Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues

THE first Chapter upon occasion that this adversary, this proclamer, and challenger (he meaneth the B. of Sarum of holy and learned memory) would have the Scriptures read of all men (presupposing the same to be easy to be understanded) entereth, as by preamble, to treat of the difficulty of the Scriptures, and to prove that they ought not of all men to be read, without an able interpreter or teacher.

T HIS Burgess for the city of Rome, having in purpose to make a speak in the Popish Parleament, for the matter of the sacrament of the Mass: and douting least his tale should not be long enough, if he uttered nothing but that might seem directly to appertain to his cause, beginneth with a pretty preamble of eight Chapters long, of the difficulty of the Scriptures, and the understanding of the same. And because he hath not advantage sufficient of any words or writing of the B. of Sarum to enlarge his speech by confuting thereof: he feigneth unto him self, a monster to fight withal, out of Luther's book, De seruo arbitrio, who teacheth (as he saith) That the Scriptures of them selves be easy of all men to be understanded, and need none interpreter, for that we be all taught of God and of his spirit, &c. Of which mind he imagineth his adversary 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 appear by that one word, Theodidacti, taught of God, by which it is most manifest, that Luther affirmeth the scriptures to be easy to be understood, not of all men in general, but only of all them that are taught of God, and of his spirit, by which they were indighted. But now our Burgess will make plain by discussion, that the scriptures be obscure, dark, and hard to be understanded, and for that cause not of all men indifferently to be read, and that by seven arguments. Although it followeth not, that the scriptures are not to be read, because they are hard, but the contrary; yet let us weigh these seven arguments.

The first: There be many controversies of the blessed sacrament, therefore there be difficulties in the scriptures. If controversies raised by froward maintainers of falsehood, be a proof of difficulty, there shall nothing be plain, not only in the scriptures of God, neither in any other writings or sayings of men, no not in such matters as are subject to our senses, but we shall be brought into an Academical doubtfulness of all things. But what say you M. Heskins? are not the scriptures plain for the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament which you maintain? Is Hoc est corpus meum, now a matter of diffic • ltie? Let all Papists that have wit beware of your proceeding, you have even now by your first argument, cut asunder the sins & strength of all your cause.

The second: The very disciples of Christ, besides the Jews, understood not Christ's own words before they were written. John. 6. Much less we the same written. To pass over the ungodly difference you make, between Christ's words proceeding out of his own mouth, and the same writ̄ by inspiration of his own holy spirit, call you them the very disciples of Christ, which offended with that speech 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 serveth not your purpose, accuse it of difficulty and uncertainty, as the old Heretics the Valentinians did: as witnesseth Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. But Chrysostom I suppose helpeth you much, where he saith: Quid ergo? est durus? difficilis intellectu, & quem capere non posset eorum imbecillitas plenus formidinis. What then? is this word hard? difficult to be understood, and such as their weakness could not receive, full of fearfulness. Here is the name of the words of Chrysostom, 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 easy to be understood for the most part, and not only without danger, but also very profitable, even where they be hard to be understood. I will 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) give heed to those things that are said, but also when you shall be at home, you would every day give yourselves to the reading of the holy scriptures. And there followeth a reason, Ne{que} nunc fieri potest: Neither can it now be, I say, it cannot be, that any man should obtain salvation, except he be continually conversant in spiritual reading. And not long after, Etiamsi, non intelligas illic recondita &c. yea, although thou understand not the mysteries that are therein hidden, yet of the very reading of them, great holiness groweth. Finally, In genesim Hom. 9. In diuinis autem scriptures &c. but in the holy scriptures, & in those spiritual and precious stories, neither is it lawful to suspect any danger, neither is there any great labor, but unspeakable gain, only let us bring with cheerfulness that which lieth in us.

The third: If the scriptures be plain and easy for every mā to understand, it was no great benefit that Christ did open his Apostles wits, that they might understand the scriptures, nor that he did interpret Moses and the Prophets, to the disciples that went to Emmaus, wherefore we conclude with S. Peter, that as he witnessing the Epistles of S. Paul be hard: so be the rest of the scriptures hard. O blundering Burgess! Who did ever affirm that the scriptures were easy to be understand without the spirit of Christ? Or what asse of Acarnania, would brave out such a reason? The Apostles could not understand the scriptures sufficiently to teach all the world, without a singular gift of interpretation, therefore no Christian man may learn by reading the scriptures, howe to know God to his eternal salvation, without the same extraordinary gift. But by your leave master speaker, (for the office you take upon you, I know not howe you came unto 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. Paul be hard, but that among those things which he wrote of the second coming of Christ, some things are hard to be understood. Wherefore neither his authority, nor your reason, will be sufficient to conclude your cause.

The fourth. The Chamberlen could not understand the prophet Isaiah without an interpreter, therefore the scriptures are not plain and easy of all men to be understanded. A proper conclusion. There is some difficulty in some scriptures, therefore they are all hard and cannot be understood. We neither affirm that all things in the scriptures are easy to be understanded; nor that they are easy to be understood of all men. But that the children of God by his spirit, are instructed to understand so much in them as is profitable for their salvation, and that nothing necessary for us to know, is so obscurely set forth in one scripture, but it is as plainly set down in another. Neither do we reject interpreters, because we read the scriptures, but as Chrysostom teacheth, by reading the scriptures, we are made more apt to understand the interpreters. In Euan. John. Hom. 10. The example of Philip sent unto the Chamberlen doth also declare, howe God will bless the reading of the scriptures, whē he is sought in them.

The fifth. The Apostles them selves understood not Christ speaking of his passion and resurrection. John. 16. After a while, &c. therefore if the lively voice of Christ was dark, much more is the same now written in dead letters, dark & hard to be understanded. The Apostles by special dispensation, not yet so well lightened, that they understood their master, not only at this time, but at many other times also, bewrayed their natural ignorance, that the grace of God in their illuminatiō in due time afterward, might appear more glorious. But doth it therefore follow, that the sayings of Christ were hard, or their understanding dark? A blind man cannot see the Sun, is it therefore a good conclusion, that the Sun is dark, and not easy to be seen? Howbeit, it is well to be marked, that once again he putteth difference between the lively voice of Christ, and his word written in dead letters, making opposition between The lively voice in the ear, and the dead: letter in the eye. As though the understanding of the scripture, consisted either in the ear or in the eye, when neither the eye hath seen, nor the ear hath heard, neither have they ascended into the heart of man, such things as God hath prepared for them that love him. 1. Cor. 2. Es. 64. But God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit, which spirit searcheth out all things, even the depths or greatest secretes of God. Nevertheless, here is brought in Hieronyme ad Paulinum. Habet nescio quid latentis energy viua vox &c. The lively voice hath I know not what hidden virtue, and being uttered frō the mouth of the author, into the ear of the disciple, soundeth more strongly. Wherefore Aeschynes when he was banished at Rhodes, and that Oration of Demosthenes was read, which he made against him, when all men did wonder at it, and praise it sighing he said: What if ye had heard the beast himself sounding out his own words ? This writeth Hieronyme to persuade Paulin{us}, not only to satisfy himself with his writings, but also to travel that he might so him, & hear 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 words following immediately do plainly testify: Haec non dico quod sit in me aliquid tale &c. I say not these things, for that there is in me any such matter, which either thou mayest, or art desierous to learn: but because thy fervent heat, and desire of learning, ought to be commended even without us. Thy wit is pregnant and commendable without a teacher 3. So far is it off that Hieronyme meant to compare the word of Christ spoken, with that which is written, whose force is as great by his spirit in the scriptures, which this dog calleth the dead letters, as it was in his voice when it was uttered. But howe impudently the name of Hieronyme is abused against his plain judgment, whereby he not only alloweth lay men to read the scriptures, but also confesseth that they receive great fruit thereby, may appear by this one place among many, written in Esaiam libro. 4. cap. 11. Frequenter euenit vt homines soeculi. It cometh to pass very often, that lay men being ignorant of the mystical sense, are yet fed with the plain and simple reading of the scriptures. 33. And in his epistle vpō the same

Ignorance of scriptures, is the ignorance of Christ. Shortnes will not suffer me to point the places only, to the confusiō of the adversary: if any dout or would see more, let them read the places at the full.

The sixth All men have not the gift of knowledge of prophesy, nor of interpretation of tongues, therefore every man hath not the understanding of the scriptures, neither be they easy to be understanded of every man. First I pray you note, that he maketh interpretatiō of the scriptures and the interpretatiō of tongs all one, secondly, what force is in this reason, all men have not extraordinary gifts of tongs, of healing, of knowledge, of prophesy, of interpretation of tongues &c. Therefore the scriptures are so hard, as they cannot be understood by the ordinary gift of prophesy, which is promised to all the servants of God, young & old, men and women, upon whom his holy spirit is poured. 10.2. Act. 2. I am ashamed to trouble the readers with anymore words, in answer unto such a gross consequence.

The seventh, God hath ordained first Apostles▪ secondly Prophets, thirdly teachers, &c. Now if the scriptures be easy for every man's understanding, then either these states be superfluous, or else every man is a teacher and prophet, but this were a great absurdity, therefore the scriptures are hard & full of difficulties. If a young Sophister had D. Heskins in the schools at Cambridge, where sometime he hath been a Sophister, he would with one common ward, which is Nego consequentiam, avoid the pikes of all these seven arguments. Alas poor man, is there no understanding of the scriptures, but such as may make a man a teacher, & an extraordinary prophet? are there no degrees of knowledge but either the highest perfection, or the depest ignorance? Will this reason follow? Men may profit in knowledge by reading, therefore teaching is superfluous: or this, teaching is necessary, therefore reading is unprofitable. What shall I say to these reasons, but that they are given over into a reprobate mind, which are so furiously bent to withstand the truth, that they set not forth so much as any shadow of reason.

The second Chapter to prove that the scriptures be not easy, reciteth certain hard and obscure places of the old Testament.

The purpose of this Chapter, as of the next also, is all together foolish and unreasonable, for who is so mad to deny, but that there are diverse places both in the old and new Testament, which be obscure and hard to be understood, not only of the ignorant, but even of the best learned, yet doeth it not therefore follow, because something is hard, therefore all is so: or because some places in the scripture are hard, therefore there is no profit in reading of all the rest. But let us see these places recited. First he nameth all the prophets, the books of Job, the book of Psalms, the Preacher, & the song of Solomon, Al which books in his judgment are so hard, as they cannot be understood without an interpreter. Well, let us grant great difficulty to be in these books, as in diverse other, is all time lost therefore that is spent in reading of them? The harder they be, the more diligently they are to be red, y ^t they may be understood. The difficulty to good scholars will not dull but whe • • hei • desire to learn▪ to 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 to confer to se •• e 〈…〉 to find Cōcer • ing Genesis he alledgeth out of Hieronyme, the tradition of the vnbel • uing Jews, that they might not read it before they were 30 years old. But Hieronyme himself would have young children's tender tongs seasoned with sweet Psalms▪ and exercised in study of the scriptures and Prophets, which you M. Heskins profess to be so difficult. For he instructing Laeta 〈◊〉 she should bring • p her daughter, saith▪

But more agreeing with the title of this Chap. you allege the 49. Chap. of Gene. & one special place of that Chapter, namely the blessing of Judah. What if this Chapter be hard, and this place especially in the Chapter: is it therefore hard, which Moses writeth in the beginning of this book. In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth. And shall all the profitable and necessary doctrine of this book be vnread for the difficulty of one Chapter?

In Exodus and Leviticus, although many things require a ripe judgment, yet are many things also very easy and plain, and the same scripture also teacheth us, that all figures were referred to the pattern shown in the mount, which is Christ. Exod. 25. Acts 7. Heb. 8. But these sayings offendeth M. Heskins, and seemeth to him to have almost no reason in them, where God forbiddeth them to suffer their cattle to gender with a contrary kind, or sow their field with mingled seed, or to wear a garment of linsiwoolsie. Which positive laws me thinks do plainly teach, that God loveth pureness, and abhorreth all unholy mixtures. As likewise, those words Deut. 23 of sowing the vineyard with diverse seeds, and plowing with an ox & an asse. The law Deut. 22. of leaving the old bird when a man taketh her young out of the nest, was a good rudiment to teach them to abhor either covetousness, or cruelty, or both. Which law, when the heathen men had by the light of nature, as appeareth in Phocylides, I marvel why it seemeth so strange to M. Heskins, which would be taken both for a Christian and a Divine. As for the moosling of the ox, that treadeth the corn, is yet more plain, when the Apostle doth gather a strong argument out of that place, from the less to the more, that God which would have men to consider brute beasts, with humanity, would not have the Ministers of his word neglected at their hands. But ô noble Divine. Doth the high providence of God occupy it self in making ordinances for birds nests ? Yea M. Doctor, and in teaching birds to make their nests, and in feeding their young birds that cal on him, although these ordinances concerning birds nests, were not made for birds, but for men. Or doth the wisdom of God join such rewards of prosperity and long life to such trifles? O M. Doctor, obedience before God, is better then sacrifice, though it be in never so small matters.

But Solomon in his Ecclesiastes pleaseth not M. Heskins, where he saith, that Where much wisdom is, there is also much travel and disquietness &c: hereupon the unlearned, he saith, might take occasion to contemn wisdom, and much more by that which followeth. cap. 2. If it happen to the fool as to the wiseman, what needeth me to labor anymore for wisdom. And hereupon he sweareth, that he heard a man of worship gravity, wisdom, godly life, competent learning, able to understand, and exercised in the scriptures, earnestly say to him, that it was a naughty book. When Solomon doth so exceedingly not only in his other books, but also in that same book, and place, set forth the commendation of wisdom, it was a very spiderlike juice that your wise Gentleman (M. Doctor) gathered out of that book, and such as no Be would suck out of so-sweet and wholesome flowers. As for The title Inci • ament unto virtue, that you suppose to appear in the ballattes of Solomon, yea rather how ungodly and wanton they seem to be, rather in the outward face teaching and provoking wantonness, then godliness of life, Declareth how reverently you judge of the holy scripture And that offense you dream off (belike not most chastely affected) is most easily avoided: for what unlearned man endued with common sense, reading in so many other places of the scriptures, all wantonness of life expressly forbidden, will not immediately conceive, that this is some spiritual and mystical love, which is set forth in these ballats, rather then lewd or wanton songs, provoking to wickedness? But then followeth the son of Sirach, With his unseemly words describing the wickedness of an harlot Cap. 62. Which an honest man would be ashamed to speak, and you ashamed to write, if they were not scripture. Like as one that goeth by the way, and is thirsty, so shall she open her mouth, and drink of every next water that she may get. By every hedge shall she fit her down, & open her quiner to every arrow. Then what trifling, resting, and pastime you have seen and heard upon the reading, and rehearsal of this text, and what unchaste words have fallen out upon the same. It appeareth you have been in good company, where you have often heard such wholesome talk. But once again you swear, that This text being spoken in the presence of a good virtuous gentlewomā, the book turned & the place read, she exclamed & said, that if the scripture had such bawdie words, she would no more believe the scripture, for it was naught, with mo such like words. To pass over the blasphemous nicenes of this your Gentlewoman, and your judgment of their goodness and virtue, with their honesty, that troubled her with this place: I pray you master Heskins, was it the darkness of the place, that did so much offend her, or else because she thought it to be too plain a description of such a matter? You see therefore, or if you do not, all the world beside doeth, that while you seek to bring the reading of scriptures into contempt and hatred, you forget yourself so much, that you bring examples of one contrary for another. Although if I may speak of mine experience, as well as you, I do very well remember, that I heard a sober and chaste matron, of her own accord, not provoked thereto by any means, but the only hearing the same place read, affirm, that it was a modest description of so vile manners as an harlot useth.

To conclude this Chapter, you bring in a long testimony of Origen. 10. lib. Strom. Who to defend his wicked allegorizing upon the scriptures, goeth about to prove by some examples and sentences, that the literal sense is not profitable, but rather hurtful. As the incest of Judah, & the polygamy of the Patriarchs, the drunkenness of Noah, and such like, which are not commended in histories, but reproved. The sacrifices of Leviticus he imagineth should provoke men to idolatry, but without all color of reason. He addeth the judgment of God against Babylon and her children in the Psalm. 136. and the justice that David doeth promise to execute against all the wicked of the land. Psalm. 101. to encourage men to cruelty and contention, but all in vain: like as his purpose (for which he alledgeth them,) was wicked, namely to overthrow the true and natural sense of the scripture. But yet the same Origen is directly against master Heskins, in that cause for which he is alleged, as appeareth plainly in Leuitici cap. 16. Hom. 9. An tu putas qui vix diebus fectis ad Ecclesiam venis, &c.

The third Chapter to declare the new Testament not to be easy to be understanded▪ bringeth diverse obscure places of the same.

As I said before, there was never man yet so foolish, to affirm the scriptures to be so easy, that there was no obscure place in them, but that nothing needful to salvation is so obscure in them, but that it may be easily understood by conference of other places, where the fame is most plainly set forth. But let us see his wise reasons, to prove the New Testament to be hard, because some places therein be hard to be understanded.

The Evangelists Matthew and Luke seem to varrie in the Genealogy of Christ, therefore all is not easy. What then? They both do manifestly agree in that, which is material for our faith, • hat Christ was the seed of Abraham, and the son of David. In the rest, what strange matter is it, if one pedigree be brought from one principal ancester by several discents, lineal, and collateral, natural, and legal, by the male and by the female▪

For the second obscure place, Chrysostom is alleged, who Numbereth it among the hid things, howe Elizabeth being of the tribe of Leuie, may be called the cozen of Marie.

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

The third doubtful place is in Mark. 13. Where it is said, that Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels in heaven, nor the son him self, but the father. And Chrysostom is again alleged, to show that this is a doubtful place: and yet a simple Christian that knoweth the two diverse natures in Christ, human and divine, can easily solute it, and say, that although Christ by his godhead knoweth all things, yet as he was man he knew not all things.

The fourth proof is taken out of the example of Algasia and Hedibia, two godly women, and studious of the scriptures; whereof the one found twelve, the other eleven doubts in the new Testament, and sent to S. Hieronyme for resolution of them. I marvel M. Heskins hath so small discretion, to allege these examples, which do quight overthrow his purpose. If not only men, but women also, may read the scriptures, and profit so well in the study of them, that they can find but eleven or twelve doubts in the whole new Testament, for resolution whereof, they did (as became good scholars) send so far for the judgment of their learned master. But M. Heskins, not content to show that they douted, will also set down some of their douts, namely this one moved by Algasia. Why John the Baptist should send his disciples to Christ to ask this question: Art thou he that shalt come, or do we look for another? seeing he both knew, & openly pointed at Christ with his finger before ? Although this good woman doubted of this matter, yet it is easy to answer, that thē he sought the instructiō of his disciples, rather then the confirmation of his own knowledge. An other was moved by Hedibia, Howe Christ in John 20. forbad Marie to touch him, when Matthew 28. affirmeth, that the women held his feet. It seemeth to M. Heskins that one of these must be untrue, 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 plain enough, that he suffered Marie Magdalene to hold his feet so much, as was sufficient to confirm the certainty of his resurrection, & forbad her not, until she shown herself too much addicted to his bodily presence.

Another doubt is, howe Mark saith the women came to the sepulcher when the Sun was risen, and then saith, Marie Magdalene came early in the morning when it was yet dark. A woman sitting at her distaff, would easily solue this doubt, and say that it was dark when they set forth of their doors, but the Sun was risen by that time they came to the Sepulcher.

Yet another doubt of Hedibia, whether Christ breathing on his Apostles gave them the holy Ghost, when he promised to send him after his ascension. There is no doubt but he did then in some small measure, but afterwards sent him with most plentiful virtue and power.

To conclude, what needed Agustine to have written a great volume, De consensu Euangelistarum, what needed the comentaries of Hieronyme & Ambrose upon the Evangelists, or the Homilies of Chrysostom & Augustine, and the expositions of so many learned men, &c. if the Scriptures be so plain & easy ? O foolish conclusion! as though the Scriptures may not plainly set forth unto us, all things necessary for us to learn, and yet the same things (with all other things contained in them, be set forth more plainly & largely to the instruction & increase of our faith, hope, comfort, obedience, &c. by Comentaries, Homilies, expositions, yea admonitions, and exhortations.

The fourth Chapter containeth certain hard places of the Epistles.

M. Heskins taketh great pains in those Chapters, to prove that which no man doubteth of, that there be some hard and dark places in the Scriptures, and yet it followeth not, but that the Scriptures are a light unto our steppes, & a lantern unto our feet, & the word of the Lord giveth wisdom unto the simple. But let us follow him whether he leadeth us. In the Epistle to the Romans be mo obscure, then plain places, yea, the matter of justification how hard it is, the controversies thereupon risen may suffice to declare. Such is M. Heskins divinity, that he counteth all scripture obscure, that cā not easily be wrested to maintain popery. Otherwise there is nothing more clear then the doctrine of justification: though the Owls & Bats of our time, either cannot, or will not see it. But it is no easy matter to reconcile the saying of S. Paul Rom. 3. We conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law, & that which James saith: Iac. 2. what availeth it my brethren, if a man say he have faith, if he have no works, can faith save him? And after he concludeth: even so faith if it have no works it is dead in it self. It is an easy matter to reconcile these places to him that can put a difference between him that hath faith in deed, & him that only saith he hath it: between a true lively faith, & a false & dead faith: finally, between the cause of justification that goeth before, & the effects thereof that follow after.

In the same Epistle Cap. 10. concerning the rejection of the Jews & calling of the Gentiles, there are many places that trouble M. Heskins, as that out of Isaiah, 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 have forsaken his people, & answereth: God forbid, & such like. The matter is not so hard as it seemeth to him, but who so doth read the text attentively, may see the difference between a particular reiectiō of many, & an universal rejection of all, a temporal rejection of most, & the final rejection of all. The former is true, the latter is false.

The matter of predestination no man denieth, but it is a great secret, yet so much as the spirit of God hath revealed of it, for our comfort, is not so hard, but it may be easily understood. And as for that contrariety which he seemeth to find, between these two texts, Rom. 9. It is neither in him that willeth, nor in him that ru • neth, but in God that hath mercy: & that other Rom. 7. To will is present with me, but I find no means to perform that which is good, is so absurd, that I think it would not enter into the head of any unlearned man, to make a doubt, whether the will which is in a regenerate man by the grace of God's election, was the cause of his election before the world was made.

A like difficulty he findeth between these places: God will have all men to be saved and 〈◊〉 to the knowledge of the truth ▪ 1. Tim. 2. and that Rom. 9. Who can resist his will. And again: Many are called, few are chosen. If master Heskins would understand like a man, and no • like a child, the very words 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 subjects.

After this he repeateth another doubt of Algasia: What Paul meaned to wish him self accursed from Christ, for the Jews, which doubt is increased by an objection of Hieronyme, that he had said before: I am sure that neither death nor life, &c. nor any other creature can separate us from the love of God. In which saying he seemeth to affirm that he so fervently loved Christ, that nothing could separate him from his love, in the other he seemeth for the love he bare to the Jews, to wish that he were sepaerated from Christ, as though he loved the Jews better then Christ. A short answer is best. Although his desire was exceeding vehement, yet it was more for zeal of God's honor, then for love of the Jews. And although he loved Christ fervently▪ yet the boast he maketh of assurance, was not of that love wherewith he loved Christ, but of that love wherewith Christ loved him. And yet there is another doubt moved by Algasia upon the words of Paul Rom. 5. For scarce will any man die for a righte • us man. But yet for a good man it may be that one dare die. The obscurity of which place, hath moved two contrary heretics, to take their heresies thereof. Marcion, who made two God's, a just GOD of the Law, for whom few died, and a good God of the Gospel, Christ, for whom innumerable Martyr have suffered. Ar • ius contrariwise calleth Christ the just God upon the Psalm 71. Lord give thy judgments to the King, and thy righteousness to the Kings son. The good God he called father of heaven, of whom Christ said, none is good but God. These doubts Master Heskins moveth, but he answereth none. The place is not so dark, that either such doubt should be made of it, or such far fetched expositions sought as the heretics made. For a man may be righteous in some case, for which he is condemned to die, which is not simply a good man, and for such a one will hardly any man give his life, although peradventure for a very good man, some would venture to die: But Christ died for us, being his enemies, justly condemned, & altogether naught or wicked, which no man would ever do but he. The douts of Algasia are matched with the four questions of Amandus, of which one was, of that place 1. Cor. 15. He must reign till he have put all things under his feet. The last enemy that shall be subdued is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. When all things are subdued under him, then shall the son himself also be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all▪ The question is, howe the son shall be subject to the father when he is equal 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 resolved in doubts, for he vouchsafeth not so much, as to recyte the answer of Hillarius, but only to city the place. But the answer is easy by the distinction of the two natures in Christ: for he shall never be subject in his divinity, but in his humanity, wherein he is now exalted, & reigneth until all his enemies be put under his feet.

Yet another doubt upon Coll. 1. Where Paul writeth: Now joy I in my sufferings for you, and fulfill the rest of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body which is his Church. Here he seemeth to make the passion of Christ insufficient. Not a-whit: for as Christ suffered once in his own person, for their redemption, so he suffereth daily in his members, for their exercise of patience, & confirmation of faith.

Then the Epistle to the Hebrews hath two sore sentences. Heb. 6. & 10. For it is not possible that they which were once lightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghoste, and have tasted of the good word of God, and of the power of the world to come, if they fall away, should be renewed again by repentance, seeing they crucify again to them selves the Son of God and make a mock of him. And again. For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a fearful looking for of judgment, and violent fire which shall devour the adversaries. The difficulty of these places resteth in one point, and in a manner in one word in eche of the sentences. For the Apostle excludeth not from repentance everyone that falleth and sinneth, but him only which sinneth so willfully, that he falleth clean away from Christ. For then there is no repentance nor remission, because he sinneth against the holy Ghost, as did Judas, Alexander the coppersmith, Julian the Apostate, & such like.

The contention of Hieronyme & Augustine about Peters dissimulation is the last example of difficulty, which did not arise of any obscurity of the place, but of Hieronymes immoderate and over great zeal to defend Peter, where the holy Ghost saith plainly, he was worthy 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 hardness of the Scriptures, as it doth discourage us, to find the certain exposition of them at all times in the judgment of the doctors: which both in this place and many other, are not only diverse, but oftentimes contrary one to another. The conclusion of the Chapter is not all amiss, wherein he dissuadeth not men from reading the scriptures, but from rashness of judgment, and exhorteth the readers of them to humility and modesty, that so the spirit of GOD may rest upon them, which will lead them into all truth.

The first Chapter declareth the minds and judgments of the Fathers and Doctors, upon the difficulty of the scriptures.

It is not enough for this bold Burgess, to trouble the house, in proving that which no man doth gainsay, but he will also charge men with impudency and arrogancy, which give him no occasion of this his long and vain speech. But herein, he showeth his wit more then his honesty. For, because he cannot disprove that which they say, he laboreth to prove that which they do not deny. And now of the doctors, (substantially no doubt) Origen must begin, who saith: That these words of Paul: Brethren, you are called into liberty. Gal 5. is an hard place, and that the holy Ghost must be found in the scriptures, with much labor and sweat &c. We say likewise with David, that the godly man's study must be in the law of the Lord day and night. But that Origen would not for the difficulty of the scriptures, dissuade any Lay man from reading of them, is manifest by this place in Gen. Capit. 26. Hom. 12.

But Hieronyme (next to Origen) in his Epistle to Paulinus both noteth diverse obscure places in the scripture, and also counselleth Paulinus to use the help of interpreters. And who is it that mislyketh his council? especially if it be to exhort one that meant to be a teacher in the Church as Paulinus was. Yet nevertheless we shown before, that Hieronyme would have even infantes brought up in the knowledge of the scriptures, and exhorteth not only men, but women also to the study of them, and commendeth husband men, and laborers; for their knowledge of the scriptures.

And although he confess the questions of Algasia to be full of difficulties, yet he both commendeth her study in the scriptures, and desire to be resolved in her doubts.

Yet Basel teacheth that all the scriptures are not to be published and made common. For there are points of learning, or of doctrine that are to be kept close, and the obscurity which the scripture useth is a kind of silence so framing those points of learning, that a man may hardly understand them.

The words of Basil are these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That is, (according to Erasmus translation) exercising a mind vnapte for the contemplation of this doctrine, and that for the profit of them that exercise them selves in the scriptures. Which last words, M. Heskins hath fraudulently left out, and so he is clean contrary to M. Heskins purpose. Although Basel speaketh not expressly of reading the Scriptures by the faithful, but of publishing the mysteries of Christian religion that were received by tradition without Scripture.

But S. Ambrose also in few words saith much to this matter, calling the Scripture of God the great sea, having in it a deepness without bottom of deep senses & understandings, into the which many floods do enter. But this letteth not S. Ambrose upon 118. Psal. Serm. 1. to exhort the lay people to read the Scriptures. Hexam. lib. 3. cap. 3. By this place it appeareth, that all sorts of people were admitted to the reading of the scriptures, and that no tongue was used in the Church, but such as was common to all the people. Chrysostom succeedeth Ambrose, who saith: The scriptures are dark that they are found out with labor, but not shut that they cannot be found out at all, and that the priests ought to be the keykeepers of the scriptures, not to shut them up, but to open them, &c. I would oppose some testimony of Chrysostom to explain his meaning, not to be to discourage men frō reading the scriptures, but that M. Heskins doth soon after confess the same, of his own accord, in these words: I am not ignorant (gentle reader) that Chrysostom doth so, that is, that Chrysostom in a number of places most earnestly exhorteth men to the reading of the scriptures, and doth not fear them with the obscurity, and difficulty thereof. I ask no more against M. Heskins, but his own confession of Chrysostom's judgment to be against him, whereunto we must return anon, after a little consideration of Gregory's judgment. Gregory showeth, that the obscurity of the scriptures is for great profit, for exercising the understanding, for avoiding of weariness, idleness, contempt, and for great delight, when it is found out with labor. Augustine hath the like sentence, but this maketh much for our cause, that the obscurity of the scripture, where, it is dark: is very profitable for the diligent reader. To conclude, if all the scripture were never so dark, yet seeing it is necessary to be known of all men, it ought to be read and studied of all, & the more & the oftener, where it is more hard to understand, y ^t long & diligent search may find out, y ^t which seldom & slight reading would pass over. As for the last testimony of Hieronyme ad Paulinum, concerning the Canonical 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 refer it to the former answers. The rest of the railing stuff, charging us with cause of heresies, arrogance, and ignorance, in suffering and allowing the people to read the scriptures, affirming them to be easy, when they be hard &c. is more meet for M. Heskins to write, then us to answer. But to return to the objection, that he maketh of the judgment of Chrysostom and Erasmus, whom he confesseth to be against him, let us see his witty answers. To Chrysostom he answereth, That there were two causes why he would have the scriptures read, one, that they might the better understand his expositions in the Church, the other that they might read them to follow them: to these purposes he granteth it were tolerable they should be read, but not to frame new doctrines out of them, nor to cont • mne the learned teachers, &c. And who (I pray you) would have them read to other purpose? Not Luther, not Jewel, nor any man whom you most spyte at. But see the force of truth, and the malice of an enemy thereof. Heskins having reasoned in five Chapters, against the reading of scriptures, now granteth to it: but yet that which is most convenient & of all, most necessary, he vouchsafeth to cal it but tolerable. To Erasmus he replieth, first, y ^t seeing he confesseth in diverse places the scriptures to be hard to understand, he maruelleth that he would exhort ignorant men to the reading of them. But Erasmus would easily turn back M. Heskins reason upon his own head. Seeing they are hard, they are the more often and diligently to be read & studied. Secondly, he thinketh Alphonsus good enough to oppose against Erasmus, who affirmeth, That although it were meet the people should read the scriptures in Chrysostom's time, yet it is not meet now, because laws are changed as the times and manners of men are. And it is no more meet that the people should now read the scriptures, then that the Vigils should be kept as they were in Hieronymes time, or that Infantes should receive the Communion as they did in Augustine's t • me, or men should abstain from blood and strangled as in the Apostles time, or discipline and public penance should be used as in the old days. If the manners of men be worse now, they have more need of the knowledge of God, whereby they might be reformed, wherefore the similitudes are nothing like. And besides this, note also the error of the Church in S. Augustine's time confessed, and the want of discipline in the Popish Church acknowledged.

The sixth Chapter, declaring howe the people shall come to the understanding of the scriptures.

The understanding then of y ^e scriptures is necessary, seeing God as you confess, which ordeineth nothing in vain, hath appointed a mean, whereby the people should come to the understanding of the scriptures. So by the way we have gained thus much: that ignorance is not the mother of Christian devotion, as was most impudently affirmed by all the Bel weathers of Papistry, in the conference of Westminster, to the perpetual shame & ignominy, both of them selves, and all the Popish Church. But now to the mean appointed by God, which you say, Is, that the law should be in the mouth of the Priest, and the people should learn it at his mouth. A very godly order in deed, but yet such as neither promiseth, that the law shall be always in the Priests heart, nor bindeth the people to learn it only at his mouth. And therefore nothing in the world letteth, but that the godly man should meditate in the law of God day & night, Psal. 1. and have it so familiar unto him, that he should teach his childrē therein, talk of it at home, & abroad, uprising, and downlying, and write on the posts of his doors, and upon his gates, that he may learn to do it. Deut. 4. & 11. Wherefore all the places that M. Heskins alledgeth, to show that the Priests should be learned, and the people instructed by them, serve to prove nothing that is in controversy, but is confessed of all men: except it be to condemn the Clergy of Papistry, which for the most part are ignorant, not only of God's law, but of all honest knowledge, and upon very necessity, open a gate unto the people, to seek instruction them selves, where the ordinary passage is stopped, through the ignorance of the Ministers.

The first place by him alleged, is Deu. 17. That if there rise a matter too hard for the people in judgment between blood and blood, &c. they shall come to the Priests, and stand to their judgment on pain of death, &c. Although I might answer, that this ordinance appertaineth to judicial causes, of which God gave his law also, yet if it be taken generally, so long as the Prieste determineth according to the law, it is well enough. But this proveth not, that the people must have no understanding, beside the priests mouth. For the decree is only of matters that are difficult, and such as cannot be decided at home. No more do the words of Malachi, That the lips of the Priest shall keep the law, and men shall require it at his mouth. And much less the commandment in Aggee: Enquire the law of the Priests, And least of all that Christ commandeth the Scribes and Pharisees to be heard sitting in the chair of Moses. These places prove, that it is the Priests duty to be learned in the law of God, but repel not the general law, whereby every man is commanded also to study in the law of God, yea, though the Priests neither would nor could teach him. For if the blind follow the blind, they both fall into the ditch: which our savior Christ willeth all men to take heed of. Hieronyme in the place by you alleged (M. Heskins) gathereth rightly of these places, that it is the Priests office to know and expound the scriptures: but I muse how the greatest number of your Priests can brook those words of his: If he be ignorant of the law, he proveth him self to be no Priest of God. Much more against your clergy, & your cause is that large sentence you set down out of Hieronyme, thē to hurt your adversaries, 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 law of God. As is also that which you add 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 people's reading of the scriptures: whē even in the Apostles time, the Thessalonians or Berrhoeans wer commended, for that thei did not only hear the Apostles, but also cōferred their doctrine with the scriptures Acts. 17. Having rehearsed your texts, you fall to collecting of three things out of thē. 1. That it is the duty of a Priest to be learned in the law of God, and godly life also, which every man confesseth. 2. That there be doubts and hard matters in the law. And that also shall be confessed. But withal out of the same place it is proved, that there are many plain and easy pointes in the law, because the decree was not for all the law, but only for hard cases of the law. Thirdly, that the people must be taught them and learn of the priests, and this also shall be granted to the uttermost, so that you will allow the people to learn such things as are easy, not only of the priests, but also of their own reading, study, & conference with thē that are no priests. And this is no inverting of God's order, M. Heskins, how much soever you envy the people's instruction. For it is gods commandment, as I shown before, that his people should not only read the law themselves, but teach the same to others, yea parents are commanded to teach the law of God to their children, and yet I ween you will not say that all parents be priests. But the mark you shoot at, is easy to see, the ignorance of the people is more for your worship and gain 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 in deposing Samuel and desiring a king, are of no force to dissuade men from reading of the Scriptures, no though they have learned and true teachers: much less, when they are under dumb dogs and heretics, as all popish priests are: nor to abridge the authority of lawful magistrates, in banishing and suppressing all usurped power and false teachers, nor to shake off the yoke of Antichrist to submit thenselves unto a king. There is too great odds between the Pope and Samuel, between Moses and Aaron & the popish clergy, that they which withstand 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 us. (He saith, It is most insolent madness to dispute, whether that is to be done, which the Church throughout all the world doth observe :) Excepte M. Heskins can show, what is observed of the Church throughout the world; which we do not observe, or deny to be observed. For S. Augustine in that place speaketh of Ceremonies.

The seventh Chapter declaring the same by examples of the Fathers and authorities of the Doctors of the Church.

The title of this Chapter pretendeth to declare, howe the people shall come to the understanding of the scriptures, but the examples are most of the preachers and teachers, how they shall attain to knowledge sufficient to discharge their office. But the first argument whervpō almost all the rest of the Chapter doth run, is a marvelous conclusion God commandeth the children of Israel, 32. Ask thy father and he will show thee, thy Elders and they will tell thee. Ergo God did not send all the people, only to the five books of Moses to learn, but willed them to learn of their Elders: So now, all men may not be sent to the scriptures to learn, but they must learn of their Fathers, what be the goodly works of God contained in the Scriptures. Why M. Heskins, you forget not only lodgike, but common reason? We would not have men to learn, only by reading the scriptures, but much more by hearing their teachers, first their Pastors, and then all other, whom God hath endued with any gift of knowledge. And will you conclude w ^t shame, that because men were not sent, only to the five Books of Moses, men may not now be sent at all to the scriptures? And are you so blind that you cannot see, this text to overthrow the purpose of both your sixth and seventh Chapters after this manner, by necessary conclusion? Men must learn of their fathers, therefore not only of the Priests. The rest that followeth for certain pages, is so tedious a proof of that which is not at all in controversy, that it yrketh me to abridge it, but for orders sake. The Apostles learned of Christ in three years study, prayer is required to the understanding of the scripture by Origen's judgment. The Fathers of the Church learned of their Elders, as Clemens, Mark, Linus, Cletus, of Peter: Titus, Timothy, Luke, & Dionise, of Paul: and so one of another. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen studied thirteen years in a monastery. Hieronyme learned of y ^e Hebrews, & trusted not his own judgment, wherefore all rash readers and arrogant teachers may be abashed, which take upon them, to teach before they be learned, whereas no man, may be his own teacher in the scriptures. All this, and much more shall be granted 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 could now reverently and meekly use might be tolerated. Well then, the allowance of antiquity is of our side, and the conditional toleration of M. Heskins: for I may not say of the Popish Church, knowing what horrible persecution they practice against thē, which have but a book of the scriptures in their mother tongue, found in their hand or house, although it cannot be proved, that they read it. Wherefore, it is most absurd, that he chargeth the proclamer, with slandering their Church, to bring hir in hatred with the lay people, as though she had now forbidden them to read the Scriptures, in their own tongue: whereas he knoweth no such prohibition, given to the lay people universally. But the reason is most monstrous. For if there had been any such prohibition, there should not have been so many lay men, which have both read and written of the scriptures in their native tongues, &c. As though learned lay men, could not have readd the scriptures but in their mother tongue. But the church fearing the abuses of the scriptures by the unlearned lay men, forbad them. But such lay men as understand the scriptures in Hebrew & Greek, the Church will allow them to read thē in English. O wise & provident Church! Nay meruell not at this. For the learned if they be rash fall into heresies: much more the unlearned. And the learned also, yea and phisitians themselves sometimes take surfeites, therefore it were a sure way for the people never to eat meat. Noble men and wisemen sometime have their houses burned, therefore it is much more dangerous for poor and simple men to have fire in their houses.

The knowledge of Mysteries must not be made common to all men for the Jews would not suffer Genesis, and Cantica to be red of young men before 30. years of age. The heathen men also, as the Romans & Philosophers, kept close their secrets: the one Sibyllaes books the other Moral philosophy, & especially Metaphysike. If I had time I might make sport with this Metaphysical argument, that Christian men must follow the practice of Infidels. But I must pass over to the rest. Chrysostom in the Greek Church, as well as Hieronyme in the Latin, would have the people to learn by hearing their teachers, and not only by reading them selves, because the scriptures are dark, and are a storehouse not common for all men, but out of which the stewards must deliver to every man his portion. Remember all this notwithstanding, that M. Heskins confessed before, that Chrysostom doth often earnestly exhort the lay and unlearned people to the diligent reading of the scriptures.

Then follow similitudes of young children and vnthriftes, the one if they feed thenselves, the meat runneth about their mouth, bosom, and clothes, the other spend their fathers goods in suites, and quarrels, and contention with their brethren: So men without wit & grace abuse the scriptures to the hurt of others, & no profit of themselves. Except all lay men want wit and grace, these similitudes prove nothing. For many priests also want wit & grace, whō you admit to read the scriptures. After similitudes come examples. Valdo an unlearned man caused Books of scripture to be translated, and so began the sect of Valdenses, or Pauperes de Lugduno. Out of the same founteine of ignorance sprang the heretics, called Begradi Turrelupini. Valdo was a godly man, & seeing the ignorance and ungodliness of the Priests, did very well to procure the translatiō of the scripture, and upon good grounds departed from the Church of Rome unto the Church of Christ, what the other were as stories are vncertein, so I leave them in doubt.

But Luther and Zwinglius are charged to affirm The scriptures to be easy, and make it free for all men to read and expound them, and teach that not only men, but also women may openly preach the word of God, and that as well a child and a woman absolveth, as a Bishop. If these were not mere slanders, he would have set down their own words, the circumstance of which no doubt, would discharge them of such absurdities as he collecteth. For they would never affirm every place of the scripture to be easy, nor women, but in case where all men, (or the most) fail of knowledge to teach, as the prophetesses of the old law did, nor women and children to absolve as well as a godly bishop by the doctrine of the Gospel, 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 own words: wherein he confesseth that he knew not whether he had the right understanding of the Psalms, and saith also, that it was most impudent rashness for any man to profess that he understood any one book of scripture in all partes: I say the conference of these places doeth declare, that no man except he were blind, mad, or drunk with malice, would believe the slander of boasting to be true in manner and form as Master Heskins setteth it down.

Having vomited his malice against Luther & Zwinglius, he inueyeth with main sail of open railing against the people of our time, for the rashness and disorder of some. As though there were no talk, but rash babbling of predestination, free will, justification, yea God to be the author of sin, of the number of y ^e sacraments, & especially the sacrament of the altar, and nowhere, but in Taverns, Inns, Alehouses, and Barbarshops, in streets, highwayes, and fields, and in the mouths of women, boys, and girls. God be thanked, this slander is false. Although there be great rashness in some, and vnreligiousnesse in more: yet the true members of Christ, profit much by reading of his word. We confess with Gregory Nazianzen, that it is not for every man rashly to dispute of God, nor yet of divine matters, but with humility and sobriety, which they shall learn nowhere so well, as in the holy scriptures of God. The other cavil that followeth, of lay men artificers, preaching in open places, & ministering the sacraments deserveth no answer, for if they be admitted to the office, being worthy thereof, there is no doubt, but they may as well now, as in all ages of the Church they have done, neither are they to be takē for laymen, though they have been artificers. Yet if they presume without calling and admission of the Church, they are no more borne withal among us, then such as counterfeit themselves to be Priests among the Papists. As English John did to clyme to the Papacie, & as of late a lewd fellow in Italy feigned himself to be a Cardinal, as Stephanus in his defense of Herodotus doth witness. We condemn according to the scriptures, not only all intrusion of men without calling, but all ambitious and symoniacall practices, to procure the outward calling. So far off is it, that we allow every man of his own fantasie, to intrude himself, as this man doth most vainly slander us.

The 8. Chap. exhorteth men to hear, or to read the expositions of the scriptures, & not to presume upon their own understanding.

If there were nothing in this Chapter, but answering to the title thereof: I would willingly subscribe unto it. But after he hath exhorted as he promiseth, by the counsel of James, Solomon, and Hieronyme, that we should hear & learn of them, whom God hath appointed, pastors and teachers in his Church: he dissuadeth men also, by the authority of Paul, and Ecclesiasticus, to appoint unto them selves Elders, or masters, to be carried about with new and strange doctrines: & decreeth, That they only are lawful Elders, that have learned of their fathers. For which cause Luther was no good Elder, allowing women to teach openly, contrary to Paul, 1. Cor. 14. which is an impudent slander of Luther, who by no means would have women to teache, except it were extraordinarily, as the prophetesses of the old time did namely Deborah, Holda, & such like. Such stuff is in the other slanders, That contrition maketh a man more sinner, where Luther meaneth of y ^t , which is without faith, & therefore must needs be sin. That a righteous man in every good work sinneth mortally, where he meaneth that sin and imperfection is mixed, even with the best works, not that good works are sin. That is also a detestable lie, that Luther should teach, Every Christian man, to be a priest for the common or public ministry, whereas he neither thought nor spake otherwise, then the scripture speaketh, which hath made us Kings & Priests. Apoc. 1. And no less is y ^e slander of Zwinglius, That he taught, that original offense is no sin, whereas the world knoweth, that Zwinglius taught the contrary, and the Papists come nearer to that error, which define it to be no sin in the regenerate: it is as false that he taught, That Christian men's children need not to be baptized, As it is true, that if they die without baptism, (without any contempt of their part,) it is no cause of condēnatiō unto them. The saying of Christ, except a man be borne again of water & of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heavē, maketh no more for the baptism of infantes, then his saying also, except ye eat the flesh of y ^e son of man, & drink his blood, ye have no life in you, maketh to prove, that infants must receive y ^e communion, for neither in the one speaketh he of the sacrament of baptism, nor in the other place, of the sacrament of his supper. But where Luther doth often protest y ^t he will not be taught by man, but by God, he doeth as every Christian man ought to do, and yet excludeth not the ministry of men, but the authority, doctrines, traditions, and inventions of men, which by Luciferian pride take upon them to teache that they have not learned of God. But howe shall we understand this saying of Master Heskins, speaking in despite of Luther: This is another Paul. As though only Paul wer called of God without the ministry of mā, whē all the Apostles were so, or as though it were a reproach to be so called as Paul was: if God do extraordinarily stir up any man, as he did the Apostles & Evēgelistes. After his deriding of Paul, Zwinglius is condemned, by that which Master Heskins hath said, for writing a book De claritate verbi Dei, How wisely and justly, let the godly Readers judge. Next followeth general railing against Oecolampadius, Bullingerus, Caluinus, Bucer, of whom his adversary (meaning I think the B. of Sarum) learned his heresies: then he returneth to unlearned artificers, teaching in corners. All which he would have to be avoided: I suppose because he hath railed upon them, and called them heretics, for other reason he bringeth none. Except this be one, that Hieronyme thinketh it not sufficient, if a man say, he loveth God, and yet breaketh the unity of the Church. The Church once named, by and by all is his. As though it were no controversy at this day, whether the Synagogue of Rome be the Church of God or no. And as though all Christendom, had been at all times, and in all places obedient to the Church of Rome, before these few years. And therefore he is bold to demand where it was taught in the Christian world, that Christ's natural body is not in the sacrament, nor to be offered, nor received, nor honored? Nay Master Heskins, where was this taught in the affirmative for five or six hundredth years after Christ? 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 shall be answered otherwise the readers for me shall resort to other treatises where they be handled of purpose. But seeing men must learn the law of their mother, that is the Church, they must follow Hieronyme, which never ceased from his youth, to seek knowledge of learned men, and traveled to Alexandria to be instructed of Didym • s. So did Augustine to Milan to learn of Ambrose. No wise man will mislike this counsel. But this one thing especially is notable: That Damasus being bishop of Rome, did send to S. Hieronyme to be answered in certain doubts, and disdained not to learn of him. I had thought the Pope, had had all knowledge In scrinio pectoris, in the closet of his breast, that he had the spirit of truth, to resolve all doubts, so that he could not err, and that Hieronyme having him at Rome, needed not to have sought knowledge at Alexandria. But Damasus, although even in that time, a ioly stately Prelate, as appeareth by some of his Epistles, (if they be not counterfeit) yet shown himself far from that Antichristian pride, which the Popes of Rome, (I cannot say his successors,) did show afterward, and yet to this day do hold.

But to omit Damasus Many learned of Saint Augustine, and of other learned men also, which were learned them selves. They did well, & many, (God be blessed) follow their example at this day, and yet too few, for it were to be wished, that such modesty were in all men. The saying of Clemens, registered also in the cannon law, although you allege it out of a counterfeit and barbarous epistle, yet is it very godly, and worthy of the Apostles scholar: That the scripture must not be drawn into strange and foreign senses, according unto every man's fantasy, but the true sense must be taken out of the very Scriptures themselves, agreeable to the judgment of them, that have received is from the elders, That is the Apostles. For there were none other in the time of Clemens, which went before but even they.

The rest of the Chapter containeth a repetition of that he hath handled in these eight Chapters, with a promise that after this pretty preamble, he will go immediately to his purposed matter, to be debated in this high Court of prattlement. And yet I ween as you have had a preamble, so you shall have a preface of other matter, for three or four Chapters more, or ever you come to the principal matter. In deed great solemnity becometh a parleament.

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.

In this Chapter, so long as he followeth the scriptures, he hath well and truly satisfied the title: showing that Christ was promised principally to Adam, Abraham, and David, denying that Solomon was promised to David, but Christ. Where I hope he meaneth, that Solomon was not promised as Messias, but as a figure of him. Finally, I agree with him in all things, for which he bringeth authority of the word of God, only I cannot admit the exposition that Jacobus 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, which inclose Affrike, and Europe from the floods, Nile and Tanais, unto the ends of the world, that be toward the East, which comprehendeth all Asia. For since the time of Jacobus de Valentia, we have knowledge of the fourth part of the world, toward the West, called America, greater then any of the three other, which his circumscriptiō, doeth exclude, out of the kingdom of Christ, although I doubt not, but thither also the found of the Gospel hath been carried, and is now restored in some places, although brutish barbarousness hath of long time overwhelmed it.

The tenth Chapter toucheth the figures of Christ's incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension.

In this Chapter as in the former, following the authority of the holy scriptures, he showeth that the conception of Sampson, was a figure of the incarnation of Christ: Joseph, of his betraying: Isaac, of his suffering: the priesthood of Aaron, and the sacrifices, of his priesthood & sacrifice: Jonah, of his resurrection: & Elias, of his ascension. Wherein I see nothing worthy of reprehension, except peradventure in some collation, there be more subtle curiosity, then sound steadfastness.

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

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

The twelfth briefly toucheth a prophesy or two of the resurrection, and ascension of Christ.

In this Chapter, as he promiseth, is touched a saying of David Psalm. 16. alleged by Peter, Act. 2 to prove the resurrection: and another, Psalm. 67. for the ascension, alleged by Paul. Eph. 4. in these four Chapters, there is nothing in a manner, but that which is confessed of both sides.

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

This Chapter promiseth more then it performeth, for it showeth in deed, and as the truth is, that Melchizedek was a figure of christ, but it scarce toucheth his priesthood, and speaketh not one word of his sacrifice, as by a brief collection of the whole Chapter, and every parte thereof shall appear. First he there declareth, that as the mystery of our redemption was promised, figured, & prophesied in the old Testament, and accomplished in the New: so was the memorial of y ^t redemption: which Newe Testament being everlasting, hath an everlasting Priest, & an everlasting sacrifice. The everlasting priest he confesseth to be our savior Christ. But the everlasting sacrifice (he saith) is the very body & blod of the same, our savior Christ. Which as he according to the order of his priesthood, did sacrifice in his last supper, under the forms of bread & wine: so did he give authority & commandment, to the Apostles & ministers of his Church to do the same, saying: Hoc facite in meā cōmemorationem. This do ye in the remembrance of me. Beside that these things of the everlasting sacrifice, be uttered without all proof, or shadow thereof, mark one horrible blasphemy, and another detestable absurdity. For in as much as he affirmeth, the everlasting sacrifice, to be Christ's body and blood offered in the supper, and it is manifest by the scripture, that Christ never offered but one sacrifice, and that but once: Heb. 9.25.10.14. it is evident, that he utterly excludeth the sacrifice of his body upon the Cross, as not being done, according to the order of his everlasting priesthood. For a prodigious absurdity note this, that he granteth the everlasting priesthood to Christ, (Which as the Apostle witnesseth is without succession) Heb. 7.24. because it is everlasting 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 himself, which is an everlasting priest, after the order of Melchizedek, 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 as well 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 efficacy and virtue which is eternal. The new Testament with the new priesthood, and the new sacrifice are begun, and confirmed in the blood of Christ, but must continue always, whereof there be figures in the law of nature, and in the law of Moses. In the law of nature, albeit that Seth, Noah, and other did offer sacrifices unto God: yet were they not figures of this sacrifice now used in Christ's Church, but rather of Christ's sacrifice offered upon the cross after the manner of Aaron. Here mark first, that he maketh Christ to have two sacrifices, this sacrifice which is now offered, (I cannot tell after what manner,) and that which he offered on the Cross, after the manner of Aaron.

Secondly, that he maketh Christ a Priest after the manner of Aaron, which the holy Ghost in express words denieth Heb. 7.11.

But the first that figureth both the priesthood and sacrifice of the new law, is Melchizedek. So that this priesthood is peculiar only to our savior Christ, as both David, Psal. no. and the Apostle to the Hebrews the 7. do prove it: there is no doubt but Melchizedek was a figure of Christ: But what sacrifice he offered, the scripture maketh no mention, neither is M. Heskins able to show. For first, he hath rehearsed the history of him, which is written in Gen. 14. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread & wine: and he was a priest of the most high God, Therefore he blessed him, saying: blessed is Abraham of God most high, possesser of heaven and earth: and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand. And Abraham gave 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 Hebrews doth Heb. 7. Which are these: that he was king of righteousness, and king of peace, without father, without mother, without kindred on earth. Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but is likened to the son of God, and continueth a Priest forever: that he blessed Abraham, and that Abraham paid tithes unto him. In all which applications, there is not one word of any sacrifice. Neither in the apostle, nor in M. Heskins: therefore as I said in the beginning, M. Heskins hath not satisfied the title of his Chapter. And verily, the Apostle in these two pointes, only considereth the Priesthoode of Melchizedek, y ^t he blessed Abraham which had the promises, and received tithes of him, in whose loins Leuie the father of Aaron's Priesthoode was tythed: who undoubtedly would not have omitted the sacrifice of bread and wine, if there had been any, when he applied the interpretation of his name, which was a great deal lesser matter. And surely it seemeth, that Master Heskins could not handsomely frame an application thereof, else would he not have admitted so plausible a matter, and so commonly prated of among the Papists. He saw first in the text was no mention of oblation, secondly if there had been oblation of bread and wine, it would not well have figured that sacrifice, wherein they say, is neither bread nor wine.

The fourteenth Chapter declareth, after the mind of Chrysostom that Job was a figure of Christ, for the desire his servants had to eat his flesh.

Master Heskins doth well to add, after the mind of Chrysostom, for it is plain by the text, that the words of eating his flesh, are meant of hatred and not of love. Either that Job's servants shown their desire to be revenged of their masters enemies, of whō he speaketh in y ^e two verses before, or else as Saint Hieronyme thinketh, that he had procured his servants hatred for his entertainment of strangers, and other virtues mentioned in the next verse following. Pro hospitalitatibus eius & virtute, quae & caeter • sancti Deo placuerunt odium seruorum contraxerat. So that this matter standeth not upon any certain figure of the scripture, but only upon Chrysostom's mind, unto which, you hear the contrary mind of Hieronyme. But • owe let us consider what the authority of Chrysostom maketh for him: his words are as he citeth them out of Hom. 45. in 6. John. Vt autem non solùm per dilectionem &c. But that we should be converted into that flesh, not only by love, but also in deed: it is brought to pass by that meat which he hath given us. For when he would show his love toward us, he hath mixed himself with us by his body, and made himself one with us, that the body might be united to the hed These last words. For this is the manner of them that love especially, in M. Heskins translation are left out, I know not for what causes, peradventure of negligence. This did Job signify by his servants of whom he was loved especially, which declaring their love, did say: Who would give us, that we might be filled with his flesh. Which thing Christ did, that he might bind us to him with g ••• ter love: and that he might show his desire that he had to us, suffering him self not only to be seen 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 us rise from that table as Lions breathing fire, terrible to the devil, and let us know our head, and what love he hath shown unto us. Parents have oftentimes given their children to be nourished of other: but I do feed with mine own flesh. I give myself unto them, I favor all, I give an exceeding good hope to all of things to come. He that giveth himself so unto us in this life, much more in the life to come. I would be your brother, and I took flesh and blood with you for your sakes. and by what things I am joined to you, the same I have given to you again. In this long speech of Chrysostom, what is there that maketh for Master Heskins bill, that he hath promoted into the Parleament house? and not rather altogether against it? For first, it cannot be necessarily concluded out of this place, that Chrysostom speaketh of the Lord's supper, but rather of that table, meat, giving and eating of Christ's flesh, which is spoken of in the sixth of Saint John, where no word is of the sacrament or supper, which at that time was not instituted. Secondly, if we should never so much understand this speech of the sacrament, yet must we grant it to be figurative, or else there will follow infinite absurdities, beside such as M. Heskins affirmeth. Wherefore I will reason thus: Christ by this saying of Chrysostom, is none otherwise eaten then he is seen: but he is not seen corporally, but spiritually by faith, therefore he is not eaten corporally but spiritually by faith. And likewise thus: as Christ is touched and teeth fastened in his flesh, so is he given or eaten, but he is not touched corporally or naturally, nor teeth fastened in his flesh corporally but spiritually, therefore he is not given nor eaten in the sacrament corporally, but spiritually.

The maiors of these arguments are Chrysostom's words, the minors are y ^e confessions of the Papists, which affirm Christ's body to be in the sacrament invisibly, and do correct the recantation of Berengarius, where he affirmed, that the body of Christ is torn with the teeth: the conclusions I trust be rightly inferred. But now let us see what handsome stuff M. Heskins gathereth out of this text of Chrysostom.

First that we are joined to Christ two ways, by love, and by the thing it self. Which in other terms, is called spiritually and really. Mark this wise division of spiritually and really, as though such things as are joined spiritually, might not be joined really. But (M. Heskins) a spirit is not contrary 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 joined to Christ spiritually, and yet really, so that Christ dwelleth in us by his spirit through faith, but not bodily, so in the sacrament, we eat the body of Christ really, that is in deed & unfeignedly, but yet in a spiritual kind of eating, and not carnally or corporally.

But M. Heskins proceeding, affirmeth that We are spiritually joined to Christ by charity and faith, and therefore incorporated into his mystical body, but really or substantially we are joined to him, when by eating his very substantial flesh in the sacrament, THE SVBSTANCE OF OUR FLESH IS TVRNED INTO THE SVBSTAVNCE OF HIS FLESH, and thereby so joined to him, as we are made one flesh with him &c. Note here, good reader, for thy learning, that these words printed by M. Heskins in another letter, that they might be seen as a special paradox▪ teach thee a new kind of transubstantiation. For he is not content, to have the bread turned into the body of Christ, 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 monstrous paradox, as ever any was heard, since the beginning of the world!

After this he noteth, that Christ's flesh is not digested in us, as other meats are, which is needless to note, if our flesh be digested or turned into his: adding this reason, that As it is a celestial meat, being now a glorified body, so it draweth us up to it, converting and turning us into it, according to the nature of a celestial thing. Howe vain this reason is, by which he would avoid the digestion, and prove his new transubstantiation and conversion, appeareth by this, that the body of Christ in the Sacrament, was as effectual, while he lived in his passable body on earth, in which he instituted this sacrament, as it is now being a glorified body in heaven. And whereas he chargeth, I know not what Stercoranites of our time, to affirm that the flesh of Christ, passeth through the body as other meats, I think verily, he lieth most impudently. For I never heard, or read of any that so affirmed. Although, I would wish men to speak reverently of so high mysteries, yet the importunity of the Papists with their matter of transubstantiation enforceth them not to affirm of them selves, but to report, what they read in the fathers, concerning the bread, being the terrestrial or outward parte of the Sacrament, that it is digested & passeth through, as all other natural meats do, whereof Origen writeth in Math. Chap. 15. Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os in ventrem abit, & in sesession eijcitur: & ill cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Deiper{que} obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet material, abit & in sesessū eijcitur. If whatsoever entereth into the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast forth into the draught: even that meat also which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer after that which it hath material, goeth and is cast forth into the draught. This douteth not Origen to speak of the material parte of the Sacrament, by which it is manifest, that he knew no transubstantiation. The chief thing that M. Heskins urgeth us to mark, is that, Whereas the Sacraments would have only a spiritual receiving, this holy father teacheth that we are framed to Christ not only spiritually by love, which may be without receiving of meat, but, re ipsa, in deed by receiving of meat. But I pray you M. Heskins, where saith Chrysostom that our conjunction unto Christ is not only spiritual. In deed he said, not only by love, but in deed, but he opposeth not spiritually and really as you do. And where you urge that this conjunction is by meat, and this meat is his body, and thereupon conclude that it is a corporal conjunction, and Christ is joined corporally: I answer, that if Chrysostom may expound himself, this meat and this body is a spiritual meat, therefore a spiritual conjunction, and Christ is eaten spiritually. De prod. Iud. Nemo sit Judas in mensa: hoc sacrificium cibus spiritualis est. Nam sicut corporalis cibus, &c. Let no man be Judas in this table: this sacrifice is a spiritual meat. For as corporal meat when it findeth a belly, possessed with humors contrary to it, it hurteth and offendeth more, and helpeth nothing at all: even so this spiritual meat, if it find any man polluted with wickedness, it destroyeth him the more, not of it own nature▪ but through the fault of him that receiveth it. Thus far Chrysostom, for the meat to be spiritual. Finally the last observation that Christ doth give us in y ^e sacrament, is the same flesh, by which he was joined unto us, therefore his very substantial body and blood, availeth him nothing: For we contend not, of the substance of the thing, that is given, but of the manner of the giving, the thing is the very body and blood of Christ, but not after a corporal or natural manner, but after a spiritual and divine manner, or as the old writers have said. Modo ineffabili, after an unspeakable manner, as so many figurative speeches that are spoken thereof do declare, which to expound literally or grāmatically, were little better then extreme madness.

The other place which you add out of Ho. 24. in 10.1. Cor. help them nothing at all, that Christ hath given us his flesh &c. That this body the wisemen did reverence in the manger. You might have added out of the same place: Quod est in calice, id est quod a latere fluxit, that which is in the cup is the same that flowed out of his side, and thereof we are partakers. But that all these are figurative speeches it is manifest by this interrogation, that followeth in the same homily.

But that which he suffered not on the cross, he suffereth in the oblation, (for so they called the ministering of the communion, because it was a sacrifice of thanksgiving) and for thee suffereth himself to be broken. In these places Chrysostom affirmeth the Church to be the same body, which the bread doth signify, and which the faithful do receive, and in the latter place, he showeth manifest difference, between the natural body of Christ that suffered on the cross, and the spiritual receiving of him in the supper, in which his bones are broken, which (he saith) was not on the cross, which must needs be figurative. I pass over the large allegory he continueth in the same homily, affirming that we must be Eagles to fly up into heaven, and feed of Chrstes body where it is, for where the body is, thither the Eagles will be gathered.

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

There is no doubt but the killing of the pascall lamb was a figure of the killing of Christ, and of the eating of the lamb, was a sacrament of the eating of Christ our pascal lamb, but not properly a figure of y ^e Lord's supper. For Christ is eaten not only in the sacrament, but also by faith, which the use of the sacrament is to confirm, as he himself teacheth John. 6. It is true also, that this sacrament is succeeded in the place of that. But that the eating of the Lamb, was a figure of our eating of the Sacrament, no scripture teacheth. For first your comparisons will not serve M. Heskins, The lamb was verily eaten, therefore Christ is verily eaten, the lamb was substantially and really eaten, therefore Christ was really and substantially eaten. For I may reason as well, the lamb was a natural lamb; therefore Christ was a natural lamb: or as you do of the age of the lamb: the lamb was but one yere old, therefore Christ was but one year old: or rather and more properly thus, if you will algates have it a figure of the sacrament, the lamb was called the passover, and yet it did but signify the passover, so the bread is called the body of Christ, and yet it doth but signify the body of Christ: or thus, the eating of the lamb 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 Christ had to eat the passover, proveth not, that he called his supper so, but the old passover, which he so desired to eat, because it was the last & should be fulfilled, and then was in fulfilling, in the suffering an oblation of his body. The other text alleged out of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 5. (Christ our passover is slain, therefore let us feast, not in the old leaven, nor in the leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth) is manifestly wrested unto the eating of Christ in y ^e supper: whereof, the Apostle speaketh not, but of the whole course of our life, wherein we must hold the feast in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

The rule borrowed out of Augustine in Psalm •• ts. 77. will do you little pleasure: for grant that the thing figured in good things, is better then the figure, and in evil things worse, what have you gained? Yes forsooth very much: For then the passover figured must needs be better then the passover the figure. If the passover which is now eaten, be but a piece of bread, a bare sign, a figure, (as the sacramentaries affirm:) then the pascall Lamb is a figure of a piece of bread, which is not better then it. Of this argument no small accompt is made, for it is continued in six long tedious chapters following. But howe soon will all this smoke be blown away? yea, even with one breath. For admit that the Paschal lamb was a sign of the Lord's Supper, which is not yet proved by Scripture: yet shall the thing figured be better then the figure. For the supper of the Lord consisteth of the body and blood of Christ, and not of a piece of bread, (a bare sign or figure,) although bread and wine are elements which do lively represent that, which Christ in his supper doeth feed us withal. And he doeth more then beastly bely them, whom he calleth Sacramentaries, to affirm that it is but a piece of bread, a bare sign or figure. They affirm that it is bread, but they affirm not, that it is nothing but a piece of bread: they say it is a sign and a figure, but they say not, it is a bare sign, and nothing but a figure: except baptism be a bare sign, and nothing but a figure, because it is a sign 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 falsely cogge in, that by Christ's institution, it is consecrated to be offered: for Christ was offered up but once, and that by him self only. Likewise, (very unlike a divine,) you say, the Paschal Lamb was but a bare figure, which is untrue: for it should not have been called the Passover, except it had truly assured the worthy receivers of their spiritual deliverance. But where you make it such an absurdity, that one figure should be figure of another: there is no such inconvenience as you immagine, but that one thing may be the sign of another thing, which shall be a figure of the third thing. As in this very example, if you will call your wits together, I am sure you will confess, that the Paschal Lamb was a figure, of the deliverance of the Israelites, from the destruction of Egypt, and the same deliverance of their bodies was a figure of the spiritual deliverance of our souls. Because Dionysius (whom you cal the Areopagite) saith nothing to the matter in controversy, I will pass him over until some other time.

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

This Chapter neither proveth substantially that it promiseth, nor gaineth anything if it proved it. For, if y ^e Paschal Lamb were a figure of Christ's supper, yet that proveth not, as was shown before, that the body of Christ is there eaten corporally, and after a corporal manner. Tertullian, a noble man in Christ's 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 eat the Passover, as a thing of his own: (for it was an unworthy thing, that God should desire that pertained to another) that bread which he took and distributed to his disciples he made his body. This saying M. Heskins hath most intolerably abused: first, by false translating, and then by leaving out that which expoundeth the mind of Tertullian most clearly. For the true understanding of this place, we must note two things: first, that Marcion, against whom he writeth, affirmed that the God of the law, was not the God of the Gospel: secondly, that Christ had not a true body, but a fantastical body. Against both these errors, he reasoneth in this sentence. Against the first, when he saith, he desired to eat the Pascal lamb of the old law, which was his own, namely of his own institution, (for it was absurd that Christ being God, should desire that which was another God's institution) as the heretic said, the law and all ceremonies thereof were. And this is directly contrary to M. Heskins purpose, who joining with the heretic, denieth that he did desire to eat the Paschal of the law, and that it was not properly his own, and for this intent, to make it serve his turn, he translateth falsely vt suum, as his own Passover, & alienum, any strange thing. Against the seconde, Tertullian reasoneth in the same sentence, which words, because M. Heskins could not abide, he hath clean cut off.

This M. Heskins because he could not brook, he brake off the sentence, and cometh out of the matter also, to rail against Cranmer of holy memory; first, doubting whether the book set forth in his name were made by him, as though Cranmer was not well enough known to be as well able to write a book as Heskins: then that he affirmeth, the Papists unable to show one article of faith, so directly contrary to our senses, that all our senses shall by daily experience affirm a thing to be, and yet our faith shall teach us the contrary.

Master Heskins like a wily Pye, objecteth the article of the resurrection, where our senses teacheth us, that men's bodies be dead, and faith teacheth, y ^t they shall rise again. But the subtle sophister doth not see, I ween a difference between it & is in M. Cranmer's assertiō, & is and shall be in his balde objection. Faith teacheth, that shall be, which our sense teacheth now not to be. But faith teacheth not that to be white, which our sense teacheth to be black. But he hath another wise instance. The senses taught, that the wound which Christ had in his side, after his resurrection was very sore, but faith taught the contrary, because his body was glorified. Seeing the wound was made after his death, reason would judge, that it was insensible, especially when he was risen again frō death, by his divine power. And Thomas was not so rude, that he would have thrust in his hand, if he thought it should have hurt him, and when he did thrust in his hand, he perceived by his senses, that it did not hurt. But it is pity to spend any time about so vain a matter: sorenesse being not the thing, but a certain affection of the thing, which cannot always be known by another man's senses, but by his only that feeleth it, as in him that hath the Palsy, if his leg were cut off, he feeleth nothing, yet some such wise man as M. Heskins, would think it were very sore. But he would-fain excuse the matter, why he cutteth off Tertullian by the waste, promising in another place to do it, and willeth you in the mean time to consider, that Christ's body is given in the sacrament, and further alledgeth out of Tertullian in another place, which is in his book De resurrection carnis: That the flesh doth eat the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fedd of God. Where he meaneth none otherwise, then in the former place, calling the sacrament a figure of Christ's body, and so an ende with Tertullian. Then cometh Isychius disciple of Gregory Nazianzen, who first dissuading men from using of the Jews ceremonies, affirmeth that which M. Heskins denied, that Christ did eat the legal Passover in his last supper. His words that are material are these:

Then follow diverse places, to show that by intelligible, he meaneth figured. But being granted that the supper was figured, by the pascall Lamb, which is the egg that he is so long in brooding, yet he is never the nearer, for the carnal presence and corporal manner of eating, no not with that which Isychius saith: That he took the intelligible blood first in the mystical supper, and afterward gave the cup to his Apostles, and that he drank himself, and giving to his Apostles to drink, then he poured the intelligible blood upon 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 use figuratively these words: blood, body, altar, pour, drink, &c. is worthy to wear a cockes comb, & a bell. Yet Master Heskins noteth in the margent, Christ drank his own blood, and gave it to his Apostles. Which if it be true in the literal sense, as he meaneth, then it is as true, that he poured his own blood upon his own body in the literal sense. For the same blood, which he drank, and gave, he poured on his body. But he poured not his natural blood upon his body, therefore he neither gave nor drank his natural blood in the literal sense. But you will say, his body signifieth his Church and people, for whom he poured forth his natural blood. Well, beside that you are enforced to acknowledge a figurative speech, you are never the near. For although he poured out his blood for them, yet he poured it not upon them. And your Author saith, he drank none other blood, but that he poured upon them. Here is also alleged Chrysostom's name, for Christ's drinking of his blood, but his words are referred to another place. Then followeth a conclusion: If Christ drank his own blood, he drank it spiritually, or corporally: spiritually he could not: wherefor he drank it corporally. This is very round dealing M. Heskins. But if he could drink his blood, I pray you why could he not drink it spiritually, as well, & rather, then corporally? For if he drank his own blood, he also did eat his own body, which if it sound not grossly in your ears, it is, because you have a gross understanding.

In this Chapter two Lord's of the Parleament being required of their judgment, have given their voices both directly against his bill for the carnal presence.

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

Master Heskins, in his Epistles, and prefaces, promiseth great sincerity, and everywhere objecteth impudency, and insinceritie against the proclaymer, and his complices. But see what sincerity he useth, that matcheth Euthymius, scarce worthy to be a burgesse of the lower house, • ith Cyprian one of the most ancient Barons of the upper house. And yet afterward he him self placeth him in the lower house, that is, among the writers within the compass of nine hundredth years. Whereas the higher house consisteth of them that writ within 600. years after Christ, as the Bishop whom he termeth the proclaymer, maketh his challenge. And certeinely Euthymius was never accounted for a Lord of the parleament, before he was called thereto by Master Heskins writ, which of what force it is to make a Baron, let the readers judge.

For he lived about the year of our Lord 1170. Notwithstanding we will examine his voice as it cometh in order. But we must first consider the voice of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage. Which is this. The supper therefore being ordered among the sacramental meats, there met together the new ordinances and the old. And when the lamb was consumed or eat • n, which the old tradition did set forth, the master did set before his disciples the inconsumptible meat • . Neither are the people now bidden to feasts, painfully wrought with expenses and cunning: but the food of immortality is given, differing from common meats, retaining the kind of appearance of corporal substance, but proving by invisible efficiency, the presence of God's power or the divine virtue to be there. In this saying, First there is never a word, to prove that the Paschal Lamb was a figure of the Lord's supper, which is the purpose of the Chapter, but only that the new institution succeeded the old, which is manifest by the history of the Gospel: Even as Baptism succeeded circumcision, and yet was not circumcision a figure of Baptism, Secondly note, that he doeth not affirm, the real presence of Christ's natural body, but the invisible working of his divine power. And so his voice is flatly againg Master Heskins bill. Now let us consider his fond collections. First that Christ gave inconsumptible meat, the sacramentaries give consumptible meat? For they give but bread. This is a false slander, a thousand times repeated, for they give not bread only, but even the same inconsumptible meat, by the invisible working of his divine power, which Cyprian affirmeth, that Christ gave his Disciples. But he urgeth, That it was put before them, taken by hand, & laid in sight, which the merit and grace of his passion could not be. See I pray you how this man agreeth with Cyprian: Cyprian saith, it was by invisible working of God's favor, he saith it was put before them, (for so he translateth apponit ) taken by hand, and laid in sight.

His second collection is, That it differeth from common meats, retaining the form of corporal substance, which can neither be the bread, which differeth not from common meats, nor the spiritual meat, which they call the merit of his passion, because that retaineth not the form of corporal substance.

A wise reason, disioyning and severing things that should be taken together. The water in baptism, differeth from common water, and containing the form of corporal substance, by invisible working, proveth the presence of God's power to be there. So doeth the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. Which although of them selves, they be no more holy then other creatures, yet when they are consecrated for the use of the sacrament, they differ as much from common meats, as the body and the soul do, as temporal life, and eternal life: as heaven and earth do differ, so doeth the water consecrated for baptism differ from common water.

His third collection, that it is called The food of immortality, which cannot be bare material bread. A true collection, for the sacrament is not bare material bread, but the body and blood of Christ, represented by material bread, as a material laver is the water of regeneration, but not bare material 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 mind, breaking the bread which is the medicine of immortality, the preservative of not dying, but of living by Jesus Christ. Although no learned man, that is not more willful then wise, will grant this Epistle to be written by y ^t ancient 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 immortality. M. Heskins urgeth as before, y ^t it can non be bare bread, which hath such effects. Which I grant willingly, but I reply upon him, that it cannot be the natural body of Christ, which he exhorteth them to break. For Christ's body is not broken, but the sacramental bread, to signify the breaking and participation of his body.

But he proceedeth to another speech of Cyprian, which is in deed a more apparent speech for his purpose, the words 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 Lord did reach unto his disciples, being changed not in shape, but in nature, by omnipotency of the word is made flesh. And as in the person of CHRISTE, the humanity was seen, the divinity was hidden, even so the divine essence hath poured it self unspeakably into the visible sacrament. The Papists esteem this place to be an invincible bulwark of their transubstantiation, but alas it is soon overthrown, when the meaning of Cyprian is boulted out, not only by sentences going before and after this saying, but also by the very words of this same sentence. For he maketh a manifest difference, between the visible sacrament and the divine essence, which is invisible. Whereas the Papists by their transubstantiation, have no visible sacrament, but only accidents of bread and wine, which they, nor none other can call a visible sacrament. Moreover, the word divine essence, answering to the word flesh, in the former sentence, plainly expoundeth what he meaneth thereby, namely the divine power which the flesh of Christ hath, to give life, and not the divine nature or substance, as M. Heskins translateth it, and much less Christ, God and Man, as he expoundeth it. For if we take the divine essence, for the divine substance of Christ's Godhead, it will be a gross absurdity, and a blasphemous heresy, to make any infusion or pouring of that into the visible sacrament, which filleth all places. Wherefore of necessity it signifieth the property or efficacy, even as the word nature, in the former clause doth signify. For the former shape of the bread is not changed, but the nature or property is altered, namely to feed the soul and not the body only, as before it was made a sacrament, it served to do. But M. Hesk. liketh not this gloss, but will have nature to signify substance, and not property, as it doth very often: as when we say, the nature of herbs, of stones, of beasts, we mean the properties. But whether he will or no, it must be so taken, seeing it may be so taken, or else Cyprian should be contrary to him self: who distinguisheth the visible sacrament from the divine essence, who calleth that divine essence (a word more usual for substance) which is but divine efficacy or property, who, if he had meant, that the bread had been turned into the natural body of Christ, would neither have compared it with the divinity of Christ hid under his humanity, nor have said, even so the divine essens, infundeth it self in the sacrament, but even so the body of Christ is hid under the forms of bread & wine. But that there should be no doubt of his meaning, thus he writeth in the same sermon, a little after: Haec quoties agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide syncera panem sanctum franginus & partimur. As often as we do these things, we do not sharpen our teeth to byte, but with a sincere faith we break and divide this holy bread. What can be more plain to express the meaning of this doctor, then that we receive not the body of Christ with our mouth, but with our heart, not with the instrument of our teeth, but with the instrument of our faith.

These places do sufficiently expound the meaning of Cyprian, howe the bread is changed into flesh, not after any change of substance, but of quality and property, as in so many figurative terms is more thē manifest.

Let us now come to Euthymius advanced by Master Heskins into the higher house. And he in deed seemeth to affirm the purpose of this Chapter, that the Paschal lamb was a figure of the sacrament, and yet not very plainly, but rather it was a figure of the true Passover, which the sacrament doth represent, but that is no material point of our controversy, whether one sacrament did figure another, his words are: Christ in the same table described the figurative and shadowing Passover, and set before them the true and perfect Passover. Herevpon he inferreth that Christ was not truly and perfectly given to the Jews in the Paschal Lamb as we teach, but only a figure and sign of him, but in the sacrament he is given to us truly and perfectly, that is by a true and real presence. But it is pity that he seeth not that his author compareth the thing signified by our sacrament, with the outward sign of the Jewish sacrament, as also the scripture doth oftentimes, against them that depended upon the outward ceremonies. Not that a false or imperfect Christ was figured and received of the faithful by them, but to show a difference between the shadow and the truth, the figure and the thing figured, when y ^e Jews so sticked in the figure, that they considered not the thing signified.

The other place which was alleged out of Euthymius, because he referreth the handling of it unto the second book, thither also will I refer the answer. In the mean time, it is a childish insultation that he makes against the proclamer, noting that he hath found a plain place for Master Jewel, when neither the place is so plain, nor the Author within the compass of his challenge.

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

In this Chapter Hieronyme is first brought forth, In Matth. 26. in these words. After the figurative Passover was fulfilled, and he had eaten the flesh of the Lamb with his Apostles, he taketh bread which comforteth the heart of man, and passeth to the true sacrament of the Passover, that as in prefiguration of him, Melchizedek the Priest of the highest GOD had done, offering bread and wine, he also might represent the truth of his body and blood. Here Hieronyme doeth not affirm the Passover to be a figure of the sacrament, but of Christ the true Passover. Calling the supper a true sacrament of that true and prefigured Passover. Which words would be noted, that he calleth the bread a true sacrament, that is a lively sign of the very Passover Christ, and a representation of the truth of his body and blood. But here Master Heskins, fareth as he were half mad, sending us to the Vocabularies, Calepines, and Dictionaries, for the signification of this word repre • ento, That among learned men it is not so streighted, as only to signify, to show a thing by a figure or sign.

And thereupon we will not strive, but that it is often taken to show by a figure or sign, he him self cannot deny, and that it must be so taken here in this place, appeareth by this reason. The comparison will not else stand between Melchizedek and Christ (which all though it be not grounded on scripture, Jerome often maketh) except Christ offered bread and wine in a figure or representation, as Melchizedek did in a prefiguration.

M. Heskins enforceth the word Truth, that he should not mean a figure, for then he would have said (as he imagineth) that he also must represent his body and blood, and not that he also might represent the truth of his body. But if you mark the force of this word, quoque, also, you shall see, that Melchizedek did prefigurate the truth of his body likewise. For it importeth an equality of both their doings, Melchizedek by bread and wine did represent or prefigurate the truth of his body, and Christ also by bread and wine did represent the truth of his body. For Christ could not do also, that which another had not done. Therefore very foolish are M. Heskins oppositions, of typical passover, and true passover, and figure and truth, where the argument is a consentaneis, and not a dissentaneis. The other frivolous interpretation, that he maketh of the bread comforting man's heart, being both out of the mind of Hieronyme, and out of his purpose, I omit. At length he cometh to another 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 should speak any evil of thē, which succeeding the apostolic degree, do make the body of Christ with their holy mouth. M. Heskins translateth it, which do consecrate, because in the word, make, which Hieronyme useth, he should be enforced to acknowledge a figurative speech. But let him turn over all his vocabularies, Calepines, and dictionaries, unto which he sent us ere while, and he shall not find this Verbe conficio, signifying to consecrate, but to make, to dispatch, or to kill. Likewise he leaveth out these words which follow immediately, Per quos & nos Christiani sumus, by whom we also are Christians. It is evident that Hieronyme speaketh hyperbolically of the dignity of priests, for as to speak properly, we are not made Christians by them, no more is the body of Christ made by them. But where he speaketh properly, he useth proper terms, as Contra Iouin. lib. 2. In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam, sed vinum. In the figure of his blood he offered not water, but wine. Here he calleth the sacrament, the type of his blood, and saith it is wine.

The other collection that he maketh, that because priests do consecrate with their mouthe, therefore the faith of the receiver, maketh not the presence of Christ in the sacrament, beside that it is not Hieronymes word, yet it proveth nothing, because, as there be causes that work altogether alone, so there be causes which be helping, and concur with other, of which sort is the faith of the receiver, necessarily to conceive with the ministry of the Minister, that Christ may be present. That Christian Priests should not be contemned if they be good, it is easily granted, if they be naught, the ministry is to be honored, but not the person.

Out of Chrysostom are alleged two long testimonies, the one out of his homilies de prodit. Iudae. But by that also another greater benefit was shown, that that lamb was a sign of the lamb to come, and that blood shown the coming of the Lord's blood, and that sheep was an example of the spiritual sheep. That lamb was a shadow, this lamb the truth. But after the sun of righteousness shined, the shadow 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 truth. For as painters are wont to shadow the table that is to be painted, with certain lineamentes, and so with variety of colors to make it perfect. Even so Christ did in the table. He did both describe the figure of the Passover, and shown the passover of truth: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? That was the Jewish passover, but let the passover give place to the light, and the image be overcome of the truth. If this place be well considered, it maketh altogether against the Bill of transubstantiation. For the similitude of the Painters Table, having in it shadows and colors, applied unto the pascal lamb and the sacrament, declareth that they both together make a perfect image, to show and represent the true lamb Christ which was offered for us, the old pascall, being the shadowing, & the new sacrament which he calleth also a passover, being the variety of colors, by which the passover of truth is described and plainly shown. Therefore M. Heskins collections are vain, and from the authors meaning. For his purpose is not, to make y ^e pascall lamb a figure of y ^e sacrament, but of christ, and both y ^e lamb & the sacrament, figures of Christ: but yet the lamb a shadowing figure, like the first draught of a painter, y ^e sacrament a clear demonstration like an image in colors. It is therefore very babish, y ^t he groūdeath upon the word of the Passover shown in the table, that the body of Christ was really present on y ^e table in y ^e sacrament, whereas it is plain, that Chrysostom speaketh of showing by signs, as by colors an image is set forth in a painted table. As childish it is, that he will oppress the proclamer to tell him why Jerome and Chrysostom call not the Jewish pascal, light, truth, & verity, as they do our pascall, seeing by it they received Christ • as well as we in our sacrament. A sore matter. The Jewish pascall represented (if I may use that term under correction of M. Heskins dictionarie) the true pascal Christ, as our sacrament doeth, who is the light, truth, and verity: the sacrament they call not the pascall lamb, light, nor truth, but by a figure, as they call it many other things. But when they speak properly they use other terms, so doth Chrysostom. Homi. Ex. Psal. 22. & 116.

The seconde testimony that M. Heskins allegeth out of Chrysostom, is upon the 1. Cor. 10. This table is the strength of our soul, the sinews of our mind, the bond of our trust, our foundation, hope, help, light, our life, if we depart hence defended with this sacrifice, with most great confidence, we shall ascend into the holy entry, as covered with certain golden garments. But what speak I of things to come? For while we be in this life; this mystery maketh earth to be heaven unto us. Ascende unto the gates of heaven & mark diligently, or rather not of heavē but of heaven of heavens, & thē thou shalt behold that we say. For that which is worthy of highest honor, I will show thee in earth. For as in kings houses, not the walls, not the golden roof, but the kings body sitting in the throne is most excellent: so also in heaven the kings body, which now is set forth to be seen of thee in earth. I show thee neither Angels, nor Archangels, nor the heavens, nor the heavens of heavens, but the Lord himself of all these things. Thou perceivest how that which is greatest and chiefest of all things thou doest not only see it on earth, but also touche it: and not only touch it, but eat also: and when thou haste received it returnest home, wherefore wipe thy soul from all filthiness, prepare thy mind to the receiving of these mysteries. For if the Kings child being decked with purple and diademe, were delivered to thee to be carried, wouldest thou not cast all down to the ground and receive him? But now when thou receivest not the child of a king being a man, but the only begotten son of God, tell me I pray thee, doest thou not tremble and caste away the love of all secular things?

This testimony so necessarily must be understood, of a figurative and spiritual receiving of Christ by faith, that nothing in the world can be more plain. For even as earth is made heaven unto us, so is Christ made present. And even as we see, the Lord upon earth, so we handle and eat him, and that is only with the eye, hand and mouth of faith.

But let us see M. Heskins collections. First he is enforced to confess that the sentence beginneth with a figure, The table for the meat thereupon: Secondely, having such honorable terms, it cannot be a piece of bread, but Christ himself. This shall be granted also. Thirdly, that Christ is verily on the table, which he calleth Altars. As verily as earth is made heaven. Fourthly, that it is Christ which is worthy of highest honor verily present in the Sacrament. As verily present as he is seen: but he is seen only by faith, therefore present only to faith. But this objection he taketh upon him to answer: If we say the body of Christ cannot be seen in the sacrament. No more saith he, can the substance of man be seen, but his garments or outward forms & accidents. This is such a boyish sophism as I am ashamed to answer it. By which I may as well prove, that Christ's body was never seen, and therefore not seen in the sacrament, contrary to that which Chrysostom saith. Frō this objection he falleth into another, y ^t if christ in the Sacrament be worthy all honor, then of sacrifice also, and the sacrifice being Christ, Christ shall be offered to him self. This he calleth an ignorant objection. But there is more knowledge in it, then he hath wit to answer. He alledgeth the words of Augustine. lib. 4. de Trin. cap. 14. Christ abideth one with him, to whom he offereth: and maketh him self one with them, for whom he offereth himself: and is one with them, that offer: & one, with that which is offered. Here are diverse kinds of unity, and yet not Christ offered unto him self, unless 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 Trinity is likewise transubstantiated in the Sacrament. Though Christ be one with his father, yet did he not offer him self to him self, but himself 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 self, he is the offerer, he is the oblation, whereof he would have the daily sacrifice of the Church to be a sacrament; seeing that of her body he is the head, and of his head, she is the body, as well she by him, as he by her being accustomed to be offered. First Christ is the offerer and the oblation, but not he to whom it is made. Secondly, that which he calleth the sacrifice of the Church, is a sacrament, that is a holy memorial of that propitiatory sa ••• fice, which he offered. Thirdly, this sacrifice of the Church, is of the Church her self offered by Christ, and of Christ offered by the Church, which must needs be spiritual, as the conjunction of Christ and his Church is spiritual, therefore it is not the natural body of Christ offered by the priest, but his mystical body offered by the Church & by himself, and so a sacrifice of thanksgiving and not of propitiation.

After these objections, he returneth to his collections out of the authority of Chrysostom. There need no such preparation nor trembling, if the Sacrament were but a piece of bread. He hath never done with this slander, as though any Christian man did say, it was but a piece of bread, which Christ vouchsafed to call his body. We say truly, it is bread: but we say not, it is but a piece of bread.

The nineteenth Chapter continueth the proof of the same matter by S. Augustine, & S. Cyril.

M. Heskins promiseth in his Epistle, and glorieth often in his work, that he doth not allege the doctors words truncately, & by piece meal, as heretics do. But you shall see how well he handleth him self. He would have S. Augustine speak for his bill, and alledgeth his words out of his work. contrae literas Petiliani, quoting neither what book nor what Chapter of the same, by which it seemeth that either he red not the place himself out of Augustine, but received it of some gatherer, or else he would cloak his dishonest dealing. He citeth it thus: Aliud est Pascha quod adhuc Iudaei celebrant de Oue: Aliud autē quod nos in corpore & sanguine domini celebranus. It is another Passover that the Jews do yet celebrate with a sheep, another, that we do celebrate in the body & blood of Christ.

First, the supper is not made here another Passover but another thing, that is, another sacrament. Secondly here is declared, howe the sacraments of the old law, differ from ours of the new Testament, not in substance, which is all one in both, but that they were signs of things to come, ours are signs of things accomplished. Which thing he teacheth often, and in this Chapter moste plainly. Lex & Prophetae, &c.

The seconde place he citeth out of Augustine, I marvel he could not see it to be as plain against him as the first. cont. Faust. Man. lib. 20. Cap. 18. The Hebrews in the sacrifices of beasts, which they did offer to God many and diverse ways, as for so great a matter it was meet, did celebrate a Prophesy of the sacrifice to come, which Christ hath offered. Wherefore now the Christians do celebrate the memory of the same sacrifice being accomplished by the holy oblation and by the participation of the body and blood of Christ. In this sentence is manifestly declared, the same difference we spake of before of the Jewish sacraments, and of our sacraments, the one being a Prophesy of Christ's sacrifice to come, the other, a remembrance of the same being past, and fulfilled.

And whereas M. Heskins urgeth the word oblation, to exclude y ^e spiritual eating, he doth very ridiculously, as though there might not be as well a spiritual oblation, as a spiritual participation, especially when the author showing what we do in oblation and participatiō, saith, we so celebrate the memory of Christ's sacrifice already fulfilled.

Augustine maketh three kinds of oblation of the flesh and blood of Christ: In promise by sacrifices of similitudes, in truth by Christ in his passion, in the sacrament of remembrance after his death.

Now followeth a long speech of Cyril, directly against M. Heskins the alledger of it: lib. 4. in John. 6. ca. 14. Nec putet &c. Neither let the Jew of the dullness of his which think, that we have invented mysteries never heard of before. For he shall see, if he will seek more diligently, that the very self same thing hath been done since the times of Moses. For what delivered their Elders from death, and the destruction of Egypt, when death reigned upon the first borne of Egypt. Is it not evident to all men, that because they being taught by God's institution, did eat the flesh of the Lamb, and oynted the posts and upper door posts, with the blood of the Lamb, therefore death departed from them: for destruction, that is death of this flesh, raged against mankind for the transgression of the first man. For because of sin, we have heard: Earth thou art, and into earth thou shalt return: but for as much as Christ by his flesh would overthrow that cruel tyrant, therefore that was shadowed by a mystery among the ancient fathers, and they being sanctified by the sheep's flesh and blood (God so willing) escaped destruction. Therefore ô Jew, why art thou so troubled, seeing the truth prefigured long before: Wherefore I say art thou troubled, if Christ saith: except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you, whereas it behooved thee, being instructed in the laws of Moses, and well taught by the old shadows to believe, to be most ready to understand these mysteries? The shadow, and the figure thou knowest, therefore learn the very truth of the thing. My flesh, saith he, is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. In these words beside that there is nothing to prove the Paschal Lamb, to be a figure of the Lord's Supper: it is directly said, that the self same mystery of eating the flesh of Christ, hath ben observed since the time of Moses: and that there is no cause, why the Jew should be offended at the saying of Christ, if he would understand the truth, whereof the Paschal lamb was the figure and shadow. Which truth was no mystery newly invented, but practiced ever since Moses, for not by the flesh and blood of the Lamb, but by the flesh and blood of Christ, the people were delivered from death. The Lamb was then a sacrament: Christ was then, and ever shall be the truth: but what need we more strive, whē M. Heskins confesseth, That the faithful of the old Testament did eat the flesh, & drink the blood of Christ spiritually, as the Apostle teacheth. 1. Cor. 10. They did all eat the same spiritual meat, &c. And Cyril saith, We have no new mystery, but even the same that hath been practiced since the time of Moses.

The twentieth Chapter, joineth Saint Gregory, and Damascene to confirm the same matter.

In the beginning of this Chapter, he doeth honestly confess, that Gregory was the last of the higher house: & Damascene the first and chiefest of the lower house, he may make him Vantparlar if he will. But neither of thē have anything material for his purpose, that he alledgeth them, nor for the general purpose of his bill. For Gregory's words are altogether alegoricall, & therefore cannot be taken in the Grammatical sense, Hom. 22. Pasch: All which things do bring forth to us great edifying if they be discussed by mystical, or alegoricall interpretation. For what the blood of the lamb is you have learned, not now by hearing, but by drinking, which blood is put upon both the posts, when it is drunk, not only with the mouth of the body, but also with the mouth of the heart. For he that doeth so receive the blood of his redeemer, that he will not as yet follow his passion, hath put the blood on a post. Hear what a great thing is there? But that he calleth the sacrament of the blood, y ^e blood of the redeemer, speaking alegorically, as he calleth it the blood of the Lamb, meaning the old Paschal, which doth signify the blood of Christ. Therefore if Master Heskins will urge the blood of the redeemer drunk not only with the mouth of the body, but with y ^e mouth of the heart: he may likewise urge the blood of y ^e lamb: if this be a figurative speech, so is that. But Gregory proceedeth. In the night (saith he) we eat the lamb, because we do now receive the Lord's body in a sacrament, when as yet we do not see one another's conscience. Note here y ^t Gregory doth not say simply, we eat the Lord's body, but we eat the Lord's body in a sacrament or mystery: comparing the night of the Jewish eating, with the mystery of the Lord's body. And in neither of both his sayings affirmeth the lamb to be a figure of the supper, which is the purpose of the Chapter. As for Damascene, his chief 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 own body, and wine with water his blood? God said in the beginning: let the earth bring forth green herbs: and unto this day, being holpen, & strengthened by God's commandment, the rain coming, it bringeth forth fruits. God said, this is my body, & this is my blood, and do ye this in remembrance of me: by his almighty commandment it is brought to pass until he come. In this testimony, which M. Hesk. rehearseth more at large, saving y ^t he nameth y ^e old Passover y ^t Christ did celebrate at his last supper, there is no mentiō of any figure y ^t it was of his supper. Secondly, although the time, in which Damascene lived, was very corrupt, yet there is nothing in these words, which may not well be referred to y ^e spiritual presence of Christ's body, unto the faith of the worthy receiver. M. Heskins maketh a needless digression of y ^e commandment of consecratiō, which shall be granted to him, if he will 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 separate to an holy use, so we grant y ^e bread and wine to be consecrated. But y ^e Papists call consecrating, to change y ^e substances, or to transubstātiat. And so neither Chrysostom, nor any other learned man, did ever use y ^t word. His words, 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 things set forth to be the body and blood of Christ, by consecration of the Lord's table, but he that was crucified for us, even Christ Words 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 word the things set forth are consecrated. And as that voice that said, grow ye, & multiply ye, was but once spoken, but yet it feeleth always effect, nature working with it unto generation: so that voice was but once spoken, but through all the tables of the Church, unto this day, and until the coming, it giveth strength to the sacrifice. In these words (because M. Heskins bringeth them in for consecration) note y ^t Chrysostom affirmeth all consecration unto the worlds end to be wrought by the voice of Christ, once spoken by him self. This is my body, whereas the Papists affirm consecration to be by the virtue of these words spoken by a Priest. So y ^t there is great diversity, between their judgments of consecration.

The one & twentieth Chapter concludeth the matter of the figure of the Paschal lamb, by Haymo, and Cab • sila.

There is no doubt, but in the lower house, M. Heskins may find many that favor his bill, but seeing it is shut out of the higher house, I will not trouble myself, nor the Reader much to examine the voices of the lower house. Which if they should everyone allow it, yet it cannot be an enacted truth, without the consent of the higher house. Only this will I note, that Master Heskins maketh Haymo elder by 500. years, then such chronicles as I have 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 only a figure. And joineth issue with the proclaymer, that if he can bring any scripture, any catholic counsel, or any one approved doctor, that by express and plain words, doth deny the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, then he will give over and subscribe to him. Still he chargeth them, whom he calleth the sacramentaries, to make the sacrament only a figure or a bare sign, which is false.

What can be said more plainly. The seconde witness shall be Chrysostom In Matth. Homil. 11.

The third shall be out of the Popes own Cannon law, which M. Heskins may not refuse for good evidence, and it is gathered out of Augustine.

But to conclude this Chapter, Master Heskins will needs have two manner of presences, as well as the sacramentaries, spiritual and corporal, the spiritual he granteth to the worthy receiver, and the corporal also: the corporal only is left to the wicked. Wherevpon I would desire the Christian reader to consider, what hard hold the Papists keep for the corporal presence, which is no benefit to the faithful, but according to their doctrine common to the wicked, and howe proudly they deride and contemn the spiritual presence, wherein yet consisteth all the comfort of the godly, which they them selves cannot deny. Vndoubtedly this quarrel for the corporal presence, hath a corporal respect, to abuse the superstitious minds of carnal men, to their carnal commodity, and not to seek spiritual recreation of the inward man, which is thoroughly satisfied with the spiritual presence by faith.

The two and twentieth Chapter beginneth the application of the show bread to the sacrament, as of the figure to the verity, by S. Jerome and Damascene.

The figures of Manna, and the waters, he rejecteth into the third book, and now will treat of the figure of the show bread. And this bread, he will have 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 substance and virtue that ours are, as we shown before out of Augustine, and that they were not bare figures of our sacraments, but of the things whereof our sacraments are effectual signs. Although ours more clear, as of things already exhibited, and theirs were of things to come. And therefore the old writers, Origen, Ambrose, and Oecumenius also affirm, that the Fathers in the sacraments had the shadow, we the image, and both of us shall have the truth in one country. Orig. in Ps. 38. Amb. 4. Offi. Chap. 48. Oec. in 10. Heb. The like comparison we had before of the shadow and image out of Chrysostom and Euthymius, that borrowed it of him. But how frivolous the comparisons be, that M. Heskins maketh between the show bread and the sacrament, to prove the one to be a figure of the other: because it was set on the table, never failed, was a bread of remembrance, was our offering, might not be eaten of any defiled person: I will declare by as many differences. The show bread was 12. cakes in number, so is not the sacrament: had frankincenses set upon it and burned, so hath not the sacrament: was removed every Sabbath, so is not the sacrament: must of necessity remain a whole week, so must not the sacrament: might not be eaten of any but only the Priests, the sacrament must be eaten of all men: might not be eaten of the Priests, until it was a seven nights old, so is not the sacrament. Where note I pray you, the sincerity of M. Heskins, that rehearsing the text out of 24. of Levite. leaveth out the putting of incense upon the two rouse, because he could not apply it to his Mass cakes.

But to the place of Hieronyme, In cap. 1. ad Tit. If Lay men be commanded to abstain from the company of their wives for prayer, what is to be thought of a Bishop, which daily must offer undefiled sacrifices for his own and the people's sins? Let us read the book of Kings, and we shall find that Abimelech the Prieste, would not give David and his servants of the show bread, before he asked whether the servants were clean from a woman, not from a strange woman, but from their wives: and except he had heard that yesterday and the day before they had abstained from the work of marriage, he had not granted them the bread which before he had denied. There is as great difference between the show bread and the body of Christ, as between the shaddow and the bodies, between the image and the truth, between the exemplars of things to come, and the things them selves prefigured by the exemplars. Therefore as meekness, patience, sobriety, moderation, abstinence from lucre, hospitality also and benignity, ought to be chiefly in a Bishop, and amongst all Lay men excelling: so also a peculiar chastity, and, as I may say, Priestly continence, that he do not only keep him self f • om an unclean work, but also the mind that shall make the body of Christ may be free from casting of the eye, and wandering of thought. In these words Hieronyme maketh the show bread, a shadow and figure of the body of Christ, but not of the sacrament thereof. Neither will Master Heskins collection of the office of a bishop standing in consecration, offering, and receiving the body of Christ help him. For here is no word of consecrating, but of making the body of Christ, Men's Christi corpus confectura, the mind shall make the body of Christ: which if it be not a figurative speech, Hieronyme speaketh both grossly and untruly, neither of offering the body of Christ, but offering undefiled sacrifices, which are prayers. Finally if it were plain, that he called the sacrament by the name of that which it signifieth, yet he him self is the best expounder of him self.

This place may suffice to expound whatsoever either Hieronyme or any other old writer saith of the consecration, offering, or receiving of the body and blood in the sacrament: making a manifest difference between that flesh and blood, which is eaten and drunk, and that which was crucified, which the Papists teach to be all one.

But M. Heskins cannot omit this place, w ^t out a gird against married Priests, of which number he him self was once one, saying, they have put away the consecration to keep their women, but he did put away his wife, that he might return to consecration: Howbeit to the matter. As it is very well known, Hieronyme was too much addict to the praise of virginity, so in this Chapter, he cannot simply condemn the marriage of Bishops, although he wish rather a continence in them that can abstain: and openly saith to professed virgins, that either they must marie if they cannot contain, or else continue if they will not marie. Ad Demetriadem.

Next to Hieronyme, which is of the higher house, he is fain to place Damascene of the lower house. Who saith that The show bread did figure this bread, meaning the sacramental bread, and not as M. Heskins expoundeth it the body of Christ in the sacrament. For transubstantiation is not so old as Damascene, neither was it received in the Greek Church, neither is it at this day, neither, do these words help him which he addeth. Therefore with all fear and pure conscience, and with a sure faith let us come to him and worship him with all pureness of mind and body. Let us come to him with burning desire, fashioning our hands in manner of a cross, let us receive this body of him that was crucified. There can no necessary collection be made of this place, that Damascene spake of the popish real presence. And if it might, yet it is but one doctors opinion of the lower house, whose authority we weigh not. But why do not the Papists hold their hands a cross, when they receive the sacrament? by like all their ceremonies be not so ancient as Damascene.

The three and twenty Chapter proceedeth in the proof of the same by S. Augustine and Isychius.

Out of Augustine he allegeth Ep. 86. Ad Casulanum : reproving one Vibicus Dicit cessisse pani pecus. &c. He saith that the sheep hath given place to bread, as though he knew not that then also the show bread was wont to be set on the Lord's table, and that now also he doeth take part of the body of the immaculate lamb. He saith that blood hath given place to the cup not considering that now also he receiveth blood in the cup. Therefore howe much better and more agreeably should he say, that the old things are passed, and new things are made in Christ, so that Altar gave place to Altar, sword to sword, fire to fire, bread to bread, sheep to sheep, blood to blood? For we see in all these, that the carnal oldness giveth place to the spiritual newness.

The understanding of this place dependeth upon the knowledge of the error of Vibicus. And that was this. He thought that the outward ceremonies of the old law, did signify the outward ceremonies of the new Testament, that is, that carnal things did succeed carnal things. As the lamb did signify the bread, the blood did signify the wine in the sacrament, and so bread gave place to the lamb, the cup to the blood. But this Augustine denieth. For they had bread then, and they have bread now: they had the flesh of a lamb then, and they have the flesh of a lamb now: they had blood then, and they have blood now: they had carnal things then, and we have spiritual things now. This place therefore is directly against M. Heskins bill of the carnal presence, and hath nothing to prove that the show bread was a figure of the sacrament: but only affirmeth that they had bread, as we have bread, for they had the show bread. But if there had ben transubstantiation, that is, no bread in the sacrament, he might easily have confuted Vibicus saying, that bread gave place to the sheep. But he confesseth that we have bread, and affirmeth, that they had bread also. And where he saith, that we eat parte of the body of the immaculate lamb, he declareth sufficiently that he spake of no carnal presence, for then he would not have divided the body of the lamb into partes, which the Papists say everyone receiveth whole. Finally, where he saith that the carnal oldenesse gave place to the spiritual newness, he doth moste clearly teach us, that the outward ceremonies of the old Testament, were figures of the spiritual things signified and given by our sacraments, and not of the outward elements of our sacraments. By which it is manifest, that spiritual things and not carnal things are the substance of our sacraments. Now to M. Heskins collections. He saith that the old sacrifices of the lamb were not figures of the sacrament : denying now in one word, that he labored to prove before in 7. Chapters: but of the bloody sacrifice of Christ offered upon the cross after the manner of Aaron. Concerning y ^e sense of Augustine's words, let the readers weigh my collection & his, by Augustine's place, and by the rest of the Epistle that is of the same matter. But mark here once again, that he maketh the sacrifice of Christ's passion, a sacrifice after the manner of Aaron, and consequently Christ a priest after the manner of Aaron, directly contrary to the scriptures in express words Heb. 7. Secondly he urgeth that, which Augustine saith, we now receive blood in y ^e cup, by which he will exclude the distinction of spiritual receiving. But all in vain, except he can conclude, y ^t we receive partem de agni immaculati corpore, part of the undefiled lambes body. For if the one be spiritual, so is the other. I am sure the natural body of Christ is not divided into parts, but we do spiritually receive nourishment all of one body. To be short, if that which Augustine addeth of spiritual newness succeeding carnal oldnes, were not a sufficient demonstration of a spiritual receiving, I would bring other places of Augustine to show the same most plainly. But the thing being so apparent, I will not mistrust the judgment of any indifferent reader so much, as to trouble him with more testimonies, which shall better come in, where more show is for M. Heskins bill.

But we must pass over to Isychius, whose words are set down at large in Cap. 24. Levi. The very number of the loaves doth call us to a contemplation of the commandment. So doth the setting forth of thē, & that he doth not command thē to be made a burnt offering as those things which be of the frying pan, of the girdiron, & of the furnace, but that they should be set on the table one over against another, & that it should be lawful only for the priests to eat of thē, not for the Levites, so that they also must eat thē in a holy place. And also that they are called holy of holies, (understand what is said, for the Lord shall give thee understanding) remember the mystical table of which it is commanded that none should begin except the intelligible Aaron, that is Christ, (For he began it first) except also his sons, which by him are made Christ's, and have put on him, which yet they are commanded to eat in a holy place. And he is that holy of holies, that they may have a principal and vndespised sanctification. These loaves of two tenths (for they are of God and man, of the same being, perfect in both) are set six over against six. The mystical supper is set here, and it is set in the world to come. Six loaves are one proposition or setting forth, as the mystery it se • fe is perfect and maketh them that enjoy it perfect. And in six days this visible creature was made, and the sixth day man was made, for whom Christ prepared his mystical table. But yet altogether are rightly twelve loaves, because the Apostles that were twelve in number first supped at the Lord's table. Here is an allegorical interpretation of the show bread to signify the Lord's supper, but that proveth it not a prefiguration of the sacrament. For there is great difference between an allegory, and a figure of a thing to come. But to the point of the bill, here is nothing for the carnal presence, but somewhat against it.

First where he saith that the Christians (whom allegorically he calleth the sons of the intelligible Aaron, induti sunt eo, have put on him, meaning they are baptized, for as many as are baptized in him have put him on. But they have put on him only spiritually, therefore they are commanded to eat him only spiritually.

Secondly the twelve loaves, which signifieth the body of Christ, signifieth the twelve Apostles also, which mystically were his body, by which you may see, he speaketh of no carnal presence, Thirdly he calleth it a mystery and a mystical supper, which will not stand w ^t M. Heskins corporal collections. No more will y ^t which he addeth That it is a clean table, first as making clean, secondly as having no lies or infectiō, such as are in the mysteries of the pagās. Where it is to be laughed at, that he will prove a corporal presence, because it cleanseth sins: for then shall we have the same presence in baptism, and the Papists in holy water, which they affirm to cleanse sins also. But it is, a per se, that Isychius addeth. Moreover, extolling his glory, and advancing the dignity of this mystery into an height, he addeth, it is the holy of holies of the Lord's sacrifices for a perpetual law. Therefore prayer is holy, the reading of holy scripture is holy, and the hearing of the interpretation thereof: to be short, all things that are done and said in the Church of God, according to the law, are holy. But the holy of holies of the Lord's sacrifice, of all things that are offered and done to his glory, is the table which Christ setteth forth of his own sacrifice. Here is a great commendation of that mystical Table, which Christ hath set forth of the sacrifice of his death, which no man doubteth to be moste holy in the right use thereof, and in respect of him that feedeth us with his body and blood at that table. But what is all this to the corporal and carnal presence? But M. Heskins would find a contradiction in the words of Oecolampadius, in that he saith the bread is sanctified, and yet it hath no holiness in it, whereas that holy man speaketh plainly and distinctly, that it is sanctified, and doth sanctify, in the right use of it, & not in the nature of itself.

The four & twentieth Chapter, applying the continual reservation of the Shew bread, to the reservation of the sacrament, proveth the same reseruatiō by the old fathers, & by the perpetual practice • of the Church.

That the sacrament (of some) was reserved in the elder days of the Church, it is not so great a controversy, as whether it ought to be reserved by the institution of Christ. Neither is the simple reservation, one of the proclaymers articles (as M. Heskins saith,) but whether it should be hanged up in a Canopy for an ydol as the Papists use it. As for reservation, how slenderly it is proved by him, we shall see by examination of his witnesses. For as touching his application thereof unto the reservation of the show bread, because it is but his own judgment, I will not vouchsafe to answer it, otherwise then to deny it, to be of any force to prove his purpose. His first witness is Clemens Ep. 2. The sacraments of God's secretes are committed to three degrees: to the priest, the Deacon, and the minister, which with fear and trembling ought to keep the leavings of the pieces of the Lord's body, that no rottenness be found in the holy place, lest when the thing is done negligently, great injury be done to the portion of the Lord's body. By this place M. Heskins will needs prove reservation, and the carnal presence, but neither of both will fall out of his side, although the authority of the Epistle is not worth a straw, being a counterfeit decretal ascribed to Clemens, neither in true latin, nor good sense.

And first for the carnal presence, note how he saith, y ^e remnantes of the pieces and portions of the Lord's body, and so he doth often in this Epistle, meaning y ^e crommes of the sacramental bread, which was consecrated to be the body of Christ. For Christ's natural body cannot be broken into leavings, fragments, and portions, which be the terms he useth. Now touching the reservation, he meaneth no keeping but of these crommes, which he calleth leavings, fragments and portions, and no keeping of them, but from mouldinesse or rottenness, that is, that they should be spent while they are good, and not kept while they stink, as the Papists do, not the fragments, but their whole Mass cakes sometimes. For touching the sacrament it self, he writeth by and by after:

This being most manifest against reservation, Master Heskins is not ashamed to rack it to stand with reservation.

And first, he asketh the adversary, whether he thinketh that Saint Clement was a fool, to deny that he said before? No verily, but I think him to be no wise man, that either taketh this Epistle to be written by Clement, the first bishop of Rome, or so understandeth it, that he would make him contrary to him self. And I think he that did forge this Epistle under Saint Clements name, was not only a doltish fool, but also an impudent falsarie, to make that ancient Clemens to write to the Apostle Saint James of such babbles as those be, and that follow in the Epistle: which, if they were of weight, yet the Apostle was not to learn them of Clemens, but Clemens of him. But concerning the keeping that he speaketh of, he writeth yet more plainlye:

What dust is this, but small crommes? But he goeth on, and that Saint James might the better look to those matters, he saith: And finally, he concludeth in fine Latin and cleanly terms:

You see this man would have the sacrament spent, & taketh thought that the crommes, both small and great, be not cast away, nor kept until they be rotten, nor suffered to be eaten of Mise, nor defiled with their dung, but he is utterly against popish reservation. 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, saith: That they were never for that matter driven from the fellowship of the Church, or coming from those partes, were not received: but rather all the elders or Bishops that were before them, did always solemnly send the sacrament of Eucharistie to all the bishops or elders of those Churches that did not so observe it. M. Heskins imagineth that the Bishops of Rome, did send the sacrament into all partes of the world, to all bishops & elders of every Church: which if he did, he had need of many messengers. But the matter is plain enough. If any of those bishops or elders came to Rome, they were lovingly received of Victors predecessors, 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 own Church. Here is no shadow of reservation, but M. Heskins absurd 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 ill quid secreto ante omne cibum gustes? & si sciuerie non partem illum credit esse, qui dicitur. Doest thou think (ô wife) so to handle thyself, that these things that thou doest shall be unknown to thy husband? shall not he know what before all meats thou doest secretly receive? and if he shall know it, he believeth it not to be that bread, that it is said to be. Thus M. Heskins hath set down the words both in Latin and English. But wheresoever 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 he hath no such words in that book, but only, Non sciet maritus, &c. shall not thy husband know, &c. By which it is plain that he never read this place in Tertullian himself, but only borrowed it out of some other papist, that alleged it for this purpose, & belike gathered the former question, not as Tertullian's words, but out of his meaning, which Master Heskins not understanding, very ridiculously, hath set down, as the words of Tertullian. These be the Popish doctors, that boast of their great reading, when they read but patches out of other men's notes, and collections. But to the matter. Although it may seem, this corruption to have entered into the African Churches, y ^t the people carried home y ^e sacramental bread, and did eat it daily before all other meats, yet this is nothing like unto the Popish reservation in the pyx, to be adored. And Tertullian in his Book De Corona militis, doeth rehearse this custom among those things, that had no ground of scripture for them. The liks is to be said, to the place of Cyprian, where a woman kept it in her chest, as for the miracle, whether it reproved her unworthiness, or her reservation, it is not plain by the author. The story of Satyrus out of Ambrose proveth not directly reservation, for it is like, the Christians being in danger of shipwreck, did minister the communion in the ship, & not bring it with them from the shore consecrated. And Satyrus being then but a novice or Catechumein, and not baptized, desired the sacrament of them, meaning to receive it before his death, if he saw present danger of drowning, otherwise to tarry until he were admitted to it, by order of the Church. But this proveth nothing at all the Popish reservation, although the fact of Satyrus was not without imperfection, as greatly as it is commended of Ambrose: and much less 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 help of his faith, that he might not depart this life without the communion of the body of Christ in the sacrament.

The place of Chrysostom, is nothing at all for reservation, where he saith, that in a tumult the soldiers rushing into the Churches, The most holy blood of Christ was shed vpō their clothes. For he must remember, it was on Easter day, when all the people did communicate, and such as came were baptized. And where he saith, it was Ad vesperū diei, that they did enter, that is, in the afternoon: he must wit, that Chrysostom after the manner of the scripture, calleth y ^e morning before day light Vespere Sabbati, & therefore his collection is vain. But although it were in the afternoon, what inconvenience is it if we say, they spent all the forenoon in prayer, & fasting, and hearing the word of God, and ministering baptism, which then was ministered twice a year, at Easter, & at Pentecost: and then in the afternoon toward evening, went to the communion? Jerome reporteth of Exuperius, that he carried the Lord's body in a wicker basket, and his blood in a glass. What reservation is here? M. Heskins saith, he did bear it about with him, but Hieronyme saith not so, except you mean about the Church, when he ministered the communion. But here Master Jewel hath a double blow. O cunning Master of defense. For here is not only reservation, bu • also he calleth it in plain words, the body and blood of our Lord. Master Jewel shall not greatly feel these blows. To the reservation I have said before, and to the plain calling of it body and blood, I say, what other thing is it, then as Master Jewel himself will call it? and worthily: yet no transubstantiation meant by him. But how will Master Heskins ward these blows? Exuperius had no hallowed pixes, nor chalices of Golde and silver, as the Papists must have? And Exuperius ministered to the lay people in both kinds, as the Papists will not do? What hath M. Heskins gained by Exuperius? But then Eusebius shall help him, for in his 6. book, and 36. Chapter, is declared, y ^t a certain priest, sent to Serapion (being at the point of death) a little portiō of the Eucharistie in the night season: by which it appeareth, y ^t it was reserved. In deed Dionysius bishop of Alexandria writeth so unto Fabianus Bishop of Rome. But withal he showeth, that it was no public order of the universal Church, but his own commandment unto his own Church, that he might not seem in any point to resemble the Novatians, which denied reconciliation to them that had fallen in persecution: wherefor he saith, that although the priest was sick, and could not come:

and yet it is not proved that the Priest had the sacrament reserved, but it might well be, that he did then consecrate and send him parte, as he should have done, if he could have come to the sick man himself for his own weakness. Last of all he rehearseth the words of Cyril Ad Colosyrium: I hear that they say, that the mystical blessing, if any remnants thereof remain unto the next day following, is unprofitable to sanctification. But they are mad in so saying, for Christ is not made another, neither shall his holy body be changed, but the virtue of blessing, and the lively grace do always remain in him. M. Heskins translateth in illo, in it, as though y ^e virtue, & quickening grace were included in the sacrament, which y ^e author saith to remain in Christ. But touching y ^e authority of this Cyrillus ad Colosyrium, I must admonish the Reader, that these words are not to be found in all the works 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 tell 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 argument & scope of y ^t Epistle. Neuertheles, it seemeth 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 eternal & incorruptible.

He saith not that the remnantes of the sacrament are so, for that the Papists confess to be otherwise, affirming that they cease to be the body & blood of Christ, when the species or kinds of bread and wine are putrefied or rotten. But Cyril saith, that virtue, & grace, do always remain in him, not in that sacrament reserved, which doeth corrupt. Finally, he speaketh but of reseruatiō for one day, to the use of eating, and not of adoration, therefore he speaketh nothing against the challenge, which was not simply of reservation, but of reserving the sacrament to be worshipped. But whereas M. Heskins mainteyneth reservation by dipping of stoales, and linen clothes in y ^e cup, he must remember that Julius in his decretal epistles, forbiddeth that dipping, as diverse counsels also do, which in due place are alleged.

Finally, Origen doth utterly condemn that abuse of reservation of the sacrament, affirming that it is in y ^e same case, that the sacrifice of the passover, and the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving were, of which it was not lawful to reserve any part, until the next mo • ning, therefore he saith in Levite. 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 gave to his disciples, and said unto them, take ye, & eat ye, he deferred not, neither commanded it to be reserved until the next day. By which words it is manifest, that as he disallowed the reservation, so was it not in use in the East Church in his time. And that M. Heskins may be snarled in his own coarde, he must call to mind, what pains he took to prove the Paschal Lamb, to be a figure of this sacrament, and how earnestly he urgeth, that the truth must answer the figure, in all things justly, inso much that he alledgeth this text, that not a jot, or apricke of the law shall pass, until all be fulfilled. Now of the Pascal lamb, there was an express commandment, y ^t no part of it should be reserved until y ^e next day: therefore by his own figures, texts, & manner of reasoning, I conclude, that the sacrament may not be reserved at all.

The five and twentieth Chapter proveth the same by Counsels that have been nearer to our time.

For Counsels that have been nearer to our time, then six hundredth years after Christ, we do not admit their authority. But M. Heskins promising Counsels, beginneth with the institution of Justinian, That Monasteries of Virgines should have liberty to choose a Priest which should bring unto them the holy Communion. Herevpon he will build reservation, for they did not celebrate to them (saith he) but they brought it. As though he that bringeth y ^e word of God to thē, doth not preach before them, but bringeth a Sermon in his bosom. But for as much as that decree speaketh not only of a Priest but also of a Deacon, I can be content to think, that he brought the sacrament with him and did not consecrate there, but what maketh this for reservation to the use of adoration, which is the matter in question▪ Or else for an ordinary custom of reservation, if the sacrament were brought from the next Church, (where and when it was celebrated) to the Monastery, not to be hanged up in a cannopie, but to be received presently? But it is a proper reason that M. Heskins useth: for may be reserved for a short time, why not for a long time? For answer of this, I will refer him to his own Popish decrees, that forbid such reservation, for fear of putrifaction and rottenness. At last cometh the Counsels of Wormes and Remes, in which times it is certain that great corruptions prevailed in the church: then followeth the Counsel of Lateran commended for general held Anno. 1215. speaking of the diligent reservation of the sacrament: with much ado about the authority of Counsels But all not worth a rush. The general Counsel of Lateran falsified the text of scripture tract to both in words and sense, alleging it thus in their second Canon or Chapter against Joachim Abbas: Pater quod dedit mihi maius est omnibus, that which the father hath given me is greater then all. Whereas the truth of the text is, the father which hath givē them to me, is greter then all. A wise and worshipful Counsel, that cannot confute an error, but by falsifying of the scripture. And this is the Counsel that first decreed transubstantiation.

Last of all cometh the Counsel of Trent in our days, and that, not so vainly alledgeth of The age of the Nicene Counsel to have acknowledged reservation, as M. Heskins impudently affirmeth thereupon, that The Nicene Counsel did ag •• se reservation. Next he iangleth of the authority of the Church, as though what so ever the synagogue of Antichrist doth affirm, were the difinition of the Church of Christ. And in the end, he joineth another issue with the proclamer, That if he can bring any plain scripture, catholic doctor, or counsel, that by express words forbiddeth reservation, he will subscribe. For scripture y ^e institution, do ye this in remembrance of me, proveth the sacrament to be an action, and not a name of a thing that may be reserved, for every action is in moving. Secondly, all Catholic doctors in a manner, and all Counsels general and provincial, that speak of this sacrament, call it Eucharistia, which is a giving of thanks, which name cannot be rightly applied to the bread and wine only, but to the whole use of them according to Christ's institution. Thirdly, the express decree of Clemens his own Doctor is against reservation, alleged in the Chapter next before. Fourthly, Origen in Levite. Chap. 7. Hom. 6. the place also cited in the latter end of the 24. Chapter.

The six and twentieth Chapter answereth the chief objection of the aduer • aries.

Our chief argument (he saith) against the reservation, and our very Achilles against all other rites used in the sacraments, is, that in the institution thereof there is no mention made of reservation. But there he belieth us. For we say it is directly against the commandment of the institution, take and eat, and do this in remembrance of me. I would ask this question of him. Was it lawful for the Apostles to have reserved it when Christ commanded it to be eaten? If he say no, let him show me why it is more lawful now to reserve it then it was then: seeing we have the same commandment continued, do this in remembrance of me, that is, take and eat it?

Moreover, we say it is clean contrary to the end and form of the sacrament, that it should be reserved and carried about to be worshipped. For it is spiritual meat, whose end, use, and fruit is in eating, not in keeping and carrying about, or worshipping. But now let us see Master Heskins profound Divinity 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, he saith, that As Christ took bread and wine, made it his body and blood, commanded it to be eaten and drunken in remembrance of him: so he that taketh bread and wine, and doth consecrate it, eat it, and drink it in remembrance of his death &c. doth as much as the scripture biddeth him, and is blameless in this respect. This is true, and all this do we in our Church, therefore are we blameless by his own conclusion. But they that being commanded to eat, and minister to be eaten, do not eat it, nor give it to be eaten, but keep it, and hang it up, do manifestly break this commandment: and so do the Papist • . For they do against that the scripture biddeth. And whereas he alledgeth the sixth Counsel of Constantinople, reproving the Armenians for ministering with wine without water, it seemeth that both he and the Counsel forgot his first rule. For they doing as much as they had either example or commandment, of Christ's institution, by his own rule were in this respect blameless. But he addeth, that they in the Counsel alleged the Mass of Saint James and Basil, which is utterly false, for they alleged but the manner of celebration of the mystical sacrifice set forth by them, and no Popish Mass. Whether Saint James did set forth any such form of celebration I will not here dispute, but I am sure there were many things entitled to the Apostles, even while they lived, that were but counterfeit, and so I think was this, for else it had been Canonical scripture, and the Church would not, or should not have changed S. James his Mass, for Gregory's Mass: nor Basil nor Chrysostom, should have needed to have made any new liturgye, if they had been certain, that the old had had the Apostles for their authors and inditers.

But M. Heskins triumpheth upon the old usage of the Primitive Church, for mixing water with their wine, which we in our celebration observe not, neither is it any matter that we strive for, but against the necessity of water in the wine. Thē he cauelleth against M. Jewel, For punishing a Minister of his Dyocesse, that ministered the Communion with Ale, whereas he him self doth worse, like the high Priests, that made no conscience to condemn Christ, but a great matter i • was with them to put the price of his betraying in the tresurie &c. Where note, that ministering with wine only, which was Christ's institution, is called of him our tradition.

The third manner of doing he divideth into two kinds. When the substance being kept, some circumstance is altered, or some ceremony added for decency. But reseruatiō is no mere circumstance of time, place, or persons, nor yet an indifferent ceremony, but contrary to the substance of the institution, and the commandment of Christ. For the sacrament was ordained, only to be eaten and drunken, whereunto reservation is contrary, so was it commanded to be received, therefore ought not to be reserved, hanged up, worshipped, &c. And as M. Heskins will join issue, so will I demure in law with him and all his fellows, that Popish reservation is contrary to the end of the institution and commandment of Christ, and nothing like those matters of circumstance wherewith he compareth it, of morning, evening, fasting, after supper, number of persons, or difference of sex, or any of those kinds. Therefore (he him self saith) The Protestants argument of negative is eluded, but never a wh • t answered or avoided.

The seven and twentieth Chapter, answering other arguments & objections of the proclamer.

In the beginning of this Chapter, whereas the Bishops challenge was, of hanging up the sacrament under a canopie, meaning reservation, and setting it up for idolatrous worshipping, for which M. Heskins hath no color in antiquity, he would enforce him to understand his challenge of simple reservation, or for other uses thē adoration, as to be carried to the sick, or such as could not be present &c. And first he pleadeth possession of nine hundredth years, out of which he should not be put without reason, but as good a lawyer as he is, he must know, that now a writ of right being brought against him, prescription of possession will not serve him.

But he will give color to the plaintiff, and apply the reason used against private mass by the proclamer, to see if it will serve against reservation. That it is the commandment of Christ Do this, that is to say, practice this that I have here done, and that in such form and sort as you have s • ene me do it. This exposition he refuseth as false, concerning the manner and form: Affirming that the commandment extendeth no further, but to the receiving of his body and blood, as the substance whereupon the memorial should be grounded, without any charge given of the manner and the form. And for proof of this exposition, he citeth S. Hieronyme, Chrysostom, Euthymius, Thomas Aquinas, and Hugo Cardinalis, all which in deed affirm, that we are commanded to celebrate the remembrance of his passion, but none of them exclude the manner and form of celebration from the commandment. Howe • oudenly hath M. Heskins forgotten the strong clubbe of his Logike, whereby he did even now, beat down the proclaymers negative arguments, but now again they are the best he can occupy him self. Hieronyme, Chrysostom, and the rest speak not of the manner and form of celebration: therefore there is no necessary form to be observed, as commanded by Christ. But as the proclamer hath no authority for his expsition, so M. Heskins will bring good reasō against it to prove it false. First he will grant that the primitive Church for five or six h • ndreth years after Christ did minister the sacraments purely and without the breach of Christ's commandment. He will grant for the substance, but not y ^t they continued so long without abuse. The assumption of this proposition is, that the Masses used in the primitive Church, varied from Christ's institution. As for example, the Masses of S. James, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, differed ech from other, and all from Christ's institution in form and manner. It pleaseth him to call the old liturgies or forms of ministration used in diverse Churches, masses: the diversity he meaneth is in forms of prayers, and circumstances, concerning which Christ gave no commandment, and therefore, they are contrary to his institution.

The seconde reason is of the proclamers own practice, who in celebration of this sacrament useth other time, other kind of bread, other garments, other number of communicantes then Christ did. But none of these are the form or matter of the sacrament, and so they touch not the substance. But eating and drinking is of the substantial form of the sacrament, and the end of the consecration of the creatures of bread and wine, to the use of that holy mystery, against which, not eating is contradiction, and so reservation is a plain contradiction of the commandment of Christ.

An other reason he hath of admitting an unworthy person, as Christ did Judas, which is for all that a matter of question: and yet nothing to the purpose, if he were admitted. For Christ knew him by his divine nature, before he chose him to be an Apostle, but in as much as Judas was an hypocrite, before he was revealed to the judgment of man, he was not to be refused. To be short, the substance of the sacrament is not only the heavenly matter thereof, as M. Heskins dreameth, but also the earthly matter and the form also. As for circumstances and accidents, that touch neither the form nor matter, they are to be applied to edification, order, & decency. Cyprian and the fathers in his time, and long time after, what reason did they use to confute them that ministered with water, milk, clusters of grapes, dipping of bread, and linen clothes in the wine, and such like? Did they not beat thē down with y ^e institution of Christ? For they could well enough distinguish the substance from the accidents, the matter and form 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 carry home the sacrament to their houses, and received a portion thereof in the morning, before meat: but he numbereth this custom among abuses, whereas neither Tertullian nor Cyprian do directly reprove them : neither do they allow them, by any one word. But I pray you M. Heskins, if it be no abuse, that women should carry the sacrament home with them, keep it in their coffers, and eat it every morning next their heart, why do not you of the Popish Church continue such an ancient custom? Why have you abrogated it? and to dissuade them from it, tell tales in you legends and promptuaries, of some that have carried it home, and found it turned I cannot tell into what monsters? But peradventure the usage of the Church in Iustines time, will prove it to be none abuse. For then the sacrament was carried home to them that were absent. And here M. Heskins alleging Iustines Apollogie, telleth not in whether Apollogie, and setteth down a form of words, which are not in Justin, Apoll. 2. where the matter is spoken of, in such form as he citeth thē: by which once again you may see, that his great reading of y ^e doctors was out of other men's notes & collections, & not of his own study. For it seemeth he knew not in which Apology 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.

And to them that are not present there is sent by the deacons. By these word • it cannot be proved necessarily, that the sacrament was sent to them that were absent, but rather part of the bread and wine which was offered in great plenty, the distribution whereof belonged to the Deacons: and immediately after mentiō is made of the contribution of the richer sort. But admit that they did send the sacrament to such as were sick, or otherwise to necessarily letted, that they could not be present in body, & yet were present in mind, and joined in prayer with them, what maketh this for the popish reservation to be worshipped? Everyone that was present there received, only the Priests receiveth amongst the Papists, and hangeth up the rest over the Altar. But it is a fine reason of M. Heskins, they carried it, therefore they reserved it: if they reserved it an hour, why might they not reserve it as long as they lift ? But they carried it y ^t it might be received presently, they hanged it not up to be gazed upon.

S. Basel also witnesseth, that holy men living in the wilderness did reserve the sacrament in their alter. Omnes in Eremis 〈◊〉 vitam agents, vbi non est Sacerdos, communionem domi servants, a se ipsis communicant. All that lead solitary lives in the wilderness where there is no Priest, keeping the come • union at home, de receive it of them selves.

M. Heskins falsifieth the words in translation & saith: they received by them selves, as though they received it alone. This fragment of Basils Epistle, argueth an abuse of the reservation, but it proveth no hanging up of the sacrament for adoration. That this was an abuse crept in of superstition, it is manifest, for that it was afterward by a Godly council condemned and forbid̄.

Moreover, to prove a thing to be lawful, by such an usage, as they them selves confess to be unlawful, what abusing of the simple is it? S. Jerome also in his apollogie against Jovinian, testifieth that the people of Rome in his time used to keep the sacrament in their houses, and receive it by themselves. In this place I cannot tell whether I should suspect that which hath often been proved before, that M. Heskins citeth his authorities out of notebookes and collections, rather then out of his own readings, and so know not what was Jerome's judgment of this custom of receiving at home, or else that of fraud to abuse the reader he hath concealed it. But y ^e matter of truth is this. There was a custom at Rome, to receive every day, which custom Jerome saith he doth neither allow, nor reprehende. But he appealeth to the consciences of those men that had communicated at home, the same day after they had companyed with their wives, wherefore they durst not go to the Church. but rather it is to be thought, that the Priests did come to them, and minister it in their private houses, which Jerome also disalloweth. And howe can he prove, that they did receive it by them selves? when Saint Jerome saith, communicant, they do communicate. The last discourse proving by authority of Saint Augustine, that universal observations of the Church, where the Scripture commandeth not the contrary, are to be holden for laws, is merely vain, seeing he can never prove his reservation to be catholic or universally allowed and practiced of the Church, and we have proved it, to be contrary to the Scripture.

The eight and twentieth Chapter beginneth to speak of the Prophesies, and first of the prophesy of the priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek.

The one half of this Chapter is consumed in citing of texts, to prove that Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchizedek: and at length, he divideth the Priests 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 Melchizedek. Yet in the ende of the Chapter like a blasphemous dog, he saith, that Christ executed his priesthood after the order of Aaron upon the Cross. Where beside his blasphemy, note how he agreeth with him self. But Christ he saith, it called a Priest after the order of Melchizedek for the manner of his sacrifice, which maketh the difference between the order of Aaron, and the order of Melchizedek. For Aaron offered in blood, the other in bread and wine. The Apostle to the Hebrews, observing many differences, could not find this. But M. Heskins answereth that the cause why the Apostle did leave out this manner of sacrifice, was, for that his principal purpose was, to show the excellency of Christ and his priesthood, above Aaron, and his priesthood, which could not be by showing that he sacrificed bread and wine, for the Jews sacrifices were more glorious then bread and wine. By this wise reason, he giveth us to deem, that the Apostle of subtlety suppressed this comparison, because they were weak, as though they knew not what the sacraments of the Church were. But if Christ sacrificed his body and blood twice, he could not better have shown his excellency above Aaron, then in declaring, that Christ did not only offer himself in blood on the Cross, but also in bread & wine, after the example of Melchizedek. For if offering of sacrifice were one of the chief partes of a Priests office, and bread and wine had been the sacrifice of Melchizedek, the Apostle neither would, nor could have dissembled the comparison of his sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christ, which would infinitely have advanced his priesthood above Aaron. For else the Hebrews, whom M. Heskins imagineth would have objected their sacrifices to be more glorious then bread and wine, might more probably have replied, that the Apostles compared Melchizedek with Christ in small matters, and omitted the chiefest parte of his office, which was this sacrifice: so that if he were inferior in the chief, it was little to excel in the small matters.

But M. Heskins taketh upon him to answer our objection that we make against this sacrifice of bread and wine, which is this: as the Apostle to the Hebrews speaketh nothing of it, no more doeth Moses in Genesis. For it is said there, that Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine, but never a word, that he did sacrifice bread and wine. This objection he will answer, both by scripture and by the eldest learned men of Christ's parleament. Concerning the parleament men, as it is true, that many of them did think Melchizedek to be a figure of Christ in bringing forth bread and wine: so when we come to consider their voices, it shall appear, that they make little for transubstantiation, or the carnal presence.

But now let us hear the scripture. The scripture to prove that Melchizedek did sacrifice this bread and wine saith: that he was a Priest of the most high God, to whom is belongeth, not to bring forth, but to offer bread and wine, so that the very connection of the Scripture and dependants of the same, enforceth us to take this sense, and none other can be admitted. This is a very peremptory sentence, plumped down of you M. Heskins, not as from your doctors chair, but even as from Apolloes three footed stool. But if it may please you to hear: is it not also scripture, that he was King of Salem? and will not the very connection and dependence of the Scripture lead us to think, that as an example of his royal liberality, he brought forth bread & wine, to refresh the hungry and weary soldiers of Abraham, which being such a multitude, could not easily be provided for by a private man?

And where Moses saith, he was a priest of the highest God, he addeth also an example of his priestly holiness, that he blessed Abraham, & praised God, and that Abraham gave him tithes of all. And lest you should exclame, as your manner is, that this is a new exposition, Josephus in the first book & tenth Chapter of his

But if M. Heskins will object that Josephus was a Jew, then let him hear the author of Scholastica historia a Christian and a Catholic, as M. Heskins will confess, allowing of the same exposition Chap. 46. in these words. To be short, if the bringing forth of bread and wine, pertained to his priestly office, there is nothing in the text to express his Kingly office: but Moses, as he calleth him, both a King, and a priest, so doth he distinctly show, what he did as a King, and what he did as a Priest. Yet Master Heskins goeth on, and will prove, That if Christ were a Priest after the order of Melchizedek he offered a sacrifice after that order: but he never made any mo oblations then two, the one on the cross, after the order of Aaron: the other in his last Supper after the order of Melchizedek except we will say that Christ altogether neglected the priesthood appointed to him of God. Mark here (Christian Reader) how many horrible blasphemies, this impudent dog barketh out against our Savior Christ, directly contrary to his express word. First he affirmeth, that Christ made two offerings of himself, whereas the holy Ghost saith.

Thirdly, he affirmeth, that the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, was after the order of Aaron. Wherevpon it will follow, that it was not an eternal redemption purchased by it, but transitory, as the priesthood of Aaron was. Whereas the holy Ghost saith, that by his own blood he entered once into the holy place, and found eternal redemption, which could never be obtained by any sacrifice after the order of Aaron.

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

By which, he denieth, that the once offering up of himself, by his eternal spirit on the cross, was any parte of his priesthood appointed him by God, then the which there can be no more devilish blasphemy. And yet the beast is not ashamed to challenge and write, If not then • let the adversary show, when and where Christ did sacrifice after the order of Mechizedech.

If bread & wine be Christ's offering, 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 Christ, then where is Melchisedeches priesthood, by his own divinity? Again, if he say, there be the shows, 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, contrary to his worshipful rule, given 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 again: for Melchizedeches bread, if it were not hallowed, was as good: if it were hallowed, as it was, if it were offered, 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 blood of Christ under these accidēts: beside that he makes it a figure of a figure or sign, which he said could not be, he denieth that Christ did that, wherein he affirmed the priesthood of Melchizedek to stand: namely, that he offered bread and wine. And so thou seest M. Heskins hanged in his own halter.

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

I confessed before, that diverse of the old fathers, were of opinion, that the bread and wine, which Melchizedek brought forth, was sacrificed by him, and that it was a figure of the sacrament, which they improperly called a sacrifice, meaning nothing else, but that it was a holy sign, and a thanksgiving, offered to God for the passion of Christ: as it is manifest by diverse places in their writings. But they were far from those blasphemies, which M. Heskins hath uttered in y ^e Chapter before, as to make Christ's 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 Melchizedek, in the sacrament, &c.

But now let us consider the places of Cyprian, whether such poison may be drawn out of them, as M. Heskins hath sucked out of his own poisoned brain. The words of the first place are these: The sacraments signified of old, since the time that Melchizedek came forth, & to the sons of Abraham that do his works, the high priest bringeth forth bread and wine. This (saith he) is my body. They had eaten and drunken of the same bread, according to the visible form, but before those words, that common meat, was profitable only to nourish the body. But after it was said by the Lord, do this in remembrance, This is my flesh, & this is my blood. As often̄ as it is done with these words, and with this faith, that substantial bread, and cup consecrated with a solemn blessing, profiteth unto the life and health of the whole man, being both a medicine, (Et Holocaustum) and a burnt offering, to heal infirmities, and purge iniquities. There is also declared the difference between spiritual meat, and corporal meat: namely, that it was one thing that was first set before them, & another thing, which was givē & distributed by their Master. First it is granted, y ^t Cyprian thought the bread & wine brought forth by Melchizedek, to be a figure of the sacrament, and that herein also he resembled the priesthood of Christ, which we are neither afraid, nor abashed to deny, because the Apostle (an older doctor then Cyprian, & such an one as in his writings could not err) could find no such resemblance between Melchizedek and Christ. Concerning the sacrifice of bread and wine, I will speak hereafter, in answer to the other places of Cyprian. But now let us examine M. Heskins two notes, for the real presence, as he calleth it. The first is, that this common meat being consecrated is profitable for the whole man, as a medicine to heal infirmities, and a sacrifice to purge sins, but neither our faith in Christ crucified, nor the merits of his passion are the sacrifice, but his very body: therefore this meat is his very body.

The Major of this argument is ambiguous: and therefore it must be distinguished: for this word sacrifice, is either taken properly, or improperly, and figuratively: if it be taken figuratively for a sacrament, or a memorial of a sacrifice, as Cyprian meaneth, the proposition is true, but if it be taken for a sacrifice in the proper sense, it is false. For Christ offered but one sacrifice, and that but once, never to be repeated, which was on the cross. Now, to prove that Cyprian used the word sacrifice, improperly for this time, I will show no more, but his own word Holocaustum, which signifieth a whole burned sacrifice, for M. Heskins will grant, that the sacrifice of Christ is improperly called a burned offering.

The second note that he gathereth, is of the Property of this word, Aliud: in the Neuter gender it signifieth another 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 bear 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 another substance, and so the body of Christ. This is an high point in a low house, but the young pettites in the Grammar school, can teach him that aliud in the Neuter gender put absolutely, must be resolved into alia res, another thing, and so doth Master Heskins him self translate it. And Cyprian showeth what other thing it is, after consecration, when he saith: here is declared the difference between the spiritual meat and the corporal meat, namely that it was one thing when it was first set before them, that is corporal meat, and another thing which was given by their master, namely spiritual meat. The same substance remaining, it is spiritual meat that before was corporal meat: as in baptism the same substance of water remaining, it is a spiritual laver, that before was a corporal laver. This is the great divinity of aliud and aliud. But I marvel that Master Heskins, which seeth such high mysteries, in aliud, cannot see that Cyprian saith, they did eat of the same bread before, after the visible form, which they did afterward eat, being converted into spiritual meat, so that it was the same bread before and after, although it had now a new virtue given it by the words 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 leaveth out the beginning of the matter, because it expoundeth all the rest of the place against him: but I will be so bold as to add it for the better understanding of S. Cyprian, and the discharging him of M. Heskins blasphemies.

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine, and he was a Priest of the highest God, and blessed Abraham. And that Melchizedek did bear the figure of Christ, the holy Ghost declareth in the Psalms, saying in the person of the father unto the son: Before the day star I have begotten thee. The Lord hath sworn, and it shall not repent him, thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek; which order verily is this coming of that sacrifice, and from thence descending, that Melchizedek 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 Jesus Christ, which offered up a sacrifice to God his father ▪ Which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling, offered bread and the cup mixed with wine, and he that was the fullness, fulfilled the truth of the image that was prefigured. Thus much Cyprian. In cyting this place, note what falsehood M. Heskins useth: first of all he leaveth out the beginning, where Cyprian calleth the supper, the sacrament of the Lord's sacrifice, by which it is plain what he meaneth, when he calleth it afterward, an oblation or sacrifice. Secondly he falsifieth his words, where Cyprian saith, Fuit autem sacerdos, that is, and he was a Priest, Master Heskins changeth it into Fuit enim sacerdos, for he was a Priest. Thirdly, where Cyprian compareth Christ to Melchizedek in three things distinctly, in that he was the Priest of the highest GOD, in that he offered bread and wine, and in that he blessed Abraham, showing, that Christ was the Prieste of the highest GOD, when he offered his sacrifice to his father, meaning in his passion▪ that he offered bread and wine as he did, meaning in his supper: and last of all, that he blessed his people as Melchizedek did Abraham. Master Heskins confoundeth the first with the second, by putting out the interrogatiue point, that is after obtulit, and joining 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 Melchizedek unto Christ, but in offering bread and wine, as he before said most blasphemously, that the execution of that Priesthoode lay only therein.

But now let us look to his collections out of this place. First that Melchizedek was a figure of Christ. That shall easily▪ he granted. Secondly, that Melchis • dech was a figure of Chris • in three pointe • , and the • the Author doth apply 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 Melchizedek 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 be the bread and wine that he offered in the supper, and so there shall not be three pointes. Besides that you are enforced to confess that Christ offered bread and wine to his father, the very same that Melchizedek did offer, which I am sure was no accidents, and so you do flatly overthrow your own dearling, transubstantiation. Your next cavil is of obi •• lie & protulie whereas both the text and Cyprian have protili • he brough • forth, although he seemeth to think, that he brought it out eo offer. And therefore to the impudency that you charge your adversaries withal, will sit still in your own brazen forehead.

Your third gloss you bring to prove, that the sacrifice which Christ offered, was but on the cross, 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 cross, because y ^e image thereof was ordained in bread and wine, and yet he fulfilled the truth of the prefigured image; when he offered bread and wine in the supper, as a sacrament of that sacrifice which he offered on the cross, as Cyprian in the first sentence of this place, doth cal it.

The sacrifice which we offer, is the Lord's passion (saith Cyprian) what, was Christ crucified in their sacrifices? or were their sacrifices nothing else but a sacrament of thanks giving for the passion of Christ? You see by this place howe improperly they spake, but yet so as of reasonable men they might well enough be understood, and they them selves do often expound them selves. Wherefore thou seest (reader) what injury the papists do unto y ^e doctors, when they fain such monsters to be begotten by them, while they interpret literally, which the doctors did write figuratively.

But to y ^e testimony of Isychius, which is a curious allegory of sacrifices, wherein no merueyle, if he use the name of sacrifice figuratively or improperly, his words are these. And what is this sacrifice? Two tenth deals of fine flower sprinkeled with oil. For w • e must know to contemper the perfect manhood and the perfect Godhood, that it, to come together into one in oil, that is, by that comparison which he hath toward us. For so the sacrifice is found a sweet savor to our lord, when we understand of him things that be worthy. In what things the sacrifice which is the oblation of the intelligible lamb, is, and by whom it is done, howe it is celebrated, that which followeth declareth. For neither by unreasonable beasts doth God receive sacrifice of us, as the words that follow-do plainly show • or, he saith, and the drink offering of it, shall be of wine, the fourth part of an Hi • , bread & Polentant (M. Heskins calleth it) parched corn. Because peradventure it might have been doubtful by whom the mystery of the sacrifice, (which is by Christ's, that we spake of before) is celebrated: behold thou hast the oblation of intelligible. Melchizedek which is performed in bread and wine, in which the fourth parte of an Him is offered in drink offerings of wine, that by the fourth part he might signify the tradition or delivery of the Gospel which is in four books▪ by the drink offering, the Lord's word, when he saith, This is my blood which shall be shed for you: for it seemed good to the law giver without diminishing to signify the mystery of Christ.

And then again he saith: The oblation of these present gifts which we have shown to be the mystery of the only begotten son, hath reconciled us to God, and given us the meat of the new parched corn. Now to M. Heskins collections, We must learn here, that Melchizedek did not only bring forth, but also offer bread and wine. In deed we learn that Isychius thought so: And that Christ the intelligible Melchizedek did sacrifice in bread and wine. Yea, but this sacrifice was a mystery of that sacrifice, which hath reconciled us to God, for so saith Isychius also, and that no man offered this sacrifice but he himself, for that he saith also. Read over the place if you doubt of my collection. By which it is plain, it was not the sacrifice of the mass that every hedge priest may offer. But that we should not say that it was bare bread that he sacrificed, he showeth what bread it was, saying, by the drink offering he would signify that of which he said, this is my blood. See this impudent falsarie: the writer saith, he would signify Dominician sermonem, the Lord's word, and he saith, that of which he said &c. Where is then the bread that the mystery might be fully signified? Is it not that which he calleth the tradition of the Gospel which is in four books? I dispute not howe well he applieth these things, but it is more then manifest, that he speaketh so figuratively, that no argument can be fastened of his words, for the carnal presence. And whereas M. Heskins shrinketh in his horns about the oblation of bread and wine, saying it was not bare bread, but he showeth what bread it was. Let him answer me plainly, if he dare for his ears. Was it very bread and wine, which Christ did sacrifice or no? If he say, it was very bread and wine, then he denieth transubstantiatiō.

Whereby not only transubstantiation, but also the carnal presence is utterly overthrown. And to press him harder by his own weightes, even to death, If aliud signify another substance, as he taught us before, then hoc idem, signifieth the same substance, and much rather. Therefore wh • n Cyprian saith that Christ offered hoc idem quod Melchizedek, it followeth that Melchizedek offered the same substance which he expoundeth bread and wine, his body and blood. And this two forked reason, will hold down all the papists noses to the grindstone, that they shall not be able to avoid it for their lives.

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

The place of Hieronyme which M. Heskins doth so triumph upon, is upon the 110. Psalm, but those commentaries, both by Erasmus and by Bruno Amerbachius, are utterly denied to be Hieronymes doing. But seeing they be falsely entitled to him, we are content to take this place, as though it were Hieronymes writing in deed. The words upon the fourth verse are these. It is superfluous for us to go about to make an exposition of this verse, seeing the holy Apostle to the Hebrews hath most fully treated thereof. For he 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 us interpret: thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, let us only see wherefor he said, after the order. After the order: that is, thou shalt not be a priest according to the sacrifices of the Jews: but thou shalt be a priest after the order of Melchizedek: For as Melchizedek king of Salem offered bread and wine: so shalt thou offer thy body and thy blood, true bread and true wine. This Melchizedek hath given us these mysteries which we have. He it is that hath said, he that shall eat my flesh and drink my blood. He hath delivered to us his sacrament according to the order of Melchizedek. What can be said more plainly in exposition of this writer, then that he him self saith? that he hath given us these mysteries, that he hath delivered to us his sacrament after the order of Melchizedek, by which he expresseth, what his meaning was by offering his body and blood, very bread and very wine, or true bread and true wine, not in the proper sense of a sacrifice, but in a mystery, in a sacrament. But now let us see howe M. Heskins insulteth upon us, for this counterfete Hieronyme. First that he taketh upon him to expound, that which was left vnexpounded by the Apostle to the Hebrews, namely that Christ was a priest, which is altogether false, for the Apostle doth not only speak of his eternal priesthood, but also of his one oblation, by which he purchased eternal 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 psalm, and the Apostle to the Hebrews do sufficiently declare, that the excellency of Melchizedek's order doth consist in this, that he was both a Kinge and a Priest, and so a lively figure of the real priesthood of our savior Christ.

But whereas M. Heskins will control not only us, but even his own vulgare interpretation of the bible, which saith not, obtuli • he offered, but protulit he brought forth, by authority of this Hieronyme, who (he saith) both knew the old testament and understood the Hebrew tongue, he bewrayeth his own weakness, and showeth, how good a reader he hath been of Jerome's works, when he knoweth not what the true Hieronyme himself writeth of this matter in his Epistle to Enagrius, in which, setting down the very Hebrew text:

But M. Heskins repeting again a parcel of Cyprians saying, uttered in the Chapter before: Who is more properly the Priest of the high God, then our Lord Jesus Christ, which offered a sacrifice to God his father? and offered the self same thing that Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, even his body and blood, compareth it with this saying of Jerome: As Melchizedek offered bread and wine so shalt thou offer thy body and thy blood, the true bread and the true wine.

And not content with this, he noteth in the margent a plain place for M. Jewel. Howe plain it is to confute M. Heskins, I have shown abundantly in the last part • of the Chapter next before this, whether I remit the reader, and pass to Theodoret, who in his second dialogue writeth thus. Godly Moses writing the old genealogy hath taught us, that Adam, when he was thus many years old begat Se • h, and when he had lived so many years, he made an ende of his life. Even so also he saith of Seth and Enos with other. As for the beginning of the generation of Melchizedek, and the ende of his life he ouerpasseth it in silence. Wherefore, if the history be looked on, he hath neither beginning of days, nor end of life. So in deed the son of God neither hath beginning of his being, neither shall have ending. Therefore in these most great and very divine things was Melchizedek 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 Melchizedek. For Melchizedek was an high Priest of the Gentiles. And our Lord Christ offered a holy and healthful sacrifice for all men. If I said never a word (as I need 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 Lord's supper. Yea, he would easily see, that he speaketh of the sacrifice of his death which our savior offered for all men, both Jews and Gentiles. And much more plainly by that place which M. Heskins addeth out of the first dialogue. If therefore it appertaineth to Priests to offer gifts, and Christ concerning his humanity is called a Priest, he offered none other sacrifice but his own body. This speaketh Theodoret expressly of the true sacrifice of his death, and not of the feigned sacrifice of his supper, nor yet of any sacrament or figure of his only true sacrifice, which the old writers (as I shown before) do often call a sacrifice, oblation, burnt offering, &c: But that M. Heskins cannot gain by the doctors words, he will win by reason. First, if we deny that Melchizedek was a figure of Christ his Priesthood, saying, he was a figure only of his eternity, then we join with Eutyches, who granted the divinity of Christ, and denied his humanity, unto which his priesthood properly pertained. But who told M. Heskins, that we deny Melchizedek to be a figure of Christ's Priesthood? when we most constantly affirm, that he was a figure of his eternal Priesthood, unless Master Heskins think the humanity of Christ, having once conquered death, is not now everlasting. It is not our exposition, that maintaineth the heresy of Eutyches, that the nature of Christ's body is absorpt into the divinity, but it is your heresy of vbiquitie and carnal presence (Master Heskins) that mayntaineth it most manifestly in very deed, though in words you will say the contrary.

But Master Heskins followeth his reason, and urgeth us, that it is the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice, wherefore, if Christ resemble Melchizedek in Priesthood, he must resemble him in sacrifice, and that is the sacrifice of bread and wine, for other sacrifice we read none that Melchizedek offered. I answer, as we read of none other, so we read not in the Scripture one word of that sacrifice of bread and wine, as hath been often declared at large. And seeing the scripture expresseth not what sacrifice Melchizedek offered, we are content to be ignorant of it, satisfying our selves with so much as the scripture affirmeth, that Christ offering him self once for all on the Cross, was in the same called a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, as we have shown 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 he would reconcile his transubstantiation, with this counterfeit sacrifice of bread and wine. Christ sacrificed in bread and wine. In bread and wine I say, a kind of food more excellent then the bread and wine that did figure it, I mean with Theodoret and Jerome the true bread and wine, that is the body and blood of Christ, that is to say, no bread nor wine. But if you give him a lash on the other side, and say: if Christ sacrificed not natural bread & wine, then he answered not your figure, he will leap to the other side, & say with Cyprian, & Isychius, that Christ offered the self same thing that Melchizedek did, and in one place he saith, he occupied bread and wine in his sacrifice: so did he a table and a cup, and other things, but was anything his sacrifice that he occupied therein, saving only that which he offered? he will say no. Did he offer bread and wine? he dare not answer directly, and so the poor man to uphold two lies, the one contrary to the other, is miserably tormented.

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

S. Augustine is alleged upon the 33 Psalm, whose words are these: The sacrifices of the Jews were before time, after the order of Aaron, in offerings of beasts, and that in a mystery. The sacrifice of the body and blood of our Lord, which the faithful, and they that have read the Gospel do know, was not yet, which sacrifice is now diffused throughout all the world. Set before your eyes therefore two sacrifices, both that after the order of Aaron, and this after the order of Melchizedek. For it is written, the Lord hath sworn, and it shall not repent him. Thou art a Priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek. Of whom is it said, thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek? of our Lord Jesus Christ. For who was Mel • hizedech? The King of Salem And Salem was that City which afterward (as the learned have declared) was called Hierusalē. Therefore, before the Jews reigned there, this Melchizedek was Priest there, which is written of in Genesis, the Priest of the high God. He it was that met Abraham when he delivered Loth from the hand of his persecutors and overthrew them of whom he was held, and delivered his brother. And after the delivery of his brother, Melchizedek met him (so great was Melchizedek of whom Abraham was blessed) he brought forth bread and wine and blessed Abraham. And Abraham gave him rythes. See ye what he brought forth, and whom he blessed? And it is said afterward: Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. David said this in the spirit, long after Abraham. Now Melchizedek was in the time of Abraham. Of whom saith he in an