme vnder cor­rection of M. Heskins dictionarie) the true pascal Christ, as our sacrament doeth, who is the light, trueth, and veritie: the sacramente they call not the pascall lambe, [Page 59] light, nor trueth, but by a figure, as they call it manye other thinges. But when they speake properlie they vse o­ther tearmes, so doth Chrysostome. Homi. Ex. Psal. 22. & 116. ‘ Sapientia ędificauit sibi Domum, supposuit columnas septem, parauit mensam suam, misit seruos suos conuocans omnes, & di­cens, venite & edite de panibus meis, & bibite vinum quod mis­cui vobis: & quia istam mensam preparauit seruis & ancillis in conspectu eorum, vt quotidie in similitudinem corporis & sanguinis Christi, panem & vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sacramento, ideo dicit, parasti in conspectu meo mensam aduersus eos qui tribulant me. Wisedome hath buil­ded hir an house, shee hath set vnder seauen pillers, shee hath prepared hir table, shee hath sent foorth her seruan­tes calling all men to hir and saying, come and eate of my breade, and drinke of the wine that I haue powred foorth for you: and because she hath prepared this table for hir seruauntes and maides in the sight of them, that she might dayly shew vs in the sacrament after the order of Melchisedech, breade and wine in similitude of the bodie and bloude of Christe, therefore she saith, thou hast prepared a table in my sight againste them that trouble mee. What Papistes holding transubstantiation, would thus write, that breade and wine is shewed in the Sacra­ment in the similitude of the bodie and bloud of Christ?’

The seconde testimonie that M. Heskins alleageth out of Chrisostome, is vpon the 1. Cor. 10. This table is the strength of our soule, the sinewes of our minde, the bonde of our trust, our foundation, hope, healpe, light, our life, if we depart hence defended with this sacrifice, with most greate confidence, wee shall ascende into the holy entrie, as couered with certaine golden gar­mentes. But what speake I of thinges to come? For while wee be in this life; this mysterie maketh earth to be heauen vnto vs. Ascende vnto the gates of heauen & marke diligently, or rather not of heauē but of heauen of heauens, & thē thou shalt behold that we say. For that which is worthy of highest honor, I will shew thee in earth. For as in kings houses, not the walles, not the golden roofe, but the kinges body sitting in the throne is most excellent: so also in heauen the kinges body, which nowe is set foorth to be seene of thee in earthe. [Page 60] I shewe thee neither Angels, nor Archangels, nor the heauens, nor the heauens of heauens, but the Lorde himselfe of all these thinges. Thou perceiuest how that which is greatest and cheifest of all things thou doest not onely see it on earth, but also touche it: and not onely touch it, but eate also: and when thou haste receiued it re­turnest home, wherefore wipe thy soule from all filthinesse, pre­pare thy minde to the receyuing of these mysteries. For if the Kinges childe being decked with purple and diademe, were deliue­red to thee to bee carried, wouldest thou not cast all downe to the grounde and receiue him? But nowe when thou receiuest not the childe of a kinge beeing a man, but the onely begotten sonne of God, tell mee I praye thee, doest thou not tremble and caste awaye the loue of all seculer thinges?

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

But let vs see M. Heskins collections. First hee is en­forced to confesse that the sentence beginneth with a fi­gure, The table for the meate therevppon: Secondely, hauing such honourable tearmes, it can not bee a peece of breade, but Christe himselfe. This shall bee graunted also. Thirdly, that Christe is verily on the table, which he calleth Altars. As veri­lie as earth is made heauen. Fourthly, that it is Christ whiche is worthie of highest honour verily present in the Sacramente. As verily present as hee is seene: but hee is seene onely by faith, therefore present onely to faith. But this obiection hee taketh vppon him to aunswere: If we saye the bodie of Christ can not be sene in the sacrament. No more saith he, can the substance of man be seene, but his garmentes or outward formes & accidentes. This is such a boyish sophisme as I am ashamed to aunswere it. By which I maye as well proue, that Christes body was neuer seene, and therefore not seene in the sacrament, contrarie to that whiche Chrysostome saith. Frō this obiection he falleth into an other, y ^t if christ [Page 61] in the Sacrament be worthie all honour, then of sacrifice also, and the sacrifice being Christ, Christ shalbe offered to him selfe. This he calleth an ignorant obiection. But there is more knowledge in it, then he hath witt to answere. He alledgeth the words of Augustine. lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 14. Christ abideth one with him, to whome he offereth: and maketh him selfe one with them, for whom he offereth himself: and is one with them, that offer: & one, with that which is offered. Here are diuerse kindes of vnitie, and yet not Christ of­fered vnto him selfe, vnlesse M. Heskins will be a Sabel­lian and a Patripassian, to confound the persons of the Godhead, and say, that God the father, yea, the whole Trinitie is likewise transubstantiated in the Sacrament. Though Christe be one with his father, yet did he not offer him selfe to him selfe, but himselfe to his father. As for the other saying of Augustine that he bringeth, it is altogether against him De ciuitate Dei. lib. 10. c. 20. He is the Priest him selfe, he is the offerer, he is the oblation, whereof he would haue the daily sacrifice of the Church to be a sacrament; seeing that of her bodie he is the head, and of his head, shee is the bodie, as well shee by him, as he by her being accustomed to be of­fered. First Christ is the offerer and the oblation, but not he to whome it is made. Secondly, that which he calleth the sacrifice of the Church, is a sacrament, that is a holie memoriall of that propitiatorie sa [...]fice, which he offe­red. Thirdly, this sacrifice of the Church, is of the Chur­che her selfe offered by Christ, and of Christe offered by the Church, which must needes be spirituall, as the con­iunction of Christ and his Church is spirituall, therefore it is not the natural bodie of Christ offered by the priest, but his mystical bodie offered by the Church & by him­selfe, and so a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of pro­pitiation.

After these obiections, he returneth to his collections out of the authoritie of Chrysostome. There neede no such preparation nor trembling, if the Sacrament were but a peece of bread. He hath neuer done with this slaunder, as though any Christian man did saye, it was but a peece of bread, [Page 62] which Christe vouchsafed to call his bodie. Wee saye truely, it is bread: but wee say not, it is but a peece of bread.

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

Fulk.M. Heskins promiseth in his Epistle, and gloryeth of­ten in his worke, that he doth not alledge the doctors wordes truncately, & by peece meale, as heretikes do. But you shal see how well he handleth him selfe. He would haue S. Au­gustine speake for his bil, and alledgeth his words out of his worke. contrae literas Petiliani, quoting neither what booke nor what Chapter of the same, by which it see­meth that either he red not the place him self out of Au­gustine, but receiued it of some gatherer, or else hee would cloake his vnhonest dealing. Hee citeth it thus: Aliud est Pascha quod adhuc Iudaei celebrant de Oue: Aliud autē quod nos in corpore & sanguine domini celebranus. It is another Passouer that the Iewes do yet celebrate with a sheepe, another, that wee do celebrate in the bodie & bloud of Christ. ‘But Augu­stines wordes, not truncately and by peece meale rehear­sed nor altered are these: Contrae literas Petiliani lib. 2. Cap. [...]7. Sed sicut aliud est carnis circumcisio Iudeorum, aliud autem quod octauo die baptizatorum nos celebratius: et aliud est Pas­cha quod adhuc illi de Oue celebrant, aliud autem quod nos in corpore & sanguine domini accipimus: sic alius fuit baptismus Ioannis, alius est baptismus Christi, illis enim ventura ista prae­manciabantur: istis completa illa praedicantur. But euen as the circumcision of the fleshe of the Iewes is one thing, and that which wee do celebrate the eyght day of them that are baptized is another thing: and the Passeouer whiche they do yet celebrate of a sheepe is one thing, and that which wee receiue in the bodie and bloud of the Lorde is another thing. So the baptisme of Iohn was one, and the baptisme of Christe is another: for by those things these things were foreshewed to come: by these, those things are preached to be accomplished.’

[Page 63]First, the supper is not made here another Passeouer but another thing, that is, an other sacrament. Secondly here is declared, howe the sacraments of the old lawe, differ from ours of the newe Testament, not in sub­stance, which is all one in both, but that they were sig­nes of things to come, ours are signes of things accom­plished. Which thing hee teacheth often, and in this Chapter moste plainly. Lex & Prophetae, &c. ‘The lawe and the Prophetes had Sacraments, foreshewing the things to come: but the Sacraments of oure time do te­stifie that to bee come, which they did preache that it should come.’

‘And in Ioan. Tract. 28. hee sayeth, that the Sacra­ments of the olde testament and the newe, in signis diuersa sunt, in re quae significatur paria. In visible kindes, diuerse, but aequall in spirituall vertue. By which, and a hundreth such places, it is manifest to be ouerthrowen, which M. Hes­kins would buylde, that Christ spiritually receiued, is not our Pascall lambe, but that we receiue another sub­stance of Christe, then the faithfull did in the olde Testa­ment.’ The seconde place he citeth out of Augustine, I marueile he could not see it to be as plaine against him as the first. cont. Faust. Man. lib. 20. Cap. 18. The Hebrues in the sacrifices of beastes, which they did offer to God many and di­uerse wayes, as for so great a matter it was meete, did celebrate a Prophesie of the sacrifice to come, which Christ hath offered. Wherefore nowe the Christians do celebrate the memorie of the same sacrifice being accomplished by the holie oblation and by the participation of the bodie and bloud of Christ. In this sentence is manifestly declared, the same difference we spake of before of the Iewishe sacraments, and of our sacraments, the one being a Prophesie of Christes sacrifice to come, the other, a remembrance of the same beeing past, and fulfilled.

And whereas M. Heskins vrgeth the worde oblation, to exclude y ^e spirituall eating, he doth verie ridiculously, as though there might not be as wel a spiritual oblation, as a spirituall participation, especially when the author [Page 64] shewing what we do in oblation and participatiō, sayeth, we so celebrate the memorie of Christes sacrifice alredie fulfilled. ‘Therefore, this oblation is another from that: namely, a spirituall oblation and thanksgiuing, for that whose memorie it celebrateth, as Augustine most plain­ly teacheth in the same booke, Cap. 21. Sed quid agam & tantae caecitati istorum Hęreticorum, quando demonstrabo quam vim habeat quod in Psalmis canitur: Sacrificium laudis glorifica­bit me & illie via est vbi ostendam salutare meum? Huius sacri­ficij caro & sanguis ante aduentum Christi per victimas similitu­din [...]m promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsum veritatem redd [...]batur: post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae ce­lebratur. But what shall I do? or when shall I shewe vn­to so great blindnesse of these heretikes, what force that hath which is soung in the Psalmes? The sacrifice of praise shall glorifie mee, and there is the way where I will shewe my saluation. The fleshe and bloud of this sacrifice before the comming of Christ, was promised by sacrifices of similitudes: in the passion of Christ, by the verie trueth it selfe, it was giuen vp: after the ascension of Christ, it is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance. Iudge by this place, whether Christes bodie be really offered, or whether it be a mathematicall sacrifice, as it plea­seth M. Heskins in his merie vaine to call it.’ Augustine maketh three kindes of oblation of the fleshe and bloud of Christ: In promise by sacrifices of similitudes, in truth by Christ in his passion, in the sacrament of remēbrance after his death.

Now followeth a long speache of Cyrill, directly a­gainst M. Heskins the alledger of it: lib. 4. in Ioan. 6. ca. 14. Nec putet &c. Neither let the Iewe of the dullnesse of his whiche thinke, that we haue inuented mysteries neuer heard of be­fore. For he shall see, if he will seeke more diligently, that the ve­rie selfe same thing hath beene done since the times of Moses. For what deliuered their Elders from death, and the destruction of Aegypt, when death raigned vpon the first borne of Aegypt. Is it not euident to all men, that because they being taught by Gods in­stitution, did eat the flesh of the Lambe, and oynted the postes and [Page 65] vpper doore postes, with the bloud of the Lambe, therfore death de­parted from them: for destruction, that is death of this fleshe, ra­ged against mankinde for the transgression of the first man. For be­cause of sinne, we haue heard: Earth thou art, and into earth thou shalt returne: but for asmuch as Christ by his flesh would ouerthrow that cruell tyrant, therefore that was shadowed by a mystery a­mong the auncient fathers, and they beeing sanctified by the sheepes fleshe and bloud (God so willing) escaped destruction. Therefore ô Iewe, why art thou so troubled, seeing the trueth prefigured long before: Wherefore I say art thou troubled, if Christe saith: except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you, whereas it behoued thee, beeing instruc­ted in the lawes of Moses, and well taught by the olde shadowes to beleeue, to be most ready to vnderstand these mysteries? The sha­dowe, and the figure thou knowest, therefore learne the very trueth of the thing. My fleshe, saith he, is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede. In these wordes beside that there is nothing to proue the Pascall Lambe, to be a figure of the Lordes Supper: it is directly said, that the selfe same mysterie of eating the fleshe of Christ, hath ben obserued since the time of Moses: and that there is no cause, why the Iewe should be offended at the saying of Christe, if he would vnderstand the trueth, whereof the Pascall lambe was the figure and shadowe. Which trueth was no mysterie newly inuented, but practised euer since Mo­ses, for not by the fleshe and bloud of the Lambe, but by the flesh and bloud of Christ, the people were deliuered from death. The Lambe was then a sacrament: Christe was then, and euer shall be the trueth: but what neede we more striue, whē M. Heskins confesseth, That the faith­full of the olde Testament did eate the flesh, & drinke the bloud of Christ spiritually, as the Apostle teacheth. 1. Cor. 10. They did all eate the same spirituall meate, &c. And Cyrill saith, We haue no newe mysterie, but euen the same that hath beene practised since the time of Moses.

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

[Page 66]In the beginning of this Chapter, he doeth honestly confesse, Fulk. that Gregorie was the last of the higher house: & Damascen the first and chiefest of the lower house, he may make him Vantparlar if he will. But neither of thē haue any thing materiall for his purpose, that he alled­geth them, nor for the generall purpose of his bill. For Gregories wordes are altogether alegoricall, & there­fore cannot be taken in the Grammaticall sense, Hom. 22. Pasch: All which thinges do bring forth to vs great edifying if they be discussed by mystical, or alegoricall interpretation. For what the bloud of the lambe is you haue learned, not now by hea­ring, but by drinking, which bloud is put vpon both the postes, when it is dronke, not only with the mouth of the body, but also with the mouth of the heart. For he that doeth so receiue the bloud of his redeemer, that he will not as yet followe his passion, hath put the bloud on a post. Heare what a great thing is there? But that he calleth the sacrament of the bloud, y ^e bloud of the redeemer, speaking alegorically, as he calleth it the bloud of the Lamb, meaning the olde Paschal, whi­che doth signifie the bloud of Christ. Therfore if Mais­ter Heskins will vrge the bloud of the redeemer dronke not only with the mouth of the body, but with y ^e mouth of the heart: he may likewise vrge the bloud of y ^e lamb: if this be a figuratiue speech, so is that. But Gregorie proceedeth. In the night (saith he) we eate the lambe, be­cause we do now receiue the Lordes body in a sacrament, when as yet we do not see one anothers conscience. Note here y ^t Grego­rie doth not say simply, we eate the Lords body, but we eate the Lordes body in a sacrament or mysterie: compa­ring the night of the Iewish eating, with the mysterie of the Lordes body. And in neither of both his sayinges af­firmeth the lambe to be a figure of the supper, which is the purpose of the Chapter. As for Damascen, his chiefe words are these, (For it were too long to rehearse all, he being but a knight of the lower house.) If God the word by willing was made man, &c. can he not make bread his owne body, and wine with water his bloud? God saide in the beginning: let the earth bring forth greene hearbes: and vnto this day, bee­ing [Page 67] holpen, & strengthened by Gods cōmandement, the rayne com­ming, it bringeth forth fruits. God said, this is my body, & this is my bloud, and do ye this in remēbrance of me: by his almightie cōman­dement it is brought to passe vntill he come. In this testimonie, which M. Hesk. rehearseth more at large, sauing y ^t he na­meth y ^e old Passeouer y ^t Christ did celebrate at his last sup­per, there is no mentiō of any figure y ^t it was of his supper. Secōdly, although the time, in which Damascen liued, was very corrupt, yet there is nothing in these wordes, whiche may not wel be referred to y ^e spiritual presence of Christs body, vnto the faith of the worthie receiuer. M. Heskins maketh a needlesse digression of y ^e cōmandement of con­secratiō, which shalbe granted to him, if he wil not frame a new signification of consecration, which none of his Ca­lepines, Vocabularies, nor Dictionaries do acknowledge. For, to consecrate, is to halow, or to separat to an holy vse, so we grant y ^e bread and wine to be consecrated. But y ^e Pa­pistes call consecrating, to change y ^e substances, or to tran­substātiat. And so neither Chrysostom, nor any other learned man, did euer vse y ^t word. His wordes, as M. Heskins citeth thē Ho. de pro. Iud. be these: And now the same Christ is present, which did furnish that table, he also consecrateth this. For it is not man that maketh the thinges set foorth to be the body and bloud of Christ, by consecration of the Lordes table, but he that was crucified for vs, euen Christ Wordes are spoken by the mouth of the priest, but they are consecrated by the power and grace of God. This is saith he, my body. By this worde the thinges set foorth are conse­crated. And as that voyce that said, grow ye, & multiply ye, was but once spoken, but yet it feeleth alway effect, nature working with it vnto generation: so that voyce was but once spoken, but through all the tables of the Church, vnto this day, and vntill the comming, it giueth strength to the sacrifice. In these wordes (because M. Heskins bringeth them in for consecration) note y ^t Chry­sostome affirmeth all consecration vnto the worldes end to be wrought by the voice of Christ, once spoken by him selfe. This is my body, whereas the Papistes affirme con­secration to be by the vertue of these words spoken by a Priest. So y ^t there is great diuersitie, betweene their iudge­ments [Page 68] of consecration.

Hesk.The one & twentieth Chapter concludeth the matter of the figure of the Pascall lambe, by Haymo, and Cab [...]sila.

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

But this thing in this Chapter must not be omitted, that he saith, that The sacramentaries cannot bring one father, tea­ching the sacrament to be onely a figure. And ioyneth issue with the proclaymer, that if he can bring any scripture, any catholique coun­sell, or any one approued doctor, that by expresse and plaine words, doth denie the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament, then he will giue ouer and subscribe to him. Still he chargeth them, whom he calleth the sacramentaries, to make the sacra­ment only a figure or a bare signe, which is false. ‘But for euidence to informe the men, that shall go vpon this is­sue, I will alledge, first S. Augustine, in plaine and ex­presse wordes, denying that which Maister Heskins, and the Papistes, call the reall presence of Christes body in the sacrament. In Psal. 98. Non hoc corpus quod videtis man­ducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem, quo fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendani, spiritualiter intellectum vin [...]ficabit vor. You shal not eate this body whi­che you see, nor drinke the bloude, whiche they shall shedde, that shall crucifie me: I haue commended to you a certeine sacrament, which beeing spiritually vnderstoode shall quicken you.’ What can be saide more plainely. The seconde witnesse shall be Chrysostome In Matth. Homil. 11. ‘ Si enim vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus trans­ferre peccatum est, & periculum, sicut docet nos Balthasar, qui bibens in calicibus sacratis, de regno depositus est, & de vita. [Page 69] Si ergo haec vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus transferre sic peri­culosum est, in quibus non est verum Corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur: quanto magis vasa corporis nostri quae sibi deus ad habitaculum preparauit, non debemus locum dare diabolo agendi in eis quod vult? For if it be an offence to tran­slate the sanctified vessels into priuate vses, and a daunger, as Balthasar doth teach vs, who drinking in the hallowed cups, was put out both of his kingdome and his life: ther­fore if it be so daungerous to transferre vnto priuate v­ses, those sanctified vessels in which not the very body of Christ, but the mysterie of the body of Christ is contey­ned: howe much more the vessels of our body, which God hath prepared to be a dwelling place for him selfe, ought we not to yeld to the diuil to do in them what hee will.’

The third shall bee out of the Popes owne Cannon lawe, which M. Heskins may not refuse for good eui­dence, and it is gathered out of Augustine. ‘ De con. dist. 2. Cap. Hoc est. Sicut caelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vo­catur corpus Christi, cum reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet quod visibile, quod palpabile, quod mortale in cruce positum est, vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, quae sacerdotis mani­bus fit, Christi passio mors, crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio: sic sacramentum fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, fides est. As that heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ, after a certaine maner of it, is called the body of Christ, wheras in very deed it is but the sacrament of the body of Christ, namely of that body which is visible, which is palpable, which when it was mortall was fastned to the crosse, and the same offering of the flesh of Christe which is done by the Priestes handes, is called the passion, death, and cruci­fying of Christ, not in trueth of the thing, but in a signi­fying mysterie: so the sacrament of faith which is vnder­stoode to bee baptisme, is faith. Nowe let this issue bee tryed according to this euidence, by any lawful and indif­rent men of the countrie, and I doubt not but they will finde Maister Heskins charged by his bond, to yeelde and recant.’ But to conclude this Chapter, Maister Hes­kins [Page 70] will needes haue two manner of presences, as well as the sacramentaries, spirituall and corporall, the spirituall he graunteth to the worthy receiuer, and the corporal al­so: the corporall only is left to the wicked. Wherevpon I would desire the Christian reader to consider, what hard holde the Papistes keepe for the corporall presence, which is no benefite to the faithfull, but according to their doc­trine common to the wicked, and howe proudly they de­ride and contemne the spirituall presence, wherein yet consisteth all the comfort of the godly, which they them selues can not denie. Vndoubtedly this quarrell for the corporall presence, hath a corporall respect, to abuse the superstitious minds of carnall men, to their carnall com­moditie, and not to seeke spirituall recreation of the in­ward man, which is throughly satisfied with the spirituall presence by faith.

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

Fulke.The figures of Manna, and the waters, he reiecteth into the third booke, and nowe will treate of the figure of the shewe breade. And this bread, he will haue to be a figure of the body of Christ in the sacrament. Wherein the mat­ter is not worth the strife, so we remember that the sacra­ments of the old law, were not bare figures, but y ^e same in substaunce and vertue that ours are, as we shewed before out of Augustine, and that they were not bare figures of our sacraments, but of the things wherof our sacraments are effectuall signes. Although ours more cleare, as of thinges already exhibited, and theirs were of thinges to come. And therefore the olde writers, Origen, Ambrose, and Oecumenius also affirme, that the Fathers in the sacraments had the shadowe, we the image, and both of vs shall haue the truth in one countrie. Orig. in Ps. 38. Amb. 4. Offi. Chap. 48. Oec. in 10. Heb. The like comparison we had before of the shadowe and image out of Chryso­stome [Page 71] and Euthymius, that borrowed it of him. But how friuolous the comparisons be, that M. Heskins maketh be­tweene the shewe breade and the sacrament, to proue the one to be a figure of the other: bicause it was set on the table, neuer fayled, was a bread of remembrance, was our offering, might not be eaten of any defiled person: I will declare by as many differences. The shewe bread was 12. cakes in number, so is not the sacrament: had frankincen­ses set vpon it and burned, so hath not the sacrament: was remoued euery Sabbath, so is not the sacrament: must of necessitie remaine a whole weeke, so must not the sacra­ment: might not be eaten of any but only the Priestes, the sacrament must be eaten of al men: might not be eaten of the Priestes, vntill it was a seuen nights olde, so is not the sacrament. Where note I pray you, the synceritie of M. Heskins, that rehearsing the text out of 24. of Leuit. lea­ueth out the putting of incence vppon the two rowes, bi­cause he could not applie it to his Masse cakes.

But to the place of Hieronyme, In cap. 1. ad Tit. If Lay men be commaunded to abstaine from the companie of their wiues for prayer, what is to be thought of a Bishop, which daily must offer un­defiled sacrifices for his owne and the peoples sinnes? Let vs read the booke of Kings, and we shall finde that Abimelech the Prieste, would not giue Dauid and his seruants of the shewe bread, before he asked whether the seruants were cleane from a woman, not from a straunge woman, but from their wiues: and except he had heard that yesterday and the day before they had abstained from the worke of marriage, he had not graunted them the bread which be­fore he had denyed. There is as great difference betweene the shewe breade and the bodye of Christe, as betweene the shad­dowe and the bodies, betweene the image and the trueth, betweene the exemplars of thinges to come, and the thinges them selues prefigured by the exemplars. Therefore as meeknesse, patience, sobrietie, moderation, abstinence from lucre, hospitalitie also and benignitie, ought to be chiefly in a Byshop, and amongest all Lay men excelling: so also a peculiar chastitie, and, as I may say, Priestly continence, that hee doe not onely keepe him selfe f [...]om an vncleane woorke, but also the mynde that shall [Page 72] make the body of Christe may be free from casting of the eye, and wandring of thought. In these wordes Hieronyme maketh the shewe breade, a shadowe and figure of the body of Christe, but not of the sacrament thereof. Nei­ther will Maister Heskins collection of the office of a bi­shop standing in consecration, offering, and receiuing the body of Christ helpe him. For here is no word of conse­crating, but of making the body of Christe, Mens Christi corpus confectura, the minde shall make the body of Christ: which if it be not a figuratiue speach, Hieronyme speaketh both grossely and vntruely, neither of offering the body of Christ, but offering vndefiled sacrifices, which are prayers. Finally if it were plaine, that he called the sacrament by the name of that which it signifieth, yet hee him selfe is the best expounder of him selfe. ‘Where hee sheweth a double taking of the body & bloud of Christe, spirituall and corporall. In Ep lib. 1. cap. Dupliciter vero san­guis Christi & caro intelligitur: vel spiritualis illa at (que) diuina, d [...] qua ipse dixit caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus: Et nisi manducaueritis carnem meum, & sanguinem meum biberitis, non habebitis vitam aeternam: Vel caro & sanguis quae crucifixa est, & qui militis effusus est lanc [...]a. The bloud and flesh of Christ is vnderstoode two wayes: either that spi­rituall and diuine flesh, of which hee saide: My flesh is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede: And except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud, you shall not haue eternall life: or else that flesh that was crucifi­ed, & that bloud which was shead by the souldiers speare.’ This place may suffice to expound whatsoeuer either Hieronyme or any other olde writer saith of the conse­cration, offering, or receiuing of the body and bloud in the sacrament: making a manifest difference betweene that flesh and bloud, which is eaten and dronke, and that which was crucified, which the Papistes teach to bee all one.

But M. Heskins cannot omit this place, w ^tout a gird a­gainst married Priests, of which number he him selfe was once one, saying, they haue put away the consecration [Page 73] to keepe their women, but he did put away his wife, that he might returne to consecration: Howbeit to the mat­ter. As it is verie well knowen, Hieronyme was too much addict to the prayse of virginitie, so in this Chapter, hee cannot simplie condemne the mariage of Byshoppes, al­though he wish rather a continence in them that can ab­steine: and openly saith to professed virgines, that either they must marie if they cannot conteine, or els continue if they will not marie. Ad Demetriadem.

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

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

Out of Augustine he alleadgeth Ep. 86. Ad Casulanum: Fulke. re­prouing one Vibicus Dicit cessisse pani pecus. &c. Hee saith that the sheepe hath giuen place to breade, as though he knewe not that then also the shewe breade was wont to bee set on the Lords table, and that now also he doeth take part of the bodie of the immaculate lambe. Hee sayth that bloude hath giuen place [Page 74] to the cuppe not considering that nowe also hee receyueth bloude in the cuppe. Therefore howe much better and more a­greably shoulde hee saye, that the olde thinges are passed, and newe thinges are made in Christe, so that Altar gaue place to Altar, sworde to sworde, fire to fire, breade to breade, sheepe to sheepe, bloude to bloude? For wee see in all these, that the carnall oldnesse giueth place to the spirituall newnesse.

The vnderstanding of this place dependeth vppon the knowledge of the errour of Vibicus. And that was this. Hee thought that the outwarde ceremonies of the olde lawe, did signifie the outwarde ceremonies of the newe Testament, that is, that carnall thinges did suc­ceede carnall thinges. As the lambe did signifie the bread, the bloude did signifie the wine in the sacrament, and so bread gaue place to the lambe, the cuppe to the bloud. But this Augustine denyeth. For they had bread then, and they haue breade nowe: they had the fleshe of a lambe then, and they haue the fleshe of a lambe nowe: they had bloude then, and they haue bloude nowe: they had carnall thinges then, and wee haue spirituall thinges nowe. This place therefore is directly against M. Hes­kins bill of the carnall presence, and hath nothinge to prooue that the shewe breade was a figure of the sacra­ment: but onely affirmeth that they had breade, as wee haue breade, for they had the shewe breade. But if there had ben transubstantiation, that is, no bread in the sacra­ment, hee might easily haue confuted Vibicus saying, that breade gaue place to the sheepe. But hee confesseth that wee haue bread, and affirmeth, that they had breade also. And where he sayth, that wee eate parte of the body of the immaculate lambe, hee declareth sufficiently that hee spake of no carnall presence, for then hee woulde not haue deuided the bodie of the lambe into partes, which the Papistes say euerie one receiueth whole. Fi­nally, where he saith that the carnall oldenesse gaue place to the spirituall newnesse, hee doth moste clearely teach vs, that the outwarde ceremonies of the olde Testament, were figures of the spirituall things signified and giuen [Page 75] by our sacramentes, and not of the outwarde elementes of our sacraments. By which it is manifest, that spirituall thinges and not carnall thinges are the substance of our sacraments. Nowe to M. Heskins collections. He saith that the old sacrifices of the lambe were not figures of the sacrament: de­nying now in one word, that he laboured to proue before in 7. Chapters: but of the bloudie sacrifice of Christ offered vppon the crosse after the maner of Aaron. Concerning y ^e sence of Augustines words, let the readers weigh my collection & his, by Augustines place, and by the rest of the Epistle that is of the same matter. But marke here once againe, that hee maketh the sacrifice of Christs passion, a sacrifice after the maner of Aaron, and consequētly Christ a priest after the maner of Aaron, directly contrarie to the scriptures in expresse words Heb. 7. Secondly he vrgeth that, which Au­gustine saith, we nowe receiue bloud in y ^e cup, by which he wil exclude the distinction of spirituall receiuing. But all in vaine, except he can conclude, y ^t we receiue partem de ag­ni immaculati corpore, part of the vndefiled lambes bodie. For if the one be spirituall, so is the other. I am sure the naturall bodie of Christ is not deuided into parts, but wee do spiritually receiue nourishmēt al of one bodie. To be short, if that which Augustine addeth of spirituall newnes succeeding carnall oldnes, were not a sufficient demon­stration of a spirituall receiuing, I woulde bring other places of Augustine to shewe the same most plainly. But the thing being so apparant, I will not mistrust the iud­gement of any indifferent reader so much, as to trouble him with more testimonies, which shall better come in, where more shewe is for M. Heskins bill.

But we must passe ouer to Isychius, whose wordes are set downe at large in Cap. 24. Leui. The verie number of the loaues doth call vs to a contemplation of the cōmandement. So doth the setting forth of thē, & that he doth not cōmand thē to be made a burnt offering as those things which be of the frying pan, of the girdiron, & of the fornace, but that they shold be set on the table one o­uer against an other, & that it shold be lawful only for the priestes to eat of thē, not for the Leuites, so that they also must eate thē in a [Page 76] holy place. And also that they are called holie of holies, (vnderstand what is said, for the Lord shall giue thee vnderstanding) remember the mysticall table of which it is commaunded that none should be­ginne except the intelligible Aaron, that is Christe, (For he began it first) excepte also his sonnes, which by him are made Christes, and haue put on him, which yet they are commaunded to eate in a holie place. And hee is that holy of holies, that they may haue a principall and vndespised sanctification. These loaues of two tenthes (for they are of God and man, of the same being, perfect in both) are set sixe ouer against sixe. The mysticall supper is set here, and it is set in the worlde to come. Sixe loaues are one proposition or set­ting foorth, as the mysterie it se [...]fe is perfecte and maketh them that enioye it perfecte. And in sixe dayes this visible creature was made, and the sixt day man was made, for whome Christe prepared his mysticall table. But yet altogether are rightlie twelue loaues, because the Apostles that were twelue in number first sup­ped at the Lordes table. Here is an allegoricall interpre­tation of the shewe breade to signifie the Lordes supper, but that proueth it not a prefiguration of the sacrament. For there is great difference betweene an allegory, and a figure of a thing to come. But to the poynte of the bill, here is nothing for the carnall presence, but some­what against it.

First where hee saith that the Christians (whom alle­gorically he calleth the sonnes of the intelligible Aaron, induti sunt eo, haue put on him, meaning they are bapti­sed, for as manie as are baptised in him haue put him on. But they haue put on him onely spiritually, there­fore they are commaunded to eate him onely spiritu­ally.

Secondly the twelue loaues, whiche signifieth the bodie of Christ, signifieth the twelue Apostles also, which mystically were his bodie, by which you may see, hee speaketh of no carnall presence, Thirdly he calleth it a mysterie and a mysticall supper, which will not stande w ^t M. Heskins corporal collectiōs. No more wil y ^t which he addeth That it is a cleane table, first as making cleane, secondly as hauing no lies or infectiō, such as are in the misteries of the pagās. [Page 77] Where it is to be laughed at, that he will proue a corpo­ral presence, because it cleanseth sinnes: for then shal we haue the same presence in baptisme, and the Papistes in holie water, which they affirme to clense sinnes also. But it is, a per se, that Isychius addeth. Moreouer, extolling his glorie, and aduauncing the dignitie of this mysterie into an height, he addeth, it is the holie of holies of the Lordes sacrifices for a per­petuall lawe. Therefore prayer is holie, the reading of holie scrip­ture is holie, and the hearing of the interpretation thereof: to be short, all things that are done and sayed in the Church of God, ac­cording to the lawe, are holie. But the holie of holies of the Lordes sacrifice, of all things that are offered and done to his glo­rie, is the table which Christ setteth forth of his owne sacrifice. Here is a great commendation of that mysticall Table, which Christ hath set forth of the sacrifice of his death, which no man doubteth to be moste holie in the right vse thereof, and in respect of him that feedeth vs with his bodie and bloud at that table. But what is all this to the corporall and carnall presence? But M. Heskins woulde finde a contradiction in the wordes of Oecolampadius, in that he sayeth the bread is sanctified, and yet it hath no holinesse in it, whereas that holie man speaketh plainly and distinctly, that it is sanctified, and doth sanc­tifie, in the right vse of it, & not in the nature of it self.

The foure & twentieth Chapter, applying the continuall re­seruation of the Shew bread, to the reseruation of the sacrament, proueth the same reseruatiō by the olde fathers, & by the perpetual practis [...] of the Church. Hesk.

That the sacrament (of some) was reserued in the elder dayes of the Church, it is not so great a controuersie, Fulk. as whether it ought to bee reserued by the institution of Christe. Neither is the simple reseruation, one of the proclaymers articles (as M. Heskins saith,) but whether it should be hanged vp in a Canopie for an ydol as the Papistes vse it. As for reseruation, how slenderly it is proued by him, we shall see by examination of his [Page 78] witnesses. For as touching his application thereof vnto the reseruation of the shewe breade, because it is but his owne iudgement, I will not vouchsafe to aunswere it, o­therwise then to denye it, to be of any force to proue his purpose. His first witnesse is Clemens Ep. 2. The sacra­ments of Gods secretes are committed to three degrees: to the priest, the Deacon, and the minister, which with feare and trembling ought to keepe the leauings of the peeces of the Lordes bodie, that no rottennes be found in the holie place, lest when the thing is done negligently, great iniurie be done to the portion of the Lordes bo­die. By this place M. Heskins will needes proue reserua­tion, and the carnall presence, but neither of both will fall out of his side, although the authoritie of the Epi­stle is not worth a strawe, beeing a counterfet decretall ascribed to Clemens, neither in true latine, nor good sense.

And first for the carnall presence, note how he sayeth, y ^e remnantes of the peeces and portions of the Lords bodie, and so he doth often in this Epistle, meaning y ^e crommes of the sacramentall bread, which was consecrated to bee the bodie of Christ. For Christes naturall bodie cannot be broken into leauings, fragments, and portions, which be the termes he vseth. Nowe touching the reseruation, he meaneth no keeping but of these crommes, which hee calleth leauings, fragments and portions, and no keeping of them, but from mouldinesse or rottennesse, that is, that they should be spent while they are good, and not kepte while they stinke, as the Papistes doe, not the fragments, but their whole Masse cakes sometimes. For touching the sacrament it selfe, he writeth by and by after: ‘ Tanta in altario holocausta offerantur, quanta populo sufficere debens. Quod si remanserint, in Crastinum non reseruentur, sed cum timore & tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur. Let so great sacrifices bee offered on the altar, as may suffice all the people. But if any be left, let them not be kept vntill the next day, but with feare and trembling, let them bee spent by the diligence of the Clerkes.’ This bee­ing most manifest against reseruation, Master Heskins [Page 79] is not ashamed to racke it to stande with reserua­tion.

And first, he asketh the aduersarie, whether hee thin­keth that Saint Clement was a foole, to denye that hee sayed before? No verily, but I think him to be no wise man, that either taketh this Epistle to bee written by Clement, the first bishop of Rome, or so vnderstandeth it, that he woulde make him contrarie to him selfe. And I thinke he that did forge this Epistle vnder Saint Cle­ments name, was not onely a doltish foole, but also an impudent falsarie, to make that auncient Clemens to write to the Apostle Saint Iames of such bables as those be, and that followe in the Epistle: which, if they were of weight, yet the Apostle was not to learne them of Clemens, but Clemens of him. But concerning the kee­ping that he speaketh of, he writeth yet more plainlye: ‘ Non eijcientes foras è sacrario velamina, not shaking abroad out of the holy place or vestrie the couering of the Lords table, lest peraduenture the dust of the Lordes bodie shoulde fall a misse from the linnen cloth beeing wa­shed abroade, and this should be sinne to him that doth it. Lo sir, before wee had reliques, fragments, and por­tions, nowe wee haue the dust of the Lords body.’ What dust is this, but small crommes? But he goeth on, and that Saint Iames might the better looke to those mat­ters, he sayeth: ‘ Iterum atque iterum de fragmentis dominic [...] corporis demandamus. Againe, and againe, wee giue charge, concerning the fragments of the Lordes bodie.’ And finally, he concludeth in fine Latine and cleanly termes: ‘ A principio Epistolae vsque ad hunc locum de sacramen­tis delegaui bene intuendis: vbi non murium stercora inter frag­menta dominicae portionis appareant, neque putrida per negli­gentiam remaneant clericorum. From the beginning of the Epistle vnto this place I haue giuen charge concerning the sacraments to be well looked vpon: where no Mise tordes may be seene among the fragments of the Lorde [...] portion, nor they remaine rotten through the negli­gence of the Clerkes.’

[Page 80]You see this man would haue the sacrament spent, & ta­keth thought that the crommes, both small and great, be not cast away, nor kept vntill they be rotten, nor suffe­red to be eaten of Mise, nor defyled with their doung, but he is vtterly against popish reseruation. The next is Ire­naeus, who in his Epistle, in which he doth sharply rebuke Victor bishop of Rome, for excommunicating the Bi­shops of Asia about the celebration of Easter, sayth: That they were neuer for that matter driuen from the fellowship of the Church, or comming from those partes, were not receiued: but rather all the elders or Bishops that were before them, did alwayes solemnely send the sacrament of Eucharistie to all the bishops or elders of those Churches that did not so obserue it. M. Heskins imagineth that the Bishops of Rome, did sende the sacra­ment into all partes of the worlde, to all bishops & el­ders of euerie Church: which if he did, hee had neede of many messengers. But the matter is plaine ynough. If any of those bishops or elders came to Rome, they were louingly receiued of Victors predecessours, and at the time of the Communion, the bishop would send the sa­crament to them by the deacons, as well as to any of the citizens that were of his owne Church. Here is no sha­dowe of reseruation, but M. Heskins absurde imagi­nation.

Tertullian followeth Irenaeus, writing to his wife, lib. 2. An arbitrare ô vxor ita gesturam te, vt clam viro sint, qua facis? Non sciet ille quid secreto ante omne cibum gustes? & si sciuerie non partem illum credit esse, qui dicitur. Doest thou thinke (ô wife) so to handle thy selfe, that these things that thou doest shalbe vnknowen to thy husbande? shall not he knowe what before all meates thou doest secretely receiue? and if hee shall knowe it, he beleeueth it not to be that bread, that it is saide to be. Thus M. Heskins hath set downe the wordes both in Latine and Englishe. But wheresoeuer he had the former que­stion▪ An ar [...]itrare ô vxor ita gesturam te, vt clam viro sint quae facto? He had it not of Tertullian, for hee hath no such wordes in that booke, but onely, Non sciet maritus, &c. shall not thy husbande knowe, &c. By which it is [Page 81] playne that he neuer read this place in Tertullian him­self, but only borrowed it out of some other papist, that alledged it for this purpose, & belike gathered the for­mer question, not as Tertullians wordes, but out of his meaning, which Maister Heskins not vnderstanding, very ridiculously, hath set down, as the words of Tertul­lian. These be the Popishe doctours, that boast of their great reading, when they reade but patches out of other mens notes, and collections. But to the matter. Although it may seeme, this corruption to haue entred into the A­frican Churches, y ^t the people carried home y ^e sacramen­tall bread, and did eate it daily before all other meates, yet this is nothing like vnto the Popish reseruation in the pixe, to be adored. And Tertullian in his Booke De Corona militis, doeth rehearse this custome among those thinges, that had no ground of scripture for them. The liks is to be saide, to the place of Cyprian, where a wo­man kept it in her chest, as for the miracle, whether it re­proued her vnworthinesse, or her reseruation, it is not plaine by the authour. The story of Satyrus out of Am­brose proueth not directly reseruation, for it is like, the Christians being in daunger of shipwrack, did minister the communion in the shippe, & not bring it with them from the shore consecrated. And Satyrus being then but a nouice or Catechumein, and not baptised, desired the sacrament of them, meaning to receiue it before his death, if he sawe present daunger of drowning, otherwise to tarry vntill he were admitted to it, by order of the Church. But this proueth nothing at all the Popishe reseruation, although the fact of Satyrus was not with­out imperfection, as greatly as it is commended of Ambrose: and much lesse the Carnal presence, For Satyrus, did not so put his affiaunce in the sacrament, that he thought it to be God, but that he desired it as an helpe of his faith, that he might not depart this life with­out the communion of the body of Christ in the sacra­ment.

The place of Chrysostome, is nothing at all for re­seruation, [Page 82] where he saith, that in a tumult the souldiers rushing into the Churches, The most holy bloud of Christ was shed vpō their clothes. For he must remēber, it was on Easter day, when all the people did communicate, and such as came were baptised. And where he saith, it was Ad vesperū diei, that they did enter, that is, in the afternoone: he must wit, that Chrysostome after the maner of the scripture, calleth y ^e morning before day light Vespere Sabbati, & therfore his collection is vaine. But although it were in the afternoone, what inconuenience is it if we say, they spent al the forenoone in prayer, & fasting, and hearing the worde of God, and ministring baptisme, which then was ministred twise a yeare, at Easter, & at Pentecost: and then in the afternoone towarde euening, went to the commu­nion? Hierome reporteth of Exuperius, that he caried the Lords body in a wicker basket, and his bloud in a glasse. What reseruation is here? M. Heskins saith, he did beare it about with him, but Hieronyme saith not so, except you meane about the Churche, when he ministred the communion. But here Maister Iewel hath a double blow. O cun­ning Maister of defence. For here is not onely reseruation, bu [...] also he calleth it in plaine wordes, the body and bloud of our Lorde. Maister Iewel shal not greatly feele these blowes. To the reseruation I haue saide before, and to the plaine calling of it body and bloud, I say, what other thing is it, then as Maister Iewel himselfe will call it? and worthily: yet no transubstantiation meant by him. But how will Maister Heskins warde these blowes? Exuperius had no hallow­ed pixes, nor chalices of Golde and siluer, as the Papistes must haue? And Exuperius ministred to the lay people in both kindes, as the Papistes will not do? What hath M. Heskins gayned by Exuperius? But then Eusebius shall help him, for in his 6. booke, and 36. Chapter, is declared, y ^t a certeine priest, sent to Serapion (beeing at the point of death) a litle portiō of the Eucharistie in the night season: by which it appeareth, y ^t it was reserued. In deed Dionysi­us bishop of Alexandria writeth so vnto Fabianus Bishop of Rome. But withall he sheweth, that it was no publique [Page 83] order of the vniuersall Church, but his own commande­ment vnto his owne Church, that he might not seeme in any point to resemble the Nouatians, which denied re­conciliation to them that had fallen in persecution: wher­fore he saith, that although the priest was sicke, and could not come: ‘ Tamen quia pręceptum fuerat a me, vt lapsis in exitu nemo recōciliationis solatia denegaret, & maximè ijs, quos priùs id rogasse constaret, parum &c. Yet because it had beene com­manded by me, that no man should denie to them that had fallen, the comfort of reconciliation at their depar­ture, especially to those who were known to haue desired it before, he gaue a litle of the Eucharistie, &c. Whiche wordes M. Heskins hath cleane left out of the text, wher­by the particular commandemēt of Dionyse is expressed:’ and yet it is not proued that the Priest had the sacrament reserued, but it might well be, that he did then consecrate and send him parte, as he should haue done, if he could haue come to the sicke man himselfe for his owne weake­nes. Last of all he rehearseth the wordes of Cyril Ad Colo­syrium: I heare that they say, that the mystical blessing, if any rem­nants thereof remaine vnto the next day following, is vnprofitable to sanctification. But they are madd in so saying, for Christe is not made an other, neither shal his holy body be chaunged, but the ver­tue of blessing, and the liuely grace do alwayes remaine in him. M. Heskins translateth in illo, in it, as though y ^e vertue, & quic­kening grace were included in the sacrament, which y ^e au­thor saith to remain in Christ. But touching y ^e authoritie of this Cyrillus ad Colosyrium, I must admonish the Reader, that these wordes are not to be found in all the workes of Cyrillus that are extant, but is only a patch cited by o­ther men, y ^e whole epistle is not to be found. So y ^t we can neither tel whether it were writē by the ancient Cyrillus of Alexandria, or by some late writer of y ^t name, nor yet what was y ^e argumēt & scope of y ^t Epistle. Neuertheles, it semeth to some, y ^t he wrote against y ^e Anthropomorphits, which thought y ^t the body of Christ was corrupted, if the remnants of the sacrament were corrupted: but that Cy­rillus denieth, because Christ is eternall & incorruptible.

[Page 84]He saith not that the remnantes of the sacrament are so, for that the Papistes confesse to be otherwise, affir­ming that they ceasse to be the body & bloud of Christ, when the species or kinds of bread and wine are putrified or rotten. But Cyril saith, that vertue, & grace, do alwayes remaine in him, not in that sacrament reserued, which do­eth corrupt. Finally, he speaketh but of reseruatiō for one day, to the vse of eating, and not of adoration, therefore he speaketh nothing against the challenge, which was not simply of reseruation, but of reseruing the sacramēt to be worshipped. But whereas M. Heskins mainteyneth reser­uation by dipping of stoales, and linnen clothes in y ^e cup, he must remēber that Iulius in his decretal epistles, for­biddeth that dipping, as diuers counsels also do, which in due place are alledged.

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

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

For Counsells that haue bene neerer to our time, then sixe hundreth yeares after Christ, Fulk. we doe not admit their authoritie. But M. Heskins promising Counsells, begin­neth with the institution of Iustinian, That Monasteries of Virgines should haue libertie to choose a Priest which should bring vnto them the holy Communion. Herevpon he will build reseruation, for they did not celebrate to them (saith he) but they brought it. As though he that bringeth y ^e worde of God to thē, doth not preach before them, but bringeth a Sermon in his bosome. But for as much as that decree speaketh not onely of a Priest but also of a Deacon, I can be content to thinke, that he brought the sacrament with him and did not consecrate there, but what maketh this for reseruation to the vse of adoration, which is the mat­ter in question▪ Or else for an ordinarie custome of reseruation, if the sacrament were brought from the next Church, (where and when it was celebrated) to the Monasterie, not to be hanged vp in a cannopie, but to be receiued presently? But it is a proper reason that M. Hes­kins vseth: for may be reserued for a short time, why not for a long time? For answere of this, I will referre him to his owne Popish decrees, that forbid such reseruation, for feare of putrifaction and rottennesse. At last commeth the Counsels of Wormes and Remes, in which times it is certaine that great corruptions preuailed in the church: then followeth the Counsell of Laterane commended for generall held Anno. 1215. speaking of the diligent reser­uation of the sacrament: with much adoe about the au­thoritie of Counsels But all not worth a rush. The gene­rall Counsell of Laterane falsified the text of scripture tract to both in wordes and sense, alledging it thus in their second Canon or Chapter against Ioachim Abbas: Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus, that which the father hath giuen me is greater then all. Whereas the trueth of the text is, the father which hath giuē them to me, is gre­ter then all. A wise and worshipfull Counsel, that can not [Page 86] confute an errour, but by falsifying of the scripture. And this is the Counsell that first decreed transubstantiation.

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

Hesk.The sixe and twentith Chapter answereth the cheefe obiection of the aduer [...]aries.

Our cheefe argument (hee saith) against the reserua­tion, Fulke. and our very Achilles against all other rites vsed in the sacraments, is, that in the institution thereof there is no mention made of reseruation. But there he belyeth vs. For we say it is directly against the commaundement of the institution, take and eate, and do this in remembrance of me. I would aske this question of him. Was it lawfull for the Apostles to haue reserued it when Christ cōman­ded it to be eaten? If he say no, let him shewe me why it is more lawfull nowe to reserue it then it was then: see­ing [Page 87] we haue the same commaundement continued, doe this in remembrance of me, that is, take and eate it?

Moreouer, we say it is cleane contrarie to the end and forme of the sacrament, that it should be reserued and caried about to be worshipped. For it is spirituall meate, whose end, vse, and fruit is in eating, not in keeping and carying about, or worshipping. But nowe let vs see Mai­ster Heskins profound Diuinitie in solution of our ar­gument. There be three manner of doings as concerning the scripture. One is, to do so much as the scripture biddeth An other, to do against that the scripture biddeth. The third, to do something besides that the scripture biddeth. Concerning the first, hee saith, that As Christ tooke breade and wine, made it his body and bloud, commaunded it to be eaten and dronken in remembrance of him: so he that taketh bread and wine, and doth consecrate it, eat it, and drinke it in remembraunce of his death &c. doth as much as the scripture biddeth him, and is blamelesse in this respect. This is true, and all this doe we in our Church, therefore are we blamelesse by his owne conclusion. But they that be­ing commaunded to eate, and minister to bee eaten, doe not eate it, nor giue it to be eaten, but keepe it, and hang it vp, doe manifestly breake this commaundement: and so doe the Papiste [...]. For they doe against that the scrip­ture biddeth. And whereas he alledgeth the sixt Counsell of Constantinople, reprouing the Armenians for mini­string with wine without water, it seemeth that both hee and the Counsell forgot his first rule. For they doing as much as they had either example or commaundement, of Christes institution, by his owne rule were in this respect blamelesse. But he addeth, that they in the Counsell al­ledged the Masse of Saint Iames and Basil, which is vtter­ly false, for they alledged but the manner of celebration of the mysticall sacrifice set foorth by them, and no Po­pish Masse. Whether Saint Iames did set foorth any such forme of celebration I will not here dispute, but I am sure there were many thinges intituled to the Apostles, euen while they liued, that were but counterfet, and so I thinke was this, for else it had bene Canonicall scrip­ture, [Page 88] and the Churche would not, or should not haue chāged S. Iames his Masse, for Gregories Masse: nor Basil nor Chrysostome, should haue needed to haue made any newe liturgye, if they had bene certaine, that the olde had had the Apostles for their authours and inditers.

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

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

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

[Page 89]In the beginning of this Chapter, whereas the Bi­shops challenge was, Fulke. of hanging vp the sacramente vnder a canopie, meaning reseruation, and setting it vp for ido­latrous worshipping, for which M. Heskins hath no color in antiquitie, he woulde inforce him to vnderstande his challeng of simple reseruation, or for other vses thē ado­ration, as to be caried to the sicke, or such as coulde not be present &c. And first he pleadeth possession of nine hundreth yeares, out of which hee shoulde not bee put without reason, but as good a lawyer as hee is, he muste know, that nowe a writ of right being brought against him, prescription of possession will not serue him.

But hee wil giue colour to the plaintife, and apply the reason vsed agaynste priuate masse by the proclamer, to see if it will serue against reseruation. That it is the com­maundement of Christ Doe this, that is to say, practise this that I haue here done, and that in such forme and sorte as you haue s [...]ene mee doe it. This exposition hee refuseth as false, con­cerning the manner and forme: Affirming that the com­maundement extendeth no further, but to the receiuing of his bodie and bloud, as the substance wherevppon the memoriall shoulde be grounded, without any charge giuen of the manner and the forme. And for proofe of this exposition, hee citeth S. Hieronyme, Chrysostome, Euthymius, Thomas Aqui­nas, and Hugo Cardinalis, all whiche in deede affirme, that wee are commaunded to celebrate the remembrance of his passion, but none of them exclude the manner and forme of celebration from the commaundement. Howe [...]oudenly hath M. Heskins forgotten the strong clubbe of his Logike, whereby hee did euen now, beate downe the proclaymers negatiue argumentes, but now againe they are the best he canne occupie him selfe. Hieronyme, Chrysostome, and the rest speake not of the manner and forme of celebration: therefore there is no necessarie forme to bee obserued, as commaunded by Christ. But as the proclamer hath no authoritie for his expsition, so M. Heskins will bring good reasō against it to proue it false. First he will graunt that the primitiue Church for fiue or sixe [Page 90] h [...]ndreth yeares after Christ did minister the sacramentes purely and without the breach of Christes commaundement. Hee will grant for the substance, but not y ^t they continued so long without abuse. The assumption of this proposition is, that the Masses vsed in the primitiue Church, varied from Christes institution. As for example, the Masses of S. Iames, Basil, Chrysostome, Ambrose, differed ech from other, and all from Christes institution in forme and manner. It pleaseth him to call the olde liturgies or formes of ministration vsed in diuerse Churches, masses: the diuersitie hee meaneth is in formes of prayers, and circumstances, concerning which Christe gaue no com­mandement, and therfore, they are contrarie to his in­stitution.

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

An other reason hee hath of admitting an vnworthie person, as Christ did Iudas, which is for all that a mat­ter of question: and yet nothing to the purpose, if hee were admitted. For Christe knewe him by his diuine na­ture, before he chose him to bee an Apostle, but in as much as Iudas was an hypocrite, before he was reueled to the iudgement of man, hee was not to be refused. To be short, the substance of the sacrament is not only the hea­uenly matter thereof, as M. Heskins dreameth, but also the earthly matter and the fourme also. As for circum­stances and accidentes, that touch neither the forme nor matter, they are to bee applyed to edification, order, & decencie. Cyprian and the fathers in his time, and long [Page 91] time after, what reason did they vse to confute them that ministred with water, mylke, clusters of grapes, dipping of bread, and linnen cloathes in the wine, and such like? Did they not beate thē down with y ^e institution of Christ? For they coulde well inough distinguishe the substance from the accidentes, the matter and forme from the cir­cumstances.

After this M. Heskins will open a sleight of the pro­clamer, who confesseth that women in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian did carie home the sacrament to their houses, and recei­ued a portion therof in the morning, before meat: but he numbreth this custome among abuses, whereas neither Tertullian nor Cypri­an do directly reproue them: neither do they allow them, by any one worde. But I pray you M. Heskins, if it bee no abuse, that women shoulde carie the sacrament home with them, keepe it in their coffers, and eate it euery mor­ning next their heart, why doe not you of the Popishe Church continue such an auncient custome? Why haue you abrogated it? and to dissuade them from it, tell tales in you legends and promptuaries, of some that haue car­ried it home, and founde it turned I cannot tell into what monsters? But peraduenture the vsage of the Church in Iustines time, will prooue it to bee none abuse. For then the sacrament was caried home to them that were absent. And here M. Heskins alleadging Iustines Apollogie, tel­leth not in whether Apollogie, and setteth downe a forme of wordes, which are not in Iustine, Apoll. 2. where the matter is spoken of, in such forme as he citeth thē: by which once again you may see, that his great reading of y ^e doctors was out of other mens notes & collections, & not of his own studie. For it semeth he knew not in which A­pologie this matter is spokē of, alleging this saying thus, Cum autē is qui praest gratias egerit, & totus populus approhaue­rit, [...] qui vicentur apud nos diaconi, distribuūt vnicui (que), praesenti [...]a vt participent de pane, in quo gratiae actae sunt, & de vino & aqua, & his, qui non sunt praesentes, deferunt domū. ‘ Whē he that is chefe hath giuen thankes, and all the people hath consented to it, these that with vs be called deacons, doe distribute of the consecrated [Page 92] bread, and of the wine and water to euerie one that is present to receiue, and to those that be absente they carie it home. But Iu­stines owne wordes bee these: [...].’

‘When we haue ended our prayer, there is offered bread and wine and water. And the chiefe minister sendeth forth likewise praiers & thanksgiuing with al his might, and the people giue their consent saying Amen. Then is made distribution and participation of those thinges for which thankes is giuen, vnto euerie one:’ And to them that are not present there is sent by the deacons. By these worde [...] it can not be proued necessarily, that the sacra­ment was sente to them that were absent, but rather part of the breade and wine which was offered in greate plentie, the distribution whereof belonged to the Dea­cons: and immediatly after mentiō is made of the contri­bution of the richer sorte. But admitte that they did send the sacrament to such as were sicke, or otherwise to ne­cessarily letted, that they could not be present in bodie, & yet were present in minde, and ioyned in prayer with them, what maketh this for the popishe reseruation to bee worshipped? Euery one that was present there re­ceiued, onely the Priestes receiueth amongest the Pa­pistes, and hangeth vp the rest ouer the Altar. But it is a fine reason of M. Heskins, they carried it, therefore they reserued it: if they reserued it an houre, why might they not reserue it as long as they lift? But they caried it y ^t it might be receiued presently, they hanged it not vp to bee gazed vppon.

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

[Page 93]M. Heskins falsifieth the wordes in translation & sayth: they receiued by them selues, as though they receiued it alone. This fragment of Basils Epistle, argueth an ab­use of the reseruation, but it proueth no hanging vp of the sacrament for adoration. That this was an abuse crept in of superstition, it is manifest, for that it was af­terwarde by a Godly councell condemned and forbiddē. ‘ Concil. Caesaraugustanum, Capit. 3. Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in ecclesia, anathema sit in perpetuum. Ab vniversis Episcopis dictum est, Anathema sit. If any person be proued after he hath taken the grace or gift of the Eucharistie not to haue spent it in the Church, let him be accursed for euer. All the bishops saide, let him be accursed.’ Moreouer, to prooue a thing to be lawfull, by such an vsage, as they them selues confesse to bee vn­lawfull, what abusing of the simple is it? S. Hierome al­so in his apollogie against Iouinian, testifyeth that the people of Rome in his time vsed to keepe the sacrament in their houses, and receiue it by themselues. In this place I cannot tel whether I should suspect that which hath often been prooued be­fore, that M. Heskins cyteth his authorities out of notebookes and collections, rather then out of his owne readings, and so knowe not what was Hieroms iudge­ment of this custome of receiuing at home, or else that of fraude to abuse the reader hee hath concealed it. But y ^e matter of trueth is this. There was a custome at Rome, to receiue euery day, which custome Hierome sayth he doth neither allowe, nor reprehende. But hee appealeth to the consciences of those men that had communicated at home, the same day after they had companyed with their wiues, wherefore they durst not go to the Church. ‘ Quare non ingrediuntur ecclesias? an alius in publico, alius in do­mo Christus est? quod in ecclesia non licet, nec domi licet. Why come they not into the Churches? Is there one Christ in the publike places, another in their priuate house? that which is not lawfull in the Church, is not lawfull in the house. But howe can M. Heskins proue, that the people vsed to keepe the sacrament in their houses, wherof there [Page 94] is no worde in Saint Hierome?’ but rather it is to bee thought, that the Priests did come to them, and minister it in their priuate houses, which Hierome also disallo­weth. And howe can he prooue, that they did receiue it by them selues? when Saint Hierome sayeth, communi­cant, they do communicate. The last discourse prouing by authoritie of Saint Augustine, that vniuersall obser­uations of the Church, where the Scripture commaun­deth not the contrarie, are to bee holden for lawes, is meerely vaine, seeing he can neuer prooue his reseruati­on to be catholike or vniuersally allowed and practised of the Church, and we haue proued it, to be contrary to the Scripture.

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

The one halfe of this Chapter is consumed in citing of textes, Fulk. to proue that Christe is a Priest after the order of Melchizedech: and at length, hee deuideth the Priestes office into two partes, teaching, and sacrificing. Then he affirmeth, that Christ was not a Priest after the order of Aa­ron, but after the order of Melchizedech. Yet in the ende of the Chapter like a blasphemous dogge, hee sayeth, that Christ executed his priesthood after the order of Aaron vppon the Crosse. Where beside his blasphemie, note how hee a­greeth with him selfe. But Christ he sayeth, it called a Priest after the order of Melchizedech for the manner of his sacrifice, which maketh the difference betweene the order of Aaron, and the order of Melchizedech. For Aaron offered in bloud, the other in bread and wine. The Apostle to the He­brues, obseruing many differences, could not finde this. But M. Heskins aunswereth that the cause why the Apo­stle did leaue out this manner of sacrifice, was, for that his principall purpose was, to shewe the excellencie of Christ and his priesthood, aboue Aaron, and his priesthood, which could not bee by shewing that he sacrificed breade and wine, for the Iewes sacrifi­ces [Page 95] were more glorious then bread and wine. By this wise rea­son, he giueth vs to deeme, that the Apostle of subtiltie suppressed this comparison, because they were weake, as though they knewe not what the sacramentes of the Church were. But if Christe sacrificed his bodie and bloud twise, he could not better haue shewed his ex­cellencie aboue Aaron, then in declaring, that Christe did not onely offer him self in bloud on the Crosse, but also in bread & wine, after the example of Melchizedech. For if offering of sacrifice were one of the chiefe partes of a Priestes office, and breade and wine had beene the sacrifice of Melchizedech, the Apostle neither would, nor coulde haue dissembled the comparison of his sacri­fice with the sacrifice of Christe, which would infinite­ly haue aduaunced his priesthood aboue Aaron. For else the Hebrues, whom M. Heskins imagineth would haue obiected their sacrifices to be more glorious then bread and wine, might more probably haue replyed, that the Apostles compared Melchizedech with Christe in small matters, and omitted the chiefest parte of his office, which was this sacrifice: so that if he were infe­riour in the chiefe, it was little to excell in the small matters.

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

But now let vs heare the scripture. The scripture to proue [Page 96] that Melchisedech did sacrifice this bread and wine saith: that he was a Priest of the most high God, to whome is belon­geth, not to bring foorth, but to offer bread and wine, so that the verie connexion of the Scripture and dependants of the same, en­forceth vs to take this sense, and none other can be admitted. This is a verie peremptorie sentence, plumped downe of you M. Heskins, not as from your doctours chaire, but euen as from Apolloes three footed stoole. But if it may please you to heare: is it not also scripture, that he was King of Salem? and wil not the verie connexion and dependance of the Scripture leade vs to thinke, that as an example of his royall liberalitie, he brought foorth bread & wine, to refresh the hungrie and wearie souldiers of Abraham, which being such a multitude, could not easily be proui­ded for by a priuate man?

And where Moses sayeth, he was a priest of the highest God, hee addeth also an example of his priestly holy­nesse, that he blessed Abraham, & praysed God, and that Abraham gaue him tythes of al. And lest you should ex­clame, as your manner is, that this is a newe exposition, Iosephus in the firste booke & tenth Chapter of his ‘Iewishe antiquities, doth so expounde it: Hic Melchise­dechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit, nihil eis ad victum deesse passus &c. This Melchisedech gaue verie liberall intertainment to the souldiours of Abraham, & suffe­red them to want nothing vnto their liuing.’ But if M. Heskins wil obiect that Iosephus was a Iewe, then let him heare the author of Scholastica historia a Christian and a Catholike, as M. Heskins will confesse, allowing of the same exposition Chap. 46. in these wordes. ‘ At verò Mel­chizedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem & vinum: quod, (quasi ex­ponen [...] Iosephus) ait: ministrauit exercitui Xenia, & multam abun­dantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit, et super epulas be­nedixit deum qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos. Erat enim sa­cerdos Dei altissimi. But Melchizedech King of Salem of­fered vnto him bread and wine, which Iosephus, (as it were expounding of it) sayeth: he ministred to his armie the dueties of hospitalitie, and gaue him great plentie of [Page 97] things necessary, & beside the feast, or at the feast, he bles­sed God which had subdued vnto Abraham his enimies. For he was a priest of the high [...] so God. Thus farre he [...] M. Heskins for his connexion perchaunce will vrge the Coniunction enim, erat enim saterdos, &c. in the vulgar La­tine text, to make it to be referred to the former clause, but neither the Hebrue, nor the Greeke text hath that Coniunction.’ To be short, if the bringing foorth of bread and wine, perteined to his priestly office, there is nothing in the text to expresse his Kingly office: but Mo­ses, as he calleth him, both a King, and a priest, so doth he distinctly shewe, what he did as a King, and what he did as a Priest. Yet Maister Heskins goeth on, and will proue, That if Christ were a Priest after the order of Melchizedech he of­fred a sacrifice after that order: but he neuer made any mo oblations then two, the one on the crosse, after the order of Aaron: the other in his last Supper after the order of Melchisedech except we will say that Christe altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God. Marke here (Christian Reader) how many hor­rible blasphemies, this impudent dogge barketh out a­gainst our Sauiour Christ, directly contrarie to his ex­presse worde. First he affirmeth, that Christ made two of­ferings of himselfe, whereas the holy Ghost saith. ‘Heb. 9. not that he should oftentimes offer himselfe, as the high priest, &c. For then he should haue suffered oftentimes since the beginning of the world. And Heb. 10. He offered but one sacrifice for sinnes, and is set downe at the right hand of God for euer, &c. For by one only oblation, he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified. And in the same Chapter: where there is forgiuenesse of sinnes, there is no more sacrifice for sinne. Whervpon it follow­eth that if Christes sacrifice at his supper, tooke away sinnes, he offered no sacrifice vpon the crosse.’

‘Secondly, he affirmeth that Christe was a priest after y ^e order of Aaron, which he denied before, and is in plaine wordes denied by the holy Ghost Heb. 7. which place M. Heskins himselfe setteth downe in this Chapter: if per­fection had beene by the Priesthoode of the Leuites (for [Page 98] vnder it the law was established to y ^e people) what needed it further, that another priest should arise after y ^e order of Melchisedech, &c not to be called after y ^e order of Aaron.’

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

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

By which, he denieth, that the once offring vp of him­selfe, by his eternall spirite on the crosse, was any parte of his priesthoode appointed him by God, then the which there can be no more diuelish blasphemie. And yet the beast is not ashamed to challenge and write, If not then [...] let the aduersary shewe, when and where Christ did sacrifice after the order of Mechizedech. ‘Euen then, and there, thou enimie of the crosse of Christ, when and where he was made obe­dient to the death of the crosse, and hauing learned obe­dience by the thinges he suffered, he was consecrated, and made the authour of eternall saluation vnto all them that obey him, and is called of God an high priest, after the order of Melchizedech. Heb. 5. Hauing an euerlasting priesthod, by which he is able perfectly to saue them, that come vnto God by him, seeing he euer liueth to make in­tercession for them. For such an high priest it became vs to haue, which is holy, harmelesse, vndefiled, separated frō sinners, and made higher then the heauens, which needed not daily, as these high Priestes, to offer vp sacrifice, first for his owne sinnes, and then for the peoples: for that he did once when he offred vp himself. Heb. 7. But beside his detestable blasphemies, see his ridiculous vanitie. If the priesthoode of Melchizedech standeth in his offering of bread and wine, then Christ also offered bread and wine, [Page 99] as he saide before, Christ offered in bread and wine: as Aaron did in bloud.’ If bread & wine be Christes offring, or any part of it, then there is bread and wine in the sacrament, & what is becomme of transubstantiation? If there was no bread & wine in y ^e sacrifice of Christe, then where is Mel­chisedeches priesthoode, by his owne diuinitie? Againe, if he say, there be the shewes, or accidents of bread & wine, then Melchizedeches bread and wine, was a figure of the accidents of bread and Wine, & then the figure was bet­ter, then y ^e thing figured, contrarie to his worshipfull rule, giuen in the 15. Chapter. If he say, y ^t Melchizedeches bread & wine, figured not the Accidents, but the bread & wine before it be consecrated, then he breaketh his rule once a­gaine: for Melchizedeches bread, if it were not hallowed, was as good: if it were hallowed, as it was, if it were offred, it was better then y ^e vncōsecrated bread & wine. Finally, if he say, it figured, neither y ^e vncōsecrated bread & wine, nor the accidents of the same consecrated, but the body and bloud of Christ vnder these accidēts: beside that he makes it a figure of a figure or signe, which he said could not be, he denieth that Christ did that, wherein he affirmed the priesthoode of Melchizedech to stand: namely, that he offred bread and wine. And so thou seest M. Heskins han­ged in his owne halter.

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

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

[Page 100]But now let vs consider the places of Cyprian, whether such poyson may be drawen out of them, as M. Heskins hath sucked out of his own poysoned brayne. The words of the first place are these: The sacraments signified of old, since the time that Melchisedech came forth, Serm. de coena Dom. & to the sonnes of Abra­ham that do his workes, the high priest bringeth foorth bread and wine. This (sayth he) is my body. They had eaten and dronken of the same bread, according to the visible fourme, but before those wordes, that common meate, was profitable only to nourish the body. But after it was saide by the Lorde, do this in remembrance, This is my flesh, & this is my bloud. As oftē as it is done with these wordes, and with this faith, that substantiall bread, and cuppe con­secrated with a solemne blessing, profiteth vnto the life and health of the whole man, being both a medicine, (Et Holocaustum) and a burnt offering, to heale infirmities, and purge iniquities. There is also declared the difference betweene spirituall meate, and corporall meate: namely, that it was one thing that was first set before them, & another thing, which was giuē & distributed by their Maister. First it is graunted, y ^t Cyprian thought the bread & wine brought foorth by Melchizedech, to be a figure of the sacrament, and that herein also he resembled the priest­hoode of Christ, which we are neither afraide, nor abash­ed to denie, because the Apostle (an older doctor then Cyprian, & such an one as in his writings could not erre) could finde no such resemblance betweene Melchizedech and Christ. Concerning the sacrifice of bread and wine, I wil speake hereafter, in answere to the other places of Cy­prian. But now let vs examine M. Heskins two notes, for the reall presence, as he calleth it. The first is, that this cōmon meate being consecrated is profitable for the whole man, as a medi­cine to heale infirmities, and a sacrifice to purge sinnes, but neither our faith in Christ crucified, nor the merites of his passion are the sacrifice, but his very body: therefore this meate is his very body.

The Maior of this argument is ambiguous: and there­fore it must be distinguished: for this worde sacrifice, is either taken properly, or vnproperly, and figuratiue­ly: if it be taken figuratiuely for a sacrament, or a memoriall of a sacrifice, as Cyprian meaneth, the pro­position [Page 101] is true, but if it be taken for a sacrifice in the proper sense, it is false. For Christe offered but one sa­crifice, and that but once, neuer to be repeated, which was on the crosse. Nowe, to proue that Cyprian vsed the word sacrifice, vnproperly for this time, I will shewe no more, but his owne word Holocaustum, which signifieth a whole burned sacrifice, for M. Heskins will graunt, that the sa­crifice of Christ is vnproperly called a burned offering.

The second note that he gathereth, is of the Propertie of this word, Aliud: in the Neuter gender it signifieth an other sub­stance forsooth: as we may say, Alius pater, alius filius, but not aliud pater, aliud filius. And then the rule is extended to vnum, for Christ saith, ego & pater vnum sumus, & hij tres vnum sunt. This he would beare men in hand, to be the determina­tion of learned men, and so the bread before consecrati­on was aliud, that is one substance, but after consecration it is aliud, that is an other substance, and so the body of Christe. This is an high point in a lowe house, but the young pettites in the Grammer schoole, can teach him that aliud in the Neuter gender put absolutely, must bee resolued into alia res, an other thing, and so doth Maister Heskins him selfe translate it. And Cyprian sheweth what other thing it is, after consecration, when he saith: here is declared the difference betweene the spirituall meate and the corporall meate, namely that it was one thing when it was first set before them, that is corporall meate, and an other thing which was giuen by their mai­ster, namely spirituall meate. The same substance re­maining, it is spirituall meate that before was cor­porall meate: as in baptisme the same substaunce of water remayning, it is a spirituall lauer, that before was a corporall lauer. This is the greate diuinitie of aliud and aliud. But I maruell that Maister Heskins, which seeth such high mysteries, in aliud, can not see that Cyprian saith, they did eate of the same breade before, after the visible forme, which they did afterward eate, be­ing conuerted into spirituall meate, so that it was the same breade before and after, although it had nowe a [Page 102] newe vertue giuen it by the wordes of Christ, to nourish the whole man, which before nourished only the body.

The next place which he alledgeth out of Saint Cypri­an is Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecitium. Where he leaueth out the be­ginning of the matter, bicause it expoundeth all the rest of the place against him: but I will be so bold as to add it for the better vnderstanding of S. Cyprian, and the dis­charging him of M. Heskins blasphemies. ‘ Item in sacerdo­te Melchisedech sacrificij dominici sacramentum praefiguratum vi­demus, secundùm quod scriptura diuina testatur & dicit: & Mel­chisedech &c. Also in the Priest Melchisedech we see that the sacrament of our Lordes sacrifice was prefigured, ac­cording to that the scripture testifieth, and saith.’ And Mel­chisedech king of Salem brought foorth bread and wine, and he was a Priest of the highest God, and blessed Abraham. And that Mel­chisedech did beare the figure of Christ, the holy Ghost declareth in the Psalmes, saying in the person of the father vnto the sonne: Be­fore the day starre I haue begotten thee. The Lorde hath sworne, and it shall not repent him, thou art a Priest for euer after the or­der of Melchisedech; which order verily is this comming of that sa­crifice, and from thence descending, that Melchisedech was a priest of the most high God, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham. For who is more the priest of the highest God then our Lord Iesus Christ, which offered vp a sacrifice to God his father ▪ ‘ And offered the selfe some thing that Melchisedech offered, that is, bread and wine, euen his body and bloud. And concerning Abra­ham, that blessing going before, perteined to our people. For if Abraham beleued God, and it was imputed to him for rightuousnesse: so likewise who so euer beleueth God liueth also by faith, is found righteous, and long agoe shewed to be blessed and iustified in faithfull Abraham, a [...] S. Paule the Apostle proueth, saying: Abraham belee­ued God, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse. Ye knowe therefore, that they which are of faith, euen they are the sonnes of Abraham. Wherefore the scrip­ture foreseeing that God iustifieth the Gentiles by faith, foreshewed to Abraham, that all nations should be bles­sed in him. Therefore they that are of faith, shall be blessed [Page 103] with faithfull Abraham. Wherevpon in the Gospell we find that many are raised vp of stones, that is, y ^t the sonnes of Abraham are gathered of the Gentiles. And when the Lord praised Zacheus, he answered and saide, This day is saluation happened to this house, bicause this man is also made the sonne of Abraham. Therefore that in Genesis the blessing about Abraham might duely be celebrated by Melchi­sedech the priest, the image of the sacrifice goeth before, ordeined in bread and wine.’ Which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling, of­fered bread and the cup mixed with wine, and he that was the ful­nesse, fulfilled the truth of the image that was prefigured. Thus much Cyprian. In cyting this place, note what falshood M. Heskins vseth: first of all he leaueth out the beginning, where Cyprian calleth the supper, the sacrament of the Lordes sacrifice, by which it is plaine what he meaneth, when he calleth it afterward, an oblation or sacrifice. Se­condly he falsifieth his wordes, where Cyprian saith, Fuit autem sacerdos, that is, and he was a Priest, Maister Heskins chaungeth it into Fuit enim sacerdos, for hee was a Priest. Thirdly, where Cyprian compareth Christ to Melchise­dech in three thinges distinctly, in that he was the Priest of the highest GOD, in that he offered breade and wine, and in that hee blessed Abraham, shewing, that Christe was the Prieste of the highest GOD, when hee offered his sacrifice to his father, meaning in his passion▪ that hee offered breade and wine as he did, meaning in his supper: and last of all, that he blessed his people as Melchisedech did Abraham. Maister Heskins confoundeth the first with the second, by putting out the interrogatiue point, that is after obtulit, and ioyning the next sentence to it, and the last he omitteth, by cutting off the dicourse that Cyprian maketh thereof. As though Cyprian had spoken of no resemblance of Melchisedech vnto Christe, but in offering bread and wine, as he before saide most blasphe­mously, that the execution of that Priesthoode lay onely therein.

But now let vs looke to his collectiōs out of this place. First that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ. That shall easi­ly▪ [Page 104] he graunted. Secondly, that Melchis [...]dech was a figure of Chris [...] in three pointe [...], and the [...] the Authour doth applie them all to Christ, namely a Priest of the highest GOD, in offering sacri­fice to his father, and that he offered the very same that Melchise­dech did, which was bread and wine. But these two Master Hes­kins▪ you would make all one, when you expound the sa­crifice that he offered to his father, to bee the bread and wine that he offered in the supper, and so there shall not be three pointes. Besides that you are enforced to confesse that Christ offered bread and wine to his father, the very same that Melchisedech did offer, which I am sure was no accidents, and so you doe flatly ouerthrowe your owne dearling, transubstantiation. Your next cauil is of obi [...] ­lie & protulie whereas both the text and Cyprian haue pro­tili [...] he brough [...] foorth, although he seemeth to thinke, that he brought it out eo offer. And therefore to the impu­dencie that you charge your aduersaries withall, will sit still in your owne brasen forehead. ‘For although he thin­keth that Melchisedech offered the bread and wine, which he brought foorth, yet he cyteth the scripture truly: And Melchisedech brought foorth bread and wine, and he was a priest of the highest GOD: which you haue most im­pudently falsified, as I shewed before, saying, for he was a Priest.’

Your third glose you bring to proue, that the sacrifice which Christ offered, was but on the crosse, but at the sup­per is, that the image of the sacrifice went before, which the Lord perfected and fulfilled, offering bread and the cup mixed with wine. An [...] though that sacrifice may not be referred to his sacrifice on the crosse, bicause y ^e image thereof was ordeined in bread and wine, and yet he ful­filled the trueth of the prefigured image; when hee offe­red bread and wine in the supper, as a sacrament of that sacrifice which he offered on the crosse, as Cyprian in the first sentēce of this place, doth cal it. ‘And for most cleare demonstratiō, that Cyprian by sacrifice meaneth a sacra­ment, signe, and memorial of the passion of Christ, & not a sacrifice properly, consider his owne wordes in the same [Page 105] Epistle. Et quia passionis eius mentionē in sacrifioijs omnibus faci­nous, (pastio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud, quàm quod ille fecit, facere debemus. And because wee make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices (for the sacri­fice which wee offer is the Lordes passion) wee ought to doe nothing, but that he did him selfe. This one place will aunswere all that can bee brought out of Cyprian, or any olde doctour for the sacrifice of the Lords supper.’ The sacrifice which wee offer, is the Lordes passion (sayth Cyprian) what, was Christe crucified in their sacrifices? or were their sacrifices nothing els but a sacramēt of thankes giuing for the passion of Christe? You see by this place howe vnproperly they spake, but yet so as of reasona­ble men they might well inough bee vnderstoode, and they them selues do often expounde them selues. Wher­fore thou seest (reader) what iniurie the papistes doe vn­to y ^e doctors, when they faine such monsters to be begot­ten by them, while they interprete literally, which the doctors did write figuratiuely.

But to y ^e testimonie of Isychius, which is a curious alle­gorie of sacrifices, wherin no merueyle, In Leui. lib. 6. Cap. 23. if he vse the name of sacrifice figuratiuely or vnproperly, his wordes are these. And what is this sacrifice? Two tenth deales of fine flower sprinkeled with oyle. For w [...]e must knowe to contemper the perfect manhoode and the perfecte Godhood, that it, to come together into one in oyle, that is, by that comparison which hee hath to­warde vs. For so the sacrifice is founde a sweete sauour to our lord, when wee vnderstande of him thinges that bee worthie. In what thinges the sacrifice whiche is the oblation of the intelligible lambe, is, and by whome it is done, howe it is celebrated, that whiche fol­loweth declareth. For neither by vnreasonable beastes doth God receiue sacrifice of vs, as the wordes that followe-doe plainely shewe [...]or, hee saith, and the drinke offering of it, shall bee of wine, the fourth part of an Hi [...], bread & Polentant (M. Heskins calleth it) parched corne. Because peraduenture it might haue been doubtfull by whome the mysterie of the sacrifice, (whiche is by Christs, that wee spake of before) is celebrated: behold thou hast the oblation of intelligible. Melchisedech which is perfourmed in [Page 106] breade and wine, in which the fourth parte of an Him is offered in drinke offeringes of wine, that by the fourth part hee might signi­fie the tradition or deliuerie of the Gospell which is in foure bookes▪ by the drinke offering, the Lordes worde, when hee saith, This is my bloude which shall bee shedde for you: for it seemed good to the lawe giuer without diminishing to signifie the mysterie of Christe.

And then againe hee saith: The oblation of these present giftes which we haue shewed to bee the mysterie of the onely be­gotten sonne, hath reconciled vs to God, and giuen vs the meate of the newe parched corne. Nowe to M. Heskins collections, Wee must learne here, that Melchisedech did not only bring forth, but also offer bread and wine. In deed wee learne that Isychi­us thought so: And that Christ the intelligible Melchisedech did sacrifice in breade and wine. Yea, but this sacrifice was a mysterie of that sacrifice, whiche hath reconciled vs to God, for so saith Isychius also, and that no man offered this sacrifice but hee himselfe, for that hee saith also. Reade ouer the place if you doubte of my collection. By which it is plaine, it was not the sacrifice of the masse that euerie hedge priest may offer. But that wee shoulde not say that it was bare breade that hee sacrificed, he sheweth what breade it was, saying, by the drinke offering hee woulde signifie that of which hee saide, this is my bloude. See this impudent falsa­rie: the writer saith, hee woulde signifie Dominician ser­monem, the Lordes worde, and hee saith, that of which he saide &c. Where is then the breade that the mysterie might bee fullie signified? Is it not that which he calleth the tradition of the Gospell which is in foure bookes? I dispute not howe well he applyeth these thinges, but it is more then manifest, that he speaketh so figuratiuely, that no argument can be fastened of his wordes, for the carnal presence. And whereas M. Heskins shrinketh in his hornes about the oblation of bread and wine, saying it was not bare breade, but he sheweth what bread it was. Let him aunswere me plainly, if he dare for his eares. Was it verie bread and wine, which Christ did sacrifice or no? If he say, it was verie bread and wine, then he denyeth transubstan­tiatiō. ‘If he say it was not verie bread & wine which Christ [Page 107] did sacrifice, then he denyeth y ^e resemblance vnto Melchi­sedechs sacrifice, and hath Cyprian against him, who as we heard before, saith, Obtulit hoc idem, quod Melchisedech ob­tulerat, id est, panem & vinum, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinē. He offered y ^t selfe same thing y ^t Melchisedech had offered, that is to say, bread & wine, euen his body & bloud. Note here that Melchisedech and Christ offering both the verie selfe same thing, they both offered bread and wine: and likewise they both offered the body and bloud of Christ.’ Whereby not onely transubstantiation, but also the car­nal presence is vtterly ouerthrowne. And to presse him harder by his owne weightes, euen to death, If aliud signi­fie an other substance, as he taught vs before, then hoc idem, signifieth the same substance, and much rather. Therefore wh [...]n Cyprian saith that Christ offered hoc idem quod Mel­chisedech, it followeth that Melchisedech offered the same substance which he expoundeth bread and wine, his body and bloude. And this two forked reason, will hold down all the papistes noses to the grindstone, that they shall not be able to auoide it for their liues.

The thirtieth Chapter treateth of the same matter by S. Hiero­nyme and Theodoret. Hesk.

The place of Hieronyme which M. Heskins doth so triumph vpon, is vpon the 110. Psalme, Fulke. but those cōmenta­ries, both by Erasmus and by Bruno Amerbachius, are vt­terly denyed to be Hieronymes doing. But seeing they be falsly intituled to him, we are cōtent to take this place, as thogh it were Hieronymes writing in deed. The words vpon the fourth verse are these. It is superfluous for vs to goe about to make an exposition of this verse, seeing the holy Apostle to the Hebrues hath most fully treated thereof. For hee saith, this is Mechisedech without father, without mother, without genera­tion. And of all ecclesiastical men it is said, that he is without father as concerning the flesh, and without mother as concerning his god­head. This only therefore let vs interpret: thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech, let vs only see wherfore he said, after the order. After the order: that is, thou shalt not be a priest according [Page 108] to the sacrifices of the Iewes: but thou shalt be a prieste after the order of Melchisedech: For as Melchisedech kinge of Salem of­fered breade and wine: so shalt thou offer thy bodie and thy bloud, true bread and true wine. This Melchisedech hath giuen vs these mysteries which we haue. He it is that hath saide, he that shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloude. Hee hath deliuered to vs his sacrament according to the order of Melchisedech. What can be saide more plainely in exposition of this writer, then that hee him selfe saith? that hee hath giuen vs these my­steries, that he hath deliuered to vs his sacrament after the order of Melchisedech, by which he expresseth, what his meaning was by offering his bodie and bloud, verie bread and verie wine, or true bread and true wine, not in the proper sence of a sacrifice, but in a mysterie, in a sacramēt. But nowe let vs see howe M. Heskins insulteth vppon vs, for this counterfete Hieronyme. First that he taketh vpon him to expound, that which was left vnexpounded by the Apostle to the Hebrues, namely that Christ was a prieste, which is altogether false, for the Apostle doth not one­ly speake of his eternall priesthood, but also of his one oblation, by which hee purchased eternall redemption. And although this writer doth refer his order to the simi­litude of his sacrifice in bread and wine, yet both the pro­phet in the psalme, and the Apostle to the Hebrues doe sufficiently declare, that the excellencie of Melchisedechs order doth consiste in this, that he was both a Kinge and a Priest, and so a liuely figure of the reall priesthoode of our sauiour Christ.

But whereas M. Heskins will controle not only vs, but euen his owne vulgare interpretation of the bible, which saith not, obtuli [...] hee offred, but protulit hee brought forth, by authoritie of this Hieronyme, who (hee saith) both knewe the olde testament and vnderstoode the Hebrue tongue, he bewrayeth his owne weaknesse, and sheweth, how good a reader he hath been of Hieroms works, when he knoweth not what the true Hieronyme himselfe wri­teth of this matter in his Epistle to Enagrius, in which, setting downe the verie Hebrue text: ‘ [...] [Page 109] [...] doth thus expound it: Et Melchizedech rex Salem protulit panem & vinum. Erat autem sacerdos Dei exelsi. And Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, and he was a priest of the high God. The same word protulit hath Ambrose, de mysterijs initiandis, and Augustine vppon the title of the 33. Psalme, and Cyprian as we heard in the last Chapter lib. 2. Epi 3. ad Caecilium.’ ‘Besides this Hierome in the same Epistle sheweth, that the best learned of the Hebrues iudgement, was, that Melchizedech victori A­braham obuiam processerit, & in refectionem tam ipsius, quàm pugnatorum ipsius, panes vinum (que) protulerit. Melchizedech came forth to meete Abraham the conquerour, and for refection as well of him, as of his warriours, brought forth breade and wine. And concerning the order of Melchizedech, he saith, that the Greeke writers inter­pret it many wayes.’ ‘As for example, that he alone was both a King and a Priest: and that he was a Priest before circumcision: that he was not annoynted with the oyle of the Priestes, but with the oyle of gladnesse: that hee offered not sacrifices of flesh and bloud, and tooke not the bloud of beastes and their bowels, and what soeuer is in them more then meate: Sed pane & vino simplici puro (que) sacrificio, Christi dedicauerit sacramentum, but with breade & wine being a simple and pure sacrifice, he dedicated the sacrament of Christ. This the true Hierome writt, and yet in the ende, will determine nothing of his owne iud­gement.’

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

And not content with this, hee noteth in the margent a plaine place for M. Iuel. Howe plaine it is to confute [Page 110] M. Heskins, I haue shewed abundantly in the last part [...] of the Chapter next before this, whether I remit the rea­der, and passe to Theodoret, who in his second dialogue writeth thus. Godly Moses writing the olde genealogie hath taught vs, that Adam, when hee was thus many yeres old begat Se [...]h, and when he had liued so many yeres, he made an ende of his life. Euen so also he sayth of Seth and Enos with other. As for the beginning of the generation of Melchizedech, and the ende of his life he ouerpasseth it in silence. Wherefore, if the historie bee looked on, he hath neither beginning of dayes, nor end of life. So in deede the sonne of God neither hath beginning of his being, nei­ther shall haue ending. Therefore in these most great and verie diuine things was Melchizedech a figure of Christ our Lord. And in his priesthood, which agreeth rather to man then to God, our Lord Christ was an high Priest after the order of Melchizedech. For Melchizedech was an high Priest of the Gentiles. And our Lord Christ offered a holy and healthfull sacrifice for all men. If I sayde neuer a word (as I neede not to say many) yet the indifferent reader would see, that here is no comparison of Melchizedechs bread and wine with the sacrament of the Lordes supper. Yea, he would easily see, that he spea­keth of the sacrifice of his death which our sauiour offe­red for all men, both Iewes and Gentiles. And much more plainly by that place which M. Heskins addeth out of the first dialogue. If therefore it appertaineth to Priestes to offer giftes, and Christ concerning his humanitie is called a Priest, he offered none other sacrifice but his owne bodie. This spea­keth Theodoret expressely of the true sacrifice of his death, and not of the fained sacrifice of his supper, nor yet of any sacrament or figure of his onely true sacri­fice, which the olde writers (as I shewed before) do often call a sacrifice, oblation, burnt offring, &c: But that M. Heskins cannot gaine by the doctours wordes, he will winne by reason. First, if wee denye that Melchizedech was a figure of Christe his Priesthood, saying, he was a figure onely of his eternitie, then wee ioyne with Euty­ches, who graunted the diuinitie of Christe, and denyed his humanitie, vnto which his priesthood properly per­teyned. [Page 111] But who tolde M. Heskins, that wee denye Melchizedech to be a figure of Christs Priesthood? when wee most constantly affirme, that he was a figure of his eternall Priesthood, vnlesse Maister Heskins thinke the humanitie of Christe, hauing once conquered death, is not nowe euerlasting. It is not our exposition, that mainteineth the heresie of Eutyches, that the nature of Christes bodie is absorpt into the diuinitie, but it is your heresie of vbiquitie and carnall presence (Maister Heskins) that mayntaineth it most manifestly in verie deede, though in wordes you will say the contrarie.

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

But it is a sport to see, how M Heskins skippeth to & fro, as it were one whipped at a stake, when hee woulde reconcile his transubstantiation, with this counterfet sa­crifice of breade and wine. Christe sacrificed in breade and wine. In breade and wine I say, a kinde of foode more excellent then the breade and wine that did figure it, I meane with Theo­doret and Hierome the true bread and wine, that is the bodie and bloud of Christ, that is to say, no bread nor wine. But if you giue him a lash on the other side, and saye: if Christ sacrificed not naturall bread & wine, then he answered not your fi­gure, he wil leap to the other side, & say with Cyprian, & [Page 112] Isychius, that Christe offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech did, and in one place he sayeth, he occupy­ed bread and wine in his sacrifice: so did he a table and a cuppe, and other things, but was any thing his sacrifice that he occupyed therein, sauing onely that which he of­fered? he will say no. Did he offer bread and wine? hee dare not aunswer directly, and so the poore man to vp­holde two lyes, the one contrarie to the other, is misera­bly tormented.

Hesk.The one and thirtieth Chapter concludeth this matter of Mel­chizedech by S. Augustine and Damascene.

Fulk.S. Augustine is alledged vppon the 33 Psalme, whose wordes are these: The sacrifices of the Iewes were before time, after the order of Aaron, in offrings of beastes, and that in a my­sterie. The sacrifice of the bodie and bloud of our Lord, which the faithfull, and they that haue read the Gospell do knowe, was not yet, which sacrifice is nowe diffused throughout all the worlde. Set before your eyes therefore two sacrifices, both that after the order of Aaron, and this after the order of Melchizedech. For it is wri­ten, the Lord hath sworne, and it shall not repent him. Thou art a Priest for euer, after the order of Melchizedech. Of whom is it saide, thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech? of our Lord Iesus Christ. For who was Mel [...]hizedech? The King of Salem And Salem was that Citie which afterward (as the learned haue declared) was called Hierusalē. Therefore, before the Iewes reigned there, this Melchizedech was Priest there, which is written of in Genesis, the Priest of the high God. He it was that mett Abraham when he deliuered Loth from the hande of his per­secutors and ouerthrewe them of whom he was helde, and deli­uered his brother. And after the deliuerie of his brother, Melchi­zedech mett him (so great was Melchizedech of whom Abraham was blessed) he brought forth breade and wine and blessed Abra­ham. And Abraham gaue him rythes. See ye what he brought forth, and whome he blessed? And it is sayed afterwarde: Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech. Dauid sayed this in the spirite, long after Abraham. Nowe Melchize­dech was in the time of Abraham. Of whome sayeth he in an [...] ­ [...]her [Page 113] place▪ Thou ar [...] a Priest for euer after the order of Melchize­dech, [...] of him whose sacrifice you knowe? Here saith Maister Heskins, is sacrifice auouched, and the sacrifice of the bo­dy, and bloud of our Lorde: who saith nay? But this is not the sacrifice of the masse, but the sacrifice of CHRISTES death, whereof the holy sacrament is a memoriall.

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

Here note that he maketh the sacrament more excellent then the sacrifice of Christes death, by so muche, as the Priesthoode, and sacrifice of Melchisedech, is more excellent then the sacrifice, and priesthoode of Aaron. But Augustine hath more yet, if it will helpe, vpon the same Psalme. Con. 3. Before the kingdome of his father, he chaunged his [...], and left him, and went his way: because there was the sacrifice, according to the order of Aaron: And afterwarde he himselfe by his body and bloud, instituted a sacrifice, after the order of Melchizedech. Therefore he chaunged his countenance in the priesthoode, and left the nation of the Iewes, and came to the Gentiles. By this we must needes vnderstand, that Christe did institute a sacrifice of his body and bloud, after the order of Melchizedech. Yea verily. But howe doe wee vnderstand, that this was in the sacrament? Therefore for any thing that is here shewed, it is no slaunder that the Pope hath turned the holy sacrament into a sa­crifice, to obscure the glorie of Christe, and his onely sacrifice, once offered on the crosse. For although the Fathers did sometimes call the sacrament, a sacrifice, yet they meant nothing but a memoriall, or sacrifice of [Page 114] thankesgiuing, for that one sacrifice, offered once, on the crosse for the redemption of the whole worlde. Whereof none other shalbe a better witnesse, then Augustine him­selfe, and in his exposition of this selfe same Psalme: ‘ Sa­ginantur ergo illo Angeli sed semel ipsum exinaninit, vt manduca­ret panem angelorum home: formam serui accipiens in simili­tudinem hominum factus: & habitu inuentus vt homo. The Angels therefore are fead with that bread (meaning the diuinitie of Christe) But he emptied himselfe, that man might eate the bread of Angels, taking the shape of a ser­uant, beeing made like vnto men, and in his habite was found as a man. Humilianit se factus obediens, vs (que) ad mortem, mortem autem crucis, vt iam de cruce commendar [...]tur nobis car [...] & sanguis Domini [...] sacrificium: quia mutauit vultum suum coram Abimelech, id est, eoram regno patris. He humbled him­selfe and was made obedient to the death, euen the death of the crosse, that now the body and bloud of our Lorde might be commended to vs from the Crosse, beeing the new sacrifice, because he chaunged his countenaunce be­fore Abimelech, that is, before the kingdome of his Fa­ther.’ By this it is manifest, that Augustine referred the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, vnto the crosse of Christ, whereof we are made partakers in the holy myste­ries of his blessed supper. So that as well, the body and bloud of our Lorde, as the newe sacrifice in those myste­ries are commended to vs, to be participated from the crosse, where they were truely and essentially offered vn­to God by the eternall spirite of our sauiour Christ, wher­by he procured euerlasting redemption.

‘ The same Augustine in his Ep. 23. to Bonifacius. Non­ne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso, & tamen in suet [...] non sobèr [...] per omnes paschę solennitates, sed omni die populi [...] im­molatur, nec vbi (que) mentitur, qui interrogatus eum respondarit im­molari? Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem [...]arum rerum quarū sacramenta sūt non haberēt, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex haec autem similitudine plerun (que) etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt.’ Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum, sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi, [Page 115] sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. ‘Was not Christe once onely offered vppe by himselfe? And yet in a sacrament▪ not onely at euery solemnitie of Easter, but euerie day he is offered for the people, neither doeth he lye, which being asked the question answereth that he is offered. For if sacraments had not a certeine similitude of those thinges, whereof they are sacramentes, they should not be sacramentes at all. And of this similitude oftentimes they take the names euen of the very thinges themselues. Therfore, as after a certeine maner the sacra­ment of y ^e body of Christ, is the body of Christ, the sacra­ment of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ: so the sacrament of faith is faith. What can be vttered more plainely, either against the Popishe sacrifice, or against their carnal presence?’ This one place may expound what­soeuer in Augustine, or any other olde writer is spoken of the sacrifice of the Lordes supper, and of the presence of Christes body and bloud therein.

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

Hieronyme followeth a vaine discourse, against, I wote not what Petrobrusians, and Henricians, that denied the body of CHRISTE to be consecrated, and giuen by the priestes, as it was by Christe him selfe: Whome peraduenture Petrus Cluniacensis, Maister Heskins Author, doeth slaunder, when they saide none otherwise, then Chrysostome saide before, and that which Maister Hes­kins himselfe affirmeth, That Christ and not man doth conse­crate: But by this place also are confuted the Oecolampa­dians, [Page 116] and Caluinistes, if we will beleeue Maister Hes­kins: who first rauing against Cranmer, vrgeth the worde of sanctification of the bread and wine, that Chry­sostome vseth, charging Cranmer to haue saide, that the creatures of bread and wine cannot be sanctified. Which no doubt, that holy Martyr spake of the substance, and not of the vse in the sacrament. Then he snatcheth vppe Chrysostomes wordes, Transmutat, he doeth transmute, and change them. This is easily aunswered. He chaungeth the vse, but not the substance. But for more confirmation, O­rigen is called to witnesse Lib. 8. Cont. Celsum: We obeying the creator of all thing [...]s, after we haue giuen thankes for his be­nefites, which he hath bestowed vpon vs, doe eate the bread which is offered which by prayer and supplication is made into a certeine holier bodie, which truly maketh them more holie, which with a more sound minde do vse the same. Here by Origens playne wordes, the vse doth sanctifie the worthie receiuers. And though you adde to Ambrose his phrase De pane fit corpus Christi, of the bread is made the body of Christ, yet the inter­pretation of spirituall receiuing, which both Origen and Ambrose doe at large testifie, (as in due place hath and shall be more declared) doeth take away your grosse imagination. And that you doe not reiect the spi­rituall receiuing in the sacrament, you doe well: but you doe fondely, when you oppose it against reall recey­uing, where you should say corporall or carnall, for Spiritus & Res be not opposite, but Spiritus & Car [...], or Cor­pus, are.

And here I would haue the Readers to note, how Maister Heskins confesseth, that The receiuing of Christe really, (whiche is all that he striueth for) profiteth not, without the receiuing of him spiritually. But it is certeine by the scripture, that the spirituall receiuing profiteth without that, which he calleth the real receiuing. For Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith. And whereas he saith No man can receiue Christ spiritually, which beleeueth not that he receiueth him really: I demaund of him, whether in­fants, and such as dye without the participation of the sa­crament [Page 117] may not receiue Christe spiritually, without re­ceiuing of him corporally? He must needes answere, yea, or else by Christes word they haue no part of eternal life: and then his assertion is false. If I should obiect the fa­thers of the olde testament, who did all eate Christ spiri­tually, before he had a naturall body, perhaps he would answere, that he speaketh of men in these dayes. But seing the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. saith, they receiued the same spiri­tuall meat and drinke that we do, euen Christ, it is mani­fest, that Christ both now & then is eaten spiritually on­ly, and not carnally.

To match with Augustine, for default of a Lorde of the higher house, he bringeth in Damascene a Burgesse of the lower house, whose authoritie although I do little e­steeme, yet will I set downe his wordes, that you may see, how little helpe he hath out of them, but by racking and wresting. Melchisedech with bread & wine did receiue Abraham returning frō the slaughter of the strāgers, Li. 4. de Or­thod. fid. which was a priest of the highest God. That table did prefigurate this mysticall table, as that priest bare the figure and image of Christ the true priest. Thou art (saith he) a priest after the order of Melchisedech.

First Damascene is plaine, that Melchisedech did not offer bread and wine, but he did entertain Abraham ther­with at his table, & that Melchisedechs feast was a figure of Christes feast, but not of his sacrifice, which is the mat­ter in controuersie. But you shal see how M. Heskins set­teth his words on the tenter, to stretch them to a sacrifice. I wold that the aduersarie did note, that the table of Melchisedech, which al men of learning do know, is taken for the sacrifice. Who shall be able to stand before M. Heskins, which hath the iudgement of all men of learning on his side? Yea and y ^t which is more▪ S. Paule taketh it so: ye cannot be partakers of the table of God, and the table of diuels also, that is, of that which was offered to God, & of that which was offred to diuels. O lear­ned expositiō! But he must remember that S. Paul repro­ueth not the Corinthians for offring sacrifice to the idols, but for sitting downe at the feastes, in whiche that meate that had bene offered was eaten. So that a table is still a [Page 118] table, and for a feast, not for a sacrifice. The conclusion of this chap, if he durst openly vtter it, containeth a most dete­stable blasphemie: namely, that euery hedge Priest, that saith Masse, is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech. As though Christs Priesthood could not be perpetual, except it were cōtinued by succession of y ^t greasie order of shaue­lings, wheras it is expresly said Heb. 7. that his Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, resteth only in his owne person, bicause he liueth for euer, and that it can not passe by succession. Vpon which place (to cōclude this matter) and the Papists own graunt, I will reason thus. Christs Priesthoode after the order of Melchisedech, resteth in his owne person, and passeth not by succession: The Popish Priesthood consisting in the sacrifice of bread and wine, is continued in the world by succession: therfore the Popish Priesthood consisting in the sacrifice of breade & wine, is not the Priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedech.

Hesk.The 32 Chapter to proue the sacrifice of our shewe bread, to be a continuall sacrifice, as the old shew bread was, alledgeth the prophe­sie of Daniel, and reiecteth the false expositions of the aduersaries.

The shew bread is here brought in for a meere shew, for there is no matter at all in it for his purpose, Fulke. except it be this, y ^t he saith The reseruation of that bread was a figure of the reseruation of their blessed bread. Which if it be true, it is not lawful for y ^e priest to eat his cōsecrated hostes, vntill they be a seuen nights old. For the shew bread, was of necessitie to stand on y ^t table, frō Sabbath to Sabbath. But of y ^e cōti­nuāce of their sacrifice, not only Malachie; but also Daniel hath prophesied, who in y ^e 9. & 12. of his prophesie, fore­sheweth y ^e taking away of y ^e daily sacrifice, which (he saith) y ^e holy Fathers do expound to be done by Antichrist. As there be many prophesies in Daniel, very hard to inter­pret, so there is none more cleere, either in him or in any other prophet, for y ^e time when it should be fulfilled, then this of taking away y ^e daily sacrifice, & placing y ^e abhomi­natiō of desolation, for asmuch as our sauiour Christ him self Mat. 24. doth refer it to y ^e destructiō of Hierusalem & y ^e tēple. For then y ^e daily sacrifice, not of y ^e shew bread, but [Page 119] of y ^e morning & euening oblatiō, was vtterly taken away in act, as it ceassed in effect, when our sauiour Christe by his true sacrifice had taken away all figuratiue oblations. For as Hierom saith very well, whatsoeuer was afterward sacrificed by y ^e vnbeleuing Iewes in the temple, was not the sacrifice of God, but the worship of the diuel. But notw ^tstanding this, M. Hesk. wil needs haue it meant of y ^e daily sacrifice of y ^e Christians, & for y ^t purpose alledgeth y ^e iudgement of Petrus, y ^e Monk (I trow) of Clunie, y ^t there be foure princi­pal sectes in y ^e world, y ^t is of y ^e Iewes, Sarazens, Pagans, and Christians, of which y ^e Iewes, Sarazens, & Pagans offer no sacrifice, but only y ^e Christians. But he is fowly beguyled, for y ^e Sarazens or Mahumetans offer sacrifice for the dead, after the maner of the Gentiles. And where this Peter ac­knowledged no Pagans, but such as dwell farthest in the North, it seemeth he hath not heard of so many nations as in all quarters be discouered to be Idolaters, especially those of Calechut, who beside the bloud of a cocke which they sacrifice to the Idole of the diuel, do offer vnto it all meat that the king eateth. Wherfore the conclusion of P. Cluniacensis is a very vain & foolish collectiō. And wher­as M. Hes. maketh so smal account of y ^e sacrifice of thanks­giuing, praises, prayers, & obedience, that he calleth them but common thinges, he sheweth what religion is in his brest. But where Daniel saith, then daily sacrifice shalbe taken a­way, he wil proue that there must be a daily sacrifice, and that of the Christians, by Hieronyms authoritie. Whose words are cited thus by him: Hos mille ducentos nonaginta dies Porphyrius in tempore Antiochi, & in desolatione templi dicis completos, quam & Iosephus & Machabęorum (vt dixintus) liber, tribus tantùni annis fuisse commemorant. Ex quo perspic [...] est, tres istos & semis annos de Antichristi dici temporibus, qui tribus & semis annis, hoc est mille ducentis nonaginta diebus sanctos perseq [...]turus est, & postea, ceciderit in monte inclyto & sancto. A tempore igitur quod nos interpreta [...]i sunus iuge sacrificiū quan­do Antichristus vrbem obtinens Dei cultum interdixerit, vs (que) ad internecionem eius, tres & semis anni id est, mille ducenti nona­ginta dies complebuntur. These thousand two hundreth and ninetie [Page 120] dayes Prophyrius saith, th [...] were fulfilled in the time of Antiochus, and in the desolation of the temple, which both Iesophus and the booke of Machabees, (as we haue said) do testifie to be d [...]n in three yeares only, whereby it is plaine these three yeares and an halfe to be spoken of the times of Antichrist, who by the space of three yeres and an halfe, that is a thousand two hundreth and ninetie days, shal persecute the holy and faithfull Christians, and after shal fall downe in the famous and holy hill. From the time therefore that we bene interpreted the daily sacrifice, when Antichrist shal forbid the ser­uice of God, vnto his destruction there shall be fulfilled three yeres and an halfe, that is to say, a thousand two hundreth and ninetie dayes. ‘We haue often seene before, what an impudent fal­sarie M. Hesk. is of the Doctors, and here, I know not for what cause, except it were to trouble the sense of Hiero­nymes words, both in y ^e Latine & in his English translati­on, he hath left out the Greeke word y ^t Hieronyme vseth in this sentence, A tempore iginer [...], quod nos interpretati sumus iuge sacrificium &c. Therefore from the time of the perpetuitie, which we haue interpreted the perpetuall sa­crifice, &c.’ At least wise he should haue noted in the mar­gent Graecum est, non potest legi But to the matter, although Hierom, contrarie to the exposition of our sauiour Christ referre this taking away of the daily sacrifice, to the time of Antichrist, yet doth he interprete the same sacrifice, to be but the worship and seruice of God, which Antichrist should forbid. But Nicholas Lyra is a Doctour for M. Heskins tooth, for he expoundeth it of the sacrifice of the altar. And M. Heskins will proue it by reason. For it can not be meant of a spiritual sacrifice of praise, prayers, mortification, repentance, &c. For these can not be put downe, but shalbe frequen­ted, euen vnder his flames and sword, therfore it must needes be the daily sacrifice of the altar. And yet M. Heskins thinketh, that shal not be cleane put downe, but secretly be vsed of god­ly disposed people, so that he were best to conclude, that there shal none at al be put downe. But may not the out­ward seruice of God be put downe, as Hieronyme saith, But it must of necessitie be the sacrament of the altar? O easie ne­cessitie, that so lightly is auoyded! Well, beside this rushie [Page 121] cheine of M. Heskins necessitie you shall heare matter of congruitie.

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

The three and thirtieth Chapter openeth the Prophecie of Malachie. Hesk.

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

Therefore Oecolampadius expoundeth this sacrifice of the obedience of all nations, to the faith: Bucer, of [Page 122] faith and the confession of the same: Bullinger, of the land and prayse of God: Vrbanus Rhegius, of mortification and inuocation of Gods name. Al which M. Heskins him selfe that firste cryeth out of their discord, confesseth to agre in this, that they vnderstand the prophesie of the spi­rituall sacrifice of prayse and thanksgiuing. But these he­reticall expositions, he saith, cannot stande. And why so▪ forsooth because these spiritual sacrifices be not new, but were offered by the godly, euen since Abel, who (he saith) was the first that offered sacrifice to God, and that of the fruites of the earth: whereas it is not to be thought, that Adam offered no sacrifice al that time before: and the text is plaine, that Abell offered the fruit of his cattell. But al­though the spirituall worship of God is not newe, yet it was newe to the Iewes, that the father shoulde bee wor­shipped from the time of Christ, neither in the moūt Ga­rizim nor at Ierusalem, but of all nations in spirite and trueth, Iohn. 4. that is, without all externall and figuratiue sacri­fices. An other reason is of the purenesse of the newe sa­crifice, aboue the olde. For the olde sacrifices were pure by participation, the newe is pure by nature, and there­fore nothing else but the bodie of Christe. But by his fa­uour the prophet in calling the newe sacrifice pure, doeth not charge the old with imperfection, if they had been offered according to their institution, but reproueth the priestes, that they had polluted the Lords sacrifices, with their couetousnes and hypocrisie, and in punishment of their pride (which thought God could not bee serued ex­cept it were by them) threateneth that he will reiect them and the people that were partakers of their sinnes, and set vp the spirituall pure worship of his name, among the Gentils in all partes of the worlde, which shoulde better please God (as y ^e Prophete saith) then a bullock that hath hornes & hooffes. And as for the purenes that M. Heskins requireth in the new sacrifices, wee haue a sufficient war­rant of the holy Ghost Heb. 13. that by Iesus Christ wee offer the sacrifice of prayse always to God, that is, the frui­tes of the lippes which confesseth his name, doeing good [Page 123] and not forgetting to distribute, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. By which place you may see that the ex­positions of the godly before rehearsed, are grounded vpon the word of God, and not the deuise or imagination of man. It is meruell y ^t M. Heskins (as the rest of y ^e papistes do in this place) doth not builde much vppon the worde [...] which properly doth signifie a sacrifice made of flower, and so a kinde of bread: but then he lacketh wine, and the other worde which the prophete vseth [...] which signifieth an incense or perfume, both excludeth that phantisie, and also sheweth that the Prophet, accor­ding to the common custom of other Prophets, speaketh after the capacitie of the people, in discribing the spiritu­all state of Christs Church by the external-figures & cere­monies of Moses law. And so there is no place in y ^e scrip­ture, maketh lesse for the sacrifice of the masse, then this text of the prophete Malachie.

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

M. Heskins desirous to expounde this prophesie by two verie auncient barrons of the high house of parlea­ment, beginneth with one Martialis, Fulk. whom to make him seeme more reuerend and auncient, he hath adorned with Parleament Robes, affirming that he was the disciple of Christ himselfe, and after his Maisters death kepte com­panie almost continually with the Apostle Peter, & ther­fore willeth euerie man to giue audience to his speache. Now whether euer there were any such disciple of Christ, & companion of the Apostle, as the scripture maketh no­mention of him so I will affirme nothing. But for as much as the Church neuer heard of any such writer, nei­ther by Eusebius, or by Hieronyme, nor by Gennadius, all which gathered the names of all the writers y ^t had ben in y ^e Church of Christe, that were knowen in their times, and seeing that many hundreth yeares after, there is no mention of any such writer, and writinges in anye approued authour, I will playnely affirme, that the authour of such Epistles, is more worthie to stand on the [Page 124] pillerie for an impudent counterfeiter, then to sit in the Parleament house among y ^e Apostles of Christ and y ^e holy doctors of the Church. If there were nothing else to con­fute him, but the title that he giueth himselfe, it were sufficient to prooue him a shamelesse forger. Martialis Apostolus Christi, he tearmeth himselfe (in the Diuels name) as though the scripture had not defined both of the num­ber and of the calling of the Apostles. If any man liste to heare his absurde speach, that hee maketh for the sacri­fice of the masse, let him resorte to M. Heskins swyne­trough, for I will not vouchsafe to defile my penne and paper to carie awaye such draffe, of such pseude-apostles and counterfeit doctors. Leauing therefore M. Heskins with his groyne serching in that swill, I will chase him away from routing in the holy auntient garden of Ire­naeus, of whom M. Heskins confesseth, that hee is not to be suspected of truth, therby insinuating that his Marti­all, was not so honest, but that his credite might come in question. But Irenaeus lib. 4. Chapter 32. writeth thus: Sed & suis discipulis dans consilium &c. But also giuing counsell to his disciples, to offer the firste fruites vnto God of his owne creatures, not as to one hauing neede, but that they might be neither vnfruitefull nor vnthankefull: he tooke that bread which is of the creature, and gaue thankes, saying, this is my bodie: and likewise the cup which is of the same creature that is with vs, hee confesseth to bee his bloude, and taught the newe oblation of the newe Testament, whiche the Church receiuing of the Apo­stles, offereth to GOD in all the world, to him which giueth food vnto vs, the first fruites of his owne giftes in the new Testament, of which Malachias amonge the twelue Prophetes hath fore­shewed: I haue no pleasure in you, (saith the LORD Al­mightie) and I will receiue no sacrifice at your handes, &c.

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

[Page 125]For he sheweth the end of the institution to be, that they should neither be vnfruitefull nor vnthankfull, which oblation the Church obserueth throughout all y ^e world, according to the Prophesie of Malachie, in the celebra­tion of the Lordes supper, although not onely therein. M. Heskins cauill, of the newnesse of the oblation, I haue answered before, that it is newe in the manner of the offering, which is without such sacrifices & ceremo­nies as the lawe prescribed. And whereas the incense and the pure oblation, that the Prophet sayeth, should be sa­crificed to God, be both of one nature, Irenaeus doth in plaine wordes expound the incenses for spirituall sacri­fice, namely, the sacrifice of prayers. Which exposition M. Heskins doth so obstinately contemne lib. 4. Chap. 33. ‘ Quoniam ergo nomen filij proprium patris est, & in Deo omnipo­tente Iesum Christum offert ecclesia, bene ait secundum vtra (que) & in omni loco incensiū offertur nomini meo & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem Ioannes in Apocalypsi orationes ait esse sanctorum. Therefore, for as much as the name of the same pertei­neth to the father, and in God almightie the Church of­fereth Iesus Christ: he sayeth well according to bothe, and in euery place, an incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice. Nowe S. Iohn in the reuelation sayth, that the incense are the prayers of the Saintes. The one being a spirituall sacrifice, the other is also of the same nature:’ by which it is euident, howe the Church offereth Iesus Christ in God almightie: namely, when shee ren­dreth moste humble and hartie thankes to God, for her redemption by Iesus Christe. To which intent, much more might be alledged out of Irenaeus, but for pro­lixitie, and the same places shall afterwardes be cited for other purposes.

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

Out of S. Augustine is alledged a long saying lib. Ad­uersus Iudaeos, but not so long in wordes, Fulke. as short of his purpose. Dominus omnipotens dicit, &c. The Lorde almightie sayeth, I haue no pleasure in you, neither will I receiue sacrifice of [Page 126] your hands. Certainly, this you cannot denie ô ye Iewes that not o [...] ­ly he doth not take sacrifice as your handes, for there is but one place appointed by the lawe of the Lord, where he hath commaun­ded sacrifices to be offered by your handes, beside which place, he hath altogether forbidden them. Therefore seeing you haue lost this place according to your deserts, the sacrifice also, which was lawfull to be offered there onely, in other place [...] ye dare not offer. And it is altogether fulfilled which the Prophet saith: And sacri­fice will I not receiue at your handes. For if the Temple and the Altar remained to you in the earthly Hierusalem, you might say this were fulfilled in them, whose sacrifices, (being wicked men abi­ding among you) the Lorde doth not accept: but that he accepteth the sacrifice of other that be of you and among you, which keepe the commaundements of God. But this cannot be saide, for asmuch as there is not one of you all, which according to the lawe, which proceeded from mount Sinay, may offer sacrifice with his handes. Neither is this so forespoken & fulfilled, that the sentence of the Prophes will suffer you to a [...]nswere: because wee offer not flesh with our hands, with our heart and mouth we offer praise, according to that in the Psalme: Sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise. From this place also he speaketh against you which sayth: I haue no pleasure in you, &c. Moreouer, that you shuld not thinke that seeing you offer not, and that he taketh no sacrifice at your hands, therefore no sacrifice is offered to God, whereof truely hee hath no neede, who needeth not the goods of any of vs, yet because he is not without a sacrifice, which is not profitable for him, but for vs, be adioyneth and sayeth: For from the rising of the Sunne vn­til the going downe of the same, my name is made honourable a­mong all the Gentiles, and in euery place a sacrifice is offered to my name, euen a pure sacrifice, because my name is greate among the Gentiles saith the Lorde Almightie. What aunswere yee to these things? open your eyes at the length, & see from the sunne ri­sing to the going downe thereof, that not in one place, as it was ap­pointed among you, but in euery place, the sacrifice of the Christi­ans is offered, not to euery God, but to him that spake these things afore hand, euen to the God of Israel. Wherfore (in another place) he sayth, to his Church: and he that hath deliuered thee, the same God of Israel shalbe called the God of the whole earth. Search [Page 127] ye the Scriptures, in which you thinke to haue eternall life, and truely you should haue, if in them you could vnderstand Christ and hold him. But search them through and euen they beare witnesse of this pure sacrifice, which is offered to the God of Israel: not of your nation alone, of whose hands he saide he would receiue none, but of all nations which say: come let vs go vp into the hill of the Lord, neither in one place, as it was commaunded in the earthly. Hie­rusalem, b [...]t in euery place, euen in Hierusalem it selfe▪ neither after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedech.

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

[Page 128]What place M. Heskins meaneth I knowe not, but in the same booke I read & in the 18. Chapter, that he cal­leth the death of Christ [...] singuler and onely was sacrifice. If that sacrifice be but one singuler, and the onely true sacrifice, what manner of sacrifice is the sacrifice of the Masse, which setteth vp a newe altar to ouerthrowe the crosse of Christ? And that you may knowe what sacri­fice S. Augustine meaneth, when he nameth the sacrifice of the Church, or the sacrifice of breade and wine, or any such like phrase, he speaketh this in the twentieth Chap­ter of certeine apocryphall writings, falsly intituled to the Apostles Andrew & Iohn.

‘ Qua fillorum essent, receptae essent ab ecclesia, quae illorum tem­peribus per Episcoporū succes [...]iones certissimas vs (que) ad nostra & deincap [...] tempora perseuera [...], & immolat Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium [...]dis: Which if they had bene theirs, they should haue bene receiued of the Church, which from their times, by most certeine successions of Bishope, con­tinueth vnto our times and after, and sacrificeth to God in the bodie of Christ, the sacrifice of lawde and prayse.’ And let this suffice to discharge Augustine from M. Hes­kins and the Papistes blasphemous cauelling. Now must we come to Eusebius: which lib. [...]. Euang. Demonst. cap. 10. writeth thus: The Mosaical sacrifices being reiected he doth by diuine reuelation declare our ordina [...]ies that was to [...], saying: For from the rising of the [...] the going down of the s [...]e my name is glorified among the nations, & in euery place [...] is offred to my name, & a pure sacrifice. Wherefore our sacrifice to the most high God, is the sacrifice of praise. Wee sacrifice to God a full, [...] & holie sacrifice. We sacrifice after a newe maner, according to the new testament a pure sacrifice, &c. M. Heskins asketh vs, if we do not see that Eusebius expoundeth the Prophet of the sacrifice of Christes bodie? but wee may well bid him shore vp his eyes, & see, if he do not in plain words expound him of the sacrifice of praise? But because he calleth this sacrifice horrorem adferens, bringing hor­ror, meaning, not a slauish, but a reuerent feare, as is meant to be in all matters of religion, which ought to [Page 129] be handled with feare, and reuerence of Gods Maiestie, vnto whom they apperteine: he will needes haue it the body of Christ, and first, he alledgeth a saying of Diony­sius, whom he falsely calleth the disciple of Saint Paule, although he be a writer of good antiquitie: Eccle. Hier. part. 1. cap. 3. Neither is it almost lawfull for any mysterie of the priestly office, to be done, except that his diuine, and most noble sa­crament of thankesgiuing doe fulfil is. What he picketh out of this saying, as he noteth not, so I am not of his counsell to knowe, neither why (after his accustomed boldenesse) he translateth, Sacramentum Eucharistiae, the sacrament of Christe. From Dionyse he flitteth to the hyperbolicall amplifications of Chrysostom, which Lib. 6. De Sacerdotio, calleth the sacrament, That sacrifice most full of horror and re­uerence, where the vniuersall Lorde of all thinges is daily felt with handes. And de prod. Iud. Hom. 30. The holy and terrible sacri­fice, where Christ that was slaine is set foorth. He that will not acknowledge these and such like, to be figuratiue spee­ches, must enter action against Chrysostom for many he­resies: or rather Chrysostome may enter action against him of slaunder and defamation. In the same treatise De Sacerdotio Lib. 3. speaking of the same sacrifice, he sayeth:

You may see the whole multitude of people died and made redde with the precious bloud of Christ. ‘But to shewe that all this is spirituall, he demaundeth, if you thinke your selfe to stand vpon the earth, when you see these thinges, and not rather that you are translated into heauen, and casting away all cogitations of the flesh, with a naked soule, and pure minde you beholde those thinges that are in heauen. Therefore to conclude, neither Augu­stine nor Eusebius haue spoken any thing to the furthe­rance of Maister Heskins bill, of the carnal presence.’

The sixe and thirtieth Chapter, endeth the exposition of Mala­chie, by Saint Hierome, and Damascen. Hesk.

S. Hierome vpon y ^e Prophet Malachie writeth thus: Fulke. Ergo propriè nūc ad sacerdotes Indeorū sermo sit domini, qui offerūt, caecū & clandū & languidū ad immolandū vt sciant carnalibꝰ victimis [Page 130] spirituales victimas successuras. Et necquaquam tantorum hirce­rùmque sanguinem: sed thymiana, hoc est, sanctorum orationes Do­mino offerendas: & non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea, nec in vna iudaea vrbe Hierusalem: sed in omni loco offerri oblationem: ne­quaquam immundam, vt a populo Israel: sed mundum, vt in cere­monijs Christianorum. Now therefore the word of the Lorde is pro­perly spoken to the Priestes of the Iewes, which offer the blinde and lamue, and feeble, to be sacrificed, that they might knowe that spiri­tuall sacrifices, should succeede those carnall sacrifices. And not the bloud of bulles and goates, but an incense, that is to say, the prayers of the Sainctes should be offered to the Lord: and that not in one prouince of the world Iewry, neither in Ierusalem one citie of Iew­ry, but in euery place an oblation is offered: was vncleane, as of the people of Israel, but cleane, as in the ceremonies of the Christi­ans. Doest thou not maruell (Gentle Reader) that Maister Heskins alledgeth this place, which in euerie point is so directly contrarie to his purpose? He saith that among the ceremonies of the Christians, none can be properly called the cleane sacrifice, but the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ. O shamelesse begger, that craueth no lesse then the whole controuersie to be giuen him! And that contrarie to Hierome, whose name he abuseth, which expoundeth this place of spirituall sacrifices, and more expressely of the prayers of the saintes, whiche are not vsed in one, but in all the ceremonies of the Christi­ans. But to set some colour vpon y ^e matter, he bringeth in an other saying of Hierome, which is written before this in exposition of another place, perteining nothing to this prophecy of y ^e pure sacrifice: but wher by analogie or like reason, (as the prophet rebuketh the priestes of the Iewes) he doeth reprehend also the Bishops, Elders, and Deacons of the Church for their negligence: Offertis inquit &c. You offer, saith he, vpon mine altar bread polluted. We pollute the bread, that is to say the body of Christ, when we come vnworthily to the altar, and we beeing filthie doe drinke cleane bloud, and say the Lordes table is contemptible, &c. Here forsooth, we vnder­stand that the body of Christ is, the sacrifice of the Chri­stians, yea, but according to the former sentence, so offe­red, [Page 131] that it is a spirituall sacrifice.

But what else? Here we are taught that we doe not take one thing: videlicet bread, and do iniurie to another thing, that is the body and bloud of Christ, as the sacramentaries say, but receiuing the very body and bloud of Christ we do iniury to the same. But vouchsafe to heare the same teacher, speaking of the same matter, and in the same place, in fewe wordes to satisfie the reasonable, and to stoppe the mouthes of quarrellers. ‘ Dum enim sacramenta violantur, ipse cuius sunt sacramenta vio­latur. For while iniurie is done to the sacramentes, iniurie is done to him whose sacraments they are. He sheweth a reason against them that demaunded proudly, wherein they had polluted God, when they had but polluted his sacraments?’ Leauing therefore Hierome at open warre with M. Heskins, I will passe to Damascen, who for lacke of a Greeke auncient Baron, beeing an auncient burgesse of the lower house, Maister Heskins, is bolde to matche with Hironyme, though farre inferiour to him in anti­quitie and credite, whose wordes are these: Libr. 4. This is that pure and vnbloudy sacrifice, which our Lord speaketh by the Prophet to be offred to him, from the rising of the sunne, to the going downe of the same, namely the body and bloud of Christ, vnto the vnconsu­med, and vncorrupted establishment of our body and soule, not go­ing into secesse, (God forbid, that any such imagination should be) but it is a purgation of al manner filth, and a reparation of all man­ner of hurt, vnto our sustentation, and conseruation. This place saith Maister Heskins is so plaine, that a childe may perceiue it: for it is sufficient for him, if he heare once bo­dy and bloud named. Howbeit, if either Damascens au­thoritie were of weight, or the corruption of the time in which he liued vnknowen, there is nothing, in this saying, which might not easily, and without any wresting, be re­ferred to the spirituall sacrifices, & to the spirituall man­ner of sacrificing the body and bloud of Christ, which we haue learned out of the elder fathers.

The seuen and thirtieth Chapter, maketh a brieefe recapitu­lation of thinges before written, with the application of them to Hesk. [Page 132] the proclamation of the aduersarie, and so concludeth the first booke.

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

First here he reiecteth the authoritie of the Apostle to the Hebrues, saying, it is but wrested, which is as direct, as nothing in the worlde can be more direct, that Christ offered himselfe, and that but once, and by that one ob­lation hath made perfect for euer, them that are sancti­fied. ‘But he shal heare Chrysostome vpon the same scrip­ture Hebr. 10. Aufer [...] primum, vt sequens statuat, &c. He ta­keth away the former, that he might establish that whi­che followeth. Beholde againe the aboundance. This sacrifice sayeth he, is but one, but those sacrifices are many: for therefore they were not strong, because they were many. But tell me what need is there of many, [Page 133] when one is sufficient? Therefore whereas they were ma­ny, and alwayes offered, he sheweth, that they were neuer purged. For as a medicine when it is strong and effectuall to giue health, and able to driue away, all sicknesse, being but once laide to, worketh the whole at once. If therfore being but once laide to it hath wrought the whole, it she­weth the vertue thereof, in that it is not laid to any more: & this is the effect of it, y ^t it is laid on no more but once. But if it be always laid to, it is a manifest token, y ^t it pre­uailed nothing. For this is the vertue of that medicine, y ^t it is but once laid on, and not oftentimes: euen so in this case. By what meanes were they always healed, by y ^e same sacrifices? For if they had ben deliuered from al their sins, there should not haue bene offered sacrifice throughout euery day. For they were appointed, y ^t they should be al­ways offred for al the people, both at euening & in y ^e day. Therfore, that was an accusation of sinns, not a discharge: for ther was made an accusatiō of weaknes, not a shewing of strength. For bicause y ^e first sacrifice was of no force, the second was likewise offered, & bicause that also profited nothing, an other was offered also: wherefore this is but a conuiction of sinnes. For in y ^t they were offered, there is a conuiction of sinnes, but in that they were always offred, there is a conuiction of infirmitie But contrariwise in Christ, the sacrifice was but once offered. For what neede was there of medicines, when there is no more wounds re­maining? For this cause, you wil say, he cōmanded that it should always be offered, bicause of infirmitie, that there might be also a remēbrance of sinnes: What then do we [...] Doe we not offer euery day? we offer truely, but for a re­membraunce which we make of his death, and this is but one sacrifice, not many. Howe is it one and not many? Bi­cause it was offered but once, and it was offered in the holy of holies: but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that, we offer the same alwayes. For we do not nowe offer one lamb, to morrowe an other, but the same thing alwayes. Therfore this sacrifice is but one. For else by this reason, bicause it is offred in many places, are ther many Christs?’ [Page 134] No, but one Christ is euery where, both here being per­fect and there being perfect, euen one body. For as he which is euery where is one bodie, and not many bo­dies: so also it is one sacrifice. And hee is our highe Priest, which offered the sacrifice which purged vs: the same do we also offer nowe, which then truely being of­fered, can not be consumed. Howbeit, that which we doe nowe, is done truely, in the remembraunce of that which was done then. For this do ye (saith he) in remembraunce of me. We make not an other sacrifice as the high Priest, but alwayes the same, but rather we worke the remem­brance of the same. This place of Chrysostome sheweth, both that the Church neither doth, nor may offer the bo­dy of Christ in such sort as the Papistes say, that is really and carnally, and for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead: and also howe the Church is saide to offer the sa­crifice of Christes body, namely, when she celebrateth the remembrance thereof.

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

But M. Heskins hath such store of testimonies for the sacrifice of the Masse, to proue that Christ is offred therin, y ^t beside those which he hath alredy cited, he wil ad three or foure to this recapitulation. First he nameth Iustinus Martyr, in his dialogue against y ^e Iewes. Where he alled­geth his wordes truncatly, leauing out the beginning▪ which declareth that Iustine maketh all Christians Prie­stes and offerers of the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the celebration of the Lordes supper. His wordes are these. ‘ [...] [Page 135] [...]. Euen so we which by the name of Ie­susas al (shal be one man in God the maker of al things) hauing put off our filthy garments, that is, our sinnes, by the name of his first begotten sonne, and being set on fire by the word of his calling, are a right kinde of high priests of God, as God himself doth witnes, That in al places among the Gentiles, acceptable & pure sacrifices are offred to him.’ But God receiueth no sacrifice of any but of his Priestes. Where­fore God before hand doth testifie, that he doth accept all them that offer by this name the sacrifices, which Iesus Christe hath deliue­red to be made, that is in the Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of the bread and the cuppe, which are done in euery place of the Christi­ans. By these words it appeareth not, that Christ was offe­red, but thankesgiuing in y ^e sacrament, not of the priest a­lone, but by all Christians. And yet more plainely in the wordes of his, that are in the same Dialogue: ‘ [...].’

‘And as concerning those sacrifices which are offered to him of vs Gentiles in euery place, that is of the breade of thankesgiuing, and the cup likewise of thankesgiuing, hee foresheweth saying, that we do glorifie his name, and that you do prophane it. In which saying what can we see, but the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the bread and cup?’ And to proue that the Church hath none other sacrifice but of prayers and thankesgiuing, he saith within few lines after the place cited by M. Heskins; ‘ [...]. For I my selfe do affirme, that prayers and thankesgiuing made by worthie persons, are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God. For these are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make, to be put in minde by their drie and moyst nourishment, of the passion which God the son of God is recorded to haue [Page 136] suffered for them.’ This place doth not onely shewe, what the only sacrifice of Christians was in his time, but also teacheth, that in the sacrament is drie and moyst nourish­ment, that is, bread and drinke, not bare accidents as the transubstantiators affirme. How little Iustinus maketh for the sacrifice of the Masse, these places doe sufficiently declare.

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

The third place he alledgeth, it is out of Ambrose his preparatiue prayer to Masse, I will not vouchsafe to re­hearse it, bicause it is a meere bastard and counterfet wri­ting, out of which it is cyted, hauing as much of S. Am­brose in it, as M. Heskins hath witt and honestie in alled­ging it. If any man will obiect, that then I must bring arguments to disproue it, or else I may likewise denye any authenticall writer: I answere, it were too long to do in this shortnesse that I must vse, and not necessarie, when they are notorious and well knowne already to euery man of meane reading in the Doctors, and Erasmus in [Page 137] his censure doth plainly reiect it.

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

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

Hesk.The first Chapter declareth the offices of the olde lawe, and the benefites of the newe lawe, with an exhortation to submit our vn­derstanding to the knowledge of faith, and therewith to the beleefe of the sacrament.

Fulk. HOW vnsauerly he discourseth vpon the two offices of the lawe, it were too long to examine in euerie pointe. Onely this let the reader obserue, that when he hath made the first office of the lawe, to giue them knowledge of sinne, and to restrayne them from it: The other office hee saith was, by lineamentes of figures and shadowes to leade the people to Christe: as S. Paule sayth, the lawe was our scholemaister to Christ, &c. As though the lawe was not a Schoolemaister to bring vs to Christe by shew­ing vs our sinnes and condemnation, but onely by sha­dowes and figures. After this hee maketh him selfe a ioly hunter, That with great trauell and some pleasure hath passed through the bushes and thickets of the lawe, and nowe being come into the faire land of the Gospell, forgetting his former trauels, with freshe delight will followe on his game. So that hee is nowe belike gone out of the parleament house, where mat­ters are grauely intreated of, and hath betaken him selfe to the wilde forest, where hee may disporte himselfe in his games with Robin hoode, and his merie mates. And verilie if he had not tolde vs him selfe of his lustie hun­ting, wee might well haue thought, he had not beene at home, but wandering in the woodes so wilde, when in his exhortation vnto faith in the sacrament, hee will per­suade vs, that none can vnderstande the scriptures, except they haue founde faith in the veritie of the Sacramente. Which happeneth to all those that wil not be with Christ in the breaking of the breade, as the two disciples were that went to Emans, to whome Christe was a straunger, vntill he came to the breaking of the breade. But leaste [Page 139] this vaine allegorie shoulde seeme to bee founde out on­ly in M. Heskins chase, hee trauelleth to finde it in S. Augustin, & Theophylact, but al in vaine. For first to giue vs a tast what synceritie and trueth he will vse in the rest of this booke, the verie first sentence he alleadgeth out of any Doctor, is corruptly and vntruly rehearsed. For thus hee maketh Augustine to speake in his treatise De consen­su Euangelistarum, not naming in what booke or Chapter, whereas that which he writeth of this matter, is Lib. 3. Cap. 25. Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in ocu­lis eorum a Satana fuisse, ne agnosceretur Iesus, sed tantùm a Chri­sto propter eorum fidem ambiguam facta est permissio vs (que) ad sa­cramentum panis, vt vnitate corporis eius participata, remoueri intelligatur impedimentum inimici, vt Christus possit agnosci. We doe not take it incongruently, that this impediment in their eies was of Sathā that Iesus shold not be knowen, but only it was permit­ted of Christ for their doubtfull faithes sake, vntill they came to the sacrament of bread, that the vnitie of Christs body being partici­pated, it might be perceiued, that the impediment of the enimie was remoued, that Christ might be knowen. In this place beside y ^t he turneth autem into enim, and leaueth out factum after fuisse, he addeth of his owne propter eorum fidem ambiguam, for their doubtfull faiths sake. Which words are not Augustins. Wher­by it appeareth that hee redde not this place out of Au­gustine himselfe, but followed some other mans col­lection as he doth almost euerie where. But Augustine in that place comparing the wordes of Marke and Luke together, sheweth that there was no alteration in the shape of Christes bodie, but onely that the two disciples eyes were helde, that they could not knowe him, but in brea­king of the bread which signified the vnity of y ^e Church. For this he writeth: ‘ Neque quisquam se Christum agnouisse ar­bitretur, si eius corporis particeps non est, id est ecclesię; cuius vni­tatem in sacramento panis commendat Apostolus dicens, vnus pànis vnum corpus multi sumus: vt cum eis benedictum panem porrige­ret apperirentur oculi eorum & agnoscerent cum. Neither let a­ny man thinke that he hath knowen Christ, if he bee not partaker of his body, that is, of the Church, whose vnitie [Page 140] the Apostle cōmendeth in the sacrament of the bread say­ing: One bread, we being many are one bodie: y ^t when he reached vnto them the blessed bread, their eyes were ope­ned and they knew him. This is Augustines collection of this matter, nothing agreable with M. Heskins allegorie of y ^e soūd faith in y ^e veritie of the sacrament, but much a­gainst it, teaching y ^e true participation of y ^e body of Christ in y ^e sacrament, which is the mystical coniunction of him vnto his Church.’ Moreouer euen in y ^e place by him alled­ged, I meruell M. Heskins cannot see y ^t Augustine calleth it the sacramēt of bread, which agreeth not with his trans­substantiation, and if he think y ^e participation of the vnitie of Christes bodie doth helpe him, Augustine in the same place sheweth the contrarie, vnderstanding the bodie of Christ to be his Church, as is before shewed. But what saith Theophylact of the same? Another thing also is here insum­ated, namely that, that their eyes which take this blessed bread are opened that they may knowe him. For the fleshe of our Lorde, hath a great and vnspeakable strength. What is there here in these authorities, either for M. Heskins bil of the reall presence, or for his fond allegorie? It pleaseth him excedingly, that Theophylact saith the flesh of Christ is of vnspeakeable power, which we doe most willingly admitte, & euen in receiuing of the sacrament, it worketh mightily, but hee will not see at all, y ^t Theophylact with Augustine, calleth the sacrament blessed bread, by which they both do shew, that y ^e substance of bread remaineth, although it be bles­sed & consecrated vnto an other vse then for bodily food.

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

Fulke.The summe of this literal exposition is this, that three sundry breades are mentioned by Christe in this sixte of Iohn, that is, y ^e bread Manna, the bread the sonne of God, and the bread the flesh of Christ, and y ^t these three breads are distincted both in nature and in time, in whiche they were giuen. For Manna was a corporall food giuen of old time in the wildernes. The second bread, the godhead of Christ, being an eternall and spirituall substance, Christ [Page 141] saith his father doth giue, in the present tence, and that he is the bread of life, and requireth beleefe in him which is proper to God onely. The third breade, is the fleshe of Christ, which he will giue for the life of the world, spea­king in the future tence, and is meant of the sacrament. And this he dare auouch, to be the natiue & true vnder­standing of this scripture. But sauing his authoritie, there are but two breades spoken of in this Chapter, namely Manna, and the bread of life, which is not the diuinitie of Christ separated from his flesh, nor his flesh separated or distincted from his godhead, but euen his quickening & spiritual flesh, which being vnited to his eternal spirit, was by the same giuen for the life of the world, not in y ^e sacrament, but in the sacrifice of his bodie & bloud on the crosse, and is daily sealed and testified vnto vs by the sacrament of his bodie and bloud ministred according to his holie institutiō. And this I dare auouch to be the true & natiue sense of this scripture, both by the plain circumstances of the same, and by the iudgement of the best ap­proued ancient writers. And first to take away as wel the vain supposed distinction of time, in which the two later breads are said to be giuen, as also to proue that they are but one bread: our sauior Christ him selfe after he hath promised to giue the bread, which is his flesh, for the life of the world, and declared what fruite commeth to them that eate his fleshe, and drinke his bloude, &c. in the 58. verse he concludeth and sayeth plainly: that it is the same breade that came downe from heauen, and that who so eateth of this breade, shall liue eternally. Se­condly, that the promise of giuing his flesh, is not to be restrayned to the giuing of the sacrament: his wordes are plaine, that he will giue his fleshe for the life of the worlde, which all true Christians will acknowledge to haue beene perfourmed in the sacrifice of his death, and not at his last supper. Finally, that his flesh must not bee separated from his spirit, nor his spirit from his flesh, he doth as plainly teach vs, when he affirmeth y ^t it is the spi­rite y ^t quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, & y ^t except [Page 142] we eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, we haue no life in vs. For neither the flesh profi­teth, but as it is made quickening by the spirite, neither do we participate the life of his spirite, but as it is com­municated vnto vs by his fleshe, by which we are made fleshe of his fleshe, and bone of his bone: which holie mysterie, is liuely represented vnto vs in the blessed sa­crament. And this your aduersaries confesse (Maister Heskins) not denying (as you charge them) that any one worde of that Chapter perteineth to the sacrament, but affirming the sacrament to bee a seale of the do­ctrine, which is deliuered in that Chapter, and not o­therwise. The iudgement of the olde writers conso­nant to this vnderstanding, shall followe afterwarde in confutation of M. Heskins vngodly and hereticall di­stinction, not of the two natures in Christ, but of par­ticipation of the one without the other, which hee ma­keth by his two last breades.

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

Chrysostom is alledged in Ioan 6. Hom. 44. Iam in my­steriorum &c. Fulke. Nowe will he come to the setting forth of the my­steryes, and first of his godhead, he sayeth thus: I am the breade of life, this was not spoken of his bodie, of which about the ende he sayeth: The breade which I will giue is my flesh: but as yet of his godhead: for that is bread because of God the worde, euen as this bread, because of the spirite comming to it, is made heauenly breade. Maister Heskins asketh if we do not here plaine­ly see a distinction of breades. I answere, no forsooth: but a distinction of two natures in one breade. Againe, he asketh: Doth not nowe the sixt of S. Iohn speake of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament? I aunswere, that no such thing appeareth by these wordes of Chrysostome, otherwise then as the sacrament is a liuely representation of that his bodie, which he gaue for the life of the world. And that Chrysostome meaneth not to diuide Christe into [Page 143] two breades, as M. Heskins doth, he teacheth, speaking of the same mysterie of his coniunction with vs by his fleshe Hom. 45. ‘ Vester ego frater esse volui, & communica­ui carnem propter vos, & sanguinem, & per quae vobis coniun­ctus sum, ea rursus vobis exhibui. I would be your brother, and so I tooke parte of fleshe and bloud for you, and the same things I haue giuen you againe, by which I was ioyned vnto you. So that not the godhead of Christ a­lone, nor his flesh alone is giuen vs as two breades, but Christ by his flesh is ioyned vnto vs as one bread of life.’ Let vs nowe see what S. Augustine sayeth, who expoun­ding the same text writeth thus: Our Lorde determineth consequently howe he calleth him selfe bread, not onely after his godhead which feedeth all things, but also after his humaine na­ture which is assumpted of the worde of God, when he sayeth after­warde: And the bread which I will giue is my flesh, &c. Once againe M. Heskins asketh whether Augustine teach not a plaine difference of the bread of the Godhead of Christe, and the bread of his manhood? And once againe I aun­swer, not so, but he teacheth directly the contratie, name­ly, Christe God and man to be one breade, and not two breades. And that the doctrine of this Chapter, is not to be restrained vnto the sacrament, the same Augustine in the same place teacheth abundantly, while hee maketh no mention of the Lordes supper vntill he come to the ende, and then sheweth, that the mysterie of this fleshe and bloud is represented in the supper, when it is celebra­ted of the Church in remembrance of his death & passiō. ‘ Huius rei sacramentum, id est, vnitatis corporis & sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Domi­nica mensa praeparatur, & de mensa Dominica sumitur quibus­dam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res verò ipsa cuius sa­cramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium qui­cun (que) eius particeps fuerit. The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ, in some places euery day, in other some at certeine space of dayes betweene, is prepared in the Lordes table, and is taken at the Lordes table of some vnto life, of some vn­to [Page 144] to destruction. But the thing it selfe, whose sacrament it is, to all men is to life, and to no man for destruction. whosoeuer shalbe partaker thereof.’ Note here also the distinction betweene the sacrament, and the thing wher­of it is a sacrament, and that the sacrament may be re­ceiued to destruction, but not the thing or matter of the sacrament, which is the bodie and bloud of Christ.

To these Barones he wil ioyne two Burgesses, and the first shalbe Theophylact, one of them which he sayeth is well towarde a thousand yeare olde. Hee woulde fayne get him credite by his antiquitie, but he ouer reacheth too farre, to make him so auncient, which cometh nerer to fiue hundred, then to a thousande yeares. But let vs consider his speache in 6 Ioan. he writeth thus: Manife­stè &c. He speaketh manifestly in this place of the communion of his bodie. For the bread (sayeth he) which I will giue is my flesh, which I wil giue for the life of the world. And shewing his power, that not as a seruant, nor as one lesse them his father, he should be crucified, but voluntarily, he sayeth: I will giue my flesh for the life of the world. Note (sayth M. Hesk.) that Christ spake manifestly of y ^e communion of his bodie. Who doubteth or denyeth that? but that he spake not of the communi­on of his bodie, which we receiue in the sacramēt. Note saye I, that Theophylact speaketh manifestly of his cru­cifying, and nor of the communion in the sacrament. After this, he interlaceth a fond excourse of the autho­ritie of the later writers, whome he affirmeth, and wee confesse to haue written plainly of his side, whereas hee sayeth, the olde writers did write obscurely: and then he taxeth Bullinger, for alledging Zwinglius, whome he slaundereth to haue beene slaine in a sedition raysed by him, where as the worlde, knoweth it was in warre, that was helde in defence of his countrie. The like foo­lish quarell he hath, for putting out of Polycarpus out of the Calender, & placing Thomas Hutten in his stood all which as vnworthie any aunswer, I passe ouer it is suf­ficiently knowen, what Bullinger esteemed of m [...]ns au­thoritie, & what Fox (if he meane him) iudged of the old [Page 145] Martyrs diuinitie. The other reasons following, I could scarse read w ^tout loathsomnesse, that preachers must ceasse if writers may not be receiued vnder 1000 yeres antiqui­tie & more, that speaking & writing are of like authority, and such like blockish stuffe. The elder writers are al­lowed, not for their age, but for their agreement with the worde of God, the later preachers are beleeued, not for y ^t their speaking is better then Papistes writing, but be­cause they speake thinges consonant to the word of God, the touchstone and triall of trueth. And therefore we re­ceiue not the testimonie of Nicholaus de Lyra the second Burgesse, because it is contrarie to the word of God, and the consent of the elder Doctours, that Christ speaketh of the sacrament, when he saith the bread which I will giue is my fleshe: which wordes Theophylacte, euen nowe af­firmed to be spoken of the passion of Christ.

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

For proof of the two breads, & that the text, Fulk. The bread which I will giue is my flesh, &c. is ment of y ^e sacrament, Cyprian is alledged, although y ^e place be not quoted, but it is in y ^e sermon vpō y ^e Lords prayer in these words: Panis vitae Christus est. &c. Christ is the bread of life, and he is not the bread of all men, but our bread: And as we say our father, because he is the father of thē that vnderstand, & beleeue, so we call it our bread, because Christ is our bread, which touche his body. And this bread, we pray to be giuen vs daily, least we that are in Christe, and daily receiue the Eucharistie to the meate of health, some greeuous offence comming betweene, while beeing separated, and not commu­nicating, we be forbidden from that heauenly bread, we be separated from the body of Christ, he himselfe openly saying and warning: I am the bread of life, which came downe from heauen, if any man shall eate of this bread, he shall liue for euer, and the bread which I will giue, is my flesh for the life of the worlde. Howsoeuer M. Hesk. would falsly gather out of this place, Cyprian ma­keth not two breades, but one bread of life, Christ God & man, as for y ^e two respects of his Godhead, & manhoode, [Page 146] that he prateth of, cannot make Christ to be two breads, but one true foode of our soules. And that Cyprian doth apply this text to the sacrament only, it is utterly false, (in that he saith:) we must pray for this daily bread Christ, to feede vs, although for some greeuous offence, we be re­strained from the sacrament, as is also euident by these words that follow. ‘ Quando ergo dicit in aeternum viuere, si quis ederit de tius pane, vt manifestum est cos vinera, qui corpus eius [...], & Eucharistitum [...]re cōmunicationis accipiunt: ita contrae timendū est & erandum, ne dam quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore, procul remaneat a salute, comminante ipso & dicente: Nist ederitis carnem f [...]ij hominis, & biberi [...]is sanguinem eius, non ha­bebitis vitam in vobis. Et ideo panem nostrium, id est, Christum dari nobis quo [...]idie petimus, vt qui in Christo manemus & vinimus, a sanctificatione & corpore eius non recedamus. Therefore when he saith, that he liueth for euer, whosoeuer shal eate of his bread, as it is manifest that they do liue, which touch or come neare, vnto his body, and by the right of commu­nication receiue the sacrament of thankesgiuing: so con­trariwise, it is to be feared, and to be prayed for, lest while any being sequestred, is separated from y ^e body of Christe, he remaine farre from health, he himselfe threatening & saying: except ye shal eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you. And therefore we pray daily, that our bread, y ^t is to say, Christ may be giuen to vs daily, that we which remaine & liue in Christ, go not away from sanctification, and his bodie. In these wordes, as in the former, Cyprian directly refer­reth that text to our spirituall communication with the body of Christ, by right of which communication, we re­ceiue the sacrament thereof.’ And this participation of Christ he calleth Contingere & attingere corpus Christi, & not to touch his body with our teeth or mouth in y ^t sacramēt as M. Heskins dreameth. Here followeth Euthymius, of whose antiquitie we haue spoken in the first booke. Ne­uerthelesse we wil examine his saying, which is this In 6. Ioan. Duobus modis, &c. Christ is saide to be bread two wayes, that is after his godhead, and after his manhood, therefore when he [Page 147] had taught the manner, which is after his godhead, now doeth he al­so teach the manner, which is after his manhoode. For he did not say, which I do giue, but which I will giue, for he would giue it in his last supper, when thankes being giuen, he tooke bread, and brake it, and gaue it to his disciples and saide: take, eate, this is my body. M. Heskins maruelleth that the aduersaries cheekes waxe not redd for shame, to see so plaine a sentence against them. But if we knew not that Maister Heskins had beene as impudent as a frier, we might maruell, that he was not ashamed, first to alledge Euthymius, as a writer within 6. hundreth yeares after Christ, who liued about the yeare of our Lorde 1180. And secondly to make two breads of that which Euthymius saith, to be one bread after two manners. Finally, although Euthymius referred this text to the sacrament, yet saith he nothing for the carnall pre­sence, in as much as it is manifest, that Christ spake there of a spiritual communication of his fleshe, or else all in­fantes are damned that receiue not the sacrament.

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

S. Augustine is alledged De Agricultura agri Dominici, a treatise of no account for the authoritie, Fulke. being falsely in­tituled to Augustine, which was the worke of a farre la­ter writer. The wordes neuerthelesse are these: ‘The table of thy spouse hath whole bread, and a holy cuppe, which bread although we haue seene broken and brused in his passion, yet he remained whole in that his indiuided vnity with his father. Of this bread and of this cup, our Lorde himselfe saide: The bread which I will giue is my fleshe for the life of the world, and the cuppe which I wil sanc­tifie is my bloud which shalbe shed for you vnto remissi­on of sinnes. This place is falsly & truncatly cited by M. Hesk. thus: Quem panē etsi fractum cōminutum (que) vidimus, in­teger tamen cum ipso suo patre manet in coelis. De quo pane dicit: pa­nis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita. Which he Eng­lisheth thus: which bread although we haue seen brokē & brused on y ^e crosse: yet it abideth with y ^t his father whole in heauen: of the which bread he saith, &c. Wheras y ^e very [Page 148] wordes are quem panem etsi fractum comminunum (que) vidimus in passione, integer tamen mansit in illa sua indiuidua vnitate.’ De isto pane, & de isto calice dicebat ipse Dominus. Panis quem ego dedero caro [...] est pro saeculi vita, &c. Although this writer as it is manifest to any man that will reade his treatise, speaketh onely of the vnitie of the Godhead of Christ, with his Fa­ther and the holy Ghoste, notwithstanding, the breaking of his body in his passion, which is represented in the sa­crament: yet M. Heskins, vpon his owne falsification, in­ferreth, that the body of Christ was and is in three sundrie places, on the Table or Altar, on the Crosse, and in hea­uen with his father. Yea, & he appealeth to the gramma­rian for the nature of a Relatiue, That the same bread is on the table, which was broken on the crosse, and that which was bro­ken on the crosse, is it which is whole sitting in heauen. Which, how vaine a reason it is, when it is vrged of y ^t thing which hath two natures vnited in one person, as our Sauiour Christ hath, I appeale from all grammarians to al Catho­like diuines: as in y ^e saying of Christ, no man hath ascen­ded into heauen, but he that came downe from heauen, e­uen the sonne of man, which is in heauen, Ioan 9. Let M. Hesk. with y ^e grāmarian vrge the relatiue in this place, & he shal proue him selfe both an Anabaptist, & a Marcio­nist. For Christ cōcerning his humanitie came not down out of heauen, neither was he in heauen according to his humanity when he was on y ^e earth. But what stand we tri­fling about this testimonie? Seeing Augustine both in y ^e interpetation of this whole chapter is so copious, & vpon the Psal. 98. in exposition of this text is so plain & direct against the carnal presens of Christs body in y ^e sacrament: ‘Nisi quis &c. acceperunt illud stulte, carn [...]liter illud cogitauerunt, & puta [...]erūt quòd praecifurus esset Dominus particulas quas dā de corpore suo & daturus illis, &c. Ille autē instruxit eos, & ait illic, spiritus est qui vinificat, caro autē nihil predest. Verba quae loquatu [...] sū vobis, spiritus est & vita. Spiritualiter intelligite, quae loquatus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri il­lum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt, qui me crucifigent: sacramentum aliquod vobis commendati: spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos▪ [Page 149] [...]t si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen inuisibiliter intelligi. Except a man eate the flesh &c. They tooke it fo­lishly, they imagined it carnally, and thought that our Lorde would haue cut off certaine peeces of his [...] and haue giuen them, &c. But he instructed them, and [...] vn­to them, It is the spirite that quickeneth, the flesh profi­teth nothing.’ ‘The wordes which I haue spoken to you, are spirite and life. Vnderstand you spiritually that which I haue spoken. You shall not eate this body which you see, and drinke this bloud which they shall shed which shall crucifie me: I haue commended vnto you a certaine sacra­ment or mysterie, which beeing spiritually vnderstoode, shall quicken you. Although it is necessarie that the same be celebrated visibly, yet must it be vnderstood in­uisibly. Likewise In 6. Ioan. Tr. 27. Illi enim putabant eum ero­gaturum corpus suum, ille autem dixit se ascensurum in Coelum v­ti (que) integrum. Cum videatis filium hominis ascendentem vbi erat priùs: certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo, quo putatis, erogat corpus suum: certè vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia eius non consu­mitur morsibus. (He speaketh plainely if they will vnder­stand him.) For they thought y ^t he would giue his body, but he said that he wold ascend whole into heauen. Whē you shal see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was be­fore, surely then at the least you shall see, that hee giueth not his body after that maner that you think, surely then at the length you shall vnderstand, that his grace is not cōsumed with bitings. If these places were not most ma­nifest, euen to the first eye y ^t looketh vpon them, I might spend time in obseruing and noting out of them.’

We come nowe to Chrysostome, who in his 45. Hom. in Ioan. vpon those wordes, The bread which I will giue is my flesh, saith, The Iewes that time tooke no profite of those sayings, but we haue taken the profite of the benefite. Wherefore it is necessarily to be saide, howe woonderfull the mysteries be, and wherefore they were giuen, and what profite there is of them. And immediatly after, We are one body and members of his flesh and of his bones: and yet more plainely, And that we might be conuerted into that flesh, not onely by loue, but also in deede, it is [Page 150] brought to passe by the meat which he hath graunted vnto vs. He addeth also an other cause of the giuing of this mysterie: When hee would shewe foorth his loue toward vs, hee ioyned him selfe [...] his body, and brought him selfe into one with vs, that the [...] might be vnited with the head. Finally he adioyneth a plaine place for the proclamer: I would be your brother, and for your sakes I tooke flesh and bloud with you, and by what things I was conioyned vnto you, those things againe I haue giuen vnto you. Here he triumpheth, as though the game were his, when in deede there is nothing for his purpose, but much a­gainst it: For no one word of all these sentences proueth, that the sixt of Iohn must be vnderstoode of the supper o­therwise, then as it is a sacrament of that feeding and coniunction of vs with Christ, which is therein described. And wheras he argueth vpō the last sentence, Christ gaue vs that flesh by which he was ioined to vs, but he was ioy­ned to vs by very substantiall flesh, therfore he gaue vs his very substantiall flesh. I confesse it to bee most true, for he gaue his very substantiall flesh to be crucified for vs. If he vrge y ^t he gaue his flesh in y ^t sacrament, although Chry­sostome saith not so in this place directly, yet the manner of the participation of his flesh must be such, as is the ma­ner of his coniunction with vs, but y ^t is spiritual, by which he is the head, and we the members, and yet vnited in one very substantiall flesh: therefore the manner of partici­pation of his flesh in the sacrament, is also spirituall and not carnall. Maister Heskins reiecteth this participa­tion to bee the fruition of the benefites of his body and bloud crucified, bycause that (saith hee) is common to all the sacraments, and not proper to this. But that the substaunce of all sacramentes is one, and the diffe­rence is in the manner of dispensation of them, wee haue shewed sufficiently in the first booke, which were tedious nowe to repeate. Wherefore we must now set downe what Chrysostome speaketh of the bloud of Christe. This bloud maketh that the kinges image doth flou­rish in vs. This bloud doth neuer suffer the beautie and nobilitie of the soule, which it doth alwayes water and nourish, to fade or waxe [Page 151] faint. For bloud is not made of meate soudenly, but first it is a cer­taine other thing. But this bloud at the first doth water the soule, and indue it with a certaine great strength. This mysticall bloud driueth diuelles farre off, and allureth Angels and the Lorde of Angels vnto vs. For when the diuelles see the Lordes bloud in vs, they are turned to flight, but the Angels runne foorth vnto vs. This bloud being shed did wash the whole world, whereof Paule to the Hebrues doth make a long proces. This bloud did purge the secrete places, and the most holy place of all. If then the figure of it had so great power in the temple of the Hebrues, and in Aegypt, beeing sprinkled vpon the vpper postes of the doores, much more the veritie. This bloud did signifie the golden altar. Without this bloud the chiefe priest durst not goe into the inward secret places. This bloud made the priestes. This bloud in the figure purged sinnes, in which if it had so great force, if death so feared the shadowe, how much I pray thee will it feare the truth it selfe? This bloud is the health of our soules, with this bloud our soule is washed, with it she is decked, with it she is kindled. This bloud maketh our minde clee­rer then the fire, more shining then golde. The effusion of this bloud made heauen open. Truely the mysteries of the Church are woonderfull, the holy treasure house is woonderfull. From Para­dise a spring did runne, from thence sensible waters did flowe: from this table commeth out a spring, which powreth foorth spiri­tuall flouds. Chrysostome in these wordes doth extoll the excellencie of the bloud of Christe shed vpon the crosse, the mysterie whereof is celebrated and giuen to vs in the sacrament, and therefore hee saith, it is Mysticus sanguis mysticall bloud which wee receiue in the sacrament, which word Mysticall, M. Heskins a common falsarie, hath left out in his translation, to deceiue the vnlearned reader. Hee laboureth much to proue that Chrysostome spake in this long sentence of y ^t sacrament, which is need­lesse, for as he spake of the sacrament, so spake he of the passion of Christe, and of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the olde lawe, and all vnder one name of bloud. By which it is more then manifest, that hee vseth the name of bloud figuratiuely, and ambiguously, therefore no­thing can bee gathered thereout, to fortifie M. Heskins [Page 152] bill of the naturall bloud of Christ to be in the challice. The honourable titles of the sacrament, proue no tran­substantiation nor carnal presence in this sacramēt more then in the other.

The same Chrysostome vpon Cap. 9. ad Heb. Hom. 16. she­weth howe the bloud of Christ that purged the old sacri­fices; is the same which is giuen vs in the sacrament of the new testament. ‘ Non enim corporalis erat mundatio, sed spiritua­lis, & sanguis spiritualis, Quomodo hoc? Noune ex corpore mana­uis? Ex corpore quidem, sed a spiritu sancto. Hoc vos sanguine non Moses, sed Christus aspersit, per verbum quod dictum est, Hic est sanguis noui testamenti, in remissionem peccarorum. For that was no corporall cleansing but spirituall, and it was spirituall bloud. Howe so? Did it not flowe out of his body? It did in deede flowe out of his body, but from the holy spirit. Not Moses but Christe did sprinkle you with this bloud, by that worde which was spoken: This is the bloud of the newe testament for the remission of sinnes.’ Thus let Chrysostome expound him selfe, touching the mysticall or spirituall bloud of Christe, which both was offered in the old sacrifices, and nowe feedeth vs in the sacrament: if it were in the olde sacrifices naturally present, then is it so nowe, if the vertue onely was effectuall, so is it also to vs, and no neede of transubstantiation or carnall presence.

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

Fulke.Although Beda our countriman were far out of y ^e com­passe of 600. yeres, and so vnfitly matched with Cyrillus a Lord of the higher house, yet speaketh he nothing for y ^e corporal presence of Christes body in the sacrament, but directly against it, His words vpon this text of Saint Iohn are these: Hunc panem Dominus dedit, &c. This bread our Lord gaue, when he deliuered the ministerie of his body and bloud vnto his disciples, & when he offered him selfe to his father on the altar of the crosse. And where he saith, for the life of the world, we may not [Page 153] vnderstand it for the elementes, but for men that are signified by the name of the worlde. In these wordes Beda according to the custome of the olde writers, and the doctrine of the Church of Englande in his time, and long after, calleth the sacrament, the mysterie of the body & bloud of Christ, and not otherwise. Yet M. Heskins pythely doth gather, that as he calleth the flesh of Christ on the crosse, breade, and yet it is verie flesh; so the fleshe of Christ in the sacra­ment is called bread, & yet it is verie flesh. Alas, this is such a poore begginge of that in question, videlicet, that the fleshe of Christ is in the sacrament according to his grosse meaning, that I am ashamed to heare it. Why might he not rather reason thus? the fleshe of Christe on the crosse is called bread, and yet it is not naturally bread: euen so the bread of the sacrament is called flesh, & yet it is not naturall fleshe. It is plaine that breade, in that texte of Iohn is taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode, and so the flesh and bloud of Christ on the crosse is our food, and the same is communicated to our faith in the sa­crament.

Cyrillus in 6. Ioan. by M. Heskins alledged, speaketh neuer a worde either of the sacrament, or of Christes cor­porall presence therein. Antiquus ille panis, &c. The old bread was onely a figure, an image and a shadowe, neither did it giue to the corruptible bodie any thing, but a corruptible nutriment for a little time. But I am that liuing and quickening breade for euer. And the breade which I will giue is my fleshe, which I will giue for the life of the worlde. Thou seest howe by little and little, he more and more openeth him selfe, and doeth set foorth this wonderfull mysterie. Hee saide, hee was the liuing and quickening breade, which shoulde make the partakers of it without corruption, and giue them immortalitie. Nowe he saith his fleshe is that breade, which hee will giue for the life of the worlde, and by which hee will quic­ken vs that are partakers of the same: for truely, the quickening nature of the WORD beeing ioyned to it by that vnspeakeable manner of vnion, maketh it quickening, and therefore this flesh doth quicken them that are partakers of it. For it casteth foorth death from them, and vtterly expelleth destruction. [Page 154] Maister Heskins alledgeth two reasons to proue that Cy­rillus speaketh of the sacrament, and neither of both worth a strawe. First, bicause he calleth it a woonderfull mysterie, as though the incarnation of Christ whereof he speaketh expresly, were not a woonderfull mysterie. Secondly, By that he saith the flesh of Christe giueth life to the partakers. For the proper partaking of Christes flesh, is in the re­ceiuing of this holy sacrament. As though we are not parta­kers of Christes flesh by faith, according to that saying of Augustine vpon the same place, Vt quid paras dentes & ventrem? crede & manducasti. Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie? Beleeue and thou hast eaten &c. you see it is a poore helpe that he hath out of Cyrillus, when hee speaketh neuer a woorde for his cause nor of his cause.

Hesk.The seuenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by The­ophylact and Lyra.

A short aunswere shall serue this Chapter, these two Burgesses of the lower house being late writers, speake fauourably for Maister Heskins bill. Fulk. But their autho­ritie is so small, that wee make none account of their speach, seeing not onely many in the lower house haue spoken against it, but all the whole vpper house is ma­nifestly contrarie vnto it. And whereas hee chargeth Oecolampadius for adding this worde tantùm, onely, in his translation of Theophylact, I doubt not but Oeco­lampadius followed either a truer copie, or a better rea­son then Maister Heskins in so many additions, detrac­tions, and falsifications of Doctors, which hee hath vsed in this worke. Finally, where he chargeth the aduersa­ries with cauilling and slaundering; when they say that Popish Priestes make God: he himselfe slaundereth his aduersaries, for we haue learned of their owne writers, & namely of S. Bonauentura, that a Priest is, creator sui crea­tori [...], the creator of his creator, and that Christ is his pri­soner on the altar.

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

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

Next followeth Chrysostome in 2: Tim. Ho. 2. Volo quiddam, &c. I will adde a certeine thing plainely wonderfull, and maruell ye not, neither be you troubled. And what is this? The holy oblation whether Peter or Paul, or a Priest of any maner of life do offer it, is euen the same, which Christ gaue vnto his disciples, and which the priestes do now make. This hath nothing lesse then that. Why so? because men do not sanctifie it but Christ which had hal­lowed [Page 156] it before. For as the wordes which Christ spake are the same which the priests do now pronoūce so also is the oblation. Here M. Hesk. cutteth of y ^e taile of this sentence, for Chrysostoms wordes are: Ita & oblatio eadem est, eadem (que) baptismi ratio est, adoe omnia in fide consistunt. So the oblation is the same, and the same reason is of baptisme, so all thinges con­sist in faith. Marke here that M. Heskins conceleth that the change and consecration is the same y ^t is in baptisme, and the thing is receiued onely by faith as in baptisme. And nothing else meaneth Chrysostome in the seconde place by M. Heskins cited, Hom. 30. de prod. The same Christ is nowe present which did beutifie that table, hee doth also consecrate this. For it is not man, which by consecration doeth make the thinges set foorth on the table, the bodie and bloude of our Lorde, but euen Christ which was crucified for vs, The wordes are spoken by the mouth of the Prieste, but by the power & grace of God they are consecrated. This is (saith hee) my bodye, with this worde the thinges set foorth are consecrated. Here we must note that Christ maketh the bread and wine his bodie and bloude. Wee acknowledge he doth so, for the faith of the worthy receiuer, as in the former sentence it is manifest.

Nowe commeth S. Ambrose De benedict. Patr. c. 9. Who is then rische, but he in whome is the depth of wisdome and know­ledge? This rich man then is the treasure of this fatte breade, which who shall eate, he cannot hunger. This breade he gaue to his Apostles, that they should deuide it to the beleeuing people. And now hee giueth the same to vs, which hee beeing the Priest doeth consecrate with his owne wordes. This bread then is made the meate of the Sainctes. ‘Here againe M. Heskins cutteth off that which liketh him not for it followeth: Possumus & ipsium Dominum accipere qui suā carnem nobis dedit. Sicut ipse ait, ego sunt panis vitae. Ille enim accipit qui scipsum probat: qui autem accipit, non moritur peccatoris morte, quia panis hic remis­sio peccatorum est. Wee may receiue euen the Lorde him­selfe which hath giuen vs his fleshe, euen as he himselfe saith, I am y ^e bread of life. For he receiueth him, y ^t exami­neth himselfe, & he which receiueth him dyeth not the death of a sinner, for this bread is the remission of sinnes.’ [Page 157] This place doth first ouerthrowe M. Heskins dreame of two breades. Secondly, the Papistes assertion, that wic­ked men receiue the bodie of Christ. And thirdly tea­cheth, that to eate Christ & his fleshe, is to receiue for­giuenesse of sinnes, which M. Heskins and the Papistes denye.

Another place of Ambrose is alledged. li. 4. de sacra. Ca. 4. Let vs then teach this. How can that which is bread be the bo­die of Christ? By consecration. By what and whose wordes then is the consecration? Of our Lorde Iesus. For all the other things that be sayed, praise is giuen to God, petition is made in prayer for the people, for Kings, and for the rest: but when it is come to that, the honourable sacrament is made, now the Priest vseth not his owne wordes, but he vseth the wordes of Christe. Therefore the worde of Christ maketh this sacrament. This is noted to be a plaine place for M. Iuell, but for what purpose, I can­not tell, except it be to proue that he will not denye, that the sacrament is consecrated and made the bodie of Christ to the worthie receiuer, by the wordes of Christe, as before. Eusebius Emissenus hath the next place in Hom. Pasc. The inuisible Priest with his worde, by a secreat po­wer, turneth the visible cratures into the substance of his body & bloud. This place being more apparant for his transub­stantiation then any that he hath alledged, he vrgeth not, nor gathereth of it, but onely that Christ is the au­thor of the consecration and conuersion. As for y ^e con­uersion, I thinke his conscience did tell him, that it was not of the substance, but of the vse of things, a spiritu­all and not a corporall change, as both Eusebius and o­ther writers do sufficiently expound what maner of mu­tation it is. The last man is Cyprian De Caen Dom. It were better for them a milstone to be tyed to their neckes, and to be drowned in the Sea, then with an vnwashed conscience to take the morsell at the hande of our Lorde, who vntil this day doeth create, and sanctifie, and blesse, and to the godly receiuers diuide this his most true, and most holy bodie. Here M. Heskins vr­geth, that he createth not an imaginatiue bodie, but his moste true bodie. But y ^e blinde man seeth not, that either [Page 158] this creation is figuratiue, or else it ouerthroweth trans­substantiation. For to create, is not to change one sub­stance into another, but to make a substance of no­thing. Secondly, that Christ diuideth his bodie, but to y ^e godly receiuers. ‘Finally, in the same Sermon he saith: that all this mysterie is wrought by faith. Haec quotie [...] agimus, &c. So often as we do these things, wee do not sharpen our teeth to byte, but with a syncere faith, we breake and deuide this holy breade.’

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

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

Fulk.The text which he taketh vpon him to expound in this Chapter is this: The Iewes stroue among them selues, saying: How can this fellowe giue vs his flesh to eat? And first he sayth, that they being carnall, could not vnderstande the spiri­tuall talke of Christe, wherein as he saith truely, so hee speaketh contrarie to him selfe. For he will haue those words to be spokē carnally. They could not vnderstand, (sayth he) because they did not beleeue, & therefore they questioned how it might be, euen as the Pseudochristians do. How can the bodie of Christ be in the sacrament vn­der so litle a peece of bread? &c. But the aunswere to all their questions is, that they be don by the power of God. And if you proceede, to enquire of his will, he hath declared it in these wordes, the breade which I will giue is my fleshe, not a fanta­sticall, [Page 159] nor a mathematicall, or figuratiue flesh, but that same flesh [...] that I will giue for the life of the worlde. But if wee proceede to demaund further, how he proueth, that he will giue y ^t flesh to be eaten with our mouth, carnally in the sacra­ment: then is he at a staye; he can go no further. Wee doubt not of the power of God, we will extend his will no further then his worde. For to eat the fleshe of Christe is not to eat it with our mouthes, but with our hearts, by faith, as Augustine vppon the same text teacheth vs. ‘ Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, & illum bibere ponum, in Christo manere, & illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius, nec bibit cius sanguinē, li­cèt carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corpo­ris & sanguinis Christie sed magis tantę rei sacramentum ad iu­dicium sibi manducat & bibit. This is therefore to eate that meate, & to drinke that drinke, to abide in Christe, and to haue him abyding in them. And by this, he that aby­deth not in Christ, and in whome Christe abydeth not, out of doubt doth neither spiritually eat his flesh, nor drinke his bloud, although carnally, & visibly he presse with his teeth the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ: but rather he eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his owne condemnation. Thus Au­gustine teacheth, how the flesh of Christe is eaten, and by whome, and what difference betweene the flesh & bloud of Christ, and the sacrament thereof, in all those points directly contrarie to the Papistes, which affirme, that the flesh of Christ is eaten with the mouth, and that it is ea­ten of the wicked, and last of all, that the sacrament of the flesh of Christ, & his flesh is all one.’

The tenth Chapter prouing against the aduersaries that the bo­die of Christ may be & is in moe places then one as once. Hesk.

M. Heskins taketh occasion of the doubtful (how) of y ^e Iewes, to answer y ^e proclaimers (how) that is, Fulke. how Christs body may be in a thousand places & moe at once: & first he trifleth of y ^e number of places, as though hee required no lesse then a thousand: then he bableth against natural [Page 160] Philosophie, as though our faith were buylded there­vpon, whereas the Papistes, and especially the schoolmen, (euen to lothsomnesse) do reason out of natural philo­sophie in the greatest mysteries of faith. But to put him out of doubt, we buyld vpon the Scripture our faith, of the trueth of Christes bodie, that it cannot bee in more places then one, because the Apostle sayth, that in res­pect of his humaine nature, he was made like to his bre­thren in all things, sinne excepted: Heb. 2. And there­fore, where as he will aunswere vs first by Ambrose, De inition. Myst. Cap. Quid hic, &c. What seekest thou here the or­der of nature in Christes bodie, seeing the selfe same our Lorde Iesus besides nature was borne of a virgin? ‘I say, he aunswereth nothing to the purpose: for neither doth Ambrose speak of the presence of his bodie in more places then one, nor of any carnall presence in the sacrament, but of a mysti­call, diuine, and significatiue presence, as is manifest by his wordes that followe immediatly, which M. Heskins, as his custome is, hath craftely suppressed. Vera vti (que), car [...] Christi, que crucifixa est, quae sepulta est: verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est. Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus: Hoc est corpus meum: Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species no­minatur, post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum: ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post con­secrationem sanguis nuncupatur. It was the true fleshe of Christ which was crucified, which was buryed: therefore it is truely, the sacrament of that fleshe. Our Lorde Ie­sus him selfe cryeth: This is my bodie: before the blessing of the heauenly wordes, it is called another kinde, after the consecration, the bodie of Christe is signified. Hee him selfe sayth, it is his bloud: before consecration it is called another thing, after consecrati­on it is called bloud.’ By this place you see, that y ^e Lords supper is the sacrament of his true fleshe that was cruci­fied, and that the bodie of Christ is signified by it. Here is no one worde sounding either to the carnall presence▪ or to the presence in many places.

His second proofe is out of Augustine, that Christ was [Page 161] both in his owne hands, & in his twelue Apostles hands, in Psal. 33. And he was borne in his owne hands. But brethren, howe may this be done in man, who can vnderstande? who is borne in his owne hands? A man may be carried in thè handes of other men, in his owne handes no man is borne. Howe it may be vnderstanded in Dauid, according to the letter, we find not. But in Christ we finde it. For Christ was borne in his owne hands, when he commending his owne body sayd: this is my bodie. I passe o­uer, that he translateth, comendans ipsum corpus, giuing forth the selfe same bodie. ‘But howe fraudulently he abuseth the authoritie of Augustine, it is manifest by that which fol­loweth, & ipse se portabat quodam modo cum diceret, hoc est corpus meum. And he carried him selfe after a certein ma­ner, when he sayde: this is my bodie. These wordes declare, that Augustine woulde not teach, that Christe absolutely did beare him selfe in his hands, as M. Hes­kins would beare vs in hand, but after a certeine maner.’ And no man writeth so plainly, of the necessitie of Christes bodie to be in one place, as he. I will cite one onely short place, to auoide tediousnesse: ‘ In Ioan. Cap. 7. Tr. 30. Sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hîc, & veritas Domi­nus. Corpus enim Domini, in quo resurrexit, vno loco esse potesti veritas eius vbi (que) diffusa est. The Lord is aboue, and he is also here, and the Lorde is trueth. For the Lordes bo­die, in which he rose againe, can be but in one place, but his truth is spread ouer all places. This saying, beside that it limitteth the bodie of Christe to one place, will expound the other sayings, which he bringeth out of Chrysostome, Basil, &c. that Christ is both in heauen and on earth.’

The next proofe is out of the Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostome, which he calleth their masses, although writen by neither of them. The wordes in effect are all one, and therefore it were vaine to rehearse them both: Looke ô Lorde Iesu Christ our God, from thy holie habitation, and from the seat of the glorie of thy kingdome, and come to sanctifie vs, which sittest aboue with thy father, and art present with vs beneath inuisibly, vouchsafe with thy mightie hande to giue vnto [Page 162] vs thy immaculate bodie and precious bloud, and by vs to all thy people. The distinction of the two natures in Christ, will soone aunswere this presence of Christe, both in heauen and in earth, as in the late rehearsed sentence of Augu­stine. And Basil him selfe, in his booke de Spiritu Sancto Cap. 22. prooueth the Holie Ghoste to be God, because he is reported in Scripture to be present in diuerse places at once, so that, except wee will with Eutyches ouerthrowe the trueth of Christes bodie, wee must holde that it is in one onely place at one time, and not in many places, or euery where.

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

First, M. Heskins here, I knowe not for what cause, peruerteth the order of Chrysostomes wordes, for where he sayeth: Alioqui hac ratione, Heskins setteth them down vn [...]m est hoc sacrificium hac ratione. Alicqui, &c. ‘Secondly, which is no newe thing in him, he leaueth out that which is the resolution of all this doubtfull disputation, name­ly, that which followeth: Hoc autem quod facimus in com­memorationem quidem fit eius, quod factum est. Hoc enim sacite, in­quit in meam commemorationem. Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex, sed idipsum semper facimus, magis autem recordatio­nem sacrificij operamur. But this which we do is done true­ly in remembrance of that which was done before. For do this (sayeth he) in remembrance of mee. We do not offer another sacrifice, as the high Priest, but the selfe same alwayes, but rather wee exercise the remembrance of the sacrifice.’

Here is nowe that sacrifice which is offered euery where, by a necessarie correction, brought to the re­membrance [Page 163] of that sacrifice, which was once offered on the crosse, but is celebrated euery where in the ministra­tion of the sacrament. And the same wordes afterward falsely ascribed to Ambrose, haue the same interpretati­on. The other place vpon the 38. Psalme, differeth not in sense, That Christ is offered on earth, when his bodie is offe­red. For he speaketh but of a remembrance, or comme­moration of the sacrifice of Christe, euen as Chryso­stome, and as he him selfe teacheth, lib. 4. Chap. 5. de Sa­cram. The wordes of the Priest in the celebration. ‘ Fac nobis (inquit) haenc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabi­lem: quod est figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi. Make (sayeth he) this oblation vnto vs ascribed reasonable, acceptable: which thing is the figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ. This was the Priest wont to say in the celebration of the supper in Saint Ambrose time.’ ‘And againe Chap. 6. Ergo memo­res gloriosissimae eius passionis, & ab inferis resurrectionis, & in Caelum ascensionis, offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam, rationabilem hostiam, incruentam hostiam, hunc panem sanctum, & calicem vitae aeternae, &c. Therefore being mindfull of his most glorious passion and resurrection from hell, and ascention into heauen, we offer vnto thee this vnde­filed sacrifice, this reasonable sacrifice, this vnbloudie sacrifice, this holie bread, and cup of aeternall life. Wee see therefore, that the sacrifice was a remembrance and thanksgiuing, for the onely true sacrifice of Christ once offered by him selfe for all.’

To conclude, because I will omitt Bernard a late wri­ter, not to be heard in this controuersie: Chrysostome in his booke de Sacerdotio, lib. 3. speaketh not contrarie to him selfe in other places, saying: O miracle, O the goodnesse of God, he that sitteth aboue with his father in the same point of time, is handled with the handes of all, and deliuereth himselfe to them that will receiue him and imbrace him. ‘Wherefore, this hyperbolical exclamation proueth no more, y ^t Chri­stes bodie is both in heauen & on earth: then these words of his proue that our bodies are both in heauen & earth, [Page 164] ad Pop. Antioch. Hom. 55. Morduca me, dixi, bibe me, & te sar­sum habeo, & deorsum tibi connector. I sayde eate me, drinke mee. I haue thee both aboue, and am knitt to thee also beneath.’ Hitherto therefore nothing is brought to proue that Christes bodie may be in more places then one.

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

Fulk.M. Heskins in this Chapter like a monsterous Gy­ant, cryeth open battel against naturall Philosophie & reason, and thinketh he hath a sure shield to fight vnder the omnipotencie of God. But for as much as the lawe of nature is the lawe and ordinance of God, he doeth no­thing else, but set the power of God against his will and decree, in making whereof did concurre, his power, wis­dome, and goodnesse. God hath decreede that one body can be but in one place at one time, and that two bodies cannot occupie one proper place at once, nor one body without comixtion of partes, be in another bodye. And therefore both Cranmer and Oecolampadius haue true­ly sayed, that it is vnpossible those thinges should be o­therwise, then God hath decreed them. Now riseth vp this Gargantua, and will proue by scripture, that one bodie may be in another, and two bodies in one place, & alledgeth the text Ioan 20. that Iesus came, the dores being shutt, and stoode in the middest of them and saide, peace be with you, and this being testifyed for a miraculous comming in of Christ, proueth that he so comming in passed through dore or wall, as his pleasure was to do. Although the wordes of the texte [...] after the dores were shutt, doth not in­force vs to acknowledge any miracle, but that he might be let in of the porter at euen, after the dores were shutt vp for feare of the Iewes soudein breaking in vppon the Disciples that were gathered together in that place: yet I will willingly acknowledge a miraculous comming in of Christe, but no passing through the bordes of the dore, or stones of the wall: but that by his diuine po­wer, [Page 165] he did either open the dore and shutt it immediatly after he was passed through, or else at the vttermost, that the substance of the dore or wall gaue place to his diuine presence, and immediatly returned to his naturall state and place.

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

But nowe we shall heare these monsters brought forth of the doctours, which Scripture hath not, and nature ab­horreth: And firste shalbe Chrysostome Hom. de Ioan. Bapt. Sancta Maria, beata Maria, &c. Holy Maria, blessed Marie, both a mother, and a virgine. Shee was a virgine before birth, a virgine after birth. I marueile at this, howe of a vir­gine, a virgine should be borne, and after the birth of a virgine▪ the mother should be a virgine. Will you knowe howe he was borne of a virgine, and after the birth, how shee was both a mo­ther and a virgine? The dores were shutt, and Iesus entred in. No man doubteth, but that the dores were shutt, he that entred by the dores that were shutt, was no phantasie, he was no spirite, he was verily a body. For what sayd he? looke and see, that a spirite hath no flesh and bones, as ye see mee haue. He had flesh, he had bones, and the dores were shutt. How did fleshe and bones enter when the dores were shutt? The dores are shutt, and hee doth enter, whome wee sawe not goe in. How did he go in? all things are close, there is no place by the which he might go in, [Page 166] and yet he is within, which entered in. Thou knowest in howe it was done, and doest referre it to the omnipotencie of God. Giue this also to the omnipotencie of God, that he was borne of a vir­gine. In these wordes Chrysostome saith, that Christe might as well bee borne of a Virgine, as hee entered into the house after the doores was shut, this was not with­out a miracle, and no more was that. But for two bo­dies in one place at one instant, hee speaketh nothing as yet. No more doth Hieronyme In Apol. cont. Iouin. Respondeant mihi &c. Let them aunswere me howe Iesus en­tered in, the doores being shut, when he shewed his handes to bee felt, and his side to be considered, and shewed both flesh and bones, least the trueth of his body should be thought to be a fantasie: And I will aunswere howe Saint Marie is both mother and a Vir­gine, a Virgine before birth, a mother before she was knowne of man.

Vpon these places Maister Heskins doth inferre, that if the doores did open as the going in of Christ, which (hee saith) is a shaddowing of the miracle, and a falsifying of the scriptures, as though it were not miraculous ynough, except it tooke away the trueth of Christes body, and ouerthrewe the immutable decree of GOD, then his en­tering In, could not proue that the clausures of the virginitie (I vse his owne wordes) of the mother of Christ notwithstanding his birth remained alwayes closed, which the Doctours intended to proue. I would not for shamefastnesse, enter into dis­course of the secrets of virginitie, & last of all the high mysteries of the incarnation and natiuitie of our sauiour Christe, of the immaculate Virgine Marie, in any such Physicall questions, but that I am driuen vnto it by this shamelesse aduersarie. And yet will I onely al­ledge the authoritie of the scripture, referring the col­lection to the reuerent & shamefast consideration of the honest reader. Saint Luke writeth of his presentation at Hierusalem. As it is written in the lawe of the Lorde, euery manchilde that first openeth the matrice, shall bee called holy to the Lorde. Luke 2. According to this text, the miracle of his natiuitie preseruing her virginitie, [Page 167] and of his entering in, the doores beeing shut, are verie like in deede, and agreeable to the Doctours mea­ning.

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

An other cause, for that hee doeth not heere make two bodyes in one place, or one bodye in an other, but to auoyde that absurditie, doeth transfourme the bodye of Christe into the subtiltie and thinnesse of a spirite. But in an other sentence, De resurrect. Hom. 9. he is of an other minde concerning the bodye of Christe. Non est meum ludificare phantasmate, vanam i­maginem visus si timet, veritatem corporis manus & digi­tus exploret. Potest fortassis aliqua oculos caligo decipere, palpatio corporalis verum corpus agnoscat. Spiritus, inquit, [Page 168] carnem & ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere: Quod Ostia clausa a penetrani, sola est virtus Diuini spiritus, non sola carnis substantia. It is not my propertie to delude my disciples with a fantasie, if your sight feare a vaine image, let your hand and fin­gers trie out the trueth of my body. Some myste peraduenture may deceiue the eyes, let bodily handling acknowledge a true body. A spirite (saith he) hath neither flesh nor bones, as you see mee to haue. That I pearced through the doores beeing shut, it is the onely power of the diuine spirite, not the onely substaunce of the flesh. In these wordes, hee ascribeth it to the onely power of his diuine spirite, that he passed through when the doores were shut, and not to the subtiltie of his glorified body, as in the former sentence. Likewise in Ioan. Hom. 90. ‘ Qui intrauit per ostia clausa, non erat phantasma, non erat spi­ritus, verè corpus erat. Hee that entered in by the doores beeing shut, was no fantasie, hee was no spirite, hee was a body truely and in deede. But wee must passe ouer vnto Saint Ambrose, in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 4.’ Habuit admiran­di causam Thomas &c. Thomas had a cause to maruell, when hee sawe all thinges being shut vp and closed, the body of Christe by clausures without all wayes for body to enter, the ioyntes bee­ing vnbroken, to bee entered in amongest them. And there­fore it was a woonder, howe the corporall nature passed through the impenetrable body, with an inuisible comming, but with inui­sible beholding, easie to be touched, hard to bee iudged. In these woordes of Saint Ambrose, nothing can bee certainely gathered, bycause hee doth not him selfe determine af­ter what manner the body of Christe came in, but one­ly sheweth what cause Thomas had to doubt and mar­uell, sauing that in an other place, I finde him write sus­pitiously of the trueth of the body of Christe, and of the true properties thereof. ‘For in his booke De mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9. hee hath these woordes, speaking of the body of Christ: Corpus enim Dei corpus est spirituale, Corpus Christi corpus est diuini spiritus. The body of GOD is a spirituall body. The body of Christe is the body of a diuine spirite.’ These sayinges for reuerence of the Authours, may haue a gentle construction, but other­wise [Page 169] they are not directly consonant to the Catholique confession of the trueth of Christes body, and the pro­perties thereof, remayning euen after his Assention, as hath bene discussed by the scriptures, especially after the Church was troubled with the heresies of the Eutychians and Monotholites.

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

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

The like place hee hath in him Epistle to Volusianus, which I maruell Maister Heskins hath not noted: Ep. 3. ‘ Ipsa virtus per inuiolatae matris virginea viscera membra in­fantis [Page 170] dutie, quae posted per clausa ostia membra i [...]uenis introdux­is. The same power brought foorth his body being an infant, by the Virginall bowels of his vndefiled mother, which afterward brought in his body being a yong-man, by the doores that were shut. Of his natiuitie whereunto this Doctour doth compare his comming in, after the doores were shut, I haue shewed before howe it was, out of the scripture.’ But let vs heare what Cyrillus saith of y ^e same matter, In Ioan. lib. 12. cap ▪ 53. clausu foribus &c. After the gates were shut, the Lord by his almightie power, the nature of things being ouercome, soudenly entered vnto his disciples: let no man therfore enquire, how the body of our Lord entred in, after the gates were shut, when he may vnderstand that these things are described by the Euangelist not of a bare man a [...] we be nowe, bu [...] of the almightie sonne of God. For seeing he is true God, he is not subiect to the lawe of nature, which thing did appeare in other his miracles also. Here Maister Heskin [...] after his wonted syn­c [...]itie, translateth [...], through the gates beeing shut, otherwise the place of Cyrill is of our side, that hee chaungeth not the nature of his body, but ouercame the nature of other thinges, and so made a passage for him selfe, although the gates were shut, as in his other [...] hee chaunged not the nature of his body▪ when hee walked on the waters. [...] the nature of the waters. Hee altered not the trueth of his bodye, when hee arose out of the sepulchre, but remoued the stone from the doore thereof &. For it stoode Cyrillus vppon: by reason of the Eutychian [...]eresie, to preserue in all thinge the true properties of the body of Christ, which in all places he doth [...]onstantly affirme. But the elder fa­thers, before they [...] by that here [...]ie to search out the trueth did [...] sometimes [...] some­times inconsideratly was beside [...]hem, affirmes, that he [...] [...] already [...], Hilariu [...] do [...]h not onely passed through the Lands walle [...] with his body, in Psalme. 55. but al [...] that his body felt [...] paine in the time of his passion: In. Psalm. 4 [...] [...] and in other p [...]aces: whiche i [...] a gro [...]e and wic­ked [Page 171] errour, wherevnto hee was carried, whyle he stu­died too much to aduaunce his Diuinitie, in the humane nature.

Howe be it the trueth of his naturall bodie by other Doctours was in all times affirmed, especially after Eu­tyches; had broched his wicked heresie. First Origen, as it is cited by Pamphilus in his apollogie out of his booke Peria [...]chie translated by Ruffinus, thus writeth: ‘ Corpus as­sumpfit nostro corpori simile: eo solo differens, quod natum ex vir­gine espiritu sancto est. He toke vpon him a body like vnto our body: in this point onely differing, that it was borne of a virgine by the holy Ghoste. This place would the rather bee noted, because it conteineth the consent of three auncient Doctours, of seueral ages.’ Origenes, Pam­philus, and Ruffinus. Afterward in the counsel of Chalce­don, & the sixt of Constantinople, they were condemned heretiques, whiche denied either the trueth of the hu­mane nature of Christ, or the true properties thereof. At in this latter counsell was allowed the Epistle of Leo, Ad Flauianum written in time of the former, wherein he writeth: ‘ Simul suit & altitud [...] Deitatis, & humilitas car­nis, seruante vtraque natura et [...]am post aditatationem, fine defe­ctu, proprietatem suam. Together be both the height of the Godhead, and the humilitie of the fleshe, both the natures, euen after the adiu [...]rion, keeping the pro­pertie without defect. And againe, Nusqu [...]m [...] diffe­rentia naturarum propter vnitatem, sed potius salua proprietate [...] [...]turae in vnum personam, vnam subsistentium concur­rente. In no place taking away the difference of the na­tures, because of the vnitie, but rather hauing the propri­etie of both the natures, concurring in one person, one subsistence.’

Those testimonies [...] shewe the iudgement of the Church concerning this matter, when iust occasion was giuen, narrowly to search out the trueth in the con­clusion of this Chapter, Maister Heskins yeelding a rea­son of his trauell in this matter, alledgeth two causes, the one that the miracle might not be shadowed the [Page 172] other, that he might shew the workes of Christe to be a­boue nature. And both these might stand without his la­bour. For it was a miracle aboue nature, that the doores of their owne accorde, opened to our sauiour Christ at his entrie, as when Peter also came foorth of the prison Actes 12. But whereas he bringeth in an example of the eternitie of the worlde, which is held by some natu­rall philosophers, to proue that Gods workes are aboue nature, he sheweth a grosse capacitie, that can not put a difference betweene the errours of naturall Philoso­phers, and the true lawe and order of nature made by God himselfe, which is vndoubtedly knowen to all wise men, as in these propositions nowe in question. For it is not the opinion of philosophers we stande vpon, but vpon the trueth of thinges naturall, which either sense or first intellections doth manifestly approue vnto vs. For as Tertullian saith, speaking of the trueth of Christes bo­dy: ‘ Non lic [...]t nobis in dubàm sensus istos reuocare; n [...] & in Christ [...] d [...] side illoru [...] deliberemus. It is not lawful for vs to call in doubt these senses, least in Christe also we should stand in deliberation of the credit of them.’ The like is to be iudged of such trueth in naturall causes▪ as Christ the true light hath kindled in the mindes of naturall men, to see the works of God in his creatures, lest beside horri­ble confusion of all thinges, we be driuen also into blas­phemou [...] errour [...].

Hesk.The twelfth Chapter aunswereth certaine obiections tha [...] [...] to imp [...]ge the Catholique doctrine of this matter.

Fulke.In the beginning of this Chapter▪ he saith, there was neuer heretiques but had some shew of argumentes to a­uouche his heresie, and bringeth in diuerse examples, on­ly the proclaymer, made no argument in his [...] for y ^t he would haue the people receiue his bare proclama­tion. What arguments he vsed, let the world iudge & the Papistes if they can, study to answer him. But Oecolam­padius (he saith,) hath heaped vp scriptures to proue the [Page 173] ascention of Christ, which the Papistes doe graunt, & yet acknowledge his presence on the earth in the sacrament: as though his departing out of the world, and presence in the world concerning his bodily presence, could stand to­gether. Then he flyeth to his diuine power, by which he is able to be present in diuerse places, as well as do such and such miracles as he rehearseth, and wisheth that we should not be so streight and cruell to the body of Christ, as to giue it no greater prerogatiue, then vnto any other body. Verily we do acknowledge as great prerogatiue thereof, as he himselfe hath giuen it, whereof we haue vnderstan­ding by his holy worde, and otherwise it were madnesse in vs, to take vpon vs to be liberall to him which giueth all thinges. And if we found as good authoritie for the v­biquitie, or pluralitie of placing of his body, as we finde for the feeding vs thereby into eternall life, we would as easily confesse the one, as we doe the other. But we finde not in deede (as M. Heskins saith) that he himselfe hath giuen or would giue his body that prerogatiue, to be eue­ry where, or in more places then one at once. As for the possibilitie, we extend it no further then his will. We know he can do what soeuer he will. And many thinges we know he cannot do, because he wil not. But M. Hes­kins to assure vs of his will, hath nothing to bring, but y ^t which is al the controuersie, & which most impudently he affirmeth, that he hath proued both by scriptures and doctours, that Christ hath caused his bodie to be in di­uers places at one time, which neither scripture nor any Doctour of antiquitie euer did affirme in proper manner of speaking, otherwise in figuratiue speech, we may truly say we eate in the sacrament the body of Christe, which is in heauen, when to speake properly, and w ^tout figure, we eate but the bread, which to the faithfull receiuer is a sa­crament, and seale of our spirituall nourishment, whiche we receiue of his flesh and bloud, after a diuine and vn­speakable manner vnto eternall life: saith rather lifting vs vp into heauen, then bringing Christes body into the earth.

[Page 174]Maister Heskins saith, the scriptures that say Christ is in heauen, speake without exclusiues, or exceptiues, and therefore there is no denial imployed, but that he may be beleeued to be also on the earth in the sacrament:

When Peter in the Actes 3. affirmeth that Christ must be conteined in heauen, (which is meant of his humanitie) vntill the time of restoring of all thinges: is not this an exclusion of all other places or beeings of his humanitie? When Paule to the Colossians, Colo. 3. willeth them to seeke those thinges that are aboue, and where Christ is at the right hand of God, to set their mindes on thinges a­boue, and not on things vpon the earth: is not the re [...]son, because Christ concerning his humanitie, is aboue & not vpon earth? Is not this an exclusiue and exception? When Christe sayeth not only, I goe to my father, but also I leaue the worlde Ioan. 16. Whiche saying the Apostles confessed to be plaine, and without all parable. Is not this a manifest exclusion of his bodily presence from the worlde? So that it is manifest, that this ascention and a­biding in heauen, concerning his humane nature, in which he ascended, is an excluding and shutting out, and denying of all other places or presences of his bodie, then to be in heauen only. But now that he hath thus tombled vp the authorities of the scripture, he wil take in hand to answer the obiections brought out of the Doctours. And first shalbe the saying of Augustine Ad Dardanum ep. 57. ‘Which place contrarie to his bragg in the beginning, he alledgeth truncatly, & by halfe, beginning at the middest thereof. But this place is in Augustine: Et sic venturus est, illa angelica voce testante, quemadmodum ire visus est in Coelum, id est, in eadem carnis forma atque substantia, cui profectò immortali­tatem dedit, naturam non abstulis. Secundùm hanc formam non est putandus vbique diffusus. And he shall come euen so (as that voyce of the Angel doth testifie.) euen as he was seene to go into heauen, that is, in the same fourme and substance of his fleshe, to which truly, he hath giuen im­mortalitie, but he hath not taken the nature from it. Ac­cording to this fourme, he is not thought, to be diffused [Page 175] in all places.’ All this hath Heskins left out, and beginneth thus: Cauendum est enim, no ita veritatem astru [...]mu [...] hominis, vt veritatem corporis auferamus. Non est enim consequens, vt quod no Deo est, ita sit vbique vt Deus. For we must beware that we doe not so affirme the Deitie of the man, that we take away the tru­eth of his body. For it is no consequent, that, that which is in God, should so be euerie where as God is. Note here, that Saint Au­gustine doeth not onely flatly denie the vbiquitie of Christes body, but also affirmeth that it reteineth still the nature of a bodie, which is to be conteined in one onely place. Againe he sayeth in the same Epistle Iesus vbique per id quod Deus est: in coelo autem per id quod homo est. Iesus by that he is God is euerie where: by that he is man, he is in hea­uen. Nowe let vs heare, howe wisely Maister Heskins will auoide this authoritie. First he sayeth, that Augu­stine in this epistle, speaketh not of the sacrament, and therefore these sentences make not against that matter.

But when Augustine speaketh generally of the bodie of Christ, that it reteineth the nature of a body, that it is not euerie where, &c. he doeth not except the sacrament. Although it is false, that Heskins saith, for in the latter end of that Epistle he hath these wordes: ‘ Huius corporis caput est Christus, huius corporis vnitas nostro sacrificio commen­datur. The head of this bodie is Christ, the vnitie of this bodie is commended in our sacrifice.’

By sacrifice (as Maister Heskins will confesse) he meaneth the celebration of the sacrament. Wherefore he forgate not the sacrament in that Epistle, but that he might haue made exception thereof, if he had thought good. The seconde aunswere of Maister Heskins is a balde distinction, that a thing may be at one time in ma­ny places two wayes, the one is by nature, the other by gifte. By nature he confesseth that the body of Christe can not be in two places, but by gifte it may be euerie where, or in as many places as hee will: and then brin­geth many examples to shewe that CHRISTES body hath many properties by gifte, which it hath not by nature. And in this distinction he triumpheth out of [Page 176] measure.

But the lewde sophister will not see that Saint Augus­tine denieth to Christes body his imagined gift, and affir­meth his denied nature to remaine. ‘ Cui (saith he) profectò immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstudit: to which fleshe he hath giuen immortalitie, but not taken away the na­ture of it.’ Doeth not Augustine here plainely deny the gift of vbiquitie, affirming the nature to remaine concer­ning the circum scription of place? You see this very place to ouerthrow his blinde distinction.

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

But because this olde foole playeth the boy so kinde­ly, let me pose him in his aunswere like a childe. Spea­keth [Page 177] Augustine of all bodies or of some? If of all, then of the bodie of Christ: If of some, then of particulars followeth nothing. But speaketh he of all naturall bo­dies of the earth? Then aunswere me whether Christes body be vpon the earth? Yes, or else it could not be in the sacrament. Well admitte it be vpon the earth, is it a na­turall bodie or no? Take heede what you aunswere. Yea, it is a naturall bodie: why then sir, if Christes body be a naturall body vpon earth, and Augustine speaketh of na­turall bodies vpon earth, then Augustine speaketh of Christes bodie also. This childishe kinde of reasoning were good inough for such childish aunsweres as he ma­keth to so graue authorities.

But let vs see another obiection, whiche is out of Au­gustine also. In Ioan. tract. 30. Sursum est Domimus, sed etiam hîc, & veritas Dominus. Corpus enim Domini, in quo resurrexit, v­no loco esse potest. Veritas eius vbique diffusa est. Our Lorde is aboue, hi [...] also he is here, and our Lord is the trueth. For the bo­die of our Lorde, in which he rose againe, can be but in one place, his truth is diffused euerie where. This place is corruptly cited by Maister Heskins, for he setteth it downe thus: Sed etiam hîc est veritas Domini. His translation I wil not deale with, because it is the matter in controuersie. He aunswereth that Augustine saith no more, but that he may be in one onely place at one time, if it please him. A goodly saying, as though euer any man would thinke otherwise, then that it were possible for his bodie to be in one place at one time. But that one place in these wordes, is an exclu­siue of all other places: if the opposition of one place and all other places will not serue, at least wise, let the Canon law it selfe beare some sway with Papistes, to ex­pound it, for in the decrees De contract. Dist. 2. prima quidem. Thi [...] place of Augustine is thus cited. ‘ Corpus enim in quo resurrexit, in vno loco esse oportet, veritas autem eius vbique dis­fusa est. For his body in which he rose againe must needes be in one place, but his trueth is diffused in all places By this it is euident, that Augustines worde, Potest esse vno loco assigneth his body to one onely place.’ Nowe as [Page 178] though there were no more obiections out of Augustine, or any other writer against the vbiquitie of Christes bo­die, he endeth with this: concluding after his maner, that faith must ouer rule reason, which is true, where Gods worde hath promised any thing, but we denie that Christ hath promised the presence of his bodie in moe places then one, therefore there is no place for faith where the word hath not gone before. But left the reader should thinke, M. Heskins hath answered all obiections out of Augustine, I thinke good to set downe one or two more, first In Ioan. Tract. 31. ‘ Christus, homo secundum corpus in loco est, & de loco migrat, & [...] ad alium locum venerit, in eo lo­co, vnde venit, non est. Deus autem implet omnia, & vbique totu [...] est, non secundùm spacia tenetur locis, &c. Christe, the man according to his bodie is in a place, & goeth from a place, and when he is come vnto another place, he is not in that place from whence he came, but God filleth all thinges, and is whole in euerie place, he is not helde in places ac­cording to spaces or distances.’

‘And Tr. 50. Respondent quem tenebo? absentem? Quomodo in coelum maman mittam vt ibi sedentem teneam? Fidem mitte, & tenuisti. Parentes tuitenuerunt carne, no tene corde, quoniam Christus absens etiam presens est. Nisi praesens esset a nobis ipsit to­neri non posset, sed quoniam verum est quod ait: Ecce ego vobis­cum sum vsque ad consumnationem saeculi: & abijs & his est, & redijt & nos non deseruit. Corpus enim su [...]n intulit caelo, maiesta­tem non abstulis mundo. They answere (meaning the vnbe­leeuing Iewes) whom shall I holde? Him that is absent? How shall I send vp my hand into heauen, that I may holde him which sitteth there? Send vp faith, and thou hast held him. Thy parentes held him in flesh, holde thou him in heart. For Christ being absent is also present. For except he were present, he could not be held of ourselues, but because it is true which he saith: Beholde I am with you to the end of the worlde, he is both gone away and is here, & is come againe and hath not forsaken vs. For he hath carried his bodie into heauen, he hath not taken a­way his Maiestie from the worlde. And in the same trea­tise, [Page 179] speaking of his presence in the sacrament: Si bonus es & ad corpus Christi pertines, quod significat Petrus, habes Chris­tum in praesenti & in futuro. In presenti per fidem, in praesenti per signum, in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum, in praesenti per altaris cibum & potum. If thou be a good man, and pertey­nest to the bodie of Christe, thou hast that which Peter doeth signifie, that is, Christ in present, and in that which is to come. In present by faith, in present by signe, in pre­sent by the sacrament of baptisme, in present by y ^e meate and drinke of the altar. And againe: Loquebatur de prae­sentia corporis sui. Nam secundùm Maiestatem suam, secundùm prouidentiam, secundùm ineffabilem & inuisibilem gratiam impletur, quod ab eo dictum est: Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus die­bus vsque ad consūmationem saeculi. Secundùm carnem verò, quam verbum sumpsit, secundùm id quod de virgine natus est, secundùm id quod a Iudae is pręhensus est, quod ligno crucifixus, quod de cruce depositus, quod linteis inuolutus, quod in sepulchro conditus, quod in resurrectione manifestatus, non semper habebitis vobiscum. Quare? quoniam conuersatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadra­ginta diebus cum discipulis suis, & eis deducentibus, videndo, non sequendo, ascendit in coelum, & non est hîc. Ibi est enim sedet ad dextram patris: & hic est, non enim recessit pręsentia maiestatis. Aliter secundùm praesentiam maiestatis, semper habemus Christum: secundùm pręsentiam carnis rectè est discipulis, Me autem non semper habebitis. Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundùm praesentiam carnis, paucis diebus modò fide tenet, oculis non videt, &c. That is. He spake of the presence of his bodie. For according to his Maiestie, according to his prouidence, according to his vn­speakable and inuisible grace, it is fulfilled that was saide of him: Beholde I am with you all the dayes vnto the end of the worlde. But according to the fleshe which the worde tooke vpon him, according to that he was born of the virgin, according to that he was taken of the Iewes, that he was crucified on the tree, that he was taken down from the crosse, that he was wrapped in linnen clo­thes, that he was laied in the sepulchre, that he was openly shewed in his resurrection, you shall not always haue me with you. Why so? because he was conuersant with his [Page 180] disciples, according to the presence of his body, by the space of 40. dayes, and they bringing him on his way, by seeing, not by following, he ascended into heauen, and is not here. For there he is where he sitteth at the right hand of his father. And he is here also. For he is not de­parted concerning the presence of his Maiestie, other­wise according to the presence of his maiestie, we haue Christ alwayes. But according to the presence of his flesh, it was well saide to his disciples: but me shall ye not al­wayes haue. For according to the presence of his flesh, the Church had him a few dayes, now she holdeth him by faith, she seeth him not with eyes.’

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

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

The text he meaneth is this: Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, Fulk. and drinke his bloud, you haue no life in you. That this should be spoken of, in the sacra­ment of the Lordes supper, he wil proue by this reason: as a man must haue birth and nourishment, so there be two sacraments, baptisme & the supper, by which we are born, and nourished vnto eternal life, and both necessarie: for as Christ speaketh here of the one, so to Nicodemus he spea­keth of the other, except a man be borne of water, and of the spirite, &c. But seeing he himselfe denieth, the necessi­tie of the one and of the other, but in them that are of type age, &c. it is manifest, that neither the one place is of baptisme, nor the of the other supper, but as these sacra­mentes are seales, to testifie the grace of regeneration, & preseruation. But if his reason faile, the doctours interpre­tation shall helpe, namely Cyprian, and Theophylacte. The place of Cyprian, hath bene already rehearsed, and [Page 181] [...]onsidered in the fourth Chapter of this booke, Sermo, de oration. Dom. whether I referre the Reader for breuitie sake. The other place ci­ted by Maister Heskins, to proue that Cyprian by this word Eucharistia meaneth the bodie of Christ, is Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra legem Euangelij, &c. They contrarie to the lawe of the Gospell, and also your honourable petition, before penance done, and before confession made of their most greeuous and extreeme of­fence, before hand was laide on them by the Bishop, and the Clear­gie for repentance, dare be bolde to offer for them, and giue them the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing, that is to prophane the holy bodie of our Lorde. Thus much Heskins rehearseth: but Cyprian proceedeth: Cum scriptum sit, &c. ‘Seeing it is writen: he that eateth this bread, and drinketh this cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily, shalbe guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lorde. By these wordes which Maister Hes­kins concealeth, it is apparent, how they did prophane the bodie of Christ, that gaue the sacrament to vnpenitent of­fenders, namely in that sense, which S. Paule saith they are guiltie of the death of Christ.’ That Theophylacte vn­derstandeth this text of the receiuing of the Diuine mys­teries, and requireth faith in the receiuers: although it, make litle for his purpose, yet because he is a late writer I will not spende time about his authoritie.

The fourteenth Chapter expoundeth the same text by S. Augu­stine, and Cyrill. Hesk.

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

‘And no maruell, for his disciples did not yet knowe it, nor could, before the sacrament was instituted, and therefore Saint Augustine in the same place expoundeth [Page 182] what this meate and drinke was, saying: Hunc itaque e [...] ­bum & potum societatem vult intelligi corporis & membrorum suorum, quod est sancta Ecclesia in praedestinatis, & vocatis, & iustificatis, & glorificatis sanctis & fidelibus eius▪ He woulde haue this meate and drinke to be vnderstoode the fel­lowship of his bodie and his members, which is the ho­ly Church in them that are praedestinated, and called, and glorified, euen his sayntes and faithfull ones. And af­terwarde he sayeth: Huius rei sacramentum id est vnita­tis corporis & sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis in­teruallis dierū in Dominica mensa pręparatur. & de mensa Do­minica sumitur: quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit. The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the vnitie of the bodie and bloude of Christe in some places euerie daye, in some places at certeine dayes betweene, is prepared in the Lordes ta­ble, and from the Lordes table is receiued, vnto some to life, to other some to destruction. But the thing it selfe whereof it is a sacrament, is to life vnto euery man, and to destruction of none that shalbe partaker of it.’

These places declare, that the text in hande, is by Au­gustine expounded not of the sacrament, but of the so­cietie of the members of Christe in his bodie, whereof the communion is a sacrament. So that Master Hes­kins alledgeth Augustine directly against his playne meaning.

The seconde place he citeth out of Augustine is in Psalm. 98. Nisi quis, &c. Except a man eate my flesh, he shall haue no life. They tooke it foolishly, carnally they thought, and they thought that our Lorde woulde cutt certeine peeces from his bodie and giue them. ‘They vnderstood not (sayeth Maister Heskins) that he woulde giue them his fleshe to be ea­ten verily in the sacrament. But howe verily, let Saint Augustine tell his owne tale in the same place. Ille autem instruxit eos & ait eis: Spiritus est qui viuificat, caro autem ni­hil prodest. Verba que loquntus sum vobis, spiritus est & vita. Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquntus sum. Non hoc corpus quod [Page 183] videtis manducaturi estis▪ & bibituri illum sanguinem, quem fu­suri sunt, qui me cru [...]ifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commend [...]i spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vot. Et sine­cesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen inuisibiliter in­telligi. But he instructed them, and sayeth vnto them: It is the Spirite that quickeneth, the fleshe profiteth no­thing. The wordes that I haue spoken to you, are spi­rite and life. Vnderstande ye spiritually, that whiche I speake: You shall not eate this bodie which you see, and drinke that bloude which they shall shead, that shall crucifie mee. I haue commended vnto you a certeine sacrament, which being spiritually vnderstoode, shall quicken you. Although it be necessarie that the same should be celebrated visibly, yet it must be vnderstoode inuisibly. This saying of Augustine being so plaine, I shall not neede to gather any more of it, then euery sim­ple man at the first reading will conceiue.’

The thirde place he citeth is, de Doct. Christ. lib. 3. Capitul. 16. which he citeth corruptly and truncately, al­though I see not what frawde lyeth in his corruption, saue onely he declareth, that he hath not redd the place in Augustine him selfe, but taketh it out of some col­lectour or gatherer. The woordes of Augustine are these: ‘ Si praeceptiua locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus ve­tans, aut vtilitatem, aut beneficentiam iubens, non est figurata.’ Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere, aut vtilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, figura est. Nisi manducaueritis (inquit) carn [...]m filij hominis & sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis, facinur vel flagitium videtur iubere, figura est ergo, praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum & suauiter at­que vtiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit. ‘If it be a speache of commaun­dement, forbidding any wickednesse or heynous of­fence, or commaunding any profite or well doing, it is no figuratiue speache. But if it seeme to commaunde a wic­ked deede, or an heynous offence, or to forbidd any profit or well doing, it is a figure.’

Except you shall eat (sayth he) the flesh of the sonne of man, & [Page 184] drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you. He fe [...]eth to com­maund a heynous offence, or a wicked deede: therefore it is a fi­gure, commaunding vs to communicate with the pas [...]ion of our Lorde, and swetely and profitably to keepe in a memorie, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Although this place be directly against his purpose, and the purpose of al the Papistes, yet by a fonde glose of one Buitmundus, that wrote against Berengarius, he would seeme to make it serue his turne, and wring it out of our hands. And this forsooth is the shift. The sacrament is not a figure of the bodie of Christe, but of his death. But Augustine in this place calleth not the sacrament a figure, but sayeth that the text in hande, is a figuratiue speach, and sheweth howe it must be vnderstood.

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

But Augustine him selfe writeth thus: ‘ Sicut duos in carne vna Christum & ecclesiam istis nolentibus fine vlla obscoe­nitate cognoscimus: sicut mediatorem Dei & homimum, hominem Christum Iesum, carnem suam nobis manducandam bibendum (que) sanguinem dantem, fideli corde & ore suscipimus: quamuis hor­ribilius videatur, humanam carnem manducare, quàm perime­re, & humanum sanguinem potare qàum fundere. At (que) in omni­bus sanctis scripturis, secundùm sanae fidei regulam figuratè di­ctum [Page 185] vel factum si quid exponitur de quibuslibet rebus & verbis, quae sacris paginis continentur, expositio illa ducatur non asper­nanter, sed sapienter audiamur. Euen as we knowe, though against these mens will, two in one fleshe, Christe and his Church without any filthinesse: euen as with faith­full heart and mouth wee receiue the Mediatour of God and man Iesus Christe, giuing vs his fleshe to bee eaten, and his bloud to be drunken: although it seemeth a more horrible thing to eate the fleshe of man, then to kill him: and to drinke the bloud of man, then to shed it.’

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

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

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

Out of Cyrill are alledged two places neither of [Page 186] both any thing to his purpose, but directly against him, the former In 1 [...]. Ioan. Non poterat, &c. This corruptible nature of the bodie could not otherwise be brought to vncorrup­tiblenesse and life, except the bodie of naturall life were ioyned to it. Doest thou not beleeue mee saying these thinges? I pray thee beleeue Christ saying: Verily, verily, I saye vnto you, ex­cept you shall ea [...]e the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you. Thou hearest him openly saying, that wee shall not haue life, except wee drinke his bloude, and eate his fleshe. He sayeth, in your selues, that is, in your bo­die. The same fleshe of life, by right, may be vnderstanded, life.

What is there here for the sacrament? or that euery Christian man of our side will not graunt? But belike the second place maketh all playne. Non negamus &c. Wee do not denye, that with right faith and syncere loue, wee are spiritually ioyned to Christe: but that wee haue no manner of coniunction with him after the fleshe, that truely wee do vtterly denye, and that wee saye to be altogether contrarie to the holye Scriptures. For who hath doubted, that Christe is euen so the vine, and wee the braunches, that wee receiue life from thence into vs. Heare Saynt Paule saying, that we all are one bodye in Christ: For although wee be many, yet we are one in him, for wee all take parte of one breade. Or peraduenture doth hee thinke that the power of the mysticall blessing is vnknowen to vs, which when it is done in vs, doeth it not make Christe to dwell in vs corporally, by the participation of the fleshe of Christe? For why are the members of the faithfull, the members of Christ? Knowe ye not (sayeth he) that the members of the faithfull, are the members of Christe? Shall I then make the members of Christ the members of an harlott? In this place Cyrill sayeth, that Christe doth dwell corporally in vs, but howe? by participation of the fleshe of Christe, which as he tooke of our nature, so hath he againe giuen the same vnto vs, to bee in deede our nourishment vnto eternall life, which thing is testified vnto vs by the sacrament, euen as the vnitie wee haue one with another, and all of vs with Christe, is testified in that we all take part of [Page 187] one breade. Otherwise I see nothing in this place that may help Maister Heskins. For such as our vnitie is, such is our participation of his flesh, and as we are members of his body, so doe we eate his body. This M. Heskins must graunt, if he will allowe Cyrills authoritie, but our vni­tie, participation, and coniunction of members, though it be in his body, of his flesh, and vnto him as our head, yet is not after a carnall manner, no more is the eating of his flesh nor the corporall dwelling of him in vs after a car­nall or corporall manner, but after a diuine and spiritu­all manner. The place of Chrysostome hee cyteth, hath bene once or twice considered already.

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

The place of Leo is cyted out of Serm. 6. de Ieiu. sep. mens. Hanc confessionem &c. This confession most welbeloued, Fulke. vttering foorth with all your heart, forsake ye the vngodly deui­ses of heretiques, that your fastings and almes may be defiled with the infection of no errour. For then the offering of sacrifice is cleane, and the giuing of almes is holy, when they which performe these things vnderstand what they worke. For as our Lord saith, except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you: you ought so to be partakers of the ho­ly table, that you doubt nothing of the trueth of the body of Christe, and of his bloud. For that is taken with the mouth, which is beleeued by faith, and in vaine doe they answere Amen, which dispute a­gainst that which is receiued. Leo in these words, as Maister Heskins is enforced to confesse, speaketh against the Eu­tychian heresie, which denyed the trueth of Christes body after the adunation therof to the Diuinitie (as the papistes do indeed, though not in words, by their vbiquitie & trā ­substātiatiō) & saith, thei cannot be partakers rightly of y ^e sacramēt of his body & bloud, which do not acknowlege y ^t he had a very body & bloud. Therfore it is intollerable impudencie in M. Hes. to note a place for M. Iewel, whē he [Page 188] him selfe after, confesseth, that he spake not of the trueth of his body in the sacrament. And whereas he saith, the mouth receiueth that which is by faith beleeued, it hel­peth him nothing, for he meaneth nothing else, but that those men cannot receiue with their mouth the sacrament of his flesh and bloud, which deny him to haue true flesh & bloud, for the sacrament is a seale and confirmation of faith. Nowe how far Leo was from transubstantiation or vbiquitie, we haue shewed before in the 11. Chapter of this booke, where his saying may be read.

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

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

The woordes of the Epistle of the Ephesine Counsell vnto Nestorius, Fulke. be these: Necessario & hoc &c. This also we do adde necessarily, for shewing foorth the death of the onely begotten sonne of God after the flesh, that is, of Iesus Christe, and confessing together his resurrection and ascention into heauen, we celebrate it in our Churches, the vnbloudie seruice of his sacrifice, so also doe we come to the mysticall blessings, and are sanctified, being made par­takers of the holy body and precious bloud of Christ, the redeemer of vs all: Not taking it as common flesh, (which God forbid) nor at the flesh of a sanctified man, and ioyned to the word, according to [Page 189] the vnitie of dignitie, or as possessing a diuine habitation, but truely quickening and made proper vnto the word it selfe. For he being naturally life as God, bicause he was vnited to his owne flesh, pro­fessed the sonne to haue power to giue life. And therefore although he say vnto vs: Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you, yet we ought not to esteeme it as of a man, that is, one of vs. For howe can the flesh of a man after his owne nature, be a quickening flesh? But as verily made his owne flesh, which for vs was both made and called the sonne of man. The Fathers of this Counsell do not (as M. Heskins saith) expound this text of the sacrament, or de­clare what they receiue in the sacrament, but rather shew what they iudged of that flesh, whereof they receiued the sacrament, namely, that it was not the flesh of a pure man as Nestorius affirmed, but the flesh of the son of God, & therfore had power to giue life being eatē by faith, either in the participation of the sacrament or without it. And whereas he noteth a plaine place for M. Iewel, when they say, They were made partakers of the body and bloud of Christ, there is no more plainenesse then M. Iewell will confesse. But where he addeth, Receiuing it, not as cōmon flesh, but as the flesh truely giuing life: he corrupteth the sense of the Coun­sel, referring that to the receiuing of the sacrament, which they vnderstand of their iudgement of the flesh, where­of they receiued the sacrament. Finally, where he would helpe the matter with the opinion of Cyril, of our corpo­rall coniunction with Christ, howe little it auayleth we shewed before in aunswere to y ^t place Cap. 14. But least he shuld lacke sufficient proofe of this matter, he confirmeth his exposition by the erronious practise of the Church of Aphrica, from Saint Cyprians time vnto Saint Augustines time at the least, which imagined such a necessitie of tha [...] sacrament by this place: Except ye eate &c, that they mi­nistred the Communion to infants, he might haue added that some did minister it to dead folkes. But this absurdi­tie, which followeth of the exposition, will rather driue al wisemen from that exposition, then moue them to receiue it. And although the Bohemians vsed this text, to proue [Page 190] the communion in both kindes, yet doth it not followe, that it is properly to be expounded of the sacrament.

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

The text he will expound, is: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, Fulk. hath life in him. That this text is not to be expounded of the sacrament, it is manifest by this reason, that many doe eate the sacrament that haue not life in them: as Augustine whom he alledgeth most plainly affirmeth. But let vs see his profes for his exposition. First Augustine. Tr. 26. in Ioā. Hanc non habet &c. He hath not this life that eateth not this bread, nor drinketh this bloud. For without is men may haue temporall life, but eternall they can not. He therefore which eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his bloud, hath no life in him, and he that eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud, hath life eternall. He hath answered to both, in that he saith, life e­uerlasting. It is not so in this meate which we take to sustaine the life of this body. For he that shall not take it, shall not liue. Nor yet he that shall take it shall liue. For it may be, that by age or sicknesse, or any other cause, many which haue taken it may dye: but in this meat and drinke, that is, the body and bloud of our Lord, it is not so. For both he that taketh it not hath not life, & he that taketh it hath life, and that eternall. Although there be not one word spo­ken here of the sacrament, and M. Heskins him selfe al­ledgeth the words following, in which he confesseth that Augustine expoundeth this meate and drinke of the soci­etie of Christ and his members, which is his Church: yet either so blinde or obstinate he is, that with vaine gloses he will go about to drawe Augustine to his side. First (he saith) though this meate signifie the mysticall body of Christe, yet it signifieth not that alone, but his naturall body in the sacrament, whereof he hath neuer a worde in this treatise of S. Augustine: secondly, Augustine did not go about to instruct the people what they should receiue, but how wel they shuld receiue it. Which is vtterly false, for hee doth both, and there is no better way to instruct [Page 191] men howe well they should receiue the sacrament, then to teach them to consider what they do receiue. And ther­fore the conclusion of this treatise, which he cyteth, is al­together against him. Hoc ergo totum &c. Let all this therfore auayle to this end most welbeloued, that we ea [...]e not the flesh and bloud of Christ onely in a sacrament, which many euill men doe, but that we eate and drinke euen to the participation of the spirit, that we may remaine in the body of our Lorde as his m [...]mbers, that we may be quickened by his spirite, and not be offended, although many do nowe with vs eate and drinke the sacraments temporally, which in the end shal haue eternal torments. O [...]t of these wordes M. Hes doth gather, that Augustine doth acknowledge both spiritual and corporal receiuing: by like, bicause he saith that many euil men do eat and drinke the body & bloud of Christ in a sacrament, but what he meaneth is plain by his owne words in the same treatise. ‘ Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam & illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, & illum ma­nentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec māducat spiritualiter car­nem eiu [...], nec bibit eius sanguinem, licèt carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus saecramentum corporis & sanguinis Christi: sed magis tantae rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat & bibit. This it is therefore to eate that meate, and to drinke that drinke, to abide in Christ, & to haue him abiding in him. And by this he that abideth not in Christe, and in whome Christ abideth not, out of dout neither eateth spiritually his flesh, nor drinketh his bloud, although carnally and visibly, hee presse with his teeth the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ: but rather eateth and drinketh to his owne damnation the sacrament of so excellent a thing. And that the wicked receiue not Christ at all, nei­ther spiritually nor corporally, he writeth in the 59. Tr. in Ioan. Illi manducabant panem Dominum, ille panem Domini contra dominum, illi vitam, ille poenam.’ They (meaning the Apostles) did eat the bread which was our Lorde, but he (meaning Iudas) did eat the Lords bread against the Lord, they did eate life, hee did eat punishment. Here he denyeth that Iudas did eat Christe, who did only eat the bread which [Page 192] Christ gaue him, and not that bread which was Christe as the rest did. But nowe let vs see howe Cyrillus doth expound this text of the sacrament In 15. Ioan. Mariet enim &c. Both the natures abide inuiolated, and of them both Christ [...] is one, but vnspeakably, and beyonde that mans mynde can vnderstand. The woorde conioyned to the manhoode hath so reduced it wholy into him selfe, that it is able to giue life to thinges lacking life. So hath it expelled destruction from the nature of man, and death, which by sinne was very strong, it hath destroyed. Wherefore he that eateth the flesh of Christ, hath euer­lasting life. For this flesh hath the word of God, which is naturally life. Therefore he saith, and I will raise him againe in the last day. He said I, that is, my body that shall be eaten, shall raise him again. For he is none other then his flesh. I say not that, bicause he is none other by nature, but bicause after his incarnation he suffereth not him selfe to be diuided into two sonnes: I therefore (saith he) which am made man, by my flesh in the last day, will raise them vp, which do eat it.

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

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

The text is: My flesh is verily meat, and my bloud is verily drinke. Fulke. And here hee maketh a fond and childish discourse of the difference of verus cibus, true meate, and verè cibus, meate in deede, or verily meate. Which distinc­tion is confounded by Origen, one of his pretended ex­positors, in the very text by him alledged, and in many other places of his workes, where he speaketh of this text. But to the exposition before he commeth to Origen, hee toucheth a place of Chrysostome, That reipsa conuertimur in [Page 193] [...]arnem Christi in very deede we are turned into the flesh of Christ. Which wordes, if they be not vnderstoode of a spirituall conuersion (good Lord) what a monstrous transubstanti­on shall we haue of our flesh into the flesh of Christ? But Papistes had rather mingle heauen and earth together, then they will depart from their prodigious absurdities. But to Origen in Num. Hom. 7. Lex Dei, &c. The lawe of God is not nowe knowen in figures and images, as before: but euen in plaine trueth, and such things as were before set forth in a dark speache, are nowe fulfilled in plaine maner & trueth. Of which things, these that followe are some,

Antea in aenigmate fuit baptismus, in nube, & in mari: nunc autem in specie regeneratio est in aqua & Spiritu sancto. Tunc in aenigmate erat Manna cibus: nunc autem in specie caro verbi Dei & verus cibus, sicut ipse dicit: Caro mea verè est cibus & sanguis meus verè est potur. Before Baptisme was in a darke manner in the clowde and in the s [...]: but nowe regeneration is in plaine manner in water and the holie Ghost. Then Manna was the meate in a darke manner: But nowe the fleshe of the worde of God is the true meate in a plaine maner, as he him selfe sayth: my fleshe is meat in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede. In these wordes Origen teacheth that the sacramentes of the Gospell are cleare and plaine, whereas in the lawe they were obscure and darke. Neither doth he denye that the Gospell hath figures, but affirmeth it hath none other figures, but such as serue to open and set forth the myste­ries more plainly, whereas the ceremonies of the olde lawe did rather hide and couer them. And if it be true (as M. Heskins sayeth) that the Gospell hath no figures, I woulde knowe, what be all the ceremonies of the Po­pish Church, figures of the Gospell? or false inuentions of men? But if wee will beleeue him, our onely spiri­tuall receiuing is impugned by Origen In what wordes good sir? he answereth: The fleshe of the sonne of God is ea­ten in verie plaine manner. And may not this be spiritu­ally, as well as regeneration is spiritually wrought in baptisme, and yet in the same playne manner, that this eating is spoken of? ‘But let vs heare what Orig [...]n him [Page 194] selfe will say in the same booke, Hom. 16. Bibere autem di­cimur sanguinem Christi non solùm sacramentorum ritu, sed cum sermones eius recipimu [...], in quibus vita consistit sicut & ipse di­cit &c. We are sayde to drinke the bloud of Christe, not onely in the ceremonie of the sacramentes, but also when wee receiue his sayings in which life consisteth, as he him selfe saith:’ In these wordes hee teacheth such a drink­ing in the sacramentes, as in beleeuing his woorde, and therefore it must needes bee spirituall and not carnall. And as the cloud and Sea was baptisme, so was Manna the body of Christe, by Origens owne wordes, and there­fore the proclamer sayde truely, that wee receiue Christe none otherwise in the sacrament, then the Iewes did in Manna concerning the substaunce of the spirituall meat. And Maister Heskins saith falsely, That we excell the Iewes for our incorporation in Christ, and therefore receiue him corpo­rally, as though the Iewes also were not incorporated in­to Christe, and were not liuely members of his body in as great excellencie as we, yea, and with a prerogatiue of the first begotten, and of the naturall oliue wherein wee are inferiour.

The place of Ambrose hee cyteth Lib. 9. cap. 1. De sacra­mentis. Sicus verus est Deifilius Dominus noster Iesus Christus, &c. As our Lorde Iesus Christe is the true sonne of God, not as men by grace, but as a sonne of the substance of his father: euen so it is true flesh, which we receiue (as he him selfe saith) and very drinke. This is noted for an other plaine place for the proclamer, as though the proclamer did not graunt that we receiue the true flesh and bloud of Christe in the sa­crament, but spiritually and by faith, not carnally nor transubstantiated. But Ambrose is the best expounder of him selfe, who in the 6. booke and Chap. 1. ‘ De sacramentis, hath these wordes, Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent, veluti quidam esset horror cruoris, sed maneret gratia redemptionis, ideo in simi­litudinem quidem accipis sacramentum, sed verae naturae gratiam virtutémque consequeris. Therefore least more should say this, as though there were a certaine horrour of bloud, but that the grace of redemption might remaine, there­fore [Page 195] thou receiuest the sacrament truely for a similitude, but thou obtainest the grace and vertue of his true na­ture.’ By which Ambrose expresseth the whole substaunce of the sacrament, that it is a similitude of the body and bloud of Christe, but not a similitude onely, but such a one, as by which we receiue the grace and power of that true nature which is resembled by it. This place would satisfie a sober minde, but a froward heart will admit no wisedome.

The nineteenth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Eu­sebius Emiss. and S. Augustine. Hesk.

Eusebius is cyted out of Hom. 5. pasch. Fulk. Quia corpus assump­tum &c. Bicause hee would take his assumpted body from our eyes, and bring it into heauen, it was necessarie that in the day of his supper, he should consecra [...] vnto vs a sacrament of his body and bloud, that it might be celebrated continually by a mysterie, which was offered for our price, that bicause the daily and vnwea­ried redemption did runne for the health of all men, the oblation of the redemption might be perpetuall, and that eternall sacrifice should liue in memorie, and that true, onely, and perfect sacrifice, should be present in grace, to be esteemed by faith, not by shewe, neither to be iudged by outward sight, but by inward affection. Wherevpon the heauenly authoritie confirmeth, that my flesh is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede. This sentence being directly against him as euery man that readeth it, may easily perceiue, he is neither ashamed to alledge it, hauing nothing to gather out of it for his purpose, nor yet (y ^t is worse) most breastly to corrupt it by false transla­tion and wrong distinction or pointing, committing that childish sophisticatiō which is called ab accentu. For where the Latine is, Et perennis victima illa viueret in memoria, & semper pręsens esset in gratia vera, vnica, & perfecta hostia, fide aestimanda non specie &c. hee hath dismembred it by this translation: And that perpetuall sacrifice should liue in memorie, and alway be present in grace. A TRVE ONE ONLY AND PERFECT SACRIFICE, to be esteemed by faith, and not by outward forme, &c. And al bicause he would not acknow­ledge [Page 196] y ^e presence of Christ y ^t onely true sacrifice by grace, which is absent in the bodie, as the purpose of Eusebius is to shewe. And therfore those words that follow are to be vnderstoode by them that goe before. Let all doubtful­nesse of infidelitie therefore departe, seeing hee that is the Au­thour of the gift, is also witnesse of the trueth. For the inuisible priest with his worde by secrete power conuerteth the visible crea­tures into the substance of his bodie and bloud. The former sen­tence sufficiently declareth, that he speaketh of a spiritual and not a carnall conuersion, because his body which is absent from vs, and carried into heauen, is present with vs by grace and not otherwise.

Saint Augustine is cyted Tr. 26. in Ioan Cum enim cibo & potu, &c. For as much as men by meate and drinke, do this desire▪ that they should neither hunger nor thirst: nothing perfourmeth this truely, but this meate and drinke, which maketh them of whom it is receiued immortall, and inco [...]uptible, that is the fellowship of the Saints where peace shalbe & full and perfect vnitie. For there­fore truely (as the men of God haue vnderstoode it before vs,) our Lord Iesus Christ commended his bodie and bloud in those thinges, which of many are brought to one certein thing. For the one is made into one of many graynes & so consisteth: the other cōmeth into one of many grapes. Because this sentence is clean contrarie to y ^e carnal presence, & transubstantiation, you must cal to re­mēbrance, the glose of a certeine blind Authour, that there be three things in y ^e sacrament to be considered. The first the sacrament only, which is a signe of an holy thing, and y ^t is the forme of bread. The second the thing signified, & conteined, that is y ^e very bodie of Christ. The third is sig­nified but not conteined, that is the mysticall bodie of Christ. But this balde distinction, is so farre of Augustines minde, that he cleane ouerthroweth two partes of it. First the carnall presence of Christes bodie conteined, & when he affirmeth that this meate maketh them of whome it is receiued, immortall and incorruptible, whiche are onely them that receiue it by faith, for if it were conteined, wic­ked men should also receiue it: but they receiue it not, therefore it is not conteined. Secondly, he ouerthroweth [Page 197] transubstantiation, when he saith that Christe commen­ded his bodie in such thinges, as are made one of many, as one bread of many graines, and one wine of many grapes. For the fourme, by which Heskins meaneth the accidents of bread, is made neither of graynes nor of grapes. Ther­fore the fourme of Bread is none of those things in which Christ commended his body and bloud.

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

Escam vitae accepit & poculum vitę bibit, qui in Christo manet, & Cuius Christus habitator est. ‘ Nam qui discordat a Chricto, nec panem cius manducat, nec sanguinem bibit, etiamsi tanto rei [Page 198] sacramentum ad iudicium suę praesumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat. He hath receiued the meat of life, and drunke the cuppe of life, which abideth in Christ, & in whom Christ dwelleth. But he that disagreeth from Christ, neither ea­teth his bread nor drinketh his bloud, although he re­ceiue euerie day indifferently the sacrament of so great a thing, vnto the condemnation of his presumption.’

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

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

Hilarius is cited Lib. 8. de Trinitat. Que scripta sunt, &c. Let vs reade those thinges that be written, Fulke. and let vs vnderstande those things that we shall read, & then shal we performe the dutie of perfect faith. Such thinges as we learne of the naturall trueth of Christ in vs, except we learne of him, we learne foolishly and vn­godly. For he him selfe saith: my flesh is meat in deed, & my bloud is drinke in deede. He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him. There is no place left to doubt of the trueth of his flesh and bloud. For now by the profession of our Lord himselfe it is verily fleshe and verily bloud. And this beeing taken and dronken, bring this to passe, that Christ is in vs, and we in Christ. Out of these wordes he noteth three thinges. The first, that the text is spoken of the sacrament conteyning the bodie and bloud of Christe, of the veritie whereof there should be no doubt: The second is the corporall recei­uing of Christ in the sacrament: The third is, that there­by Christ is in vs and we in him. To the first note, this text is none otherwise spoken of the sacramēt, as we haue often shewed, then as the sacrament is a seale of this eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud which is also without the sacrament. And that we should not doubt of the trueth of his fleshe and bloud, it is true, we confesse he hath true flesh & true bloud, & with the same doeth feede [Page 199] vs, but that this flesh and bloud is conteined in the sacra­ment, Hillarie saith not, but Heskins. Neither doeth he speake of any corporall receiuing of Christe in the sa­crament, which is the second note, but seeing he dwelleth in all them that receiue him (which is the thirde note) there is no place for the corporal receiuing, which the Pa­pists confesse to be common to the wicked, in whome Christ dwelleth not, nor they in him.

But to proue the corporall receiuing, he hath another place out of the same booke. Si enim verè, &c. For if the WORDE was verily made flesh, and we doe truely eate the worde made flesh in the Lordes meate, how is he not to be thought to abide naturally in vs, which being borne a man hath taken vpon him the nature of our flesh now inseparable, & hath admixed the nature of his flesh, vnto the nature of eternitie, vnder the sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated vnto vs. This with him is a plaine place, and much adoe he maketh about this worde, natu­rally, by which he meaneth nothing else but truly, for o­therwise M. Heskins (if he be in his right wittes) wil con­fesse, that the abiding of Christe in vs, is not naturall nor after a naturall manner, but spirituall, and after a Diuine manner. And although he spake plain ynough of the par­ticipation of his flesh vnder a sacramēt, yet more euident­ly in the same booke in these wordes. ‘ Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit, & verè homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est, nos (que) verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, & per hoc vnum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, & ille in nobis, quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacra­mentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit vnitatis.’

‘If therefore Christe did verily take vpon him the flesh of our bodie, & that man, which was borne of Marie, was verily Christ, and we doe verily receiue the fleshe of his body vnder a mysterie, and thereby shall be one, because the Father is in him and he in vs, howe is the vnitie of will affirmed, when the naturall propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie. Here he saith we do ve­rily eate the flesh of his bodie: but if you aske how? He aunswereth vnder a mysterie, as before he said vnder a sa­crament.’ [Page 200] Therfore to take that absolutely (as M. Heskins doth) which of him is spoken but after a certeine manner as vnder a sacrament, or a mysterie, is a grosse abusing both of the authour and of the readers.

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

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

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

Fulk.Chrysostome is cited Hom. 46. in Ioan. The same wordes almoste that were before ascribed to Euthymius, who borrowed them of Chrysostome. Quid autem, &c. But what meaneth this saying: my fleshe is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede? Either that he is the true meate, whiche saueth the soule: or that he might confirme them in that he said be­fore, least they should thinke he spake darkely in parables. If this be spoken of the fleshe of Christe in the sacrament, then none receiue the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, but they whose soules are saued, but many receiue the sacrament, whose soules are not saued, therefore this is not spoken of the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament. Ye, but are ye adui­sed y ^t this is a plaine place for M, Iewel, that these words: My fleshe is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in is no figuratiue speeche? Let it be as plaine as you will, it must be meate in deede, and drinke in deede to feede our soules, and that must needes be spiritually, for our soules cannot eate carnally. As for Lyra a late Popishe [Page 201] writer, I haue often protested, that I will not stay vpon his authoritie, let him be on M. Heskins side.

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

S. Cyrill is alledged Lib. 4. Cap. 16. in Ioan. Vmbram & fi­guram nosti, &c. Fulk. Knowest thou the shadowe and the figure? Learne the very truth of the thing. For my flesh (saith he,) is meate indeed and my bloud is drinke in deede. Againe he maketh a distinction be­tweene the mystical benediction and manna, the streames of water out of the rocke, and the communication of the holie cuppe, that they should not more esteeme the miracle of manna, but rather re­ceiue him which is the giuer of the heauenly bread, and of eternall life. For the nourishment of Manna brought not eternall life, but a short remedie of hunger. Therefore it was not the true meate. But the holie bodie of Christ is a meate nourishing vnto immortalitie & eternall life. Also that water out of the rocke easied bodily thirst for a short time, neither brought it any thing beside. Therfore it was not that true drinke: but the bloud of Christ, by which death is vt­terly ouerthrowen and destroyed, is the true drinke. For it is not the bloud of a man simply, but of him, which being ioyned vnto a natural life, is become life. Because M. Heskins cannot tell what to gather out of this place for his purpose, he taketh vp yes­terdayes colde ashes, of the authorities cited before, by light of them to wrest this place to his purpose, but all re­maineth still darke and dyme for his intent. Of the ex­cellencie of the fleshe and bloud of Christe aboue Manna & the water as they were corporal foode, there is neither doubt nor question, nor yet that the same is eaten in the sacrament of the faithfull, but whether it be eaten corpo­rally or spiritually is all the question. And Dionyse the Charterhouse Monke, whome he matcheth vndiscretely with Cyrill, denieth also that the body of Christ is recei­ued corporally in the sacrament. Verè est cibus animae non corporis, quia non visibiliter nec corporaliter sumitur, quamuis ve­rum corpus sumatur. It is meate in deede, but of the soule not of the bodie, because it is not receiued visibly nor corporally although the very body be receiued. So that the Papistes them selues [Page 262] do not al agree of the maner of receiuing. In this Chap­ter beside these two expositors are also cited Augustine & Chrysostome. Augustine in Saint Prosper, to auouch the phrase of formes of bread and wine. Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam in sacramento accipimus: & sanguis eius est, quem sub vini specie & sapore potamus. It is his flesh, which we receiue in the sacrament couered with the fourme of bread, and it is his bloud, which we drinke vnder the kinde and taste of wine. Beside that this collection of Prosper is not to be found in any of Augustines owne workes, I denie the names of For­ma and Species to be taken for accidentes in that sense the Papistes doe: but for a figure or signification, as by the wordes immediately following it is most manifest, which M. Heskins hath moste lewdly suppressed: ‘ Caro videlicèt carnis: & sanguis sacramentum est sanguinis: carne & sanguine, vtro (que) inuisibili, spirituali, intelligibili, signatur spirituale Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus palpabile, plenum gratia omnium virtu­tū & diuina Maiestate. That is, the flesh is a sacrament of y ^e flesh, and the bloud is a sacrament of the bloud, by both of them beeing inuisible, spirituall, intelligible, is signi­fied the spirituall bodie of our Lord Iesus Christe which is palpable, ful of the grace of all vertues, and diuine Ma­iestie.’ In these wordes, he calleth the elementes of bread & wine, flesh and bloud, which are sacramentes of his true glorious & palpable bodie which is in heauen: as it is yet more plaine by that whiche followeth: ‘ Sicut ergo coelestis panis, qui caro Christi est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum reue­ra sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet quod visibile, quod palpabile, quod mortale in cruce positum est, vocatur (que) ipsa im­molatio carnis, quae sacerdotis manibus sit, Christi passiō, mors, cruci­fixio, non rei veritate sed significāte mysterio: sic sacramentum fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, fides est. As y ^t heauēly bread which is the flesh of Christ, after a certeine manner, is called the body of Christ, when in very deede it is y ^e sacrament of the bodie of Christ, which beeing visible, which beeing palpable, which beeing mortall, was put on the crosse, & the very offring of his flesh, which is done by the hands of the priest, is called the passion, death, and crucifying of [Page 203] Christ, not in trueth of the thing, but in a signifying mysterie: so y ^e sacrament of faith, which is vnderstood to be baptisme, is faith. In these words he affirmeth, the ele­ments to be the bodie & bloud of Christ, as the action of the Priest is his passion, death, & crucifying: & as baptis­me is faith, not in trueth of the thing, but in a signifying mysterie.’ Chrysostome is alledged to proue y ^t the whole bodie of Christe is in the sacrament. Hom. 24. in 10. ad Cor. 1. Et quando, &c. And when thou seest that thing set foorth, say with thy selfe, for this bodie, I am no more earth and ashes, this bodie being crucified and beaten, was not ouercome by death. This same bodie being bloudied and wounded with a speare, hath sent foorth founteines of bloude and water wholesome to all the world. Here is much a doe, the same bodie is in the sacra­ment which was crucified. Wee knowe Christ hath no more bodies but euen that one, that was crucifyed, & the same is eaten in the sacrament as in a mysterie, signi­ficatiuely, as the same Chrysostome in the same place doth testifie. Quid enim appello inquit communicationem? ‘ id ipsium corpus sumus. Quid significat panis? Corpus Christi. Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christi? non multa, sed vnum corpus. For what do I call it (saith he) a participation? We are the verie same bodie. What doth the bread sig­nifie? the bodie of Christ. What are they made that re­ceiue the bodie of Christ? not many bodies but one bo­die. Lo here the breade signifyeth the bodie of Christe, which was crucified.’ And the faithfull that receiue it, are made the same bodie of Christ that was crucified, but all this in a mysterie, not carnally or corporally. What rea­der of Cambridge he girdeth at, that alledged obiectiōs of Duns against the carnall presence, I knowe not. Duns might frame or reherse more arguments against it, then with al his subtilties he could aunswere: but my thinke M. Hesk. should not enuie this practise, when he himselfe hath neuer an argument nor authoritie almost out of the doctors, but such as he hath of other mens gathering, and not of his own reading, as his manifold mistakins do de­clare, beside wilfull corruptions and falsifications.

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

Of these two being both of the lower house, the te­stimonie of Theophylactus maketh nothing for him, Fulke. the saying of Beda maketh much against him. Concerning Theophylact, let them that list read his sentence, for I compt it superfluous to rehearse their testimony, whose authoritie in this matter I will not stand to. But because the opinion of carnall presence was not receiued in this church of England in the age of Beda, nor long after, I thinke it not amisse, to consider his authoritie. He wri­teth therefore in Ioan. Dixerat superiùs &c. He had sayde be­fore: he that eateth my fleshe & drinketh my bloud, hath life eternall. And that he might shewe howe great a difference is be­tweene corporall meate, and the spirituall mysterie of his bodie & bloud, he added: my fleshe is meate in deede, & my bloud is drink in deede. Here Beda calleth the sacrament a spiritual my­sterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ, which although it be playne against the carnall presence, yet M. Heskins would cloke it with a fonde definition of a mysterie, to be that, (I wot not what,) which conteyneth couertly a thing not to be perceiued by sences or common know­ledge, and so the sacrament is a mysterie, conteyning the verie bodie of Christ. Besides that, he remembreth not that Beda calleth it not onely a mysterie, but a spirituall mysterie, I would wit of him, what it is that Beda cal­leth a spirituall mysterie? if he say y ^e sacrament, I would further knowe, what he calleth the sacrament? he will aunswere, the formes of breade & wine, for so they de­termine forsooth. Well, then Christ would not shewe the difference of the spirituall foode of his flesh & bloud which is the thing conteined, but of the accidents of bread and wine, from the corporall foode. O foolishe conclusion of Beda! or rather, O false definition & coun­terfet exposition of Hesk! For Beda sheweth the excel­lencie of the spirituall mysterie of Christes bodie and [Page 205] bloud, which is our spirituall foode, aboue the corpo­rall foode, and neuer dreamed of M. Heskins mysterie.

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

The text is: Fulke. He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee, and I in him. For vnderstanding of this text, he premiseth a destinction of two manners of abyding in Christ, that is spiritually and naturally: spiritually, by right faith and sincere charitie, as S. Cyrill doth teache, and naturally by receiuing of Christes fleshe, as S. Hil­larie teacheth. This distinction not being made by any doctour, but deuised vpon occasion of termes vsed by the doctours, to ouerthrowe the meaning of the doctours, he pleaseth him verie much therein. I haue shewed before, that Hillarie by the worde naturally, meaneth truelye, that as Christ is truely ioyned vnto vs by taking on him our fleshe, and we are truely ioyned to him, by eating & drinking his flesh, vnder a sacrament, and vnder a myste­rie, (for both these termes of restreint he hath, to shewe the manner of our eating to be sacramentall and mysti­call, not as M. Heskins would, carnall and naturall) so Christ is truely one with God, not in vnitie of will on­ly, but in vnitie of Godhead, in substance of diuinitie, in essence of eternitie. But let vs heare his owne wordes. lib. 8. de Trinit. Quod autem in eo, &c. But that we be in him, by the sacrament or mysterie of his fleshe and bloud, which is com­municated vnto vs, he testifieth him selfe saying: And this world doth not nowe see mee, but you shall see mee for I liue, and ye also shall liue, because I am in my father, and you in mee, and I in you, &c. But that this vnitie in vs is naturall, he hath wit­nessed saying: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, abi­deth in mee, & I in him. For there shall no man be in him, but in whome he shalbe, hauing onely his assumpted flesh in him, who hath taken his. By this place out of which he would buyld his destinction of naturall and spirituall abyding, the same is manifestly ouerthrowne. For the drift of that [Page 206] distinction (as he confesseth) is to shewe, that Christe may abyde naturally, where he doth not abyde spiritu­ally, as in the wicked. But the place of Hillarie is plain, that where this naturall vnitie is, Christe abydeth eter­nally: therefore this naturall vnitie, is not in the wic­ked. Thus, while Maister Heskins harpeth greedily vp­pon the terme naturally, for the naturall presence of Christes bodie, he looseth his distinction, and with all his naturall presence also. For if his bodie be not natu­rally receiued of the wicked, it is not naturally present in the sacrament, as all Papistes do confesse. And fur­ther, that this natural vnitie, is after a spirituall manner, it appeareth by the last wordes of the sentence. That he in whome Christ dwelleth, hath onely the assumpted flesh of Christ in him. But this must needes be after a spirituall man­ner, as the holie and innocent fleshe of Christe is made oures, therefore this naturall vnitie he speaketh of, is not in that sense naturall, that Maister Heskins immagi­neth, but after a diuine and vnspeakable manner. For otherwise, Godly men haue fleshe of their owne, yea, and sinfull fleshe, which is not of the singular substance of the fleshe of Christe, though it be of the nature and kinde thereof, but corrupted with sinne, as his neuer was. Thus the shewe that Maister Heskins would make, by snatching at one worde misunderstoode, by a little diligence vsed in discussing the sentence, is turned alto­gether against him, both in shewe and purpose of the author. The other place he citeth, though he citeth it truncately, contrarie to his promise in his preface, I will cite it whole, as I did before in the 20. Chap. of this book. If the worde in deede be made flesh, and we do verily eat the word made fleshe, in the Lordes meate, howe is he not to be esteemed, to dwell naturally in vs, which being borne a man, hath taken vppon him the nature of our fleshe nowe inseparable, and hath ioyned the nature of his fleshe vnto the nature of aeternitie vnder a sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated to vs. For so wee are all one, because the father is in Christ, and Christ is in vs. Therefore, whosoeuer shall denye the father to be naturally in [Page 207] Christ, let him first denye, that either he is naturally in Christe, or Christ is in him. For the father being in Christ, and Christ in vs, do make vs to be one in them. Therefore if Christ did verily take vppon him the fleshe of our bodie, and that man which was borne of Marie is verely Christe, and we do verily receiue the fleshe of Christe vnder a mysterie, and by this, shalbe one, because the fa­ther is in him and he in vs, how is the vnitie of will affirmed, when the naturall propertie by a sacrament, is the sacrament of perfect vnitie. In these wordes the fleshe of Christe is communicated vnto vs, but vnder a sacrament, wee eate the fleshe of his bodie, but vnder a mysterie: the naturall propertie by a sacrament, is a sacrament of perfecte vnitie.

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

S. Augustine in these words maketh a distinctiō of ea­ting the sacrament of the bodie & bloud of Christ, & of [Page 208] eating the bodie and bloud of Christ: and not onely of eating spiritually & eating carnally, shewing that spiri­tually the fleshe of Christ is eaten, carnally the sacra­ment, which were vaine, if bothe were one. And y ^e whole discourse of that treatise is against that carnall eating of the bodie and bloud of Christ, which M. Heskins him­selfe confesseth to be vnprofitable, yea, damnable with­out the spirituall eating, whereas the spirituall eating, vndoubtedly causeth eternall life. But better to vphold this distinction of Christes naturall & spirituall aby­ding, he citeth a testimonie out of the 11. Sermon de ver­bis Dom. in Euangelio vnder the name of Augustine, which whether it be rightly intituled to him, I will not con­tende.

The wordes are these: Illud etiam, &c. This also that he sayeth: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, abydeth in mee & I in him, how shall we vnderstand? Can wee take them here also, of whome the Apostle sayth, that they eate and drinke their owne damnation, when they eat that fleshe and drinke that bloude? Did Iudas also, the seller and vngodly betrayer of his maister, although he did eat and drinke that first sacrament of his flesh and his bloud made with his own hands, with the rest of the disciples, as Luke the Euangelist declareth more plainly, did he a­byde in Christ, or Christ in him? Finally, many which either with fained heart do eat that fleshe and drinke that bloud, or when they haue eaten and dronken they become Apostataes, do they a­byde in Christ or Christ in them? But truely there is a certeine manner of eating that fleshe and drinking that bloude, after which manner he that shall eate and drinke, abydeth in Christ, & Christ in him. We must receiue this authoritie, so that it may stande with all the rest of the vndoubted workes of Augustine, we must be as bold to distinguish the words, fleshe and bloud, as M. Heskins is the spirituall and na­turall eating. By flesh and bloud aequiuocally, he vnder­standeth the sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christe, as where he sayeth, that Iudas did eate the sacrament of his flesh and bloud, he doth him selfe declare. And then he distinguisheth of the manner of eating, for the sacra­ment, [Page 209] (as Augustine sayth) is eaten of both wicked and godly, but the matter of the sacrament, is not eaten but to eternall life. And that Iudas did not eate the breade that was the Lorde, as we alledged before, and Prosper in his collections out of Augustine plainly defineth: ‘He that disagreeth from Christe, neither eateth his breade, not drinketh his bloud, although he dayly receiue the sacrament of so excellent a matter vnto condemnation of his presumption. Wherefore, although we shoulde receiue this authoritie, yet it proueth not, that wicked men receiue the fleshe of Christ, but onely the sacra­ment thereof, which is in some manner of speaking called the fleshe of Christ, as Augustine euery where af­firmeth.’ Finally, what a blasphemous absurditie is it, to say, that Christ dwelleth naturally in wicked men, in whome he is not spiritually, and that his flesh is there, where his quickening spirite doth not worke?

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

Chrysostome is cited Hom. 45. in Ioan. Qui manducat, Fulke. &c. He that eateth my fleshe & drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in mee & I in him, which he sayeth, that he may shewe him selfe to be ioyned vnto him (M Heskins translateth, mingled) with him, And what this mingling is, he willeth vs to remember, what this author sayeth in the same Homilye: that wee should not onely by loue, but in verie deede be turned into his fleshe, it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath giuen vn­to vs. I will aske no better interpretation, for this must either be a spirituall and vnspeakeable manner of con­uersion, or else it would be a monsterous and blasphe­mous transmutation of our flesh into the flesh of Christ, as I haue diuerse times before noted of this place. But what sayeth S. Gregorie? in Iob. Cap. 6. Natus Dominus, &c. Our Lorde being borne is layd in the manger, that it might be si­gnified, that the holie beaster, which long vnder the lawe were founde fasting, should be filled with the haye of his incarnation. [Page 210] Being borne, he filled the manger, who gaue him selfe to be meate to mennes mindes, saying: he that eateth my fleshe, and drinketh my bloud, abydeth in me and I in him. What winneth M. Heskins by this place? it is the meate of the soule, there­fore it must be spiritually receiued. Or if hee will not haue it onely spiritually receiued, wherefore serueth the text alledged, which he affirmeth to be verified onely in them that receiue spiritually? But we must heare further out of Gregorie in Hom. Pasc. Quid nam (que), &c. For what the bloud of the lambe is, you haue not nowe learned by hearing, but by drinking, which it put vpon bothe the postes, when it is not dronke onely with the mouth of the bodie, but also with the mouth of the heart. What newes haue we here? forsooth, Christes bloud dronke with mouth of bodie, and mouth of heart. I heare him say the bloud of the Pascall lambe, which he sayth, doth figure the sacrament, is so dronke, but not the naturall bloud of Christ. Why then marke what he sayeth soone after: Qui sic, &c. Hee that so taketh the bloud of his redeemer, that he will not yet followe his passion, he hath put the bloud on the one post. In this allegorie, if he call the sacrament of Christes bloude, the redeemers bloud, as he calleth it, the bloud of the lambe, what great marueile is it, or what great matter is it? the whole speache being figuratiue, both allegoricall, and meto­nymicall.

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

Fulke.Cyrill is cited in Ioan. Cap. 15. Qui manducat, &c. Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, abydeth in mee & I in him. Whereuppon it is to be considered, that not by disposition onely, which is vnderstoode by charitie, Christ is in vs, but also by a naturall participation. For, as if a man do so mingle waxe that is melted with fire, vnto other waxe likewise melted, that one thing seeme to be made of them both: so by the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christe, he is in vs, and wee in him. For this corruptible nature of our bodye coulde not otherwise bee [Page 211] brought to incorruptiblenesse and life, except the bodie of natu­rall life were ioyned to it.

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

The seuen and twentieth Chapter, abydeth in the same exposi­tion by Theophylact and Ruperius Tuicen. Hesk.

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

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

As for fryer Haimo, I leaue him to M. Hesk. although in the words cited by him, Fulk. he sayeth nothing greatly to his intent. But for as much as Euthymius Zigabonus▪ doeth often borrowe his expositions of the old doctours, [Page 212] though he him selfe be not so auncient a writer, I will rehearse his testimonie in Math. 26. Si de vno, &c. If all we that are faithfull do partake of one bodie and bloud, wee are all one, by the participation of these mysteries, and we are all in Christ, and Christ is in vs all. He sayth, he that eateth my fleshe & drinketh my bloude, dwelleth in mee and I in him. For the WORDE by assumption was vnited to flesh, and againe, the flesh is vnited to vs by participation. Here M. Heskins no­teth a plaine proofe of the presence, against the proclai­mer. How so? the naturall fleshe was vnited to the sonne of God, and the sonne is vnited to vs by participation. What else? but this participation is by faith, and causeth vs to bee one with Christe, and Christe in vs all, and is not in the wicked, which thing Maister Heskins with a dry foote passeth ouer, as also in translation, he omitteth the word fideles, all wee that are faithfull, because he woulde haue the ignorant to thinke that the vnfaithfull do partake the same flesh, as truely as the faithfull.

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

Fulk.The text is this: As the liuing father sent mee, and I liue for the father, and he that eateth mee, shall liue al­so for mee, or by the meanes of mee: In exposition of this text, he will onely declare by Saint Augustine: Howe Christ liueth by the father: which because it is no mat­ter of controuersie betwixt vs, I do altogether omitt, & come to Cyrillus, whose wordes concerning an [...] thing our question are these, for the rest, as impertinent, I passe ouer. Quemaedmodum ego factus, &c. As I am made man by the will of my father, and liue by the father: because I haue naturally flowed out of that life which is so of nature, & per­fectly do keepe the nature of my father, so that I also am natural­ly life: euen so he that eateth my fleshe, shall liue for mee, being wholly reformed vnto mee which am life, and am able to giue life. And he sayeth, that he him selfe is eaten, when his fleshe is [Page 213] [...]aten. Because the worde was made fleshe, not by confusion of natures, but by the unspeakable manner of vnion. Here Maister Heskins noteth, that Christe is eaten when his fleshe is eaten, as a man doth see when his eye, or rather his soule by the eye doth see, &c. For the godhead is not eaten, therefore it cannot be spiritually eaten, but verily. Still he maketh spirite and trueth contrarie, as though what soeuer were done spiritually, were not done verily. But he remembreth not that Cyrill sayeth, that he which eateth this fleshe, is wholy refourmed or fashioned a­newe into Christe. Whereby hee doth not onely ex­clude wicked men, but also teache a spirituall eating, as the reformation is spirituall. And as the worde was made fleshe by an vnspeakable vnion, so wee by ea­ting that fleshe, are ioyned to him, by an vnspeaka­ble vnion.

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

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

The text is: Fulke. ‘This is that breade that came downe from heauen, not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernesse, and are dead. He that eateth this bread shal liue for euer. Saint Ambrose is alledged, lib. 8. de initi­andi, but I thinke he should saye Capit [...] 8. de mysterijs initi­andis: Reuera mirabile, &c.’ Truely, it was maruellous, that God did rayne Manna to the fathers, and that they were fedd with dayly foode from heauen. Wherefore it is sayde, man did eate the breade of Angels. But yet they that did eate that breade in the wildernesse are dead. But this breade which thou receiuest, this breade of life, which came downe from heauen, giueth the substance of eternall life. And whosoeuer shall eat this breade, [Page 214] shall not dye for euer. And it is the body of Christ. M. Heskins noteth, that he calleth it the body of Christ, as though a­ny man doubted thereof: ‘But the same Ambrose rea­cheth, that it must bee spiritually receiued, in the same booke, Chap. 9. In illo sacramento Christus est, quia corpus est Christi, non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritualis est. In that sacra­ment Christ is, bicause it is the body of Christe, therefore it is not corporall but spirituall meate.’ If it be spiritu­all meate, it must be spiritually receiued and not corpo­rally, as it is no corporall meate.

Now followeth a long sentence of Chrysostome, Hom. 46. in Ioan. which Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth to make no great mention of the sacrament, yet bycause he saith it followeth vpon his iudgement of the sacrament, I will set it downe to be considered. He saith therefore, he that eateth my flesh shall not perish in death, he shall not be dam­ned. But he doth not speake of the common resurrection (for all shal ri [...]e again) but of that cleere and glorious which deserueth reward. Your fathers haue eaten Manna in the wildernesse, and be deade. He that eateth this bread, shall liue for euer. He doeth oft repeate the same, that it might be imprinted in the mindes of the hearers. This was the last doctrine, that he might confirme the faith of the resurrection and euerlasting life: wherefore after the promise of e­ternall life, he setteth foorth the resurrection, after he hath shew­ed that shall be. And howe is that knowne? By the scriptures, vnto which he doth alwayes send them to be instructed by them. When he saith, it giueth life to the world, he prouoketh them to emulati­on, that if they be moued with the benefite of other men, they will not be excluded them selues. And he doth often make mention of Manna, & comparing the difference, allureth them to the faith: For if it were possible that they liued fourtie yeares without haruest & corne, and other things necessarie to their liuing, much more nowe when they are come to greater things. For if in those figures they did gather without labour the things set foorth nowe truely, much more where is no death, and the fruition of true life. And euery where he maketh mention of life. For we are drawne with the de­sire there of, and nothing is more pleasant then not to dye. For in the olde Testament long life and many dayes were promised, but [Page 215] nowe not simply length of life, but life without end is promised. Herevpon hee noteth, that we are come to greater things in the sacrament, then the Iewes did in Manna. I graunt the faithfull come to greater thinges then the vnbelee­uing Iewes, of whome and to whome our sauiour Christ speaketh. Otherwise they that were faithfull, did eate the same spirituall meate in Manna that we doe in the Sacrament. 1. Cor. 10. But if the reall presence be not in the sacrament (saith Maister Heskins) Manna is greater then a bare peece of breade. This comparison is topsi­turuie. Chrysostome compareth bare Manna, which the wicked receiued, with the body of Christ, which the god­ly take: Maister Heskins compareth Manna to bare breade.

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

Hierome is cyted, Ad Hedibiam quęst. 2. Si ergo panis, &c. Fulk. Then if the bread, which came downe from heauen, is the body of our Lorde, and the wine, which he gaue to his disciples, be his bloud of the newe Testament, which was shed for many in remission of sinnes, let vs cast away Iewish fables, and let vs ascend with our Lorde into the great parler, paued and made cleane, and let vs take of him aboue, the cuppe of the newe Testament, and there holding the Passeouer with him, let vs be made dronke by him with the wine of sobrietie: for the kingdome of GOD is not meate and drinke, but righteousnesse and ioye and peace in the holy Ghoste. Neither did Moses giue vs the true bread, but our Lord Iesus, hee being the guest, and the feast, hee him selfe eating, and which is euen. ‘(S. Hierome proceedeth with y ^t which M. Hes. omit­teth.) His bloud we drinke, and without him we can not drinke it, and daily in his sacrifices we tread out new redd wine of y ^e fruit of the true vine, and of the vine of Sorech, which is interpreted chosen: and of these wee drinke the wine new in the kingdome of his father, not in the olde­nesse of the letter, but in the newenesse of the spirit.’ By these words, & more that foloweth, it is most euident, that [Page 216] Hieronyme speaketh of spirituall eating by faith: as al­so by that he saith, we ascend with Christ into the parler, by which he meaneth heauen, and there aboue, we receiue the cup of the newe Testament. Maister Heskins noteth that the bread which descended from heauen is the body of our Lorde. But he must beware he say not, that the na­turall body of Christ descended out of heauen. Againe, he forgetteth not to repeat that that bread is the body of Christe: but he will not see in Hieromes wordes, that Christ gaue wine to his disciples. Cyrillus is cyted thus, Non enim prudenter, &c. Those things which suffice for a short time, shal not wisely be called by that name: neither was that bread good, which the Elders of the Iewes did eate and are dead. For if it had bene from heauen, and of God, it had deliuered the parta­kers of it from death. Contrariwise, that body of Christe is bread from heauen, bicause it giueth the eaters of it eternall life. Cyrill saith, the body of Christe is the bread that came downe from heauen, and which giueth eternall life being eaten, euen in the sacrament, all this we confesse alwayes. But as the body of Christe did not naturally descend from heauen, which he receiued here on earth, no more spea­keth he of a carnall presence, or corporall manner of ea­ting, but yet of his very flesh and bloud, eaten spiritually by faith.

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

Fulk.Saint Augustine is cyted, Tract. 26. i [...] Ioan. Hic est pa­nis &c. This is the bread which came downe from heauen, that by eating thereof, we might liue, bicause we can not haue eternall life of our selues. Not (saith he) as your Fathers did eate Man­na, and are deade. He that eateth this bread▪ shall liue for euer. Therefore that they are dead, he would haue it so to be vnderstoode, that they should not liue for euer. For truely they also die tempo­rally that ea [...] Christ, but they liue eternally, bicause Christ is eternall life. Maister Heskins wondereth what gloses the aduersa­ries inuent vpon this saying, but I maruell what hee can [Page 217] picke out of it for his purpose, except it bee this, that who so euer eate Christ, shall liue for euer, but that I am sure, hee will none of. The saying of Theophylact, (but that I stand not on his authoritie being a late wri­ter) seemeth to be directly against him. For hee saith, that The Lorde by his flesh which he tooke of the Virgine Marie, shall preserue our spirituall nature. Which as it is very true, Ioan. 6. so must it needes inforce a spirituall receiuing. For our spirituall nature can not receiue carnally or corpo­rally: but onely spiritually. And yet the wise man noteth in his margent, a plaine place for the proclamer, which is plaine against his owne purpose.

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

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

For bicause they had flesh, they thought he would compell them to be deuourers of flesh and bloud. But bicause we vnderstand him spiritually, we neither are deuourers of flesh, but rather we are sanctified by such a meate. This place for any thing that I can see therein, is directly against the carnall ea­ting of the Papistes, sauing that Theophylact lyuing in a corrupt time, writeth in other places suspiciously, of the carnall presence and transubstantiation. Nowe where Maister Heskins chargeth vs, to be Caparnaites, whome he calleth Sacramentaries, and derideth our carnall vn­derstanding, bycause wee can not conceiue howe Chri­stes very body should bee in the sacrament, except it should occupie a place and bee felt with our senses, let the world iudge whether our vnderstanding or theirs [Page 218] bee more spirituall or else more grosse, and like the Ca­pernaites.

Hesk.The foure and thirtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text: Si videritis, &c. by Saint Augustine and Saint Cy­rill.

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

For exposition hee cyteth Augustine, Tr. 27. in Ioan. Quid est hoc? Hinc soluit &c. What is this? by this he resol­ueth them, whome he knewe, by this he hath opened whereby they were offended, by this plainely, if they would vnderstand. For they thought that he would giue foorth his body: but he saide, that he would ascend into heauen whole. When you shall see the sonne of man ascending where he was before, certainly euen then at least you shall see, that he giueth not foorth his body after that manner, that you thinke: certainly euen then at least you shall vnderstand, that his grace is not consumed with bytinges. Although this place is so directly against him, that nothing can bee more plaine: yet hee is not ashamed to cyte it for his purpose. Affirming, that Augustine by these wordes, denyeth not the giuing of Christes bodye, but the man­ner of the giuing of his bodye. This wee confesse, but what manner of giuing doth hee denye? Maister Hes­kins saith: onely the giuing of it by lumpes and peeces, as the Capernaites did imagine. But that is false, for [Page 219] he denieth, not onely the giuing of Christes bodie by lumpes, but also al corporall and carnall manner of gi­uing thereof, as both these wordes aboue cited, and the whole discourse of that treatise doth shew most euident­ly. First he saith, that Christ by telling them of his ascen­tion, doth clearely resolue them, and open plainely where at they were offended: Which is very true. For when they should see that he carried his naturall bodie, whole into heauen, they might well perceiue, that he would not giue that bodie to be eaten after a corporall manner, either in peeces, & much lesse in the whole. For y ^e giuing thereof in whole, is much more monstruous, then the giuing therof in peeces. And if there remained a corporall receipt of his whole bodie, notwithstanding his absenting thereof from the earth, the doubt by his ascention is nothing at all re­solued, but by an hundreth times more increased. Againe where he saith after his ascention: Then you shall see, that he giueth not his bodie after the manner that you thinke, then you shal vnderstand that his grace is not consumed with bitings. By these wordes, he doeth plainely determine, of the man­ner of giuing, that the Iewes thought, which was corpo­rall, whether it were in whole or in peeces, and after what manner Christes bodie is giuen, namely by grace. But Maister Heskins citeth another place out of Augustine In Psalm. 98. to proue, that he denieth the giuing of his bodie by lumpes or peeces. But the place is altogether a­gainst him, if he had alledged the whole, and not cut it off in the waste. Tunc autem, &c. Then when our Lorde setting foorth this had spoken of his flesh, and had saide, except a man eate my flesh, he shall not haue in him life euerlasting. Some of the se­uentie were offended and saide: This is an harde saying, who can vnderstand it? And they departed from him and walked no more with him. It seemed a harde thing to them which he saide: Except a man eate my flesh he shall not haue eternall life. They tooke it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and they thought that our LORDE would cut certeine peeces of his bodie and giue them, and they saide: this is an harde saying. Here stayeth Mai­ster Heskins: but it followeth in Augustine.

[Page 220] ‘ Ille a [...]tem instruxit eos, &c. But he instructed them, and saith vnto them: it is the spirite that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirite and life. Vnderstand you spiritually that which I haue spoken. You shal not eate this bodie which you see, & drinke that bloud which they shal shed, which shall crucifie me. I haue commended vnto you a certeine sacrament or mysterie, which beeing vnderstoode spiritu­ally shall giue you life. Although it be needefull that it be celebrated visibly, yet it must be vnderstoode in­uisibly.’ In these wordes Augustine denieth, not onely the giuing of his bodie in peeces, but all maner of corpo­rall eating of his naturall and visible bodie, and aduou­cheth onely a spirituall vnderstanding of this text, that we haue beene so long in expounding. But M. Heskins willeth vs not to triumph before the victorie, for Augu­stine In sermo. ad Neophy. hath a plaine place for M. Iewel. Hoc accipite in pane, &c. Take ye this in the bread, that did hang on the crosse: Take ye this in the challice, that was shed out of the side of Christ. He shall haue death not life, that thinketh Christe a lyar. If M. Heskins had expressed in what booke or [...]ome, I should haue sought for this sermon Ad Norphil. he might haue spared me a great deale of labour which I haue lost in searching for it and yet cannot finde it. There are many homilies and sermons of Augustine Ad Neo­phyl: and yet in none of them can I reade that whiche he aduouched out of him. It seemeth therefore that this place is taken out of some later writer y ^t without iudge­ment ascribeth it to Augustine, which is not to be found in his workes: And yet the saying is not such but y ^t it may haue a reasonable interpretatiō, for y ^e bread (after a certein maner as Augustine speaketh) is y ^t which did hang on the crosse, & the wine is y ^t which was shed out of his side, y ^t is sacramētally, but not naturally or after a bodily maner. S. Cyril followeth ca. 22. sup. 6. Ioan. Ex imperitia multi, &c. Many that folowed Christ for lack of knowledge, not vnderstanding his wordes, were troubled. For when they had hearde, Verily, verily I say vnto you, Except you shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man [Page 221] and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you: they thought they had bene called by Christ to the cruell manners of wilde beastes, and prouoked that they would eate the rawe flesh of a man, and drinke bloud, which are euen horrible to be heard: for they had not yet knowen the fourme, and most goodly dispensation of this mysterie. This also (moreouer) they did thinke: howe shall the flesh of this man giue vs eternall life? Or how can he bring vs to immortalitie? Which things when he vnderstod to whose eyes all things are bare and open: he driueth them to the faith by an other maruelous thing: Without cause (saith he) O syre are ye troubled for my words. And if you will not beleeue that life is giuen by my bodie vnto you, what will you do, when you see me flie vp into heauen? I doe not onely say that I will ascend, least you should aske againe how that should be, but you shall see it with your eyes so to be done. Therfore what will you say when you see this? Shall not this be a great argument of your madnesse? For if you thinke that my fleshe can not bring life vnto you, how shall it ascend into heauen like a birde? How shall it flye into the ayre? For this is a like impossible to mankinde. And if my fleshe beside nature shall ascende into heauen, what letteth but it may likewise beside nature giue life? Cyrill noteth (as M. Heskins saith) two vaine thoughtes of the Capernaites, one of eating raw the flesh of Christ, the other how y ^t flesh shuld giue life, the latter he answereth at large, the other breefely, they vnderstoode not the fourme and dispensa­tion of the mysterie, by which he meaneth the spirituall & mysticall maner of receiuing his bodie, cleane contra­rie to their grosse imagination, for otherwise the ascen­tion of Christe would not answere that doubt, but in­crease it. Maister Heskins citeth another text, to shewe the power of Christes fleshe, whiche is needelesse, for it is confessed of vs to be such, as he himselfe hath decla­red it to be. Non verbo soliù, &c. In Ioan. 14. He did not onely with his worde raise dead men, but also with his touching, to shewe that his bodie also doth giue life. If then with his onely touching, corrupted thinges are made sound: how shall we not liue, which doe both tast and eate that fleshe? it will without all doubt refourme againe to immortalitie the partakers thereof. Neither doe thou inquire after the Iewish manner, how? But remember that although water by [Page 222] nature be colde, ye [...] by comming of fire to it, forgetting her coldene [...], it boyleth with heate. Here M. Heskins will not allowe vs our glosse, that Cyril speaketh of the spirituall receiuing of Christes flesh, because he teacheth more then once, that we are ioyned to Christ not onely spiritually, but also af­ter the flesh, and that by eating the same flesh: as though we could not truely be partakers of the fleshe of Christe▪ by a spirituall receiuing of him, not onely in the sacra­crament, but also by faith, without the sacrament. And Cyril saith, we doe both taste and eate his flesh, whiche of necessitie imployeth a spirituall manner of receiuing, for other tast we haue not of Christes flesh, but spirituall and by faith. In the ende of the Chapter to deliuer him­selfe & his fellowes from the grosse errour of the Caper­naites, he scoffeth finely at our spirituall sifting of the sa­crament so fine, that we leaue nothing but the bare bran of the signifying signe in our owne hand, whiche is the grosse bread we feede on. If we taught a bare signe or bare bread in the sacrament, there were some place for Maister Heskins ieaste. But when we teache that presence and receiuing, which Maister Heskins so often confesseth to be onely profitable, and which we finde in the scrip­tures and auncient doctors, we haue the sacrament so per­fectly boulted and fined to our hand, that we acknow­ledge no branne or drosse at al to be in the bread, neither yet any dregges at all in the cuppe, whatsoeuer there is in the Popish challice, which the priest hath sucked and lic­ked so drie, that there is not one droppe of the bloud of Christe in it, to quench the thirst of the poore people.

Hesk.The fi [...]e and thirtieth Chapter proceedeth, in the exposition of the same text, and endeth it by Euthymius, and Petrus Cluniacensis.

Fulk.Euthymius is cited In 6. Ioan. following the expositi­on of Cyrillus, as he doth often of the olde Greeke wri­ters. Si ergo videritis, &c. If therfore ye shal see, the sonne of man ascending where he was before, what will you say? He speaketh of the assumption of him selfe into heauen, ascending according to his [Page 223] humanitie, where he was before, according to his Diuinitie. For he that can make this fleshe heauenly, can also make it meate of men. Maister Heskins inferreth vpon this saying, that the argu­ment of the ascention vsed by Christ, is vaine to proue the spirituall eating, but good to proue the reall eating of his fleshe. Note here first, that he counteth the argument of his ascention expounded and vsed by Augustine in the Chapter next before, to be vaine. Secondly although Cy­rillus vseth the argument of Christes ascention, to prooue that Christes flesh being eaten, may as well giue life, as it could ascend into heauen, doth it therefore proue a reall, corporal, or carnal presence, & eating of Christes bodie, which is taken away by his ascention? But he saith, The flesh of Christ was spiritually the meate of the holie fathers in the olde lawe, therefore that needed not to be proued possible, which was knowen so long before. A wise reason, as though Christ had to doe with faithfull Iewes, and not with Infidels, that nei­ther knew nor beleeued, any such matter: or, if hee had spoken to the Patriarches them selues, as though they had knowne and vnderstoode the mysteries of Christ so distinctly and plainly, that Christes instruction had bene needelesse to them. But Maister Heskins in all his argu­ments and expositions almost, setteth downe that, as cer­teine and granted, which is the whole matter in contro­uersie. His meate is flesh in deede, his flesh is not eaten spiritually, &c. He must haue an easie aduersarie, or else he shall gaine litle by such petition of principles. The saying of Pe­trus of Clunie, though he be but a late writer, conteineth more against him, then for him, for he denieth the man­gling of Christs flesh after the Capernaites imaginations, and teacheth, that it is Diuided without paine, parted without diminution, and eaten without consumption, because it is the spirite that quickeneth, and because his fleshe beeing so receiued and vn­derstoode, giueth eternall life. What can we here vnderstand but a spirituall receiuing?

The sixe and thirtieth Chapter createth of the next text by Au­gustine, & Chrysostome. Hesk.

[Page 224] Fulke.This text is this: it is the spirite that quickeneth, the fleshe profiteth nothing. This text is made so familiar (he saith) that boyes and girles can blatter it against Christes presence in the sacrament, as though they denied the ver­tue of his fleshe, that denie your carnal presence in the sa­crament. But we must heare Saint Augustine. Tract. 27. In Ioan. Quid est quod adi [...]ngit, &c. What is that he ioyneth? It is the spirite that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing? Let vs say vnto him for he suffreth vs not gainsaying but desirous to know) O Lord good Maister, how doeth not the flesh profite any thing, when then hast said: except a man eate my flesh, & drink my bloud, he shal not haue life in him? Doth not life profite any thing? And wherfore are we that that we are, but that we may haue eternal life, which thou doest promise by thy flesh? What then is it: it profiteth not any thing? The flesh profiteth nothing, but as they vnderstoode it. For they vnderstoode fleshe so, as it is rent in peeces in a dead bodie, or solde in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit: It is ther­fore so saide: the flesh profiteth nothing, as it is saide: knowledge puffeth vp a man. Shall we nowe then hate knowledge? God forbid. And what it is then? Knowledge p [...]ffeth vp? beeing alone without charitie. Therefore he added: But charitie doth edifie. Therefore adde charitie to knowledge, and knowledge shalbe profitable, not by it selfe but by charitie So now likewise the fleshe profiteth nothing, that is the fleshe alone. But let the spirite come to the flesh, as chari­tie commeth to knowledge, and it profiteth verie much. For if the flesh had profi [...]ed nothing: the worde should not haue beene made flesh that it might dwell in vs. If Christ haue profited vs much by his flesh, how doeth the flesh profite nothing at all? But the spirite by the flesh hath done some thing for our health. The fleshe was that vessel, marke what it had in it, not what it was. The Apostles were sent, did their flesh profite nothing? If the flesh of the Apostles profited vs not, could our Lordes flesh not profite vs? For how came the sound of the word vnto vs but by the voyce of the flesh? From whence the stile? From whence the writing? All these workes be of the flesh, but the spirite mouing it as his instrument. Therefore it is the spirite which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. As they vnderstoode flesh, so do I not giue my flesh to be eaten. Maister Heskins doth glorie that he bringeth not this sentence [Page 225] truncately as the heretiques do, but wholy, that the reader should not be defrauded of S. Augustines right meaning, vpō this scripture. And here again he repeateth his rotten distinction, that Christ giueth not his flesh by lumpes & peeces, yet giueth it corporally, & that S. Augustine mea­neth none otherwise. But as long a sentence as he rehear­sed, he hath omitted the very interpretation of his text in hand. Which Augustine maketh in these wordes: Quid est spiritus & vita? Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt. What is spirite and life spiritually to be vnderstanded: neither is there one worde in all that treatise for the corporall presence, or receiuing. And yet we cōfesse that Christ truly giueth vs his fleshe, & we are truely fed therewith, but not after a corporall maner, but after a spiritual & vnspeakable ma­ner. Chrysostome is cited hom. 46. In Ioan. Quid igitur? caro, &c. What then? Doth the fleshe profite nothing? He speaketh not of the very flesh, God forbid, but of them that carnally take those things that are spoken. And what is it to vnderstand carnally? Sim­ply as the thinges are spoken, and not to thinke any other thing of them. For th [...]se thinges that are seene, are not so to be iudged, but all mysteries are to be considered with inwarde eyes, that is spiritu­ally. He that eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my bloud, hath no life in him selfe. How doeth the fleshe profite nothing without the which no man can liue? See that this particle (The flesh profiteth not any thing) is not spoken of the fleshe it selfe, but of the carnall hearing. M. Hesk. saith that Chrysostome needeth no ex­positor, to open his exposition. And I am of y ^t same iudg­ment. For he is so plaine against al grosse and carnal ima­gination, about these mysteries, that nothing can be plai­ner. He saith to vnderstand these thinges in y ^e sixt of Iohn simply, as they are spoken, is to vnderstād them carnally, which ought not to be, for all mysteries must be vnder­stood spiritually, the receiuing of Christ in the sacrament is a mysterie, therfore it must be vnderstāded spiritually.

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

Theophylacte following Chrysostome, Fulke. as he doth very much, whē he is not carried from him by the corruption [Page 226] of his time, saith That the wordes of Christ must be vnderstood [...] spiritually: Whervpon M. Hesk. maketh an obiection, how those words may be vnderstood spiritually, & yet y ^e carnal presence & receiuing retained? He answereth, y ^t the Papists also confesse, the words of Christ must be vnderstode spi­ritually, and first alledgeth Theophylacte, to proue that he allowed the carnal presence, which though they do not vndoutedly proue it, yet considering y ^e time in which he liued, it may be granted that he did allow it. What then? Marie spiritual vnderstāding letteth not y ^e carnal presence. But I haue shewed before y ^t while Theophylact wold fol­lowe Chrysost. & yet mainteine the errour of his time, no maruel though he were contrarie to himself. But spiritual vnderstanding by M. Hesk. definition, is to vnderstand, y ^t these thinges are not done by any naturall meane, but by the spirit of God, namely transubstantiation & such like. But Chrysostom as we sawe in the Chapter before, deter­mined otherwise of spirituall vnderstanding of this scrip­ture, namely, that the sayings must not be taken simply as they are spokē, but as mysteries be considered w ^t y ^e inward eyes. But M. Heskins hath a plaine place for the proclay­mer out of S. Aug. serm. Ad Infant: Quod videtis in altari pa­nis est, &c. That which you see on the altar is bread and the cuppe, which also your eyes do shew you. But that faith requireth to be in­structed: the bread is the bodie, the cup is the bloud. In the mind of some man such a thought may arise, Our Lorde Iesus Christ we know whence he receiued flesh, namely of the virgin Marie, he was nourished, grewe vp, was buried, rose again, & ascended into hea­uen, thither he lifted vp his bodie, from whence he shall come to iudge both the quick & the dead. There he is now siting at the right hand of the father, how is therfore bread his bodies? or that which is in the cuppe how is it his bloud? Brethren, therefore those things are called sacraments, because one thing is seene in them, another thing is vnderstanded. That which is seene, hath a corporall forme, that which is vnderstoode hath a spirituall fruite. What plainnes is in this place, except it be against transubstantiation, and the reall presence, let the readers iudge. And withal I must ad­monish them, that M. Hesk. citeth it farre otherwise then [Page 227] it is in Augustine, beside y ^t he leaueth out that which fol­loweth, & maketh all the matter as plain as a pack staffe, which are these words: Corpus ergo Christi, &c. ‘Therfore if y ^u wilt vnderstand the body of Christ, heare the Apostle say­ing to the faithful: you are the bodie of Christ & his mē ­bers. If you therefore be the bodie of Christ & his mem­bers, your mysterie is set on y ^e table, you receiue y ^e Lords mysterie, you answer Amen to y ^t which you are, & in an­swering you consent. Thou hearest therefore the body of Christ, & thou answerest Amen. Be thou a mēber of the bodie of Christ, that thy Amen may be true. Why then in bread? Let vs here bring nothing of our owne. Let vs also heare the Apostle. Therfore when he spake of this sacra­ment he saith: One bread, we being many are one bodie.’ Vnderstand this and reioyce. By these wordes it is moste manifest that Augustine excludeth the carnall presence, affirming the elementes to be the bodie and bloude of Christ, euen as we are the bodie and members of Christ, and that is spiritually & mystically: & as we are y ^e bread, namely by significatiō, & not by transubstantiation. The testimonies of Algerus and Bernard I leaue to M. Hesk. for that they are without the compasse of the challenge.

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

Euthymius is cited In 6. Ioan. in these words: Spiritus est qui viuificat, &c. It is the spirite that quickeneth. Fulk. Now he calleth the spirit, the spiritual vnderstanding of those things which are said: likewise the flesh, to vnderstand them fleshly. For the speech is not now of his flesh which quickeneth. Therefore he saith: to vnderstand these thinges spiritually, giueth that life, which I spake of before: but to vnderstand them carnally it profiteth nothing. Maister Hesk. wold fain make Euthymius to speak for him, if he could tell how to wring him in, but it wil not be. Spiritual vn­derstanding is, as Chrysost. before in the 36. Chap. hath declared, & not as M. Heskins would racke it, to make it stand with his grosse and carnal vnderstanding. From the iudgement of Lyra as no compotent Iudge, I appeale, al­though in this place he speake nothing for M. Heskins, [Page 228] but rather against him, for he agreeth with the rest that the wordes must be spiritually vnderstanded.

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

Fulk.The text is this: the wordes that I speake vnto you are spirite and life, of which Augustine writeth thus: Tra. 27. In Ioan. Quid est, &c. What is it, they are spirite and life? They are spiritually to be vnderstoode. Hast thou vnderstoode them spiri­tually? they are spirite and life. Hast thou vnderstoode them car­nally? Euen so also they are spirite and life, but not to thee. M. Heskins hauing once made a blind determination of spi­rituall vnderstanding, taketh spirituall vnderstanding wheresoeuer he findeth it for carnal vnderstanding, & car­nall vnderstanding for spirituall vnderstanding, without all ryme or reason. Hom. 46. in Ioan. ‘But still Chrysostome lyeth in his way: to vnderstand carnally, is to vnderstand things sim­ply as they are spoken, for all mysteries must be vnder­stood with inward eyes, that is, spiritually. When the in­ward eyes see the bread they passe ouer the creatures, nei­ther do they thinke of that bread, which is baked of the baker, but of him, which called himselfe the bread of e­ternal life.’ Cyril is cited Cap. 24. In 6. Ioan. Verba quae, &c. The wordes which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life. He shew­eth that his whole bodie is full of quickening vertue of the spirite. For here he called his very fleshe, spirite, not because it lost the na­ture of flesh, & is changed into the spirite: but because beeing per­fectly ioyned with it, it hath receiued the whole power to quicken. Neither let any man think, this to be spoken vndecently, for he that is surely ioyned to the Lorde, is one spirite with him. How then shal not his flesh be called one with him? It is after this manner there­fore which is saide: you thinke I said this earthly and mortall bodie of his owne nature to be quickening or giuing life, but I spake of the spirit & life. For the nature of the flesh of it self cānot quicken, but the power of the spirite hath made the fleshe quickening. There­fore the words, which I haue spokē, that is those things which I spoke vnto you are spirite and life, by which my fleshe also liueth and is quickening. Cyrill hauing his minde still bent against the [Page 229] Nestorians, earnestly auoucheth y ^e trueth of Christes flesh vnited to his Diuinitie, but for M. Hesk. purpose he saith nothing at all, I meane for the carnal maner of receiuing Christes fleshe in the sacrament. The name of Capernaites M. Hesk. so much misliketh, that he would turne it ouer to vs, if he could inuent any balde reason to proue it a­greeing to our doctrine. The sacramentaries he saith are carnal and grosse, because they say that Papistes receiue nothing but bare flesh, and not the flesh of Christe, which is vnited to the Deitie, and giueth life. But indeed the Pa­pistes say as much, when they say that the flesh of Christ is receiued, where it giueth no life. As for those whome he calleth sacramentaries they wil not graunt, y ^t the Papistes (although they prate so grossely of flesh & bloud,) yet re­ceiue any thing, but a wafer cake, & a draught of wine.

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

Euthymius to end this long and tedious processe, Fukle. is ci­ted, as before In. 6. Ioan. Verba quae, &c. The wordes which I speake vnto you are spirite and life, they are spirituall and quicke­ning. For we must not looke vpon them simply, that is vnderstand them carnally. But imagine a certeine other thing, and to beholde them with inward eyes as mysteries, for this is spiritually to vnder­stand. Euthymius affirmeth the same, that Chrysostome doeth Hom. 46. In Ioan. and almoste in the same wordes, neither can M. Hesk. drawe any thing out of thē to serue his humor, but that the sacramentes are mysteries, and therefore some other thing must be present, then is seene with the outward eye: which is true, so it be such a thing as may be seene onely with the eyes of the mind, of which the authour speaketh. But the bodie of Christ, as Aug. saith, euen immortall and glorified, is stil visible. Ep. 85. Consentio. To wrangle about y ^e sentence of Lyra it were losse of time, who although he wil haue a real presence, yet he wil haue The flesh of Christ to be eaten in the sacrament after a spirituall maner, because the spirite by the power of God v­nited to the flesh is refreshed. Wherevpon M. Hesk. reiecting [Page 230] the true spirituall manner of eating Christes fleshe in y ^e sacrament by faith, as hereticall, which he hath so often before allowed, as onely profitable: setteth vp three o­ther spirituall manners of Christes presence in the sa­crament for three causes. First, because it is wrought by the spirite of God. Secondly, because, although it be ve­rily present, it is not knowen by corporall sence, but by spirituall knowledge of faith. Thirdly, because our spirite by the power of God, is vnited to the fleshe: of these deuises he maketh Lyra the author, and he may bee well ynough. For such blinde teachers, while they wran­gled about words, they became altogether vaine in their imaginations, and lost the true sence and meaning, both of the worde of God, and of the sacraments. The ray­ling stuffe wherewith he concludeth this Chapter, and this worthie expositiō continued in 36. Chapters, I passe ouer as vnworthie of any answere.

Hesk.The one and fortieth Chapter beginneth, the exposition of these wordes of Christ: this is my bodie, after the minde of the aduer­saries.

The first part of this Chapter conteyneth a fonde and lewde comparison of the doctrine of the Sacramentaries, Fulke. with the temptation of the diuell, vsed to our firste pa­rents▪ which, because it sheweth nothing but M. Hesk. witt and stomake, I omitt. It hath more colour of rea­son that he bringeth in afterward: namely that there are two things, which ought to moue men to resist the tem­tation of the sacramentaries: their contrarietie to the worde of God, and their contrarietie among them selues. Their contrarietie to the worde of God, he sayeth to bee, where Christ sayde: This is my bodie, Sathan sayth, it is not his bodie. In verie deede, if after Christe hath sayde, the bread and wine are his bodie & bloude, any man shuld rise vp & saye, they are not his bodie & bloud at al, we might well iudge y ^t he spake by the spirite of Sathan: as when Christe sayeth, drinke ye all of this, & the Pope sayth to the people, there shall none of you all drink of [Page 231] this, we may easely acknowlege the spirit of Antichrist. But we (whome he calleth sacramentaries) doe with all reuerence & humilitie confesse, that the bread & the wine ministred according to Christes institution, are the body & bloud of Christ, in such sence, as he saide they were. And we say with S. Augustine: ‘ Per similitudinem Christus multa est quae per proprietatem non est. Per similitudinem & pe­trae est Christus, & ostium est Christus, & lapis angularis est Christus, &c. By similitude, Christ is manie things, which he is not by propertie. By similitude the rocke is Christ, y ^e dore is Christ, the corner stone is Christ, &c.’ Wherfore, we affirme nothing contrarie to the words of Christ, but al­together agreeable to his meaning. For contrarietie of Sacramentaries among them selues, he citeth a saying of Luther written in his frowardnesse, that there shoulde be eyght seuerall disagreeing spirites among the Sacra­mentaries, from which, if you take away Carolostadius, Swenkfeldius, Campanus, and the eight without name, which is belike H. N. opinion, that euery man may think of it what he list, whose opinions the godly, whome hee calleth sacramentaries, did euer more detest as wicked & vngodly: there remaineth y ^e interpretation of Zwing­lius, of the wordes of Christ, This signifieth my bodie: & of Oecolampadius, This is a token of my bod [...]e: & two other, Receiue the benefits of my passion: and Take this as a monument, or remembrance of my bodie crucified for you, which differ in forme of wordes, and are all one in deede and meaning. So is the iudgement of Melancthon: this is the participation of my bodie: And of Caluine, yet not as Heskins like a lewde lyer slaunde­reth him, to say, This is the verie substance of my bodie, but it is not my bodily substance, but agreeing in effect with all the rest, that the verie bodie of Christ is receiued, but not after a carnall or bodily manner, but after a spirituall & vnspeakable manner. As for the fiue sectes numbred a­mong the Lutherans, which dissent from vs in this point, we make none accompt of them.

Thus, where M. Hesk hath gathered, as he reckoneth, [Page 232] sixteene seueral sectes, foure of them being condemned of vs for hereticall, with the authors of them, fiue agree­ing with the papistes in the carnall presence, and Luthers owne secte, if he dissent from them, as Heskins maketh him to doe, the sixt, tenne are of vs generally refused. The other sixe, that remaine in Maister Heskins num­ber, are falsely forged to disagree, when they holde all one thing in effect, although they expresse the same thing in diuerse formes of wordes, as it is not possible for diuerse interpreters, though they agree in sense and interpretation, to iump all in one forme of words, for then all commentaries should be one. But as God gi­ueth his giftes diuersely, some expound the scriptures briefely, some more at large, some more plainly, some more obscurely: so all these, and fiue hundred more, (God be thanked) learned men either in writing, or in preaching, haue shewed the vnderstanding of Christes wordes, hardly fiue of them agreeing in all termes and phrases, yet all moste sweetely consenting in one sense, and meaning, which consent and agreement is more no­table, when it is vttered in so many diuerse formes of wordes. And yet, to take away all cauels and flaunders, all the churches for the moste parte in Fraunce, Scotland, Sauoy, Heluetia, Germanie, Hungarie, Piemont, Polo­nia, &c. beside the persecuted Churches of Italians, Spa­nyards, and others, haue subscribed to one forme of con­fession, concerning not onely the sacrament, but all o­ther principall poyntes of religion, which wee do like­wise receiue in this Church of England. And if disagre­ing of men among themselues, were a matter of such importance, it were no harde thing, to shewe the bat­tels of the schoole doctours among the Papists, not one­ly about other matters, but euen about the manner of the presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament, & trans­substantiation. If you say, all these, whome you reiecte, as the Lutherans in this poynt, the Swinkefeldians, Ana­baptistes, Libertines, Henrinicolaites, and such other, do all disagree with you, from the Catholike church of [Page 233] Rome, therefore you are all together naught. By this reason, all Christianitie might bee condemned of the Iewes and Gentiles, because so many sectes and heresies as be vnder the name of Christianitie, together with the true Church of Christe, be all against Iudaisme & Gen­tilisme. But agreeing or disagreeing of men among themselues, is a weake argument, to proue or disproue any thing, onely agreeing with the trueth, is a sure rea­son to allowe, and disagreeing from the trueth, is a cer­teine argument to refuse, either men, or matter propoun­ded by them.

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

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

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

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

[Page 234]And out of all controuersie, this manner of speache v­sed by Saint Luke and Saint Paule, is a manifest inter­pretation of the wordes vsed by S. Mathewe, and Saint Marke, this is my bloud, which are all one in sence and meaning, and teache vs howe the wordes spoken of the breade are to be interpreted, this is my bodie, this is the newe testament in my bloude, which is as much to saye, this is a seale, and confirmation of the newe couenaunt, (which is remission of sinnes) purchased by the breaking of my bodie, and the shedding of my bloud for you. This breade and this cuppe receiued of you, shall assure you, that you are truely incorporated into my bodie, & so made partakers of eternall life. This interpretation hath in it nothing farre fetched, or strange, from y ^e words of Christ, & y ^e vsuall maner of speaking in the scripture.

But nowe M. Heskins will proue, that the wordes of Christ are to be vnderstanded without trope or figure, by the slaunders of the Infidels, which defamed y ^e Chri­stians in the primitiue Church, for eating the fleshe of men and of children, as appeareth in Euseb. lib. 5 Cap. 2. & 3. in the storie of Blandina and Attalus martyrs: when they did eate the flesh of Christ. But none of them, nei­ther in Eusebius, nor yet Iustine, Origen, Tertullian, or any other that haue written Apollogies, defended the Christians, by the commaundement of Christ, to eat his bodie, but vtterly denyed and derided the slaunder, that they were sayde, to eat the fleshe of men or children, as they did other slaunders, which had no ground nor si­militude of trueth, as that they worshipped an Asses head, y ^t they companyed together in the dark like brute beastes, and such like: whereas, if they had eaten the na­turall fleshe of Christ, as the Papists teache, they woulde neither haue simply denyed y ^e eating of a mans flesh, nor yet haue spared to shewe, how it was eaten vnder the formes of bread & wine, to auoide all crueltie and loth­somnes. As for the legend of S. Andrewes passion, which M. Heskins sayeth was written per Presbyteros & diaconos Achaie, is of as good credit, as y ^e booke of Beuis of Hamp­ton, [Page 235] y ^e like I say of y ^e fable of Amphilochius a newe found olde writer: concerning the Iewe, that sawe a childe di­uided when the sacrament was broken. The Legend and festiuall haue many such miracles. But why did he not see a man diuided, seeing Christe is not nowe a childe, but a man? Belike the authours of those miracles thought, that if they feigned him to be a little child like Tom Thumb, their miracles should be more credited, that such a one should be conteined in their cake, rather then a tall man of perfect stature. O impudent asses! But it proueth wel the reall presence (saith M. Hes.) that Auerrois a Philoso­pher saith: I haue walked ouer the world, I haue found diuers sectes, and yet haue I found none so foolish a sect. is is the sect of the Christians. For they deuour with their teeth their God whome they worship. Hereof it is easie to perceiue (saith he) that y ^e fame was, that they did receiue and eate Christ, whom they ho­noured. But herein M. Hes. bewrayeth either his falshood, or his ignoraunce. For hee speaketh as though Auerrois were an ancient Philosopher, that liued in the dayes of the primitiue Church, whereas he was a Spanish Mahometist, or rather Athist, not past three or foure hundreth yeres a­go, when Poperie was in y ^e greatest pride, and Idolatrie co­uered the face of the earth. His saying therfore proueth no­thing, but how great an offēce y ^e popish Idolatrie did giue to y ^e Heathen, Turkes, and Iewes. And whereas Iustinus in his Apollogie to the Emperour, declareth whatsoeuer was done in the assemblies of the Christians, he well dischar­geth them of all slaunders that were raised against them, but defendeth not the corporall eating of mans flesh by the commaundement of Christ, although he confesse that they receiued that breade not as common bread, nor as common drinke: but as their flesh and bloud was nouri­rished by that foode, so they were persuaded that it was the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ for the spiritual foode of their soules.

As for the curse that Rupertus threatneth to them that adde vnto the word of God▪ pertaineth not to them y ^t giue the true sense of the word of God, whether it be in more [Page 236] wordes or fewer. And whereas Rupertus saith these words of Christ, I am a vine, and this is my body, be no like spea­ches: I confesse, they are not in euery respect, bicause in the one he did institute a sacramēt, in the other he taught as by a similitude, the true end, vse, and signification of the sacrament. Yet are they not altogether vnlike, bicause they are both figuratiue, and so iudged and compared to­gether by the auncient Fathers. But Rupertus will proue by two reasons, that the latter is no figure. First, bicause in the former, there is a continuation of the Allegorie, which proueth it to be a figure, in the other there is none such. This is a fond reason, for both we haue shewed a continuation of the trope, where he saide, this cup is the newe Testament, and although there were none, yet that can not exclude a figure, no more then when baptisme is called regeneration, when the lamb is called the Passeo­uer, which be sacramentall speaches and such like, where no continuation of the figure followeth. The other rea­son of Rupertus, M. Heskins diuideth into two parts. The first is, to note the enunciation of both scriptures, for he doth not take a braunch of a vine, and say, I am this vine, or this vine is my body, but he saith of the bread, this is my body. A strong reason: he saith (as signanter) by a cer­taine demonstration of substaunce, and speaking of the same sacrament, That rocke was Christe, and in the time when it was a sacrament, it was and might be truely said, pointing to the rocke, this is Christ, and to the water issu­ing out of it, this is the bloud of Christ, and so no doubt, Christ spake by his spiri [...]e in the consciences of the faith­full. The second part of Rupertus reason is, that y ^e wordes which followe, which is giuen for you, &c. can not be ap­plied to the figure, therefore the sense of that place is pro­per, and not figuratiue. But contrariwise, these wordes can not be applied to the sacrament, therefore the speach is not proper but figuratiue, and shewe howe the breade and the cup are the body and bloud of Christe, namely, as his body is broken and his bloud shed for vs, for the ver­tue of the sacrament standeth in his passion, by which his [Page 237] body and bloud offered in sacrifice for our sinnes, are made a spirituall foode of our soules. The conference that Rupertus maketh betweene the words of Christ, and the wordes of the serpent, I passe ouer, as containing no argument in them for the proofe of M. Heskins bill, but onely shewing the corrupt iudgement of the authour, whose reasons I am content to weigh, but I esteeme not his authoritie, as being a late prop of the Popish church.

The three and fortieth Chapter beginneth to proue the vnder­standing of Christes foresaid wordes not to be figuratiue, by the au­thoritie of the Fathers. And first by Alexander and Iustinus. Hesk.

Iustine is alledged in this second Apologie in a cor­rupt Latine translation, Fulk. which he maketh worsse by falsi­fying the same in his English translation. The place hath bene already considered in the first booke Chap. 27. ac­cording to the originall Greeke copie. I will nowe re­hearse the same after his Latine translation, and after­ward shewe M. Heskins falsification. Cum autem &c. When he that is ouerseer hath giuen thankes, and all the people haue as­sented, they which are called Deacons with vs, do distribute to euery one that is present, that they may take part in the breade in which thankes is giuen, and of the wine and water, and carie it to those which are not present. And this foode which is called thankes giuing: Of which it is not lawfull for any other to take part, but he that beleeueth those things to be true which are taught by vs, and which is washed in the lauer vnto remission of sinnes and regene­ration, and so liueth as Christ hath taught. Neither do we take these thinges as common bread and a common cup: but euen as by the word of God Iesus Christ our sauiour being incarnate, had both flesh and bloud: so we are taught that the foode through the prayer of his word being consecrated by thankesgiuing, of which our flesh & bloud by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh & bloud of Iesus Christ, which was incarnate. For the Apostles in their cōmentaries, which are called Gospels, haue taught that he did so cōmaund them, That when he had taken bread & giuen thanks, he said, Do this in remembrance of me, this is my body. And likewise when he had ta­ken the cup and giuen thankes that he said: This is my bloud, and gaue first to them alone. M. Heskins hath falsified this author [Page 238] in his translation. First, where he turneth is qui pręest, the prieste, as though there were Masse priestes in that time. Secondly, quae docentur a nobis, that be taught of vs, as though none should receiue the sacrament, but they which beleue the real presence, which he surmiseth to be taught to thē. ‘But more notably, where he translateth these wordes: Sie verbi sui oratione, consecratum gratiarum actione alimentum, ex quo caro nostra, & sanguis per transmutationem aluntur, ipsius in­carnati Iesu Christi & carnem & sanguinem esse educti sumus. Into this English, with foysting in a parenthesis, and chaunging his letter. EVEN SO WE BE TAVGHT THAT THE FOODE (wherewith our flesh and bloud be nourished by alteration) WHEN IT IS CONSECRA­TED BY THE PRAYER OF HIS WORD, TO BE THE FLESH AND BLOVD OF THE SAME IE­SVS INCARNATED.’ In this beastly racking & per­uerting, he hath left out thank [...]giuing, not knowing wher to place it. The cause of this falsification is, for that he can not abide, that the food after it is consecrated, shuld nou­rish our bodies, which Iustinꝰ doth most expresly affirme. But before I proceede to his collections, I will gather my selfe out of this place, that which the Papistes wil not wel like of, and yet although they would burst for anger, thei can not auoyde, but that they be necessarie collections. First, that there was no priuate Masse in his dayes, for all that were present did communicate. Secondly, that the people, as well as the ministers, receiued in both kindes. Thirdly, that the things wherof they were partakers, were bread, wine, and water, which after they were consecrated, were the nourishment of their bodies. Now let vs heare M. Hes. collection for the reall presence. First he saith not, these things were signes, figures, tokens: therefore they were none. A tried argument of the authoritie, of a man negatiuely. Secondly he saith, they were taught that by consecration, they were made by y ^e power of Gods worde, the flesh and bloud of Christ that was incarnated. We be­leue the same likewise. Thirdly M. Hes saith, the real pre­sence was as certaine to the primitiue Church, as the incar­nation. [Page 239] So saith not Iustinus, neither that the sacrament was the same substance of naturall flesh and bloud of Ie­sus that was incarnat by that diuine & wonderful means, by which he was incarnate, and this do we most constant­ly beleeue. And therefore here is no plaine place for the proclamer to proue the reall presence, whereof Iustine speaketh none otherwise, then the proclamer did speak, & beleeue while he liued.

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

‘Euen so we are taught that that foode after thankes are [Page 240] giuen for it by prayer of his word, of which our flesh and bloud by permutation are nourished, is the flesh and bloud of that Iesus which was incarnated. So are the very wordes of Iustine.’

But to helpe out the matter, Ambrose is alledged. Lib. 4. de sacra. Cap. 5. Before it be consecrated it is bread, but when the wordes of Christ are come to it, it is the body of Christ. But the same Ambrose in the same booke and Chapter, saith of the sacrament in the prayer of the Church: ‘ Fac nobis, in­quit, hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilē: quod est figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi. Make vn­to vs (saith the priest) this oblation ascribed, reasonable, acceptable: which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. By these wordes it is manifest, how Ambrose and the Church in his time, tooke the breade to be the body of Christ.’ The like may be said of Augustine, whose wordes M. Heskins cyteth, De verbis Domini, ser. 8. Before the wordes of Christ that which is offered is called breade, when the words of Christ are spoken now it is not called breade, but is called his body. Who seeth not y ^t these words are vttered by comparison, it is not caled bread, but his body, that is, it is rather called his body then bread, as S. Paule saith, Christe sent me not to baptise, but to preach, that is, ra­ther to preach then to baptise?

But nowe commeth in the authoritie of Alexander somtime Byshop of Rome, to which I will not vouchsafe to make any answere, bicause it is a meere forgerie and counterfet Epistle, as all y ^e pack of these decretall Epistles are, y ^t are feined in the name of those auncient holy Mar­tyrs, sometimes Bishops of the citie of Rome, by some lewde Losel, that could not write true Latine, as is easie to see of all men that will take paines to read such beastly baggage. I will giue you a taste of this counterfet Alex­ander, speaking of holy water: If the ashes being sprinkled with the bloud of a heifer did sanctifie the people, much more shall water sprinkled with salt, and hallowed with godly prayers. See howe the brutish blasphemous Asse, transferreth the argument of the Apostle, Heb. 9. from the precious bloud [Page 241] of Christ to his beggerly holy water. I wil therfore leaue M. Heskins rooting with his groyne in this draffe sacke, and passe to the next Chapter.

The foure and fortieth Chapter by occasion of the wordes of A­lexander, treateth of the adoration and honouring of Christes bo­dy in the sacrament. Hesk.

It is a worshipfull Alexander, that gaue you the occa­sion of this discourse by his wordes. But let the occasion goe, we will looke to the matter. First he rehearseth halfe a side of M. Iewels wordes against the adoration of the sacrament, out of which he gathereth two arguments, the one thus: Christ neuer gaue cōmandement to worship the sacra­ment: ergo, it is not to be done. This argument he answereth is negatiue, and therfore concludeth nothing. But vnder correction of his great Logike, when God chargeth vs to do that onely, which he commaundeth, an argument of negatiues of Gods commaundement concludeth al things to be vnlawfull, which God hath not commaunded. Hee bringeth examples of many that worshipped Christe, yet had they no commaundement of him so to doe. A great number worshipped him not as God, but as the Prophete of God, for which they had commandement in the lawe, and they that worshipped him as God most especially. But M. Heskins will make the like argument, Christ gaue the sacrament of his body to the Apostles onely, and gaue no com­maundement that all people should receiue it indifferently, where­fore it ought not to be done. Reuerend M. Doctour, I denye your antecedent, for ye can not proue, that he gaue it only to his Apostles, nor that he gaue no commaundement, for he gaue an expresse commaundement to continue y ^e same ceremonie vntil his comming againe, as S. Paule doth te­stifie. Therefore your argument is as like, as an apple is like an oyster. But to passe ouer the rest of his babbling against the proclamers learning, too well knowne, to bee defaced by such an obscure Doctours censure: I come to his second argument. S. Paule that tooke the sacrament at [Page 242] Christes hand, and as he had taken it, deliuered it to the Corinthi­ans, neuer willed adoration or godly honour to be giuen to it. This argument he will not vouchsafe to aunswere, as conclu­ding nothing, but he denyeth the antecedent, saying, It is false, that S. Paul deliuered no more to the Corinthians then Christ did. First he will make Paule a lyar, when he saide, that which I receiued I deliuered, &c. But howe will he proue that he deliuered more then Christ did? If you can spare laughter in reading, I could not in writing. Forsooth S. Paule deliuered to the Corinthians, that the vnwoorthie receiuer shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of Christ, whereas Christ when he instituted the sacrament gaue no such lawe. O noble Diuine! as though that if Christ at his supper had vsed no longer discourse of this sacrament, then those fewe words, which the Euangelistes doe rehearse, as a summe thereof, yet it was not necessarily to be gathered, that the vnworthie re­ceiuer contemning the body & bloud of Christ, which is offered to him, is guiltie of haynous iniurie against the same, and therefore it is necessarie that euery one that re­ceiueth it, should examine him selfe that hee receiue it worthily. Whether Christ receiued Iudas or no, which is not agreed vpon: but if he did, knowing him by his di­uine knowledge to be a reprobate, though not yet dis­couered to the knowledge of man, hee gaue vs none ex­ample to receiue notorious wicked persons, whome wee as men knowe to be vnwoorthie without repentance.

But to make the matter out of doubt, Saint Paul, though not by the terme of adoration, yet willed honour to be giuen to the sacrament. When he saith, let a man examine him selfe, and so let him eate of this bread, and drinke of this cup. For a man cannot ex­amine him self without great honor giuē vnto the sacrament. And for more manifest proofe, Saint Paule referreth the honour or dishonour that is done by woorthie or vnwoorthie receiuing, not to the grace of GOD, or merite of Christes passion, but to the sacra­ment. Who so eateth this breade, and drinketh this cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily, shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ. Nay rather, hee referreth the honour or contempt of the sacrament to the body and bloud of Christe, whose sa­crament [Page 243] this is, as the wordes are plaine. But who would thinke that Maister Heskins would play the foole so e­gregiously, to abuse his reader with ambiguities and ae­quiuocations? as though there were no difference be­tweene adoration and honouring, that is, giuing of due reuerence vnto the sacraments, and worshipping them as Gods. But S. Augustine (I trowe) helpeth him, Ep. 118. ad Ian. Placuit &c. It hath pleased the holy Ghost, that in ho­nour of so great a sacrament, the body of Christ should enter into the mouth of a Christian man before other meates. I holde him as blinde as a beetle, that seeth not honour in this place to signifie reuerence, which is giuen to holy things, and not adoration, which pertayneth onely to GOD. His last reason to proue, that Saint Paul taught the adoration of the sacrament, is that, which is the whole controuersie, that Saint Paule taught the carnall presence, but that re­maineth to bee proued afterward.

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

This is a meere mockerie, the Bishop speaketh against adoration of the sacrament as God, M. Heskins proueth, Fulke. that it is to bee honoured, that is to say, reuerenced as a holy ceremonie. And none otherwise then the sacra­ment of baptisme, as wee shall see by his proofes. First, Chrysostom being one that is named by the Bishop, ma­keth so cleere mention thereof, as M. Heskins thinkes, the reader will maruell, hee was not ashamed to name him. And what saith he? De sacerdotio lib. 6. thus he writeth: Quum autem ille &c. But when he (meaning the Prieste) hath called vpon the holy Ghost, and hath finished that sacrifice, most full of horrour and reuerence, when the common Lord of all men is daily handled in his handes: I aske of thee in what order shall wee place him? Howe great integritie shall we require of him? How great religion? For, consider what handes those ought to be, which doe minister, what manner of tong, that speaketh those words. Finally, then what soule, that soule ought not to be purer and holier, which hath receiued that so great and so worthie a spirit? At that time euē the Angels do set by the Priest, and all the order of heauenly powers [Page 244] lifteth vp cryes, and the place neere to the altar in honour of him which is offered, is full of the companies of Angels. Which thing a man may fully beleeue, euen for the greate sacrifice which is there finished. And I truly did heare a certain man reporting, that a cer­taine wonderfull olde man, and one to whome many mysteries of re­uelations are opened by God, did tell him, that God did once vouch­safe to shewe him such a vision, and that for that time he sawe as farre as the sight of man could beare, soudenly a multitude of An­gels clothed in shining garments compassing the altar, finally so bowing the heade, as if a man should see the souldiers stand when the king is present, which thing I do easily beleeue. In these words Chrysostom doth hyperbolically amplifie the excellen­cie of the Ministers office, vnto which no man is sufficient. But notwithstanding, he rehearseth a vision by hearesay, of angels reuerencing the presence of God, to aduance the dignitie of the ministerie, yet speaketh he not one worde, that the sacrament is to be worshipped & adored as God. And therefore M. Heskins maketh a poore consequence, the ministration of y ^e sacrament is honourable: ergo, much more a man ought to honour the sacrament. The mini­stration of baptisme is honourable, doth it therefore fol­lowe, that the water of baptisme is to be worshipped as God? An other testimonie he cyteth out of Chrysostomes Liturgie, which he calleth his Masse, which though it be out of doubt none of Chrysostomes penning, yet maketh it nothing for the adoration of the sacrament: Thou that fittest aboue with the father, and art here present with vs inuisibly, vouchsafe to giue vnto vs thy vndefiled body, and thy precious bloud, and by vs to al the people. Then the Priest adoreth, and the Deacon in the place where he is, thrice sayth secretly. God be mer­cifull to me a sinner. And all the people likewise with godlinesse and reuerence do adore. It is said here they doe adore, but not the sacrament, but God. For here haue passed no words of the consecration as yet by the Papistes owne rule, therefore this adoration can not be referred to the sacrament. And yet M. Heskins is so blockish to gather, that he fitteth in heauen, and yet is here present, as though he were present in body before they had prayed that he would giue them [Page 245] his body, &c. But yet an other place of Chrysostome, Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. Christus suam, &c Christe hath giuen v [...] his flesh, that we might be filled therewith, whereby he hath allured vs very much into his loue. Let vs therefore with feruencie and most vehement loue come vnto him, that wee suffer not a more gree­uous punishment. For the greater benefite we take, so much more shall wee bee punished, when wee shall appeare vnwoorthie of it. This body did the wisemen reuerence in the manger, and being both vngodly men and barbarous, after they had ended a long iourney with much feare and trembling did worship it. Let vs therfore that are citizens of heauen folow those strangers. For they when they did see only that manger and cottage, and none of those things which thou nowe beholdest, came with great reuerence and horrour. But thou seest it not in the manger but in the altar, not a woman which holdeth it in her armes, but the Priest present, and the spirite so aboundantly powred vpon the sacrifice that is set foorth. Neither doest thou see a simple body, as they did, but thou doest acknowledge his power, and all the administration. And thou art not ignorant of any of the thinges that by him were made, and t [...]ou art diligently instructed in all thinges. Let vs be stirred vp, and tremble, and declare more godlinesse then those barbarous men ▪ Note here▪ reuerence and trembling, but no wor­shipping of the sacrament, no, not although he saith the wise men did worship his body in the manger, yet dare hee not conclude, that wee ought to adore it in the sacra­ment. Wherefore it is intollerable, that M. Heskins ga­thereth that in the first place, he declareth that it is to be honoured, in the second, he declareth the practise of him selfe, his ministers, and all the people in worshipping it, & in the last y ^t he prouoketh al men to honor it in the al­tar by the example of the wise men. For none of these three can be concluded out of y ^e same places. Next folow­eth Ambrose, De spiritu sanct. lib. 3. cap. 12. Per scabellum terra &c. By the footstoole the earth is vnderstood, and by the earth the flesh of Christ, which as this day also we do adore in the mysteries which the Apostles, as we haue saide before, did adore in our Lorde Iesus: For Christ is not diuided, but one. By adoring, he meaneth the reuerent vse of the mysteries, and not worshipping y ^e [Page 246] sacraments as though Christ were present in them, as he is in heauen, for that he acknowledgeth not, but only a sa­cramentall presence, as hath beene shewed often already, & more shalbe, as occasion serueth. And he saith we wor­ship or reuerence the flesh of Christe in the mysteries, he saith not we worship the mysteries as the flesh of Christ. Finally we worship Christ in the sacramentes as we do in the word, and yet we imagine no carnal presence in either of them. Yea, we honor him, his ministers, both ciuil Ma­gistrates, and Ecclesiasticall teachers, & yet we haue none of thē as transubstantiated into Christ. The last is S. Au­gustine In Psal. 98. Adore ye the footestole of his feete, for it is holie. But see brethrē what he biddeth vs to adore. In another place the scripture saith: Heauen is my seate, & earth is the footestoole of my feete. Then he commandeth vs to adore the earth, because he said in an other place, that it is the footestoole of God. And how shall we adore the earth? when the scripture saith plainely, thou shalt a­dore the Lord thy God, and here he saith, adore his footestoole. And expoūding to me what is his footstoole, he saith: the earth is my foot­stoole, I am made doutful, I am afraide to adore the earth, least he condemne me, which hath made heauen and earth. Againe, I am afraid not to adore the footstoole of my Lord, because the Psalme saith to me, Adore ye his footstoole. Thus wauering vp and down I turne me vnto CHRISTE, because I seeke him here, and I finde howe without impietie the earth may bee adored, with­out impietie his footestoole may be adored. For he hath taken on him earth of the earth, because flesh is of the earth, & of the flesh of Marie be tooke flesh. And because he walked here in that flesh, and gaue that flesh to be eaten of vs to saluation: And no man eateth that flesh except, he do first adore it, it is found out how such a footestoole of the Lord may be adored, and we should not onely not offend in adoring, but offend in not adoring. The Papists make no small accompt of this place, and yet there is no place in al S. Augustines workes, y ^t maketh more against them then this, if it be wel marked with that whiche fol­loweth. For first he saith not that the sacrament must be, or may be worshipped as God, but that the flesh of Christ may be worshipped as the earth, which is Gods footstool, [Page 247] whereunto Diuine honour is not to be giuen, but reue­rence as to an holie thing, & no man eateth his flesh, but he that before hath worshipped it, not as really present in the sacrament, but he that hath reuerently acknowled­ged his incarnation, passion, and giuing of his flesh to be holsome vnto vs. But to put al out of doubt, he so maketh the sacrament Gods footestoole, that he doeth expressely denie speaking in the person of Christ, y ^t his bodie which was seene and crucified should be eaten, but a sacrament which being spiritually vnderstood, should quicken them or giue them life. The place hath beene already once or twise set downe. Non hoc corpus quod videtis mandicaturi estis, &c. You shall not eate this bodie which you see, &c. The corporall presence therefore being flatly taken away by S. Augustine in that place, it is easie to see what kinde of worship is left to the sacrament.

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

[Page 248]After this he saith, the same that the Christians did ho­nour Ceres and Bacchus, proueth their adoration of the sa­crament. A substantiall proofe I promise you. It may ar­gue they had some vse of bread & wine in their religion, but no adoration of it. For the Heathē men did not take bread and wine to be Ceres and Bacchus, but Ceres and Bacchus to be the Gods of bread and wine. S. Augustine is cited Contra Faust. Lib. 2 Cap. 13. Quomodo &c. How then do­est thou compare our bread and cuppe, and sayest that errour which is farre differing from the trueth to be like religions beeing more madde then some which for the bread and the cuppe thinke vs to honour Ceres and Bacchus? The Heathen did offer bread and wine to Ceres and Bacchus, so they imagined y ^t the Chri­stians did, not that they honored bread and wine, as Mais­ter Heskins dreameth. The like is to be saide of the other place. Si [...]ut a Cerere, &c. As we are farre from Ceres and Bac­chus the Gods of the Pagans, although we imbrace after our man­ner the sacrament of the bread and the cuppe, which you haue so praysed as you would be equall with vs: so our fathers were farre from the chaynes of Saturne, although for the time of the prophesie they haue obserued the vacation of the Sabbaoth. Because there is nothing in this place for the purpose, M. Heskins after his accustomed manner, hath falsified the worde by wrong translation, to deceiue the vnlearned. For he hath transla­ted, Quamuis amplectamur sacramentum, although we honor the sacrament. Yet again S. Augustine is cited In Psal. 48. Edent pauperes, &c. The poore shall eate and be satisfied. What eate they? That which the faithful know. How shall they be satisfied? In following the passions of their Lord, and not without cause taking their price. What do the riche? They also do ease: but how do they eate? All the riche of the earth haue eaten and worshipped. He saith not, they haue eaten and are satisfied: but they haue eaten and wor­shipped. They do in deede adore God, but they will not shewe bro­therly humanitie, they eate and adore, these eate and are satisfied, yet all do eate. Augustine saith expresly the rich adore God, but of adoring the sacrament he speaketh neuer a worde. Last of all he citeth him Ep. 120. ad Honoratum. Neque enim frustra ita distincti sunt, &c. Neither are they without purpose so [Page 249] distincted, that before it was said of the poore: The poore shall eate and be satisfied: And here all the riche of the earth haue eaten and haue worshipped. For they also are brought to the table of Christ, and receiue of his bodie and his bloud, but they doe adore onely, they are not also satisfied, because they doe not followe. For eating the poore men, they disdaine to be poore because Christ suffered for vs leauing v [...] an example, that we should followe his steppes. This place being the same in effect, that the next before, hath neuer a worde of adoring the sacrament, but that Maister Heskins in his drowsie head dreameth, that where menti­on is made of eating and worshipping, it must needes fol­lowe that those thinges are worshipped which are eaten. And thus you see how pithily he hath proued the adora­tion of the sacrament, out of those Authours, whome the proclaymer named, as making no mention thereof.

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

First he taketh this principle, Fulke. that if Christe verie God and man, be there, he is to be honored: but that is the mat­ter in question, although it doeth not followe, if he were there, that the sacramēt is to be worshipped. The doue was an vndoubted sacrament of the presence of the holie Ghost, so was the fiery tongs, yet none of them worship­ped. For God wil not be worshipped in outward shapes, as he hath often testified in the lawe, otherwise then he hath appointed, therefore would he not appeare in any visible fourme vnto the people, least they should be deceiued to worship God therein. But to his Doctours. The first is E­rasmus who pleaseth him wel, in affirming that he would still worship Christe in the Eucharistie. Then he pres­seth his principle of the reall presence, and that he will proue by Algerus, that was more then 400. yeres before him, & then by Paschasius that was more then 200. yeres before Algerus, and last of all by Leo that was more then 400. yeares before Paschasius. As for Algerus and Pas­chasius as being farre without the compasse of the chal­lenge [Page 250] I wil passe ouer and come to Leo: sauing that I wil note, that though Paschasius alledgeth Hilarie, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyrill, and the counsell of Ephesus, he doeth but wrest their sayings, as the Papists do now to vphold y ^e errour y ^t was not so olde in his time. The wordes of Leo are Ep 22. ad Constant. Separentur & huiusmodi, &c. Let such men be separated from the holy member of the bodie of Christ, nei­ther let the Catholique libertie suffer the yoke of the vnfaithfull to be laide vpon it. For they are to be accounted without the house of Gods grace, and without the sacrament of mans health, which de­nying the nature of our flesh in Christ, doe both speake against the Gospell, and striue against the Symbole. Neither doe they perceiue through their blindenesse, that they are brought into such a steepe place, that they stand neither in the truth of the Lords passion, nor of his resurrection for both is made voide in our sauiour, if flesh of our kinde be not beleeued to be in him. In what darkenesse of igno­rance, in what sluggishnes of sloth haue they [...] hitherto, that they would neither learne by hearing, nor acknowledge by reading that, which in the Church of God, in the mouth of all men, is so agreeably spoken? That not as much as of the tongues of infantes, the veritie of the bodie and bloud of Christ is vnspoken of among the sacraments of the common faith: for in that mystical distribution of that spi­rituall foode, this thing is giuen foorth, this thing is receiued, that receiuing the vertue of that heauenly meate, we may goe into his fleshe, which was made our fleshe.

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

Secondly, it is manifest that Leo speaking against the heretiques Eutyche [...] and Dioscorus, setteth forth the truth of Christs bodie & bloud, as one of the common knowen sacraments or mysteries of Christian faith: & saith neuer a word of his carnall presence in the mysterie of his sup­per, but contrariwise teacheth that it is a mystical distri­butiō, [Page 251] a spiritual food, an heauēly meat, which words im­port not a carnal maner, but a spiritual maner of presēce & eating. Thus real presence (as he termeth it) being not yet proued, y ^e adoration cannot follow, as he pretendeth.

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

The first doctor named, Fulk. is Dionysius Areopagita dis­ciple of S. Paule (as he sayeth) Eccles. Hierarch. 3. parte. Cap. 3. who maketh this prayer to the sacrament: O verie god­ly & holie mysterie, opening fauourably the couerings of signify­ing signes, wherewith thou art couered, shine openly and apertly vnto vs, & fill our spiritual eyes with the singuler & open bright­nesse of thy light. That this Dionyse, although of some an­tiquitie, yet is not that Dionyse, that was conuerted by S. Paule, nor any that liued 600. yeres after, at the least, it is plaine by this reason; that neither Eusebius, nor Hie­ronyme, nor Gennadius, which wrote the Catologs of all ecclesiasticall writers, that were before them, or were fa­mous in the church in their time, nor yet any other wri­ter within the compasse of 600. yeres after Christe, ma­keth any mention of any such Dionyse, to be a writer of those bookes, which are saide to be written by him. Now touching his supposed prayer, it is but an exclamatiō re­thoricall, named apostrophe, not vnto the bread & wine, but to him, that in that mysterie is represented, which is Christ, that he would vouchsafe to open him self, & shine in the hearts of the faithfull, as the outward signes are seene w ^t the outwarde eyes. And that he allowed no tran­substantiation, it is manifest by that he saith in the same place, that the Bishop doth after consecration, cut in pee­ces the vndiuided bread, & speaking of y ^e sacrament, doth often affirme, that by those symboles or signes, wee are changed into God & Christ, meaning, we are renewed by his spirite, but neuer affirmeth, the bread & wine to bee turned into the bodie & bloud of Christ. Howbeit, what I iudge of his authorite & antiquitie, I haue declared be­fore. The next is Gregorie Nazianzen in Epitaph. Gorgo­niae sororis. Quid igitur, &c. What then did the soule both [Page 252] great & worthie of greatest things, and what remedie had shee a­gainst her infirmitie? For nowe the secreat is disclosed, when shee had dispaired of all other, shee flyeth to the Phisition of all men, and taking the solitarinesse of the night, when the disease had gi­uen her a little respite, shee fell downe with faith, before the al­tare, and with a lowde voice and all her might, shee called vppon him which is worshipped at is, and vnto him shee rehearsed all the myracles that he had done of olde time. M. Heskins imma­gineth, that it was such an altare as they haue in the po­pish Churches, which is vntrue, for it was a table, & men stoode round about it, as is to be proued by many testi­monies of antiquitie. Secondly, he immagineth, that y ^e sacrament was hanged ouer the altare to be worshipped, as it is among them, but that is vtterly false: for it was receiued at such time as it was consecrated, except some remanents that were kept to be eaten. Therfore, though shee made her prayer at the altare, shee made no prayer to any thing vppon the altare, but to God, whome shee did worship and reuerence, and whose mysteries shee v­sed to receiue at the same altare. Therefore M. Heskins falsifieth Gregories words, which are these: [...], &c. but thus they are turned by him into latine, ante altare cum fide procubuit, & illum quem super altare veneraba­tur &c. Shee prostrated her selfe with faith before the altar, and called vpon him whome shee worshipped vpon the altare. But Gregorie sayeth: [...], in it, or at it, meaning the al­tare where shee prayed. ‘And to put all out of doubt, y ^t shee worshipped not the sacrament vppon the altare, it followeth afterwarde? [...]. And if her hand had layde vp any where, any parte of the figures of the precious bodie, or of the bloud, that shee mingled with teares, O marueilous thing! and immediatly departed feeling health.’ By these wordes it appeareth, that shee brought this remanent of the sacrament with her, which Gregorie calleth [...], the signes or tokens, or figures [Page 253] of the bodie and bloud of Christ, and not the verie na­turall bodie of Christe: and those shee worshipped not, but wett them with teares, whether superstitiously let the Papistes iudge, for they them selues will allowe no such fashions, nor yet reseruation for such purposes, but as for adoration of the sacrament, which is the matter in­tended, here is none spoken of in this place. After this, he toucheth the facte of Satyrus the brother of S. Am­brose, which is aunswered before, lib. 1. Cap. 24. whose hope was in God, and not in the sacrament. Although Satyrus as a young nouice, not throughly instructed in Christian religion, cannot simply be defended, though he may be excused, howsoeuer by his brother Ambrose he is highly commended. Then followed Eusebius Emis­ser [...]us Hom. Pascal. Because he woulde take away his assumpted bodie from our eyes, and carrie it into heauen, it was needefull that this day he should consecrate vnto vs the sacrament of his bodie and bloud: vs coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in precium: that it might be continually worshipped or exercised by a mysterie: (for colere signifieth both) whiche was once offered for our price.

M. Heskins gathereth hereof, that the same bodie, should be honoured by mysterie, whose visible presence not his bodie, was taken away from the earth. But Euse­bius sayeth, not onely that he would take his bodie from our sight, but also place it in heauen, and in steede ther­of, he leaueth the sacrament of his bodie and bloude, which no man doubteth, but it ought to be honoured, as so high a mysterie deserueth, but not as God or Christe. The other saying of Eusebius, which hee addeth, doeth shewe, howe it is to be honoured: When thou commest to the reuerende altare to be satisfied with heauenly meates, beholde with faith the holy bodie and bloud of thy God, honour it, wonder at is, touch it with thy minde, take it with the hande of thy heart, and cheefely, receiue it with the inwarde draught. What can be layed more plainely for the spirituall receiuing, and the like reuerence to be giuen to so holie a sacrament? But because M. Heskins thinketh this saying to make more [Page 254] against him, then for him, therefore he sayeth, to auoyde cauilling, Eusebius proceedeth sone after in these words: Sicut autem, &c. As any man comming to the faith of Christe, be­fore the wordes of baptisme, is yet in the bands of the olde deis, but when the words are spoken, is foorthwith deliuered from all dreg [...] of sinne: So when the creatures are set vppon the holie altares to be blessed with heauenly words, before they be consecrated by inuo­cation of the most highest name, there is the substance of bread & wine, but after the wordes of Christ, the bodie & bloud of Christ. This is a plaine place for M. Iuell, what else? But if it be rightly vnderstood, it is a plaine place against M. Hesk. for he sheweth the change or transubstantiation that is in the Lordes supper, to be the same, that it is in baptisme, which is spirituall, and not carnall, and so doth verie fit­ly compare them together, or else his similitude were to no purpose, if it were not to shewe by that which is don in baptisme, what is likewise done in the other sacra­ment.

M. Heskins still blattereth of a bare figure, which is of vs always denyed. Consequently he citeth Bernarde, whose authoritie I leaue vnto him, being a burgesse of y ^e lower house, in which he hath many voices, as he hath neuer a one in y ^e vpper house, though he wrest their spea­ches most iniuriously. To confirme some phrase of Ber­nard, he rehearseth certein phrases of the old writers like to them in words, but not in sense, which haue bene aun­swered alreadie, as Hierom. ad Hed. qu. 2. Our Lord Iesus is the feaster, & the feast: he that eateth and which is eaten. Ambrose in praepara. ad miss. which is none of his, but falsly intituled to him: Thou art the Priest and the sacrifice, wonderfully and vnspeakably appointed. And Augustine in Psal. 33. He was borne in his owne hands. But he leaueth out a worde, which expoundeth both Augustine, and all the rest that speake so: quodam modo, after a certeine manner Christ was borne in his owne hands, is the feast & that which is eaten, & the sacrifice. I say quodam modo, therefore not simpliciter. Last of all, he wil ioyne issue, to subscribe on this point, that the proclaimer can bring but one auncient doctor, that saith [Page 255] the sacrament is not to be adored. To whome I answer, that forasmuch as in the primitiue church, the opinion of transubstantiation was not knowen, there neuer grew any question of the adoration of the sacrament, as y ^t Pa­pistes nowe do vse it and commaund it.

The eyght and fortieth Chapter, confuteth the rest of the pro­claymers wordes before rehearsed, against the honouring of Christ in the sacrament. Hesk.

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

[Page 256]Whether M. Heskins were marryed, or else had a shame­lesse abode with a woman, I leaue to be tryed by God & the countrie, in the countie of Cambridge. But to the purpose, I haue not heard any affirme, these late Popes to be the first forbidders of marriage, and therefore it is to no purpose, that he citeth Syluester before them, and Calixtus before him, and the counterfet Canons of the Apostles before them all. And yet by the prohibition of the latest Popes, it is certeine, that Priestes were mar­ried vntill their time. And for as much, as the scripture alloweth their marriage, and condemneth the forbid­ders thereof, and the eldest fathers in the primi [...]iue church confesse no lesse, it is not to bee regarded, al­though a whole hundreth Popes in a rowe, did euery one forbid it. The like example he bringeth of fasting in Lent, decreede in the eight Toletane counsell, neere 700. yeres after Christe, but yet affirmed of Hierome, to be a tradition of the Apostles (For so they vsed to father such ceremonies and vsages, as they knewe not the be­ginning of them, vpon tradition of the Apostles) neuer­thelesse, he cannot shewe any Pope, or any councell be­fore Honorius, that did commaund adoration of the sa­crament, wherefore the wordes are vnconfuted vntill the contrarie can be shewed.

After this, the Proclaimer, (sayth he) falleth to moc­king the Scholasticall doctours, as S. Thomas, Duns, Durand, Hol­cos and such like to make it seeme a dangerous thing to honour the sacrament, for that the people cannot discerne the accidents from the bodie of Christ, and so may committ idolatrie in honou­ring the outwarde formes, in steede of Christ, or if the priest do [...]mitt consecration. This M. Heskins calleth a mocking, but he is not able to auoide it in good earnest. He cal­leth it a phantasie, like to that which ioyned with aua­rice, pulled downe all the Abbeys in England. The like phantasie, he sayth, might moue vs, not to honour Christ in heauen, and much more the Apostles that honoured Christ in the flesh, percase not sufficiently discerning the humanitie from the Deitie, and so likewise others that [Page 257] worshipped Christ & yet doe, euen some of the proclay­mers schollers, vnderstand not these quiddities. Shal they therefore fly the honor of Christ in heauen? A wise com­parison, betweene Christe both God and man, who no doubt is to be worshipped both as God & as the media­tor of God & man, and the accidents of breade & wine, or bread and wine, when they are not consecrated. Christ in the flesh is to be worshipped, because he was incarnate and ioyned to the humanitie in a personall vnion, but he is not to be worshipped in bread & wine, or in y ^e acci­dents of bread & wine, because he is neither impanated, nor inuinated, nor inaccidentated, that is, not ioyned to any of them in a personall vnion. To these doubtes that are moued by his owne schoolemen, what if the Priest do not consecrate? what if he speake not the wordes of con­secration? what if he had none intention to consecrate? in all which cases, the schoolemen define, that the people committ idolatrie if they worship their hoste. First hee sayeth: he goeth about to shake the foundation of this sacrament, as Brentius doth of baptisme. Concerning Brentius, although it were easie to defende his assertion euen by the schoolemen, yet because it is no matter of our controuersie, I will briefely passe it ouer. Brentius helde that Christ hath not bound vs to baptise in certein forme of wordes to be pronounced by the minister, so the meaning be obserued, that he baptise into the name of the Father, & of the Sonne, & of the holie ghost. Here­vpon, charitable M. Heskins rayleth on him, that he im­pugneth the forme of baptisme, and reiecteth y ^e wordes of baptisme, which is vtterly false: and then he reaso­neth, that if the wordes of baptisme may be without daunger o­mitted, why may not the words of consecratiō likewise? as though Brentius sayeth, they might be omitted, where he spea­keth of altering the forme of wordes, when the same sense remaineth. Next to this he farceth in another slaun­der of vs, that we agree not in the number of the sacra­ments, some admitting three, some two, some foure, and some neuer a one. The world knoweth what we holde [Page 258] herein. After this, he sheweth out of Basil & Damascen y ^e necessitie of the forme of baptisme, which wee confesse, & Brentius him self doth not denye. At length he defineth contrarie to y ^e scholemen, y ^t if consecration be omitted, y ^e danger is to the priest, & not to y ^e people that worship an idol. Finally, he wil moue the like doubt of our ministra­tion, what if the minister of y ^e communion, doe neither speake y ^e words of consecration, nor haue intent to mini­ster, what do the people receiue? I aunswer, w ^t his intentiō wee haue nothing to doe, but for asmuch as nothing is whispered, or mumbled in our Communion, but so vt­tered, y ^t all men may heare and vnderstand, if any thing be omitted that is necessarie to the consecration of y ^e sa­crament, if y ^e people communicate with him, they are in as great fault as he. As for Richerus, whome he calleth a Caluenist, y ^t forbiddeth to pray to Christ, and reiecteth y ^e wordes of consecration, if any such be, let him aunswere for him self, we haue nothing to do with him. Although we acknowledge not any mumbling of wordes, but the whole action according to Christes institution, to be the forme of consecration of the sacrament.

Hesk.The nine and fortieth Chapter, proceedeth in the vnderstan­ding of Christes wordes, by Irenaeus & Tertullian.

Fulke.Irenęus is cited, lib. 4. Cap. 32. Sed & discipulus, &c. But al­so giuing counsell to his disciples, to offer to God the first fruites of his owne creatures, not as to one that hath neede, but that they also should neither be vnfrutefull nor vnthankefull: he tooke that bread which is of the creature, & gaue thankes saying: this is my bodie, & likewise he confessed the cupp, which is of the creature that is among vs, to be his bloud & taught the newe oblation of the newe testament, which the church receiuing of the Apostles in all the worlde, offereth to God. ‘Here M. Hesk. choppeth off y ^e taile, for it followeth: Euen to him which giueth foode vnto vs, the first fruites of his giftes: which words do both open the purpose of Irenaeus, & shewe that the oblation was of bread & wine, & not the naturall bodie of Christ, as M. Hesk. gathereth, together with the reall presence.’ But for clearer proofe, he addeth another testimonie out of Ire­nęus, [Page 259] which he quoteth lib. 5. but it is lib. 4. ca. 34 which it seemeth he redd not him selfe in the author, both be­cause he knewe not where it was writen, & also because he omitteth some wordes in it. Quomodo autem constabit eis, &c. he leaueth out autem & eis: but thus the wordes are in English. But how shall it be knowen vnto them, that that bread, in which thankes are giuen, is the bodie of their Lorde and the cupp of his bloud, if they say not that he him selfe is the sonne of the maker of the worlde? &c. And how againe do they say, that the fleshe commeth to corruption, & receiueth not the life which is nourished of the bodie & bloud of our Lord? Out of these pla­ces he noteth, that y ^e sacrament is the bodie and bloud of Christ, & that our flesh is nourished by the same bodie & bloud. This we confesse, so he meane spiritually, but y ^t he will not haue. And therfore, to drawe the places to his carnall presence, & nourishing, he sayth that Irenaeus hereby impugned two heresies: One, that Christ was not the sonne of God that made the world, but a man liuing in Iewrie, which dissolued the law & the Prophets, & all the works of God that made the world: The other, that the soule only should be sa­ued & not the bodie. And therefore to confute the former, he ma­keth an argument of the real presence, How could a bare naturall man compasse, that his bodie should so be, if he were not the sonne of God that made the world? &c. This proceedeth of grosse ignorance, or rather of intollerable mallice, to deceiue the ignorant. For the heresie against which he writeth, was not y ^t Christ was a bare man, & not the sonne of God, but y ^t he was the sonne of another God, then he y ^t made y ^e world, for they made two gods, one y ^e maker of y ^e world, which they sayd was God of y ^e old testament, & another y ^e father of Christ, which they said, was God of the newe testament. Now Irenaeus proueth by institution of y ^e sa­crament, in the creatures of bread & wine, y ^t Christ is the sonne of God y ^t created y ^e world, & of none other God, to which purpose he sayth in the 57. Chapter of that fourth booke: ‘ Quomodo autem iustè Dominus si alterius patris existens, huius conditionis quae est secundiòm nos accipiens panem fuum corpus confisebatur, & temperamentum calicis sui [Page 260] sanguinem confirmanit? How did our Lorde iustly, if being sonne of another father, taking bread which is of this creation that we are▪ confesse it to be his bodie, and the temperament of the cuppe he confirmed to be his bloud?’ Thus you see neither in the one place, nor in the other, he reasoneth of the diuine power of Christe, to make a reall presence, or transubstantiation, but of the inconue­nience that Christ shoulde ordeine his sacrament in the creatures of another God. The seconde heresie he impu­gneth in deede, by the receipt of the bodie and bloude of Christe in the sacrament, by which our fleshe is nouri­shed vnto immortalitie, which nourishing, M. Heskins in no wise will haue to be vnderstoode spiritually, but corporally, and sayeth, it doth inuincibly proue the re­all presence. I will not rippe vp what absurdities do fol­lowe, if wee say, that Christes fleshe doth nourish our flesh corporally, or after a carnall manner, as of the con­coction and digestion thereof, to be turned into our nature, where he sayed before, that our flesh is turned into his fleshe: but I will proue out of Irenaeus, that he meant nourishing spiritually and not corporally. For lib. 5. he hath these wordes.

‘ Quando ergo & mixtus calix, & factus panis, percipit verbum Dei, fit eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus auge­tur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia: quomodo carnem ne­gant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna, quae san­guine & corpore Christi, nutritur & membrum eius est.’

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

Here you see plainly, that our fleshe is so nourished of the bodie and bloud of Christ, that it is increased of the same, and so consisteth of them, that wee are his mem­bers, but our bodies are not increased, &c. but spiritu­ally: [Page 261] therefore they are not nourished but spiritually, & after an heauenly manner.

But moste plainly, for impugning of both the here­sies aforesaide, and other heresies more of transubstanti­ation and the carnall presence, and the sacrifice propitia­torie of the masse, he writeth, lib. 4. Cap. 34. ‘ Nostra autem consonans est sententia Eucharistiae, & Eucharistia rursus confir­mat sententiam nostram. Offerimus enim ei quę sunt eius, con­gruenter communicationem & vnitatem praedicantes carnis & spiritus. Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & caelesti: sic & corpora nostra percipientia Euchaeristiam, iam non sunt corruptibilia, spem re­surrectionis habentia. Offerimus autem ei non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes donationi eius, & sanctificantes creaturam. But our sentence is agreeable to the Eucharistie or sa­crament of thankesgiuing, and the Eucharistie againe doth confirme our sentence. For wee offer vnto him those things that be his owne, agreeably setting foorth the communication and vnitie of the fleshe and the spi­rite. For as the breade which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God, is not nowe common bread, but the Eucharistie consisting of two things, an earthly thing & an heauenly thing: euen so our bodies also receiuing the Eucharistie, are not nowe corruptible, hauing hope of resurrection. And wee offer to him, not as to one ha­uing neede, but giuing thankes for his gifte and sanctify­ing the creature.’

By this place is transubstantiation ouerthrowen, where" he sayth, the sacrament consisteth of two things, an earth­ly and an heauenly, the carnall presence, when hee defi­neth it to be a heauenly thing, that is a diuine and spi­ritual communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ, the propitiatorie sacrifice, when he sayeth, that the crea­tures of breade and wine were offered for a thankes gi­uing, &c. That Melancton defending the popish pre­sence abused the authoritie of Irenaeus against Oeco­lampadius, it ought to be no preiudice to vs, especially [Page 262] [...] [Page 263] [...] [Page 262] seeing as M. Heskins before confessed, that Melancthon him selfe forsooke that opinion in the end.

Now come we to Tertullian, whose testimonie, tho­ugh it bee flatly against him, yet hee hath laboured if it were possible, by wrestling and wrangling, to make it serue his turne, or a least to auoyde it, that it should not hurt his cause, Lib. 4. contra Marcionem. Professus itaque, &c. When therefore he had professed that with desire he desired to eate the Passeouer, as his owne (for it was vnmeete that God shuld de­sire any thing pertayning to an other) the breade that was taken and distributed to his disciples, he made it his body, saying. This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. But it had bene no figure except his body had bene of trueth. ‘Here M. Heskins cutteth off: but it followeth in Tertullian, Caeterum &c. For a vaine thing which is a fantasie could receiue no figure. Or if therefore he feigned the bread to be his body, bi­cause he lacked the trueth of a body, then ought hee to haue giuen the breade for vs. It would haue made for Marcions vanitie, that the breade should haue bene cru­cified.’ The alteration, falsification, and truncation of Tertullians wordes, which Maister Heskins vseth, was no­ted in the first booke partly, and it wearieth me to note these faultes so often as he committeth them. But here he turneth these wordes: Figura autem non fuisset nisi verita­tis esset corpus. But it had not bene a figure except it were a body of trueth. As though the breade were both a figure and a body of trueth, which cleane peruerteth the sense of Ter­tullian, and is contrarie to his purpose, as you may see by that which followeth. For Marcion agreed with Valen­tinus, against whome Irenęus writte, that Christ was not the GOD of the olde Testament, and moreouer affirmed, that Christe had not a true body, but a fantasticall bo­dy. Against both these hereticall opinions, hee reaso­neth in this sentence. First he saith, Christe desired to eat the Passeouer, therefore it was of his owne instituti­on, for it was vnmeete that God should desire any thing of an other Gods institution. And that Christe had a true bodye, hee proueth by the institution of the sa­crament, [Page 263] which was a figure of his body, for a fantasticall body, or a vaine thing, can haue no figure, for a figure hath a necessarie relation to a thing of trueth, whereof it is a figure, the sacrament is a figure of Christes body, therefore Christe hath a true body.

That this is the true meaning of Tertullian, it appea­reth plainely by the wordes before alledged, and by these that followe, and by the whole discourse of his worke, Lib. 5. hee saith. ‘ Proinde panis & calicis sacramento iam in E­uangelio probauimus corporis & sanguinis Dominici veritatem aduersus phantasma Marcionis. Therefore by the sacrament of the breade and the cuppe, nowe in the Gospell we haue proued, the trueth of the body and bloud of our Lorde, against the fantasie of Marcion. But M. Hes. interpretation of Tertullians meaning, is not onely false, but also ridi­culous.’ He saith, that Tertullian to proue that Christ had a true body, bringeth in the institution of the sacrament, saying, that Christ made the breade his true body, there­fore hee had a true body, as though Marcion, whiche woulde not beleeue that Christe had a true body when he liued on the earth, would acknowledge that Christe had a true body in the sacrament. But Marcion acknow­ledged the sacrament to be a figure of Christes body, and therevpon Tertullian inferreth that hee had a true body, whereof the sacrament was a figure.

But nowe it is a sport to see howe M. Heskins taketh vpon him To open Tertullian, and to deliuer him from the sacra­mentaries. His saying hath two partes, the one that Christe made the breade his body, the other that he saith: This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. Nowe hee will require of y ^e aduersarie, whether of these two parts he will receiue? and he is certaine they wil not receiue y ^e for­mer part, bicause Zuinglius, Oecolāpadius, & Bullinger, with the rest, denieth the bread to be the naturall body of Christ. But he is fouly beguiled, for al these & we with thē will neither receiue the first part by it selfe, nor the latter part by it selfe, but both parts together, as they are vttered by Tertullian, that Christ so made the bread his body, y ^t [Page 264] hee made it a figure of his body. That is to say, that hee made it a sure & vndoubted pledge of his body. And we agree with Cyprian De cae [...]. Deu [...]. that The bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples to be eaten, being not cha [...]nged in shape, but in nature, by the almightie power of the word was made flesh: and with S. Ambrose. li. 4. de sacr. cae. 4. That this bread before the wordes of the sacrament is bread, but when the consecration commeth to it, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Places often answered before by interpretation of the same Authours. And we do so vnderstand Tertullian, as he is not contra­rie to him selfe, nor to any Catholique writer of his time in this matter, which is Maister Heskins rule to vnder­stand a Catholique Authour, And we so vnderstand the sacrament to bee a figure, as it is not a bare figure. But nowe, bicause Maister Heskins must needes acknowledge the sacrament to be a figure, he maketh two kindes of fi­gures. A figure of a thing absent, and a figure of a thing present. Bicause there is no doubt of the former, I will touch onely the latter. An example of a figure of a thing present, he maketh in these wordes: As the spouse beholding her very husband, and seeth the scarres and tokens of wounds that he suffered for her defence and safegard, and of his children and hers: is brought in remembrance of his louing kindnesse, and of the dangers sustained for her sake. In which case although the substance of the man be present, yet to his wife he is a figure and token of re­membraunce of him selfe absent, in condition of a man nowe in fight & dangered with sore and deepe woundes. For nowe he is no such man, but whole & sound, & a perfect man. Haue you not heard a wise similitude thinke you? Is the substance of the man present, a figure of his actiōs & passions absent? or rather the scarres present, a token of his wounds suffered, and ac­tes passed? If hee be so grosse, that he cannot distinguish betweene substance and accidents, and the properties and effectes of them both, yet very children can plainely see, that the substance of the man occasioneth no such remē ­brance as he speaketh of, but the scarres of the woundes: neither do they bring the substance of the man in remē ­brance, but the actions and passions of the man. And ther­fore [Page 265] this is too blockish an example, that a figure may be of a thing present in substance. But Augustine Lib. sentent. Prosperi. doth helpe this matter as he weeneth: Caro carnis, &c. The flesh is a sacrament of the flesh, and the bloud is a sacra­ment of the bloud. By both which being inuisible, spirituall, and in­telligible, is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Iesus Christ, full of the grace of all vertues, and diuine Maiestie. M. Hes. noteth, that the inuisible body of Christ in the sacrament, is a figure of the same visible. Very good. But let me goe with him. Although S. Augustine or Prosper speake not of an inui [...]ible body. But he saith directly, that the flesh and the bloud in the sacrament, are both spirituall and intelligible flesh and bloud, which is as much as I aske. Then the spirituall flesh of Christe which is in the sacra­ment, doth signifie y ^t visible and palpable body of Christ, then the which nothing can be said more plainly against the corporall presence, nor for y ^e spiritual presence. But he obiecteth further, y ^t the scriptures also vse such speaches, saying, that Christe was made in the likenesse of a man. Ph. 2. When he was a man in deede, and so Tertullian might well cal it a figure, although it be the body it self. As though S. Paule in that place speaketh of the substance of his humanitie, & not rather of the base shewe and con­dition that he tooke vpon him in his humanitie, whereas he might haue behaued him self as God, being both God and man. Yet Augustine hath two places, by conference whereof this thing shall appeare; that the sacrament is both a figure and the very thing it selfe. The first place is in Psal. 3. speaking of Iudas the traytour, which place M. Heskins read not in Augustine, but in some other mans collections, for both he cyteth it truncately, & also addeth wordes both in the Latine and the English, which are not in Augustine, although he do not alter the sense. But Au­gustines wordes in deede are these. Et in historia &c. ‘And in the historie of the newe Testament, the patience of our Lord was so great and woonderfull, that he suffered him so long as though he had bene good:’ Whereas he was not ignorant of his thoughtes, when he had him present at the feast, in [Page 266] which he commended and deliuered to his disciples, the figure of his body and his blo [...]d. The other place is cyted Ep. 162. Our Lorde him selfe doth suffer Iudas, a diuill, a theefe, and his seller. He letteth him take among his innocēt disciples, that which the faithful know, our price. But when Augustine him selfe saith, y ^e sacraments beare the name of those thinges whereof they are sacra­ments, it is no maruell, if the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, be called our price, whereof it is a figure or sacrament, especially seeing Augustine flatly denyeth, that Iudas did receiue the bread which was the Lorde, but only the Lords bread. This conference therefore maketh against him, not for him: As for Theophylactes authori­tie, which he calleth a plaine place for the proclamer, wee refuse, although it is not so plaine as he pretendeth, for we also affirme, that the sacrament is not a bare figuration of the flesh of Christ, but his flesh in deede, spiritually recei­ued. Finally, Tertullians place De resur. Car. is nothing at all for him. Ca [...]o corpore &c. The flesh eateth the body and bloud of Christ, that the soule may be fed with God. For by the body and bloud of Christe, he meaneth the sacrament of them, which is called by the name of that is figured or signified by it. As for the last shift, that No Catholique Doc­tour saith, that the sacrament is only a figure, is too childish for a Doctour to vse; for in these words of Tertullian: Cor­pus meum, id est▪ figura corporis met, my body, that is to say, a figure of my body, there needeth not to be added the exclusiue onely, for the latter part is a description of the former, which must containe all that is in the thing des­cribed, or else it is nothing worth: as for example. If I say M. Heskins is a man, that is to say a soule, it were fond and ridiculous, but when I say he is a man, that is to say, a reasonable [...]ight, I neede not say he is onely so, for I haue said before as much as he is, and so hath Tertulli­an: Meaning that the sacrament is a figure, but not a com­mon or bare figure, but a diuine and mysticall token, not only to signifie, but also to assure vs, of the spirituall fee­ding of vs with the body and bloud of Christ.

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

First he alledgeth Cyprian de cęna Domini in these words, Fulk. Significata olim a tempore Melchisedech, &c. For vnderstāding of which place, seeing he referreth his reader to the first booke and 29. Chapter, where he handleth it more at large, thither also will I referre him for answer, where the place is at large rehearsed and discussed. But out of the same sermon of S. Cyprian, he hath a plaine place for M. Iewel: Which is this: Non [...] est [...]uius sacramenti doc­trina, &c? The doctrine of this sacrament is newe, and the Euangelicall schooles first brought foorth this manner of teaching, and Christ beeing the teacher. This learning was first made knowen to the worlde, that Christian men should drinke bloud, the eating whereof the authoritie of the olde lawe doeth most straitly forbidde. For the lawe forbiddeth the eating of bloud, the Gospell comman­deth that it should be dronke. In which commandem [...]t [...] this moste cheefely ought the Christian religion to discerne, that the bloud of beastes differing in all thinges from the bloud of Christe, hath onely the effect of temporall releefe, and the life of them ha [...]h an end ap­pointed without reuocation. ‘Hereupon he noteth y ^t the Chris­tians drinke the bloud of Christ, which I graunt: but spi­ritually: for so Cyprian expoundeth himselfe in the same sermon: vt sciremus quòd mansio nostra in ips [...] fit manducatio, & potus quasi quaedam incorporatio. That we should knowe that our eating is our dwelling in him, and ou [...] drin­king it as it were a certeine incorporatio [...] in him: And againe: Esus igitur carnis huius quaedam auiditas est & quod­dem desiderium manendi in eo, &c. Therefore the eating of his flesh is a certeine desire to abide in him, &c. These and such like places doe proue a spirituall eating and drin­king of his bloud, and none other.’

He noteth further, that this is called of Cyprian, a new doctrine, and therefore it can not be the drinking of the figure of the bloud of Christ, for that was olde. I answere briefly, it was so new, as the gospel is the new Testament, [Page 268] whiche yet was preached to Adam and Eue, but not so clearely and distinctly as since the time of Christ, and so was the eating of the bodie and bloud of Christe, all one with that it is now, differing but in manner of reuelatiō, and not in substance of spirituall foode.

Athanasius is alledged as he is cited in Theodoret Dial. 2. in confus. Corpus est, &c. It is therfore a bodie to whom he saith: for them on my right hand. Whereof the diuel was enimie, with the euill powers, and the Iewes and the Greekes. By which bodie, he was in deede and so was called an high priest and Apostle, by that mys­teria which he d [...]liuered to vs saying▪ This is my bodie whiche is broken for you. And the bloud of the new Testament, not of the old, which is shedd for you. The Godhead hath neither bodie nor bloud, but man, which he did take of the virgine Marie. He meaneth nothing lesse, than that y ^e sacrament was his natural body and bloud, but that he could not haue instituted a myste­rie of hi [...] bodie and bloud, except he had ben a very man, which hath bodie and bloud, for the godhead hath none. And therfore the rule that M. Heskins giueth, that scrip­tures must be alledged in their literal sense in matters of faith, is to litle purpose, although it may stand well in this place. For the mysterie of his bodie proueth his hu­manitie, without any allegorie or other figure, as I haue shewed before. Athanasius is likewise alledged in the se­cond Nicen counsell: Serm. de [...]. Iesu in Berito. ‘How tru­ly I will not say, but thus he is reported to say of y ^e bloud of Christ, which was said to be in many places, which he deniet [...] to haue come frō Christ, but from an image that was crucified Nec esse aliter [...] a vere Catholicis prae­ [...]r id quod [...] à nobis, quasi ex carne & sanguine Christi ali­q [...]id pas [...] i [...] [...] inu [...]iri, nisi [...], quod in aera altarit per ma­nus sacerdanu [...] quoti [...]ie spiritualiter officitur. Neither is it o­therwise to be thought of true Catholiques, then is writ­ten of vs, as though any part of the flesh & bloud of Christ may be found in the world, but that which on the altar is euerie day made spiritually by the handes of the priestes. I do not cite this, as the vndoubted authoritie of Athana­sius, but thinke rather it was forged in his name, as many [Page 269] other thinges were in that wicked idolatrous counsel, yet it appeared that the maker of that sermon, & so y ^e Church in such time as he liued, had not receiued the Popish cor­porall presence.’

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

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

Euseb. Emissen is cited Hom. 5. Pasc. Recedat omne, &c. Let all doubtfulnesse of infidelitie depart. For truely he which is the auctour of the gifte, is also the witnes of the trueth. For the inuisi­ble priest by secrete power doth with his worde conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his bodie & bloud saying thus: This is my bodie. And the sanctification repeated: take and drinke saith he, this is my bloud. This place hath beene often answered, to be ment of a spirituall and not a carnall conuersion, as di­uerse other places out of y ^e same homilie alledged by M. Hesk. himself, doe proue. First it foloweth immediately. Ergo vt, &c. Therfore as at the will of our Lord sodenly comman­ding, of nothing the height of the heauens, the depths of the waters, the wide places of the earth were in substantiall beeing: euen so by [Page 270] like power in the spirituall sacramentes, vertue is giuen to the word and effect to the thing. Therefore how great and notable thinges, the power of the Diuine blessing doeth worke, and how [...] ought not seeme to the too strange and impossible that earthly and mortall thinges are chaunged into the substance of Christ, aske of thy selfe which now art borne againe into Christe. Here saith M. Heskins, he proueth the chaunge possible, I graunt, and with all sheweth what manner a chaunge it is, euen such a one as is in regeneration, namely spirituall. The same is shewed in the other places following. Non dubites quispi [...], &c: Neither let any man dout, that by the wil of the Di­uine power, by the presence of his high maiestie, the former crea­tures may passe into the nature of the Lordes bodie, when he may see man himselfe by the workmanship of the heauenly mercie, made the bodie of Christ. And as any man comming to the faith of Christ, before the wordes of baptisme, is yet in the band of the olde debt, but when they are rehearsed, he is forthwith deliuered from all dregges of sinnes: So when the creatures are set vpon the holie altars to be blessed with heauenly wordes, before they be consecrated by inuocation of the highest name, there is the substance of bread and wine, but after the wordes of Christe, the bodie and bloud of Christ. And what maruell is it, if those things, which he could create with his word, beeing created, he can conuerte by his worde? Yea ra­ther it seemeth to be a lesse miracle, if that which he is knowne to haue made of nothing, he can now when it is made, chaunge into a better thing. Vpon these sayings Maister Heskins vrgeth the chaunge. I acknowledge the chaunge, and vrge the kinde or manner of chaunge to be spirituall, according to the examples of baptisme & regeneration. Vnto these authorities hee annexeth a large discourse of transub­stantiation, and citeth for it diuers testimonies olde and newe, what the olde are, we will take paynes to viewe, as for the younger sorte, we will not sticke to leaue vn­to him.

First Gregorie Nicene is cited, Serm. Catech. de Diuin. Sacram. Sicut antem qui panem videt, quodammodo corpus videt humanum, &c. And as he that seeth bread, after a certeine man­ner, seeth a mans bodie, because bread beeing in the bodie becom­meth [Page 271] a bodie: so that diuine bodie, receiuing the nourishment of bread, was after a certeine manner the same thing with that meate, (as we haue said) beeing turned into the nature of it. For th [...]t, which is proper to all flesh, we confesse to haue apperteined to him. For euen that bodie was susteined with bread, but that bo­die, because God the WORDE dwelled in it obteined Diuine dignitie. Wherefore we doe nowe also rightly belieue, that the bread sanctified by the worde of God, is chaunged into the bodie of God the WORDE. Maister Heskins after his vsuall manner translateth Quodammodo in a manner, if not false­ly, at the least obscurely. But that worde Quodammodo, that is after a certeine manner, looseth all the knotte of this doubt. For euen as the bodie of CHRISTE was bread after a certeine manner, because it was nourished with bread, and bread was after a certeine manner the bodie of Christ: euen so we beleeue, that the sacramen­tall bread is after a certeine manner chaunged into the bodie of Christ, that it may be the spirituall foode of our soules.

Ambrose is cited De his, qui initian. Cap. 9. Where Mais­ter Heskins beheadeth the sentence, for it is thus: ‘ Prior enim [...]ux quàm vmbra, veritas quàm figura, corpus authoris quàm manna de coelo. For light is before the shadowe, the trueth before the figure, the bodie of the authour before manna from heauen. Which wordes we may vnderstand, howe he taketh the bodie of Christe, that sayeth it was before manna, namely, for the effecte of his death and sacrifice perfourmed by his bodie.’ But M. Heskins beginneth at these wordes. Forte dicat, &c. Peraduenture thou mayst say. I see another thing. How doest thou assure me that I take the bodie of Christ? And this remaineth for vs to proue. Howe many examples therefore doe we vse, that we may proue this not to be that which nature hath formed it, but which the blessing hath consecrated, and that there is greater force of blessing, then of nature, for by blessing nature it selfe is chaunged?

Moses helde a rodde, hee cast it do [...]ne, and it was made a serpent. Againe, he tooke the serpent by the tayle, and it re­ [...]rueth into the nature of the rodde. Thou seest therefore by the [Page 272] prophets grace, the nature of the serpent and of the rodde to [...] beene twise changed: And after many exāples: Quod si, &c. If then the benediction of man was of so great power, that is chaunged nature, what say we of the very diuine consecration, where the very wordes of our Lorde and Sauiour doe worke. For this sacrament which thou reciuest is made with the worde of Christ. And againe. Thou hast read of all the workes of the worlde, that he saide & they were made, be commanded and they were created. Therefore the worde of Christ which could of nothing make that which was not, can it not change those thinges that are, into that they are not? For it is no lesse thing to giue newe natures to thinges, then to chaunge natures. Hitherto you haue heard Ambrose speaking ear­nestly for a change of nature, in the sacrament, now heare him expound it in the same place for a spirituall change: ‘ Vera vtique caro Christi quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est: ve­rè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est. Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus: Hoc est corpus mo [...]m: ante benedictionem verborum coelestium, ali [...] species nominatur, post consecrationem, Corpus Christi significatur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum, ante consecrationem a [...]ud dicitur, post. consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. It was the verie fleshe of Christ which was crucified, which was buried: therefore this is truely a sacrament of that flesh, our Lord Iesus cri­eth out saying, This is my bodie. Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes, it is called another kinde, after the consecration, the bodie of Christ is signified. He him­selfe saith, it is his bloud, before consecration it is called another thing, after consecration it is called bloud. And in the same place againe. In illo sacramento Christus est, quia corpus est Christi, non ergo corporalis esca, sed spirituali [...] est. In that sacrament Christ is, because the bodie of Christe is. Therefore it is not corporall meate but spirituall meate. Wel then, y ^e bread is chaunged from the nature of cōmon bread, to be a true sacrament of the bodie of Christ, wher­by Christ his bodie is signified, and to be spiritual meate, and this is the change and conuersion he speaketh of, and nor the Popish transubstantiatiō.’ Next is alledged Chry­sostome, Hom. 83. in Matth. Non sunt, &c. These are not the works of mans power, he that then in that supper made these things, [Page 273] he also now worketh, he performeth them. We holde the order of ministers, but it is he which doth sanctifie and change these things. Here is a change or transmutatiō, but no word of y ^e ma­ner of y ^e chaunge, therfore it maketh nothing for Popish transubstantiation, and this place hath beene more then once answered before, by Chrysost. authoritie. After him he citeth Cyrillus ad Colosirium in these words. V [...]uificati [...]em, &c. The quickening WORDE of God vniting himselfe to his own flesh made that also quickning. How when the life of God is in vs, the WORD of God being in vs, shall our bodie also be able to giue life? But it is an other thing for vs to haue the sonne of God in vs after the manner of participation: and an other thing, the same to haue beene made flesh, that is, to haue made the bodie which he tooke of the blessed virgin his owne bodie. Therefore it was meete, that he should be after a certeine manner vnited to our bodies, by his holie flesh & precious bloud, which we receiue in the quickening blessing, in bread and wine. For least we should abhorre fleshe and bloud set vpon the holie altars, God condescending to our fragili­ties, inspireth to the thinges offered, the powre of life, turning them into the trueth of his owne flesh, that the bodie of life may be found in vs all, certeine seede giuing life. Here Maister Hes­kins in his translation cleane leaueth out Quodammodo, af­ter a certeine manner Christe is vnited to our bodies by the sacrament, and so is this chaunge made after a spiritu­all manner, for otherwise this place is directly against transubstantiation, where he saith we receiue the flesh and bloud of Christ in bread and wine.

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

Remugius followeth 1. Cor. Cap. 10. The fleshe whiche the [Page 274] worde of God the father tooke vpon him in the wombe of the vir­gin in vnitie of his person, and the breade which is consecrated in the Church, are one bodie of Christe, for as that flesh is the body of Christ: so this bread passeth into the bodie of Christe, neither are they two bodies but one bodie. He meaneth, that the bread is a sacrament of the very and onely true bodie of Christ, otherwise his antiquitie is not so great, to purchase him authoritie, but as a Burgesse of the lower house, what so e­uer he speake. The rest that remaine although I might well expound their sayings so, as they should not make for Popish transubstantiation, which the Greeke Church did not receiue: yet beeing late writers out of the com­passe, as Damascen, Theophylact, Paschasius, I omit them. But of all these doctors, M. Heskins gathereth, that it is a maruelous and wonderfull worke, that is wrought in this chaunge of the sacramentall bread and wine, therefore he would proue it cā not be into a bare token, or figure, but it may well be into a spirituall meate, to feede vs into e­ternall life, which is a wonderful and great work of God, as likewise that the washing of the bodie in baptisme, should be the washing of the soule from sinne. And ther­fore be saith very lewdly, y ^t the institution of sacramental signes, as the Pascall lambe, and such like, is no wonder­full worke of God, and as fondly compareth he the insti­tution of sacramentes with bare signes and tokens of re­membrance, as the twelue stones in Iordane, &c. And yet more lewdly, with the superstitious bread vsed to be gi­uen to the Cathechumeni in Saint Augustines time, that had no institution of God. Finally touching the de­termination and authoritie of the late Laterane counsell for transubstantiation, as we doe not esteeme it beeing contrarie to the worde of God: so I haue in y ^e first booke shewed what a grosse errour it committed, in falsification of a text of scripture, out of Saint Iohns Gospell.

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

Fulke.Basil is cited Quaest. comp. explic. qu. 17 [...]. In aunswere to [Page 275] this question, with what feate, what faith or assured cer­teintie, and with what affection the bodie and bloud of of Christ should be receiued? Timorem docet, &c. The A­postle teacheth vs the feare saying: He that eateth and drinketh vn­worthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, but the credite of our Lords words bringeth in the perfection of certeintie, who said: This is my bodie which is giuen for you, doe this in remembraunce of me. In this aunswere, seeing he bringeth no exposition, but onely citeth the bare wordes of the text, there is no­thing that maketh for M. Heskins. He saith the wordes are plaine inough, and neede none other interpretation. It is true, before the worlde was troubled with the here­sie of carnall presence, the text seemeth plaine ynough, & these wordes: Do this in remēbrance of me, were thought a sufficient interpretation of those words: This is my bo­die: and so doth Basill vse them.

But S. Ambrose he saith, is so plaine, that if his mother the Church had not beene good to him, he should haue bene shut out of the doores. For Oecolampadins reiected his book of the sacraments, as Luther did the Epistle of S. Iames. Touching Luther, although he were too rash in y ^t censure, yet had he Eusebius for his author, twelue hun­dreth yeres before him. And not only Oecolāpadius, but many other learned men do thinke both the phrase, and the matter of that booke to be vnlike S. Ambrose. But for my part let it be receiued, I hope M. Hesk. shal gaine litle by it: he hath noted many short sentences which I wil rehearse one after another. First Lib. 4. Ca. 5. Antequam. Before it be consecrated, it is bread, but when the wordes of Christe are come to it, it is the bodie of Christ. Finally heare him saying: take & eate ye all of it, This is my bodie. And before the words of Christ, the cuppe is full of wine and water, when the wordes of Christe haue wrought, there is made the bloud which redeemed the people. Ibi. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Tu forte. Thou peraduenture sayest my bread is vsuall bread, but this bread is bread before the wordes of the sacramentes, when consecration is come to it, of bread it is made the fleshe of Christ. And againe in the same Chapter. Sed audi, but heare him saying that sayeth: he saide and they were [Page 276] made, he commanded and they were created. Therefore that I may answere thee. Before consecration it was not the bodie of Christe. But after consecration I say vnto thee, tha [...] now it is the bodie of Christ. He saide and it is made, he commanded, and it is crea­ted. And in the same booke Cap. 5. Ipse Dominus, Our Lord Iesus himselfe testifieth vnto vs, that we receiue his bodie and bloud, shall we doubt of his trueth and testification? Out of these places, he concludeth not onely that figures be ex­cluded, but also that the tearme of consecration is vsed se­riously. I graunt, but not in such sense as the Papistes vse it, but as the worde signifieth, to hallow or dedicate to an holie vse. How figures be excluded, and how these pla­ces are to be taken, that are so plaine, as he pretendeth, I pray you heare what he writeth in the same bookes of sa­cramentes. ‘ Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Ergo didicisti quòd ex pane corpu [...] fiat Christi, & quòd vinum & aqua in calicem mittitur, sed fit san­guis consecratione verbi Coelestis. Sed fortò dicis speciem sangui­nis non video. Sed habet similitudinem. Sicut enim mortis simili­tudinem sumpsisti: ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis, vt nullus horror cruoris sit, & precium tamen operetur redemptio­nis. Didicisti ergo quia quod accipis, corpus est Christi. There­fore thou hast learned that of the bread is made the body of Christ, and that the wine and water is put into the cup, but by consecration of the heauenly worde, it is made his bloud. But perhappes thou sayest, I see not the shewe of bloud. Yet hath it the similitude. For as thou hast re­ceiued the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud, that there may be no horror of bloud, & yet it may worke the price of re­demption. Thou hast learned then y ^t, that which thou ta­kest is the bodie of Christ. Here you see it is so the bodie of Christ, as it is the similitude of his death, & so y ^e bloud, as it is y ^e similitud of his bloud. Moreouer in y ^e same book Ca. 5. Dicit sacerdos, &c. The priest saith make vnto vs, (saith he) this oblation, ascribed, reasonable, acceptable: which is the figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. And Cap. 6. Ergo memores, &c. Therefore beeing mindefull of his most glorious passion and resurection [Page 277] from hell, and ascention into heauen, we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice, this reasonable sacrifice, this vn­bloudie sacrifice, this holie bread and cup of eternall life. And againe Lib. 6. cap. 1. Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris, sed maneret gratia redemptionis, ideo in similitudinem quidem accipi [...] sacramentū, sed verae naturae gra­tiam virtus émque consequeris. Therfore lest any man should say this, and there should be a certeine horror of bloud, but that the grace of redemption might remaine, there­fore truely, thou takest a sacrament for a similitude, but thou obteinest the grace & vertue of his true nature. Thus Ambrose hath spoken sufficiently to shewe him selfe no fauourer of Maister Heskins bill, although (as the scrip­ture teacheth,) he call the sacrament the bodie & bloud of Christ and declareth why it is so called, because it is a figure, similitude, and a memoriall thereof.’

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

Gregorie Nicene is cited, Fulk. Ex serus. Catatholico. De Diuinis sacram. Qua ex causa panis in eo corpore mutatus, &c. By what cause the bread in that bodie beeing chaunged, passed into the di­uine power, by the same cause, the same thing it done now. For as there the grace of the word of God maketh that bodie, whose nou­rishment consisted of bread, and was after a certeine maner bread: So bread as the Apostle saith, by the word of God and prayer, is sanctified, not because it is eaten, growing to that that it may be­come the bodie of the WORDE, but foorthwith by the worde it is chaunged into the bodie, as it is saide by the WORDE. This is my bodie. This place saith Maister Heskins ouerthrow­eth three heresies. The first of Luther or Lutherans: that the sacrament is not the bodie of Christ, except it be re­ceiued. Gregorie saith, it is not the bodie of Christ, because it is eaten. But that is no ouerthrow to Luthers assertion, for Gregorie meaneth, that the sacrament by nourish­ing our bodies, is not made the bodie of Christe, as the breade that a man eateth is turned into his bodie, and [Page 278] so was the bread y ^t our sauiour did eat, turned into y ^e sub­stance of his bodie while he liued, but by the power of God, & this notwithstanding, it is made that bodye of Christ, only to the worthie receiuer. Of which a [...]sertion M. Hesk. saith, they haue no substantial grounde in scrip­tures: as though an argument framed out of the scrip­ture, of the end & vse of y ^e sacrament, were not a substan­tial ground. And as for the popish counsell of Florens, is a sorie ground without scripture. Although [...] nor, (as he slaundereth vs) y ^t the power of consecration depen­deth vpon the will of the receiuer, but vpon the wonder­full worke of God, with such practice as he requireth. The second supposed heresie, to be ouerthrowen, is, that the substance of bread & wine do still remaine, because Gregorie sayth, it is changed into the bodie of Christe. But this change is not of substance, but of vse, for as hee sayth, it is changed into the bodie, so he sayth it is chaun­ged into the diuine vertue, which words, though Maister Hesk. would racke to signifie the diuine flesh of Christ, yet cannot he auoyde a manifest figure in the speache of Gregorie, & therfore it is nothing so plaine for him, as he pretendeth. To this he adioyneth a defence of the terme of transubstantiation, which he confesseth to be but new, (as in deede the doctrine therof is) but yet he compareth it with the terme vsed of olde by the fathers Homou­sion, to signifie that Christe is of the substance of the fa­ther. But to be short, for termes, we will not striue, let him proue transubstantiation so olde as he pretendeth, & we will acknowledge the terme. The thirde pretended heresie to be ouerthrowen, is, that he teacheth a reall pre­sence, and therefore the wordes: This is my bodie, are to be vnderstood without trope or figure. But this is auoy­ded in aunswere to the seconde, and so we leaue him dis­charged of M. Hesk. cauils.

Hierome is alledged ad Hedibiam. qu. 2. the place hath bene alreadie handled, & proued to be against M. Hesk. in the 31. Chap. of this booke, whither I referre the rea­der for breuities sake, only in this place I wil deale with [Page 279] such points as were not spoken of there, and rehearse the whole discourse of S. Herome together, & not in patches as M. Hesk. hath done, interlacing his fond gloses. Que­stio secunda. Quomodo accipiendum sit, &c. ‘The second que­stion. How that saying of our sauiour in Mathew is to be taken: I say vnto you, I will not drinke from hence forth of this fruite of the vine, vntil that day, in which I shal drinke it newe with you in the kingdome of my fa­ther. Out of this place, some men build the fable of a thousand yeres, in which they contend, that Christ shall raigne corporally, & drinke wine, which hee hath not dronke from that time, vnto the end of the world. But let vs heare, that the bread which our Lord brake & gaue to his dis­ciples, is the bodie of our Lord & sauiour, as he saith vnto them.’ Take & eat ye, this is my bodie, & that the cupp is that, of whiche he spake againe: drinke ye all of this: this is my bloud of the new testament, which shalbe shed for many, &c. This is that cupp, of which we read in the Prophet: I will take the cupp of saluation. And in another place, Thy cup inebriaeting is verie noble. If ther­fore the bread, which came downe from heauen, is the bodie of our Lord: and the wine, which he gaue to his disciples, is his bloud of the new testament, let vs reiect Iewish fables, & ascend with our Lord into the great parler, prepared & made clean, & let vs receiue of him aboue, the cup of the new testament: & there holding passouer with him, let vs be made dronke with the wine of sobrietie. For the kingdome of God is not meat & drinke, but righteousnesse, & ioy, & peace in the holy ghost. Neither did Moises giue vs the true bread, but our Lord Iesus, he being the guest & the fest, he him­selfe eating, & which is eaten. His bloud we drinke, & without him we cannot drinke it, & daily in his sacrifices, wee tread out of the generation of the true vine & the vine of Sorec, which is inter­preted chosen, the redde newe wines, and of them wee drinke newe wine of the kingdome of his father, not in the oldnesse of the letter, but in the newnesse of the spirite, singing a newe song, which none can sing, but in the kingdome of the Churche, which is the king­dome of the father.

‘This bread also did Iacob the Patriarch couet to eate, saying: if y ^e Lord shalbe with me, & giue me bread to eat, [Page 280] and rayment to couer mee. For as many of vs as are bap­tised in Christ, haue put on Christ, and do eat the breade of Angels, and do heare our Lorde saying: My meate is, that I may do the will of him that sent mee, my fa­ther, that I may accomplish his worke. Let vs there­fore do the will of his father which sent vs, and let vs ac­complish his worke: and Christ shall drinke with vs his bloud in the kingdome of the Church.’ This is the whole discourse of Hierome, and by the distinction of y ^e letter, you see what Maister Heskins hath left out, both in the beginning, and in the ende, and yet he raileth at y ^e pro­claimer, for snatching truncately a fewe wordes, to make a shew to deceiue his auditorie. But by this whole trea­tise, you may see what the question is, and howe it is an­swered, namely, that the promise of Christ must bee vn­derstoode, of a spirituall drinking in the Church, which vtterly ouerthroweth the popish fantasie of real presence. For Christ is so present at euery celebration of the supper in his church, that he eateth his bodie, and drinketh his bloud, as Hierome sayth: which no man, except he bee mad, wil say to be otherwise then after a spirituall man­ner, and in the end, Hierome openeth what is his meate, and how he drinketh his bloud with vs, and that wee so eat his bodie, as we put him on for a garmēt in baptisme, and as Iacob did eat it, which must needes be spiritually. More collections, if any man desire, let him resort to the 31. Chapter of this second booke.

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

Fulke.Isychius is alledged in Leuit. lib. 6. Cap. 2 [...]. vpon this text. He that eateth of the holie things vnwittingly, shall put the fifth parte thereunto, and giue vnto the Priest the hallowed thing. Sancta sanctorum, &c. The most holie things properly are the my­steries of Christ, because it is his bodie, of whome Gabriell said vn­to the virgin: The holy ghost shall come vpō thee, and the power of the moste highest shall ouershadowe thee, therefore that holy one that shalbe borne of thee, shalbe called the sonne of God. And Esay also: The Lord is holie, & dwelleth in the heightes, that is to saye, [Page 281] in the bosome of his father. For from this sacrifice he hath forbid­den, not onely strangers and soiourners & hyred seruaunts, but hee commaunded also, not to receiue it by ignorance. And he taketh it by ignorance, which knoweth not the vertue and dignitie thereof, which knoweth not that this bodie and bloud is according to the trueth, but receiueth the mysteries, and knoweth not the vertue of the mysteries. Vnto whome Salomon sayth, or rather the spirite which is in him: When thou sittest to eat with a Prince, attende diligently, what things are set before thee. He also compelling o­penly and constraining him that is ignorant to adde a fifth parte. For this fifth parte being added, maketh vs to vnderstande the di­uine mysteries, intelligibly. Nowe, what the fifth parte is, the wordes of the Law giuer may teache thee. For he sayth: he shall add a fifth parte, with that he hath eaten. And howe can a man adde a fifth parte of that which he hath alreadie eaten and consumed? For he biddeth not another thing, or from any other where. But a fifth parte to be added of it, or with it, or as the 70. interprete vpon it. Then the fifth parte of it, vpon it, is the worde which was vttered by Christ him selfe vpon the Lordes mysterie. For that being added, deliuereth and remoueth vs from ignorance, as to thinke any thing carnall or earthly of those holie things, but de­creeth, that those thinges shoulde bee taken diuinely & spiritually, which is properly called the fifth part, for the diuine spirite which is in vs, and the worde which he deliuered, doth sett in order the senses that are in vs, and doth not onely bring foorth our taste vnto mysterie, but also our hearing & sight and touching & smel­ling, so that of these things which are verie high, we do suspect, no­thing that is neare to lesse reason or weake vnderstanding.

This place M. Hesk. noteth, that the mysteries are called a most holy thing, and a sacrifice. We confesse it is a most holy thing, & a sacrifice of thanksgiuing, for so y ^e fathers meant, and not a propitiatorie sacrifice. Moreouer he noteth, that it is called the verie bodie and bloud in verie deede. Although the wordes of the author sounde not so roundly, yet let that be graunted also, what is then the conclusion? Marie then, haue ye a plaine place for the proclaimer, & issue ioyned thereupon, that no one writer of like auncientie, sayth, it is not the verie bodie. For thè [Page 282] plainesse of the place, I wish always, that the author may be his own expositor. First, where he sayth, that the fifth part added, maketh vs to vnderstand the mysteries intel­ligibly (that is as he vseth the terme) spiritually & mysti­cally, although M. Hesk. translate intelligibiliter easily.

Secondly, where he sayth, wee must thinke nothing car­nally or earthly of the holy things, and that the worde of God decreeth, that they should be taken diuinely and spiritually. As for the issue it was ioyned & tryed in the one and twentieth Chapter of the first booke. But wee must heare what Hesychius sayth further. Quicunque ergo sanctificata &c. Whosoeuer therfore shal eat of the things sancti­fied by ignorance, not knowing their vertue (at we haue saide) shall adde a fifth parte of it vpon it, and giue it to the Priest into the sanctuarie. For it behoueth the sanctification of the mysticall sacri­fice, and the translation or commutation from thinges sensible to things intelligible, to be giuen to Christ, which is the true Priest, that is, to graunt and impute to him the miracle of them, because that by his power and the worde vttered by him, those things that are seene, are as surely sanctified, as they exceede all sense of the flesh. Out of these words M. Hesk. would proue transub­stantiation, because he saith, there is a translation or cō ­mutation from things sensible to intelligible, y ^t is, from bread, which is perceiued by y ^e senses, to y ^e body of Christ, which in this manner is not perceiued by senses. But M. Hesk. must proue the bodie of Christe to bee no sensible thing, but a thing which may be perceiued by vnderstan­ding only, or else his exposition wil not stand, for here is a diuision & exposition of things sensible & intelligible, which is a plaine ouerthrow of popish transubstantiatiō, & carnall presence, for y ^t wherunto the things sensible are changed, is not a sensible thing, as the naturall bodie of Christ is, but they are changed into things intelligible▪ y ^t is, which may only by vnderstanding be conceiued, & so is the spiritual feeding of our soules by faith, with y ^e verie body & bloud of Christ. Next Augustin is cited in Ps. 33 a place which hath ben cited & answered more then once alreadie. Et ferebatur, &c. And he was carried in his own bāds. [Page 283] Brethren how could this be true in a man? &c. I will remit the reader to the 10. Chap. of this second book, where it is an­swered by Aug. him self, & in the same exposition. Christ caried himself, saith Aug. in his hands, quodam modo, after a certaine manner, but not simply. Maister Hesk. iang­ling of an onely figure, hath bene often reproued: wee make not the sacrament such an onely figure, as Dauid might carrie in his handes of him selfe, for Dauid could make no sacrament of him selfe, but such a figure, as is a diuine and heauenly worke, to giue in deede, that it re­presenteth in signe. An other place of Augustine, is cy­ted De Trin. lib. 3. cap. 4. but truncately (as he termeth it) for he neither alledgeth the heade nor the feete, by which the scope of Augustines wordes might be perceiued. But the whole sentence is this. Si ergo Apostolus Paulus, &c. ‘If therefore the Apostle Paule, although hee did yet carrie the burthen of his body, which is corrupted and presseth downe the soule, although he did as yet see but in part, and in a darke speach, desiring to be dissolued and to bee with Christ, & groning in himself for the adoption, way­ting for the redēption of his body, Could neuerthelesse preach our Lord Iesus Christ by signifying, otherwise by his tong, otherwise by his Epistle, otherwise by the sacrament of his body & bloud for neither his tong, nor the parchments, nor the ynke nor the signifying sounds vttered with his tong, nor the signes of the letters written in skinnes, do we call the body and bloud of Christ, but only that which being taken of the fruits of the earth, & being consecrated with my­sticall prayer, we do rightly receiue vnto spiritual health, in remem­brance of our Lords suffring for vs: which when it is brought by the hands of mē, to that visible forme, it is not sanctified that it shuld be so great a sacramēt, but by the spirit of god working inuisibly:’ ‘whē God worketh al these things which in that work are done by corporall motions, mouing first the inuisible parts of his ministers, either the soules of men, or of secret spirits y ^t are subiectes seruing him: what maruel is it, if also in the creature of heauen & earth, the sea, & al the ayre, God ma­keth what he wil both sensible and inuisible things, to set forth him selfe in them, as he him selfe knoweth it shuld [Page 284] be:’ his owne substaunce as it is not appearing, which is altogether vnchangeable, and more inwardly and secretly, higher then all the spirites which he hath created.

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

But howe S. Augustine did expound these wordes, M. Heskins if he durst, might haue cyted this place, Contra [Page 285] Adimantum. ‘ Nam ex eo quod scriptum est sanguinem pecoris a­nimam eius esse, pręter id quod supra dixi, non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris anima, possum etiam interpretari praeceptum il­lud in signo esse positum: non enim Dominus dubitanit dicere: hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. For of that which is written, that the bloud of a beast is the life thereof, be­side that which I said before, that it pertaineth not to me what becommeth of the life of a beast, I may interprete that commandement to be giuen in a signe: for our Lord doubted not to say: this is my body, when he gaue the signe of his body.’ This place is plaine, and will not suffer M. Heskins glose, that the accidents are called a signe of his body, for then it is nothing like to the text, which he compareth to this: bloud is the life of the beast. Let this place expound Augustine, when so euer he nameth the sa­crament the body of Christ.

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

Chrysostome is cyted In 26. Math. Hom. 83. Fulk. Credamus v­bique &c. Let vs beleeue in euery place, neither let vs resist him, although it seemeth to be an absurde thing to our sense, and to our cogitation, which is saide. Let his word I beseech you ouercome both our sense and our reason, which thing let vs do in all matters, and specially in mysteries, not looking vpon those things only which lye before vs, but also holding fast his wordes. For we can not be decei­ued by his wordes, but our sense is most easie to be deceiued: they can not be false, but this our sense is often and often deceiued. Therefore bicause he hath saide: This is my body, let vs be held with no dout­fulnesse, but let vs beleeue, and throughly see it with the eyes of vn­derstanding. Here M. Heskins noteth that it passeth not rea­son, to make present a figure of his body, as though the mysterie of the sacrament were nothing, but a figure of his body. Secondly, that Chrysostome willeth Christes wordes to be vnderstanded as they be spoken. No doubt, but he would haue them to be vnderstoode as they were meant by Christe, and that is spiritually, for which cause he willeth vs to beholde the matter with the eyes of our [Page 286] vnderstanding and by faith. And whereas M. Heskins doth further alledge this Doctours wordes In Marc. 14. Hom. 51. Qui dixis &c. He that saide, This is my body, did bring to passe the thing also with his worde. We confesse he did so, but thereof it doth not followe, that al figure is wiped away, as he saith: neither is there any plaine place for the pro­clamer, or in any thing that followeth in the same Ho­mely. Quando igitur &c. When then thou seest the Priest giue the body, thinke not the hand of the Priest, but the hand of Christe is put foorth vnto thee. Surely in these wordes, we must ei­ther say that the Priestes hande is transubstantiated into the hande of Christ, or else we must acknowledge a figu­ratiue speach. It followeth in Chrysostome, for more per­suasion. Qui enim maius &c. ‘ For he that hath giuen a greater thing for thee, that is to say, his life, why will he disdaine to deliuer his body to thee? Let vs therefore heare both Priestes and other, howe great and how woonderfull a thing is graunted to vs. Let vs heare I pray you, and let vs tremble, he hath deliuered his flesh vnto vs, him selfe offered hath he set before vs. What satisfaction there­fore shall we offer, when after we are nourished with such a foode, we doe offend? When eating a lambe, we are turned into woolues? when beeing satisfied with sheepes flesh, we rauine as lyons? M. H. noteth, y ^t here be termes to plaine for figuratiue speaches, & yet in spite of his nose, he must cōfesse al this speach to be figuratiue, or else he must make Chrysost. Authour of grosse absurdities. I will only speak of one, which is most apparant. Chrysost. saith, it is a greater matter that Christ gaue his life, then y ^t he giueth his body. Let me aske him this question. Doth hee giue a dead body in the sacra­ment, or a liuing? If hee giue a liuing body, hee giueth his life in the sacrament, and then howe is it lesse, when hee giueth both his life and his body? But Chrysostome meaneth, that he suffered death, which is a greater mat­ter, then that he giueth vs his body in the sacrament, for that is a memoriall of his death, and receiueth all the ver­tue from his death, & so the giuing of his life is a greater matter, then the giuing of his body in the sacrament, for y ^e was in acte, this in mysterie.’ But let vs followe M. Hes. [Page 287] The sacrament is a wonderful thing, therefore no figure, nor spiritual receit only, which are not wonderfull. This argument is false, for sacramentall figures and spirituall things are great wonders, thought not sensible myracles. As for eating the Lamb, the Sheepe, and such other, are so plaine figures, that impudencie her selfe would not deny them to be figures. Finally he noteth, that sinners receiue the bodye of Christe in the sacrament, which hee saith, the Protestantes denye, which is as grossely, for except sinners should receiue Christe in the sacrament, no men should receiue him. ‘But the Protestantes say, that wic­ked men or reprobate men, vngodly men, vnpenitent sinners, receiue not the body of Christe, which though it haue bene sufficiently proued before, yet I will adde one more testimony out of Saint Augustine De ciuitate Dei. Lib. 21. Cap. 25. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi. De­nique ipse dicens: Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sangui­nem meum, in me manet & ego in eo, ostendit quid sit, non sa­cramento tenus, sed reuera corpus Christi manducare, & eius sanguinem bibere. Neyther is it to be saide, that these men (meaning heretiques & other wicked men) doe eate the bodie of Christ, bicause they are not to bee accounted among the members of Christ. Finally he himself saying: He y ^t eateth my flesh & drinketh my blud, abideth in me & I in him: sheweth what it is, not touching y ^e sacramēt only, but indeed to eat y ^e body of Christ, & drink his bloud.’ But now let vs returne to Chrys. who Hom. 83. in 26. Math. hath these words, Praecipuā &. He dissolueth their chiefe solem­nitie, and calleth thē to another table ful of horror saying: Take ye and eat ye, this is my body. How then wer they not troubled hearing this? bicause they had heard many & great things of these before. Here M. Hes. troubleth him self very much & his readers more, to proue y ^t by the doctrin which they heard before, vttered in the sixt of Iohn, they were so instructed as they were not troubled, which we confes to be true, although that doctrine doth none otherwise pertaine vnto the sa­crament, then as the sacrament is a seale of the doctrine. [Page 288] But Chrysostome saith further in the same Homely. Hac de causa &c. For this cause with desire I haue desired to eate this passeouer with you, that I might make you spirituall. He him self also dranke thereof, least when they had heard his wordes, they should say: what then do we drinke bloud and eate flesh? and so should haue bene troubled. For when he spake before of those things, many were offended only for his wordes. Therefore least the same thing should happen nowe also, he him selfe did it first, that he might in­duce them with quiet minde, to the communication of the mysteries. Here M. Heskins falleth into a sound sleepe, and then dreameth a long dreame of the reall presence, and the trouble of the Apostles, and lothsomnesse of bloud, the contradiction of Chrysostomes wordes, and I wote not what beside▪ But to a man that is awake, Chrysostom spea­keth plaine ynough. He saith, this was y ^e cause, why Christ desired to eate the Passeouer with them, which he taketh to be, that hee did first drinke before them &c. that hee might make thē spirituall, that is, y ^t they might not haue carnall imaginations of eating his body and his bloud as the Capernaites had, but vnderstande those thinges spi­ritually, the rather when they sawe him eate and drinke of them, which if he had eaten his owne naturall body, and drunk his owne natural bloud, would haue troubled them more, then if he had not tasted of them. And how so euer M. Heskins drumbleth and dreameth of this matter, Cranmer saith truely, that if Christ had turned the breade into his body, as the Papistes affirme, so great and woon­derfull a chaunge, should haue bene more plainely set­foorth in the scripture, by some of the Euangelistes.

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

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

Theophylus Alexandrinus is brought on the stage in this shewe, cyted Lib. 2. Pasch. Consequens est &c. Fulk. It is conse­quent, that he that receiueth the former things, should also receiue those things that follow. And he that shall say, that Christ was cru­cified for diuels, must allowe also that it is to be saide vnto them: This is my body, and take ye, this is my bloud. For if he be crucified for diuels (as the author of new doctrine doth affirme) what priui­ledge shall there be, or what reason that onely men should commu­nicate with his body and bloud, and not diuels also for whome he shed his bloud in his passion? Hee saith here is no mention of tropes and figures. A substantiall reason, therefore none are vsed. It is a good reason that Theophylus vseth: that Christ died not for the diuels, bicause he giueth them no participation of his body and bloud, but it hangeth on a rush that M. Hes. concludeth. Such as are partakers of his reall body, may be made partakers of his spirituall body: but diuels can not of his reall body, therefore not of his spirituall body be partakers. See how this peruerse man, maketh the sacrament to be the reall body of Christ, and that which was crucified, his spirituall body. By which he doth not only make Christe haue two bodies, but also o­uerthroweth the truth of the one, to establish the falshod of y ^e other. But the same writer in y ^e first booke, doth more certainly auouch the real presence, & deny the figures in these wordes: Dicit spiritum sanctum &c. Origen saith, that the holy Ghost doth not worke vpon those things, which are without life nor commeth to vnreasonable things. Which when he saith, he thinketh not that the mysticall waters in baptisme by the comming of the holy Ghost to them are consecrated, and that the Lords bread by which our sauiours body is shewed, and which we breake for san­ctification of vs, and the holy cup which are set on the table, and be things without life, are sanctified, by inuocation and comming of the holy Ghost to them. M. Hes. translateth quo saluaioris corpus ostenditur, in which the body of our Sauiour is shewed, but it is plaine ynough, Theophylus meaneth, that by the breade the body of Christe is shewed, that is signified, [Page 290] or figured, or represented. As for consecration, which terme he giueth to the waters in baptisme, Maister Hes­kins chattereth I wot not what about it, nor to what pur­pose. Certaine it is, that he vseth not the terme as the Pa­pistes doe, for they apply it only to the sacrament of the altar, as they call it.

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

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

Cyrillus is cited, as he is often, ad Colosyrium. Non dubi­tes an &c. Fulke. Doubt thou not whether this be true, when hee saith manifestly, This is my body: but rather receiue the worde of our Sauiour in faith. For seeing hee is the trueth, hee doth not lye. [Page 291] Maister Heskins inferreth, that the wordes of Christe are manifest, and so to be taken in the literall sense with­out figure, bicause he vseth these wordes, Christ saide ma­nifestly, this is my body: but this is a childish mockerie. Christe saide manifestly, I am the doore. Doeth it there­fore followe, that it is no figuratiue speach, and that the woordes of Christe are manifest, and therefore to bee ta­ken in the literall sense? And yet I beleeue, bicause Christ saide manifestly, I am the doore, that he is in deede the doore, though not literally but figuratiuely taken. It gre­ueth M. Hes. that the proclamer should play with Duns his indiuid [...]um vagum, saying, that by the like meanes, hee might disgrace the faith of the trinitie, to open the quid­dities of distinctions, and relations of persons, that bee spoken thereof. And I thinke the same, if hee shoulde teach that holy mysterie after the schoole manner, & not after the word of God. But he returneth to an other place of Cyrill. Ne horreremus carnem & sanguinem. Bicause this place is already rehearsed more at large, and answered in the 51. Chap. of this booke, I will send the reader backe, to consider it in that place.

Gregorie is cited Lib. 4. dialog. cap. [...]8. Debemus ita (que) prae­sens sęculum &c. We ought therfore, seing we see this present world to be passed away, with al our mind to contemne it, to offer to god the daily sacrifices of teares, the daily sacrifices of his body and bloud. For this sacrifice doth singularly saue the soul from eternal destruc­tion, which repayreth to vs the death of the only begotten, by a my­sterie. Who although since he arose from death, he doth not now dy, and death shal haue no more dominion of him: yet liuing in him self immortally & incorruptibly, is sacrificed againe for vs in this my­sterie of the holy oblation. For his body is there receiued, his flesh is diuided for the health of the people, his bloud is shed, not nowe vpon the hands of the Infidels, but into the mouthes of the faithfull. Hereof therefore let vs consider, what sacrifice this is for vs, which for our deliuerance doeth followe the passion of the one­ly begotten Sonne. For which of the faithfull ought to haue any doubt, that in the same houre of the immolation, the heauens are opened at the Priestes voyce? that the companies of [Page 292] Angels are present in the mysterie of Iesus Christ? That the low­est things are coupled to the highest: earthly things are ioyned to heauenly thinges, and that one thing is made of thinges visible and inuisible? Of these last wordes of ioyning high and lowe, heauenly and earthly thinges, he maketh a greate matter, which is (saith hee) that Christe is ioyned to the earthly formes of breade and wine. Where note (I praye you) that he nameth the accidents of things, for the thin­ges them selues, which is a toy to mocke an ape. And yet he pleaseth him selfe so well therein, that he would drawe Irenaeus, which is cleane contrarie to transubstantiation, to bee a great patrone thereof: Li. 4. ca. 34. Irenaeus saith as wee haue shewed before more at large, that Eucharistie consisteth of two thinges, earthly and heauenly. Nowe hee inqui­reth of vs, what is the heauenly part of the sacrament? And he reasoneth that it is neither the grace of God, nor thanksgiuing, nor the worde of God, nor sanctification. Well: what is it then? Gregorie saith, it is the bodye of Christ, and so say we, spiritually receiued. But if I shuld aske M. Hes. what is the earthly part of the sacrament, hee wil say, the accidents of bread & wine, but sauing his wis­dome, accidents be neither earthly not heauenly, but the earthly thing must needs be a substantiall thing, & what other earthly substance can there be, but the substance of bread and wine? He saith, that corporall receiuing is here auouched by Gregory. Then must he tel me how in these words, the sacrifice of teares, is matched with the sacrifice of his flesh and bloud, and how the death of Christe is re­paired by a mysterie, howe the fleshe of Christ is diuided or parted, if this can not bee done, but spiritually, then Christes body can not be eaten, but spiritually.

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

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

Fulk.Although neither of these writers are within the com­passe [Page 293] of the challenge, yet bicause Euthymius vseth much to followe auncient Doctours, and Isidorus was neere the time of the challenge, I will set downe their places and examine their wordes. Euthymius is cyted In 26. Math. Sicut vetus testamentum &c. Euen as the olde Testament had sa­crifices and bloud: so hath the newe, namely the body and bloud of our Lorde. Nowe he did not say: These are the signes of my body and my bloud: but these thinges be my body and bloud. Therefore we must not looke to the nature of those things that are set foorth, but to the vertue of them. For as he did supernaturally deifie (if I may so speake) his assumpted flesh: so doth he also vnspeakably transmute these thinges into the same his quickening body, and into his precious bloud, and into the grace of them. And the bread hath a certaine similitude vnto the body, and wine to bloud. For both the bread and body are earthly: but the wine and the bloud are airie and hote. And as bread doth comfort, so the body of Christe doth the same and much more, it sanctifieth both the body and the soule. And as the wine doth make glad: so the bloud of Christ doth the same, and moreouer is made a defence. Although the chiefest partes of this place are answered in the 17. Chapter of the first booke, and in the 51. Chap. of this second booke: yet as M. Hes. gathereth here two other matters, so I wil make answere to them. First he saith, That the figuratiue glose of the sacramētaries is flatly denied: But by what words I pray you▪ Marrie where he saith: Christ saide not these be signes of my body and bloud, but these are my body and bloud, if this be a flat deniall of a figure, bicause Christe saide not so, then is it likewise in these speaches, he saide not the rocke was a signe of Christe, but the rocke was Christe, the Lambe is the Passeouer &c. Euthymius meaneth not to exclude all figures from the saying of Christ, but to shew that the sacrament is not a bare, naked, and vaine signe, but a true signe of the very body and bloud of Christe, giuen to the faythfull in the administration of the sup­per.

The second matter that Maister Heskins noteth, is, of the vnspeakable transmutation, and that must needes bee meant of transubstantiation of the breade and wine into [Page 294] the naturall bodie and bloud of Christe, by this reason: there be foure thinges called the bodie of Christ. 1. The figure. 2. The Church. 3. The merite, fruite, or vertue of his passion. 4. And his bodie naturall, but it can not be into the figure, nor into the Churche, Nor into the spirituall bodie of Christe, I meane the merite, vertue, and grace of Christes passion, Ergo it must needes be spoken of the naturall bo­die of Christ. But vouchsafe (gentle Reader) to runne o­uer once againe these wordes of Euthymius, which in La­tine are these. Ita & hec ineffabiliter transmuta [...] in ipsum vini­fic [...] corpus, & in ipsius pręciosum sanguinem si [...]on, & in gratiam ipso [...]: Euen so he doth vnspeakably transmute and change thes [...] thinges into the same his quickening bodie, and into his owne preci­ous bloud, and into the grace of them. Now tell me whether M. Heskins doth flatly denie, that which Euthymius doeth flatly affirme, that the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of the bodie and bloud of Christ? By whiche words he doth sufficiently expound, what kind of change he meaneth of them into the bodie and bloud of Christ, not a corporall but a spirituall transmutation. To the rest of the sentence which is a good exposition of the for­mer parte, shewing both the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament, and for what cause they are vsed to re­present the bodie and bloud of Christe, namely, for the similitude they haue vnto the bodie and bloud of Christ: Maister Heskins sayeth nothing. But let the reader weigh it well, and he shall see it cleane contrarie both to transubstantiation, and the carnall presence.

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

In this place is nothing for the carnall presence, but that Isydore calleth the sacrament the bodie and bloud of [Page 295] Christ, which we also do, and acknowledg to be so right­ly called. And Maister Heskins can conclude nothing but vpon a negatiue, he saith not he gaue a figure, so may I conclude, he saith not he gaue his naturall body, and no figure. After this he reasoneth as fondely of Christes blessing of the bread, which although the Euangelistes do expound to be giuing of thanks, yet admit blessing to signifie consecration, and what hath he gayned? Forsooth Christ wold not haue blessed it to make but a figure: still he playeth the foole with that bable, but a figure, onely a figure, a bare figure, which we vtterly doe forsake. But toward the ende of the Chapter, he falleth to gathering his voyces, and affirmeth that none of the olde fathers cal the sacrament a figure, except Tertullian onely, wherein he lyeth impudently, for beside Ambrose, and Augustine, which both vse the very worde figure, we haue shewed in due places, that both they & in a manner al the rest of the fathers, haue either written plainely against the carnall presence, or else nothing for it. As for his last challenge, that all the protestants must bring forth when any coun­trie did professe the same religion that is now preached, is vaine: and hath beene sufficiently aunswered in other treatises. It is certein, that all nations y ^t were conuerted by the Apostles, before they were corrupted by heresie and Antechristianitie, professed the same religion that we doe. As for the alterations in King Henries time, King Edwardes, and the Queenes Maiesties, that now is, it is easie to answere. King Henrie began the worke, whiche King Edwarde finished, and the Queene repayred and vpholdeth in spight of the diuel and the Pope. As for the consent and peace of the Popishe Church, it proueth no­thing, but that the diuell had then all thinges at his will, and therefore might sleepe on both sides, but now hee is disturbed of possession of the house, nowe he stormeth, and of Robin good fellowe, which he was in the Popishe time, is become playne Sathan the Di­uell.

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

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

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

Fulke.Although we might demurre vpon the vnderstanding of those wordes of Theophylact, In 14. Matth. That the bread & wine are transelementated into the vertue of his flesh & bloud: yet considering the corrupt time in which he liued, his authoritie is not worth the striuing for. And whereas Maister Heskins would make him so say no more then the olde fathers, Hilar. Iren. Cyril. Chrysost. &c. Seeing we haue already considered their testimonies, it were su­perfluous [Page 297] to repeate them againe in this place, and as of­ten, as it pleaseth Maister Heskins to abuse their names.

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

Oecumenius saith litle to the purpose, too or fro. But Anselmus goeth more roundly to y ^e matter, Fulke. as one y ^t was y ^e scholler of Lanfrācus, which wrote against Berengarius. Neuerthelesse vpon these wordes of his, riseth some other matter: Neque eminet. For we do neither altogether exclude a fi­gure frō this sacrament, nor admit an only figure. This place M. Hesk. would haue to expound Tertullians figure, but we haue shewed before, it will not serue. Vnto this he addeth Augustine, cited in the Popes decrees, but not to be found in his workes in these wordes. The bodie of Christ is both the trueth and a figure: The trueth whyle the bodie and bloud of Christ in the vertue of the holie Ghost is made of the substance of bread and wine: but that is the figure which is outwardly perceiued. De cons. Dist. 2. Cap vtrum. When these wordes are found in a­ny worke of S. Augustines, we will make aunswere to them, otherwise we may not receiue them of the onely credit of the Popes law. Vnlesse they haue such meaning as the saying of Hilarius B. of Rome which followeth. Corpus Christi, &c. The bodie of Christ which is takē at the altar is a figure, whyle the bread & wine are seene outwardly, and a truth, while the bodie and bloud of Christ inwardly are beleeued. It see­meth to me this saying to be playne ynough, that the sa­crament is an outward figure of the bodie and bloud of Christ, which is inwardly receiued spiritually by faith. ‘As Gratian also reporteth the wordes of the same Hilarie. De Cons. Dist. 2. Vbi pars est. Non enim est quantitas visibilis in hoc aestimanda mysterio, sed virtus sacramenti spiritualis. The vi­sible quantitie is not to be regarded in this mysterie, but the spirituall vertue of the sacrament. But M. Heskins proceedeth, and by Anselmus authoritie he will auoide the trifling sophysticall argument, made by Maister Pil­kinton in the open disputation holden in Cambridge.’

[Page 298]By like Maister Heskins had not learned the solution at that time, and therefore nowe he sendeth it ouer the sea to him. The argument was this: Christe tooke bread, he blessed bread, he brake bread, wherfore he gaue bread to his disciples: if he gaue bread, then not his bodie. M. Heskins saith, he so vseth the words, as though by the actes which the verbes expresse, nothing had beene done. Yes M. Heskins he chaunged the vse, but not the sub­stance. But by the like sophisme (saith Maister Heskins, he might proue that he gaue no sacrament of his bodie. For that he deliuered which he tooke, but he tooke bread, no sacrament: therfore he deliuered bread, no sacrament.

But by his patience, this sophisme of his, is nothing like Maister Pilkintons argument. For in one proposi­tion, he speaketh of the substance, in the other of another qualitie or affection beside the substance, as in this ex­ample: that which you bought in the shambles you haue eaten, but you bought cowe fleshe, therefore you haue eaten caulfes fleshe. Euerie childe seeth this fol­loweth not. But if I speake of the substance in both a­like, it followeth as thus. That which you bought in the market, you haue eaten, but you bought mutton, ther­fore you haue eaten mutton. Vpon the premises graun­ted, this argument followeth of necessitie, and such is the argument of Maister Pilkinton, which all the Papistes in Louayne can not answere.

Hesk.The t [...]o and sixtieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Rupertus, and Nicholaus Methonen.

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

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

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

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

The foure and sixtieth Chapter, sheweth the exposition of Pe­true Çluniacensis & Bessarion vpon the same, Hesk.

[Page 300]In this Chapter, beside the sayings of this Dan Peter of Clunye & Bessarion, which for a Cardinals hatt in the counsell of Florence, forsooke the vnitie of the Greeke church, he maketh a short repetition of all the authors names & sayings, whom he hath cited vpō this text: This is my bodie, which because I haue aunswered at large, it were needelesse to recapitulate in this place. I trust the indifferent reader will confesse, that not one of the high­her house hath giuen a cleare voyce on his syde, but all are most cleare against him.

Hesk.The fiue and sixtieth Chapter, treateth of the bread, blessed, and giuen by Christ to the two disciples in Emaus, and proueth by The­ophyl [...]st & Bed [...], that it was the sacrament,

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

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

Fulk.I sayd before, we confesse, that not Augustine onely, but other also of the fathers were of this opinion. The [Page 301] place of Augustine hath ben alreadie cited & considered. I would also omit the place of Chrysostome, but that he gathereth further matter out of it, then the pretence of this Chapter. He is cited in Hom. 17. in Math. Quia de san­ctis, &c. Because we haue begon to speake of holy things, it is not to be left vnspoken, but that sanctification is one thing, and the thing sanctified another: For that is a sanctification that sanctifi­eth another thing: but that which is sanctifyed cannot sanctifie an­other thing, although it selfe be sanctified. As for example, thou [...]ignest the bread which thou eatest, as Paule saith, it is sanctifyed by the worde of God & by prayer. Thou hast sanctified it, thou hast not made it sanctification. But that which the priest giueth from his hand is not onely sanctified, but also it is sanctification, because that onely is not giuen which is seene, but also that which is vnderstoode. Of the sanctified breade therefore it is lawfull to cast to beastes, and giue it to infidels, because it doth not sanctifie the receiuer. But if that which is taken of the hande of the priest, were such, as that which is eaten at the table, all men would eate of the table, and no man receiue it of the priestes hands. Where­fore our Lord also did not onely blesse the bread in the waye, but gaue it with his hand to Cleophas & his fellowe. And Paul fasting did not onely blesse the bread, but also reached it with his hande to Luke, and the rest of his disciples.

Three things M. Heskins noteth. First, that Chryso­stome calleth the sacrament, not only a sanctified thing, but also sanctification it selfe. And here he would haue the aduersarie to answere him, where this sanctification resteth? in the bread, or in the priest. I answere in neither of both, but in Christ, which is the heauenly matter of y ^e sacrament receiued by faith: for if sanctification rested in the bread, then all they that receiue the bread should bee sanctified, but all they that receiue the bread, receiue not sanctification, neither be they sanctified, therefore sancti­fication resteth not in the breade: and so consequently, y ^e bodie of Christ is not in y ^e bread. And whereas M. Hesk. reasoneth, that y ^e priest giueth sanctification, I answere, y ^t is said, because he giueth the outward sacrament, as Iohn baptised, yet speaking properly of the ministerie of man, [Page 302] he restraineth it to the washing of water. The seconde thing he would haue noted, is, that Christe deliuered the sacrament to Cleophas and his fellow, wherof, as Chry­sostome hath no ground in the scripture, so that which he affirmeth, that Paule in the ship should minister the sacrament (which is the third thing M. Hesk. obserueth) is vtterly false, and confuted by the text. For his exhor­tation was to the whole multitude, whereof the greatest parte, and almost all, were infidels. And the text sayeth, that they did all receiue foode; & being satisfyed, cast the rest ouer borde to lighten the shippe. But the place, Actes 2. that they continued in the doctrine of the Apostles & communication, & breaking of bread & prayers: I con­fesse may well and aptly be vnderstood of the participa­tion of the Lords table, & yet nothing lesse may be ga­thered out of it, then that horrible sacriledge of robbing the church of the Lords cupp, because bread is onely na­med, as in the next Chapter shalbe shewed.

Hesk.The seuen and sixtieth Chapter, proueth by the scripture [...], and practises in the last Chapter handled, that the Communion vnder one kinde is lawfull and good.

Fulk.It aunswereth to one parte of the challenge (he saith) to proue, that the communion was ministred within 600 yeres after Christe in one kinde onely. And this he will do verie easily. For he beginneth with Christ himselfe, whome moste impudently and blasphemously, he affir­meth to haue ministred the Communion in one kinde onely, to the disciples at Emaus. First, although diuerse of the olde writers are of opinion, and yet wthout as­seueration, that Christe there gaue the sacrament, yet none of them is so bolde, to gather any such diuision of the sacrament out of that place. Secondly, notwithstan­ding their opinion, it is most probable, that hee neuer ministred the sacrament after his first institution thereof, not onely, because there is no mention thereof, but be­cause he gaue that as the last pledge of his presence with them, immediatly before he departed from them. And [Page 303] although after his resurrection hee appeared to them at sundrie times, by the space of fourtie dayes, eating and drinking with them, to shewe the certeintie of his resurrection, speaking of the kingdome of God: yet is there no worde of celebrating of the sacrament with them. And it is altogether vnlikely, that he would giue y ^e sacrament, the comfort of his absence, at his first returne againe to them, and that he woulde celebrate the same to two disciples, and not to the whole number of his A­postles, who had as great neede to be confirmed in faith, as those two.

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

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

[Page 304]In all these places and a great number more, breade onely is named, in which it were mere madnesse to af­firme, that only bread is spoken of, & not meat or drink. So the whole supper of Christ cōsisting of bread & wine, for the outwarde or earthly parte: vnder the name of breade, the cuppe also is comprehended. Wherefore the practise of Christ is not contrarie to his institution, as M. Heskins most arrogantly, wickedly, and vnlearnedly affirmeth. The second reason he vseth is, that the institu­tion perteineth onely to priestes, because Christ did then minister it onely to priests. But first, that is not proued nor like to be true: for, seeing our Sauiour Christe did minister the communion in the house of one of his dis­ciples, with whom he did eat the passeouer, it is not like that he excluded him from the sacrament of the new te­stament, with whome he was partaker of the sacrament of the olde testament. For proofe that both he and his familie were partakers of the Passouer with him, it is ma­nifest, that it was not possible for thirteene persons to eate vp a whole sheepe and other meat also at one meale. For it was a sheepe of a yeare olde, although it were a verie small one, and must be eaten with the head, feete & the purtenaunce, and nothing reserued vnto the mor­rowe. But graunt that onely the Apostles were parta­kers of the first institution by the same reason, y ^t the one part of the sacrament perteined to them only, the other parte also might be left to them onely, and so the peo­ple should haue neither of both kindes, because one­ly priestes had both kindes deliuered vnto them.

Further he sayeth, the doctrine of Saint Paule is not sufficient to proue, that the sacrament ought to bee mi­nistred in both kindes: for Saint Paule doth but onely set foorth the institution without an exclusiue, excluding all other ma­ners but this. O shamelesse dogge: is not the instituti­on of Christe an exclusiue of all other manners? take example of baptisme, is it lawfull to baptise with any other lycour then water? into any other name, then the name of the Father, the Sonne▪ and the holy Ghost? yea, [Page 305] it is sayed in the Actes, that the Apostles baptised in the name of Iesus Christe: and yet no man will saye, y ^t they brake the institution of Christe, and baptised onely in the name of Christe, excluding the father and the holy ghoste. Euen so it is sayde, they continued in breaking of breade, shall wee not vnderstande this after the insti­tution, as well as the other? Againe, if the institution of Christ, had not heene an exclusiue of all other man­ners, howe doth the Apostle, by the institution of Christ, reproue another manner brought in by the Corinthians? Finally, when the holy Ghost by Saint Paule, commaun­deth euery Christian man and woman to trye themsel­ues, and so not onely to eate of that breade, but also to drinke of that cupp: what Lucifer is that, which wil op­pose him selfe against the flatt commaundement of the holie ghost, 1. Cor. 11. and saye, the lay people shall not drinke of that cuppe, or may be without the cupp well ynough? But the doctrine of the Catholike church (as he sayeth) is, that the whole sacrament is in either of both kindes, the bloude is in the bodie, and the bodie in the bloud. But this is neither the doctrine of Christ, nor the doctrine of the church of Christ. For Christ to shewe, that he is a perfect nourish­ment vnto vs, which of necessitie consisteth of meate and drinke, and neither of both can be lacking, for the nou­rishment of our bodies: hath instituted his sacrament both in bread and drinke, to testifie vnto vs, that wee are perfectly fedd in him, and therefore hath deuided the sa­crament into two signes, the one to signifie his bodie, as meate, the other to represent his bloud, as drinke: and therefore confounded be he, y ^e confoundeth these things, which his heauenly wisedome hath thus mercifully di­stinguished. Iustinus also a moste auncient writer of the church affirmeth, that the sacrament consisteth of a drye and moyst nourishment, in Dialog. Cum. Tryphone aduersus Iudęos.

And euen this verie diuision of the sacrament, suf­ficiently confuteth both transubstantiation & the carnal presence. For, if he had purposed to giue vs his naturall [Page 306] bodie in the forme of bread, or otherwise in the bread, he would not haue deuided his bloud from his bodie. But euen hereby he taught vs, that hee spake of an hea­uenly, mysticall, and spirituall manner of eating his bo­die, and drinking his bloud by faith, and not of a swal­lowing or gulping in of the same at our mouth and our throte. But the cuppe (saith Maister Heskins) is the bo­die of Christ, and howe is it consecrated? by these words, This is my bloud. Why? where is nowe the plaine wor­des of scripture, where bloud is taken for a whole bodie? But seeing Christ sayth further, This is my bloud which is shed for you, and that bloud, which was shed for vs, was separated from his bodie, therefore this bloud in y ^e cuppe is separated from his bodie. And in verie deede, the mysterie of the cuppe is sett forth, in that he sayeth, his bloud was shedd for vs, and not as it remayned in the veynes of his bodie: for, not his bloud in his bodie, but the shedding of his bloud, hath washed our consci­ences from dead workes, to serue the liuing God. So the breaking of his bodie on the crosse, hath made it a spi­rituall meat for vs to feede vppon, and therefore he saith: this is my bodie which is giuen for you. ‘And so sayeth Hesychius verie well of the crosse, Quae etiam superimposi­tam Dominicam carnem esibilem hominibus reddit: nisi enim su­perimposita fuisset cruci, nos corpus Christi nequaquam mysticè perciperemus. The crosse maketh our Lordes fleshe layde vpō it eatable of men: for except it had been layde vpō the crosse, we should not receiue mystically the bodie of Christ in Leu. lib. 2. Cap. 6.’

But M. Heskins by miserable detorting of a worde or two, woulde make the auncient fathers patrones of his monstrous sacriledge, as though they taught whole Christ to be vnder eche kinde, of which opinion, there is not one title to be found in all their workes. First, Cy­prian de Cana Domini, Panis iste communis in carnem & sangui­nem Domini mutatus, pro [...]urat vitam. This common bread being changed into the bodie and bloud of our Lorde, procureth life. But here Maister Heskins playeth his olde parte most impu­dently, [Page 307] falsifying the wordes of Cyprian, by adding Do­mini, and leauing out that which followeth, and ma­keth all out of doubt, that Cyprian speaketh not here of the sacramentall bread, but of common breade. ‘His wor­des are these: Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem mutatus, procurat vitam & incrementum corporibus, ideo (que) ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas, sensibili ar­gumento edocta est, visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae ęternae ef­fectum, & non tam corporali, quàm spirituali transitione nos Christo vnitos. This common breade being chaunged in­to fleshe and bloud, procureth life and increase to our bodies: therefore the weakenesse of our faith being hol­pen by the accustomed effect of thinges, is taught by a sensible argument, that in the visible sacrament, is the effect of eternall life, and that wee are vnited to Christ, not so much by a bodily, as by a spirituall transition.’ You see therefore, howe shamefully hee abuseth Cy­prian.

Who seeing hee was so vehement against them that vsed water onely in the cuppe, would he (think you) al­lowe, that neither wine nor water shoulde be giuen? Especially, when hee giueth a generall rule, that the in­stitution of Christe bee precisely obserued, and that no­thing else is to be done concerning the cuppe, then that Christe him selfe did before vs, lib. [...]. Ep. 3. Caecilio. But are Papistes ashamed of forgerie, to mainteine their false doctrine of transubstantiation?

After Cyprian, hee depraueth the wordes of Irenaeus lib. 5. Calicem qui est creatura suum corpus confirmauit. ‘ The cuppe which is a creature, he confirmed to be his bodie: but it followeth, which he craftely omitteth, Ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando ergo & mixtus Calix & factus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis, & corporis Christi, &c. Of which hee doeth increase our bodies. When then the mixed cuppe and breade that is made, re­ceiueth the worde of God, the Eucharistie or sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christe is made.’

Whether there bee eclipsis or synechdoche in the for­mer [Page 308] wordes, thou mayst see plainly here, that hee meant not to exclude the bread, but that they both together make the sacrament. But Maister Heskins alledgeth fur­ther out of Irenaeus: Sanguis non est nisi a venis, & carni­bus & reliqua quae est secundùm hominem substantia. Bloud is not but of vaines and fleshe, and other substance of man. By these wordes which he vseth to proue, that Christe had a true bodie, because he had bloud, M. Heskins like a wise man would proue that wheresoeuer bloud is, there must be fleshe, and vaines also, wherein all the pudding wiues of Louayne will holde against him. In deede, bloude commeth from vaynes and fleshe, (as Irenęus sayeth) but it doth not followe, that where bloud is, there must be vaines and fleshe. As for the saying of Bernarde, wee are as little moued withall, as M. Heskins with Melan­cthon, to whome in his brauerie, he sayeth vale, and will cleaue to the substantiall doctrine of the fathers for the communion in one kinde, of which he is not able to bring one. But to conclude this Chapter, If he be asked why Christe did institute the sacrament vnder both kindes, if it bee sufficient to receiue one: he aunswereth, to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion. But all Christian men ought to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion, therefore he did institute it, for all Christi­an men to receiue vnder both kindes. And so S. Paule concludeth, as often as you eate of this bread, and drink of this cuppe, you shewe the Lordes death vntil he come. Wherefore the scripture is directly contrarie to the sa­crilegious decree of the Papistes, of receiuing the sacra­ment in one kinde onely.

Hesk.The eyght and sixtieth Chapter, proueth the same receipt vn­der one kinde to be lawfull, by the auncient practise of the Church.

Before these substantiall proues come in, he taketh vpon him to aunswer the obiections of the aduersaries. Fulke. And first of the Bohemnians, who vsed that place out of the sixt of S. Iohn, Except you eat the fleshe of the sonne of [Page 309] man, and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you. These & such like textes out of that Chapter, must needes be in­uincible argumentes against the Papistes, which holde that those sayinges are to bee vnderstoode of the sacra­ment, first and principally. And otherwise, for as much as the Lordes supper is a seale and sacrament of that do­ctrine and participation of the fleshe and bloude of our sauiour Christ, which he there teacheth: we may necessa­rily gather, y ^t seeing he ioyneth eating and drinking in y ^e thing, we may not omitt either of them in the signe.

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

Therefore, diuerse counsels, and specially Bracarense tertium Capitul. 1. and it is in the decrees De Con. Dis. 2. cum omne, as it reformed many corruptions, that were crept into the Church about the ministration of the cup, so this was one, which they reproued, that they vsed to dippe the breade in the cup, and so deliuer it to the peo­ple. ‘ Illud verò quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tra­dunt eucharistiam populis, nec hoc probatum ex Euangelio testi­monium receperunt, vbi Apostolis corpus suum commendauit & sanguinem, Seorsim enim panis & seorsim calicis commendatio memoratur. Nam intinctū panem alijs Christum praebuisse non le­gimus, excepto illo tantùm discipulo, quem intincta buccella magi­stri proditorem ostenderet, non quae sacramenti huius institutio­nem signaret. That also is to be condemned, that to make perfect the communion, they deliuer to the people, the sacrament dipped in the cupp, neither haue they recei­ued this testimonie brought out of the Gospell, where he deliuered to his Apostles both his bodie & his bloud, for seuerally of the breade, and seuerally of the cupp, the deliuerie is mentioned. For we read not that Christ gaue dipped bread to others, except that disciple only, whome the dipped soppe shewed to be the traitour of his maister, but did not set forth the institution of this sacrament.’ [Page 310] Note here the iudgement of this Counsell, that the in­stitution of Christ is to be obserued. Secondly, that they are condemned, that receiue not the testimonie of that first institution, as an onely rule to followe in the mini­stration of the sacrament, as the Papistes do. Thirdly, that the bloud must not be deliuered in the bread, and the bo­dy in the cuppe, but seuerally the breade, and seuerally the cup must be deliuered. Fourthly, that the communi­on is not perfect, without both kindes, which euen they confessed, that dipped the bread in the wine, and so gaue it foorth. Fiftly, consider if this Counsel could not al­lowe the ioyning of both kinds in one soppe, what would they haue thought of taking one kinde cleane away?

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

Concerning the Eutychians, there might bee some such fantasie, if they ioyned with the Manichees in this point, which presently I doe not remember that I haue read. But concerning the Manichees, it is certaine, there was an other cause of their refusall of the cup, bicause they condemned all drinking of wine. And of them it see­meth, that Leo spake, Serm. 4. de quadra. which M. Hes­kins rehearseth. Abducunt se &c. They withdrawe them selues from the sacrament of the health of man, and as they deny Christe our Lorde to be borne in the veritie of our flesh, so they doe not be­leeue, [Page 311] that he did verily die, and rise againe, and therefore they con­demne the day of our health and of our gladnesse, with the sadnesse of their fasting. And when to couer their infidelitie, they are so bold to be present at our mysteries, they so temper them selues in the communion of the sacraments, that sometimes they are more safely hidden. With vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe, but the bloud of our redemption they altogether refuse to drinke: which thing we will your holinesse to vnderstand for this cause, that suche kinde of men may be knowne to you and by these tokens, and that they whose sacrilege and dissimulation shall be found out being no­ted and bewrayed, by the Priestly authoritie, may be banished the societie of the Saints. This M. Hes. confesseth to be spoken a­gainst the Manichees. And I wold he would further note, that Leo chargeth them with dissimulation ioyned with sacriledge, which yet is more tollerable, then the Papistes open impudencie and violent sacriledge. But here he no­teth a plaine place for the proclamer, in that Leo saith: with vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe, but that Leo so calleth y ^e sacrament of the body of Christ, which after a certaine manner is the body of Christe, and not simply or absolutely, it appeareth by that which fol­loweth imediatly, that those heretiques refuse to receiue the bloud of our redemption, whereby hee meaneth the cup and the sacrament of his bloud, for if hee should not meane the outward sacramentes, but the body and bloud of Christ indeed, how could his body be receiued without his bloud? Therefore it is manifest hee speaketh of the signes and not of the things signified euen by their owne rule of concomitance.

And nowe followeth the whole saying of Gelasius, Comperimus autem &c. We haue found out of a certaintie, that certaine men after they haue receiued a portion of the holy body, do abstaine from the cup of the holy bloud, who (bicause I knowe not by what superstition they are taught to be withholden) let them without all doubt receiue the whole sacramentes, or else let them bee forbidden from the whole. For the diuision of one and the same mysterie, can not be done without great sacri­ledge. Maister Heskins to shift off this place, saith, it was [Page 312] written against the Manichees. But that is altogether vnlike, for then Gelasius would not haue saide, he knewe not by what superstition they were led, for he knewe well the blasphemies of the Manichees. Wherefore it is cer­taine, they were other such superstitious people, as the Papistes be nowe. But if it were written against the Ma­nichees, the Papistes following their steppes, shall gaine nothing, but proue them selues to ioyne with the Mani­chees.

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

But let vs see here what Maister Heskins, a man of in­uention passing Sinon the Gręcian, hath gathered out of it. There bee two thinges in this place plainely [Page 313] taught: The first is, the reall presence of Christes body and bloud, in that he so reuerently calleth the sacrament vnder one kinde, the portion of the Lords body, and the other he calleth the cup of the ho­ly bloud. For the spiritual bloud is not contained in external or ma­terial vessels. No syr, but the sacramēt of his natural bloud is, wherof he speaketh: as it is manifest by the words im­mediatly before, the portion of the Lords body, for his natural body is not broken into portions, but the bread which is a sacrament thereof, is broken, and therby is shewed, what wicked men receiue both in this saying of Gelasius, & in the other of Leo, not the naturall body of Christe, which cannot be receiued in portions, but a portion of the sacra­mental bread, which is therfore called the body of Christ, bicause it is so indeed to them that receiue it worthily, & is consecrated to that vse, that it may be the cōmunication of the body of Christ. And as it hath ben often shewed, sa­craments beare the names of the very things wherof they are sacramēts. The second thing that he teacheth (saith M. Hes.) is, that he calleth not these two kindes, Sacramentum, a sacrament, but, Sacramenta, sacramentes, in the plural number signifying ther­by, that each of them is a whole sacrament. O new Diuinitie! thē ye Papistes haue eight sacraments. But are you such a pru­dent gatherer M. Hes? it appeareth you wil lease none ad­uantage for the taking vp. I commend you. But for all y ^t, doth not your Authour Leo call both kindes sacramentum a sacrament? and that is more (for it is too too childish, to reason of the singular number) doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kindes, Vnum idémque mysterium, one and the same mysterie? And when he vseth y ^e plural num­ber, the ground of your Achillean argument, doth he not say, Integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Let them take the whole sacramentes, or else let them be kept from the whole, signifying, that they which tooke the bread onely, tooke but halfe the sacramentes, and none took the whole, but they that tooke the cup also.

But nowe for the practise of the Primitiue Church to haue receiued in one kinde: he saith, that in time of per­secution, the Priest deliuered them of the sacrament wrap­ped [Page 314] in fine linnen clothes to carie home with them, and to receiue it secretly by them selues, and this could bee none other, but the sacrament vnder the fo [...]ne of breade. Admit it were so, that they caried home the sacrament, yet it followeth not, but they might as well carie the wine in a faire pot, as they caried the breade in a faire cloth. And although Tertulliā writing to his wife, name bread only, yet doth it not followe, but that he compre­hendeth the cup also. The wordes of Tertullian are be­fore rehearsed and answered, Lib. 1. cap. 24. & 27.

Next is brought in Basil. Episto. ad Caesareant patriciam. Illud autem &c. As for that to be a grieuous thing in the times of persecution, any man to be inforced to receiue the communion with his owne hand, the Priest or Deacon not being present, it is more then nedeth to proue, for bicause the same thing is by a long custome, and by the very vse of things established. For all they that in the wildernesse lead a solitarie life, where there is no Priest, keeping the communion at home, communicate of them selues. But in Alexan­dria and Ae [...]ypt, euery one of the people for the most part, haue the communion in their owne house. For when the Priest doth conse­crate the sacrifice and distribute it, we must well beleeue to partici­pate and receiue it. For in the Church the Priest giueth part, and he that taketh it receiueth it with all libertie, and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand It is therfore the same thing in vertue, whether a man take one part of the Priest, or many parts together. Of the credite and authoritie of this Epistle, which being cited in the name of Saint Basil, is not to be found in all his workes, I haue spoken before sufficiently, as also of the reseruation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first booke cap. 27. But for the communion in one kinde, I see nothing that he saith, sauing that Maister Heskins gathereth, that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hote countries conueniently in their own kind such long time, as they were forced to reserue the sacrament in the wildernes and else where. But I aunswere him, that such strong wine as they haue in those hote countries, will bee kept longer from sowring, then the breade will bee from moulding, and therefore his gathering is altogether fond & ridicu­lous. [Page 315] But now you shall heare a more plaine testimoine for this re­ceipt vnder one kinde, if you will hearken to S. Cyprian. He is ci­ted In sermone de Lapsis, a long saying & to litle, yea to no purpose at all. Praesente ac teste meipso, &c. Heare what came to passe, my selfe beeing present and witnesse. The parentes of a childe flying by chaunce, while for feare they tooke no good aduisement leaft their young daughter vnder the cherishing of a nource, the nource brought her so left, vnto the Magistrates. They before an Idole where the people were gathered, because for her age she could yet eate no flesh, gaue vnto her bread mixed with wine, which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish. Af­terwarde the mother receiued her daughter. But the litle mayde could no more speake and declare the offence, that was committed, then vnderstand it before and forbidde it. Through ignorance ther­fore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her, whyle we were sacrificing. But truely the girle beeing among the Saintes, not abiding our prayer and supplication, sometime was constrained to crie out, sometime with vehement greefe of minde was tossed here and there, euen as though a tormentor compelled her, the ignorant soule, by such tokens as she could, acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those yong and tender yeres. But after the solemnities beeing accomplished, the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present, and when the rest had receiued, and her place was next, the little one by the instinct of Gods Maiestie, turned away her face, pressed her mouth with her lippes stopped, refused the cuppe. Yet the Deacon persisted, and though it were against her will, powred in somewhat of the sacrament of the cuppe. Then followed belking and vomite. In a bodie, and a mouth that was defiled, the Eucharistie could not remaine. The drinke sanctified in the bloud of our Lord, brake out of her polluted bowels, &c. Out of this Hi­storie, Maister Heskins gathereth two thinges. ‘First, that the sacrament in that time was ministred to infantes which was in deede a great abuse, contrarie to the worde of God. Secondly, that this childe receiued onely the cup, which is false, for though she was not so troubled at the receipt of the bread, yet it followeth not that she receiued no bread, but contrariwise Cyprian saith, the Eucharistie (by whiche wordes the fathers alwayes vnderstand the [Page 316] whole sacrament) could not remaine in her bodie.’ And whereas he reasoneth foolishly, that if she had receiued the bread, she should like wise haue beene troubled: he must vnderstand, that when God worketh a miracle, he taketh times and occasions at his pleasure. And it is like he would not discouer her pollution that come by bread and wine, before she had receiued both bread and wine as the sacrament. If I should vrge vpon this place, as the scoole men doe, whether this that was vomited, was the bloud of Christ, and what should be done with it, or what was done with it in this storie, I should trouble him more then he could easily answere.

Another tale he telleth out of Sozomenus. Eccl. hist. lib. 8. Cap. 5. Ioanne Constantinopolitanum, &c. When Iohn Chry­sostome did very well gouerne the Church of Constantinople, a cer­teine man of the Macedonian heresie, had a wife of the same opi­nion. When this man had heard Iohn teaching what was to bee thought of God, he praysed his doctrine, and exhorted his wife to be of the same minde with him. But when she did more obey the words of noble women, then his conuersation, and after many admonitions her husband had profited nothing: Except (quod he) thou be a cōpa­niō with me in Diuine matters, thou shalt not be hereafter a parta­ker of liuing with me. When the woman heard this, & promised her consent dissemblingly, she cōmunicated the matter with a certeyne maide seruant, which shee iudged to be trustie vnto her, and vseth her seruice to deceiue her husband. And about the time of the mys­teries, (they that be receiued to them know what I say) she keping that she had receiued, fell downe as though she would pray. Her maide, standing by, giueth her priuily, that which she brought in her hand with her, which thing, when it was put to her teeth, it congeled into a stone. The woman beeing astonnied fearing least a­ny euil should happen to her, for that thing whiche came to passe from God, made hast to the Bishop, and bewraying her selfe, sheweth the stone, hauing yet vpon it, the markes of her bit, and shewing an vnknowen matter, and a wonderful colour, and also desiring pardon with teares, promised that she would agree with her husband. And if this matter seeme to any man to be incredible, this stone is a wit­nesse which is kept to this day among the Iewels of the Churche of [Page 317] Constantinople. If this storie be true, as it is no article of our beleefe, yet proueth it not, that the communion was ministred in bread only, to all the rest, that would re­ceiue the cuppe, although I wote not what was turned in­to a stone, before the time came she should receiue the cuppe. If M. Heskins will vrge, she could not haue any thing to conuey into her mouth in steede of the wine, I answere, she might easily counterfet the drinking, by kis­sing the cuppe, and so letting it passe from her, without tasting thereof. Wherefore this is but a blind and vnrea­sonable coniecture of Maister Heskins, that the sacra­ment was ministred in one kinde, because she that had dissembled in the receipt of one kinde, was punished with depriuation from both kindes.

The last reason he vseth, Is that it is testified by learned men, that the manner of receiuing vnder one kinde, which is vsed in all the Latine Church vpon good Friday, on which day the priest receiueth the hoste consecrated vpon maundie Thursday, hath been so vsed from the primitiue Church. ‘But what learned men they be, except such as him selfe, and what proofes they haue of this vsage, he sayeth not so much as halfe a word. The whole matter standeth vpon his owne credite. But if he, and all the learned of that side, should fast from good Friday vntill they haue shewed proofe of such an vse in y ^e primitiue church, (not as they vse to fast in Lent,) but from all manner of nourishment, there would not one learned Papist be left aliue on gang Monday to shew what proofes they haue found.’ Thou hast seene (Reader) what his reasons and authorities are, iudge of the answers according to thy discretion.

Hesk.The 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 di­uine matters are to be handled with re­uerence, Fulk. 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 conuer­sant. 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 tradi­tions 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. Other­wise 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 spiri­tuall meate, and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke, for they [Page 319] dranke of the same spirituall rocke, which followed them, and the rocke was Christe. Where it is to be noted, that Maister Hes­kins 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 Fa­thers 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 ap­peareth by many reasons, whereof some I will set downe, because this one text of scripture, if it be rightly vnder­stoode, is sufficient to determine all the controuersies that are betweene vs and the Papistes, concerning the sa­cramentes. 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 sa­craments 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 sa­cramentes 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 re­ceiue 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 spiri­rituall drinke, namely the bloud of Christ.

[Page 320]And this place ouerthroweth transubstantiation, the car­nal 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 sacra­ments contrarie to the truth. For if we haue no preroga­tiue 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 re­hearsing 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 recey­ued 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 spi­rituall grace that was testified by these outwarde signes, Maister Heskins speaketh neuer a worde.

Hesk.The 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 sa­craments of theirs, Fulk. were not in deed the very same in sub­stance, that ours are, but onely figures of them. And for this purpose, he citeth diuers authorities of the fathers, es­pecially Chrysostome, and Augustine, which cal them fi­gures 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 sig­nified by our sacraments, but the outward signes of theirs with the substance and things signified by ours. As it ap­peareth in sundrie places of S. Augustine, whose autho­rities in this Chapter he citeth: which affirmeth that the [Page 321] 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 sa­cramentes 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 man­ner 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 pla­ces, namely: Tract. in Ioan. 26. speaking of the bread of life, in the sixt of Ihon, he sayeth: Hunc panem signifi­cauit 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 transie­runt, & omnes per Mosen Baptizati sunt in nube & in mari: & omnes eandem escam spiritualem manducauerunt: spiritua­lem 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 [Page 322] 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 myste­rio cibus & potus illorum, qui noster, Sed significatione idem non specie: quia idem ipse Christus illis in Petra figuratus: no­bis in carne manifestatus. The same meate and drinke in mysterie was theirs, which is ours: but the same by sig­nification, not in cleare manner: because the selfe same Christe was figured to them in the rocke, whiche is ma­nifested 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 man­ducauerunt: Eundem inquit: eundem non inuenio quomodo intelli­gam, nisi eum quem manducamus & nos. Quid ergò, ait aliquis [...] Hoc erat manna illud quod ego nunc accipio? Ergo nihil modò ve­nit si antè iam fuit. Ergo euacuatum est scandalum Crucis? Quo­modo 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 [Page 323] 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 Chryso­stome 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 ima­gine a difference of baptismes, by as good reason as they might make a difference betweene the Sup­per 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 recey­ued 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 om­nes candem escam spiritualem, &c. Hesk.

First he declareth that this one meate, whiche the Fathers did eate, was Manna, Fulke. and that hee proueth by the authoritie of Saint Chrysostome, and Saint Au­gustine, 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 spi­rituall meate, and the water that flowed out of the rocke, spirituall drinke. Namely, because it was gi­uen 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, man­na was called spirituall meate, because it fedde the faithfull, not onely bodily, but also spiritually, with [Page 324] 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 ac­cording 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 gi­uen with them: for as they were not giuen by the or­dinarie course of nature, but by speciall Diuine power: so they had more then a naturall propertie of nourish­ment, and were to be esteemed according to the speciall grace, by whiche they were giuen. But Maister Hes­kins 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 ser­uing their bodily necessitie. In whiche grosse mad­nesse, hee maketh no difference betweene the faith­full, 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, on­ly because it was miraculously giuen, this horrible ab­surditie 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, see­ing 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 sacra­ment of Christes bloud, and not the Priestes onely.

Secondly, that the elementes are no longer sacra­mentes, 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 sacra­ment when they occupied it to other necessarie vses.

[Page 325]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 Oeco­lampadius, 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 li­terally, and not tropically, or figuratiuely: And so is nothing like, to this proposition. This is my bodie. Perad­uenture the Reader looketh for a newe transubstantia­tion, 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, Lo­gicians, 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 Mai­ster Heskins owne interpretation, therefore the ma­teriall 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, be­cause [Page 326] 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 a­long their iourneys in the wildernesse: Yet if wee vn­derstande 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 follo­wed 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 spiritu­all 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 be­tweene the signe, and the thing signified, that is, the ma­teriall rocke, and Christe whome because it represen­ted, 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, affir­meth plainly, that which Maister Heskins denyeth im­pudently.

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 [Page 327] 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 Chryso­stome 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 ho­lie Ghoste, and to bee so called: howe coulde the Apo­stles vnderstande it otherwise, at that time, when gi­uing 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 visi­ble sacrament, hee testified, what he did giue them in deede, no more turning the breade into his naturall bo­die, 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 prophe­sied by Malachie, affirming that the prophesie speaketh of the com­ming 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 [Page 328] applye that Prophesie to Iohn Baptiste, saying: Hee shall goe before him in the spirite and power of He­lias, to turne the heartes of the fathers vnto the children, which be the verie wordes of the Prophet. And our sa­uiour Christe him selfe, Math. 17. and Marke the 9. doth assertiuely saye, that Helias was alreadie come, accor­ding 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 scrip­tures.

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 se­uenth 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 illi­us 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.’

[Page 329]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 fore­runner: so the seconde forerunner, is called the first He­lias by reason of like ministerie.’

The place of Chrysostome, although either the wor­des 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 ma­keth nothing for him, but against him. I wil only re­hearse the place, and leaue the iudgement to the rea­ders. 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. Hesk.

He beginneth this Chapter, with a shamelesse lye: Fulke. for he sayeth, that wee affirme Manna to be a figure on­ly 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 bo­die [Page 330] 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 sa­crament.

And this hee hopeth to prooue out of Sainct Am­brose ad Iren. Ep. 62. Quaeria [...] me, &c. Thou askest mee, why the Lorde God did rayne Manna to the people of the fa­thers, 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 Am­brose for his purpose, hee falleth into a greate rage a­gainst 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 falsi­fying mynde, so no man in the worlde, might worse ex­claime 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 Am­brose 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. [Page 331] 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 sa­cramentes 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 aun­swere, that as in substaunce the sacramentes of the olde time were not inferiour to oures, so in cleerenesse of re­uelation and vnderstanding, oures are farre more excel­lent 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 ari­sing, and more bright sacramentes of Christes body and bloud shi­ning 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 of­ten 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 Hes­kins gathereth, is altogether out of Saint Ambrose his compasse. For hee hath no more but the bodily Man­na, 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 exter­nall 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, al­though they be flat against it in deede. ‘ Manna & aqua­quae fluxit de Petra, haec dicit spiritualia, quia non mundi le­ge parata sunt, sed Dei virtute sine elementorum commixtio­ne ad tempus creata, habentia in se figuram futuri mysterij [Page 332] quod nunc nos summus in commemorationem Christi Domi­ni. 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 remem­brance 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 re­membrance of Christ: which speach is farre from a corpo­rall manner of presence, that M. Heskins would main­taine by his authoritie.

The other places cited out of Euthymius a late writer, as we haue often saide, affirme that Manna was the figu­ratiue 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 prefigu­ration 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 a­gainst the true bread that came downe from heauen, spea­keth 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 con­cerning 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 authen­tike 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. [Page 333] 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. Hesk.

That the olde writers called Manna and the water, fi­gures of the body and bloud of Christ, Fulk. it shal be no con­trouersie 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 prefi­gurations 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 ful­filled 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 vnder­stoode [Page 334] 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 transubstan­tiation, 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 bel­lie, and is cast foorth, hee addeth: Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est, qui prodest non indignè comeden­ti illum. Et hae [...] quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore. Mul­ta porro & de ipso verbo dici possent, quod factum est caro ve­ríssque 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 vn­woorthily. 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 vndoub­tedly 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 cal­leth it the typicall and symbolicall, or figuratiue bo­dye, distinguishing it from the woorde made fleshe, and the meate in deede? Finally, whether hee thou­ght 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, pre­tending to inueigh against Oecolampadius, for lea­uing 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 [Page 335] concerning the corporall manner of presence, In Ps. 118. Serm. 18. I will rehearse them both together. Ille ego ante despectus &c. Euen I before despised (speaking in the person of the Gentiles con­uerted) am nowe preferred, am nowe set before the chosen. Euen I before a despised people of sinners, haue nowe the reuerend com­panies of the heauenly sacramentes, nowe I am receiued to the ho­nour 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 dis­temperature 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, Here begin­neth Oeco­lampadius. 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 wilder­nesse? Howe did it descend to the Synagogue: when all the Sy­nagogue perished and fainted, beeing pyned with euerlasting hun­ger 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. [Page 336] 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 vn­to 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 ex­poundeth 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 liber­tie, as he is remission of sinnes: that is, after a spiritual ma­ner. And where he saith, Manna was a figure or shaddowe, and not the trueth of that which was to come: he mea­neth 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.

Hesk.The sixt Chapter declareth, that Manna was a figure, by the te­stimonie of S. Cyprian and Chrysostome.

[Page 337]It hath bene often confessed, Fulke. 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. Hes­kins saith, it is more manifest, then that it can be deny­ed, 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 flow­eth and runneth out of the spirituall rocke, which meate and drinke is our Lord Iesus Christ. Here is a plaine place for the pro­clamer, 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 af­ter 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. Hes­kins 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 distincti­on of the sacrament, and the thing or matter of the sacra­ment, 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 acci­dents [Page 338] 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 Cy­rillus in 15. Ioan. which he hath so often repeated, and yet mangled and gelded, least the true sense might be ga­thered out of it. Non tamen negamus &c. ‘ Yet do we not denye, but that we are spiritually ioyned to Christ, by right faith and sin­cere loue, but that we haue no manner of coniunction with him af­ter his flesh, that truely we doe vtterly deny, and say it to be alto­gether 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 mysti­cal 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 faith­full the members of Christ? &c. In these wordes Cy­rillus 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 ex­pounded of his manhoode, which Cyrill denyeth, shew­ing 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 al­ledged doe proue sufficiently, and namely the argu­ment 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 di­cimus &c. This is that we say, that by all meanes we labour to [Page 339] proue, that the sacrifice of the Church is made of two thinges, con­sisteth 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 bo­dy of Christe. &c. This visible forme, Maister Heskins will haue to be the accidentes onely, then hee will haue a sa­crifice, 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, alicu­bi 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 om­ni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps su­erie. 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 pre­pared in the Lordes table, and from the Lordes table is receiued, of some persons to life, and of some to de­struction. But the thing it selfe whereof it is a sacra­ment, is life to euery man, and destruction to no man, who so euer shall bee partaker of it.’ Nowe iudge whe­ther S. Augustine esteemeth the sacrament to bee one­ly accidentes, and the thing of the sacrament to bee a bodily presence, whiche the wicked can not bee par­takers of: or whether the wicked receiue nothing, but the accidents to their destruction, seeing they re­ceiue the sacrament, but not the thing of the sacra­ment.

Chrysostome the second barron named in this Chap­ter, is cited in dictum Apost. Nolo vos igno. Dixi enim quod. &c. For I saide, that the trueth must haue a certaine excellen­cie 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 re­quirest [Page 340] 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 whole­some bloud of Christe, which we confesse spiritually re­ceiued; 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 thro­ugh the sea, so he prefigured the nobilitie of the Church, when he saide: They did all eate the same spirituall meat. He hath insinua­ted 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 parta­ker of one spring, and that man of a lesse plentifull. Not content with this, he addeth another sentence out of the same Ho­mely. 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 par­ticipation 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 bo­dye and bloud may bee receiued of wicked men, but eyther hee must vnderstand Sainte Chrysostome spea­king 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 abso­lution, and not the forgiuenesse of God in deede. Againe he must note an hyperbole or ouerreaching speach in this [Page 341] 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 wa­ter out of the rocke. But here Maister Heskins playes his old part, for he leaueth out that which following imme­diately expoundeth Chrysostome contrarie to his pur­pose. ‘ Quamuis in sensu quae dabantur, perciperentur, spiritualiter tamen dabantur, non secundùm naturae consequentiam, sed secun­dùm muneris gratiam, & cum corpore etiam animam in fidem adducentem nutriuit. Although those thinges that were gi­uen, were perceiued by sense, yet were they giuen spiritu­ally, not according to the consequence of nature, but ac­cording 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 Chry­sostome, Maister Heskins reasoneth, that the Fathers one­ly 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 be­fore, to be, not in the substance or vertue, but in the man­ner 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 re­demption by Christes death. For Iesus Christe was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde, and the [Page 342] onely foode that came downe from heauen, to giue eter­nall life to all them that did receiue him in all ages past and to come.

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

Fulk.In 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 Hiero­nyme 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 ve­ry true, we neuer saide the contrarie. But the same Hie­rome 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 af­terward to followe, of whom the rocke was a figure: ther­fore he saide very fitly of the rocke, that followed them.’ By which wordes it is most manifest, that by his iudge­ment, 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 [Page 343] 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 no­teth two thinges, the applications of the truthes to the fi­gures, and the drinke flowing out of the side of Christe. concerning the first, it is cleare, that he maketh their tem­porall 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 af­ter 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 cor­porally, 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 as­cribed 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.

[Page 344]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 pur­pose. 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 testimo­nie, 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 li­beralicatis, loco arrhae hominibus concessa. Manna truely, was a certeine figure of the vniuersall liberalitie of God gran­ted 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 da­batur. 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 eui­dent, 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 authori­tie 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.

[Page 345]These wordes indeede doe declare, that whosoeuer ea­teth the fleshe of Christ is partaker of eternall life, which M. Heskins will not graunt, but with his distinction, spi­ritually: 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 & Chap­ter. ‘ Haec igitur de caussa Dominus quomodo id fieri possit non eno­dauit, 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 om­nes, hic est calix sanguinis mei, qui pro multis effunditur in remissi­onē 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: like­wise 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, al­though 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 o­uerthroweth Popish transubstantiation.’

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

The first place of Augustine he citeth, but nameth not where it is written, is this: Cathechumeni iam credunt, &c. Fulk. The learners of Christian faith doe nowe beleeue in the name of Christ, [Page 346] 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 Ie­sus may commit himselfe vnto them. M. Heskins himselfe vp­on 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 my­sterie 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 re­surrection [Page 347] of Christe? For the trueth of Christes bodie, did not depende vppon his resurrection, and the sacra­ment was instituted before his death, but it tooke and taketh force of his death and resurrection. And concer­ning the former sentence, I can but marueile at his im­pudencie, y ^t woulde alledge that treatise which is direct­ly 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: & eun­dem potum spiritualē biberunt. Erant enim ibi qui quod manduca­bant 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 Chri­stum intellexerunt, eundem quem nos, cibum spiritualem mandu­cauerunt: Quicun (que) autem de Manna solam saturitatem quae fie­runt 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 cor­por [...] hauriebatur. I will saye briefely: whosoeuer vnder­stoode 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 [Page 348] 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 belee­uer: 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 com­passe 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 flow­ing 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 corpo­rally. 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 inuisi­bly. 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 sub­stance is the bodie and bloude of Christ, the earthly sub­stance, is bread and wine, and Manna and the water were to them sacramentes of the same Christ, whome wee re­ceiue. [Page 349] And whereas M. Heskins sayeth, that no catho­like doctour teacheth the sacrament to be only a figure, we agree with him, for we hold him accursed that comp­teth it to be onely a figure, or a bare figure, as he doeth often most iniuriously charge vs. The rest of the Chap­ter is spent in vaine repetitions of sentences & collecti­ons before set downe and aunswered.

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

Although neither Haimo nor Theophylact, speake more for M. Hesk. then the former auctors, Fulke. yet because they are but burgesses of the lower house, which whe­ther 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, & Cy­prian 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 arti­cles 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 slaun­derer of Gods Saintes from the beginning.

The tenth Chapter, proceedeth vpon the same text, by Ruper­ [...]us & Rich. Holkot and endeth with Gagnegus. Hesk.

If a man should vouchesafe to admitt such authorities as these, there should be no end of quarrelling. Fulk. I am content to yelde them to Maister Heskins, and fiue hun­dreth more such as they be: as for the sayings of Am­brose [Page 350] and Cyrill, which he enterla [...]eth, they are answered in other places, although that of Ambrose be flat a­gainst him, the other of Cyrill nothing for him.

Hesk.The eleuenth Chapter declareth the prophesies of the sacra­ment vnder the names of Manna & the water of the rocke.

Fulk.These 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 thankes­giuings for Gods benefites past, and not prophesies of things to come. The first sentence is this: Hee commaun­ded the clowdes aboue, and opened the gates of heauen. And he rayned to them Manna to eate, and gaue them the bread of hea­uen. 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 bap­tisme 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 de­clareth, 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 follow­ing 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 [...] [Page 351] 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 cor­porall manner of eating and drinking, that he writeth thus: ‘ Praestita sunt haec Haebries, sed & modò in ecclesia Prophe­tis & Apostolis praecipitur, vt nobis verbum praedicationis, quo anima spiritualiter pascatur, annuncient. These things were perfourmed to the Hebrues: but nowe also in the chur­che it is commaunded to the Prophets and Apostles, that they declare to vs the worde of preaching, where­with our soule is spiritually fedd. In these wordes, hee maketh Manna and the water, figures of the prea­ching 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 vnmeasura­ble fountaines, which washe away our errours, and water our drynesse. Here is as before, a comparison of Gods be­nefites 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 ga­ther 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 hea­uen, which Manna did signifie, which is in deede the meate of Angels, which WORDE of God feedeth them that are cor­ruptible incorruptibly, which that man might eate, was made flesh and dwelled among vs.

[Page 352]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 or­bi pluitur, & apertis praedicatorum cordibus tanquam coelestib [...] ianuis, non murmur anti & tentanti synagogae, sed credenti & in illo spem ponenti ecclesiae praedicatur. For this bread tho­rough the cloudes of the Gospell is rayned vnto all the worlde, and the hearts of the preachers, as it were y ^e hea­uenly gates being opened, is preached, not to the mur­muring and tempting synagogue, but to the church be­leeuing and putting her trust in him.’ Here Augustine sayth, that the VVORDE, which became fleshe, is ray­ned 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 for­mer 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 de­clared. 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 [...]a­ture is fedd, they are fedd: but this breade filleth the Angels in heauen, and feedeth vs on earth. In this exposition, it is wor­thie 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 [Page 353] 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, al­though, if he neuer had spoken worse, then in this sen­tence, 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. Hesk.

The first reason is taken out of S. Augustines rule, Fulk. 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 pre­sent 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, ac­cording to his desire. The eleuenth: although to the godly it was a most pleasant taste, yet to the vngodly, it [Page 354] 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 al­so witnesseth for one miracle, that Manna tasted to eue­ry 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 recei­uing Manna, receiued Christe spiritually. Nowe at the length he sayth trueth. And we also receiuing the sacra­mentall bread and wine receiue Christ spiritually. Nei­ther 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 do­ctrine was more obscure, & that the creatures themsel­ues, 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, [Page 355] 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 ac­complished, 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 excel­lent. 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, sig­nificatione praestantissimis, societatem noui populi colligauit, sicut est baptismus Trinitatis nomine consecratus, communicatio corpo­ris & sanguinis ipsius, & si quid aliud in scripturis canoni [...]is con­tineatur. 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 sacra­ments 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 con­secrated 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, notwithstan­ding the vaine cauils of M. Hesk.’ wherein our sacra­ments are equall with theirs, and wherein ours are more excellent then theirs: so that we haue no neede of his re­all presence, to make a difference betweene y ^e sacraments of the newe testament, & the sacraments of the olde fa­thers, which though they liued vnder the old testament, yet were they saued by the newe testament, in the for­giuenesse of their sinnes, by Christ as we are.

The thirteenth Chapter, proueth the same by scriptures & Do­ctors. Hesk.

In the beginning of this Chapter, Fulk. he rayleth against Luther, Oecolampadius, Caluin, &c. but without proofe [Page 356] 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 re­spect equall with ours. ‘For proofe hereof, hee alledgeth the Apostle to the Hebrues, 7. that the lawe brought no­thing to perfection, & Chap. 10. The law hauing the sha­dowe 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 altoge­ther seperated from Christ, & so of the ceremonies ther­of: and not as the lawe and the ceremonies thereof, were considered of the faithfull, with Christ the ende and ac­complishment 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 Oecolampa­dius, 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 digni­tie, & 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 authori­ties that Maister Heskins citeth, proue nothing else. As first, Iohn Baptist was greater then all the Prophets, be­cause 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. com­paring 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. Wher­upon [Page 357] 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 bo­dily 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 Pro­phets & 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 on­ly 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 clear­ly did see all things. You see therefore, howe vainly he ca­uelleth against Oecolampadius and the trueth, when the texts and authorities he citeth, be al cleane contrarie vn­to him selfe.

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

His first proofe shalbe, Fulke. 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 sacra­ment: 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 [Page 358] 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 thou­sand 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 iudge­ment. 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 sacra­ment, 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 whe­ther 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.

[Page 359]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, Chap­ter 17. and the other beginning Significata in Lib. 1. Cap. 39. The saying of Ambrose Lib. 4. de sacra. Cap. 5. is also a­gainst Maister Heskins, as we shall plainely see. Ipse Do­minus &c. The Lorde Iesus him selfe testifieth vnto vs, that wee receiue his body and bloud, ought we to doubt of his fidelitie and te­stification? 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 dy­ed, but he that shall eate this body, it shall be made to him remis­sion 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 Man­na. 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 wic­ked man eateth this body, but they only which eat it spi­ritually by faith. An other place of Ambrose hee citeth: De myster initiand. Cap. 9. Considera nunc &c. Consider nowe whe­ther is better, the bread of Angels, or the flesh of Christ, which tru­ly 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, [Page 360] 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 shad­dowe, the trueth then a figure, the body of the Authour then Man­na 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 im­mediatly. 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 of­ten as M. Heskins listeth to repeat it.

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

Fulk.First 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 scrip­ture 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 slan­derous mouth. Yet to aunswere the title of that Chapter, S. Augustine is cited, contra Faust. lib. 19. cap. 13. Prima sacra­mēta &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, & ther­fore they were taken away, bicause they were fulfilled. For he came not to breake the law, but to fulfill it. And other are instituted grea­ter in power, better in profite, easier to be done, fewer in number.

[Page 361]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 in­struments of Gods grace, by what instrument did they re­ceiue the grace of God, if they receiued it not by the sacra­ments? 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 ap­peareth 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 po­test iustus, nisi qui ex fide viuit. Neuerthelesse, if those aunci­ent righteous men, which by those sacraments vnderstood the reuelation of faith that was to come to be foreshew­ed, 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, [Page 362] & quod fidelibus promittitur in indicio, iam completum est in ex­ample, per [...], qui legem & Prophetas non venit soluere, fed ad­implere. 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 in­closed while they were kept vnder the lawe, & that which is promised to the faithfull in iudgement, is already ac­complished 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 ad­uersus calumniosam imperitiam Fausti demonstrare suffecerit, quanto errore delirent, qui putent signis sacramentis (que) mutatis, eti­am 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 praenuncia­baentur. Si enim soni verborum, quibus loquimur pro tempore com­mutantur, eadémque res aliter enunciatur facienda, ali [...]er facta, si­cus 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 & Resur­rectio Christi futura promissa est, alijs iam facta annunciatur? quan­doquidem ipsa verba futurum & factum, passurus & passus, resur­recturus & resurrexit, nec tendi aequaliter, nec similiter fon [...]re po­tuerunt. In the meane time against the slaunderous vnskil­fulnesse of Faustus, it shall suffice to shewe, in howe great errour they doate, which thinke, that the signes and sa­craments 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 decla­red 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 [Page 363] thing is pronounced otherwise when it shal be done, & o­therwise 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 num­ber 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 re­spect 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 sa­cramentes. But M. Hesk. wil confute vs by the definition of a sacrament, which he saith by cōmon consent of lear­ned 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 gai­neth he thereby? Forsooth, that the sacrament is an instru­mental 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 ques­tion, but to the elect freely, for grace is called so, because it is freely giuen. After much quarelling about this de­finitiō, 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 dis­spensatiō, 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 pre­cepts 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 [Page 364] shalt not co [...]et thy neighbors goods, thou shalt not couet thy neigh­bors 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 ob­teine 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 deli­uered 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 sacra­ments of the olde lawe to childrens trifles in y ^e same place: Numquid quiniam puero, &c. Because there are giuen to a childe [Page 365] certein childish playing trifles, by which the childish minde is called away, are they not therefore plucked out of his hands, when he wax­eth a great one? No more therfore God, because he hath plucked a­way those things as childrens trifles, out of the handes of his sonnes by the new Testament, that he might giue thē something more pro­profitable 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 pro­mises 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. Hesk.

This text which he pretendeth to expound is written in 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we blesse, Fulke. is it not the commu­nion 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 absurdi­tie it is, I referre it to the iudgment of al reasonable Pa­pists, 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 par­takers 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 corpo­rally, 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 Christi­ans, because they did eate y ^e bodie of Christ, are made par­takers thereof. But to discusse this vaine cloude of sophi­strie, I wil reason vpon his own Maxime: like causes, haue [Page 366] 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 sacra­ment had ben a sacrifice, he would haue so called it, espe­cially in this place, or at least in some other place, there­fore it is no sacrifice: & he shewed a sufficient difference, when he called the one a sacrifice, and not the other. Al­though 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 admira­tion 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 [Page 367] 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 i­dol [...] 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, ther­fore 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 im­mediatly after y ^t Christ willeth the Corinthians to sprin­kle his altar with his bloud. I am sure M. Hesk. wold not dip his holiwater sprinkle in the challice, and shake it o­uer 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 sup­per. Secondly vnproperly, as a remēbrance of Christes sa­crifice, and so doth Chrysostome expound him selfe, vpon the tenth to the Hebrues: Non aliud, &c. ‘We offer not an­other sacrifice, as the high priest, but y ^e same we do always, but rather we worke the remēbrance of that sacrifice. An­other place of Chrysostome he citeth out of his Ser. de Eu­charist. 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 [Page 368] with lip [...], as y ^e spiritual receiuing is not. And these words must be spoken in a plaine maner without all figure, be­cause 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 im­mediatly before these wordes, is a place that hath a great shewe of transubstantiation, but in deede it cleane ouer­throweth 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 vema­net, nihil superfluit: sic & hic pu [...]a mysteria consumi corporis prae­sentia, Prop [...]er, quod & accedentes ne putetis, quod accipiatis Diui­num corpus ex homine, sed ex ipsis Seraphim forcipe ignē, quem sci­lices 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 myste­ries, 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, be­cause 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 A­quilas [...] appellat, vt oftendat ad alta eum oportere contēdere, qui ad hoc corpus ac [...]edit, & nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune, [Page 369] neque ad inferiora trahi & repere sed ad superiora sēper volare, & in solem institiae intueri, mentisqué oculum acutissimum habere. A­quilaerum enim non gracculorum hec mensa est. For vnto this do­eth 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 car­kase 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 rea­sonable 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 pla­ces, 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. Hesk.

Chrysostome is cited as before vpon this text In 1. Cor. 10. vpon these wordes: The bread which we breake, Fulke. 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 partici­pation 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 [Page 370] 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 Pa­pists. And yet the vulgar Popish Latine hath Participatio, & M. Heskins himselfe translateth it the partaking. But be­side the communion whiche hee passeth ouer, M. Hes­kins gathereth his reall presence and sacrifice. I will adde none other place of Chrysostome, to explane his mea­ning, 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 spi­ritually: I answer he vtterly falsifieth Chrysostoms mea­ning, for he speaketh of our coniunction one with ano­ther, which is spiritually, & not of Christe with vs: we communicate (saith he) in vnitie, that we might be ioy­ned one with an other in an vnion. Therefore M. Heskins argument holdeth not. Secondly, y ^t he speaketh of brea­king of Christ in the sacrifice, is so manifest to be vnder­stood 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 a­gainst 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 cor­porally but spiritually, therefore he is not present cor­porally, but spiritually. Beside this, it is to be noted in y ^t [Page 371] 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, ther­fore the body is one thing, & this bread another thing in corporal substance. S. Hierom is cited 1. Cor. 10. Calix. bene­dictionis &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 par­ticipatio corporis Domini est? Ita & panis idolatrie, daemonū par­ticipatio esse monstratur. And is not the bread which we breake a participation of the bodie of our Lord? Euen so also the bread of ido­latrie 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 par­ticipation 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 par­ticipamus. Ita si cū idololatris de vno pane comedimus, vnū cūillis corpus efficimur. videte Israel secundū carnē. Carnalis Israel carna­les hostias offerebat sicut spiritualis sacrificia spiritualia offert Chri­sto. 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 bo­dy 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 parta­king of one bread and cup, as by eating one bread with i­dolaters, which can not be after a corporall manner.

[Page 372]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 Daemo­niorum. 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 & substantial­ly 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 pas­seth away with it.

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

Fulke.He citeth S. Augustine Contra Inimic. Leg. & prophet. na­ming 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 Dae­morum, &c. I will not that ye be made fellowes of Diuels. He did truely forbid them from idolatrie. For the which thing he would de­clare 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 [Page 373] 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 praece­dentibus significata est, veritatem. For therfore he added car­nally 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 ve­ry middest. From the end he cutteth of these wordes fol­lowing. 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 parta­kers of one bread. And for this cause he added: Behold Is­rael 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 par­takers of the bodie of Christe, as those are partakers of the altar. What can be saide more playne, for the spi­rituall 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 wher­as 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 lau­dibus nostris eget, &c. But neither hath he need of our pray­ses, 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, there­fore 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 ima­culate 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 on­ly [Page 374] true sacrifice propitiatorie of the Church, otherwise for the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing, or for the sacra­ment 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, be­ing a late writer, more then 100. yeares out of the com­passe, and full of grosse absurdities, and in the place by M. Hesk. alledged, denyeth that Basill calleth breade & wine [...], 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 sa­craments, 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 consecra­tion: but such lippes such lettyce, he is a sufficient author for M. Heskins, and yet hee is directly against transub­stantiation. 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.

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

Fulk.M. 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 nei­ther of both these texts, is to be vnderstood litterally, but figuratiuely: therefore his saying: the breade is the bo­die, and the wine is his bloud, must be vnderstood figu­ratiuely, [Page 375] & 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 braun­ches 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 di­uinitie 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 af­ter his godhead & after his manhod. But Cyrillus would neuer denie that this saying: I am the true vine, is a fi­guratiue speach, which is the matter in controuersie be­tweene 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 ne­uer 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.

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

It were losse of time, to quarrell about the testimo­nies of these two burgesses of the lower house. Fulk. Maister Heskins sayeth, that there wanteth nothing in Theo­phylact, that is necessarie for a credible witnesse. At least, he should haue excepted, that he defended an here­sie of the proceeding of the holie Ghost, against the chur­che of Rome in 3. Ioan. As for his antiquitie, which hee maketh to be before the controuersie was moued by Be­rengarius, although it were so, yet it were none argu­ment 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.

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

Fulk.Let 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 repeti­tion of Cyprian and Prospers sayings so often aunswe­red before, with a foolishe insultation against the pro­claimer, 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 ad­uantage for him, in his corruption.

Hesk.The 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, Fulke. 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. Hesk.

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, Fulk. & 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 de­test bare figures, as much as grosse transubstantiation. Secondly, he sayeth, our communion with Christ, is both spirituall and corporall: spirituall in baptisme, and cor­porall in this sacrament, or else this sacrament was in­stituted 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 dispen­sations 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 Catechume­ni 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 communi­on to & fro, at last he addeth a condition of receiuing worthily, so that he denyeth in effect, that he saide be­fore, that by receipt of Christes bodie, men are incorpo­rate 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 bo­die. 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 ma­teriall [Page 378] bread, as the earthly parte of the sacrament? For­sooth all do not eat one bread: for the Greekes eat leue­ned 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 rea­soner, as M. Hesk. I would aske him whether the body of Christ be not a materiall body, because he maketh ma­teriall & heauenly, diuerse differences, as though he were an Eutychian. But admitt that by materiall bread hee meaneth bread properly so called, and the heauenly bo­die 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 commu­nion to all that are present, and whereof euery one ta­keth 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 Bar­narde, 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 ci­ted in the first booke & 37. Chapter, where you shall see how much it maketh for M. Hesk.

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

Fulk.Chrysostome vpon this place is cited thus: Quoniam v­nus panis & vnum corpus, &c. For there is one bread & wee be­ing many are one bodie. For what do I call (saith he) a comme­moration? wee are the selfe same bodie. What is the breade? the bodie of CHRIST, and what are they made [Page 379] 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 o­ther▪ but all of the same, therefore he added all we, which doe par­take 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 Chry­sostomes 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 no­thing else in effect, but what is the body of Christe? And then he answereth, the body of Christe, which is ve­ry 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 mat­ter insulteth vpon him that translateth this part of Chry­sostome, which was Franciscus Aretinus, whom either of ignorāce or of malice, he chargeth to haue falsified Chry­sostome, 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 translated it, yet I suppose, y ^t he followed either some other copy [Page 380] 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 gi­uen 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 for­saken 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 a­way of the olde is? which no man doubteth to be spiri­tuall. ‘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 ad­ferentes, eorum ora consuimus. Si enim mortuus Iesus non est, cu­ius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est? Vides quancum ei stu­dium fuerit, vt semper memoria tentamus pro nobis ipsum mortu­um fuisse. But as in the olde Paschal▪ euen likewise here in this benefite hee hath left the memorie of the myste­ries, by gathering, and hereof bridling the mouthes of he­retikes. 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 [Page 381] 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 or­dained, or finally, what manner of sacrifice it is accounted of Chrysostome, and the auncient Fathers. But nowe fol­loweth 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 no­teth, that he saith not, he hath commended a figure or me­moriall, 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 corpo­rally, 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, ther­fore 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 aunswe­reth: I liue by my spirite. And he that can not answere this, I knowe not whether he liueth. What answereth euery one that li­ueth? 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 coniunc­tion with Christe, neither can M. Heskins him selfe make any other thing of it.

Hesk.The 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. Fulke. Damascene and Haimo we haue before diuers times excepted against, as vnlawful witnesses, and therefore we will spend no time in exami­ning 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. Af­ter 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 pro­uinciall of Friers preachers, and I am sure there was ne­uer 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 Chry­sostome in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. wherevnto he would com­pare his Haimo, is rehearsed more at large Lib. 1. Cap. 18. and that of Cyrill Cap. 15. in 6. Ioan.

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

Hesk.Cyrill, whom vnfitly he matcheth with Thomas of A­quine, [Page 383] 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 na­ture. 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. Ther­fore that he might vnite euery one beetwene our selues & God, (al­though 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 dif­ference. We are vnited to y ^e body of Christ, but whether by [Page 384] eating the same with our mouthes, or by faith, through the vnspeakable working of Gods spirite, is all the que­stion. All the holde, he catcheth of this place, is, that Cy­rill 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 na­ture 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 car­nis eius acquiritur, ipse rursus Paulus de mysterio pietatis differens testatur: quod alijs inquit generationibus non est agnitum filijs ho­minum, 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 car­nem suam ad nos transiuit, quomodo vniuersi & inter nos, & in Christ, vnum non erimus? And that this corporall vnion vn­to 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 kno­wen to the sonnes of men, as it is nowe reuealed to his holy Apostles and Prophetes in the spirite, that the Gen­tiles should be coheires and of the same body and com­partners 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 ea­ting 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.

[Page 385]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) serua­uit, in posterum etiam seruatura fit. Hęc non ideo dicimus, quia Domini corpu [...] non magni aestimemus, sed quia mirabiles hos effec­tus gloriae deno [...]is attribuendos pat amus. Nam ipsum etiam Domi­ni corpus coniu [...]cti virtue verbi sanctificatur, & ad benedictio­nem 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 po­wer 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 ef­fectes 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 fee­deth 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 de­nyeth nothing, that Cyrill in that place affirmeth. As for the saying of Thomas of Aquine, one of the scholasti­call 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. Hesk.

Concerning the antiquitie of Euthymius, Fulke. I haue often [Page 386] testified before, that he is no Lorde of the higher house. Notwithstanding, bicause he borroweth most of his mat­ter of the elder writers, I will set downe his wordes which make nothing for M. Heskins purpose. In Math. 6. Quem­admod [...]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 participa­tion 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 ex­poundeth the breade and the cuppe, to be the body and bloud of Christ, or else the text were cleerer then the ex­position, in which fantasie he pleaseth him selfe excee­dingly. 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 ex­cept 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. affir­meth, y ^t the words of Euthymius by no engin▪ can be wre­sted [Page 387] 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 sa­cramental change, such as is of the water in baptisme, of which also he taketh a similitude. ‘ Siquidem in baptismo sen­sibilis quidem est aqua: sed donum intelligibile, est regeneratio. Quo­niā enim in nobis anima cōserta est corpori, in sensibilibus intelligi­bilia 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 regenera­tion, 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. Hesk.

In the beginning of this Chapter, he glorieth vainly of the multitude of writers of his side, Fulk. 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 parta­kers [Page 388] 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 ma­ny partaking of that one, are made one body of Christe: For bi­cause our olde flesh is corrupted vnder sinne, we had neede of a newe flesh.

I had not thought to haue noted Maister Heskins fal­sification in this place, translating Corpus nempe Christi, Ve­rily 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 A­ristotles Logike in the Vniuersities. The like follie hee sheweth in preuenting our aunswere, that Oecume­nius speaketh of the mysticall body of Christe, bycause hee speaketh first of the breade that wee receiue, and af­ter 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 bo­dy 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 clear­gie agree with Christ and the trueth, when they all agree to persecute and oppresse. And as concerning these pro­perties of a true Prieste, that hee gathereth out of Mala­chie, 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 [Page 389] 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 doc­trine of licentiousnesse vnto others, I meane the doctrine of merites, satisfactions, purgatorie, pardoning, and such like. The authoritie of Anselme a professed enimie of Be­rengarius 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. Hesk.

The last couple, saith M. Heskins, make vp a ful Iewrie, Fulke. 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 Theophy­lact 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 reaso­nably 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 law­full 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 bi­shop 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 benedic­tionis &c. The cup of blessing which we blesse, is it not the commu­nication [Page 390] 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 partici­pation, 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 ho­lie 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 al­lowed, 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 transub­stantiation, 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 clear­ly ouerthrowe the carnall manner of eating Christes bo­dy in the sacrament, as he doeth establish the spirituall manner of coniunction, that we haue with the bodie and bloud of Christ.

Hesk.The 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.

Fulke.This text saith M. Heskins is a conclusion, therefore it must include sacrifice, that was in the premisses. But I de­nie that sacrifice was any of the termes in the premisses, [Page 391] 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 like­wise named, and yet not to be found in this conclusi­on, because that although they were spoken of in the dis­course, yet they were not in the premisses of this ar­gument, 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 bo­die 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. Repen­tance 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 I­dols, 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 say­eth: 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 [Page 392] 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 rea­son. 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 sacra­ments 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 no­teth 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 absurdi­ties 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 di­cens: 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 ne­g [...]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 say­ings being despised and contemned, violence is done vn­to 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 [Page 393] 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 vio­lence 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 sa­crifice? 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 be­tweene light and darknesse, what agreement between Christ and Be­liall? Here saith M. Hesk. by the excellent titles he giueth the sacrament, is proued the reall presence. The holie sa­crifice, wonderful mysteries, the bodie of our Lord, light, & Christ himself. But one of these titles is manifestly vn­proper 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 interoga­tion 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 & ex­tortion. This peraduenture pleaseth M. Heskins. But it followeth soone after.’ ‘ Etenim perniciosum est tam tremendis [Page 394] ministra [...]em mysterijs linguam, & sanguine tal purpuratam, & factam aureum gladium, ad cornicia & contumelias & scurrilita­tes 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 absurdi­ties. ‘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 mea­ned 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 sa­crament thereof After M. Heskins noteth, that Chryso­stome 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 memo­ry of Christes only sacrifice as he teacheth himself In Ep. ad Heb. Ca. 10. Hom. 17. And here he taketh vpon him to re­fute 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 buz­zard 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 sacri­fice in y ^t it is a sacrifice, O y ^e vnlearned confuter of so lear­ned a fathers rule, yet y ^t which is receiued is called a sacri­fice [Page 395] 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 ordi­narie 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 re­spect of y ^e diuine working of our sauiour Christ, to make vs partakers of his bodi & bloud, by receiuing these out­ward 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 wic­ked men) giueth S. Paul & Chryso. a new interpretation. S. Paul (saith he) doth not absolutely deny, but conditio­nally, saying, y ^t men cannot be partakers of y ^e Lords ta­ble, & 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. [Page 396] 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 trans­substantiation. 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 hew­eth 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: Quis­quis ederic panem hunc viuet in aeternum. For, if it were pos­sible, 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, whoso­euer 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 a­greement, neither can Dagon stand in the presence of the Arke, and much lesse wickednesse where Christ is recei­ued, for he is the bread of life reiected of the wicked, but cause of eternall life to all that receiue him.

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

[Page 397]I had thought to haue sayed nothing of these late wri­ters, Fulk. but that Maister Heskins will make Theophylact so auncient, as to be three hundred yeres elder then An­selmus, 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 a­greed 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, be­cause 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 Berenga­rius liued and reproued the church of Rome for the car­nall presence that then or not long before was begon to be grossely defended. But the chiefe matter he gathe­reth 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 be­ginneth with Dionyse the disciple of S. Paule, Eccl. Hier. part. 3. Cap. 3. Sed & illud, &c. But beholde that more reue­rently, 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 testi­monie must be so many hundred yeares short of the A­postles times. But M. Hesk. wil not see that his Dionyse [Page 398] calleth the sacrament signes, by which Christ is signified and receiued. He can see nothing but the altar in y ^t say­ing. Next to Dionyse, he bringeth Ambrosius in orat. prę­par [...]t. ad missa [...]t, a meere counterfeit, as Erasmus hath ob­serued, & therefore worthie of none answere. But before I proceede to the next author, that he citeth for the al­tar, which is Augustine, I will set downe a manifest dis­proofe 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 al­tar, whereas if it had bene a sacrifice, he would haue cau­sed an altar to be made, which had bene soone done. Se­condly, the Apostle Paul calleth it the Lords table, & ne­uer calleth it an altar. M. Hesk. alledgeth for the sacra­ment 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 e­uerie 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 hea­then man Celsus obiecteth against vs, y ^t we haue no ima­ges 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 obie­ction 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 & ip­s [...]ut sed, quo modo pręcepit Deus, pura prece. Therfore we al­so 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 [Page 399] 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 prae­sidentium, & subsellijs ordine collocatis, ornato, & post omnia sancto sanctorum, videlicet altari in medio constituto: The tem­ple 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 acce­datis. Christ feedeth daily that is his table, which is placed in the middest. What is the cause O you hearers, that see­ing 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 pa­cifie the Princes displeasure, as the death, passion, resurre­ction, & 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 ducen­tem 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 my­sterie, leading to high things. Beside the table in the say­ing of Greg marke what termes he vseth in describing the sacrament, he calleth it the types or figures of his sal­uation, 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. [Page 400] From this table commeth a spring, which powreth forth spirituall riuers.’ And in a great number of places, he cal­leth 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 wri­ting was put out that was against vs. In these wordes S. Au­gustine 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 vnpro­perly, 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 cal­led 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 Pe­ter, 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 [Page 401] 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 she­wed 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 proclai­mer, 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 Au­gustine, 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 & mem­bra. Si ergo vot estis corpus Christi & membra, mysterium ve­strum 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 er­go de isto sacramento loqueretur, ait, vnus panis, vnum corpus mul­ti sumus. Intelligite & gaudete.’

‘Therefore, if thou wilt vnderstande the bodie of [Page 402] 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, wher­unto 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 al­tar, 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 fe­cit clericorum: nam vtique & altare portarem, & vasa euis & a­quam in manus sunderent sacerdoti, ficut videmus per omnes ec­clesias. But that they doe not perfourme all the ministe­ries 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. Ru­shing in with an horrible violence and cruell furie, [Page 403] they stroke him moste outragiously standing at the al­tare, with staues and such like weapons: yea, euen with the boordes of the same altare, which they brake in pee­ces. The like complaint maketh Optatus in his booke a­gainst 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 ci­teth 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 resurre­ction 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 al­tar 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 cer­teine 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. char­geth 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, [Page 404] Deut. 7. And whereas he compareth vs to one Iulianus an heathen man, that pissed against the altare, and ther­fore was horribly punished, hee sheweth his wisedome. For there an idolater did vilanously contemne y ^e Chri­stians religion, & therfore was iustly plaged of God, but we as Christians haue obeyed the lawe of God, in o­uerthrowing 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 affir­meth that the altar, & sacrifice are correlatiues, & there­fore there coulde be none altars, but there was also sacri­fice. I haue shewed sufficiently howe the old writers cal­led 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.

Hesk.The 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.

Fulk.Because the names of altar & sacrifice haue beene vn­properly vsed by auncient writers (for wee haue shewed that their altar was a table, and their sacrifice a thankes­giuing) 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 ma­ny 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, be­ing the same that the Greekes called Liturgia, and the La­tines officium, which is in English a seruice. To this I aun­swere: first, that if Missa or Masse be nothing but a ser­uice, then Euen song may be called Masse, because it is a seruice. Secondly it carryeth no shewe of trueth, that [Page 405] 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 ma­keth 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 bi­shop 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 one­ly 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 com­monly at one time. Maister Heskins bringeth in au­thoritie of Leo, which proueth, that when one commu­nion 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 con­fesse 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 He­skins 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 [Page 406] populi numerosioris indixerit, & ad eam tanta multitudo con­uenerit, quam recipere Basilica simul vna non possit, sacrificij o­blatio indubitanter iteretur, ne his tantùm admissis, ad hanc deuo­tionem, qui primi aduenerint, videantur hi qui posimodum conflux­erint, 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 so­lemne 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 a­gaine, 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 peo­ple 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 [Page 407] 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 pro­pitiatorie 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 fa­cere 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 wri­ting 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 Catechu­menis, Symbolum aliquibus competentibus in baptisterijs trade­bam Basilicae. Illic nunciatum est mihi, comperto quòd ad Portia­nam Basilicam de palatio decanos misissent, & vela suspenderēt, po­puli partem eò pergere. Ego tamen mansi in munere, missam fa­cere coepi. Dum offero raptum cognoui a populo Castulum quendam, quem Presbyterum dicerent Arriani. Hunc autem in platea o­stenderant transeuntes. Amarissimè flere & orare in ipsa oblatio­ne Deum coepi, vt subueniret, ne cuius sanguis in causa Ecclesiae fie­ret, certè vt meus sanguis pro salute non solùm populi, sed etiam pro ipsis impijs effunderetur. Quid multa? Missis Presbyteris & Diaco­nis eripui iniuria virum.’

‘The day following, which was Sunday, when the lear­ners of Catechisme were dismissed after the Lessons that were read, and the treatise made vpon them, I was instruc­ting 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 Pa­lace vnto the church called Portiana & hanged vp clothes (for y ^e Emperor) y ^t part of the people were going thither. [Page 408] 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 Dea­cons, 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 not­withstanding, 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. Am­brose vseth missam facere, to say Masse. For although I con­fesse, 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 ce­librare, to celebrate the Masse or the solemnities of Mas­ses, for so they called the administration of the Commu­nion. 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 Dea­cons, 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, A­lexander, and such like Bishoppes of Rome, bycause they bee meere mockeries, and counterfeted long af­ter [Page 409] 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 con­uince 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 Alex­ander 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 bo­steth, he vseth none at all but very bare wordes. He onely quoteth in the margent, The 6. Counsel of Constantino­ple, 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 dili­gence in search, yet I can finde no such matter, nor this A­lexander once named in that Counsell. In deede I found long since, Dionysius authoritie cited by the name of Dio­nyscus Areopagisa Bishop of Athens, which is the matter y ^t perhaps deceiued M. Hes. or him y ^t ministred notes of au­thorities vnto him. But to be short, the assurance remai­neth still vnshaken, which the proclamer made in his ser­mon, that the name of Masse is not found in ancient wri­ters, 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 [Page 410] Christ. For Gregorie had no small share in it, and he con­fesseth in this Chapter, that Telesphorus, Sixtus, Alex­ander, Felix, added somewhat vnto it. As for the prepara­torie prayers of Ambrose, hee doth well not to auouch them to be his, bicause no man of learning will acknow­ledge them to be his. And seeing the Greeke Liturgies are very vnlike the Latine Masse, hee doth but mocke the ig­norant 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 ordai­ned 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 Apo­stolis, vel a plenarijs concilijs, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrim a au­thoritas 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 autho­ritas, commendata atque statuta retineri, sicuti quod Domini passio, & resurrectio, & ascensio in Coelum, & aduentus de Coelo Spiri­tus sancti, anniuersaria solennitate celebrantur: & si quid eliud [...]ale occurrerit, quod seruatur ab vniuersis quacunque se diffundat Ecclesia. Those things which we obserue being not writ­ten, 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 Apo­stles, 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 com­ming 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 [Page 411] worlde of all men: (for the orientall Churches neuer re­ceiued it to this day) if it haue no better holde then it get­teth 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. Hesk.

Maister Heskins first with rayling tearmes, Fulke. taketh ex­ception to the proclaymers diuision of the Masse, into foure partes, Prayers, consecration, receiuing, doctrine, except he adde oblation as the fifte, or comprehend it vn­der 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 re­ceiuing 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 vnder­standeth another thing then either the scriptures or the auncient fathers do teache, as we shall best see in the exa­mination of the partes which followe. First where he sayeth, the proclaymer cannot abide consecration, he say­eth 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 [Page 412] 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 after­ward. 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 o­ther 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 com­munion, 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 in­stituted the Masse in his last supper, and that he will proue by Cyprian, but why doth he not rather proue it by y ^e E­uangelistes? Forsooth, because the scriptures haue no such vnproper speech to make any shewe of the Masse, as Cy­prian 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 [Page 413] 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 pre­sence, 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 remem­brance of him, he teacheth plainely (saith M. Heskins.) Yea sir, but where doth he teach, either plainely or ob­scurely, 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 thankesgi­uing 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 passi­on, and our redemption, or by mans tradition to chaunge it into a­ny 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 him­selfe 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. re­proueth our ministration in two points: First, for that we minister with wine alone contrarie to Christes instituti­on. But when he can proue that Christ added water to [Page 414] his cup of wine, we will grant it to be a breach of his in­stitution, 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 concer­ning 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 in­sacrificijs 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 Cy­prian 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 figu­red [Page 415] 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 Melchise­deches 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 counter­fete: yet vnderstanding howe the auncient wryters abused the name of sacrifice for a memoriall of a sa­crifice; and not for a propitiatorie sacrifice, it helpeth Maister Heskins nothing at all. Saint Ambrose him­selfe very improperly vseth the name of Hostia, or sacri­fice as De Virgine Lib. 1. ‘ Virgo matris hostia est cuius quotidi­ano 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 [Page 416] 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 conse­cration, 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.

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

Fulk.It 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 diui­sion 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. Dio­nyse, S. Basil, Chrysostome, S. Ambrose do differ one from another, but not in the former substantiall partes: & spe­cially in consecration, and oblation, wherein the contro­uersie 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 Diui­nitie, the intention of the priest, hath more force then the wordes of consecration to make the bodie of Christ pre­sent, 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 Ed­wards [Page 417] time married a Nunne, whiche no auncient wri­ter 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 due­tie 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, vnwor­thie 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 mi­nistred 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 An­tioch, 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 perse­cution of Stephan, Barnabas, and Paul, sent thither by the Apostles, brought the Antiochians to be perfect Christi­ans, 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. A­gaine [Page 418] where he saith, there were but three praiers in S. Pe­ters 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 plea­seth 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 ce­lebration 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: Ther­fore he said Masse. He ministred the cōmunion, according to the doctrine he taught in those Chapters, 1. Cor. 10. & 11. 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 refer­red 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 Epi­stle, 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 froward­nes, 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 do­ing, [Page 419] 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 ceremo­nie 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 or­bem obseruat Ecclesia, ab ipso ordinatū esse quod nulla morū diuer­sitate 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 Co­rinthians. 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 omit­ted, 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 com­muniō 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 [Page 420] 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 le­gend, 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 rea­sonable 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 in­scription of that liturgie to S. Iames, I will adde this ar­gument, that he vseth the worde [...] 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 & im­mortall hands, looking vp into heauen, & shewing it to the God & father, giuing thankes, sanctifying, breaking, he gaue it to vs his dis­ciples saying Take ye, eate ye, this is my bodie, which is broken for you, and giuen vnto remission of sinnes. Likewise after he had sup­ped, he tooke the cup, and mingling it with wine and water, & loo­king vp into heauen and shewing it to the God and father, giuing thankes sanctifying, blessing, filling it with the holy Ghost, he gaue [Page 421] 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 ma­ner of consecration, vnlike the manner of the newe mini­sters in their communion, which only rehearse the words of Christ historically, not directing thē to God as a pray­er, wherein he lyeth most impudently, as euerie man that heareth or readeth the praier immediately before y ^e recei­uing 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 prea­chings, 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 ser­uice, 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 [Page 422] 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 fai­ned Masse of S. Iames, I would aske him, how the cuppe is filled with the holie Ghost? essentially, so that y ^e ho­lie Ghost, or any parte of him is conteined in the cupp? I dare say he will say no. And why then may not the bo­die of Christ be present, and yet not corporally nor lo­cally 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 authori­tie which we haue receiued of God by the outwarde cal­ling 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 mi­nister 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 consecran­di, before he be of them disgraded, and hath his indebe­ble 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 Ab­dias 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 fa­bles, will nowe bee credited? except it bee of such as wilfully will be deceiued.

The fiue and thirtieth Chapter, sheweth the manner of conse­cration vsed and practised by the disciples of the Apostles, and the fathers of the primitiue and auncient church. Hesk.

His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian, Fulk. but a late writer, who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgie, which Peter, Paule, and the Apostles vsed. Al­though that, which he rehearseth of Clemens his Li­turgie, be to small purpose, & litle or nothing differing from that hee had before of Iames, yet Nicolaus Me­thon, 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 per­fect 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 ap­pointed 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 o­ther of lawful antiquitie, when wee bring manifest de­monstrations 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 Areo­pagita, but y ^t he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstan­tiation, carnal presēce, priuate Masse, or sole cōmunion, & therefore vnder pretence of his obscuritie he dare cite ne­uer a sentence out of him. Then follow the Liturgies vn­der 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 e­uen 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. [Page 424] 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 Apo­stles, 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, be­cause 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 Li­turgies 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 wa­ter, 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 a­mong 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 Litur­gie, 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 sa­crament is consecrated with heauenly wordes? Marke what the wordes be. The Priest sayth: Make vnto vs (faith he) this obla­tion [Page 425] 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 ob­lation 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. Be­fore 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 wor­des 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 cal­led his bodie. Here M. Hesk. triumpheth in his consecrati­on, & 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 conse­cration, 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 & wa­ter is put into the cup, but by consecration of y ^e heauenly [Page 426] 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 ele­ments into the naturall bodie of Christe, but only a se­paration of them, from the common vse, to become the sacraments of the bodie & bloud of Christ. As for y ^e foo­lish 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.

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

Fulke.M. Hesk. will proue that their intention was to trans­substantiate 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 to­gether 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 like­nesse 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 & [Page 427] make this bread, the holy body of thy Christe, and this cup the preci­ous 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 fi­gures and tokens, which they might be without the speci­all 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 speci­all 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 ma­keth it nothing in the world for him.

But let vs heare how S. Clement came to the altar: Ro­gamus 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 Litur­gie, 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 [Page 428] of y ^e holy ghost beleeued the bread and wine to be made Christes body & bloud, he meaneth corporally & trāsub­stantially. But y ^t is most false, for this praier is vsed in y ^t li­turgie, 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, prai­eth that God will sanctifie the breade and wine by his spirite, and make it the body and bloud of Christ, it is eui­dent, 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, [...], exempla­ries 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 ma­licious 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 ther­fore could not possibly be written by him. Besides this, there be diuers copies in the Greeke tong, one that Eras­mus 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 ad­deth, 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 prai­er 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 foolish­ly as vniustly, he findeth fault with our praier in the com­munion, [Page 429] 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 re­ceiue 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 au­thoritie 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 re­ceiue 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 ex­poundeth, hath it otherwise. Dignos nos redde potenti manu [...]ua, vt participes simu [...] immaculati tui corporis, & preciosi tui [Page 430] 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 vnworthi­ly (as S. Paule saith) do eat and drinke their owne damna­tion, not considering the Lords body. But M. Heskins vr­geth, that the spiritual body of Christ, or Christ spiritual­ly, 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 deliue­red, 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 ta­keth 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 chil­dish & blockish quarels, our prayer is waranted by the A­postles 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 in­tention 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 inten­tion, now they be fallen to heresie: there is a second sort; which thought they could not haue intention to conse­crate, [Page 431] yet being none of the greasie and blasphemous or­der, 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 mi­nister 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 e­steeme none otherwise of them, then he giueth vs example to do.

The seuen and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the oblation and sa­crifice of the Masse, as it was vsed of the Apostles and Fathers. Hesk.

When not one of the Apostles or Euangelistes make one word mention, either of Masse or sacrifice therein, Fulke. 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 propitia­tion, 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 Li­turgies, which M. Heskins calleth Masses, though they be falsly ascribed to Saint Iames, Saint Clement, Saint Ba­sil, 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: Memo­res &c. Therefore we sinners being mindfull of his quicke­ning [Page 432] passions, of his healthfull crosse and death, his buriall and re­surrection 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 se­cond 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 accor­ding 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 thankes­giuing.

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 insti­tution, 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 o­blation of Christes body and bloud &c. that he is enfor­ced 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 thankesgi­uing. Memores ergo &c. Therefore being mindfull ô Lord of his healthsome passions, of his quickening crosse, three dayes buriall, re­surrection from death, ascension into heauen, sitting at thy right hand ô God the father, and of his glorious and terrible second pre­sence, we offer vnto thee, tua ex tuis, thy giftes of thy creatures. M. Heskins saith, he abhorreth not from the name of sacri­fice, as we do, but he falsly, belyeth vs, for if he will looke in our Liturgie or communion booke, he shall finde, that [Page 433] 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 glori­ous, by which he doth manifestly exclude y ^e third imagi­ned presence of Christ in the sacrament. To the same ef­fect 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, sit­ting 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, where­as he should proue, that they offered the body and bloud of Christe to be a propitiatorie sacrifice, and that he pro­ueth 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 suf­ficiētly declare: [...]. O Lord, receiue this sacrifice vnto thine hea­uenly 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 reasona­ble sacrifice, this vnbloudy sacrifice, this holy bread and cup of eter­nall life. This vndefiled sacrifice (saith M. Heskins) must needes be the body and bloud of Christe, for else there is [Page 434] 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 sa­crifice, 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 pro­pitiatorie sacrifice, or that they offer any other, but a sa­crifice 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 sa­crifice of the Masse, doth agree with the auncient Litur­gies, ascribed to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church.

Hesk.The eight and twentieth Chapter treateth of the prayer for accep­tation of the oblation or sacrifice made in the Masse and vsed as well by the Apostles, as the Fathers.

Fulk.That the Apostles and Fathers commended to God by prayers the sacrifice which thei offered, it is a manifest ar­gument, that they offered not a propitiatorie sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe, for that needeth no com­mendation of our prayers. They prayed therefore, that their sacrifice of thankes giuing, and duetifull seruice, ce­lebrated in the memorie of Christes death, might be ac­ceptable to God, as you shal see by al their prayers. First y ^e Liturgie vntruly ascribed to Iames praieth thus: Pro obla­tis. &c. For these offred and sanctified, precious, heauenly, vnspeak­able, 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 [Page 435] 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 memori­all of the death of Christe in a spirituall sacrifice of than­kesgiuing. Saint Clement, if wee beleeue Nicholas Me­thon, prayed thus: Rogamus &c. We pray thee, that with mer­cifull 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 Fa­thers 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 commen­dation 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 [Page 436] naturall body and bloud of Christ. Next to these Litur­gies, Maister Heskins adioyneth the wordes of the Canon of the Popish Masse, agreeing in effect with these of Am­brose, 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, ther­fore 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 [Page 437] thankesgiuing in remembrance of Christe. And therefore they might well pray that their sacrifice might be accep­ted, as Abell and his sacrifice, as Noe and his burnt offe­ring, 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, de­nying 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 pray­ers 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 Hes­kins 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 there­fore 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 Ca­non, were vsed in the Romane Church, before the opi­nion of transubstantiation, carnall presence, or propiti­atorie sacrifice of the Masse were receiued, and this is the cause, that being nowe applyed to these monstruous er­rours, 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.

Hesk.The nine & thirtieth Chapter treateth of the value of the Mas [...] to the quicke and the dead.

Fulk.Prayer for the dead beeing an auncient errour, Mai­ster 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 infide­litie, 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 ascri­bed 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 er­rours 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 say­eth) S. Augustine alloweth canonicall, and by witnesse of one Antonie Margarita, a late conuerted Iewe to Papi­strie. Touching the veritie of that historie of the Ma­chabees, [Page 439] 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 num­ber 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 suf­ficient against all mans authoritie, that the worde of God prescribeth neither the one nor the other, but con­demneth 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 hun­dreth 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 num­ber it for one of the heresies of the Heracleonites, to re­deeme their dead with inuocations, and other ceremo­nies vsed at their buriall. How M. Heskins falsifieth the councel of Carthage, which made a decree that such as de­nied to pay the oblations of the dead, should be excom­municated 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 do­eth M. Allen with this and other councels.

[Page 440]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 do­eth 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 pray­ing 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 doc­trine, 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 vnder­stand not their owne gestures and ceremonies: he say­eth that diuerse writers haue expounded euerie parcell of them, as Isidorus, Rabanus, Hugo, Hoffnester, Gare­tius and others, he leaueth out Bonauentur, and Duran­dus 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 vn­derstand them not, because these writers themselues, doe not agree in the interpretation of them.

[Page 441]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 mind­full 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 proclay­mer termeth them, and solueth his arguments. Hesk.

Maister Heskins first rehearsing the Bishoppes Argu­ments, against the priuate Masse, Fulke. first maketh this gene­rall aunswere to them al, that they proue it is lawfull for the people to receiue with the Priest, but not, that it is ne­cessarie. And first he chargeth him with falsifying of Hie­rome In 1. Cor. 11. That the supper of the Lorde must be common to all the people, for Christ gaue his sacra­ments 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 [Page 442] Priest. In deed the words of Hierome are these: Conuenienti­bus &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 my­sterium 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 com­munionem quae cunque eis de sacrificijs supersuissent, illic in Ecclesia communem coenam cōmedentes pariter consumebant. Et alius qui­dem 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, equal­ly. 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 com­munion, whatsoeuer was left to them of y ^e sacrifice, euen there in the Church, eating a common supper, they con­sumed it together. And one truely is a hungred: whosoe­uer had not offred did not communicate, because they that had offred, consumed all alone. By this let the Rea­der iudge, what falsifying the proclaymer vsed and whe­ther 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 there­of, yet it may be ministred alone. But the example is no­thing [Page 443] 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 spea­keth 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 need­lesse, if they receiued so often as the priest saide Masse. In deede the impudent forgerie of this decree is mani­fest, 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 recorda­tionem facientes mortis eius. Do wee not euery day (sayth hee) make oblation? we offer in deede, but doing it to the remem­brance of his death. This question of Chrysos. is but an ob­iection of the vsual phrase of offering, which he expoun­deth to be nothing else, but a celebration of the remem­braunce 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 au­tem recordationem sacrificij operamur. Wee offer not ano­ther 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 mini­stred dayly, & none were bound but priests to communi­cate, aboue thrise in y ^e yere, he concludeth the priest recei­ued 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 [Page 444] 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 alled­geth in 1 Cor. 11. Inuicem expecta [...], &c. Ad inuicem expe­ctandum dicit, vt multorum oblatio simul celebratur: & vt omni­bus ministretur. He sayeth, they ought to tarie one for an­other, 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 re­proue 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 wor­des of the Apostle, he sayeth also: Murius enim oblatum to­sius 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, be­cause 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 communi­cate 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 say­ing 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 [Page 445] 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 com­munion, but one priest may receiue alone. And where­as 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 commixti­on and consecration of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ be vnto mee & to all that receiue it, health of mind & bo­die: 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 bid­den 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 toge­ther, though they do not receiue together. For he saith: there be two communions in the Masse, beside the recei­uing, (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 re­ceiue 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 & sis­terne 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? neuerthe­lesse in the ende, supposing the priestes prayeth with li­mitation 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 [...] [Page 446] 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 al­together 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 al­ledged, 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 pro­claimer 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 [...]. All the faith­full 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 cau­sers of disorder in the Church. Here you see no mention [Page 447] 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 Apo­stles, 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 falsifica­tion committed in the Popes lawe, out of which he ci­teth 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 ex­clude 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 de­creede 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 re­ceipt of the sacrament. For confutatiō of which blind mea­ning: first, I woulde aske, whether omnes fideles, all the faithful (as the Canon sayeth) doth signifie all licenti­ous and dissembling heretikes and scismatikes? Second­ly, 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 [...] or separa­tion 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.

[Page 448] But with excommunicate persons it is not lawfull to communicate, neither may we pray with such, as go from house to house auoy­ding the prayers of the church. But who will graunt to M. Heskins, that this should be an interpretation of the for­mer 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 chur­che, the later onel [...] excomunicate persons, and scisma­tikes: 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 com­municate, the priest might receiue alone. Surely y ^t pri­uate 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 num­ber of Christians to withdrawe them selues from y ^e com­munion, 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 doub­teth, 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 Mas­ses, and do not receiue with them?

But M. Heskins proceeding in confutation of the pro­claimers 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-re­cordes, [Page 449] 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 consecratio­ne, &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. fin­deth 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, accor­ding 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 for­bidden the entrie of the church. Maister Heskins in his translation hath falsifyed the wordes, for where y ^e La­tine 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 pri­uate Masse alone, whereas by the wordes of the decree, the Priestes are commaunded to get witnesses, and it is [Page 450] 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 com­municate, 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 pro­claimer, & 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 Ga­ranza 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 se­cum adhibeāt vt Domino perfectè in sacratis Deo sacrificare locis probentur. Ait nam (que) authoritas legis Diuinę: Vide ne offeras ho­locausta 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 maio­ris 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 maleuo­lis 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 offe­rings in euerie place which thou shalt see, but in y ^e place which the Lord thy God shall choose. Let a bishop sacri­ficing 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 grea­ter testimonie. For in more solemne dayes, let him haue with him either seuen, or fiue, or three deacons, which are [Page 451] called his eyes, & the subdeacons and the rest of the mi­nisters, which being cloathed in the holie vestimentes, let them stand before and behind him, & the priests ouer a­gainst 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 po­pish priest, except he stand in the windowe, or vppon the altar? Finally, wheras omnes may reasonably be vnder­stood 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 hun­dreth & more, as at a Synode, yet not one of them wil re­ceiue with y ^e priest, neither are they banished y ^t refuse to cōmunicate. But to proue y ^t this word, all, should be re­ferred 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 excommunica­ted, 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 [Page 452] 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 aco­lytes, 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 a­lone, & 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 vnlear­ned as you make him, yet had wit to finde out & laye a­brode to your open shame, and to all their shames that vse the same Liturgie, as authenticall & rightly to be a­scribed 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 suffici­ent euidence, giuen by the B. of Sarum against Harding, & by answere to your counterfet and false euidence vtte­red [Page 453] 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 ex­treme necessitie, approoueth not an vsuall & dayly con­tempt of Christes holy institution.

The one and fortieth chapter prooueth that the masse may bee said and the Sacrament receiued▪ without a number of communi­cantes at one time in one place. Hesk.

When all is saide and done (saith M. Hesk.) the Masse shalbe holy and good, and this shalbe a trueth, Fulke. 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 scri­pture, therefore they may be done. His Maior is groun­ded vpon the authoritie of his aduersaries. But which of his aduersaries sayeth that all things forbidden are for­bidden 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 for­biddē. That priuate Masse & sole receiuing are contrary to Gods commaundement, it is manifest by the instituti­on of Christ, which is of a communion, & not of a pri­uate Masse or sole receiuing. Vnus panis, &c. One bread we being many are one bodie, &c. After this fond argu­ment, 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 [Page 454] were in the old Doctours that might seeme to fauour the priuat Masse, yet what obligation hath M. Hes. of the bi­shop, 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 lawful­ly 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 a­buse, which proue not y ^t any priuat Masse was said. Iustinꝰ he citeth thus: Diaconi distribuunt &c. The Deacons deliuer of the consecrated bread and wine and water to euerie one that is pre­sent, 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, [...]. 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 [Page 455] 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: tho­ugh 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 commu­nions but onely in that action wherein he is a communi­cant him selfe. Therfore M. Heskins fantasie of one Priest communicating with all Priestes in all places, is ouer­throwne 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 ca­rie them in. In the superstitious Dialogues of Pope Gre­gorie 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 offe­red 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 [Page 456] 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 su­perstitious 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 doub­teth, 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 gree­uous 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 de­clare, 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 wil­dernesse where there is no Priest, keeping the Communion at home, doe receiue it of them selues. But in Alexandria and in Aegypt, eue­ry one of them which are of the people for the most part, hath the Communion in his owne house. For after the Priest hath consecra­ted the sacrifice and distributed it, we must beleeue worthily to par­ticipate 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 whe­ther any man take one part of the Priest, or many parts together. [Page 457] 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 re­ceiued 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 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 solita­rie, 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 con­cerning y ^e authoritie of this fragment of an Epistle, which is not extant in al S. Basils workes, I giue the reader to vn­derstand, 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 maruel why M. Hes. addeth in time of persecution, for in Hie­romes 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 other­wise 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 [Page 458] 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 commu­nicate, and as Persuis saith, purge the night with water: Why dare they not goe to the Martyrs? Why come they not into the Chur­ches? 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 pri­uate Masse to be lawfull, which yet is neuer y ^e neerer, al­though 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 contra­rie, but that they might haue the Priest to consecrate and minister to them at home. As for the admonition he gi­ueth 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 cha­stitie, 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 pri­uate Masse in Cap. 1. ad Ephe. Hom. 3. Frustra habetur quoti­diana 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 [Page 459] there was a number of y ^e Cleargie which always did com­municate: 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 ob­lation, 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 Chry­sostoms 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 dai­ly 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 parti­cipet: There is no man to participate: you may as well say that Chrysostome himselfe did not participate, be­cause 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 soun­deth, that none of the people did communicate, it ap­peareth 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 ni­hilominus 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 ap­peareth 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 ta­keth [Page 460] 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 peni­tentes 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 Chry­sostoms iudgement all they that heare Masse, and do not communicate w ^t the priest, are impudent and wicked per­sons. ‘Againe to proue that many did alwayes commu­nicate 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 mensa­ista 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 profes­sed thy selfe to be of the number of them that are wor­thy 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 Chryso­stomes 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 impu­dent, 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 law­ful for thee to be here, then for a learner, that is not bapti­sed.’ [Page 461] Thus Chrysostome you see maketh nothing for the priuate Masse, but altogether against it. His next argu­ment 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 de­cree of Soter, that no priest should say Masse except two were present to aunswere him, when he saith Dominus vo­biscum, 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 pre­sent, 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 com­maunded 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 aun­cient recordes, as Peter Crabbe honestly confesseth. Se­condly, 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 de­cree [Page 462] he bringeth out the councel of Orleans: That the peo­ple 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 re­ceiue euerie Sonday. ‘As Matisconense. 2. Cap. 4. Decerni­mus vt omnibus diebus Dominicis, altaris oblatio ab omnibus vi­ris & mulieribus offeratur tam panis, quam vini: vt per has immo­lationes & 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 righte­ously, 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 mean­ly learned, and therfore I will not vouchsafe such a grosse counterfet of any answere. The rest of the Chapter, bee­ing spent in rayling, I will answere with silence, con­cluding that as here is little for sole receiuing, contei­ned in this Chapter, so for priuate Masse, here is nothing at all.

Hesk.The two and fortieth Chapter proueth the trueth of those mat­ters of the sacrament, by that it hath pleased God to confirme the same with miracles.

Fulke.First 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, [Page 463] 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 Pa­pistes after their accustomed synceritie doe interprete, as though he boasted of a miracle, as though he were per­suaded 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 mi­racles, that are alledged to mainteine false doctrine con­trarie to the worde of God, and namely those miracles that are reported to haue beene done, to confirme the cre­dite 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 neuer­thelesse by miracles. But let vs heare in order, what wor­shipful 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 Legen­da Aurea, that the sacramente was turned into blou­die fleshe to a doubting olde man. Next out of Opta­tus Libro 2. Contra Donat. That dogges after they had eaten the sacrament, caste vnto them by the Dona­tistes, ranne madde and werried their Maisters.

Which last might be a true & iust punishment of God [Page 464] 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 alled­ged for the priuate Masse. But that proueth nothing. For Augustine in that place nameth no Masse: he saith, he of­fered 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 Ber­narde of the vertue of the sacrament, he returneth to mi­racles, and then telleth a tale out of Paule the Deacon, of a noble woman of Rome for whom S. Gregorie by pray­er, turned the sacramental bread into the fourme of A ve­ry bloudie fleshly litle finger. A faire miracle I promise you, but if it had beene true, Gregorie that was so light of cre­dite, 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 sa­crament, 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 consci­ence in vs the holie sacrifice offered by our owne selues, is able to [Page 465] 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 of­fereth. 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 pray­er: 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 pre­tending 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 wher­as 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 confir­mation thereof by later miracles, but onely by the scrip­tures. [Page 466] ‘And herein we followe the example of S. Augu­stine, 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 Catho­likes: 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 figmen­ta 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 me­mories 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 aside, 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 Ec­clesiam 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 innu­merabiles nostre cōmunionis episcopi, aut quia nostrorum Collegarū concilijs ipsa praedicata est, aut quia per totum orbem in locis san­ctis quae frequentat communio nostra, tanta mirabilia vel exauditi­onū vel sanitatum fiant, ita vt latentia per tot annos corpora Mar­tyrum (quod possunt a mu [...]tis interrogātes audire.) Ambrosio fuerint [Page 467] reuelata, & ad ipsa corpora caecus multorum annorum ciuitati Me­diolanensi notissimus oculos lumén (que) reciperet, aut quia ille somni­um vidit. & ille spiritu assumptus audiuit, siue ne iniret in partem Donati siue vt recederet à parte Donati. Quęcun (que) talia in Catho­lica 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 coun­cels of our fellowships, or because y ^t in holy places tho­rough 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 de­part from it. Whatsoeuer such things are done in the Ca­tholike 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 & an­cient 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 primi­tiue Church, and of the Catholike Church that now is, with a breef [...] Hesk. [Page 468] confutation of the conference made by the proclamer, betweene th [...] Masse of Saint Iames, and that is now vsed.

Fulk.The 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 Apo­stle, 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 Pla­to, 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 [Page 469] 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 com­munion 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. complay­neth 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 lif­ting 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 [Page 470] 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, be­cause 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 wor­ship 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 ordinari­ly were readie to receiue, which is not looked for of the popish priestes, because they reach them that it is neede­lesse 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 recei­uing, 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 cal­leth it, which because they be all set foorth and aunswe­red before in the 34.35.36. Chapters of this booke, I will leefe no time about his vaine recapitulation, or re­petition [Page 471] 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. Hesk.

M Heskins hauing wandred abroad to seek the Masse in auncient writers, Fulke. 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 sa­crament is a memoriall of Christe, and therefore Christ is absent; because a memoriall is of a thing absent: the o­ther, 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 no­ble 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 tempo­rall 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 aun­swereth, that Saint Paule calleth it breade, as Christ cal­leth bread his flesh, and therfore he calleth it, this bread, signifying a speciall bread. No man sayeth the contra­rie, 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 ex­clame 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?

[Page 472]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 bo­die 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 ma­keth 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 there­by 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 be­fore and after. Vpon these wordes: Gratias egit, &c. Hoc est benedicens etiam passurus vltimam nobis commemorationem sine memoriam dereliquit. Quemadmodum si quis peregre profi­ciscens, aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat, vt quotiescun­que 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 re­membrance. 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 recei­ued 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 dig­netur: So long we haue neede of a remembraunce, vntill [Page 473] 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 Theo­phylact 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 wor­des, he hath nothing that may not bee reasonably con­strued on our side without any wresting.

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

S. Basil is alledged, de baptismo: Oportet accedentem, &c. Fulk. 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 bo­die and bloud of Christe, although I might stande with him, that this is no interpretation of Sainct Paules wor­des, but an exhortation, which Basil maketh to the wor­thie 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 re­ceiued 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 [Page 474] 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. [...]. 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 A­postle, 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 con­fesse 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 sup­per 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 lo­wer 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 com­passe 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 & [Page 475] 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 ta­keth vpon him to aunswere an obiection of Oecolampa­dius, who iustly chargeth the Papistes of wilfull igno­rance, in that they make the body of Christ, both the ex­emplar, 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 mat­ter 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 vndiui­ded 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 asser­tion, wherein he confoundeth the substaunce with the ac­cidents. But to leaue the schoole termes which M. Hes­kins [Page 476] 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 pas­sible. I say y ^t, his immortall body was no exemplar of his mortall body, but euen the very same, chaunged in quali­tie, 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 vn­godlinesse 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 sacra­ment being a signe, figure, exemplar, and memoriall of the body and bloud of Christ is not the same after a cor­porall manner.

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

Fulke.The text is this: Whosoeuer shall eat of this bread & drink of this cupp of the Lord vnworthily, shalbe guiltie of the bodie and [Page 477] bloud of the Lorde. M. Heskins requireth to the worthie re­ceiuing two things, faith, and charitie, and therefore he concludeth, that neither heretikes nor scismatikes can re­ceiue 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 con­secration, the other that we deny that wicked men can re­ceiue 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 a­gainst 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 deliue­red, then the bread is prophaned, and not the body. A pro­per collection. If the Kings seale for a benefite be deliue­red to the Kings enimie or a traitour, that receiueth it vn­reuerently 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 propha­ned or vnhallowed, but the sacrament of his body which beareth the name thereof may, and the abuse of the sa­crament is iustly counted an iniurie vnto his body and bloud, whereof it is a sacrament, although his body in [Page 478] deed can suffer no iniurie or hurt. But y ^e Cyprian acknow­ledged 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) in­superabili 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 vna­nimitie, 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 materi­all bread and wine.’ ‘The same Cyprian Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caeci­lium 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 aduna­tum 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 wa­ter, can not be the body of Christe, except both be ioy­ned and coupled and compacted together in one breade, by which very sacrament our people is shewed to be v­nited. Here bread made of meale and water, is called the body of Christ, therefore material bread.’ The next autho­ritie M. Hesk. citeth is Chrysostome Hom. 83. in 26. Matth. Non permittam &c. I will not suffer these things to be done, I will [Page 479] first deliuer vp my life, before I wil deliuer the lords body to any person 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 recei­uer. 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 vnwor­thily, 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 my­sterium 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 ser­mon: 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 resurrec­tion, contrarie to all the Papistes, which holde that he mi­nistred 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 re­ceiue the very body of Christe, let him heare also what Chrysostome saith in the same place, speaking of the vn­worthy comming to the sacrament: ‘ Illud enim pessimum est, ficus Paulus ait, Christum conculcare, & testamenti sanguinem du­cere [Page 480] 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 a­nimo 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 punish­ment. 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 pur­ging 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 wic­ked man deliuereth a sharpe sword in steede of spirituall meate: and let him iudge, howe honestly M. Heskins vr­geth 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 in­ioyest 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 condem­nation of the receiuer. Here M. Heskins first noteth the pre­sence of Christe: secondly that the sacrament it not bare bread, both which are graunted: thirdly that the body of [Page 481] Christe may be receiued of euill men. But all men will confesse, that this is an Alegoricall and figuratiue ma­ner of speaking, that Origen vseth, and may be wel vnder­stoode 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 fi­guratiue 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 vnderstan­ding of the same, by S. Basil and S. Hierome. Hesk.

Saint Basil is alledged de baptism. Li. 2. Quęst. 93. Fulk. 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 ad­uertisement:) 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 sancti­fie 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 vn­cleannesse be vpon him, that soule shall be rooted out of my pre­sence, 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 [Page 482] 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 vn­worthily, eateth and drinketh his condemnation, not discerning the Lordes body. If then he that is onely in vncleannesse, (and the pro­pertie of vncleannesse we learne figured in the lawe) hath so hor­rible a iudgement, howe much more he that is in sinne, and presu­meth 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, [...]. Heere is a thing, or one greater then the tem­ple, 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 corrup­tion, 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 ce­remonies 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 grie­uous 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 sacra­ment [Page 483] 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 in­finite absurdities. Basils mind is plaine, the wicked ought not to presume to touch the blessed sacrament, which af­ter a certaine manner of speaking, is the body of Christe. But he annexeth an other place of Basil: Dominꝰ 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 offe­ring of sweete sauour, by howe much the body of the onely begotten sonne of God exceedeth Rammes and Bulles, not in reason of com­parison, 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 vnthank­fully 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 [Page 484] earnest ynough, to practise mortification, & reuocation, therefore it followeth immediatly: [...]: And thereby much more gree­uing 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 [...], idly and vnprofita­bly, he opposeth afterwarde [...], earnestly and effectu­ally, 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 accor­ding 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 al­ter 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 su­mis & 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 chil­dren, whiche are sometimes ingratefull to GOD for [Page 485] his mercies, and fall into grieuous sinnes, but yet by Gods grace rise againe: as the wordes immediatly fol­lowing 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. Hesk.

Chrysostome is cited Hom. 45. in Ioan. Fulk. Qui enim manducat &c. For he that eateth and drinketh the bloud of our Lord vnwor­thily, 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. no­teth out of these words, one that the body of Christ is re­ceiued 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 [Page 486] 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 com­pareth the sacrament. For euen as he that abuseth by ren­ding 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 parta­ker of the bloud of Christ.

But Maister Heskins will bring forth other places of Chrysostome wherein he doeth plainely affirme, that Iu­das the traitour did receiue the bodie of Christ with the other Apostles. But suspend thy iudgement gentle Rea­der, 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: [Page 487] 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 offe­red him the bloud which he hath solde, that he might haue forgiue­nesse 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 Chry­sostome often calleth it) but not of the bodie and bloud of Christ. And whereas Maister Heskins noteth, that be­cause Christ offred the same bloud that Iudas solde, ther­fore 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 altoge­ther 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 suf­fer 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 posses­sed him. ‘And y ^t this is more agreable to y ^e mind of Chryso. [Page 488] 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 re­ceipt 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 an­swered: 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 ad­mitted 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 sa­uing his authoritie, is not the baptisme, wherewith wic­ked men are baptised, an vnspekable mysterie? and yet no wicked man in baptisme, receiueth the spirite of regene­ration. ‘But Chrysostome proceedeth in the sentence be­fore 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. con­tra 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 [Page 489] drinketh iudgement to himselfe: for the Apostle him selfe hath writ­ten this. In these wordes Augustine calleth the sacrament of the bodie of Christe, the bodie of Christ, as it follow­eth immediately after: ‘ Cum autem dicit, iudicium sibi mandu­cat, satis oftendit, quia non alteri iudicium manducat sed sibi. Hoc nos egimus & ostendimus & obtinuimus, quia communio malorum non maculat aliquem participatione sacramentorum, sed consensio­ne factorum. And when he saith, he eateth iudgement to himselfe, he sheweth sufficiently that he eateth not iudge­ment 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 recei­uing an euill thing, but by receiuing is amisse: so any man receiuing vnworthily the Lordes sacrament, causeth not, because he him­selfe is euill, that it should be euil, or because he receiueth it not to saluation, that he receiueth nothing. For it was neuerthelesse the bo­die and bloud of our Lord, euen to them whom the Apostle saide: He that eateth & drinketh vnworthily, eateth & drinketh iudge­ment to himselfe. In these wordes, he reasoneth against the Donatistes, that saide, that baptisme ministred by here­tikes, 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, who­soeuer 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 [Page 490] 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 spiri­tually, 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 & drin­keth his owne iudgement. In these words Augustine teacheth, that the visible (meate which is the sacrament) may be ea­ten 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 Ver­tue, 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 pre­sence 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 ci­teth. But if they be August, in any place, they haue none [Page 491] 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 fra­tres nouimus quid accipiamus, & vtique sanctum est quod accipi­mus, & 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 accipien­do, ad iudicium accipit bonum, quod accipit. Non enim mala buc­cella erat quae tradita est Iudae à Domino. Absit: medicus non da­ret 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 condemnati­on. He sayeth it not because that thing is euill, but be­cause 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 sacra­ment, for prophaning whereof, they heape vp damnati­on 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 vt­terly 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. Hesk.

In the beginning of this Chapter, by a saying of Au­gustine hee exhorteth vs to heare the doctoures of the Fulke. [Page 492] 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 pro­claimer 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 ci­ted 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 exami­nation of our selues, but rather let vs examine our selues re­membring him that sayde: Whosoeuer shall eate the breade or drinke the cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily, shalbe guiltie of the bo­die and bloud of the Lorde. Because Maister Heskins kno­weth 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 neede­lesse, to shewe out of Theophylact, how the fullnesse of the Godhead doth dwell in Christe. At length he com­meth to ridiculous questions, why should he dehort wic­ked 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 o­uerthrowe of Christe and his church, seeing it is impos­sible 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 intelli­geremus 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.’ [Page 493] You see that Hesychius acknowledged breade to bee in the mysterie naturallye, as the fleshe of Christe is spiri­tually.

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 re­probates, 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 be­fore, 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 disioy­ned from his spirite, yet his spirite is not alwayes effe­ctuall, 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 with­out 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 vn­worthie 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 [Page 494] 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 ei­ther hee worketh saluation or damnation by them; as well in baptisme, as in the Lords supper, for hee spea­keth of both in the plurall number. And seeing infi­dels and wicked persons cannot bee partakers of the spi­rite of Christe, it followeth they cannot bee partakers of the bodie of Christe, for Christ his bodie is neuer se­parate 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 say­eth: 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 baptis­mus? 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 Augu­stine speaketh of the sacrament, and not of the thing si­gnifyed by the sacrament. For he compareth baptisme ministred by heretikes, with the Lordes supper vnwor­thily 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. Hesk.

Effrem is cited in tract. de die Iudicij: Si procul a nobis est Siloe, &c. If Siloe, whither the blinde man was sent, Fulk. 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 com­meth 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 pro­fite 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 him­selfe, that hee might receiue the heauenly king and the immor­tall brydegrome into the moste pure chamber of his brest. For our soule is the spouse of the immortall bridegrome, and the hea­uenly 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 Hes­kins 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 af­firme Christe to bee alwayes in heauen. As though the bloude of Christe cannot purge and clense vs, ex­cept 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 [Page 496] neerer, as hee is purer that commeth vnto it, why can­not M. Hesk. vnderstand, that the more vnpurer the re­ceiuer 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 damna­tion: M. Hesk. hath so corrupted this place in transla­tion, 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 bi­bendus 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 ea­ten, 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 La­tinist, 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 [Page 497] 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 wic­ked 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 con­trarye: 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. Hesk.

Cassiodorus is cited in Psalm. 110. vppon this verse: Fulke. 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 & san­guinem s [...]um in pani [...] & vini erogatione salutariter consecrauis. Sicut ipse in Euangelio dicit: nisi manducaueritis carnem filij ho­minis & hiberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vo­bis? Sed in ista carne & sanguine nil cruentum, nihil corrupti­bile mens humana concipiat (ne sicut dicit Apostolus: Qui enim corpus Domini indignè manducat, iudicium sibi mandueas) sed viuifica [...]ricem substantiam atque salutarem. & ipsius verbi pro­priam factam, per quam peccatorum remissio & aeterno vitae do­napraestuntur. For vnto whome may it bee truely and euident­ly [Page 498] applyed, but to our Lorde and Sauiour, which hath healthsont­ly 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 A­postle sayeth: For he that eateth the Lordes bodie vnworthily, ea­teth his owne damnation) but a substance giuing life and health, and made proper to the WORDE himselfe, by which remissi­on of sinnes, and the giftes of eternall life are perfourmed. This saying being directly contrarie to all Maister Heskins three assertions, namely, transsubstantiation, carnall ma­ner 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 mani­fest by Cassiodorus, that when Christe gaue the sacra­ment 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 constru­ing, to declare his signification. Therefore his mea­ning must needs be as I haue translated it: he did helth­somly 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 huma­na contipia [...], which is: In this fleshe and bloude, let the minde of man conceiue nothing bloudie, nothing cor­ruptible, 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 con­ceiue the flesh of Christ to be present carnally, nor the bloud of Christ to be present bloudily, but spiritually, [Page 499] 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 eter­nall 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 mon­strously of this sacrament, that the Papistes them selues do not receiue him in all thinges, as I haue alwayes re­fused his authoritie, so nowe I will not trouble the rea­der with it.

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

In the beginning of this Chapter, he maketh much a­doe that Damascenes authoritie might be receiued, Fulke. 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 seue­rall sayinges, and hee shall finde, that not one of them, [Page 500] being rightly vnderstoode, speaketh on Maister Hes­kins 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 am­bition. Also he pricketh him, which had committed fornication, and with them, those that without any difference were par­takers of those thinges that were offered to idols. Besides them, also vs, which with an euill conscience, dare receiue the diuine sa­craments. 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 dia­logue called Incommutabilis.

In English thus:

This discourse of Theodoret is so plaine, as I neede to adde no exposition thereof, to declare what his iudge­ment was. As for the authoritie of Anselmus, which hee adioyneth, there is no more reason why we should ad­mit it, then why Maister Heskins will not receiue the au­thoritie of Cranmer, which was Archbishop of Canter­burie 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 bor­rowed them, I omit them as already aunswered, in aun­swere 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. Hesk.

In this Chapter Maister Heskins promiseth to teach men howe to examine them selues, Fulk. that they may receiue worthily. And two things he requireth in due examina­tion, vprightnesse of faith, and puritie of life. And this faith hee determineth to be the Apostolique and Catho­lique 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 a­ny thing.

[Page 504]Vnto purenesse of life he requireth confession, alledging the confession of Augspurge for the confirmation there­of, 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 disci­ples 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 neces­sarily do followe of a true and liuely faith, which onely maketh vs righteous in the sight of God, and worthie re­ceiuers by reputation or acceptation, which in the con­clusion, 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.

Hesk.The foure and fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the Fathers vpon the same text with Saint Hierome and Saint Chryso­stome:

Fulk.S. 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 Io­seph 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 pre­sence of Christ, in that Hierome saith, we receiue the bo­dy of Christe. And who denyeth either the presence of Christ, or that we receiue the body of Christ in the sacra­ment? Only we differ, whether Christ be present bodily, and whether we receiue his body after a corporall man­ner, or after a spirituall or heauenly manner. It is pitie he [Page 505] 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 sci­licet & peccati: Being made twise guiltie, namely of pre­sumption 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 no­thing worth.’

But Maister Heskins citeth another place of Saint Hie­rome, 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 for­mer 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 vn­worthily, 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 [Page 502] [...] [Page 503] [...] [Page 504] [...] [Page 505] [...] [Page 506] 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 re­member, that thy brother hath any thing against thee, leaue thy gif [...] before the altar, and goe and be reconciled to thy brother. There­fore the conscience must first be searched, if it doe in nothing repre­hend 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? Wher­fore it behoueth the idle person to cease from vices, that he may ho­lily receiue the holy body of our Lord.

In these wordes Maister Heskins noteth the preparati­on required, against Luthers onely faith, and the thing receiued to be the holy body of our Lorde. I haue aun­swered 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 re­ceiued 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 say­ing 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 cor­pus edit, aut sanguinem bibit, ne quid indignum ei faciat cuius cor­pus 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 ea­teth 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 bo­dy and bloud of Christe are eaten and dronken, and of whome, namely, they are so receiued, as hee that recei­ued them is made the body of Christe, that is of neces­sitie spiritually, and they are receiued of them, in whome Christe dwelleth, and they in him, therefore of no wic­ked men.

[Page 507]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 de­sire of the minde. Neither doe we come as full of compun­ction 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 pre­pared, to be hindered because there is no solemnitie. For solem­nitie is an euident declaration of good workes, purenesse of soule, certeintie of life, whiche thinges if thou hast, thou mayest al­wayes celebrate a solemnitie, and alwayes come, therefore (sayth he) let a man examine him selfe, and so let him eate. It fol­loweth immediately: ‘ Non iubet vt alter alteri probetur, sed ipse sibi, non publicum faciens iudicium, & sine teste argu­tum. He doth not commaunde that one should be exa­mined 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 comp­teth for a necessarie parte of repentance.’ He noteth fur­ther, that the sacrament is called of him a pure sacrifice, and the bodie of Christ. How it is called either a sacrifice, [Page 508] 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 dispu­ted much of those, which vnworthily are partakers of the mysteries, and had gre [...]uously rebuked them and shewed, that they should suf­fer 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 na­meth 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 on­ly 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 testi­fieth, Ioan. 6. that whosoeuer eateth his flesh and drin­keth his bloud hath life euerlasting, euen as he saide be­fore he that beleeueth in him hath life euerlasting, wher­vpon 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 An­gels them selues doe receiue with trembling, measure so great a [Page 509] 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 sa­crifice 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 vi­ces, 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 fi­guratiue 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 figura­tiue and vnproper speech, when it followeth, that he is kissed of the wicked with a foule soule? Like impu­dencie 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 quae­so si rex quispiam praecepisset ac dixisset, si quis istud vel istud fe­cerit, 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 [Page 510] accurrentes? Tel me I pray thee If any King had comman­ded 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 com­ming 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 in­to heauen, to receiue him there spiritually by faith. This is in deede a great and wonderfull mysterie, which Chry­sostome doeth garnish with many figures (as he was an eloquent preacher) to make the people to haue due reue­rence thereof.

Neither is Luthers doctrine one hayre breadth diffe­ring from Chrysostoms iudgement concerning the prepa­ration necessarie for all them, that shall receiue the sacra­ment 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 Chry­sostome, I thought good to set downe one place also di­rectly 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, v­nitarum naturarum vnam dominationem, vnam potestatem possi­dens, etiamsi non consubstantialiter existant & vnaquaeque in­commixta proprietatis conseruas agnitionem, propter hoc quod in­confusa 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 perso­nam vtraque haec secerunt. Christe is both God and man, God because of his impassibilitie, man for his passion: be­ing [Page 511] one sonne and one Lord: he himselfe doubtlesse pos­sessing one domination, one power of the two natures being vnited, although they haue not their being consub­stantially, 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 comp­ted 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 Chryso­stome, 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 transubstantiati­on, to be newe and vnknowen to the Churche of God in the elder times.

The fiue and fiftieth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same by Isi­chius and S. Augustine. Hesk.

To garnishe his Booke, with the name of Isichius, Fulke. he continueth his most vniust and slaunderous quarrell a­gainst Luther, as though he denied all preparation re­quisite to the woorthie receiuing of this holie sacra­ment, 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 inten­deth 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 [Page 512] were contrarie to this saying, and multiplieth his slaun­ders 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 dire­cted, and therefore some say to Iulianus, some to Bonifa­cius. 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 com­meth 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, exa­mine himself, and so according to the commandement of the Apostle, let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that vn­worthily eateth the bodie and bloud of our Lord, eateth and drin­keth 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 re­pentance, 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 Au­gustine, out of which Maister Heskins gathereth not on­ly his manner of presence, to be such as the wicked receiue [Page 513] the bodie & bloud of Christ, but also his auricular con­fession.

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 cor­pus 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 su­mus, qui ergo est in eius corporis vnitate, id est, in Christianorum compage membrorum, cuius corporis sacramentum fideles commu­nicantes 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 re­uera 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 bi­bere 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 [Page 514] in him. For so he spake this, as if he had saide: he that a­bideth 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 autho­ritie he bringeth none for them, but this Iewde foolishe and barbarous counterfet, whome he called moste falsely and iniuriously S. Augustine.

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

Fulke.Theodoret 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 con­fession, 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 of­fertur 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 pro­claymer, 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 [Page 515] 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. Orthodox­us. Si ergo Diuina mysteria corpus, quod verè est, repraesen­tant, ergo corpus etiam nunc Domini quoque corpus est, non in Diuinam naturam mutatum, sed impletum Diuina gloria. Era­nistes. 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 di­cere: est enim verisimile, adesse aliquos mysterijs non initiatos. Eranister. Respondeatur aenigmaticè? Orthodoxus. Id, quod fit ex huiusmodi seminibus nutrimentum. Eranistes. Aliud eti­am signum quomodo nominamus? Orthodoxus. Commune etiam hoc nomen, quod potus speciem significat. Eranistes. Post san­ctificationem autem quomodo ea appellas? Orthodoxus. Cor­pus & sanguinem Christi. Eranistes. Et credis te fieri par­ticipeni Christi corporis & sanguinis? Orthodoxus. Ita credo. E­ranistes. Sicut ergo symbola corporis & sanguinis Domini, alia quidem sunt ante inuocationem sacerdotis, & post inuo­cationem mutantur, & alia siunt: ita etiam corpus Domini post assumptionem mutatur in Diuinam substantiam. Ortho­doxus. 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 similitudi­nem? Oportet enim figuram esse veritati similem. Illud enim corpus priorem habet formam, & figuram & circumscriptio­nem & vt semel dicam corporis substantiam.’ ‘ Immortale autem post resurrectionem factum est, & potentius, quàm vt vlla in illud [Page 516] cadat corruptio, & interitus, sessione (que) ad dextram Dei digna­tum 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 Do­minus ipse appellanit. Porro autem ipsum corpus Diuinum cor­pus 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 questi­ons. 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 sancti­fication 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 [Page 517] of the bodie and bloud of our Lord are other things be­fore 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 sub­stance. Orth. Thou art taken with thine owne nets which thou haste made. For the mysticall signes after sanctifi­cation, 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 vn­derstoode 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 simi­litude. For the figure ought to be like to the trueth. For that same bodie hath the former shape and fashion, & cir­cumscription, and to speake at once the substance of a bo­die. 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 quic­kening, 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 Theo­doretus, you may see both howe syncerely Maister Hes­kins 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 al­wayes with Burgesses of the lower house. But Maister Heskins affirmeth that the preparation we are comman­ded [Page 518] to make for the receipt of the sacrament, & the dan­ger of vnworthie receiuing, do argue the reall presence: for such preparation and perill should not be for recei­uing a peece of bread. And if we aunswere, that by faith we receiue Christs bodie & bloud verily, but yet spiritu­ally, 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 vnwor­thie receiuing. For their preparation was onely in out­warde things, their punishment onely bodily and tem­porall.

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 pure­nesse was more necessarie? And wheras he sayeth, the vn­worthie receiuers of those auncient sacraments were pu­nished only with temporal death, how often doth those threatenings occurre in the lawe: That soule shalbe roo­ted 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 ordinan­ces? Finally, when the same punishment of condemnati­on remaineth to them y ^t receiue baptisme vnworthily, which abydeth them that receiue the Lordes supper vn­worthily, how will hee proue a reall presence more in the one sacrament then in the other?

Hesk.The seuen and fiftieth Chapter expoundeth this text: For this cause manie are weake and sicke, &c. by Origen & Saint Am­brose.

Fulk.Origen 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 communi­cate 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 [Page 519] doest not remember that which is written: that for this cause ma­ny among you are weake & sick, & many are fallen a sleepe. Why are many sicke? Because they iudge not them selues, neither exa­mine themselues, neither do they vnderstand what it is to com­municate 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, there­fore 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 re­ceiue it willingly, for hee speaketh of such receiuers as Saint Paule doth, that is not wicked and reprobate per­sons, 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 O­rigen: 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 re­ceiue the Lords bodie, you giue heede with all warinesse and reue­rence, that no little portion of it should fall downe, that no parte of the consecrated gift should fall away, for you beleeue your sel­ues to be guiltie, and you beleeue rightly, if any of it should fall from you through negligence. If then you vse so great wari­nesse 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 say­eth the people receiued the bodie of Christe.

[Page 520]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 appea­reth both that there is bread, and that it is not so his bo­die, 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 ne­glect the sacrament, it followeth that Christe is none o­therwise 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 al­lowe the same, so farre as neither idolatrie nor supersti­tion 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 vp­pon 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 [Page 521] receiue the bodie of our Lorde negligently, is not left vnpunished, but if his punishment be here deferred, that he shalbe more grie­uously handled hereafter, because he hath contemned the exam­ple. 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 faith­full, 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 wor­des in the same place declare. Vppon this texte: You shewe the Lordes death vntill he come. ‘ Quia enim mor­te Domini liberati sumus, huius rei memores, in edendo & po­tando, carnem & sanguinem, quę pro nobis oblata sunt, significa­mus: 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 there­fore is established by bloud, because his bloud is a wit­nesse 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 sci­at mens reuerentiam se debere ei, ad cuius corpus sumendum ac­cedit: 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 [Page 522] 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 corporal­ly. ‘And there followe as plaine termes in the next sen­tence immediatly: Hoc enim apud se debet iudicare, quia Domi­nus 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 for­mer 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, name­ly the redemption of the world by the blood of his one­ly sonne our Lorde Iesus Christ.

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

Fulk.Theophylact saith nothing but of the temporall pu­nishment that God layeth vppon the contemners of his mysterie. Anselme borrowed his wordes of Ambrose ci­ted in the last chapter. And both Theophylact and An­selme, though great prelates in their lyfe, yet in this ac­compt of Master Heskins, they are burgesses of the low­er house, and liued much about a time.

To fill vp the chapter, he citeth certaine miracles re­ported by Sainte Cyprian Sermone, 5. De lapsis: to shewe howe God punisheth the vnworthie receiuing of the sa­crament, although they doe not all shewe it, for the first example is of an infante that coulde not brooke the sa­cramentall 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 chapi­ter of the second booke.

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

[Page 523]The third of a woman who kept the sacrament in her coffer, and when she woulde with vnworthie handes open the cof­fer, 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 maruei­lous thing saith Master Heskins. Whereby is declared that God is not willing that his holy sacrament shoulde be receiued of a fil­thie 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 acei­dentes onely of breade and wine, and so belike the acci­dentes are chaunged into ashes. O monstrous muta­tion.

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 ga­ther 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 salua­tion the vnworthie persons, seeinge the wholsome giftes, the holi­nesse departing from it, is chaunged into ashes. Cyprian gathe­reth 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: [Page 524] 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 ho­ly sacraments of God. Wherefore it is diuelish and blas­phemous, 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.

Hesk.The 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.

Fulk.Irenaeus is cited Lib. 5. Quomodo carnem negant esse ca­pacem &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 Apo­stle 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 ac­knowledge. 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 car­nall, naturall, or papisticall manner. And this is the plaine sense and meaning of Irenaeus his wordes. As our bodyes [Page 525] are naturally nourished and increased with the bread and wine of the sacrament, so are our bodyes and soules spiri­tually 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 in­creased. Therefore there is naturall and very bread in the sacrament, for our flesh can not be nourished and increa­sed 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 wic­ked 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 recei­uing 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 [Page 526] 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 na­turally 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, bi­cause 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 natu­rall 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 mysterie, 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. Fi­nally 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 [Page 527] as he vseth it for essentially, is not contrarie to spiritual­ly. But he alledgeth another place of Hilarie, where he af­firmeth, 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 obe­dience 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 car­nally, 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 cor­porally 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 natu­rally; 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, corpo­rall, 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 con­clude, howe plaine these places be for the proclamer, and plaine against Maister Heskins the exclamer, let the rea­ders iudge. The proclamer doth admit these sayings ac­cording 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. Hesk.

[Page 528]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 The­ophylact. 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 of­fering, which is in the tabernacle of witnesse. Let vs againe vnder­stand, 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 Apo­stle, nor Isichius speake one worde of the sacrament, but of the spirituall participation of the sacrifice of Chri­stes 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 so­phisme, 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 be­leeue in Christ, then they can eate the flesh of Christe. But contrariwise by their doctrine, if the sacrament be giuen [Page 529] 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 exa­mine, 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 Ca­tholique 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 scrip­tures, 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, whe­ther 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 Pa­pistes 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 [Page 530] 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 Chri­stes 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 Chri­stian fasting is not cleane exiled out of our Church, tho­ugh 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 & san­guinis Christi in actione mysteriorū celebratur. Satis ergo nobis eui­denter ostēditur, hoc in ipso Domino Christo sentiendū, quod in eius imagine, ꝓfitemur, celebramus & sumimꝰ. vt sicut hęc in diuinā trā feūt spiritu sancto ꝑficiente substantiā ꝑmanent tamen in suę ꝓpri­etate naturae: sic illud ipsū mysteriū principale, cuius nobis officientiā veritatem (que) veraciter repręsentat, ex ijs quibus conflat, propriè per­manentibus, vnū Christū, quoniam integrū verū (que) permanere de­monstret. 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 [Page 531] and bloud of Christ, is celebrated in y ^e action of y ^e myste­ries. 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 pro­pertie of their owne nature: euen so y ^e same principal my­sterie 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 remai­ning. 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 ma­ner 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 ma­nibus 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. [Page 532] Vnde dicitur, suo modo sed non in veritate, sed significante mysterio [...] Vt sit sensus: vocatur corpus Christi, id est significat. The heauen­ly 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 ob­stinate, and will not be satisfied with any truth contrarie to their presumed heresie.

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

Fulk.Seeing this Chapter containeth no argument or autho­ritie to defend his cause, but only rehearseth what he fan­tasieth, 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 offe­red 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 num­ber 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 vt­terly reiected & condemned, & spurned out of the house.