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 ha